The Sapphires [2012] - A Review

If you're looking for an easy, feel-good movie on a Friday night, this movie is for you. It's a musical romantic-comedy set during the Vietnam war. 

Dave Lovelace (played by one of my favourite actors ever Chris O'Dowd) and four super-talented Aborigine girls; Gail (Deborah Mailman), Kay (Shari Sebens), Cynthia (Miranda Tapsell) and Julie (Jessica Mauboy) tour around Vietnam singing for the US troops.

The girls originally sing Country music, and Lovelace has to convince them that Soul music would be better suited to their... skin tone. It's quite a blunt suggestion, but one that I certainly feel would have been pressed upon any man or woman of colour wanting to succeed in music during that time (in fact, not that much has changed even now).

Unfortunately Lovelace is right, and they ace the audition singing Motown. The Sapphires are then promptly recruited as entertainment for the US soldiers and are catapulted out of their small town and out in to a war zone. 

Be aware that this film is certainly not an original one, but it is easy to forgive it its trespasses because there is enough sass, jokes, sarcasm and joy to make you forget that you've seen this type of movie before.

The story has its ups and downs, and gives a sensitive focus to the much marginalised Aboriginal community. The film not only discusses race, but also dips in to the way the Australian government, quite literally, used to go in to Aborigine villages and steal their children. The children would end up adopted by white families. This piece of history is explored very well indeed, and the implications are exposed very gently to the audience without preaching. The film is loosely based upon a true story, and you're shown a photograph of the four ladies now as older women.

The film has had terrific reviews over on Rotten Tomatoes, but has not done so well on IMDB (no surprise right? lol).

I really recommend this movie. It was refreshing! Get hold of it, invite your friends round, and enjoy something light and charming! Oh, and please, once you watch it, let me know what you thought! I'd love to know!!

Read More

Oblivion [2013] = Sci-Fi for Chicks

Look, I'm just going to say it. Oblivion was sci-fi for chicks. 

The story goes like this:
It is 2077 and Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) is a drone repair man. He and his wifey are living at the top of a wicked-cool house above the clouds of earth. Earth, as we know it, has been destroyed after a war against an alien race. Circling the earth is a mahoosive space station apparently harbouring the survivors from earth. The human race is collecting water from our planet, ready to take it to one of the moons of Jupiter. Humans are going to start again.
Massive constructs are sucking up the water from the oceans and the drones protect them. Some aliens have apparently been left behind on earth and keep trying to sabotage the collection of the water. The drones are routinely attacked too, and so Harper must wake up every morning to go find missing drones, fix them up and send them on their merry way.

I have to admit. It's a pretty original premise! I was impressed!

To cut a long story short though, things start to go wrong and those aliens turn out to be humans and well, it's all just a mahoosive conspiracy and well - y'know, you'll find out. I don't want to give it all away.Apparently this film cost around $120 million. $120 MILLION FOLKS! The CGI at times was truly quite wonderful. The movie is full of beautiful mountain scenery, gorgeous canyons, deserts, clouds etc etc. It's a feast for the eyes; but it seems that the director/producers thought that excellent special-effects were going to have us completely oblivious to the holes in the story.

This film is full of plot-holes. When I say full... I mean spilling over with them. It's just shocking. I love good sci-fi, I do. I don't need to understand everything; but come on, the plot-holes were CATASTROPHIC. So glaringly obvious that it started to look like the story-line was rushed.

Credit where credit is due, Tom Cruise was actually pretty amazing. I know, I can't believe I'm saying this too, but it was an excellent performance. If you imagine, 50% of the movie is Cruise alone on screen, I think he carried the movie very gracefully and was believable. Of course it's full of fighting, so for anybody who just likes to see examples of his 'prowess' you'll certainly get your fill in this film.

This movie have all the regular sci-fi movie tropes; aliens, advanced-technologies, action, suspense, clones, conspiracy, action, space-travel, explosions and romance... 
...hold up. Did I say romance? 

And this brings me to why this movie is sci-fi for chicks.
The whole movie... we find out, all rests on a romance story. Yah, and some random love-triangle which lacked believability. It wasn't even believable romance. It was something else. Contrived. Forced. This movie could have been a beautiful homage to hardcore sci-fi fans but instead they decided to stick their middle finger up at true men and women of sci-fi and instead cater for chicks who were going to be dragged to watch the movie by their husbands/boyfriends. It just didn't make sense.

