Alright, So this will be my first post in way over a year but oh well... Better late than never I suppose; been busy, failing uni and working, so lets get this shit back on track (new year new blog posts and all that). I'll be hopelessly attempting to resurrect this page with some small level of dignity, so let's start with the always original, top ten of last year post.
So... Let's get this proverbial show on the proverbial road.
10 - Upgrade
Upgrade was pretty much everything I wanted it to be; a schlocky fun grindhouse pic straight from the 80's, just with far better fight choreography and stylish cinematography. Logan Marshal Green plays Grey (great name for a character I know, but trust me it's good), a man fused with an A.I called Stem after being left paralysed by a horrid ordeal.
Directed by Leigh Wannell (ya know, the one with the glasses from those Insidious films), who takes a break from conventional horror to bring this ultra violent, ultra stylish action flick to the big screen. Sure, there's no oscar winning performances, and the script isn't particularly special, but goddamn is this one a shitload of fun. Imagine The Guest meets Robocop in the best possible way.
9 - Hereditary
And now, for the almost obligatory horror addition. Independent studio A24 have seriously cornered the market on Arthouse horror, creating their own little niche for slow burn brilliance with films such as The VVitch and A Ghost Story. It really comes to something when Hereditary is possibly their most accessible film to date.
Granted, this one was bogged down a bit in controversy over supposed 'misleading marketing', but I personally found that this heightened the experience of this at times shocking and brutal take on grief and personal, tragic loss.
Whilst the previous entry on this list may have not had any awards worthy performances, Toni Colette, is truly captivating in this film. Her portrayal of a mother losing everything around her is at times difficult to sit through (her wailing screams of pain still give me shivers), but this all just adds to her performance.
8 - Searching
Let's keep this list nice and depressing, shall we. Now, like around.... 90% of the population of movie-goers, I cannot stand found footage films (I find them to be cheap gimicky films that pander to the lowest common denominator of film fans, typically used to get an easy scare). A few years ago, Unfriended took found footage in an even cheaper but, nevertheless, interesting direction; films told from the perspective of webcams.
So here we are at Searching; a found footage mystery thriller about a single father attempting to locate his missing daughter. Always suspenseful, naturally acted, and truly Hitchcockian in it's execution; Searching is, for me, the biggest surprise of the year, hence it's placement on this list. I'm merely not wanting to give too much away here, so just, go watch it.
7 - Green Book
Aragorn takes a road trip with a concert pianist... Tell me if you've heard this one before. But in all Seriousness, Green Book is truly amazing. A dramady of epic proportions, not so funny as to lessen the seriousness of the topic at hand (the trials and tribulations faced by minorities in 60's rural America, regardless of pedigree or talent), but not dramatic as to seem preachy or conventional.
And to think, a film balancing two complex characters was directed by the guy who made Dumb and Dumber (whod-a-fucking-thunk). Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali both give incredible dual lead performances in a film that will make you laugh, make you cry, and make you feel every emotion in between.
6 - Creed II
Cast your mind back to the latter half of 2015, Star Wars was coming back after an almost decade long hiatus, as was the Rocky franchise, in the form of Creed. A film about the son of Apollo Creed being trained by Rocky Balboa himself, sounds like a cheesy cash-grab, but it ended up possibly being one of the best films of that year with an Oscar nominated performance from Sylvester Stallone (not a sentence you get to say too often).
So, safe to say I was somewhat excited for the thought of a sequel; and vengeance is the topic of conversation. Challenged by the son of Ivan Drago, Addonis Creed is forced to take on the family that killed his estranged father. With his own personal struggles and the stake of his father's legacy, Creed II is the more thoughtful version of Rocky IV. Shining a light on that state of affairs the Drago family has been left in after Ivan's bout with Rocky, it feels completely refreshing to see a boxing film that gives as much characterisation and depth to the opponent as it does to the protagonists.
5 - Bohemian Rhapsody
OK... I must be honest, this list is obviously subjective but here is my completely biased opinion; Bohemian Rhapsody FUCKING ROCKED! It may seem somewhat controversial, given that the film takes some liberties with factual events, but also; I'm currently writing this article wearing a Queen T-shirt, so any film regarding one of my all time favourite bands was always gonna rank fairly highly for me.
It's inevitable to mention the calamitous behind the scenes process of making this film, so it's just all the more impressive given that this was directed by both Bryan Synger, and Dexter Fletcher (who is coincidentally currently in post production on his Elton John biopic, Rocketman), that this film was coherent at all, never mind how good it actually was.
