Since it's October and of course it's Halloween in a few days, I'd figure I'd tell you my top picks for horror movies to watch during Halloween or even for whenever you want to have a horror marathon. I'm a fan of horror films and I could go on and on with this list, but I'm going to narrow down some of my personal choices that I think offer good entertainment.
Here are my choices in no particular order:
Psycho (1960)
The Exorcist (1973)
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
Jaws (1975)
Carrie (1976)
Halloween (1978)
Poltergeist (1982)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Misery (1990)
The Shining (1980)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Scream (1996)
The Sixth Sense (1999)
The Ring (2002)
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Ginger Snaps (2000)
An American Werewolf in London (1981)
The Others (2001)
Child's Play (1988)
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
The Omen (1976)
It (1990)
Now reading my list, you can obviously see I've recommended a lot of flicks from the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.
The reasons I focus on older films is because those are the films that I consider to not only to be scarier, but they have more substance in their respective plots, characters and even the scares I feel that current horror films aren't up to the standard of older horror flicks. The ones that I picked may not be better than the classics, but they definitely have something that for me, makes them stand out in the list of modern horror movies. I'll leave it at that.
Some of these films are absolutely terrifying, while a lot of them are scary, funny and entertaining. Some might think that "The Silence of the Lambs" isn't really a horror film, it's more of a thriller. It is a thriller, but has elements of crime and horror, which is why I included it in my list.
You may notice I've put the year next to the film title. The reason I do so is because of the string of horror remakes in the last couple of years. The originals offer something that the remakes cannot. I won't get further into that. I wrote another post about it so you can check it out if you're curious about my thoughts.
Again, these are my personal choices. These are movies I'd watch on Halloween or for when I want to watch a good horror flick.
Thanks for reading!
Thursday 25 October 2012
Saturday 6 October 2012
Ted (2012)
Plot: John (Mark Wahlberg) wished for his teddy bear Ted (played by Seth MacFarlane) to come to life when he was a kid. It's now twenty-seven years later. John and Ted enjoy an immature lifestyle, watching movies and smoking pot. Despite this, John has been in a relationship with Lori (Mila Kunis) for four years. As their anniversary approaches, Lori wants John to grow up and thinks the only way that can happen is if Ted moves out of their apartment. What will happen?
Review: I thought Ted was absolutely hilarious.
One aspect of the film that really surprised me was the character development and how the characters worked in the film. Ted is a stuffed bear brought to life by the power of a child wishing. But you don't see Ted as a bear. You see him as a person, John's friend. So that's why John is conflicted. Because Ted isn't his teddy bear- he's his friend. And I also like the fact that Lori isn't being a bitch about this. She's doing this because she thinks what it's best for John. She doesn't hate Ted, but thinks that they both need to grow up and that being apart may help them. That's how I interpreted it. The fact that Seth MacFarlane and his writing team were able to add so much depth and character to a stuffed toy as much as their human characters shows their talent.
The film's acting was very good. I thought Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis are great leads and have great comic and dramatic timing. John McHale plays Lori's jackass boss, Rex. I hated the character, but McHale nailed it. Giovanni Ribsi is Donny, a man who is obsessed with Ted. There are several additional supporting characters, but their screen time is limited so I don't think it's worth critiquing all of them. Nonetheless, the cast is stellar and work well together. But the star of the movie is Ted, played and voiced by Seth MacFarlane. Seth's energy is timeless and you can tell that the actors fed off him well.
The film's humour is very much Seth MacFarlane. Anyone who watches Family Guy, American Dad or The Cleveland Show will see it. The jokes and gags are very much incorporated with pop culture, celebrities, drugs and alcohol, sex etc. Some will see the humour as either racist, sexist or homophobic. My feeling about it is that there are many films and television shows that do that, but Seth MacFarlane is a little more direct compared to others who do try to censor themselves. MacFarlane doesn't shy away.
I was genuinely surprised that the film doesn't run out of steam. It doesn't get boring or feel like they're dragging on. The scenes mesh together convincingly and smoothly. There were times when the film was predictable, but there were some plot points that I hadn't expected and made the film that much better and funnier.
Now as much as I enjoyed the film, this isn't for everyone. The story itself isn't entirely believable. You have to have the mindset that this story isn't set in reality. But the humour is what will probably turn away viewers. The humour is direct and raunchy. I mentioned earlier that some will perceive it as either homophobic, racist or sexist, but this is how Seth MacFarlane works.
It's difficult to review this movie without spoiling it. I found Ted to be absolutely hilarious and commend Seth MacFarlane on his directorial debut. He did a fantastic job, as a director, writer and actor. One of the best comedies of 2012 and for me, one of the more memorable.
Rating: 4.5/5
Review: I thought Ted was absolutely hilarious.
One aspect of the film that really surprised me was the character development and how the characters worked in the film. Ted is a stuffed bear brought to life by the power of a child wishing. But you don't see Ted as a bear. You see him as a person, John's friend. So that's why John is conflicted. Because Ted isn't his teddy bear- he's his friend. And I also like the fact that Lori isn't being a bitch about this. She's doing this because she thinks what it's best for John. She doesn't hate Ted, but thinks that they both need to grow up and that being apart may help them. That's how I interpreted it. The fact that Seth MacFarlane and his writing team were able to add so much depth and character to a stuffed toy as much as their human characters shows their talent.
The film's acting was very good. I thought Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis are great leads and have great comic and dramatic timing. John McHale plays Lori's jackass boss, Rex. I hated the character, but McHale nailed it. Giovanni Ribsi is Donny, a man who is obsessed with Ted. There are several additional supporting characters, but their screen time is limited so I don't think it's worth critiquing all of them. Nonetheless, the cast is stellar and work well together. But the star of the movie is Ted, played and voiced by Seth MacFarlane. Seth's energy is timeless and you can tell that the actors fed off him well.
The film's humour is very much Seth MacFarlane. Anyone who watches Family Guy, American Dad or The Cleveland Show will see it. The jokes and gags are very much incorporated with pop culture, celebrities, drugs and alcohol, sex etc. Some will see the humour as either racist, sexist or homophobic. My feeling about it is that there are many films and television shows that do that, but Seth MacFarlane is a little more direct compared to others who do try to censor themselves. MacFarlane doesn't shy away.
I was genuinely surprised that the film doesn't run out of steam. It doesn't get boring or feel like they're dragging on. The scenes mesh together convincingly and smoothly. There were times when the film was predictable, but there were some plot points that I hadn't expected and made the film that much better and funnier.
Now as much as I enjoyed the film, this isn't for everyone. The story itself isn't entirely believable. You have to have the mindset that this story isn't set in reality. But the humour is what will probably turn away viewers. The humour is direct and raunchy. I mentioned earlier that some will perceive it as either homophobic, racist or sexist, but this is how Seth MacFarlane works.
It's difficult to review this movie without spoiling it. I found Ted to be absolutely hilarious and commend Seth MacFarlane on his directorial debut. He did a fantastic job, as a director, writer and actor. One of the best comedies of 2012 and for me, one of the more memorable.
Rating: 4.5/5
Wednesday 18 July 2012
Brave (2012)
Plot
Merida, a young princess and talented archer, is determined to change her fate. She doesn't want to obey the traditions of the kingdom and marry young. She wants her freedom and make her own path. So when she finds a witch in the forest, she gets the witch to give her a spell to change her fate. But the outcome leaves Merida's family cursed. She must now break the curse and restore peace in the kingdom before it's too late.
Review
I had high expectations when I heard about this movie. It's Pixar and almost all of their films (except for Cars 2) were up to pare and brilliantly animated films to entertain adults and their kids. And Brave is no exception.
I really liked the film's story. This is Pixar's first fairy tale and to me the film had a darker and more mature tone compared to their other films like Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, The Incredibles or WALL-E. I actually really liked this change. The reason is because original fairy tales were much darker and were violent.
Brave is set in the 10th century Scotland and what I especially liked about the film's setting is that it seems fitting with the fairy tale element and old folk legends. If the movie was set in modern time, I'd have difficulty accepting the fairy tale aspect of the film. But because it's set in the Middle Ages of Scotland, I think it fits well.
Some may say that they were disappointed that Merida was unable to change her fate with magic. But I'm actually happy she didn't change her faith magically. The reason is because it shows us that only we are able to change our fates. No one else can do it for us except ourselves and those who want to help us better our lives and live happily.
Merida is the first female protagonist in a Pixar film. I don't understand why it took them so long, but in the end it was worth the wait. Merida is a fascinating character. She's an anti version of the typical princess. She knows what she wants out of her life: she wants to make her own path and not have it be made for her. She makes this clear. She doesn't shy away from letting her opinion of things be known. So I appreciate the fact that Pixar decided to avoid their first female protagonist being the typical princess.
In many ways, the relationship between Merida and her mother (which is a pivotal part of the film's plot) reminded me of Finding Nemo. Finding Nemo was about the relationship between father and son. A relationship that was strained and how the relationship eventually mends when they're separated. In Brave, it's about the relationship between Merida and her mother, a relationship that is strained but is mended when they're separated. In this case, it's separated when the mother is transformed into a bear by the curse.
I liked the film's humour. But that being said, I think the humour ended up being more orientated towards the kids. The triplets and their pranks are gonna be entertaining for the kids and maybe even the parents. But for the most part, I think that although parents will enjoy it, they won't find it as funny than the previous Pixar films. My theory is that the filmmakers aimed the humour specifically more towards the children because of the film's darker story so it would lighten the movie up for them.
The animation is flawless. The setting of Scotland is beautiful. I'm not a fan of 3D but they made it work. I think they could've included more 3D sequences, but besides that, it's still well done.
Brave is a highly entertaining and fun film that will be a pleasure for the entire family.
Rating: 4.5/5
Merida, a young princess and talented archer, is determined to change her fate. She doesn't want to obey the traditions of the kingdom and marry young. She wants her freedom and make her own path. So when she finds a witch in the forest, she gets the witch to give her a spell to change her fate. But the outcome leaves Merida's family cursed. She must now break the curse and restore peace in the kingdom before it's too late.
Review
I had high expectations when I heard about this movie. It's Pixar and almost all of their films (except for Cars 2) were up to pare and brilliantly animated films to entertain adults and their kids. And Brave is no exception.
I really liked the film's story. This is Pixar's first fairy tale and to me the film had a darker and more mature tone compared to their other films like Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, The Incredibles or WALL-E. I actually really liked this change. The reason is because original fairy tales were much darker and were violent.
Brave is set in the 10th century Scotland and what I especially liked about the film's setting is that it seems fitting with the fairy tale element and old folk legends. If the movie was set in modern time, I'd have difficulty accepting the fairy tale aspect of the film. But because it's set in the Middle Ages of Scotland, I think it fits well.
Some may say that they were disappointed that Merida was unable to change her fate with magic. But I'm actually happy she didn't change her faith magically. The reason is because it shows us that only we are able to change our fates. No one else can do it for us except ourselves and those who want to help us better our lives and live happily.
Merida is the first female protagonist in a Pixar film. I don't understand why it took them so long, but in the end it was worth the wait. Merida is a fascinating character. She's an anti version of the typical princess. She knows what she wants out of her life: she wants to make her own path and not have it be made for her. She makes this clear. She doesn't shy away from letting her opinion of things be known. So I appreciate the fact that Pixar decided to avoid their first female protagonist being the typical princess.
In many ways, the relationship between Merida and her mother (which is a pivotal part of the film's plot) reminded me of Finding Nemo. Finding Nemo was about the relationship between father and son. A relationship that was strained and how the relationship eventually mends when they're separated. In Brave, it's about the relationship between Merida and her mother, a relationship that is strained but is mended when they're separated. In this case, it's separated when the mother is transformed into a bear by the curse.
I liked the film's humour. But that being said, I think the humour ended up being more orientated towards the kids. The triplets and their pranks are gonna be entertaining for the kids and maybe even the parents. But for the most part, I think that although parents will enjoy it, they won't find it as funny than the previous Pixar films. My theory is that the filmmakers aimed the humour specifically more towards the children because of the film's darker story so it would lighten the movie up for them.
The animation is flawless. The setting of Scotland is beautiful. I'm not a fan of 3D but they made it work. I think they could've included more 3D sequences, but besides that, it's still well done.
Brave is a highly entertaining and fun film that will be a pleasure for the entire family.
Rating: 4.5/5
Wednesday 4 July 2012
TV: True Blood
Again, this post is entirely my own opinion. It's a summary of the show and why I think you should watch it, or at least consider it.
I started watching this a few years ago. I was babysitting for someone, it was 1 o'clock in the morning and I had watched everything on TV already. They had HBO and I saw that True Blood was airing. I figured why not and clicked. It was the second season finale. I was fascinated by the show. I didn't know about the characters or the story so I was confused, but I was drawn in. So then I started watching from the first season. And I have to say that I wasn't expecting any of it.
The series initial core plot with vampires and humans co-existing was appealing to me. I've watched vampire movies and shows and read a lot of vampire literature. And most of the time, the vampires are portrayed as being feared by humans. So the idea of supernatural creatures and mortals co-habiting. The show is currently airing it's fifth season so in addition to vampires, the show have explored stories with shapeshifters, werewolves, fairies and witches. I like the way these supernatural beings that have been written to death are written. There's nothing completely new, but there are certain details added that make these old beings fresh. Even the way vampires are written in this show avoid certain cliches. They can see their reflections, garlic doesn't do much, silver hurts them, they can enter church and drink synthetic blood in order to survive and avoid feeding from humans. The vampires in True Blood are fighting for their rights, like African-Americans and gays in America had and have to fight for their civil rights.
The strange thing about True Blood is that they have their ups and downs with their episodes and seasons. One week it's great, the next it's not so good and the next they're back up. For me personally, the same applies for their seasons. The first two seasons as a whole were brilliant, the third went downhill, the fourth was an improvement from the fourth and now with their fifth, they're in the middle, with some good and not so good stories. Despite these mishaps, one thing that I believe is that True Blood always keeps you entertained and enthralled. True Blood isn't one of those shows that you can watch every now and then. You have to watch every episode, or at least catch up on the plots and characters, in order to keep track. Because episodes pick up where the previous episode left, so if you missed an episode or two before, you may be confused.
I have mixed feelings about the show's characters. The characters are usually good, but there are times where I can't stand them. Sookie is the show's main character and there are times I like her and times I wish she was gone. I don't think that's a good thing to say about the main character. Bill, Tara, Eric, Pam, Lafayette and many of the other characters I feel the same way. But maybe this is a good thing because it shows us that these characters are flawed and you're not always going to root for them.
I will praise the writers for making the characters distinct and giving them their own stories. The supporting characters aren't always the plot points for the stories for the lead characters. They have their own stories and lives separately and it allows us to embrace them.
Despite my mixed feelings about the characters, the acting is fantastic. The show has a fairly large cast. Anna Paquin, an Oscar winning actress, is very good as Sookie. She's sometimes wooden, but I think that that's how the character is. Stephen Moyer plays Bill and I think he's wonderful. He and Anna Paquin (who are married in real life) have great chemistry together. Alexander Skarsgard is Eric and I think he's a talented actor and has chemistry with Anna Paquin. Rutina Wesley is Tara, Sookie's best friend. Despite the fact that Tara gets on my nerves mostly, Wesley is a talented actress that makes the material work. Sam Trammell is Sam, Sookie's boss and I think he's good. He has a spark with Paquin and I wish they could've gotten them together or at least have a fling. Ryan Kwanten is Jason, Sookie's brother. Jason is probably one of the stupidest characters to grace our television screens, yet Kwanten makes it work. Nelsan Ellis plays Lafayette, Tara's cousin. I think Ellis is fantastic and Lafayette to me is the show's breakout character. He's hilarious yet Ellis also has a good dramatic balance and is able to pull off both comedy and drama. Carrie Preston is Arlene, Sookie's friend and I like Arlene (one of my favourite characters) and I think she's underused and could be given better stories. Chris Bauer is Andy, the local sheriff. I haven't always liked Andy, but Bauer makes the character work and plays the character's smugness and arrogance well. Jim Parrack is Hoyt, Jason's best friend. I like the character and think he could be used more. Todd Lowe is Terry, Arlene's partner and I think he's a good character but I wish they could use him in a better story. Deborah Ann Woll is Jessica, a girl that Bill turns into a vampire. Jessica is another of my favourite characters and I think she's really underused. Kristin Bauer van Straten is Pam, the vampire that Eric made. I think she's a highly entertaining character and is always fun to watch. Joe Manganiello is Alcide, a werewolf, who was introduced in season 3. I think he's a good addition and he's actually a talented actor. Lauren Bowles plays Holly, a witch introduced in season 3. I'm not a big fan of the character, but Bowles is good. I praise the entire cast for making over the top material well.