The Matrix, for instance, had a romance-plot, but it wasn't IMPERATIVE to the story, and they certainly didn't seem to decide a third in to the storyline that actually it is memories of lost love that will save the whole human race. The Matrix has a sci-fi romance-plot done right. 

Bah. Disappointing.
This could have been awesome; but it wasn't.

Read More

Ten Movies That Will Make You Weep

I love listing things... and I love reading lists; I'm sure that has become pretty obvious. So here are the top ten movies that have reduced me to tears... and so I am going on the crude assumption that they will emotionally wreck you too.

They are rated by how many buckets I needed to collect the water from my face.


10) Million Dollar Baby (2004)
I'm such a baby. I have always had a soft spot for these types of movies (inspirational sporting movies). Its the stupid build-up, the way the film makers and of course Eastwood and Swank make us think - wow, everything is gonna be alright and then no. No it's not alright. Not even close.



09) Dead Poets Society (1989)
Oh dear... I know. This is truly the type of movies that destroy me. I'm a sucker, and by sucker I do mean UBER-SUCKER for inspirational teacher movies. They're number one on my sucker list, and of course number two is the inspiration sporting movies. (Dead Poets Review here)


08) Les Miserables (2012)
I started crying about... I'd say forty minutes in; I then couldn't stop... not till the end. There were men and women crying in the theatre with me, not to mention some friends beside me. I cried so much that all clothing within ten centimetres of my face were wet.



07) Stepmom (1998)
This film can make me cry... every time. It's the combination isn't it? Mother. Children. Cancer. It's enough to ruin me; and it does every time.


06) My Girl (1991)
Do you know that I spent a small chunk of my childhood having to watch this because there was nothing else on the telly? Do you know that the vast majority of those viewings resulted in sobs of hopelessness from little old me. No? Well now you do. It's all compounded by  Vader's inability to mourn properly at first... and then the whole funeral scene... oh my! No. I can't think about it now!



05) Toy Story 3 (2010)
Nobody warned me! Not a single person. A couple of people said in passing 'yeah, it's kinda sad' so I went to go watch it in the cinema and a part of me died that night. It was doing all fine until - wham - my heart was crushed all out of the blue and stuff. How dare Andy become mature and stuff.


04) The Green Mile (1999)
If this film doesn't make you cry, you have no soul. You know it's a recipe for tearfulness after the first half an hour, and then it just gets worse, and worse and sadder and sadder. The first time I watched it I was clueless. I thought it was just a straight up 'death row' type of movie. No, it's not. And there's magic which makes it worse.



03) Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
It's that part when Pippin in singing and Faramir is trying to be the son his father wants. Oh dear. I know, it is a testament of my ultra-geekiness but I'm proud, and that scene makes me cry every time. Oh, and when he tries to burn Faramir too.



02) Life is Beautiful (1997)
I distinctly remember this film destroying me. I watched it as a teen and have not been able to revisit it because it was just so traumatic. I recommend it, I think it should be required watching for future generations. This film has subtitles.



01) Grave of the Fireflies (1988)
I watched this a few weeks ago and wow, I just could barely keep myself together. I was absolutely exhausted at the end. We watched it with some friends and I couldn't even compose myself to not SOB (...and by sob, I really do mean the gut-wrenching, chest heaving, wobble in the throat sob) in front of them. I couldn't contain myself... the stiff-upper-lip crumbled and lay in the pool of tears between my feet.


What about you? Are these in your top ten list too? What movies are always sure to make you weep like a babe in arms? Don't be shy... you can comment below or message me right in my Twitterface @OrisiB

Read More

Re-Watching... E.T. (1982)

Haha! Yes, that's what I did! I totally rewatched E.T. to see if it was as good as I remember it being when I was a kid.

Come on, you all know E.T. right? It's the classic tale of spaceship landing in America... alien getting left behind, boy meets alien, alien creates telepathic link with boy, alien starts dying, boy starts dying too, spaceship comes back, alien goes home. Sounds familiar, right?

This is classic Steven Spielberg. It has a great score, a dynamic cast, an up close and personal movie 'monster' and of course suspense! 