Raimi Malek gives what is easily the best performance of his career as Freddie Mercury. Making him vain without seeming pompous, vulnerable but determined. He plays the character perfectly, from the mannerisms to the speech impediment, Malek completely transforms into Mercury before our very eyes.
The supporting cast is also very impressive, but this is truly the Freddie Mercury show, at least in terms of performance. But there are so many documentaries and shows about Mercury, which is why this is without a doubt, a Queen film. Showing them grow as a band go from success to success, to the inevitable downfall, as is the case in every biopic, musical or not.
But the Live-Aid sequence.... THE LIVE-AID SEQUENCE. It's perfect, I've never seen a cinema audience so pumped up like they're at a gig as I did during the final 20 minutes of this film. I've watched both the film and the actual footage of Live-Aid side by side numerous times now and it just gets more impressive and mesmerising every time I see it.
4 - Mary Poppins Returns
Let's keep things musical shall we. Bohemian Rhapsody may have had me stomping my feet, but Mary Poppins Returns had me leaving the cinema with a grin on my face stretched from ear to ear. I'm a big fan of the original film, having watched it time and time again as both a child and an adult.
Upon the announcement of a sequel being made over 50 years after the original, easy to say this made me incredibly apprehensive to the whole thought. When the announcement was made that Emily Blunt was taking the lead role, I was somewhat more excited; then the trailer was released, and I saw, this was not only a belated cash grab attempting to make a quick buck off of nostalgia, but that there was something truly special going on here.
Sure, nostalgia plays a part in the audience's enjoyment of this film, but this isn't in a cheeky nod and a wink, smirking at the camera kinda way (looking at you, grinning Franco in that piece-of-shit Oz prequel), but in a way that was revitalising the grandiose style of the original film. From the opening credits to the set pieces (Trip a Little Light Fantastic being the new Step in Time), this was a love letter to a beloved classic whilst being it's own unique take on the material.
Blunt is fantastic, as is Lin Manuel-Miranda as lamplighter 'leary' Jack. Blunt doesn't attempt to be Julie Andrews but makes the character all her own, making her somewhat sterner but also more adventurous (her venture into cabaret during A Cover is Not the Book is a particular favourite of mine). Miranda's cockney accent is about as good as Van Dyke's, but it's debatable that this could have been intentional.
3 - Avengers: Infinity War
10 years in the making, from the first Iron Man to here, who'd have thought we would get to this point, 20 films later and the most expansive cinematic universe of all time. Just for sheer effort, I would have included Infinity War on this list, but it is such a bonus that it also turned out to be an incredible film.
From outset, seeing an Asgardian ship being ransacked and pillaged by the children of Thanos, we know this is not your usual Marvel film, but something wholly new for the MCU. One of my biggest issues with the previous MCU entries directed by the Russo brothers is their handling of the action, which always seemed to be choppily edited and a bit to erratic to fully appreciate the magnitude of the fight (just look at the Lagos sequence from Civil War), but it really does seem that they've held back here. filming almost entirely on IMAX cameras, they ,made the most of the technology at their disposal by pulling the camera back a bit and really letting the scale of the action sink in.
2 - Mission: Impossible Fallout
Never would I thought I would have seen the day where I put a Mission: Impossible film in the top 3 films of the year, but Fallout was absolutely spectacular. True popcorn entertainment at it's finest, this was without a doubt the best film of the summer. The action is so perfectly choreographed and staged, showing just what incredible visuals you can create when you pull the camera back and really let your talented cast work their magic. In particular, the bathroom fight during the first half of this film is incredible, as is the HALO jumpsuit sequence with precedes it. I was so completely blown away by the sheer effort and mastery of action on display during this film.
This is the first film in the franchise where not only has the director returned (Christopher McQuarrie, once again proving he is one of the best action directors working in Hollywood), but also the first film to continue the plot threads from the previous film (Rogue Nation, also directed by McQuarrie). And that focus on narrative is clearly evident. With Sean Harris returning and having a blast as the faint voiced and undoubtedly creepy villain, Solomon Lane, this series has seemingly gone from strength to strength (it really comes to something when the worst film of the franchise is directed by action maestro John Woo).
I refer to this one as pure popcorn entertainment as, with all the other M:I films, the story does certainly play second fiddle to the set pieces. Once again, there is a nuclear mcguffin preventing our protagonists from just leading an everyday lifestyle, but at this point, I expect nothing else from this franchise. Also, when you have Henry Cavill cocking his arms like pump action shotguns, I'm not really gonna complain, especially when something so stupid actually looks so badass.
I really have no true issues with Fallout, I loved every adrenaline pumping, pulse pounding minute of it. And were it not for one release at the end of the year, it would have been my favourite, but there was one more release that really took my breath away in ways I never expected....