The show is incredibly violent. HBO is cable, so they get away with much more than network shows. The show has bodies exploding into blood and guts, faces being peeled off, violent murders, hearts being cut out and those are just a few examples I can think of. So if you don't like blood, you may not want to watch.
In addition to the violence, the show has a lot of sex. It's basically porn. This show really is for a mature audience. In my opinion, no kid under sixteen should be watching this. I think they'd be surprised and not in an entirely good way.
Why should you consider watching this? For me, it's unlike recent vampire shows I've seen. We have a suspenseful and thrilling series that feels like a long movie. The episodes follow one another in terms of story. There's no distracting, it's chronological. The visual and attention to detail really makes you feel like you're watching a really long movie. A really long film filled with distinct characters, slightly melodramatic plots and good special effects.
Of course this isn't everyone's cup of tea. For me, I think True Blood is one of those shows you'll either love, hate or love/hate. What I mean by love/hate is that you love and hate certain characters and plots. So you have a balance between the two.
There it is. To me, True Blood is a thrilling, different, entertaining and sexy show.
I started watching this a few years ago. I was babysitting for someone, it was 1 o'clock in the morning and I had watched everything on TV already. They had HBO and I saw that True Blood was airing. I figured why not and clicked. It was the second season finale. I was fascinated by the show. I didn't know about the characters or the story so I was confused, but I was drawn in. So then I started watching from the first season. And I have to say that I wasn't expecting any of it.
The series initial core plot with vampires and humans co-existing was appealing to me. I've watched vampire movies and shows and read a lot of vampire literature. And most of the time, the vampires are portrayed as being feared by humans. So the idea of supernatural creatures and mortals co-habiting. The show is currently airing it's fifth season so in addition to vampires, the show have explored stories with shapeshifters, werewolves, fairies and witches. I like the way these supernatural beings that have been written to death are written. There's nothing completely new, but there are certain details added that make these old beings fresh. Even the way vampires are written in this show avoid certain cliches. They can see their reflections, garlic doesn't do much, silver hurts them, they can enter church and drink synthetic blood in order to survive and avoid feeding from humans. The vampires in True Blood are fighting for their rights, like African-Americans and gays in America had and have to fight for their civil rights.
The strange thing about True Blood is that they have their ups and downs with their episodes and seasons. One week it's great, the next it's not so good and the next they're back up. For me personally, the same applies for their seasons. The first two seasons as a whole were brilliant, the third went downhill, the fourth was an improvement from the fourth and now with their fifth, they're in the middle, with some good and not so good stories. Despite these mishaps, one thing that I believe is that True Blood always keeps you entertained and enthralled. True Blood isn't one of those shows that you can watch every now and then. You have to watch every episode, or at least catch up on the plots and characters, in order to keep track. Because episodes pick up where the previous episode left, so if you missed an episode or two before, you may be confused.
I have mixed feelings about the show's characters. The characters are usually good, but there are times where I can't stand them. Sookie is the show's main character and there are times I like her and times I wish she was gone. I don't think that's a good thing to say about the main character. Bill, Tara, Eric, Pam, Lafayette and many of the other characters I feel the same way. But maybe this is a good thing because it shows us that these characters are flawed and you're not always going to root for them.
I will praise the writers for making the characters distinct and giving them their own stories. The supporting characters aren't always the plot points for the stories for the lead characters. They have their own stories and lives separately and it allows us to embrace them.
Despite my mixed feelings about the characters, the acting is fantastic. The show has a fairly large cast. Anna Paquin, an Oscar winning actress, is very good as Sookie. She's sometimes wooden, but I think that that's how the character is. Stephen Moyer plays Bill and I think he's wonderful. He and Anna Paquin (who are married in real life) have great chemistry together. Alexander Skarsgard is Eric and I think he's a talented actor and has chemistry with Anna Paquin. Rutina Wesley is Tara, Sookie's best friend. Despite the fact that Tara gets on my nerves mostly, Wesley is a talented actress that makes the material work. Sam Trammell is Sam, Sookie's boss and I think he's good. He has a spark with Paquin and I wish they could've gotten them together or at least have a fling. Ryan Kwanten is Jason, Sookie's brother. Jason is probably one of the stupidest characters to grace our television screens, yet Kwanten makes it work. Nelsan Ellis plays Lafayette, Tara's cousin. I think Ellis is fantastic and Lafayette to me is the show's breakout character. He's hilarious yet Ellis also has a good dramatic balance and is able to pull off both comedy and drama. Carrie Preston is Arlene, Sookie's friend and I like Arlene (one of my favourite characters) and I think she's underused and could be given better stories. Chris Bauer is Andy, the local sheriff. I haven't always liked Andy, but Bauer makes the character work and plays the character's smugness and arrogance well. Jim Parrack is Hoyt, Jason's best friend. I like the character and think he could be used more. Todd Lowe is Terry, Arlene's partner and I think he's a good character but I wish they could use him in a better story. Deborah Ann Woll is Jessica, a girl that Bill turns into a vampire. Jessica is another of my favourite characters and I think she's really underused. Kristin Bauer van Straten is Pam, the vampire that Eric made. I think she's a highly entertaining character and is always fun to watch. Joe Manganiello is Alcide, a werewolf, who was introduced in season 3. I think he's a good addition and he's actually a talented actor. Lauren Bowles plays Holly, a witch introduced in season 3. I'm not a big fan of the character, but Bowles is good. I praise the entire cast for making over the top material well.
The show is incredibly violent. HBO is cable, so they get away with much more than network shows. The show has bodies exploding into blood and guts, faces being peeled off, violent murders, hearts being cut out and those are just a few examples I can think of. So if you don't like blood, you may not want to watch.
In addition to the violence, the show has a lot of sex. It's basically porn. This show really is for a mature audience. In my opinion, no kid under sixteen should be watching this. I think they'd be surprised and not in an entirely good way.
Why should you consider watching this? For me, it's unlike recent vampire shows I've seen. We have a suspenseful and thrilling series that feels like a long movie. The episodes follow one another in terms of story. There's no distracting, it's chronological. The visual and attention to detail really makes you feel like you're watching a really long movie. A really long film filled with distinct characters, slightly melodramatic plots and good special effects.
Of course this isn't everyone's cup of tea. For me, I think True Blood is one of those shows you'll either love, hate or love/hate. What I mean by love/hate is that you love and hate certain characters and plots. So you have a balance between the two.
There it is. To me, True Blood is a thrilling, different, entertaining and sexy show.
Tuesday 3 July 2012
The Problem with Today's Horrors Films
I'm going to start this post by writing that this is completely my own personal opinion. You probably don't share it or agree with my views, so this is just a warning that you may not like what you read. Now let's get down to business.
I love horror films. Oddly, I'm someone that can scare easily. I'm not a fan of gore and blood. I cringe at certain scenarios in horror or thriller films. Yet I love watching scary movies and horror-orientated television shows. It's strange and I can't find a logical explanation for it.
Whenever I watch a horror film, most of the time, I'm watching an old one. By old, I mean one that was released in the 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s. Why do I watch old ones? Because of the quality of today's horror films aren't up to their standards. When I look back at horror films released in the last ten years or so, I honestly think of only a handful that reach the standard of classic horror.
Whenever I see a horror film, it's as if the filmmakers are trying too hard. Almost every horror movie I've seen that has been released in the last few years is filled with gore and shock scares. It doesn't work. It's just annoying. Most of the time, there's no proper character development and/or plots. For me, that's what makes a horror movie work.
I think a part of that is because of the Saw movies. The first one came out in 2004 and they've exploded onto the movie scene since then. The Hostel films soon followed. The torture porn films are too much. In Scream 4, they poked fun at this when one character said that she likes the Saw movies because Jigsaw kills people very creatively. And the other character's response is that you don't give a shit who dies because there's no proper character development. I completely agree with this. I think filmmakers are now trying to scare audiences with the visuals instead of scaring them with the actual story and what happens to these characters.
The Exorcist, the film that's considered the scariest and one of the best horror films ever made by many critics, is an example of a horror movie that used plot and characters to frighten the audience. The Exorcist, while visually frightening with their special effects and makeup, also concentrated on character and plot. We had a concerned and frightened mother, a priest questioning his faith and Regan undergoing tests and the aftermath of being exorcized. These are just some examples of how just watching what you're character is going through emotionally and psychologically adds to the scares. Again, this is just my point of view. I think The Exorcist is a perfect example of a film that used character, plot and visuals to scare the audience.
Another thing that really cranks my gears are the remakes of classic horror movies. Psycho, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, House of Wax, Halloween are some of the classics that were remade and not so well I might add. Whenever I hear a cult favourite is going to be remade, I honestly wonder if writers can't come up with anything original and exciting, so they desperately go through the films that people know and love and decide to up do the original. Most reviews I've read of the remakes of Psycho, Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween pretty say the same thing "you can't beat the original". There are some movies that shouldn't be remade and Psycho, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween are some of those movies. It's been announced a remake of the 1976 horror classic Carrie (based on the novel by Stephen King) is to be remade. I think I know what'll happen, but we just have to wait and see.
For several years, there was an obsession with remaking movies from Japan. It started off with The Ring, released in 2002. The Grudge, Dark Water, Pulse and several others soon followed. Most of them are decent but I personally believe The Ring is still the better Japanese remake.
Another aspect of current horror movies I hate is the repetitiveness of stories in current releases. Here are a few examples.
Demonic possession has been a popular trend and the majority of them fail. Almost every year, a new movie about people being possessed is released. And it's pretty much the same story like the other one. Some of them worked and some of them didn't.
This is just a small detail, but another thing that drives me is when horror movies label it "based on true events". I don't know if they think it will add a sense of fear in the audience to make them think everything actually happened or if they think their audience is just really naive. Whenever I read "based on true events" or "inspired by a true story", I always think yeah right. And of course when you google it, there's no response.
Another repetitive pattern is the mockumentary genre. The Blair Witch Project used it in 1999 and quite well I might add. It was a scary movie and actually had people believing it was real. Now, they use it too much. They used it with The Last Exorcism, the Paranormal Activity movies and The Devil Inside to name a few. For some it worked and some it just failed miserably. And the fact that the mockumentary films come out every year just makes it more annoying to me.
When I look at these three specific examples, they didn't recur as much compared to films released in the 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s. I will say there were some horror films that were inspired by actual events, but now every year there's at least one scary movie with the tagline "inspired by actual events". It's getting old.
My rant is over. This is just the perspective of someone who is a fan of the genre and thinks that it's really gone downhill in the last several years.
I love horror films. Oddly, I'm someone that can scare easily. I'm not a fan of gore and blood. I cringe at certain scenarios in horror or thriller films. Yet I love watching scary movies and horror-orientated television shows. It's strange and I can't find a logical explanation for it.
Whenever I watch a horror film, most of the time, I'm watching an old one. By old, I mean one that was released in the 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s. Why do I watch old ones? Because of the quality of today's horror films aren't up to their standards. When I look back at horror films released in the last ten years or so, I honestly think of only a handful that reach the standard of classic horror.
Whenever I see a horror film, it's as if the filmmakers are trying too hard. Almost every horror movie I've seen that has been released in the last few years is filled with gore and shock scares. It doesn't work. It's just annoying. Most of the time, there's no proper character development and/or plots. For me, that's what makes a horror movie work.
I think a part of that is because of the Saw movies. The first one came out in 2004 and they've exploded onto the movie scene since then. The Hostel films soon followed. The torture porn films are too much. In Scream 4, they poked fun at this when one character said that she likes the Saw movies because Jigsaw kills people very creatively. And the other character's response is that you don't give a shit who dies because there's no proper character development. I completely agree with this. I think filmmakers are now trying to scare audiences with the visuals instead of scaring them with the actual story and what happens to these characters.
The Exorcist, the film that's considered the scariest and one of the best horror films ever made by many critics, is an example of a horror movie that used plot and characters to frighten the audience. The Exorcist, while visually frightening with their special effects and makeup, also concentrated on character and plot. We had a concerned and frightened mother, a priest questioning his faith and Regan undergoing tests and the aftermath of being exorcized. These are just some examples of how just watching what you're character is going through emotionally and psychologically adds to the scares. Again, this is just my point of view. I think The Exorcist is a perfect example of a film that used character, plot and visuals to scare the audience.
Another thing that really cranks my gears are the remakes of classic horror movies. Psycho, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, House of Wax, Halloween are some of the classics that were remade and not so well I might add. Whenever I hear a cult favourite is going to be remade, I honestly wonder if writers can't come up with anything original and exciting, so they desperately go through the films that people know and love and decide to up do the original. Most reviews I've read of the remakes of Psycho, Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween pretty say the same thing "you can't beat the original". There are some movies that shouldn't be remade and Psycho, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween are some of those movies. It's been announced a remake of the 1976 horror classic Carrie (based on the novel by Stephen King) is to be remade. I think I know what'll happen, but we just have to wait and see.
For several years, there was an obsession with remaking movies from Japan. It started off with The Ring, released in 2002. The Grudge, Dark Water, Pulse and several others soon followed. Most of them are decent but I personally believe The Ring is still the better Japanese remake.
Another aspect of current horror movies I hate is the repetitiveness of stories in current releases. Here are a few examples.
Demonic possession has been a popular trend and the majority of them fail. Almost every year, a new movie about people being possessed is released. And it's pretty much the same story like the other one. Some of them worked and some of them didn't.
This is just a small detail, but another thing that drives me is when horror movies label it "based on true events". I don't know if they think it will add a sense of fear in the audience to make them think everything actually happened or if they think their audience is just really naive. Whenever I read "based on true events" or "inspired by a true story", I always think yeah right. And of course when you google it, there's no response.
Another repetitive pattern is the mockumentary genre. The Blair Witch Project used it in 1999 and quite well I might add. It was a scary movie and actually had people believing it was real. Now, they use it too much. They used it with The Last Exorcism, the Paranormal Activity movies and The Devil Inside to name a few. For some it worked and some it just failed miserably. And the fact that the mockumentary films come out every year just makes it more annoying to me.
When I look at these three specific examples, they didn't recur as much compared to films released in the 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s. I will say there were some horror films that were inspired by actual events, but now every year there's at least one scary movie with the tagline "inspired by actual events". It's getting old.
My rant is over. This is just the perspective of someone who is a fan of the genre and thinks that it's really gone downhill in the last several years.
Friday 29 June 2012
Old TV Worth Watching: Buffy the Vampire Slayer
I'm back into the old television shows. This show is really old. It first aired in 1997 and was canceled in 2003 after seven seasons.
I started watching this show when I was about eight or nine. And I think this show is one of the reasons for my obsession with the fantasy and horror genre. Some may get tired of a show after a certain amount of years. But I haven't gotten tired of Buffy yet. I still watch it to this day.
In my opinion, Buffy is one of the best shows to ever air on television. Many critics agree. It was on the list of Time Magazine's ALL-TIME 100 Shows. It was #41 on TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time. It was #2 on Empire's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time. These are just a few.
Here are just a few reasons why I think you should consider watching it:
1) The show's writing was genius. Joss Whedon is one of my favourite writers and writing inspirations. The first three seasons of the show were set in Sunnydale High, a high school built over the Hellmouth. High school is hell. That's what most of us say. But in Buffy, high school is literally hell. The show's writers wrote about real life issues and turn them into supernatural metaphors. For example, when Buffy and Angel have sex for the first time, he looses his soul. Joyce's strict new boyfriend turns out to be a heartless robot (literally). Tara, a lesbian, fears her nature is demonic (which is explored in two specific episodes).
Another aspect of the writing that I loved was the strong female characters. Buffy, Willow, Anya, Tara, Joyce (Buffy's mother) and even Dawn. I think Buffy set the standard for strong female characters on television. Women that were able to fend for themselves and not always needing a man to do their saving.
The show's dialogue was truly unique. The characters on the show would make up new words, change existing ones and turn around the common usage of certain words. The youthful lines remind me of Juno in certain ways. And even though it may sound silly, the writers managed to write incredibly funny lines but also move us with deep, touching dialogue.