What is mesmerising about this film are the children. Children in this film sit around playing Dungeons and Dragons, their bike rides are exhilarating rather than 'exercise', T.V can hold interest for a few minutes before it's boring, and the outside world is there to be explored and dominated by them. This film is a celebration of childhood even if it did not intend to be. Spielberg is just excellent at shooting children and depicting childhood, Hook (1991) and Jurassic Park (1993) are excellent examples of his craft.  

E.T. gets excellent reviews all round. I know this, and I understand why. It is a coming-of-age tale about an alienated boy and of course the Martian that he comes to love. Spielberg always manages to unite mundanity with the paranormal/otherworldly, he does this in other movies such as The Goonies* (1985), Poltergeist (1982) and Hook.

So the real question is how has it dated? Do I still feel the same way I did when I was little? Unfortunately, no, I don't. In fact there were times where I would go walk-about forgetting that I was even watching a film (no, that's not old age!). When I was little I remember being filled with so much awe, and being terrified in all the right places, but this time round the film felt a little stale. The strangest part is that when I started it, I had honestly  forgotten the majority of the film... after all, I had probably been around six years old when I first watched it. So although I had forgotten much of what would happen, I had not forgotten the score... not a wink. The score is just so amazing.

I can't rate it as high as I would have as a child I'm afraid. I know, I'm being harsh, but even though it's a film that creates such feelings of nostalgia, without it, the film is a little slow for my tastes... and not much really happens. 

Anywho - if you think I'm some crazy crackpot let me know down in the comments section. Of course you are also welcome to scream 'MOVE BLASPHEMY' at me over on Twitter @OrisiB 

Also! Here is a fabulous video of John Williams Creating the Score of E.T.


 

*Please be aware that Spielberg is a director but also a writer. Some of these films he wrote the story or screenplay for rather than directed

Read More

Let Me In - A Review [Guest Post}

(Here is an awesome guest post from the fantastic Emma @ Mabismab - please hop on over to her blog and show her some love!)

Wow, here I am again! I'm so lucky to have such a great friend who will let me share my amateur views on film on her blog – Thanks Mrs B! (Emma is being far too modest!)

This time, I'm here to talk about vampire films. More specifically, I'm here to discuss the two versions of Let The Right One In; the Swedish film of the same name, and the American “Let Me In”.

It is only very recently (this weekend, in fact) that I have ventured to watch the American adaptation. I watched the Swedish film in the cinema as soon as it was released, and loved every second. This was closely followed by reading the (very brilliant) book by John Ajvide Lindqvist. When it came to Let Me In being released, I felt that the Americans had made this film too soon. It was barely a year since the Swedish release, and my enjoyment of it wasn't ready to be eclipsed either positively or negatively by the English speaking version. The reviews had also been a little unconvincing, so, I sat back and watched other things. God help me I actually watched Jennifer’s Body on the quest for vampire visual consumption... 

Of course, the lure of a vampire film inspired by a novel I knew to be great couldn't be kept at bay for long, and so it was with anticipation that I settled down to watch Let Me In on a suitably bleak Bristolian day. 

Well, I have to say that I'm glad that I waited this long. The film is very almost a scene for scene copy of the Swedish film, and the performances of the two children are creepily alike in both versions. If I had watched it at its release I think I would have resented it for that, being so soon, but now I find it was nice to have a non-departure from such a stunning original attempt. 

Chloe Moretz is currently “actress du jour” for the up-and-coming star hunters among us, and in this film it is very easy to see why. Both she and her counterpart Kodi Smit-McPhee are brilliantly meek and fragile in their exchanges. They convey that childlike awkwardness with great style and I will admit my only disappointment with these two characters is that the American writers chose to call Moretz’ character Abby instead of Eli and Smit-Mcphee's character Owen instead of Oskar. Never mind eh, they have a habit of unnecessary name changes... (ahemGoldenCompassSorcerorsStoneetcetcahem)

I also found the snowy setting just as believable in the American estate as in Sweden. The cinemato

graphy, although it lacked an artistry that was evident in the Swedish version, was nonetheless interesting and engaging, if a little “standard”.

I actually think that in one respect, the American version surpassed the Swedish: The phone call Owen makes to his father is deeply moving, and brings something more to the character than the “bullied school misfit” that would have been all too familiar for a teen-targeted film at the moment.

Of course, there were mixed reviews for this film for a reason, and I can only put them down to the completely unneeded CGI. Watching Abby clamber up a tree as if she had just escaped The Ring was jarring, to say the least, in a film so otherwise unassuming and modest. It wasn't even a scene that was integral, it was just there because it could be; because it was Hollywood. The same can also be said of Abby’s “transformation” - also unneeded and also bringing something of a gimmicky, tacky edge to an otherwise poetic concept.

