"Living in Hollywood can make you famous. Dying in Hollywood can make you a legend."
A couple of times a year a film is released which doesn't make much noise at the box office, but, through word of mouth promotion is revealed to be a fantastic piece of film making.
Hollywoodland fits nicely into this category of film. It didn't set the box office alight (Collecting $14.415 million in the US and a mere £65,735 in the UK.) however the word of mouth surrounding this film, particularly the surprisingly strong performance of Ben Affleck in his first screen appearance since a cameo in Clerks 2 has made Hollywoodland a film to watch.
Hollywoodland is the story of a Private Investigator (Adrien Brody) looking into the alleged suicide of former TV Superman George Reeves (Affleck), a case which isn't as simple as it first may seem.
Hollywoodland is a truly worthwhile film as the performances are first class, the script is note perfect for the period, and the film develops in a way far more complex that the average detective film.
Monday 18 August 2008
Wednesday 13 August 2008
Mamma Mia!
The best advice I could give about Mamma Mia! is that if you think you won't like a loveable 90 minuite romp through the music of Abba, don't bother going to see the film.
If however, you want to see a film which is incredibly entertaining and great fun, then Mamma Mia! is the film for you.
Mamma Mia makes no pretences and doesn't for one minuite dissapoint, even Pierce Brosnan's incredibly awful singing is entertaining and you are left at the end of the film with a big smile on your face and the songs of Abba playing in your head. If you want a fun trip to the movies, Mamma Mia! is definately the film for you.
If however, you want to see a film which is incredibly entertaining and great fun, then Mamma Mia! is the film for you.
Mamma Mia makes no pretences and doesn't for one minuite dissapoint, even Pierce Brosnan's incredibly awful singing is entertaining and you are left at the end of the film with a big smile on your face and the songs of Abba playing in your head. If you want a fun trip to the movies, Mamma Mia! is definately the film for you.
Craig reveals interest in filming gay Bond experience
Bond to be more unpredictable?
Daniel Craig talks about Quantum of Solace
James Bond star Daniel Craig has recently spoken of his interest in having James Bond partake in a gay experience during the forthcoming 007 film Quantum of Solace.
The British star, 40, is currently one of the biggest names in popular culture following a string of box office successes such as Casino Royale and The Golden Compass.
Daniel revealed that he believes a gay experience would help to revolutionise the character of James Bond further as such as scene would make the character more unpredictable.
He said: "Why not? I think in this day and age, fans would have accepted it. I mean, look at (British TV series) 'Doctor Who' - that has had gay scenes in it and no one blinks an eye."
It seems as though Daniel Craig is intent in making his incarnation of James Bond one that will never be forgotten, and, if he is able to break down some oppressive barriers in the process, it will be for all the right reasons too.
Daniel Craig talks about Quantum of Solace
James Bond star Daniel Craig has recently spoken of his interest in having James Bond partake in a gay experience during the forthcoming 007 film Quantum of Solace.
The British star, 40, is currently one of the biggest names in popular culture following a string of box office successes such as Casino Royale and The Golden Compass.
Daniel revealed that he believes a gay experience would help to revolutionise the character of James Bond further as such as scene would make the character more unpredictable.
He said: "Why not? I think in this day and age, fans would have accepted it. I mean, look at (British TV series) 'Doctor Who' - that has had gay scenes in it and no one blinks an eye."
It seems as though Daniel Craig is intent in making his incarnation of James Bond one that will never be forgotten, and, if he is able to break down some oppressive barriers in the process, it will be for all the right reasons too.
Thursday 24 July 2008
Tuesday 22 July 2008
Shoot ‘em Up
Shoot ‘em up is a entertaining romp of rubbish, there’s not a lot that you can say about the movie. It lasts for 86 minutes, contains about 108 deaths and some incredible moments during which a carrot is used as a weapon. Why this film got made I do not know, as it is about as good as a feature length episode of The Bill. Watch Shoot ‘em up if you want mindless violence and a film that, apart from the mindless action scenes, is complete trollop.
Across The Universe
What’s it about?
Set in the 1960s Across the Universe is the latest attempt to use the music of The Beatles within film. Across the Universe is the tale of Jude, a young lad from Liverpool who travels over to America and falls in love with Lucy, and the film is about the existence they share.