2) Impeccable acting from the entire cast (Warning: This is an insanely long paragraph). Sarah Michelle Gellar is a great actress and she was beyond brilliant as Buffy throughout those seven seasons. Her ability to portray Buffy's wide range of emotions, from her fearlessness, determination, bravery but also her sensitivity and vulnerability. Nicholas Brendon was Xander, the goofy friend. Despite the character's goofiness, he also had great moments of maturity that made him leading man material. Alyson Hannigan was fantastic to watch. The character development and numerous changes for Willow throughout the seasons and watching her portray those changes effortlessly is fun and fascinating to watch. Anthony Stewart Head was wonderful as Giles. The father figure for everyone in the group, the adult who knows everything and knew how to handle everything until he knew he was no longer needed.
These characters are more supporting in my opinion. Charisma Carpenter was on Buffy for the first three seasons as Cordelia and I think she was very good. Cordelia wasn't always likable, but Carpenter managed to get us to draw sympathy for her (Cordelia). David Boreanaz was on the show for the first three seasons as Angel, Buffy's main love interest. I think he was great and able to portray the good and evil sides of Angel convincingly. Plus he and Sarah Michelle Gellar had intense chemistry together and worked wonderfully well together. Seth Green was Oz, Willow's love interest. I think he had great comedic and dramatic timing and had chemistry with Hannigan. James Marsters was Spike from seasons two to seven. He was the show's breakout character. Funny, scary and so much more, Marsters pulled it off beautifully. Marc Blucas was Riley, Buffy's later love interest in seasons four and five. I think he was decent in the role and had okay chemistry with Sarah Michelle Gellar. Emma Caulfield was Anya for four seasons. I loved the character. She was absolutely hilarious and provided light for dark episodes. Michelle Trachtenberg plays Dawn, Buffy's sister who's introduced in later seasons. I think she had a lot of dept and had good chemistry with all the cast members. I loved the character's obliviousness to certain situations because it really reminds us that she's a teenager. Amber Benson played Tara, Willow's love interest. I think Tara was a spectacular addition to the show. I think after a while she blended in with the group well and plus she had chemistry with Hannigan which really helped make their romance work. Another cast member worth mentioning is Kristine Sutherland, who played Joyce, Buffy and Dawn's mother. Sutherland portrayed the perfect motherly figure, always supporting and reassuring while keeping out of the supernatural world as much as possible. Joyce really was one of the few normal characters on the show and I was sadden to see her go.
3) Good stunts. Violence is one of the show's recurring elements so of course a lot of punches were thrown in during their seven years. But the fights were well choreographed. They even managed to be unique with where they fight. For example, we have fights in the playground where a swing is used a weapon in an episode.
4) Good visual effects. The show aired in the 90s so of course their special effects weren't as good as they are now. Vampires dusting, shapeshifting, vampires transforming into their true faces and much more. For the time it was, they made it work very well.
5) The show has a blend of horror, action, adventure, comedy, drama and romance. What more could you want?
I could go on and on but I'm going to stop myself because I've written down the big reasons why you should consider watching this iconic television series.
I started watching this show when I was about eight or nine. And I think this show is one of the reasons for my obsession with the fantasy and horror genre. Some may get tired of a show after a certain amount of years. But I haven't gotten tired of Buffy yet. I still watch it to this day.
In my opinion, Buffy is one of the best shows to ever air on television. Many critics agree. It was on the list of Time Magazine's ALL-TIME 100 Shows. It was #41 on TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time. It was #2 on Empire's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time. These are just a few.
Here are just a few reasons why I think you should consider watching it:
1) The show's writing was genius. Joss Whedon is one of my favourite writers and writing inspirations. The first three seasons of the show were set in Sunnydale High, a high school built over the Hellmouth. High school is hell. That's what most of us say. But in Buffy, high school is literally hell. The show's writers wrote about real life issues and turn them into supernatural metaphors. For example, when Buffy and Angel have sex for the first time, he looses his soul. Joyce's strict new boyfriend turns out to be a heartless robot (literally). Tara, a lesbian, fears her nature is demonic (which is explored in two specific episodes).
Another aspect of the writing that I loved was the strong female characters. Buffy, Willow, Anya, Tara, Joyce (Buffy's mother) and even Dawn. I think Buffy set the standard for strong female characters on television. Women that were able to fend for themselves and not always needing a man to do their saving.
The show's dialogue was truly unique. The characters on the show would make up new words, change existing ones and turn around the common usage of certain words. The youthful lines remind me of Juno in certain ways. And even though it may sound silly, the writers managed to write incredibly funny lines but also move us with deep, touching dialogue.
2) Impeccable acting from the entire cast (Warning: This is an insanely long paragraph). Sarah Michelle Gellar is a great actress and she was beyond brilliant as Buffy throughout those seven seasons. Her ability to portray Buffy's wide range of emotions, from her fearlessness, determination, bravery but also her sensitivity and vulnerability. Nicholas Brendon was Xander, the goofy friend. Despite the character's goofiness, he also had great moments of maturity that made him leading man material. Alyson Hannigan was fantastic to watch. The character development and numerous changes for Willow throughout the seasons and watching her portray those changes effortlessly is fun and fascinating to watch. Anthony Stewart Head was wonderful as Giles. The father figure for everyone in the group, the adult who knows everything and knew how to handle everything until he knew he was no longer needed.
These characters are more supporting in my opinion. Charisma Carpenter was on Buffy for the first three seasons as Cordelia and I think she was very good. Cordelia wasn't always likable, but Carpenter managed to get us to draw sympathy for her (Cordelia). David Boreanaz was on the show for the first three seasons as Angel, Buffy's main love interest. I think he was great and able to portray the good and evil sides of Angel convincingly. Plus he and Sarah Michelle Gellar had intense chemistry together and worked wonderfully well together. Seth Green was Oz, Willow's love interest. I think he had great comedic and dramatic timing and had chemistry with Hannigan. James Marsters was Spike from seasons two to seven. He was the show's breakout character. Funny, scary and so much more, Marsters pulled it off beautifully. Marc Blucas was Riley, Buffy's later love interest in seasons four and five. I think he was decent in the role and had okay chemistry with Sarah Michelle Gellar. Emma Caulfield was Anya for four seasons. I loved the character. She was absolutely hilarious and provided light for dark episodes. Michelle Trachtenberg plays Dawn, Buffy's sister who's introduced in later seasons. I think she had a lot of dept and had good chemistry with all the cast members. I loved the character's obliviousness to certain situations because it really reminds us that she's a teenager. Amber Benson played Tara, Willow's love interest. I think Tara was a spectacular addition to the show. I think after a while she blended in with the group well and plus she had chemistry with Hannigan which really helped make their romance work. Another cast member worth mentioning is Kristine Sutherland, who played Joyce, Buffy and Dawn's mother. Sutherland portrayed the perfect motherly figure, always supporting and reassuring while keeping out of the supernatural world as much as possible. Joyce really was one of the few normal characters on the show and I was sadden to see her go.
3) Good stunts. Violence is one of the show's recurring elements so of course a lot of punches were thrown in during their seven years. But the fights were well choreographed. They even managed to be unique with where they fight. For example, we have fights in the playground where a swing is used a weapon in an episode.
4) Good visual effects. The show aired in the 90s so of course their special effects weren't as good as they are now. Vampires dusting, shapeshifting, vampires transforming into their true faces and much more. For the time it was, they made it work very well.
5) The show has a blend of horror, action, adventure, comedy, drama and romance. What more could you want?
I could go on and on but I'm going to stop myself because I've written down the big reasons why you should consider watching this iconic television series.
Tuesday 26 June 2012
TV: Veronica Mars
Veronica Mars first aired in 2004 and was canceled in 2007 after three seasons. Most people reading this blog will probably wonder why I'm bothering to write about a show that first aired eight years ago and was canceled five years ago. The reason is simple: it's a fantastic show and probably one of the best teen dramas to grace television in the last decade.
The story is about Veronica Mars, a teenage girl who's life turned upside after the murder of her best friend, Lilly Kane. Veronica's father, Keith, who was sheriff at the time, believed Lilly's father Aaron was responsible. Most of the community turned against Keith and the same was for Veronica and her classmates. Keith opened his own detective agency and Veronica assists him, whilst going after cases on her own.
I loved the story construction for a season. Each season had a core mystery to solve. In season one, it was to find out who killed Lilly. In season two, it was to discover the cause of the bus crash and in season three, it was the campus rapist. And every episode, there's a new small mystery, with clues leading to help solve the core mystery. Veronica is connected to these core mysteries: she was Lilly's best friend, was supposed to be on the bus when it crashed and her roommate was assaulted by the campus rapist. So I like that the show actually gives motive for Veronica's determination to solve these cases. Most detective shows, the detective goes after the criminal for the sake of justice. But in Veronica Mars, the personal connection causes the motivation to bring justice, which makes it just as layered.
The show had a wide variety of supporting characters, but what was great is that they weren't plot points. They actually had their own stories and their own lives, which made them more multi-layered characters. In this kind of show, they could've easily only served when needed. But the writers decided to give these characters something else, thus making them more interesting to watch.
The entire cast was amazing. The show aired for three seasons and the cast had a large cast. So I'm going to give my thoughts on the core characters and that we're relevant to the show.
Kirsten Bell was phenomenal as Veronica. Her ability to portray Veronica's fearlessness, wit, cleverness, determination, courage and vulnerability was great to watch. I still think that she should've gotten high recognition at awards like the Emmys. She deserved it. In many ways, Veronica Mars reminds me of Buffy the Vampire Slayer- strong, determined portrayals of women. Enrico Colantoni played Keith, Veronica's father. He was fantastic. He and Kristen Bell had amazing chemistry together as father and daughter. Probably one of the best father-daughter duos I've seen on television. Percy Daggs III was Wallace, Veronica's best friend. Francis Capra played Weevil, the leader of the biker gang and Veronica's friend. I think they were both great on the show and slightly underused in certain plots throughout the show. Michael Muhney plays Don Lamb, the guy who replaces Keith as sheriff. I didn't like Don at all throughout the show but Muhney played the part convincingly well. Teddy Dunn played Duncan, Lilly's brother and Veronica's ex. I think Dunn played a complex Duncan very well. Jason Dohring played Logan, Duncan's best friend who eventually becomes Veronica's boyfriend. I think Dohring was fantastic and that he and Bell worked brilliantly together. I think that Bell had wonderful chemistry with both Dunn and Dohring and it made you root for both couples, although I think that one couple worked better than another.
The show's first two seasons were absolutely amazing. Fun, entertaining, suspenseful and thrilling. The third season was good, but fell slightly short. I think that in the third year, the show started loosing a sense of balance. Regular, well-loved characters were being written out and some characters were changed, in a way that made them less interesting. With some characters, like Logan, it was noticeable. Despite a slightly shifted last season, the show managed to do well.
Veronica Mars is forever in my top 10 of favourite shows and is in my opinion one of the best teen dramas to air the in last ten years.
The story is about Veronica Mars, a teenage girl who's life turned upside after the murder of her best friend, Lilly Kane. Veronica's father, Keith, who was sheriff at the time, believed Lilly's father Aaron was responsible. Most of the community turned against Keith and the same was for Veronica and her classmates. Keith opened his own detective agency and Veronica assists him, whilst going after cases on her own.
I loved the story construction for a season. Each season had a core mystery to solve. In season one, it was to find out who killed Lilly. In season two, it was to discover the cause of the bus crash and in season three, it was the campus rapist. And every episode, there's a new small mystery, with clues leading to help solve the core mystery. Veronica is connected to these core mysteries: she was Lilly's best friend, was supposed to be on the bus when it crashed and her roommate was assaulted by the campus rapist. So I like that the show actually gives motive for Veronica's determination to solve these cases. Most detective shows, the detective goes after the criminal for the sake of justice. But in Veronica Mars, the personal connection causes the motivation to bring justice, which makes it just as layered.
The show had a wide variety of supporting characters, but what was great is that they weren't plot points. They actually had their own stories and their own lives, which made them more multi-layered characters. In this kind of show, they could've easily only served when needed. But the writers decided to give these characters something else, thus making them more interesting to watch.
The entire cast was amazing. The show aired for three seasons and the cast had a large cast. So I'm going to give my thoughts on the core characters and that we're relevant to the show.
Kirsten Bell was phenomenal as Veronica. Her ability to portray Veronica's fearlessness, wit, cleverness, determination, courage and vulnerability was great to watch. I still think that she should've gotten high recognition at awards like the Emmys. She deserved it. In many ways, Veronica Mars reminds me of Buffy the Vampire Slayer- strong, determined portrayals of women. Enrico Colantoni played Keith, Veronica's father. He was fantastic. He and Kristen Bell had amazing chemistry together as father and daughter. Probably one of the best father-daughter duos I've seen on television. Percy Daggs III was Wallace, Veronica's best friend. Francis Capra played Weevil, the leader of the biker gang and Veronica's friend. I think they were both great on the show and slightly underused in certain plots throughout the show. Michael Muhney plays Don Lamb, the guy who replaces Keith as sheriff. I didn't like Don at all throughout the show but Muhney played the part convincingly well. Teddy Dunn played Duncan, Lilly's brother and Veronica's ex. I think Dunn played a complex Duncan very well. Jason Dohring played Logan, Duncan's best friend who eventually becomes Veronica's boyfriend. I think Dohring was fantastic and that he and Bell worked brilliantly together. I think that Bell had wonderful chemistry with both Dunn and Dohring and it made you root for both couples, although I think that one couple worked better than another.
The show's first two seasons were absolutely amazing. Fun, entertaining, suspenseful and thrilling. The third season was good, but fell slightly short. I think that in the third year, the show started loosing a sense of balance. Regular, well-loved characters were being written out and some characters were changed, in a way that made them less interesting. With some characters, like Logan, it was noticeable. Despite a slightly shifted last season, the show managed to do well.
Veronica Mars is forever in my top 10 of favourite shows and is in my opinion one of the best teen dramas to air the in last ten years.
Friday 22 June 2012
Karen Klein
Some of you readers may have heard about this story. Some of you may have not. I hadn't until today. When I heard this, I was so shocked and disgusted that I just had to vent. So I decided to vent through this blog and share my two cents on this story and how I feel about it with my readers.
With modern technology that we have, videos of everything and everyone are uploaded onto the internet every minute. On July 19th, a video called Making the Bus Monitor Cry was uploaded. The video has now been viewed over 4 million times on YouTube. I've only seen bits of it. I haven't been able to finish it. It's ten minutes long and I cannot bear to watch the entire thing because I'm so revolted by the behaviour of these kids.
Basically, Karen Klein is a 68-year-old woman who works as a bus monitor at a school in the States. In the video, we see several students in the seventh grade insulting and taunting her. We even hear someone say that she doesn't have a family because they all killed themselves. And the sad part is that Karen actually lost one of her sons to suicide several years ago. And they go on and on. Karen doesn't respond. She attempts to hold herself together but does break down in tears.
Now from articles I've read, Karen Klein will not be pressing charges against those who harassed her. She says she hopes parents will teach their children how to be more respectful towards others. This woman is a class act. She really is and the fact that she isn't pressing charges should show those who taunted her what kind of woman she is.
Some of the students and their parents apologized to her. One of the students was quoted as saying "I feel really bad about what I did". Another said "When I saw the video I was disgusted and could not believe I did that. I am sorry for being so mean and I will never treat anyone like this again". Now the thing is that I'm not entirely sure if these kids are being genuine. They know what they said. They're not naive to know what they said to her hurt her. I think that a big motivation for them apologizing was the outrage and the fact that they were caught bullying her. If someone hadn't recorded the incident and posted it online, I highly doubt they would've apologized to her. Either way, they wouldn't have apologized on their own volition.
I don't know how the kids will be punished but they need to be punished in whatever way possible. Suspension for a very long time is a must. If I was the principal, I wouldn't even want these kids in my school. If they can act that way towards an elderly woman, how will they act towards teachers or other students?
I don't know how the kids will be punished but they need to be punished in whatever way possible. Suspension for a very long time is a must. If I was the principal, I wouldn't even want these kids in my school. If they can act that way towards an elderly woman, how will they act towards teachers or other students?
A website has been launched to raise 5,000 dollars in order for Karen to go on vacation. The website has now raised over 400,000 dollars and there's still lots of time for donations. I think that that speaks the amount of support she's receiving and also the outrage at the treatment against her.