1 - Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse
I had absolutely no high expectations for this film in the slightest. Sure I liked the voice cast that was announced, and the inclusion of Phil Lord and Chris Miller, but then again, it was another Spider-Man film released by Sony, and after Venom (a film I didn't hate but was never gonna come close to this list). With an experimental visual style, and 3 directors working on the film... Safe to say I was a little hesitant but still excited.
Fucking hell, was I impressed by this film. The visuals were stunning and deserve to be seen on the biggest screen to be believed. I was floored by everything in this film, from the animation, the action, the soundtrack (which is astounding), the vocal performances; I was so shocked with how amazing this film was that I instantly called my brother after watching to tell him to see it as soon as possible describing the film as 'genuinely, a perfect superhero movie'.
Who'd have thought, in a year where we have had benchmark superhero films such as Black Panther and Infinity War, that it would be the underdog of the year that is not only the best superhero film, but, in my opinion, the best film of the year.
As a comic book fan, it was amazing to finally see a film about fan favourite Miles Morales, and to have him be played by Shameik Moore was pure genius casting. This film is packed with amazing casting choices, and with all these different Spider-People (for lack of a better term), this is still Moore's film, and he shines the whole way through. He brings to Morales a sense of vulnerability masked by confidence, and a feeling of misplaced priorities that feels fresh even in the tropes that are ever present in the superhero genre.
It's not just Moore who brings his A-game here, but everyone in the cast is on top form, especially for a vocal performance. Nicolas Cage is incredible as Spider-Noir, as is Jake Johnson as an aged and reluctant Peter Parker. There are other cameos in Spiderverse that I don't want to give away here (one in particular that hit hard... You can probably guess who that might have been given celebrity deaths this year).
The main thing I wasn't expecting from this film though, above everything else, was the level of emotion and heart in the story. If this was just a breezy fun animated comic book film about parallel dimensions colliding I probably would have still loved it, but with the amount of characterisation and moments that genuinely had me tearing up (one scene in particular is especially heart wrenching), the film was elevated to all time great levels.
Honorable Mentions
This part is just going to be a list of films I could have easily included in this top 10, but unfortunately just missed out... Nevertheless see these films as well as soon as possible.
A Star Is Born
Black Panther
Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck it Ralph 2
Widows
Ready Player One
A Quiet Place
Game Night
Bumblebee
All in all, 2018 has been an incredible year for films, and here's to hoping 2019 is going to be just as impressive, cos, not to sound preachy, but with how fucked reality is, some good escapism seems perfect right now.
Monday 14 January 2019
Thursday 23 February 2017
Film rants- Split ends
Don't worry, this isn't an article about the evolution of hairstyles in the history of cinema, although American Hustle would deserve an article about hairstyles on its own.
This may seem a little late, since this phenomenon has been going for a few years now (4, I think) and it seems to be the expectation now that every final film in a series has to be split into 2 parts, or 3 in the case of The Hobbit (overkill, obviously). This really bothers me, if that wasn't in any way obvious already.
Firstly, I find it incredibly annoying that due to the film being split into two, the 1st part is almost always incredibly tedious and quite boing. Look, for example, at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1; an almost pointless addition to an otherwise entertaining franchise. Another obvious example that could go here is the much more recent The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1; now, I am a big fan of the Hunger Games franchise and even found this part rather enjoyable, but it's really hard to look past the fact that the entire film looks like a 2 hour long trailer for what will most likely be a much better film.
This may seem a little late, since this phenomenon has been going for a few years now (4, I think) and it seems to be the expectation now that every final film in a series has to be split into 2 parts, or 3 in the case of The Hobbit (overkill, obviously). This really bothers me, if that wasn't in any way obvious already.
Firstly, I find it incredibly annoying that due to the film being split into two, the 1st part is almost always incredibly tedious and quite boing. Look, for example, at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1; an almost pointless addition to an otherwise entertaining franchise. Another obvious example that could go here is the much more recent The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1; now, I am a big fan of the Hunger Games franchise and even found this part rather enjoyable, but it's really hard to look past the fact that the entire film looks like a 2 hour long trailer for what will most likely be a much better film.
The clearest example of there being a film split into multiple for the sake of nothing but revenue would obviously be the Hobbit franchise. The Hobbit; a children's story no more than 300 pages long was somehow turned into three separate films because of the long lost "footnotes" that had been found. There was a reason that these footnotes didn't make it into the book, and yet Peter Jackson and the executives at Warner Bros. still found it necessary to turn this franchise into a new Middle Earth trilogy, they must've realised that it was never going to be as good as the original LOTR trilogy.