One of my favourite moments from the Swedish film was the pool scene. If you have seen it, you might agree that it was one of the most beautiful, graphically violent things to be watched in 2008. Something of a contradiction, but true. Unfortunately Hollywood got all Hollywood about it, and the scene's subtlety was destroyed -very much a shame as I had looked forward to a new representation of it all film long. Deep down, though, I knew it would be as it was. I shouldn't be so surprised!

At the end of the day, I don’t know whether or not I would encourage anyone to watch Let Me In, but I wouldn't dissuade from it. Similarly to much of the “new” things in the film, I felt the entire thing was just a bit unnecessary. If you want Let The Right One In without subtitles, watch this. If you want to see why Chloe Moretz might be worth putting Oscar bets on when she’s a bit older, watch this. Otherwise, if you’re choosing between the Swedish version and the American one, I honestly don't think it matters...

Read More

You know You're a Movie-Geek when...

...these films are;

          A) In your DVD collection

          B) ...considered, by you, to be the best films EVER

        The movies are not in any particular order... except for number one... number one is number one I'm afraid!

21) SpaceBalls [1987]

You get every reference and find yourself having to explain them to your guests.

20) Fight Club [1999]

You still talk about the ‘twist’ in the movie and regularly compare with acquaintances at what point you ‘clicked’ – or maybe, you’re one of those geeks who say ‘Oh... but the book was far superior’?

19) Seven Samurai [1954]

Oh yes... you love world cinema and regularly say (with a flourish of course) ‘Akira Kurosawa’s film, Seven Samurai, is really not only his greatest film, but... also his most widely known movie on our side of the planet... har-har!’

18) The Cabin in the Woods [2011]

You make everyone you know watch this at least once and watch for their expressions... you then check at the end of the film to see if they ‘got it’.

17) Highlander [1986]

Yes, it’s awful... you agree, but you love it. You love it because it’s about Scotsmen, swords, revenge and the modern world (oh and Sean Connery). You can’t help it... I get it.

16) Zombieland [2009]

I’m afraid if this is on your shelf, there’s no hope for you now.

15) 2001: A Space Odyssey [1968]

You sit with bated breath during the five minute overture at the opening, not allowing anybody to talk or even blow their noses (or like me you stare at the ‘iPad-like’ devices they have in the space ship and pause it to tell everybody about it).

14) Metropolis [1927]

Conversations with you about this film are painful – as you’re convinced you’re the one who discovered it.

13) Shaun of the Dead [2004]

You guffaw at all the right places like a Brit; whilst saying ‘there really is nothing quite like British humour’. You also point out all the foreshadowing in the film to the annoyance of other people.

12) Battle Royale [2000]

Does the following sound familiar... ‘Ha, you liked The Hunger Games? You do know that she totally ripped it off from Battle Royale... a Japanese film from like the 2000s, which was also a manga!’

11) Gattacca [1997]

‘The themes in Gattacca are totally relevant to our very near future’ says you, whilst shaking your fist, convinced that future super-stars will be having their children genetically engineered in the womb etc etc

10) Batman [1989 onward]

All of them.

11) Serenity [2005]

Argh... stop telling me that it used to be a TV Show (Firefly) and all the actors are pretty much up to start the show again and blah blah...

10) 12 Monkeys [1995]

Post-Apoc is a genre that gets your juices flowing. This is required watching.

9) Idiocracy [2006]

When you sit to watch it, you have to be alone... otherwise, your constant spouting of how people have already reached the level of stupidity in this movie distracts those watching with you.

8) Alien Series [1979 onward]

Oh my. To initiate other people to your geekdom you force them to watch this... and the rest for good measure!

7) The Fifth Element [1997]

Another Bruce Willis – you use the fact that he is in this movie, and 12 Monkeys to prove that Willis is just so flexible and one of the best actors of our age.

6) Back to the Future [1985]

This is so geek it’s close to becoming main-stream... but your inner-geek can’t resist, even if you resent it a little.

5) Planet of the Apes [1968 onwards]

The whole damn franchise

4) Dune [1984]

This is another one of those films where you push up your glasses and tut at all the inconsistencies the film has with the novel.