I'm nineteen years old and when I look at this story, it honestly makes me wonder about the kids today. When you hear kids talking like this and acting like this, you wonder what is wrong and what even provokes you to speak and act like that.
They say to respect your elders. Clearly these kids have no respect whatsoever in my opinion. If you talk like that to a figure of authority, in public, you really have very little respect. I look at this story and think that this woman is somebody's mother, somebody's grandmother. Would you want someone to speak to your grandmother or mother like that? I know that these kids wouldn't. So if you wouldn't want someone to speak to someone you love like that, then why would you do it?
Bullying is a topic we hear about everyday. I believe that we talk about it so much or hear about it so much in the media that it's kind of like an expectancy. We expect to hear something about bullying in the news or whatever kind of form of media. But this video puts in our face the cruelness of bullying.
I had to vent and get this off my chest because I honestly can't remember a story that affected me and shocked me to my core. This isn't the last we've heard of this story so we'll have to see how this turns out.
Monday 11 June 2012
BOOK REVIEW: Handle With Care by Jodi Picoult
Charlotte and Sean have two daughters, Amelia (Charlotte's daughter from a previous marriage that Sean adopted) and Willow. Willow suffers from type III OI, which is commonly known as brittle bone syndrome. Willow has broken hundreds of bones in her life and her parents are struggling to give her the best life possible. Charlotte learns that she can sue her OB/GYN in a wrongful birth lawsuit. Charlotte has to testify if she knew Willow would have OI before she (Willow was born), she would've terminated the pregnancy. The problem is is that Piper, Charlotte's best friend and Willow's godmother, was Charlotte's OB/GYN. As Charlotte faces outrage from the community, her family falls apart.
MY THOUGHTS
I've always been a fan of Jodi Picoult's work. Out of all of the novels I've read written by her, this is one of my favorites.
What I love about Jodi Picoult's novels is that they always leave us questioning what we would do in the characters situation. Through her writing, Picoult tackles social and political issues like savior siblings, wrongful birth, bullying, school shootings, organ donation, suicide, child abuse, gay parenting, LGBT rights and amongst others. She is one of these authors that can get people talking. I believe that Picoult tackles subjects that some of us are afraid to talk or write about because they're considered taboo. Their subjects that might make people uncomfortable and they'd prefer to leave it alone. I think a part of that theory is because everyone's opinion is different. She brings all of these different opinions and views through her characters. So it leaves us wondering what character we agree or disagree with and makes us wonder if we have the right view on whatever subject.
All the characters in Handle With Care are all so strong and distinct. Charlotte is for the lawsuit, Sean is against it, Willow is worried she isn't wanted by her parents, Amelia suffers through personal struggles as her family slowly and unintentionally ignores her, Piper wonders what she could've done differently. All of these characters are different, realistic points of view that some readers may or may not agree with. Some might agree with Charlotte, or with Sean or with Piper. We sympathize with Amelia and Willow. The characters allow us to see the different sides of this issue and Picoult writes so brilliantly we are able to sympathize with all of the characters at some point.
The wrongful birth lawsuit is the core subject of this novel, but I thoroughly enjoyed the subplots of the other characters like Amelia (Charlotte's teenage daughter), Marin (Charlotte's lawyer) and even with Charlotte and Sean themselves.
Amelia's personal struggles in this novel I thought were appropriate and also realistic in a sense. She's trying to find a way to cope with everything that's happened in her family. She's trying to find her place in a family that she's usually considered last because of Willow. And the trial is causing alienation with her friends. All of that causes her to crack and delve into dangerous behavior.
We also have the subplot with Charlotte's lawyer, Marin, who was adopted and is trying to find her biological mother. Marin's story resonates with Charlotte's very well. Almost eerily so. There are differences, but the similarities are very incredible. And I did like the turnout of her finding her biological mother because (1) it resonates with the wrongful birth lawsuit and the right to be born and (2) it avoids the cliche of a happy reunion. I think that this surprising turn gives Marin a clearer sense of what really matters. I honestly enjoyed Marin's story just as much as the main story of the lawsuit.
Sean and Charlotte's marriage is troubled and I like that we see the side of both them. We see through narrative the early stages of their relationship, their attempts to have a child and how their marriage turns sour. Like I said, we see both sides of the story and while they're different, they're similar in many ways because in the end they both want the same thing- what is best for their family.
We also have Piper and how her life is affected by this trial. We have her relationship with her husband and how her friendship with Charlotte has been affected. We also see their early friendship, how they were when Charlotte was pregnant with Willow and how their friendship is forever changed because of Charlotte's lawsuit. I will say that this subplot is very compelling and interesting to read. And it's because Piper isn't a bad person. She doesn't think she made a mistake and all she wants is her old life back.
The ending surprised me. I won't spoil it, but the very last pages really took me back because I wasn't expecting that kind of twist. I thought it worked, but that doesn't make it less shocking. It gives a sense of closure to the family and the other characters and everyone is at peace. It's a sad ending, but it some twisted way, it's a happy ending as well.
There are so many different stories in this that I believe that even you don't like a certain one, there are enough to satisfy any reader. You'll either be enjoying reading about the lawsuit unfolding and the consequences of it, Marin's search for her biological mother, Amelia's struggles, the history of the family told by different characters, the friendship between Piper and Charlotte and many more. It looks like there's a lot going on in Handle With Care based on what I'm writing. And there is. But it all blends together perfectly.
Handle With Care is an exciting and thrilling read that brings forth a subject of wrongful birth lawsuits, a subject that many people might not be entirely aware of. I rate it a 4.5 out of 5.
MY THOUGHTS
I've always been a fan of Jodi Picoult's work. Out of all of the novels I've read written by her, this is one of my favorites.
What I love about Jodi Picoult's novels is that they always leave us questioning what we would do in the characters situation. Through her writing, Picoult tackles social and political issues like savior siblings, wrongful birth, bullying, school shootings, organ donation, suicide, child abuse, gay parenting, LGBT rights and amongst others. She is one of these authors that can get people talking. I believe that Picoult tackles subjects that some of us are afraid to talk or write about because they're considered taboo. Their subjects that might make people uncomfortable and they'd prefer to leave it alone. I think a part of that theory is because everyone's opinion is different. She brings all of these different opinions and views through her characters. So it leaves us wondering what character we agree or disagree with and makes us wonder if we have the right view on whatever subject.
All the characters in Handle With Care are all so strong and distinct. Charlotte is for the lawsuit, Sean is against it, Willow is worried she isn't wanted by her parents, Amelia suffers through personal struggles as her family slowly and unintentionally ignores her, Piper wonders what she could've done differently. All of these characters are different, realistic points of view that some readers may or may not agree with. Some might agree with Charlotte, or with Sean or with Piper. We sympathize with Amelia and Willow. The characters allow us to see the different sides of this issue and Picoult writes so brilliantly we are able to sympathize with all of the characters at some point.
The wrongful birth lawsuit is the core subject of this novel, but I thoroughly enjoyed the subplots of the other characters like Amelia (Charlotte's teenage daughter), Marin (Charlotte's lawyer) and even with Charlotte and Sean themselves.
Amelia's personal struggles in this novel I thought were appropriate and also realistic in a sense. She's trying to find a way to cope with everything that's happened in her family. She's trying to find her place in a family that she's usually considered last because of Willow. And the trial is causing alienation with her friends. All of that causes her to crack and delve into dangerous behavior.
We also have the subplot with Charlotte's lawyer, Marin, who was adopted and is trying to find her biological mother. Marin's story resonates with Charlotte's very well. Almost eerily so. There are differences, but the similarities are very incredible. And I did like the turnout of her finding her biological mother because (1) it resonates with the wrongful birth lawsuit and the right to be born and (2) it avoids the cliche of a happy reunion. I think that this surprising turn gives Marin a clearer sense of what really matters. I honestly enjoyed Marin's story just as much as the main story of the lawsuit.
Sean and Charlotte's marriage is troubled and I like that we see the side of both them. We see through narrative the early stages of their relationship, their attempts to have a child and how their marriage turns sour. Like I said, we see both sides of the story and while they're different, they're similar in many ways because in the end they both want the same thing- what is best for their family.
We also have Piper and how her life is affected by this trial. We have her relationship with her husband and how her friendship with Charlotte has been affected. We also see their early friendship, how they were when Charlotte was pregnant with Willow and how their friendship is forever changed because of Charlotte's lawsuit. I will say that this subplot is very compelling and interesting to read. And it's because Piper isn't a bad person. She doesn't think she made a mistake and all she wants is her old life back.
The ending surprised me. I won't spoil it, but the very last pages really took me back because I wasn't expecting that kind of twist. I thought it worked, but that doesn't make it less shocking. It gives a sense of closure to the family and the other characters and everyone is at peace. It's a sad ending, but it some twisted way, it's a happy ending as well.
There are so many different stories in this that I believe that even you don't like a certain one, there are enough to satisfy any reader. You'll either be enjoying reading about the lawsuit unfolding and the consequences of it, Marin's search for her biological mother, Amelia's struggles, the history of the family told by different characters, the friendship between Piper and Charlotte and many more. It looks like there's a lot going on in Handle With Care based on what I'm writing. And there is. But it all blends together perfectly.
Handle With Care is an exciting and thrilling read that brings forth a subject of wrongful birth lawsuits, a subject that many people might not be entirely aware of. I rate it a 4.5 out of 5.
Monday 4 June 2012
TV shows you should consider watching: Once Upon a Time
I've decided to start a post series about TV series I've watched lately. I'm going to write about a few shows I've watched and that I think you should consider watching. Some of these shows are still on air and some of them have been canceled.
ONCE UPON A TIME (currently on air)
Once Upon a Time is my new favorite show. I'm obsessed with it and I stand by my belief that this is the new best show of the 2011-2012 season. I'm going to give you the briefest summary possible. The show focuses on the classic fairy tale characters we know and love, Snow White (Mary Margaret in the human world), Prince Charming (David in the human world), Rumpelstiltskin (Mr. Gold in the human world) and many others, who are cursed by the Evil Queen to live in the human world, in a fictional town called Storybrooke. Emma is a bounty hunter who is found by Henry, the son she gave up for adoption ten years ago, who tells her she's the daughter of Snow White and Prince Charming. He brings her to Storybrooke to break the curse and defeat the Evil Queen, who's his adoptive mother, Regina.
MY THOUGHTS
There are so many things that make this show fantastic.
One aspect of the show that I love and really appreciate is the writing for the female characters. In the classic fairy tales, Snow White and the other female characters are the damsel in distress, needing a man to save them. But in this show, the women are the ones saving the men. Granted, the men will still save the women on occasion, but they aren't always doing the saving. I love to see portrayals of strong, determined women. Also, these women are feminine, but they aren't girly and entirely passive. I love this twist. I think if the female characters were damsel in distresses, I'd be bored and annoyed at the disrespect. But I'm happy that these writers had the sense to make these female characters more modern.
What I like about the characters is that even though the characters in both worlds have the same names and appearance, they have different personalities. In the fairy tale world, Snow White is kick-ass while her Storybrooke identity Mary Margaret is passive and compassionate. Prince Charming is brave and stands by Snow White while David isn't that bright. He makes the wrong decisions and does what he thinks others will approve of.
The writing for this show is brilliant. In addition to the twists I mentioned, the show does a great job of keeping us guessing. There are characters who possibly know the truth about Storybrooke and it's inhabitants but we aren't entirely sure if it's true or not until several episodes in.
The acting in this is top notch. We have a good amount of leading and supporting actors so I'll just write my thoughts on the core characters.
Ginnifer Goodwin is fantastic as Snow White/Mary Margaret. Her capability to portray Mary Margaret's empathy and passiveness and Snow White's fearlessness and determination is outstanding. Joshua Dallas plays Prince Charming/David and I think he fits well in the role. He and Ginnifer Goodwin's chemistry is sizzling. Even if they aren't saying anything, a simple look and electricity sparks. Jennifer Morrison is Emma Swan. Like Ginnifer Goodwin, Morrison's ability to portray her character's determination, fearlessness, compassion and denial is outstanding. Jared S. Gilmore is Henry, Emma's son. He's actually a really good actor. It's great to see genuinely talented child actors. Lana Parrilla plays the Evil Queen/Regina. She's an incredible actress. There are times where I was actually feeling sympathetic towards Regina/Evil Queen and that's all because of Parrilla. Robert Carlyle is Rumpelstiltskin/Mr. Gold. For me, he is the show's breakout character. Carlyle is an extraordinary actor and he steals every scene he's in. Whether he's being good or evil, you're just with him in every scene and you'll even root for him. The supporting cast is just as talented.
The creators of Once Upon a Time wrote for Lost. I haven't watched Lost yet, but I know it had a reputation for dragging on with its stories and not answering questions. I will say that these writers have answered most of our questions in the first season, especially in the finale. What was great was that the first season finale just brought new ones that will keep us guessing until the second season premieres. It's frustrating, but it keeps us entertained and wanting more.
The one downside I can think of is that this show is the kind of program you have to watch every episode, or at least catch up because if you miss one episode, you'll be confused. I missed one episode and didn't think I had to catch up. That was a mistake because I was confused by a revealing plot point. If you plan to start watching the show starting in its second season, I'd say to watch the first season to avoid confusion. This isn't one of those shows that you can skip a season and catch up in the next.
Now this isn't everyone's cup of tea. Some might see this show as being only for women because it's a show about fairy tales. In the show, there's also a good amount of sword fights and violence, which might appeal to male viewers like myself. Granted, the show's not that violent because the show is sponsored by ABC Disney. The show is slightly dark but not as dark as it could be considering the story. I'm interested in fairy tales and fantasy so that's why the show appealed to me and still does.
Once Upon a Time is a highly entertaining and I think it's one of the best dramas on air right now. Full of twists and turns, adventure, action and romance.
ONCE UPON A TIME (currently on air)
Once Upon a Time is my new favorite show. I'm obsessed with it and I stand by my belief that this is the new best show of the 2011-2012 season. I'm going to give you the briefest summary possible. The show focuses on the classic fairy tale characters we know and love, Snow White (Mary Margaret in the human world), Prince Charming (David in the human world), Rumpelstiltskin (Mr. Gold in the human world) and many others, who are cursed by the Evil Queen to live in the human world, in a fictional town called Storybrooke. Emma is a bounty hunter who is found by Henry, the son she gave up for adoption ten years ago, who tells her she's the daughter of Snow White and Prince Charming. He brings her to Storybrooke to break the curse and defeat the Evil Queen, who's his adoptive mother, Regina.
MY THOUGHTS
There are so many things that make this show fantastic.
One aspect of the show that I love and really appreciate is the writing for the female characters. In the classic fairy tales, Snow White and the other female characters are the damsel in distress, needing a man to save them. But in this show, the women are the ones saving the men. Granted, the men will still save the women on occasion, but they aren't always doing the saving. I love to see portrayals of strong, determined women. Also, these women are feminine, but they aren't girly and entirely passive. I love this twist. I think if the female characters were damsel in distresses, I'd be bored and annoyed at the disrespect. But I'm happy that these writers had the sense to make these female characters more modern.
What I like about the characters is that even though the characters in both worlds have the same names and appearance, they have different personalities. In the fairy tale world, Snow White is kick-ass while her Storybrooke identity Mary Margaret is passive and compassionate. Prince Charming is brave and stands by Snow White while David isn't that bright. He makes the wrong decisions and does what he thinks others will approve of.
The writing for this show is brilliant. In addition to the twists I mentioned, the show does a great job of keeping us guessing. There are characters who possibly know the truth about Storybrooke and it's inhabitants but we aren't entirely sure if it's true or not until several episodes in.
The acting in this is top notch. We have a good amount of leading and supporting actors so I'll just write my thoughts on the core characters.