What’s good?
If you love the music of The Beatles, you won’t be upset by the film’s soundtrack, no less than 33 Beatles songs form the soundtrack for Across the Universe.
What’s bad?
The film, for me, simply didn’t work. I found it to be a muddle of cheap references with action and visuals put in to give some form of validation as to why Across the Universe wasn’t simply released as an album of Beatles covers. The characters were underdeveloped and I found myself constantly looking at my watch and trying not to fall asleep.
Overall
If you truly love the music of The Beatles give this film a try, it is firmly for the die hard fan, on DVD it may fare better than it did on film, however with Julie Taymor’s history in theatre, I would not be surprised if Across the Universe finds its way onto a Broadway stage before too long, where I do believe this show could be a hit.
Set in the 1960s Across the Universe is the latest attempt to use the music of The Beatles within film. Across the Universe is the tale of Jude, a young lad from Liverpool who travels over to America and falls in love with Lucy, and the film is about the existence they share.
What’s good?
If you love the music of The Beatles, you won’t be upset by the film’s soundtrack, no less than 33 Beatles songs form the soundtrack for Across the Universe.
What’s bad?
The film, for me, simply didn’t work. I found it to be a muddle of cheap references with action and visuals put in to give some form of validation as to why Across the Universe wasn’t simply released as an album of Beatles covers. The characters were underdeveloped and I found myself constantly looking at my watch and trying not to fall asleep.
Overall
If you truly love the music of The Beatles give this film a try, it is firmly for the die hard fan, on DVD it may fare better than it did on film, however with Julie Taymor’s history in theatre, I would not be surprised if Across the Universe finds its way onto a Broadway stage before too long, where I do believe this show could be a hit.
The Producers
When I first saw the original movie of The Producers, I fell in love with it. I absolutely adored its subtleties. I also loved the songs and the way that Mel Brooks seemed to have a near perfect balance between humour and music. I’ve heard some of the songs from the stage show version of The Producers which was based on the original film and I loved the new songs. So, when I heard that Hollywood were making a movie of the play which was of a movie which was about a play (Confused yet?) I was very pleased.
I went to see the new movie of The Producers. I wasn’t so pleased.
The main problem that I had with the new film is that it’s not sure what time period it’s set in. The original movie was set in the mid 1960s, when it was made. It was the story of two very stereotypically Jewish characters who, after discovering that they can make more money by producing a flop rather than a hit, decide to make the worst play ever written, a play that shows Hitler in a sympathetic light, written by a man who was and is still a member of the Nazi party. Because the original story is set like this the tension between the characters is at an all time high and never looks like sagging.
That’s the original film in a nutshell.
The new film is supposedly still set in the mid 1960s however little things are done to try and modernise the scenarios to convey to a 2006 audience. Such as having animatronics pigeons that can perform Nazi salutes and calling Franz (the Nazi writer) a, “Neo – Nazi”.
The film was still funny in places, the audience in the cinema where I was, seemed to enjoy the film quite a lot. However I didn’t.
A major problem that I had with this new version of the film was the direction, Susan Stroman may be a very successful choreographer, however, she’s clearly not a film director. Essentially, she filmed a theatre show on a film set, which is a problem as films and plays are performed in very different ways. In plays the characters sometimes need to over state the joke or the action in order to convey what’s just happened to the audience, they also need to leave time for the laughter/ applause to settle. In a film, actions don’t need to be overstated, as the camera picks up on everything that it sees. The end result in the movie were gaps where the actors waited for their queues which in return slowed the film down and took away nearly all of the tension that made the original film so great.
My recommendation is that if you want to see The Producers, you see the original. As it is far superior in every single way.
I went to see the new movie of The Producers. I wasn’t so pleased.
The main problem that I had with the new film is that it’s not sure what time period it’s set in. The original movie was set in the mid 1960s, when it was made. It was the story of two very stereotypically Jewish characters who, after discovering that they can make more money by producing a flop rather than a hit, decide to make the worst play ever written, a play that shows Hitler in a sympathetic light, written by a man who was and is still a member of the Nazi party. Because the original story is set like this the tension between the characters is at an all time high and never looks like sagging.
That’s the original film in a nutshell.