3) Star Wars [1977 onwards]

‘The old ones please, none of those fandangled-fancy ones’, says you, gritting your teeth.

2) Stargate [1994]

You not only love this, but own it... and the whole series too!

...and the number one place goes to...

1) Star Trek [1979 onward]

There is nothing left to be said

Have I missed something? Do you disagree? Has your inner-geek just raged against this list? Let me know! You can message me below or on Twitter @OrisiB

Am I not geek enough?

Read More

Introducing my New 'Re-Watching Series'

Remember those movies you loved as a child... or even as a teen? I do. I remember them like the back of my hand. In fact, I bought the majority of my DVD collection as a teenager and so I have cold, hard proof of my tastes and transgressions.

The 'Re-Watching Series' is an opportunity to re-watch the movies that I thought were AWESOME as a kid... and report my now adult-experience to you guys, so that you may admire, sympathise, wince, and laugh at me (and maybe you can laugh with me too!).

Films will include:

1. The Others
2. Donnie Darko
3. Malcom X
4. Holes
5. GI Jane
6. Recess: School's Out
7. Superstar
8. Beetlejuice
9. Hook
10. Uptown Girls
11. Willow
12. Before Women had Wings

And many others!

You never know... I may have just had excellent kiddy-taste when it came to movies! Haha! We'll see!

I'd love to hear about your own re-watching experiences too! So, get re-watching those movies you used to think were epic as a child/teen and send me a message here, or over on Twitter @OrisiB

Read More

Warm Bodies - A Review

This movie was on my Upcoming Movies that Have Tickled my Fancy post. I had written... and I quote 

"I'm terrified that this movie is going to be some sort of crazy Twilight type of thing - but I'm hoping it will definitely be on par with Zombieland (which I enjoyed immensely). The premise is simple. The world is now full of, and run by zombies, there are few people who are actually alive. Strangely, a zombie and a real-life girl, fall in love and put in to motion a series of events that may just save humanity!"

and I was right... painfully so. It really is some strange rendition of Twilight. I find it quite bizarre that we're watching so many movies these days, that when we get down to it, are about necrophilia. 

So anyway, Warm Bodies. It's Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet gone wrong. R (he can't remember his real name) is a zombie who seems to be a little different. He has an internal monologue that is witty and hopeless but he is unable to express himself verbally and even finds it hard to do it physically. He's living in a world of zombies, but there are pockets of survivors around who are delicious and sometimes come out of hiding for food, medicine etc etc. Julie (the daughter of the president/leader of a group of survivors) ventures out with a group to find medicine. Unfortunately her boyfriend is eaten by R, and R falls in love with Julie through the memories he acquires from eating her boyfriend's brain. Love starts to change him and eventually it begins to touch the other zombies too. Suddenly a revolution has started that will change the future of the earth.

I found this movie a little uneven, and sometimes even a mess. There were some parts that were funny, and I did giggle, but ultimately it was slow, the CGI was... bleurgh, and unfortunately it really did border on boring a few times. The audience in the theatre seemed to really enjoy it. They laughed at all the right places (of course as we were coming out I realised that we were in a theatre with a bunch of teens).

Unfortunately the zombies just did not do it for me. In the movie there are zombies and there are  'bonies'. Bonies are what zombies turn in to when they give up... they kind of just rip their faces off and just become a bunch of skeletons who walk around eating everyone. It was all a little... confused. Y'see, at the beginning of the film we are told that zombies are slow, and take a long time to get anywhere, but then, if there is brain about they're suddenly sprinting and are super-beings. The bonies, they're fast too. Well, I don't know, the concept of the zombie had rules that they didn't follow and so as an audience member I didn't find them credible.

Although I had my reservations going to see the movie (originally we had been going to go watch Django Unchained again), it was interesting to see how this film kind of pandered to the necrophiliac swoonings of present YA books and culture. It seemed to be a movie created to cash-in on this buzz but at the same time try to be clever and Indie-ish. Unfortunately it failed. A sell-out is always going to be a sell-out no matter how you dress it up.

Nicholas Hoult seems to do as best as he can playing a corpse with little to no dialogue (although we do have the internal monologue playing over key scenes), but there are times that even he forgot what it was he was doing (maybe he was bored too). It's my opinion that Teresa Palmer is the star of the show, and that she really showed a brilliant range of emotion and carried the dialogue well. It's not her fault that the story didn't really make much sense. 