The biggest problem is, it doesn't seem like this trend is going away any time soon. There was, for example, the announcement that the third Avengers film, Infinity War, was going to be split into two films. Granted, I will be slightly biased towards these films as I am, more than anything else, an absolute geek, but nevertheless, there seems no reason as to why this couldn't just be out into one 2 and a half hour long film.
Oh well, I suppose that splitting films is here to stay for the time being, hopefully it won't last too much longer, but audiences will still keep going to see the conclusion to a story, so it would seem hypocritical of me to complain about it too much.
Friday 4 December 2015
Black Mass review
Title: Black Mass
Director: Scott Cooper
Cast: Johnny Depp
Benedict Cumberbatch
Joel Edgerton
Dakota Johnson
Certificate: 15
Runtime: 126 minutes
Based on theatre story, Black Mass shows the rise and eventual fall (as do many gangster films) of James "Whitey" Bulger, here played by Johnny Depp who is at times unrecognisable, both due to his performance and the very impressive (and at times terrifying) makeup that is on him. Firstly though, before I move on with my so called critiquing; a little history/trivia. Whitey Bulger was an American gangster who grew up in the "southies" in New York, who built a personal empire based on fear and respect. The life of Bulger was actually the inspiration behind Jack Nicholson's Frank Costello in Martin Scorsese's the Departed (2006), which I personally am a huge fan of.
Right, on to the film itself. I hate to say this, but I was slightly disappointed in Black Mass. There's no denying that the performances in the film (especially from Depp, Cumberbatch and surprisingly, Kevin Bacon). Unfortunately, the film itself is nowhere near as captivating as the performances that surround it. Similar to Coopers last film, Out of the Furnace, the film has so much potential but is squandered and left feeling a little plain. I'm not sure if it's the pacing or the direction, but something about Black Mass just doesn't exactly work.
The script, fortunately, is quite good. The film is narrated by one of Bulger's, for lack of a better term, employees, who adds a sense of continuity to the film. Unfortunately though, the narrator is quite flat at acting, like being told a story by a plank of wood. The film at many times just feels like a tv movie version of a Martin Scorsese picture, fit with ultra violence, lots of swearing and narration, but none of the energy or style that Scorsese brings to his films.
As I had said before, the acting is really impressive in this film. Depp gives us what is probably his best performance in years, showing the disgusting violence of Bulger matched with his loyalty to family and friends. A devil with a heart, even old people love him in the film. Typical of the traditional gangster film, the gangster is respectful and in many ways likeable; although here, we see the grey area, there is the sense of class and respect, but there is also the dirtiness and grit of the seedy nature... But I suppose me ranting on about the downfall of the respectful gangster is a conversation for another day, so I digress.
The supporting cast, luckily enough, is just as impressive as Depp with Benedict Cumberbatch pulling off a fairly convincing New York accent. As impressive as Cumberbatch and Joel Edgerton are in the film, I found that it was some of the smaller characters who really helped the film along, giving some really compelling performances no matter how small. These include Corey Stoll, who makes quite a lasting impact despite only being in the film for the last 20 minutes or so, Kevin Bacon, who plays the skeptic to a very convincing end and finally Rory Cochrane of whom I don't know for much other than the underrated horror film Oculus, but is incredible in both films.
I think the biggest problem that this film has is the mundanity of it. The film feels awfully plain, which can in many cases work, but here makes the film feel dull and void of much cause. The film relies so heavily on it's lead performances that it manages to forget everything else in the process, such as good direction or editing. All in al the film is enjoyable, but loses itself in mundanity.
7/10
Director: Scott Cooper
Cast: Johnny Depp
Benedict Cumberbatch
Joel Edgerton
Dakota Johnson
Certificate: 15
Runtime: 126 minutes
Based on theatre story, Black Mass shows the rise and eventual fall (as do many gangster films) of James "Whitey" Bulger, here played by Johnny Depp who is at times unrecognisable, both due to his performance and the very impressive (and at times terrifying) makeup that is on him. Firstly though, before I move on with my so called critiquing; a little history/trivia. Whitey Bulger was an American gangster who grew up in the "southies" in New York, who built a personal empire based on fear and respect. The life of Bulger was actually the inspiration behind Jack Nicholson's Frank Costello in Martin Scorsese's the Departed (2006), which I personally am a huge fan of.
Right, on to the film itself. I hate to say this, but I was slightly disappointed in Black Mass. There's no denying that the performances in the film (especially from Depp, Cumberbatch and surprisingly, Kevin Bacon). Unfortunately, the film itself is nowhere near as captivating as the performances that surround it. Similar to Coopers last film, Out of the Furnace, the film has so much potential but is squandered and left feeling a little plain. I'm not sure if it's the pacing or the direction, but something about Black Mass just doesn't exactly work.