The new film is supposedly still set in the mid 1960s however little things are done to try and modernise the scenarios to convey to a 2006 audience. Such as having animatronics pigeons that can perform Nazi salutes and calling Franz (the Nazi writer) a, “Neo – Nazi”.
The film was still funny in places, the audience in the cinema where I was, seemed to enjoy the film quite a lot. However I didn’t.
A major problem that I had with this new version of the film was the direction, Susan Stroman may be a very successful choreographer, however, she’s clearly not a film director. Essentially, she filmed a theatre show on a film set, which is a problem as films and plays are performed in very different ways. In plays the characters sometimes need to over state the joke or the action in order to convey what’s just happened to the audience, they also need to leave time for the laughter/ applause to settle. In a film, actions don’t need to be overstated, as the camera picks up on everything that it sees. The end result in the movie were gaps where the actors waited for their queues which in return slowed the film down and took away nearly all of the tension that made the original film so great.
My recommendation is that if you want to see The Producers, you see the original. As it is far superior in every single way.
Starter for Ten
Starter for Ten is the definition of the fresher year struggles of the awkward adolescent male placed neatly into 1985. “Brian Jackson Knows Everything” at least it would seem that way for the working class kid from Southend who has just blagged his way into studying English at Bristol University. Brian however, has a dream. His dream is to be on university challenge, it is a dream he’s had since childhood and he’s not about to let it go easily, so when the opportunity to appear on the show arises, he jumps at the chance. In the process of auditioning for the university challenge team, Brian meets Alice (Alice Eve who is possibly the hottest drama student in the whole university), and decides that he’s going to woo her using his general knowledge skills.
James McAvoy is rated as one of the “next big things” and in this film you can see why as he charismatically carries the film on Brian’s awkwardly unsure shoulders, in turn making Brian a character who all students can relate to. The film as a whole really is superb; the only let down I found was the intrusion of the boom microphone in several scenes in the film.
That said; I firmly believe that McAvoy and Starter for Ten will be strong contenders at the award ceremonies in the spring.
Like “The History Boys” before it. Starter for Ten leads the way for the British teen movie to go.
James McAvoy is rated as one of the “next big things” and in this film you can see why as he charismatically carries the film on Brian’s awkwardly unsure shoulders, in turn making Brian a character who all students can relate to. The film as a whole really is superb; the only let down I found was the intrusion of the boom microphone in several scenes in the film.
That said; I firmly believe that McAvoy and Starter for Ten will be strong contenders at the award ceremonies in the spring.
Like “The History Boys” before it. Starter for Ten leads the way for the British teen movie to go.
Little Miss Sunshine
When Seven year old Olive hears that she has qualified for the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant, she is determined to attend. Her family can’t afford to fly and her mother Sheryl (Toni Collette) can’t drive a manual car. So it is up to father Richard (Greg Kinnear, As Good as It Gets) to drive the whole family from Albuquerque to California for the pageant.
Accompanying them on the road trip are Olive’s cocaine snorting Grandpa (Alan Arkin) Brother Dwayne who’s ambitions to be a fighter pilot and love of Nietzsche have led him to take a vow of silence and homosexual Marcel Proust scholar uncle Frank (Steve Carell) who has just failed in a suicide attempt.
Former music video directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris make a great job of their debut feature film. Little Miss Sunshine manages to excellently balance heart felt family turmoil and jet black humour, which sets the audience up brilliantly for the final scenes. Reminiscent of some of Woody Allen’s more recent films it is easy to see why Little Miss Sunshine was such a hit at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival.
Accompanying them on the road trip are Olive’s cocaine snorting Grandpa (Alan Arkin) Brother Dwayne who’s ambitions to be a fighter pilot and love of Nietzsche have led him to take a vow of silence and homosexual Marcel Proust scholar uncle Frank (Steve Carell) who has just failed in a suicide attempt.
Former music video directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris make a great job of their debut feature film. Little Miss Sunshine manages to excellently balance heart felt family turmoil and jet black humour, which sets the audience up brilliantly for the final scenes. Reminiscent of some of Woody Allen’s more recent films it is easy to see why Little Miss Sunshine was such a hit at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival.