The soundtrack was actually one of its most redeeming features and that is something worth listening to again I think, for all of you guys who are inclined that way.

So my conclusion? Well, the best way to describe how I feel is disappointment. This really could have been awesome, but it wasn't. They even had a Shakespearean balcony scene which was an awesome nod in the right direction but otherwise it just didn't deliver. The action scenes sucked, and there just was not enough gore for a zombie movie. Strangely, although it was a love story - it was kind of uncomfortable and was far from believable  It is being commended as being something new - but really, truly, I did not find anything new in it at all. Sad, but true.

You may completely hate my review, maybe I'm being a little harsh? I don't know - but let me know what you think! Did you dislike it too? Did you LOVE it? If you did, I wanna hear why!

The trailer is below for those of you who are scratching your head wondering what movie I'm talking about!

Read More

Django Unchained - A Review

I had originally saved this post for when I went to the cinema to watch Django a second time, but we're actually off to watch something else (shhhh, don't be so impatient, I'll let you know soon!)

This film certainly caused quite a stir. 

I had expected something so explosively controversial that I waited on the edge of my seat to be horrified and shocked. What I found was a classic example of a Quentin Tarantino film! I went in to see a Tarantino movie... and that is exactly what I got. I think those who went in to the movie expecting anything different were kidding themselves.

I am a massive Tarantino fan. I've seen all his films I have all the soundtracks to all the movies. I'm sad that way, but I can't help it. I find his work so refreshing. His movies don't take themselves so seriously, I find the dialogue to always be brilliant and witty, and of course the action scenes are both grotesque but poetic at the same time!

Django Unchained is no different. It features a slave in America, who is bought by an ex-dentist (now a bounty hunter) to help track down three brothers. Although the dentist abhors slavery and acknowledges that he's being a complete hypocrite for partaking in this act of of buying Django for his own means, he promises that when the job is done Django will be a free man. When Django is freed he tells the good doctor that he wants to track down his wife. And that is what they do. Lots of carnage follows of course.

The soundtrack was awesome. There were times during fight scenes where Tarantino would just blast a rap tune, or at other times rockabilly type music or gospel inspired songs. It was all simply in his style and fit in a way that only a Tarantino film could pull off.

I didn't find the movie as gory as Kill Bill Vol. 1 - 2. I mean, Kill Bill was out of this world in terms of violence and blood. But the violence in Django Unchained was different because the violence was against those who could not defend themselves (such as the slaves), and those scenes in particular were very uncomfortable to watch. 

Django Unchained is both outrageous and audacious in it's subject matter but it is also a bromance in that it features two men, riding around on horses having strange conversations and looking out for each other. This is something that I feel has been ignored in the reviews that I've read. 

The movie is based in the south, the pre-civil war south, and features the many different ideas we have about the south in pre-civil war times. Tarantino does not mask the stereotypes but instead takes advantage of them. The film was quite like reading a comic book as are most of his films. 

Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio and Christoph Waltz are absolutely brilliant and believable and although the rave reviews have all commended Samuel L Jackson's performance I wasn't that keen to be honest as I found his to be the most uncomfortable performance of all. Leonardo DiCaprio's role as the deplorable Calvin Candie... slave owner and Francophile, is pretty amazing. He's just so loathsome and his character did not express ideas or beliefs that were routinely spouted in those times. Calvin Candie holds a particular interest in phrenology (and uses it to justify his views of the African slaves) and also the revolting sport of mandingo fighting. DiCaprio really is scarily believable, and gives Candie a look and feel of a young man who has grown old before his time.

Now, I've heard that part of the controversy was the constant use of the 'N-bomb' that littered this film... and it did! It was all over the place. But it didn't seem out of place. After all, it is 'The South', it is pre-civil war times, it is plantation owners and Ku Klux Klan members, and those who believe in phrenology... it is also Tarantino, remember how much the 'N-word' was used in Jackie Brown? Context is important, I feel (not that I believe this film to be historically accurate).

I've pored over Quentin Tarantino's defence of this film, I've also read his own very blunt views about how the US is still dealing in slavery (go have a read, his views are intriguing), and he's also pointed his finger towards countries in the world where you can see slavery openly practised. His views, opinions and arguments do not seem to me, to be those of an ignorant fool who has no respect for the past.