The script, fortunately, is quite good. The film is narrated by one of Bulger's, for lack of a better term, employees, who adds a sense of continuity to the film. Unfortunately though, the narrator is quite flat at acting, like being told a story by a plank of wood. The film at many times just feels like a tv movie version of a Martin Scorsese picture, fit with ultra violence, lots of swearing and narration, but none of the energy or style that Scorsese brings to his films.
As I had said before, the acting is really impressive in this film. Depp gives us what is probably his best performance in years, showing the disgusting violence of Bulger matched with his loyalty to family and friends. A devil with a heart, even old people love him in the film. Typical of the traditional gangster film, the gangster is respectful and in many ways likeable; although here, we see the grey area, there is the sense of class and respect, but there is also the dirtiness and grit of the seedy nature... But I suppose me ranting on about the downfall of the respectful gangster is a conversation for another day, so I digress.
The supporting cast, luckily enough, is just as impressive as Depp with Benedict Cumberbatch pulling off a fairly convincing New York accent. As impressive as Cumberbatch and Joel Edgerton are in the film, I found that it was some of the smaller characters who really helped the film along, giving some really compelling performances no matter how small. These include Corey Stoll, who makes quite a lasting impact despite only being in the film for the last 20 minutes or so, Kevin Bacon, who plays the skeptic to a very convincing end and finally Rory Cochrane of whom I don't know for much other than the underrated horror film Oculus, but is incredible in both films.
I think the biggest problem that this film has is the mundanity of it. The film feels awfully plain, which can in many cases work, but here makes the film feel dull and void of much cause. The film relies so heavily on it's lead performances that it manages to forget everything else in the process, such as good direction or editing. All in al the film is enjoyable, but loses itself in mundanity.
7/10
Sunday 22 November 2015
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 review
Title: The Hunger Games: Mockingly Part 2
Director: Francis Lawrence
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence
Josh Hutcherson
Elizabeth Banks
Woody Harrelson
Certificate: 12A
Runtime: 137 minutes
The Hunger Games franchise has proven to be something of a rarity over the last few years, being one of the only teen franchises actually worth watching. That said, the final instalment in this billion dollar franchise suffers from the same problem as the final Hobbit film last year, it feels incredibly underwhelming. It was safe to say that Part 1 of Mockingjay was spent primarily setting the scene for the revolution that was take place in this film. The biggest problem with this is that you spend a year anticipating a film, so no matter what it may seem quite disappointing.
Firstly, the positives. The acting in the film is as great as usually in this franchise, with Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss Everdeen stealing the show all the way through. That, in my opinion at least, is what has really allowed this franchise to stand head and shoulders above most others, the acting is really quite good in all four films. Josh Hutcherson's Peeta Melllark finally gets a chance to do a lot more in this film, fleshing out his character quite a bit in the process, just a shame that it took until the last film for this to finally happen. Woody Harrelson, as usual, is greatly entertaining to watch, as is Elizabeth Banks' Effie Trinket.
Furthermore, the direction in film is also very impressive, with none of the action scenes ever feeling overly chaotic or leaving you with nausea. Although, there is one particular sequence around two thirds into the film that feels very similar, almost too much so, to James Cameron's 1986 classic "Aliens". This Particular sequence, thrilling as it is, does provide a fairly important plot point in spurring on the rebellion, but also feels kind of rushed and a bit like an excuse to increase the run time; speaking of which....
The pacing. OH MY GOD, the pacing in this film is completely off. For a film that is (excluding credits) just over 2 hours long, this feels more like watching the extended cut of Return of the King. Similar to that film as well, Mockingjay Part 2 has about 5 different endings within the final act of the film. The film already felt overstuffed, but now the content had filled the film, and had fallen into the realm of boredom. There is actually one point towards the end in which Katniss looks down and mutters "this is tedious", and I couldn't help but agree though I feel we we're talking about different things.
Furthermore, there seemed to be a large lack of actual revolution in this film despite the premise for the entire franchise. There are a couple of scenes in which tension was brought to the front, and it truly is edge of your seat stuff, but there is just not enough of these moments. All in all, this does provide a somewhat satisfying end to the franchise, but I feel it just could have been better.