The Break Up
When Gary (Vaughn) and Brooke (Aniston) decide that enough is enough in their relationship. Neither is willing to move out of the condo that they share. On the advice of their friends they choose to try and force the other one out, resulting in a war of mind games between the former couple, during which they realise what they really need. Each other.
Date movies are seen all of the time in the cinema, most of them are exactly the same movie, however they feature different titles.
So what makes the break up different? Well, for starters the chemistry between real life couple Vaughn and Aniston is incredible, as is the supporting cast which features a number of well respected character actors such as Vincent D’Onofrio, Judy Davis and Vaughn’s Swingers cast mate John Favreau. The comedy in the film is executed brilliantly by genre faves such as “A Mighty Wind” star John Michael Higgins and “Dodge ball” actor Justin Long.
But the film was very much Vince Vaughn’s, not only did he star; he also wrote the story and produced the picture. On the negative side the film did seem to drag a bit towards the end, but this did not retract that the break up is a fine addition to the romantic comedy genre which is very much the a solid date movie.
Date movies are seen all of the time in the cinema, most of them are exactly the same movie, however they feature different titles.
So what makes the break up different? Well, for starters the chemistry between real life couple Vaughn and Aniston is incredible, as is the supporting cast which features a number of well respected character actors such as Vincent D’Onofrio, Judy Davis and Vaughn’s Swingers cast mate John Favreau. The comedy in the film is executed brilliantly by genre faves such as “A Mighty Wind” star John Michael Higgins and “Dodge ball” actor Justin Long.
But the film was very much Vince Vaughn’s, not only did he star; he also wrote the story and produced the picture. On the negative side the film did seem to drag a bit towards the end, but this did not retract that the break up is a fine addition to the romantic comedy genre which is very much the a solid date movie.
Jarhead
“Every war is different, every war is the same.”
Currently in movie world, there seem to be two men who can do no wrong, one of them is actor Jake Gyllenhaal, who, after shooting to fame as Donnie Darko has continued to perform consistently and watch his star rise in several films. The other man who can do no wrong is Britain’s very own Sam Mendes; Sam is apparently a lovely bloke. But he is also a pretty amazing director. With only two previous films (American Beauty and Road to Perdition) to his name he has rapidly become one of the most admired directors of the past 50 years.
So what happens when you take one of America’s hottest actor and team him with one of Britain’s hottest director?
You get Jarhead.
One of the best films of the year by a long way, and we’re only in January. Released on the 13th of January, Jarhead is the film version of Anthony Swofford’s autobiography of the same name. Which tells the personal story of a rookie sniper during the 1990 Gulf War. Gyllenhaal plays Swofford in the film, and brings to the role the same loveable yet conflicted character that we’ve seen before in his performances, most notably, Donnie Darko. Joining “Swoff” on the battlegrounds of the Gulf are a troop of fellow marines including spotter Troy (Played wonderfully by Peter Sarsgaard) and Staff Sgt. Sykes (Portrayed by last years Oscar winner Jamie Foxx)
The thing that makes Jarhead different from other films out there, especially war films is that Jarhead doesn’t have a political stance; it’s not for, or against war. It shows that war’s actually a bit of a waste of time as “Swoff” only actually gets what he counts as a war for 4 hours, the rest of the 386 days he’s preparing for war, while in the desert. The film shows the training of the snipers and how anxious they are to have their own Vietnam, where they can kill lots and return home as heroes. However, when they get to Iraq, they spend most of their time training, partying, and getting paranoid about what their wives and girlfriends are doing back home.
Jarhead is fascinating, as it never sags at any point of the film, the cinematography alone making your eyes widen with amazement. The script switches constantly from moments of comedy, to moments of drama, to moments of action, much like you imagine a real war would be like.
If you see one film this year it should be Jarhead, not only is it that good, not only do the troops originally go to war to “Protect oil fields” but also I really couldn’t find any negatives about it. It’s rare to say in any field that someone has the ‘Midas Touch’ but I’m starting to think that maybe Sam Mendes does. As Jarhead is his best film yet.
Currently in movie world, there seem to be two men who can do no wrong, one of them is actor Jake Gyllenhaal, who, after shooting to fame as Donnie Darko has continued to perform consistently and watch his star rise in several films. The other man who can do no wrong is Britain’s very own Sam Mendes; Sam is apparently a lovely bloke. But he is also a pretty amazing director. With only two previous films (American Beauty and Road to Perdition) to his name he has rapidly become one of the most admired directors of the past 50 years.