I thought that this film was good. Very good in fact. I enjoyed the writing, the shooting, the production in general. I enjoyed the performances, the soundtrack and the comic book feel. I also like the trailers. 

I'm just a teeny-tiny-Tarantino-bopper. Forgive me.

Read More

Kill Your Darlings - Sundance 2013!

Is anybody as excited about this as me? I'm sure there's somebody out there waiting with bated breath for this film?

It stars the following...

Dane DeHaan (the guy who goes nuts in Chronicle)
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter)
Elizabeth Olsen (the sister of those creepy Olsen Twins)
Michael C Hall (Dexter, from Dexter)
David Cross (the crazy talent guy from Alvin and the Chipmunks)
Ben Foster (that mutant from x-men III who had big wings)
Jack Huston (that guy from Eastwick and yes I am quite embarrassed that I watched that show)

I think I'm just excited about it because it's about real life poets. I'm such a lit-geek it is shocking. Reviews from Sundance aren't raving - but I'll love it. I'm sure of it. I have to!

Read More

Tucker & Dale Vs Evil - A Review

Oh me, oh my! This is another film from our most recent movie nights; and what a movie night it was! I've had this on my to-watch pile for quite a while but I could never seem to get around to it, but finally, I did - and this is what I thought...

This. Was. So. Refreshing.

I really enjoyed it. It features the classic horror line up... college kids, off to West Virginia to go camping in hillbilly territory, to have a good time. Oddly, two guys (Tucker and Dale... who are hillbillies) have bought a cabin in the woods as a holiday home, and are also travelling up to the forest to relax. Unfortunately, there is miscommunication when one of the college girls falls off a rock in to a pond, and Tucker and Dale rescue her; but the college kids believe them to be kidnapping their friend. What ensues is a comedy of errors where both parties believe the other to be stalking, threatening and killing the other. 

It is awesome.

I really enjoyed this. It was in the same vein as Sean of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, although it is a Canadian/American film. It made fun of the horror genre without being as blasé as the Scary Movie franchise - and not so obscure that you don't really get it. It was nice to watch something from the other perspective... instead of crazy hillbillies hunting college kids, it was pretty much the other way round. According to Tucker and Dale, the college kids just surrounded their cabin and started killing themselves (it is very funny!). The great thing is, is that the film has also tried to inject a mystery in the plot that Dale (the not so smart one) unravels with the college girl he was thought to have kidnapped.

I believe we see crazy hillbillies in Wrong Turn, CSI and even in Criminal Minds. It seems to be a recurring theme that pops up in American films and so seems to be a part of the public consciousness. The film won four awards in a variety of categories. 

It stars the pirate guy from Dodgeball... if you remember him at all? He was also in Knocked Up - he was the boss I think! 

Anywho, I recommend this film for those getting together with their friends. For those who believe that hillbillies are just plain misunderstood, and of course for those who like to see college kids die in horrific ways. It's all very awesome.

The trailer is below - enjoy!

Read More

Les Miserables - A Review [Guest Post]

The fabulous Emma from Mab is Mab is our writer today. She's a pretty impressive character with skills ranging from the absurd to the down right brilliant - the most absurd is that she likes to cycle... a lot (of course this also makes her all healthy and stuff too), other skills worth mentioning are her awesome photography skills, writing and shopping skills, she's also a voracious reader, graphic designer and book-blogger extraordinaire; so all in all, her review could be nothing but fabulous. So, without further ado - here is Emma with her review of 2012's Les Miserables!

I am primarily a book blogger, and in no way a film critic, but when the two worlds collide I enter the arena with an open mind. Granted, films rarely amount to, and even more rarely surpass, their literary counterparts in my experience, but Les Miserables is something of an anomaly. It has been retold successfully and adored in many forms. It seems to be universally loved as a story and also an inspiration to many - including one of my favourite authors, Carlos Ruiz Zafon, who uses the book as a plot device in The Shadow Of The Wind; a book I recommend heartily to anyone.

I have read Victor Hugo's masterpiece, and loved every minute of it. I have equally enjoyed the London West End show on more than one occasion, having been lucky enough to witness the faultless Norm Lewis as Javert, and Alfie Boe in his rise to fame. Now, cinema goers have a fully realised film, created with all the lavishness modern technology and CGI allows.