6/10
Director: Francis Lawrence
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence
Josh Hutcherson
Elizabeth Banks
Woody Harrelson
Certificate: 12A
Runtime: 137 minutes
The Hunger Games franchise has proven to be something of a rarity over the last few years, being one of the only teen franchises actually worth watching. That said, the final instalment in this billion dollar franchise suffers from the same problem as the final Hobbit film last year, it feels incredibly underwhelming. It was safe to say that Part 1 of Mockingjay was spent primarily setting the scene for the revolution that was take place in this film. The biggest problem with this is that you spend a year anticipating a film, so no matter what it may seem quite disappointing.
Firstly, the positives. The acting in the film is as great as usually in this franchise, with Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss Everdeen stealing the show all the way through. That, in my opinion at least, is what has really allowed this franchise to stand head and shoulders above most others, the acting is really quite good in all four films. Josh Hutcherson's Peeta Melllark finally gets a chance to do a lot more in this film, fleshing out his character quite a bit in the process, just a shame that it took until the last film for this to finally happen. Woody Harrelson, as usual, is greatly entertaining to watch, as is Elizabeth Banks' Effie Trinket.
Furthermore, the direction in film is also very impressive, with none of the action scenes ever feeling overly chaotic or leaving you with nausea. Although, there is one particular sequence around two thirds into the film that feels very similar, almost too much so, to James Cameron's 1986 classic "Aliens". This Particular sequence, thrilling as it is, does provide a fairly important plot point in spurring on the rebellion, but also feels kind of rushed and a bit like an excuse to increase the run time; speaking of which....
The pacing. OH MY GOD, the pacing in this film is completely off. For a film that is (excluding credits) just over 2 hours long, this feels more like watching the extended cut of Return of the King. Similar to that film as well, Mockingjay Part 2 has about 5 different endings within the final act of the film. The film already felt overstuffed, but now the content had filled the film, and had fallen into the realm of boredom. There is actually one point towards the end in which Katniss looks down and mutters "this is tedious", and I couldn't help but agree though I feel we we're talking about different things.
Furthermore, there seemed to be a large lack of actual revolution in this film despite the premise for the entire franchise. There are a couple of scenes in which tension was brought to the front, and it truly is edge of your seat stuff, but there is just not enough of these moments. All in all, this does provide a somewhat satisfying end to the franchise, but I feel it just could have been better.
6/10
Sunday 15 November 2015
Steve Jobs review
Title: Steve Jobs
Director: Danny Boyle
Cast: Michael Fassbender
Seth Rogen
Kate Winslet
Jeff Daniels
Certificate: 15
Runtime: 122 minutes
Right... Now a couple of years ago (for those who remember), there was a film released about the life of Steve Jobs simply titled, Jobs. This film starred Ashton Kutcher in the title role and was released to fairly negative reviews. I never got the chance to see Jobs, but I can't see any way in which it could possibly be better than Danny Boyles' Steve Jobs.
Steve Jobs, for those who have been living under their local rock, is about the titular Apple CEO and isn't so much a biopic as such. Instead, Boyle decides to focus on 3 major turning points in the career of Jobs, 1984's reveal of the Mac, 1988's reveal of the Next (the cube shaped computer that Jobs "made" after he left Apple) and finally 1998's reveal of the iMac. At no point in the film do we see the reveals themselves as much as look at the backstage chaos that surrounds them. And my god... Is it thrilling.
Fassbender, as could possibly be expected, is terrific as Jobs. Does he look a lot like his character, not much, not until the last segment of the film at least. but that doesn't change a thing at all as his performance is too captivating for anyone to possibly care. Bringing out the narcissistic and the vulnerable sides of his character simultaneously. Both savage and sentimental, Fassbenders Jobs is exactly how the man himself had been described; an egotist and someone who was a massive pain in the arse to work with, but had enough charisma and showmanship to keep the people interested.
Fassbender isn't the only one who brings his A game, the supporting cast of this film is equally stellar. Particular standouts are Jeff Daniels, who plays Apple CEO John Sculley, acting as a sort of surrogate father to jobs; someone who sees potential in Jobs' methods, and Seth Rogen, who does a fantastic job in a dramatic and almost heartbreaking role as Steve Wozniak, Jobs' undervalued and constantly shunned partner. There is a particularly brilliant scene in an orchestra pit during the 1988 reveal act in which Wozniak and Jobs argue over the basis of Jobs' work.
Whilst reading the review for this film on Den of Geek a couple of days ago, they made a point that I could not agree more with; that Steve Jobs would work well as a stage play as oppose to a film. Given that Boyle has had previous work with theatre (with his critically acclaimed Frankenstein adaptation), I find it very difficult to argue with this point. The film is already set into a clear 3 act structure, and the same characters are used for each of the different acts, another aspect that would lend itself perfectly to the stage. Not to mention, the orchestra pit scene could take place in the actual orchestra pit (it's perfect!!).