Ginnifer Goodwin is fantastic as Snow White/Mary Margaret. Her capability to portray Mary Margaret's empathy and passiveness and Snow White's fearlessness and determination is outstanding. Joshua Dallas plays Prince Charming/David and I think he fits well in the role. He and Ginnifer Goodwin's chemistry is sizzling. Even if they aren't saying anything, a simple look and electricity sparks. Jennifer Morrison is Emma Swan. Like Ginnifer Goodwin, Morrison's ability to portray her character's determination, fearlessness, compassion and denial is outstanding. Jared S. Gilmore is Henry, Emma's son. He's actually a really good actor. It's great to see genuinely talented child actors. Lana Parrilla plays the Evil Queen/Regina. She's an incredible actress. There are times where I was actually feeling sympathetic towards Regina/Evil Queen and that's all because of Parrilla. Robert Carlyle is Rumpelstiltskin/Mr. Gold. For me, he is the show's breakout character. Carlyle is an extraordinary actor and he steals every scene he's in. Whether he's being good or evil, you're just with him in every scene and you'll even root for him. The supporting cast is just as talented.
The creators of Once Upon a Time wrote for Lost. I haven't watched Lost yet, but I know it had a reputation for dragging on with its stories and not answering questions. I will say that these writers have answered most of our questions in the first season, especially in the finale. What was great was that the first season finale just brought new ones that will keep us guessing until the second season premieres. It's frustrating, but it keeps us entertained and wanting more.
The one downside I can think of is that this show is the kind of program you have to watch every episode, or at least catch up because if you miss one episode, you'll be confused. I missed one episode and didn't think I had to catch up. That was a mistake because I was confused by a revealing plot point. If you plan to start watching the show starting in its second season, I'd say to watch the first season to avoid confusion. This isn't one of those shows that you can skip a season and catch up in the next.
Now this isn't everyone's cup of tea. Some might see this show as being only for women because it's a show about fairy tales. In the show, there's also a good amount of sword fights and violence, which might appeal to male viewers like myself. Granted, the show's not that violent because the show is sponsored by ABC Disney. The show is slightly dark but not as dark as it could be considering the story. I'm interested in fairy tales and fantasy so that's why the show appealed to me and still does.
Once Upon a Time is a highly entertaining and I think it's one of the best dramas on air right now. Full of twists and turns, adventure, action and romance.
A New Direction
Anyone who knows me personally or had read this blog knows that I'm a movie fanatic.
When I first started blogging, I was doing it for the hell of it, not really expecting much out of it. But I was genuinely surprised at how much I have enjoyed it, writing out my thoughts on films I've seen. And I also enjoy the response I get from readers. All of it was exciting for me. When I was first starting, I was writing almost daily, sometimes I would post up to six posts in a single day. Then after a while, I started getting bored with it, which surprised me. I didn't expect to be bored with it. But then I realized that I just didn't want to write out my thoughts on just film because that's not my only interest. After writing over 115 posts in the past couple of months, I decided to take a new direction with this blog.
Film isn't my only interest. I'm very interested in literature and always enjoy a good book to get lost in. When it comes to television, I'm just as bad when it comes to film. I'm also fascinated by pop culture. Even though I'm not that political, sometimes certain news stories grab my attention.
I reread some of my old posts, including the little welcome post I wrote when I first started this blog. I wrote that I would probably review television shows I've seen or novels that I've read recently.
The new title of this blog is "My Thoughts on Movies and Other Stuff". I know it's a slightly cheesy title right now so if anyone has any suggestions, I'm all ears. For the time being, that's exactly what this blog is going to be. I'm going to be writing out my thoughts on not only films but television shows I've seen, novels I've read recently or just a news story that I find interest in. For the most part, it will still be in review/thought format, but it all depends on whatever I'm writing about.
And I want to say thanks to every person who has read this blog and continues to check in. I look at the page views and every time I do, I'm encouraged to see that people are actually reading most of my posts. It encourages me to continue posting. I'm currently editing some movie posts and writing some new posts that I'm looking forward to posting. I hope that you like this new direction and that you'll continue reading. Let me know what you think!
When I first started blogging, I was doing it for the hell of it, not really expecting much out of it. But I was genuinely surprised at how much I have enjoyed it, writing out my thoughts on films I've seen. And I also enjoy the response I get from readers. All of it was exciting for me. When I was first starting, I was writing almost daily, sometimes I would post up to six posts in a single day. Then after a while, I started getting bored with it, which surprised me. I didn't expect to be bored with it. But then I realized that I just didn't want to write out my thoughts on just film because that's not my only interest. After writing over 115 posts in the past couple of months, I decided to take a new direction with this blog.
Film isn't my only interest. I'm very interested in literature and always enjoy a good book to get lost in. When it comes to television, I'm just as bad when it comes to film. I'm also fascinated by pop culture. Even though I'm not that political, sometimes certain news stories grab my attention.
I reread some of my old posts, including the little welcome post I wrote when I first started this blog. I wrote that I would probably review television shows I've seen or novels that I've read recently.
The new title of this blog is "My Thoughts on Movies and Other Stuff". I know it's a slightly cheesy title right now so if anyone has any suggestions, I'm all ears. For the time being, that's exactly what this blog is going to be. I'm going to be writing out my thoughts on not only films but television shows I've seen, novels I've read recently or just a news story that I find interest in. For the most part, it will still be in review/thought format, but it all depends on whatever I'm writing about.
And I want to say thanks to every person who has read this blog and continues to check in. I look at the page views and every time I do, I'm encouraged to see that people are actually reading most of my posts. It encourages me to continue posting. I'm currently editing some movie posts and writing some new posts that I'm looking forward to posting. I hope that you like this new direction and that you'll continue reading. Let me know what you think!
Thursday 31 May 2012
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
Plot: In 19th century London, Benjamin Barker (Johnny Depp) was falsely banished by Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman), who lusted after his wife. Fifteen years later, Barker assumes the alias of Sweeney Todd and returns to London. He goes to the pie shop of Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), where he learns his wife killed herself after being raped by Turpin and that his daughter is now Turpin's ward and the object of his affection, which she doesn't want. Benjamin Barker, now Sweeney Todd, is determined to get revenge.
Review: I'm not a big fan of musicals. The only reason I wanted to watch this is because Tim Burton directed it. I was surprised at how fantastic this movie is.
The plot is very melodramatic and I absolutely love it. It's a fantastic story of revenge and love. When I watch this, I do feel like I'm watching a horror film version of Hamlet. Hamlet is a character obsessed with getting revenge, like Sweeney Todd is. His plans for revenge don't go as he intended, but unlike in Hamlet, it does work out in a twisted way for Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett. Until the end of the film that is.
The acting is outstanding. Johnny Depp is fantastic and I honestly think that this is one of his better performances. I don't know what Johnny's musical background is but he's actually a pretty decent singer. I didn't find him really mind-blowing but he's still good and holds his own. Helena Bonham Carter is also great in this. I think she and Johnny Depp had good chemistry between the two of them. Alan Rickman plays Judge Turpin, whom Sweeney Todd is going after for for revenge. I think he's brilliant in this role. Alan Rickman really is a great villain actor. Sacha Cohen Baron plays Adolfo Pirelli/Davy Collins, a barber who use to be Benjamin Barker's apprentice. I was surprised to see how good Baron is as a dramatic actor. We're so use to seeing him as Borat or anything else comedic, that it's very surprising to see how wide his acting range is. Jayne Wisener plays Johanna, Sweeney's daughter. I think she was very good in her role. Her vulnerability really shows on screen and I think she was a great asset. Ed Sanders plays Toby Ragg, an orphan that Mrs. Lovett hires and becomes deeply attached to her. I think he was phenomenal and he was a standout for me. The entire cast is amazingly talented and made this film work. Even though I love the plot, it's so over the top that it could've easily gone downhill. I think the cast helped the audience make sense of this crazy world.
Sweeney Todd is a musical so of course we have a wide variety of songs. I enjoyed most of them. My favourite was Worse Pies in London, sung by Helena Bonham Carter. I don't know why but I just found the song very entertaining and it's the more upbeat song that I can think of in the entire track. And it really gives us a good introduction of Helena Bonham Carter's character and a description of her struggles. I also believe Johnny Depp had a really good singing voice that fitted well for the role.
I liked the film's look. The makeup and costumes for all the characters is very much Tim Burton's style. Very dark, gothic and slightly depressing. The same goes for the setting of London in the nineteenth century. When you look at the film itself, you know that it's a Tim Burton movie.
Sweeney Todd kills his victims by slitting their throats. So of course this is a very bloody movie. I'm not a big fan of gore. I cringe at the sight of blood and gore in horror films, even though I love them. And I don't like gore because I think that filmmakers in general use it for the sake of it. They show gore because they want to, not because they have to for the story's sake. But in this case, I believe that the gore and blood was important and necessary to the story and the character of Sweeney Todd. The blood that shoots out of the victim's throat is showing us how mad Sweeney is and how determined is to get revenge for his life being destroyed, as well as the lives of his wife and now teenage daughter.
Sweeney Todd is a highly entertaining, fun and thrilling film that I think is one of Tim Burton's best films.
Rating: 4.5/5
Review: I'm not a big fan of musicals. The only reason I wanted to watch this is because Tim Burton directed it. I was surprised at how fantastic this movie is.
The plot is very melodramatic and I absolutely love it. It's a fantastic story of revenge and love. When I watch this, I do feel like I'm watching a horror film version of Hamlet. Hamlet is a character obsessed with getting revenge, like Sweeney Todd is. His plans for revenge don't go as he intended, but unlike in Hamlet, it does work out in a twisted way for Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett. Until the end of the film that is.
The acting is outstanding. Johnny Depp is fantastic and I honestly think that this is one of his better performances. I don't know what Johnny's musical background is but he's actually a pretty decent singer. I didn't find him really mind-blowing but he's still good and holds his own. Helena Bonham Carter is also great in this. I think she and Johnny Depp had good chemistry between the two of them. Alan Rickman plays Judge Turpin, whom Sweeney Todd is going after for for revenge. I think he's brilliant in this role. Alan Rickman really is a great villain actor. Sacha Cohen Baron plays Adolfo Pirelli/Davy Collins, a barber who use to be Benjamin Barker's apprentice. I was surprised to see how good Baron is as a dramatic actor. We're so use to seeing him as Borat or anything else comedic, that it's very surprising to see how wide his acting range is. Jayne Wisener plays Johanna, Sweeney's daughter. I think she was very good in her role. Her vulnerability really shows on screen and I think she was a great asset. Ed Sanders plays Toby Ragg, an orphan that Mrs. Lovett hires and becomes deeply attached to her. I think he was phenomenal and he was a standout for me. The entire cast is amazingly talented and made this film work. Even though I love the plot, it's so over the top that it could've easily gone downhill. I think the cast helped the audience make sense of this crazy world.
Sweeney Todd is a musical so of course we have a wide variety of songs. I enjoyed most of them. My favourite was Worse Pies in London, sung by Helena Bonham Carter. I don't know why but I just found the song very entertaining and it's the more upbeat song that I can think of in the entire track. And it really gives us a good introduction of Helena Bonham Carter's character and a description of her struggles. I also believe Johnny Depp had a really good singing voice that fitted well for the role.
I liked the film's look. The makeup and costumes for all the characters is very much Tim Burton's style. Very dark, gothic and slightly depressing. The same goes for the setting of London in the nineteenth century. When you look at the film itself, you know that it's a Tim Burton movie.
Sweeney Todd kills his victims by slitting their throats. So of course this is a very bloody movie. I'm not a big fan of gore. I cringe at the sight of blood and gore in horror films, even though I love them. And I don't like gore because I think that filmmakers in general use it for the sake of it. They show gore because they want to, not because they have to for the story's sake. But in this case, I believe that the gore and blood was important and necessary to the story and the character of Sweeney Todd. The blood that shoots out of the victim's throat is showing us how mad Sweeney is and how determined is to get revenge for his life being destroyed, as well as the lives of his wife and now teenage daughter.
Sweeney Todd is a highly entertaining, fun and thrilling film that I think is one of Tim Burton's best films.
Rating: 4.5/5
Sunday 20 May 2012
The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists (2012)
Plot: Pirate Captain is determined to win Pirate of the Year, in order to up his peers. He believes his opportunity has come when a young Charles Darwin persuades Pirate Captain to bring Polly, the parrot who is actually the last living dodo bird in a science competition where Charles Darwin hopes to be crowned Scientist of the Year. Pirate Captain looses his way as he tries to get to the top. Can he get out?
Review: This is a good, entertaining animated film.
I did like the story. I think that the story and characters appeal to both kids and adults. We have the setting of London in 1837, which some of the older viewers might enjoy seeing for it's accuracy or inaccuracy. We have fun characters that will lure in the kids and non-fictional characters that will lure in the adults.
I was actually surprised by the historical characters that were used in the film. In the film, we have a young Charles Darwin and Queen Victoria. For the kids that will be seeing this, they will more than likely have no idea who they are. But for the parents that are taking their kids to the movie, they will. The film is an adaptation from a series of books that I hadn't heard of, so I was genuinely surprised by the appearances of these two characters. Are they realistic portrayals of these historical figures. Of course not. But they're still entertaining to watch.
I felt that there wasn't an equal focus on all of the characters. Like Pirate Captain's crew. There's one pirate who's pretending to be a man. It's a good gag, but I wish we'd know more about this character and her motives about why she's pretending to be a guy. That annoyed me. The same thing goes for the other crew members. They all have good lines and provide good gags, yet we don't know about them as characters.
I liked the blend of humors in this. There's physical comedy, a couple of decent jokes for the parents, Charles' monkey with the caption cards and amongst others. So I did like the different types of humor. I also don't recall toilet humor, which I was relieved by because there are too many kids movies now that rely on farts in order to get a laugh. So I appreciate that the writers and everyone decided to take different comedy types and mix it all into one. And although they didn't always work, the ending result was good.
The animation is flawless like all of Aardman's films. Clay animation, as most of us know, is extremely time consuming and requires great attention to detail to make it work. These guys know what they're doing. It shows in every film. They made this film in 3D and sadly I was only able to see it in 2D.
So despite my praise for their work, there are times when the film is slightly boring, which is something I haven't said about a film from Aardman Studios to day. This is the studio that helped create the Wallace & Gromit films and Chicken Run, all funny and highly entertaining films. The plot is sometimes cliche and you can see the outcome coming and how everything will end. So I will say that maybe I had my expectations a little too high with this.
Whilst The Pirates! isn't Aardman's strongest film to date, it is still entertaining and good fun for the family.
Rating: 3/5
Review: This is a good, entertaining animated film.
I did like the story. I think that the story and characters appeal to both kids and adults. We have the setting of London in 1837, which some of the older viewers might enjoy seeing for it's accuracy or inaccuracy. We have fun characters that will lure in the kids and non-fictional characters that will lure in the adults.
I was actually surprised by the historical characters that were used in the film. In the film, we have a young Charles Darwin and Queen Victoria. For the kids that will be seeing this, they will more than likely have no idea who they are. But for the parents that are taking their kids to the movie, they will. The film is an adaptation from a series of books that I hadn't heard of, so I was genuinely surprised by the appearances of these two characters. Are they realistic portrayals of these historical figures. Of course not. But they're still entertaining to watch.
I felt that there wasn't an equal focus on all of the characters. Like Pirate Captain's crew. There's one pirate who's pretending to be a man. It's a good gag, but I wish we'd know more about this character and her motives about why she's pretending to be a guy. That annoyed me. The same thing goes for the other crew members. They all have good lines and provide good gags, yet we don't know about them as characters.
I liked the blend of humors in this. There's physical comedy, a couple of decent jokes for the parents, Charles' monkey with the caption cards and amongst others. So I did like the different types of humor. I also don't recall toilet humor, which I was relieved by because there are too many kids movies now that rely on farts in order to get a laugh. So I appreciate that the writers and everyone decided to take different comedy types and mix it all into one. And although they didn't always work, the ending result was good.
The animation is flawless like all of Aardman's films. Clay animation, as most of us know, is extremely time consuming and requires great attention to detail to make it work. These guys know what they're doing. It shows in every film. They made this film in 3D and sadly I was only able to see it in 2D.
So despite my praise for their work, there are times when the film is slightly boring, which is something I haven't said about a film from Aardman Studios to day. This is the studio that helped create the Wallace & Gromit films and Chicken Run, all funny and highly entertaining films. The plot is sometimes cliche and you can see the outcome coming and how everything will end. So I will say that maybe I had my expectations a little too high with this.
Whilst The Pirates! isn't Aardman's strongest film to date, it is still entertaining and good fun for the family.
Rating: 3/5
Monday 14 May 2012
True Grit (2010)
Plot: Rooster (Jeff Bridges), a tough U.S. Marshall, helps Mattie (Hailee Steinfeld) track down her father's murderer.