At almost 3 hours long, the film packs in all the songs from the stage alongside the added bonus of brilliant scenery, bringing a depth to the vision of Hugo's 19th century France that the stage cannot. We are also treated to a host of well cast actors. On the face of things Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe are the perfect choices for Valjean and Javert, with their imposing build and rough, tough appearances, and Anne Hathaway embodies the fragile Fontaine beautifully.

Visually, the film is stunning. I actually wish I could have seen it on an even bigger screen so that it could fill my sight entirely. It was just beautiful to look at. I loved the use of long shots and closeups while characters were singing, and especially the decision to have the characters singing straight into the camera lens, breaking the "forth wall". I felt this was a brave thing to do, and disconnected the songs from the rest of the film almost. However, I have a feeling it is a "Marmite" thing. I thought it was particularly well used during "I dreamed a dream" - a song I have heard so often post-Sue-Bo that I felt I would never be able to connect to it ever again. How wrong was I?! Tears rolled down my face as Anne Hathaway broke apart in front of me, and I could not take my eyes away from her.

If anyone has read my blog before, you may be expecting a "but" about now, and right you would be... while moments of this movie soared in triumph, other parts of it never quite left the ground. What bugged me the most about this film was the wasted potential of Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman. Everything said that these two, in these roles, should have been amazing. The set supported them, the songs were there and the characters were almost written for their acting styles... so what happened?! I sat in anticipation of two particular moments in the entire film: The Confrontation and The Bridge. I was left cold, and in disbelief that these two actors could not deliver the gravitas and tension of their shared scenes. Hey guys, waving a sword at each other does not substitute for a sense of argument in your voice!! I felt like screaming at them to get some balls, GO AT EACH OTHER! These men are not friends! As for the bridge scene... words honestly fail me. Disappointment does not come close. In fact, for anyone thinking I have over-exaggerated these facts, someone has conveniently made you this video to prove I have not: 

 
Onto my next moan then... let's talk about instalove. The dreaded instalove, of the kind favoured by authors of young adult novels with aspirations of Twilight. We find that young people just need a smile from afar to fall hopelessly, heedlessly in absolute I'll-die-without-them LOVE. And here within lies the roles of Marius and Cossette, two of the drippiest, most inconsequential, infuriating characters ever to grace your eyeballs. (The book portrays them a bit better, but this film had me choking on my popcorn). One day, Marius sees a girl smile at him and announces he is in love. If he doesn't find out who she is he might just stop being, goldarnit! Someone find out where she lives!!! Blah blah blah they falsetto at each other in the longest gazing sequence you will ever encounter. Romeo and Juliet "seeing her through the crowd" genius this is not.

I believe the biggest fault in this film was in the apparent process of "putting the stage on the screen, with added book". It seems that the film has forgotten it is cinema in all respects other than in technology enhanced visuals. And yes, it looks good, but when characters are singing little twiddley sentences (which are not songs and never amount to songs) instead of scripted prose, to tell us where they're going or what they're seeing, the film feels its length. I also think this film would have been all the better if there were no songs at all - call me blasphemous if you will! While some cast members do a notable job at telling the story of their lyrics, there is a distinct lack of emotion in some of the weightier numbers. The confrontation lacks urgency, Javert's final song makes his act feel like an overreaction due to a lack of madness and obsession in his delivery and "bring him home" seems like a foolish leap of faith.

Also, the stage version benefits from an interval. Without a reprieve in the film, the audience is plunged 9 years into the future into the laps of school boys plotting a revolution, right after a declaration of revenge on Valjean from Javert. Hang on a minute... what? Students? Who are you? Why do I care? (ie. you don't, no one needs to care about Marius) There is no sense of starting anew, no sense of a "part 2", just kabam! Revolution and barricades! Who will stand? Not bloody me...

So. While I didn't dislike Les Miserables, I didn't exactly hold it in, say, the ranks of Chicago and Phantom of the Opera, both of which were film versions of musicals that brought something new and different to their base material. I also don't think I would recommend Les Mis to anyone who has a vague uncertainty about musicals. The sentences-in-song thing just won't endear them to the concept. 

I do, however, recommend the black and white subtitled version of Les Miserables if any fan of the story wants a cinematic representation. Grittier, dark and with no musical content the story is beautifully told. Go vintage on this one guys, and see the London musical. It's epic.

Many thanks to Emma for the excellent review. If you'd like to read more of Emma - please take a visit over to http://www.mabismab.com you won't regret it! 

Read More