So what happens when you take one of America’s hottest actor and team him with one of Britain’s hottest director?
You get Jarhead.
One of the best films of the year by a long way, and we’re only in January. Released on the 13th of January, Jarhead is the film version of Anthony Swofford’s autobiography of the same name. Which tells the personal story of a rookie sniper during the 1990 Gulf War. Gyllenhaal plays Swofford in the film, and brings to the role the same loveable yet conflicted character that we’ve seen before in his performances, most notably, Donnie Darko. Joining “Swoff” on the battlegrounds of the Gulf are a troop of fellow marines including spotter Troy (Played wonderfully by Peter Sarsgaard) and Staff Sgt. Sykes (Portrayed by last years Oscar winner Jamie Foxx)
The thing that makes Jarhead different from other films out there, especially war films is that Jarhead doesn’t have a political stance; it’s not for, or against war. It shows that war’s actually a bit of a waste of time as “Swoff” only actually gets what he counts as a war for 4 hours, the rest of the 386 days he’s preparing for war, while in the desert. The film shows the training of the snipers and how anxious they are to have their own Vietnam, where they can kill lots and return home as heroes. However, when they get to Iraq, they spend most of their time training, partying, and getting paranoid about what their wives and girlfriends are doing back home.
Jarhead is fascinating, as it never sags at any point of the film, the cinematography alone making your eyes widen with amazement. The script switches constantly from moments of comedy, to moments of drama, to moments of action, much like you imagine a real war would be like.
If you see one film this year it should be Jarhead, not only is it that good, not only do the troops originally go to war to “Protect oil fields” but also I really couldn’t find any negatives about it. It’s rare to say in any field that someone has the ‘Midas Touch’ but I’m starting to think that maybe Sam Mendes does. As Jarhead is his best film yet.
Derailed
Derailed is the story of married T.V. executive Charles Schine (Owen) who begins an affair with Jennifer Aniston (Well, who wouldn’t?)
They get caught and then blackmailed by Vincent Cassel (from La Haine) who also rapes Aniston in the process. (It’s a happy tale, as you can probably see)
Charles then decides to take matters into his own hands to get back his money, and prevent his wife from finding out about his affair.
There is much more to the story than that, but Derailed is one of those films where if you tell too much about the story, you spoil it for all.
I liked Derailed, I thought the acting, script and the direction were all good. I liked the supporting characters played by RZA and, “Pimp my Ride” fave X to the Z or Xzibit as he likes to be known. (Although I think his real name of Alvin is much, much cooler. But that’s a different story)
Derailed is a good, solid psychological thriller, I recommend it for those who like to try and play detective during a film. At the end of the day though, the film is really all about Clive Owen, and more importantly, whether or not you like him. If you like Clive Owen, then I recommend this film for you. If however you hate the man who came number two in the race for the new James Bond, stay away from this film. Clive is on screen for about 99% of the film. And if you don’t like him, you probably won’t like the film.
They get caught and then blackmailed by Vincent Cassel (from La Haine) who also rapes Aniston in the process. (It’s a happy tale, as you can probably see)
Charles then decides to take matters into his own hands to get back his money, and prevent his wife from finding out about his affair.
There is much more to the story than that, but Derailed is one of those films where if you tell too much about the story, you spoil it for all.
I liked Derailed, I thought the acting, script and the direction were all good. I liked the supporting characters played by RZA and, “Pimp my Ride” fave X to the Z or Xzibit as he likes to be known. (Although I think his real name of Alvin is much, much cooler. But that’s a different story)
Derailed is a good, solid psychological thriller, I recommend it for those who like to try and play detective during a film. At the end of the day though, the film is really all about Clive Owen, and more importantly, whether or not you like him. If you like Clive Owen, then I recommend this film for you. If however you hate the man who came number two in the race for the new James Bond, stay away from this film. Clive is on screen for about 99% of the film. And if you don’t like him, you probably won’t like the film.
Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were – Rabbit
I shall start by saying go and see Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were – Rabbit.