Review: I saw this around January 2011 in theatres. I honestly didn't know what to expect. It was cheap movie night so I figured why not go see something I hadn't heard of. And if it sucked, it wouldn't be a big waste of money. I was genuinely surprised at how fantastic this movie was. I'm not the biggest fan of Westerns, with a few exceptions, so it takes a lot to get me on board.
A wanted fugitive, a smart youngster, horses and of course guns being shot. That's what you'd expect out of a Western. And it's all in here. But there's so much more than that. What I see in this film is a story about justice and the serving of justice. But each character in the movie has a different sense of what justice is and how it should be served. What is the right and wrong thing to do? Is death the answer? I found the points of view interesting and they mesh together and make a compelling story.
An aspect of the film that shocked me most when I first saw it back in 2011 was how funny the movie is. It's not laugh out loud funny, but there are moments of good humor provided, especially by Jeff Bridges. The movie's tone is dark and suspenseful so it's good to laugh at certain points.
The acting is top notch. Jeff Bridges is of course fantastic as he usually is in his portrayal of Rooster. He is able to convincingly play a man who cares, although he doesn't allow it to be shown. He was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor last year and was completely deserving of it. Matt Damon plays LeBoeuf, a Texas ranger after Tom Chaney for the murder of a Texan senator. I think Matt Damon was a good choice and I found that his character is like a younger version of Rooster. Josh Brolin plays Tom Chanry, the man who murdered Mattie's father and the senator in Texas amongst others. I thought he was a convincing and menacing villain. Most villains have some sort of redeeming quality. This one had none that I could see. And I liked that because there are some characters that can't atone for their sins. I still believe that Josh Brolin and Matt Damon should have received Oscar nominations for their performances. Of course their chances of winning were slim, but they should have been recognized for their brilliant work.
But the real standout of the film is Hailee Steinfeld. She is phenomenal in her on-screen debut. Her character is determined, fearless and courageous and wise and mature beyond her years. And Steinfeld portrays that perfectly. Hailee Steinfeld was fourteen when she made this film and she's quite impressive. She was nominated for an Oscar in the Best Supporting Actress category. Although I'm happy she was recognized, she shouldn't have been nominated for Supporting Actress. She's on-screen more than Jeff Bridges, who was nominated for Best Actor. She should've been nominated for Best Actress. Nonetheless, her chances of winning were unfortunately slim in whatever category she got nominated in. Maybe it's her age. Either way, if she continues acting, I think she'll have a great career ahead of her.
Joel and Ethan Coen (who wrote, directed and produced this) are an awesome duo. Their ability to create moments of intensity, suspense and flat out humor in this Western is incredible. Each of them uses their own respective talent and use them to make an incredible film. True Grit received ten Oscar nominations last year (the second most nominated film) and didn't win any. I think it was one of the least talked about out of all the nominees. I do think if The King's Speech (2010) wouldn't have won, True Grit would've.
True Grit is an intense, suspenseful, entertaining and humorous film that you shouldn't cut yourself short of.
Rating: 5/5
Review: I saw this around January 2011 in theatres. I honestly didn't know what to expect. It was cheap movie night so I figured why not go see something I hadn't heard of. And if it sucked, it wouldn't be a big waste of money. I was genuinely surprised at how fantastic this movie was. I'm not the biggest fan of Westerns, with a few exceptions, so it takes a lot to get me on board.
A wanted fugitive, a smart youngster, horses and of course guns being shot. That's what you'd expect out of a Western. And it's all in here. But there's so much more than that. What I see in this film is a story about justice and the serving of justice. But each character in the movie has a different sense of what justice is and how it should be served. What is the right and wrong thing to do? Is death the answer? I found the points of view interesting and they mesh together and make a compelling story.
An aspect of the film that shocked me most when I first saw it back in 2011 was how funny the movie is. It's not laugh out loud funny, but there are moments of good humor provided, especially by Jeff Bridges. The movie's tone is dark and suspenseful so it's good to laugh at certain points.
The acting is top notch. Jeff Bridges is of course fantastic as he usually is in his portrayal of Rooster. He is able to convincingly play a man who cares, although he doesn't allow it to be shown. He was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor last year and was completely deserving of it. Matt Damon plays LeBoeuf, a Texas ranger after Tom Chaney for the murder of a Texan senator. I think Matt Damon was a good choice and I found that his character is like a younger version of Rooster. Josh Brolin plays Tom Chanry, the man who murdered Mattie's father and the senator in Texas amongst others. I thought he was a convincing and menacing villain. Most villains have some sort of redeeming quality. This one had none that I could see. And I liked that because there are some characters that can't atone for their sins. I still believe that Josh Brolin and Matt Damon should have received Oscar nominations for their performances. Of course their chances of winning were slim, but they should have been recognized for their brilliant work.
But the real standout of the film is Hailee Steinfeld. She is phenomenal in her on-screen debut. Her character is determined, fearless and courageous and wise and mature beyond her years. And Steinfeld portrays that perfectly. Hailee Steinfeld was fourteen when she made this film and she's quite impressive. She was nominated for an Oscar in the Best Supporting Actress category. Although I'm happy she was recognized, she shouldn't have been nominated for Supporting Actress. She's on-screen more than Jeff Bridges, who was nominated for Best Actor. She should've been nominated for Best Actress. Nonetheless, her chances of winning were unfortunately slim in whatever category she got nominated in. Maybe it's her age. Either way, if she continues acting, I think she'll have a great career ahead of her.
Joel and Ethan Coen (who wrote, directed and produced this) are an awesome duo. Their ability to create moments of intensity, suspense and flat out humor in this Western is incredible. Each of them uses their own respective talent and use them to make an incredible film. True Grit received ten Oscar nominations last year (the second most nominated film) and didn't win any. I think it was one of the least talked about out of all the nominees. I do think if The King's Speech (2010) wouldn't have won, True Grit would've.
True Grit is an intense, suspenseful, entertaining and humorous film that you shouldn't cut yourself short of.
Rating: 5/5
Thursday 10 May 2012
The Devil Inside (2012)
Plot: A young woman named Isabella becomes involved in a series of unauthorized exorcisms during her mission to discover what happened to her mother, who supposedly murdered three people during her own exorcism.
Review: I wasn't expecting much when I first saw this. When I saw the trailer when I went to go see Paranormal Activity 3 in theatres, I remember thinking: that movie will either do well or do incredibly bad. There's no in between. And I was happy that I wasn't expecting much because this was not good. The film was actually worse than I thought it would be. That's not good.
First of all, the film has no consistent plot. I liked the story idea I admit, but it didn't work. They kind of went along the same lines as the Paranormal Activity films and The Blair Witch Project. Shaky camera movements, documentary style etc. But the difference is that the Paranormal Activity films and The Blair Witch Project had some sort of consistency in the plot and characters.
We've seen exorcism done in horror films time and time again. I was actually liking the idea of secret exorcisms in Italy. I was also curious about what's really wrong with the mother because the way they advertised the movie, it was as if they were looking not only at the religion aspect, but the scientific aspect as well when it comes to people being supposedly possessed. I use that premise was explored more. But as usual, this film about exorcism followed the usual format and didn't really try anything different. We had floating people, body parts being contorted and everything else we've seen in other horror films, especially those that revolve around demonic possession.
The film's "acting" is decent at best, and I use the term loosely. Everyone in the cast is okay. The only standout for me was Suzan Crowley, who plays Isabella's mother, Maria. I thought she was convincingly creepy and eerie in her role.
The film's ending is what really made me crazy and not in a good way. There's no resolution at all. In the Paranormal Activity films, there's some sort of resolution. There not always great, but you know that something has happened. Like in Paranormal Activity 3, you know that those kids are doomed and that the husband is dead. We knew that even though it said the case was unsolved. It let us use our imaginations and imagine the worse case scenarios. In this, it just ends right then and there. It's like we're suppose to accept what supposedly happened and move on.
The entire film felt like they just shot a bunch of footage, put it together and hoped that it would work. But sadly it did not.
The Devil Inside is probably one of the worse horror movies I've seen in a long time and probably one of the worse films of 2012. Don't bother wasting your time with this. The only reason I'm giving the rating I'm giving is because of Suzan Crowley, who did give me the creeps when I watched this. And I feel that the rating I'm giving it is a little too high to be frank.
Rating: 1/5
Review: I wasn't expecting much when I first saw this. When I saw the trailer when I went to go see Paranormal Activity 3 in theatres, I remember thinking: that movie will either do well or do incredibly bad. There's no in between. And I was happy that I wasn't expecting much because this was not good. The film was actually worse than I thought it would be. That's not good.
First of all, the film has no consistent plot. I liked the story idea I admit, but it didn't work. They kind of went along the same lines as the Paranormal Activity films and The Blair Witch Project. Shaky camera movements, documentary style etc. But the difference is that the Paranormal Activity films and The Blair Witch Project had some sort of consistency in the plot and characters.
We've seen exorcism done in horror films time and time again. I was actually liking the idea of secret exorcisms in Italy. I was also curious about what's really wrong with the mother because the way they advertised the movie, it was as if they were looking not only at the religion aspect, but the scientific aspect as well when it comes to people being supposedly possessed. I use that premise was explored more. But as usual, this film about exorcism followed the usual format and didn't really try anything different. We had floating people, body parts being contorted and everything else we've seen in other horror films, especially those that revolve around demonic possession.
The film's "acting" is decent at best, and I use the term loosely. Everyone in the cast is okay. The only standout for me was Suzan Crowley, who plays Isabella's mother, Maria. I thought she was convincingly creepy and eerie in her role.
The film's ending is what really made me crazy and not in a good way. There's no resolution at all. In the Paranormal Activity films, there's some sort of resolution. There not always great, but you know that something has happened. Like in Paranormal Activity 3, you know that those kids are doomed and that the husband is dead. We knew that even though it said the case was unsolved. It let us use our imaginations and imagine the worse case scenarios. In this, it just ends right then and there. It's like we're suppose to accept what supposedly happened and move on.
The entire film felt like they just shot a bunch of footage, put it together and hoped that it would work. But sadly it did not.
The Devil Inside is probably one of the worse horror movies I've seen in a long time and probably one of the worse films of 2012. Don't bother wasting your time with this. The only reason I'm giving the rating I'm giving is because of Suzan Crowley, who did give me the creeps when I watched this. And I feel that the rating I'm giving it is a little too high to be frank.
Rating: 1/5
The Incredibles (2004)
Plot: A family of undercover superheroes are forced to go back to their superhero ways to stop a super villain.
Review: Another great Pixar movie.
For me, the story is what held the film together. It's so layered and touches on so many different subjects. I'm going to point out certain aspects of the plot that I really liked and thought made the film so memorable.
What I like about this movie is that it takes the superhero story and turns it around and makes it unique. In this films, most superheroes are known and they work for someone. In some superhero movies, most of the heroes work in isolation and the government is their enemy. In this case, the government helps the superheroes. They help them create their "normal identities", erase the memories of those that know who they are and relocate them. So I like the premise of superheroes working and being known to a government.
I like the huge variety of superheroes that we got in this. We had Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl/Mrs. Incredible, Frozone. They're all so different, in terms of their powers, motives. Yet, they all unit for the same purpose- to bring peace into the world.
Syndrome, the villain of the film, is captivating and impressive. What I like about him is that he's very much human. He's been rejected by his own hero and is now determined to bring not only that hero down, but every other hero possible. The audience is able to relate with him because Syndrome the representation of those that have been put down and said they can't do what they want to do. He's the person who's dreams have been crushed and is determined to avenge that. To prove those people wrong.
In addition to all the superhero aspects, we have the human side as well. We have the family relationships. Bob (Mr. Incredible) and Helene (Elastigirl/Mrs. Incredible), whose marriage is becoming strained. Bob is tired of the same old routine and longs to live back the glory days. It's very real and the parents watching this with their kids can realize that.
We also get the kids point of view in this. Typically, we don't see the true point of view of a superheo's child. In this case, we have a teenager and a pre-adolescent and a baby. We have Violet, Dash and Jack-Jack. Violet, the teenager and Dash, the preteen, long to be normal. They want to fit in society but realize that they have their limitations because of possible exposure. We have the kids realizing that the world is a dangerous place and learning the harsh truths that come with being a superhero. It's life or death.
Unlike most Pixar films, especially before this came out, I was genuinely surprised at the amount of violence and violent images. It's not overly traumatic for kids, but there are a lot of explosions, punches thrown, implied deaths and such that some the really younger kids might find unsettling.
Now I'm going to move from the story and touch on a few other things. The animation, like all of Pixar's films, is fantastic. From the multiple explosions, to the town, Frozone using his powers, Violet becoming invisible, Dash running on water, the chaos that Syndrome brings to the town, is all flawlessly down. It's incredible.
The Incredibles is an entertaining, exciting and thrilling animated film that is without a doubt one of Pixar's best works and will probably go down as being one of the best animated films ever created.
Rating: 5/5
Review: Another great Pixar movie.
For me, the story is what held the film together. It's so layered and touches on so many different subjects. I'm going to point out certain aspects of the plot that I really liked and thought made the film so memorable.
What I like about this movie is that it takes the superhero story and turns it around and makes it unique. In this films, most superheroes are known and they work for someone. In some superhero movies, most of the heroes work in isolation and the government is their enemy. In this case, the government helps the superheroes. They help them create their "normal identities", erase the memories of those that know who they are and relocate them. So I like the premise of superheroes working and being known to a government.
I like the huge variety of superheroes that we got in this. We had Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl/Mrs. Incredible, Frozone. They're all so different, in terms of their powers, motives. Yet, they all unit for the same purpose- to bring peace into the world.
Syndrome, the villain of the film, is captivating and impressive. What I like about him is that he's very much human. He's been rejected by his own hero and is now determined to bring not only that hero down, but every other hero possible. The audience is able to relate with him because Syndrome the representation of those that have been put down and said they can't do what they want to do. He's the person who's dreams have been crushed and is determined to avenge that. To prove those people wrong.
In addition to all the superhero aspects, we have the human side as well. We have the family relationships. Bob (Mr. Incredible) and Helene (Elastigirl/Mrs. Incredible), whose marriage is becoming strained. Bob is tired of the same old routine and longs to live back the glory days. It's very real and the parents watching this with their kids can realize that.
We also get the kids point of view in this. Typically, we don't see the true point of view of a superheo's child. In this case, we have a teenager and a pre-adolescent and a baby. We have Violet, Dash and Jack-Jack. Violet, the teenager and Dash, the preteen, long to be normal. They want to fit in society but realize that they have their limitations because of possible exposure. We have the kids realizing that the world is a dangerous place and learning the harsh truths that come with being a superhero. It's life or death.
Unlike most Pixar films, especially before this came out, I was genuinely surprised at the amount of violence and violent images. It's not overly traumatic for kids, but there are a lot of explosions, punches thrown, implied deaths and such that some the really younger kids might find unsettling.
Now I'm going to move from the story and touch on a few other things. The animation, like all of Pixar's films, is fantastic. From the multiple explosions, to the town, Frozone using his powers, Violet becoming invisible, Dash running on water, the chaos that Syndrome brings to the town, is all flawlessly down. It's incredible.
The Incredibles is an entertaining, exciting and thrilling animated film that is without a doubt one of Pixar's best works and will probably go down as being one of the best animated films ever created.
Rating: 5/5
Tuesday 8 May 2012
The Animal (2001)
Plot: Marvin (Rob Schneider), a man who dreams of being a cop, is in a car accident. A scientist finds him and puts animal parts in Marvin to give him a chance of survival. Marvin's animal side starts taking over.
Review: This movie is enjoyable. But is it great? No. It's decent at best.
The script is the film's biggest problem. I laughed a lot and the film is sporadically entertaining. The plot and story is very unbalanced. It's like the writers just wrote a bunch of scenarios and threw them together, hoping it would work. Some of it does, but the script isn't good enough to keep us engaged throughout the entire movie.
The acting is fine. Rob Schneider is Marvin. He's okay in his role. He's not my favorite comedian but I did laugh nonetheless. I think if there had been a different comedian, like Adam Sandler, maybe it would've worked a little better. Colleen Haskell plays Rianna, Marvin's love interest. I thought she did a decent job and I also think she and Rob Schneider worked well together. The twist with Rianna at the end I didn't expect. It doesn't make sense because they didn't really foreshadow it at all. It just came up out of the blue. Maybe that's why I was surprised. That goes back to the lack of good writing. John C. McGinley is Sergeant Sisk and I think he's on the same level as everyone else in terms of acting. Bu I hated the character and he wasn't sympathetic at all. Michael Caton is Dr. Wilder, the doctor that saves Marvin. I thought he was good but I found the character very creepy. He doesn't really have motives for what he does and that makes him questionable to me. All of the characters don't have a logical reason for what for they do and they don't have clear motives.