This is much more screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin's film than it is Boyle's. Obviously, Boyle's stylistic flare is present throughout the entirety of the film, looking somewhere between Slumdog Millionaire and Trance. But there is no denying that this is a showcase for Sorkin. His script is really what makes this film as thrilling as it is, and if there's anyone who could make a board meeting seem entertaining, it's him (just look at The Social Network). Sorkin's script is witty, visceral and never misses a beat. There is absolutely no doubt that Sorkin will be nominated for an Oscar for his screenplay based off of Walter Isaacson's book. There must be one bloody great script coming out soon for it to knock this off the podium for best adapted screenplay.
All in all, Steve Jobs is a thrilling business film, similar to Social Network in its script, but given the energy of Danny Boyle's direction. The acting is superb all around and the soundtrack perfectly encapsulates the tech savvy world of the central characters; this is just absolutely brilliant.
9/10
Director: Danny Boyle
Cast: Michael Fassbender
Seth Rogen
Kate Winslet
Jeff Daniels
Certificate: 15
Runtime: 122 minutes
Right... Now a couple of years ago (for those who remember), there was a film released about the life of Steve Jobs simply titled, Jobs. This film starred Ashton Kutcher in the title role and was released to fairly negative reviews. I never got the chance to see Jobs, but I can't see any way in which it could possibly be better than Danny Boyles' Steve Jobs.
Steve Jobs, for those who have been living under their local rock, is about the titular Apple CEO and isn't so much a biopic as such. Instead, Boyle decides to focus on 3 major turning points in the career of Jobs, 1984's reveal of the Mac, 1988's reveal of the Next (the cube shaped computer that Jobs "made" after he left Apple) and finally 1998's reveal of the iMac. At no point in the film do we see the reveals themselves as much as look at the backstage chaos that surrounds them. And my god... Is it thrilling.
Fassbender, as could possibly be expected, is terrific as Jobs. Does he look a lot like his character, not much, not until the last segment of the film at least. but that doesn't change a thing at all as his performance is too captivating for anyone to possibly care. Bringing out the narcissistic and the vulnerable sides of his character simultaneously. Both savage and sentimental, Fassbenders Jobs is exactly how the man himself had been described; an egotist and someone who was a massive pain in the arse to work with, but had enough charisma and showmanship to keep the people interested.
Fassbender isn't the only one who brings his A game, the supporting cast of this film is equally stellar. Particular standouts are Jeff Daniels, who plays Apple CEO John Sculley, acting as a sort of surrogate father to jobs; someone who sees potential in Jobs' methods, and Seth Rogen, who does a fantastic job in a dramatic and almost heartbreaking role as Steve Wozniak, Jobs' undervalued and constantly shunned partner. There is a particularly brilliant scene in an orchestra pit during the 1988 reveal act in which Wozniak and Jobs argue over the basis of Jobs' work.
Whilst reading the review for this film on Den of Geek a couple of days ago, they made a point that I could not agree more with; that Steve Jobs would work well as a stage play as oppose to a film. Given that Boyle has had previous work with theatre (with his critically acclaimed Frankenstein adaptation), I find it very difficult to argue with this point. The film is already set into a clear 3 act structure, and the same characters are used for each of the different acts, another aspect that would lend itself perfectly to the stage. Not to mention, the orchestra pit scene could take place in the actual orchestra pit (it's perfect!!).
This is much more screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin's film than it is Boyle's. Obviously, Boyle's stylistic flare is present throughout the entirety of the film, looking somewhere between Slumdog Millionaire and Trance. But there is no denying that this is a showcase for Sorkin. His script is really what makes this film as thrilling as it is, and if there's anyone who could make a board meeting seem entertaining, it's him (just look at The Social Network). Sorkin's script is witty, visceral and never misses a beat. There is absolutely no doubt that Sorkin will be nominated for an Oscar for his screenplay based off of Walter Isaacson's book. There must be one bloody great script coming out soon for it to knock this off the podium for best adapted screenplay.
All in all, Steve Jobs is a thrilling business film, similar to Social Network in its script, but given the energy of Danny Boyle's direction. The acting is superb all around and the soundtrack perfectly encapsulates the tech savvy world of the central characters; this is just absolutely brilliant.
9/10
Tuesday 10 November 2015
University research survey
Could anyone (as if have an actual audience) please click on the link and fill out this attached survey, it would be realy helpful for my coursework.