Wallace and Gromit will walk away with the best-animated feature Oscar next year, there’s no debate about it, I however feel that it should also be a very strong contender to be nominated for the Best Picture category. Where it will face off against the likes of Crash, The Cinderella Man, and Peter Jackson’s King Kong. It will also be a heavy contender in the Best Original Screenplay raced as well as several other categories.
Why is the Wallace and Gromit movie so great?
Well, for starters, it made me laugh for nearly all of the one hour and twenty - four minutes that the film lasts. I found this very impressive.
Secondly, the film is packed with references to films such as King Kong, Jaws, and An American Were - wolf in London to name a few.
Thirdly, it has a really impressive cast that includes actors such as Ralf Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, John Thomson and Peter Kay (Not forgetting the brilliant Peter Sallis as Wallace)
Fourthly, it’s packed to the brim with Sexual Innuendos (which I found quite surprising considering the movies U certificate)
And Fifthly, It’s a film about one man and his dog.
This movie took five years to make; such is the art of Claymation. It has a phenomenal screenplay, containing pure jems of British humour. And I really believe that everyone should see this film, even if it’s the only film you see this year, even if you hate Wallace and Gromit you should see this film. It is just that good.
Wallace and Gromit will walk away with the best-animated feature Oscar next year, there’s no debate about it, I however feel that it should also be a very strong contender to be nominated for the Best Picture category. Where it will face off against the likes of Crash, The Cinderella Man, and Peter Jackson’s King Kong. It will also be a heavy contender in the Best Original Screenplay raced as well as several other categories.
Why is the Wallace and Gromit movie so great?
Well, for starters, it made me laugh for nearly all of the one hour and twenty - four minutes that the film lasts. I found this very impressive.
Secondly, the film is packed with references to films such as King Kong, Jaws, and An American Were - wolf in London to name a few.
Thirdly, it has a really impressive cast that includes actors such as Ralf Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, John Thomson and Peter Kay (Not forgetting the brilliant Peter Sallis as Wallace)
Fourthly, it’s packed to the brim with Sexual Innuendos (which I found quite surprising considering the movies U certificate)
And Fifthly, It’s a film about one man and his dog.
This movie took five years to make; such is the art of Claymation. It has a phenomenal screenplay, containing pure jems of British humour. And I really believe that everyone should see this film, even if it’s the only film you see this year, even if you hate Wallace and Gromit you should see this film. It is just that good.
Ritchie’s Revolver Spins My Head
After the critical and commercial travesty that was Swept Away. Guy Ritchie made sure that his next movie was one that showed him doing ‘what he does best’ the gangster film. Before the film starts, you can tell he’s travelling in the right direction to getting his once promising career as the “British Tarantino” back on track. He’s got Jason Statham (The guy who used to date Kelly Brook) in the lead role; alongside him are Ray Liotta, Vincent Pastore, and Andre Benjamin (Better known to everyone as Andre 3000 from OutKast)
All of the actors put in fantastic performances that cannot be knocked and this would lead you to think that Guy Ritchie has indeed put his career firmly back on track.
However….
Although the acting and the casting are near flawless, the same cannot be said for the script or the overall direction of the piece. Ritchie has been quoted as saying that you need to see the film “three times” In order to really understand what’s going on in the film. Maybe he’s right and I should see the film twice more, however, it is my opinion that the film drags on and makes little sense as it attempts to be a rip off of a number of movies by Quentin Tarantino.
The main thing that I disliked about Revolver was that it seemed to lack a point at the end of the film, there wasn’t a conclusion; that said, there wasn’t really a question at the beginning of the film either.
In conclusion, Mr Madonna hasn’t got his career back on track, and personally, if you want to spend six pounds to go to the cinema, wait until the 14th of October and go and see the Wallace and Gromit movie.
All of the actors put in fantastic performances that cannot be knocked and this would lead you to think that Guy Ritchie has indeed put his career firmly back on track.
However….
Although the acting and the casting are near flawless, the same cannot be said for the script or the overall direction of the piece. Ritchie has been quoted as saying that you need to see the film “three times” In order to really understand what’s going on in the film. Maybe he’s right and I should see the film twice more, however, it is my opinion that the film drags on and makes little sense as it attempts to be a rip off of a number of movies by Quentin Tarantino.
The main thing that I disliked about Revolver was that it seemed to lack a point at the end of the film, there wasn’t a conclusion; that said, there wasn’t really a question at the beginning of the film either.