I did laugh and what made me laugh were the over the top jokes and gags. There aren't necessarily funny but just so unrealistic that you have to laugh at how ridiculous they are.
The Animal is a sporadically entertaining comedy that's a guilty pleasure more than anything else.
Rating: 2.5/5
Review: This movie is enjoyable. But is it great? No. It's decent at best.
The script is the film's biggest problem. I laughed a lot and the film is sporadically entertaining. The plot and story is very unbalanced. It's like the writers just wrote a bunch of scenarios and threw them together, hoping it would work. Some of it does, but the script isn't good enough to keep us engaged throughout the entire movie.
The acting is fine. Rob Schneider is Marvin. He's okay in his role. He's not my favorite comedian but I did laugh nonetheless. I think if there had been a different comedian, like Adam Sandler, maybe it would've worked a little better. Colleen Haskell plays Rianna, Marvin's love interest. I thought she did a decent job and I also think she and Rob Schneider worked well together. The twist with Rianna at the end I didn't expect. It doesn't make sense because they didn't really foreshadow it at all. It just came up out of the blue. Maybe that's why I was surprised. That goes back to the lack of good writing. John C. McGinley is Sergeant Sisk and I think he's on the same level as everyone else in terms of acting. Bu I hated the character and he wasn't sympathetic at all. Michael Caton is Dr. Wilder, the doctor that saves Marvin. I thought he was good but I found the character very creepy. He doesn't really have motives for what he does and that makes him questionable to me. All of the characters don't have a logical reason for what for they do and they don't have clear motives.
I did laugh and what made me laugh were the over the top jokes and gags. There aren't necessarily funny but just so unrealistic that you have to laugh at how ridiculous they are.
The Animal is a sporadically entertaining comedy that's a guilty pleasure more than anything else.
Rating: 2.5/5
Monday 7 May 2012
The Adjustment Bureau (2011)
Plot: David (Matt Damon) is a politician who meets Elise (Emily Blunt), a ballerina and instantly falls for her. David is taken by the Adjustment Bureau, who tell him that their job is to make sure that people's lives go according to "the plan" and is warned if he talks about them, his life will be reset and he'll never see Elise again. The film sees David fighting the Bureau in order to be with Elise. Will he succeed?
Review: I was actually surprised at how much I enjoyed the film.
Firstly, I really like the plot and the story itself. I thought it was a unique spin on romance. A story about a higher power trying to keep a couple apart. Typically, in romance movies, you hear the characters saying or implying that a higher got them together. In this, they're trying to keep them apart. I liked the twists in the movie because it kept things interesting. There are some cliches, especially the ending which I predicted half way through the movie. Nonetheless, it still manages to work beautifully.
The acting is top notch. Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are terrific individually and together. I also think they had good chemistry between the two of them. In order to make this kind of film work, especially because it's a romance, you have to have that spark to make it all fit together. They have it. Then we have those from the Bureau. Anthony Mackie plays Harry Mitchell and I think his character is very interesting and is the audience's voice. He's the one that saying how we feel about the entire situation. Terence Stamp plays Thompson and I found him to be convincingly creepy in his role. He's an excellent antagonist. John Slattery plays Richardson and I thought he was great. The entire crew is talented. The cast itself is very small so there's a feeling of intimacy. You can feel the tension and all of the emotions because there are very few people in it so the emotional stances of the film aren't all over the place.
The film itself is actually about the characters. It's about David and Elise and their fate. That's the theme of the film I really loved. It's who decides your fate and how your life will go. Is it up to you? Is your fate decided for you and you have to follow that plan? Or can you decide your own path? Do you have any free will, the ability to make a choice? These are the questions that are addressed. These are the questions that David asks himself. He follows the path for a while but then decides to make his own road to life. Not have it chosen for him. The questions that I wrote earlier are not only brought up in the love story between David and Elise but also in their personal lives as well. So this topic is brought up in numerous aspects of the film's plot and characters and it's done so very thoughtfully.
The Adjustment Bureau is a suspenseful and terrific thriller.
Rating: 4/5
Review: I was actually surprised at how much I enjoyed the film.
Firstly, I really like the plot and the story itself. I thought it was a unique spin on romance. A story about a higher power trying to keep a couple apart. Typically, in romance movies, you hear the characters saying or implying that a higher got them together. In this, they're trying to keep them apart. I liked the twists in the movie because it kept things interesting. There are some cliches, especially the ending which I predicted half way through the movie. Nonetheless, it still manages to work beautifully.
The acting is top notch. Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are terrific individually and together. I also think they had good chemistry between the two of them. In order to make this kind of film work, especially because it's a romance, you have to have that spark to make it all fit together. They have it. Then we have those from the Bureau. Anthony Mackie plays Harry Mitchell and I think his character is very interesting and is the audience's voice. He's the one that saying how we feel about the entire situation. Terence Stamp plays Thompson and I found him to be convincingly creepy in his role. He's an excellent antagonist. John Slattery plays Richardson and I thought he was great. The entire crew is talented. The cast itself is very small so there's a feeling of intimacy. You can feel the tension and all of the emotions because there are very few people in it so the emotional stances of the film aren't all over the place.
The film itself is actually about the characters. It's about David and Elise and their fate. That's the theme of the film I really loved. It's who decides your fate and how your life will go. Is it up to you? Is your fate decided for you and you have to follow that plan? Or can you decide your own path? Do you have any free will, the ability to make a choice? These are the questions that are addressed. These are the questions that David asks himself. He follows the path for a while but then decides to make his own road to life. Not have it chosen for him. The questions that I wrote earlier are not only brought up in the love story between David and Elise but also in their personal lives as well. So this topic is brought up in numerous aspects of the film's plot and characters and it's done so very thoughtfully.
The Adjustment Bureau is a suspenseful and terrific thriller.
Rating: 4/5
Friday 4 May 2012
Date Night (2010)
Plot: Phil (Steve Carrel) and Claire (Tina Fey) are a married couple who are stuck in a constant routine. They decide to change it up and go to a fancy restaurant. They fail to get a table. They steal a couple's reservation when they fail to show up. Then a case of mistaken identity leads to a chaotic date night that they won't forget.
Review: I enjoyed this movie.
What I like about the film's plot is that it ignores the typical romantic comedy story. It decides to take a typical idea and make it melodramatic and hilarious. There's no denying that the story and circumstances are exaggerated and over the top, but there's no denying that the premise is entertaining.
Despite the melodramatic situation, the film's characters feel very real to me. Phil and Claire are a couple that are determined to have their lives be more than what it is. They don't want to have their life planned out by routine. They want to live a spontaneous life every once in a while, which is why they go to that restaurant and steal the couple's table to begin with. It's a way of looking for some sort of escape.
Tina Fey and Steve Carrel are what makes the movie work. They're hilarious separately and they're just as funny together. Their comic timing and how they work blends together perfectly. You can also tell that Tina and Steve improvised a lot in this. For example, the stripper pole scene where Phil licks the pole and when he starts humping the floor. They make jokes and gags that I don't think would be funny if it was another actor saying them.
The rest of the film's cast is very good. Taraji P. Henson plays a detective and I think she plays the part well. She's a good female protagonist who knows how to stand up for herself, especially to pig-headed men. Jimmi Simpson and Common play the thugs that go after Phil and Claire. They're both very convincing as crazy gunmen. William Fitchner is the district attorney and I found him to be good in his respective role. We also have Mark Wahlberg, James Franco and Mila Kunis who appear and I found them to be hilarious and provide good laughs. The entire cast is talented and they work well together. But Tina Fey and Steve Carrel still make this movie for me.
Date Night is a funny and entertaining comedy.
Rating: 3.5/5
Review: I enjoyed this movie.
What I like about the film's plot is that it ignores the typical romantic comedy story. It decides to take a typical idea and make it melodramatic and hilarious. There's no denying that the story and circumstances are exaggerated and over the top, but there's no denying that the premise is entertaining.
Despite the melodramatic situation, the film's characters feel very real to me. Phil and Claire are a couple that are determined to have their lives be more than what it is. They don't want to have their life planned out by routine. They want to live a spontaneous life every once in a while, which is why they go to that restaurant and steal the couple's table to begin with. It's a way of looking for some sort of escape.
Tina Fey and Steve Carrel are what makes the movie work. They're hilarious separately and they're just as funny together. Their comic timing and how they work blends together perfectly. You can also tell that Tina and Steve improvised a lot in this. For example, the stripper pole scene where Phil licks the pole and when he starts humping the floor. They make jokes and gags that I don't think would be funny if it was another actor saying them.
The rest of the film's cast is very good. Taraji P. Henson plays a detective and I think she plays the part well. She's a good female protagonist who knows how to stand up for herself, especially to pig-headed men. Jimmi Simpson and Common play the thugs that go after Phil and Claire. They're both very convincing as crazy gunmen. William Fitchner is the district attorney and I found him to be good in his respective role. We also have Mark Wahlberg, James Franco and Mila Kunis who appear and I found them to be hilarious and provide good laughs. The entire cast is talented and they work well together. But Tina Fey and Steve Carrel still make this movie for me.
Date Night is a funny and entertaining comedy.
Rating: 3.5/5
Shrek the Third (2007)
Plot: When his father-in-law becomes ill, Shrek is looked as the heir to Far, Far Away. Not wanting to give up his swamp, Shrek asks Donkey and Puss to help him find Artie, who is the other heir and can take Shrek's place. Meanwhile, Fiona aids the help of other princesses when Prince Charming and his army of villains who are planning to take over Far, Far Away and get their own happy endings.
Review: After the accomplishments of the first two films, I had high hopes. And those hopes were pretty much crushed.
The film's plot itself is different compared to the plots of the first two movies. The plots in Shrek and Shrek 2 were orientated to kids, but had jokes and gags that could entertain adults. But in this one, the plot is aimed at adults. There are a lot of adult jokes and situations (like Donkey barging in on Shrek and Fiona and taking the covers off and yelling). The little kids who see this movie won't get it.
Most of the film's characters are the same. There are a few exceptions. We have Fiona's princess friends Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and Rapunzel. I thought they were good additions but sadly they aren't that entirely interesting to me. I also hoped that Artie would be a fine character, but I found him annoying and whiny. We also have Merlin who appears briefly. I think the filmmakers hoped he would be good comic relief, but sadly he wasn't. We also have villains like the Wicked Queen, the Ugly Stepsister, Cyclops, Puppet Master, Headless Horseman and many more. All of these additional characters should be fun to watch and breath life into the film, but sadly they weren't that entirely interesting.
The voice acting is good. The original cast are still at the top of their game. The new cast members are fine.
For me, the highlight was the animation itself. The film is visually stunning, like the first two. All of these movies are visual treats. These animators continue to do amazing work visually and keep us intrigued and amazed.
Overall, Shrek the Third is a film that turned out to be bland and not as funny and original compared to the first two and fell flat.
Rating: 2.5/5
Review: After the accomplishments of the first two films, I had high hopes. And those hopes were pretty much crushed.
The film's plot itself is different compared to the plots of the first two movies. The plots in Shrek and Shrek 2 were orientated to kids, but had jokes and gags that could entertain adults. But in this one, the plot is aimed at adults. There are a lot of adult jokes and situations (like Donkey barging in on Shrek and Fiona and taking the covers off and yelling). The little kids who see this movie won't get it.
Most of the film's characters are the same. There are a few exceptions. We have Fiona's princess friends Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and Rapunzel. I thought they were good additions but sadly they aren't that entirely interesting to me. I also hoped that Artie would be a fine character, but I found him annoying and whiny. We also have Merlin who appears briefly. I think the filmmakers hoped he would be good comic relief, but sadly he wasn't. We also have villains like the Wicked Queen, the Ugly Stepsister, Cyclops, Puppet Master, Headless Horseman and many more. All of these additional characters should be fun to watch and breath life into the film, but sadly they weren't that entirely interesting.
The voice acting is good. The original cast are still at the top of their game. The new cast members are fine.
For me, the highlight was the animation itself. The film is visually stunning, like the first two. All of these movies are visual treats. These animators continue to do amazing work visually and keep us intrigued and amazed.
Overall, Shrek the Third is a film that turned out to be bland and not as funny and original compared to the first two and fell flat.
Rating: 2.5/5
Wednesday 2 May 2012
Shrek 2 (2004)
Plot: Princess Fiona's parents invite her and Shrek to dinner to celebrate their marriage. But the in-laws don't know that their son-in-law and daughter are both ogres. Chaos soon ensues as King Harold plans to get things the way they were suppose to be: Fiona being married to Prince Charming with the help of the prince himself and his mother, the Fairy Godmother. Shrek is having his own doubts about whether or not Fiona is truly happy with how their lives have turned out. Will everything work out? Will everyone get their happily ever afters?
Review: Another sequel that's almost just as good as the first.
The film's plot is familiar. But there's no denying that it's hilarious. What I especially like about the plot is that it goes in different directions very smoothly and effectively. You think that it's going to be a film about how Shrek will get along with the in-laws. Then it goes into the territory of the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming's scheme. That's another of the plot I liked. Prince Charming and the Fairy Godmother are usually those that save the damsels in distress. In this case, they're trying to ruin the happy couple. I also liked the twist with King Harold at the end. I didn't see it coming the first time I saw it but after seeing it again, I realized they had given a few small hints.
But what I perceive to be the film's core plot is about happiness. What people will do in order to not only for their own happiness, but the happiness of others. Shrek, King Harold (Fiona's father), the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming all do this. They have their own motives, but it ultimately comes down to happiness. Both Shrek and King Harold want Fiona to be happy. Shrek wants to make sure Fiona is happy with what she now has and King Harold decides to try and stir her in the direction that he think will make her happy. And it's also a direction that will make him happy. The Fairy Godmother is doing what she's doing in order to make Prince Charming, her son happy. Whilst Prince Charming is doing what he's doing for his own happiness and to satisfy his mother. So I think the main theme in the plot itself is happiness and it's well presented in the various plots of the film.
Like the first film, we have numerous references to the fairy tales and Disney films. In addition to Prince Charming and the Fairy Godmother, we have the Ugly Stepsister, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella and many more. Most of these characters are cameos. We also have many characters from the first returning like the Big Bad Wolf, Gingerbread Man, Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio and many more.
A new main character that we have in this that I'm going to dedicate an entire paragraph to is the one and only Puss-in-Boots (voiced by Antonio Banderas). I think Puss-in-Boots was a breath of fresh air. I thought he was a hilarious character with great lines and fits into the movie surprisingly well. It didn't feel forced in his interactions with Donkey and Shrek. It felt natural. For me, Donkey was the highlight character in Shrek (2001) and Puss-in-Boots is that for me in Shrek 2 (2004).
The film's voice acting is fantastically done. Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz are perfect for their respective roles. They master it very well. The additional voice actors are also brilliant. Julie Andrews and John Cleese are wonderful as Fiona's parents. I believe Antonio Banderas was the perfect choice to voice Puss-in-Boots. He played Zoro and I think he has that charisma and charm that he transitions into the character. I also liked Jennifer Saunders and Rupert Everett as the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming respectively. Although it was brief, I thought Larry King providing the voice of the Ugly Stepsister to be absolutely hilarious. A highlight for me.
The animation, like the first film, is absolutely genius. I won't dwell on it too much because I'll be repeating myself from my review of Shrek (2001). But all of these animators are brilliant and passionate about what they do. You can tell in the product. And they deserve all the praise they receive.
This sequel definitely held its own and is just as good as the first one. But I prefer the first a little more. I think it's because Shrek (2001) was so original animation wise and in terms of its plot and other concepts that it's a little difficult to outshine. Shrek 2 is wonderful and entertaining throughout.
Rating: 4.5/5
Review: Another sequel that's almost just as good as the first.