Thanks
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XTCDCVP
Thanks
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XTCDCVP
Monday 9 November 2015
Burnt review
Title: Burnt
Director: John Wells
Cast: Bradley Cooper
Sienna Miller
Daniel Bruhl
Emma Thompson
Certificate: 15
Runtime: 101 minutes
Burnt tells the story of Adam Jones; the culinary equivalent to Mick Jagger or Kurt Cobain (probably somewhere in between the two). A reformed alcoholic and drug addicted chef who wants to open up a prestigious restaurant in the heart of London chasing after his third Michelin star. This looked fantastic from the trailers and the subject matter seemed to be that of one that is a bit of a rarity for cinema, a film about cooking. Unfortunately, what follows is a fairly tasteless and bland 100 minutes of wasted potential.
Bradley cooper takes the lead role of Jones, throwing together a mixture of Marlon Brando and Gordon Ramsey, riding a motorbike in a leather jacket just to throw dishes around when inside the kitchen. From being arrogant in the face of his counsellor, to humiliating his staff, Cooper gives us a fairly cliche performance of a top tier chef. This isn't to say that his performance is in anyway bad, but it just seems like there was a missed opportunity to take some risks with the character. Bringing me to my next point...
The film is so damn predictable. Every twist, every love story, all the characters seem copied and pasted from some sort of kitchen based soap opera. The love story that could be seen a mile off wasn't even at all fleshed out, it was just there and a certain twist that happens about two thirds into the film seems completely out of the blue but in no way shocking because it was clear from the start. Given the characters background of alcoholism and substance abuse, a mental breakdown scene was always gonna happen and sure as hell it does happen... shocking right?
I was actually talking to the person I went to view this film with, and stated that the film could have been so much more enjoyable if they paid closer attention to the details of cooking. For example, there is a whole montage revolved around trying to perfect a fish dish (yay it rhymes), but nothing is shown or explained whilst they are cooking. The film opens with Bradley Cooper narrating and I just feel like they could've kept that narration going through some scenes in the kitchen to really emphasise the love for cooking and the passion that is evident for this food. Just Cooper stating that he should add a certain ingredient or cook it in a particular way may have been enough, but I would've loved something similar to the opening sequence of the Social Network (where Mark hacks into all the campus face books) but with food.
To be honest theres really not much I could say about the film. It is a well performed but al round forgettable feature that won't be winning any awards any time soon. If this is the beginning of the awards season, I have the feeling we will be seeing a vast improvement.
6/10
Director: John Wells
Cast: Bradley Cooper
Sienna Miller
Daniel Bruhl
Emma Thompson
Certificate: 15
Runtime: 101 minutes
Burnt tells the story of Adam Jones; the culinary equivalent to Mick Jagger or Kurt Cobain (probably somewhere in between the two). A reformed alcoholic and drug addicted chef who wants to open up a prestigious restaurant in the heart of London chasing after his third Michelin star. This looked fantastic from the trailers and the subject matter seemed to be that of one that is a bit of a rarity for cinema, a film about cooking. Unfortunately, what follows is a fairly tasteless and bland 100 minutes of wasted potential.
Bradley cooper takes the lead role of Jones, throwing together a mixture of Marlon Brando and Gordon Ramsey, riding a motorbike in a leather jacket just to throw dishes around when inside the kitchen. From being arrogant in the face of his counsellor, to humiliating his staff, Cooper gives us a fairly cliche performance of a top tier chef. This isn't to say that his performance is in anyway bad, but it just seems like there was a missed opportunity to take some risks with the character. Bringing me to my next point...
The film is so damn predictable. Every twist, every love story, all the characters seem copied and pasted from some sort of kitchen based soap opera. The love story that could be seen a mile off wasn't even at all fleshed out, it was just there and a certain twist that happens about two thirds into the film seems completely out of the blue but in no way shocking because it was clear from the start. Given the characters background of alcoholism and substance abuse, a mental breakdown scene was always gonna happen and sure as hell it does happen... shocking right?
I was actually talking to the person I went to view this film with, and stated that the film could have been so much more enjoyable if they paid closer attention to the details of cooking. For example, there is a whole montage revolved around trying to perfect a fish dish (yay it rhymes), but nothing is shown or explained whilst they are cooking. The film opens with Bradley Cooper narrating and I just feel like they could've kept that narration going through some scenes in the kitchen to really emphasise the love for cooking and the passion that is evident for this food. Just Cooper stating that he should add a certain ingredient or cook it in a particular way may have been enough, but I would've loved something similar to the opening sequence of the Social Network (where Mark hacks into all the campus face books) but with food.
To be honest theres really not much I could say about the film. It is a well performed but al round forgettable feature that won't be winning any awards any time soon. If this is the beginning of the awards season, I have the feeling we will be seeing a vast improvement.
6/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)