In conclusion, Mr Madonna hasn’t got his career back on track, and personally, if you want to spend six pounds to go to the cinema, wait until the 14th of October and go and see the Wallace and Gromit movie.
The Machinist
"Who am I?”
The question is one of the most famous questions that has been asked throughout film history, ironic really that the man asking the question, “Who am I?” in this film will appear on cinema screens this summer as Batman in Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins.
In this film, however, Christian Bale, the man famous for roles such as American Psycho’s Patrick Bateman plays Trevor Reznik, a factory worker who is tormented by the fact that he is literally wasting away from insomnia.
Visually this film is dark; it’s lit so that Reznik is frequently shown either in the shadows or in very dark lights. This works to great effect as is helps to illustrate the “walking dead” quality that Reznik has to him.
Where the film does have flaws, it’s strengths lie in it’s performances, particularly from Christian Bale as Reznik, Jennifer Jason Leigh as Stevie, and Michael Ironside as Reznik’s co- worker Miller.
In other reviews you’ll read or hear about Christian Bale’s dramatic weight loss, it’s true that the weight loss is very dramatic, (He lost about 60 pounds from his 6 foot 2 frame, dropping to about 9 and a half stone) but I can fully understand why Bale did it, as a method actor, he wouldn’t have been able to understand Reznik’s suffering without loosing the weight, and it really adds an extra dimension to the character that I don’t think would have existed if Bale was made to look as frail as Reznik via clever make up or CGI.
The story was good, there were some flaws I felt, Mainly that director Brad Anderson attempted to build up to having a twist occur at the end of the film that could be seen to be as powerful as the twists in films such as Fight Club and Memento. However, I found the ending to be rather obvious after about halfway through the film.
This doesn’t mean that the film isn’t good though. Believe me, it’s very good.
I liked this film quite a lot and think that it’s highly recommendable, but not for everyone. Fans of films such as Fight Club and Memento will like this. Fans of Christian Bale will like this. Film fans, who are not keen on Fight Club, Memento, or Christian Bale, probably won’t like this.
In conclusion, The Machinist is not the greatest film I’ve seen this year, it’s not the greatest thriller of all time. But it’s very good, probably one of the best thrillers of the year.
The question is one of the most famous questions that has been asked throughout film history, ironic really that the man asking the question, “Who am I?” in this film will appear on cinema screens this summer as Batman in Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins.
In this film, however, Christian Bale, the man famous for roles such as American Psycho’s Patrick Bateman plays Trevor Reznik, a factory worker who is tormented by the fact that he is literally wasting away from insomnia.
Visually this film is dark; it’s lit so that Reznik is frequently shown either in the shadows or in very dark lights. This works to great effect as is helps to illustrate the “walking dead” quality that Reznik has to him.
Where the film does have flaws, it’s strengths lie in it’s performances, particularly from Christian Bale as Reznik, Jennifer Jason Leigh as Stevie, and Michael Ironside as Reznik’s co- worker Miller.
In other reviews you’ll read or hear about Christian Bale’s dramatic weight loss, it’s true that the weight loss is very dramatic, (He lost about 60 pounds from his 6 foot 2 frame, dropping to about 9 and a half stone) but I can fully understand why Bale did it, as a method actor, he wouldn’t have been able to understand Reznik’s suffering without loosing the weight, and it really adds an extra dimension to the character that I don’t think would have existed if Bale was made to look as frail as Reznik via clever make up or CGI.
The story was good, there were some flaws I felt, Mainly that director Brad Anderson attempted to build up to having a twist occur at the end of the film that could be seen to be as powerful as the twists in films such as Fight Club and Memento. However, I found the ending to be rather obvious after about halfway through the film.
This doesn’t mean that the film isn’t good though. Believe me, it’s very good.
I liked this film quite a lot and think that it’s highly recommendable, but not for everyone. Fans of films such as Fight Club and Memento will like this. Fans of Christian Bale will like this. Film fans, who are not keen on Fight Club, Memento, or Christian Bale, probably won’t like this.
In conclusion, The Machinist is not the greatest film I’ve seen this year, it’s not the greatest thriller of all time. But it’s very good, probably one of the best thrillers of the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)