The film's plot is familiar. But there's no denying that it's hilarious. What I especially like about the plot is that it goes in different directions very smoothly and effectively. You think that it's going to be a film about how Shrek will get along with the in-laws. Then it goes into the territory of the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming's scheme. That's another of the plot I liked. Prince Charming and the Fairy Godmother are usually those that save the damsels in distress. In this case, they're trying to ruin the happy couple. I also liked the twist with King Harold at the end. I didn't see it coming the first time I saw it but after seeing it again, I realized they had given a few small hints.
But what I perceive to be the film's core plot is about happiness. What people will do in order to not only for their own happiness, but the happiness of others. Shrek, King Harold (Fiona's father), the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming all do this. They have their own motives, but it ultimately comes down to happiness. Both Shrek and King Harold want Fiona to be happy. Shrek wants to make sure Fiona is happy with what she now has and King Harold decides to try and stir her in the direction that he think will make her happy. And it's also a direction that will make him happy. The Fairy Godmother is doing what she's doing in order to make Prince Charming, her son happy. Whilst Prince Charming is doing what he's doing for his own happiness and to satisfy his mother. So I think the main theme in the plot itself is happiness and it's well presented in the various plots of the film.
Like the first film, we have numerous references to the fairy tales and Disney films. In addition to Prince Charming and the Fairy Godmother, we have the Ugly Stepsister, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella and many more. Most of these characters are cameos. We also have many characters from the first returning like the Big Bad Wolf, Gingerbread Man, Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio and many more.
A new main character that we have in this that I'm going to dedicate an entire paragraph to is the one and only Puss-in-Boots (voiced by Antonio Banderas). I think Puss-in-Boots was a breath of fresh air. I thought he was a hilarious character with great lines and fits into the movie surprisingly well. It didn't feel forced in his interactions with Donkey and Shrek. It felt natural. For me, Donkey was the highlight character in Shrek (2001) and Puss-in-Boots is that for me in Shrek 2 (2004).
The film's voice acting is fantastically done. Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz are perfect for their respective roles. They master it very well. The additional voice actors are also brilliant. Julie Andrews and John Cleese are wonderful as Fiona's parents. I believe Antonio Banderas was the perfect choice to voice Puss-in-Boots. He played Zoro and I think he has that charisma and charm that he transitions into the character. I also liked Jennifer Saunders and Rupert Everett as the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming respectively. Although it was brief, I thought Larry King providing the voice of the Ugly Stepsister to be absolutely hilarious. A highlight for me.
The animation, like the first film, is absolutely genius. I won't dwell on it too much because I'll be repeating myself from my review of Shrek (2001). But all of these animators are brilliant and passionate about what they do. You can tell in the product. And they deserve all the praise they receive.
This sequel definitely held its own and is just as good as the first one. But I prefer the first a little more. I think it's because Shrek (2001) was so original animation wise and in terms of its plot and other concepts that it's a little difficult to outshine. Shrek 2 is wonderful and entertaining throughout.
Rating: 4.5/5
Sunday 29 April 2012
Shrek (2001)
Plot: Shrek (voiced by Mike Myers), an ogre desperate to regain his swamp, travels along with an annoying donkey named Donkey (voiced by Eddie Murphy), to rescue Princess Fiona (voiced by Cameron Diaz) and bring her to Lord Farquaad (voiced by John Lithgow), a lord wishing himself King.
Review: I love this movie. I simply love it.
Firstly, what I love about the film's plot is that it applies to both children and adults. The film has jokes and themes that relate to adults, yet the plot is simple enough to appeal to kids and there's also humor that will appeal to kids. Some films do this but it looks like they're trying too hard. Shrek doesn't try too hard. It's simply organic and natural. It's funny without even trying.
Now in addition to being absolutely funny, the film is also very heartfelt. We have the scene with Donkey and Fiona after Donkey learns the truth about Fiona, where Donkey and Shrek talk near the fire about how Donkey didn't find Shrek ugly when they met. These are just two examples that this is a movie that has heart.
I like the several references to fairy tales and Disney films. We have the references to Three Little Pigs, the Big Bad Wolf (who's basically a drag queen which I find hilarious), Pinocchio, the Gingerbread Man known as Gingie (one of my favorite characters in all of the films) etc. What I like about these references is that even though we know these stories and characters, it's somehow fresh and unique. It even starts in the the opening- where the narrator is reading from the book and Shrek tears out of the pages and says that's a pile of crap. And we have the scene where Donkey flies, where they refer to Peter Pan and Dumbo. I like that it's not an entire homage to Disney and fairy tales, but they know that they exist and properly go back to them without going over the top.
I think one of the film's very few problems is that the animal and fantasy characters are more interesting than the human characters, like Fiona and Lord Farquaad. But that's typically the norm in stories like these.
The film is a visual feast. Everyone involved in the design of the characters, sets and everything should be praised because it's a fantastic visual treat. There are a lot of different sets in this from the swamp, to the castle, to fields etc. And the attention to certain details like Donkey's fur, the colors of the dragon's scales and her eyelashes etc. It's all these details that show that these filmmakers care about quality and not being afraid to maybe obsess over certain things that others wouldn't necessarily think to look over. So more power to them.
The voice acting in this is brilliant. Mike Myers is fantastic and hilarious as Shrek. Even with just his voice, he manages to give Shrek a heart. Myers is able to bring a sense of vulnerability with just his voice. Eddie Murphy is hysterical as Donkey. For me, Donkey is my favorite character. Just because he is so funny yet so humble, caring and kind. Cameron Diaz I thought was a good choice for the role of Fiona. For me, I felt that bravery and determination from Cameron Diaz's performance. John Lithgow I think played an awesome villain. His voice performance as Lord Farquaad prepares to scheme is very diabolical and villainy. The entire cast is genius and well put together. It blends perfectly.
Shrek is an amazing animated accomplishment that will be loved by the entire family.
Rating: 5/5
Review: I love this movie. I simply love it.
Firstly, what I love about the film's plot is that it applies to both children and adults. The film has jokes and themes that relate to adults, yet the plot is simple enough to appeal to kids and there's also humor that will appeal to kids. Some films do this but it looks like they're trying too hard. Shrek doesn't try too hard. It's simply organic and natural. It's funny without even trying.
Now in addition to being absolutely funny, the film is also very heartfelt. We have the scene with Donkey and Fiona after Donkey learns the truth about Fiona, where Donkey and Shrek talk near the fire about how Donkey didn't find Shrek ugly when they met. These are just two examples that this is a movie that has heart.
I like the several references to fairy tales and Disney films. We have the references to Three Little Pigs, the Big Bad Wolf (who's basically a drag queen which I find hilarious), Pinocchio, the Gingerbread Man known as Gingie (one of my favorite characters in all of the films) etc. What I like about these references is that even though we know these stories and characters, it's somehow fresh and unique. It even starts in the the opening- where the narrator is reading from the book and Shrek tears out of the pages and says that's a pile of crap. And we have the scene where Donkey flies, where they refer to Peter Pan and Dumbo. I like that it's not an entire homage to Disney and fairy tales, but they know that they exist and properly go back to them without going over the top.
I think one of the film's very few problems is that the animal and fantasy characters are more interesting than the human characters, like Fiona and Lord Farquaad. But that's typically the norm in stories like these.
The film is a visual feast. Everyone involved in the design of the characters, sets and everything should be praised because it's a fantastic visual treat. There are a lot of different sets in this from the swamp, to the castle, to fields etc. And the attention to certain details like Donkey's fur, the colors of the dragon's scales and her eyelashes etc. It's all these details that show that these filmmakers care about quality and not being afraid to maybe obsess over certain things that others wouldn't necessarily think to look over. So more power to them.
The voice acting in this is brilliant. Mike Myers is fantastic and hilarious as Shrek. Even with just his voice, he manages to give Shrek a heart. Myers is able to bring a sense of vulnerability with just his voice. Eddie Murphy is hysterical as Donkey. For me, Donkey is my favorite character. Just because he is so funny yet so humble, caring and kind. Cameron Diaz I thought was a good choice for the role of Fiona. For me, I felt that bravery and determination from Cameron Diaz's performance. John Lithgow I think played an awesome villain. His voice performance as Lord Farquaad prepares to scheme is very diabolical and villainy. The entire cast is genius and well put together. It blends perfectly.
Shrek is an amazing animated accomplishment that will be loved by the entire family.
Rating: 5/5
Happy Gilmore (1996)
Plot: Happy Gilmore (Adam Sandler) is a rejected hockey player who starts using his skills to play golf to win money and get back his grandmother's home after it's repossessed.
Review: If you're an Adam Sandler fan, you'll love this movie. And if you're not, you're probably going to find this film not that funny and kind of forgettable. I like Adam Sandler and I think he's been in a few good movies and this is one of them. It's not great, but decent.
The plot isn't all that. It's not completely original and kind of predictable, especially towards the end.
The acting is okay. Adam Sandler does what he does in his comedies and he makes it work. His character isn't all that likable for a good part of the film. He gets angry for sometimes no reason necessary and just keeps pounding his club. It gets tiresome after a while. Christopher McDonald plays Shooter, Happy's golf rival. I thought McDonald was also fine and like Happy, his character isn't that likable. Shooter's just too cocky for my liking, but McDonald plays the character well. Julie Bowen plays Virginia, the publicist who eventually becomes Happy's love interest. I love that she was one of the voices of reason. And I also think she and Adam Sandler had good chemistry. Frances Bay plays Happy's grandmother and I think she was great. Carl Weathers is Chubbs, a former golf champ who trains Happy. For me, Carl Weathers was the standout in this in terms of the cast. He was fantastic.
The core factor in Happy Gilmore is the humor. That what makes it work or not. Some of the humor is over the top, yet undeniably funny at times. There are some scenes that are just laugh out loud funny. Like the scenes where Happy goes to his happy place. And also certain moments when Happy's golfing, like when he goes after the alligator that has his golf ball. But the scene that sticks out for me is the fight scene between Happy and Bob Barker. It's so hilarious and just makes you laugh out loud. Just to see a television icon throw punches with Adam Sandler is something that makes you think is that real? So some of the film's humor works and some of it is just not that believable. Like the scene where Chubbs dies after seeing the alligator's head and backing out the window and falling to his death. That I don't find believable. And the gag where the radiator falls on the old woman. It's the same reasoning. So I'm on both sides in regards to the film's humor.
One thing that annoyed me slightly about the film was all of the product placements. Some of them that I noticed were Visa, Pepsi, Diet Pepsi. There were others, but I didn't bother keeping track. Too much product placement in this one movie for me personally.
Overall, Happy Gilmore is a funny and entertaining movie. It has its good moments and its bad ones. Like I said, if you're a fan of Adam Sandler and his humor, you'll love it. But if you're not, you might find this a little difficult to swallow.
Rating: 3/5
Review: If you're an Adam Sandler fan, you'll love this movie. And if you're not, you're probably going to find this film not that funny and kind of forgettable. I like Adam Sandler and I think he's been in a few good movies and this is one of them. It's not great, but decent.
The plot isn't all that. It's not completely original and kind of predictable, especially towards the end.
The acting is okay. Adam Sandler does what he does in his comedies and he makes it work. His character isn't all that likable for a good part of the film. He gets angry for sometimes no reason necessary and just keeps pounding his club. It gets tiresome after a while. Christopher McDonald plays Shooter, Happy's golf rival. I thought McDonald was also fine and like Happy, his character isn't that likable. Shooter's just too cocky for my liking, but McDonald plays the character well. Julie Bowen plays Virginia, the publicist who eventually becomes Happy's love interest. I love that she was one of the voices of reason. And I also think she and Adam Sandler had good chemistry. Frances Bay plays Happy's grandmother and I think she was great. Carl Weathers is Chubbs, a former golf champ who trains Happy. For me, Carl Weathers was the standout in this in terms of the cast. He was fantastic.
The core factor in Happy Gilmore is the humor. That what makes it work or not. Some of the humor is over the top, yet undeniably funny at times. There are some scenes that are just laugh out loud funny. Like the scenes where Happy goes to his happy place. And also certain moments when Happy's golfing, like when he goes after the alligator that has his golf ball. But the scene that sticks out for me is the fight scene between Happy and Bob Barker. It's so hilarious and just makes you laugh out loud. Just to see a television icon throw punches with Adam Sandler is something that makes you think is that real? So some of the film's humor works and some of it is just not that believable. Like the scene where Chubbs dies after seeing the alligator's head and backing out the window and falling to his death. That I don't find believable. And the gag where the radiator falls on the old woman. It's the same reasoning. So I'm on both sides in regards to the film's humor.
One thing that annoyed me slightly about the film was all of the product placements. Some of them that I noticed were Visa, Pepsi, Diet Pepsi. There were others, but I didn't bother keeping track. Too much product placement in this one movie for me personally.
Overall, Happy Gilmore is a funny and entertaining movie. It has its good moments and its bad ones. Like I said, if you're a fan of Adam Sandler and his humor, you'll love it. But if you're not, you might find this a little difficult to swallow.
Rating: 3/5
Saturday 28 April 2012
Shiloh (1996)
Plot: An abused beagle runs away from his abuser owner. He then runs into Marty (Blake Heron), who takes the dog in. Ray's stern father (Michael Moriarty) won't let him keep the dog because it belongs to a local hunter, who abuses the dog that Ray names Shiloh. Shiloh is returned to his owner, but runs away again and Marty hides him, knowing his father will never allow him to keep Shiloh. Will Marty be able to save Shiloh?
Review: The minute you hear that this is a movie about a boy and a dog, you think you know what you're gonna get. That it's the same story that's been done to death. But I think a great majority of you would be wrong and surprised by the direction the movie takes in it's plot, characters and themes.
What works about the film's plot is that it takes you by complete surprise. Because it's a story of a boy and a dog, you expect the story to be about if the boy will get the dog. But it's not entirely so. The film's story (based on the award-winning novel by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor) is about whether or not the boy deserves the dog.
The family film deals with a wide variety of mature themes: taking responsibility, property, growing up, doing what you think is right and stand by it, and the strong bond kids have with pets. The story is about a boy who loves a dog so much that he cannot bear to see it being abused, mistreated by its owner. So he's willing to do anything at all to save him. The plot deals with all of these themes amazingly well and it blends together perfectly.
So that leads to many questions. Is this young boy mature enough to handle the responsibility of a pet? He loves the dog but is he ready and grown up enough for it? The dog belongs to someone else, but because he treats Shiloh better than the actual owner, does it give him the right to claim the dog? This is one of few family films that I can remember that makes you question and makes you think. Because Marty is the representation of one side of the discussion, whilst Marty's father is the other side of the topic.
I watched this movie a lot when I was younger. And I only watched it again recently and I realized how incredibly mature and heartbreaking the movie actually is.
I honestly can't think of a family-orientated film that handles these kinds of mature topics that some family movies would try to avoid because it would be taboo or the kids would find it too sad. It is a sad movie. It's not that entirely uplifting for the most part. It deals with the real aspects of life and all of the themes that I mentioned above from a kid's perspective.
The film's acting is terrific. Blake Heron I thought was very good and held his own in this. Michael Moriarty is fantastic in this. I didn't like his character for most the film, but he still sells it. Ann Dowd plays Marty's mom and I thought she played the torn mother and wife perfectly as she sides with her husband, but agrees with her son. Scott Wilson plays Judd, Shiloh's abusive owner. He is a completely unsympathetic character. I didn't like him at all. But Wilson is great.
Shiloh is one of those movies that you think is going to be something but it takes you by complete surprise. Shiloh is an incredibly moving and inspiring film.
Rating: 4.5/5
Review: The minute you hear that this is a movie about a boy and a dog, you think you know what you're gonna get. That it's the same story that's been done to death. But I think a great majority of you would be wrong and surprised by the direction the movie takes in it's plot, characters and themes.
What works about the film's plot is that it takes you by complete surprise. Because it's a story of a boy and a dog, you expect the story to be about if the boy will get the dog. But it's not entirely so. The film's story (based on the award-winning novel by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor) is about whether or not the boy deserves the dog.
The family film deals with a wide variety of mature themes: taking responsibility, property, growing up, doing what you think is right and stand by it, and the strong bond kids have with pets. The story is about a boy who loves a dog so much that he cannot bear to see it being abused, mistreated by its owner. So he's willing to do anything at all to save him. The plot deals with all of these themes amazingly well and it blends together perfectly.
So that leads to many questions. Is this young boy mature enough to handle the responsibility of a pet? He loves the dog but is he ready and grown up enough for it? The dog belongs to someone else, but because he treats Shiloh better than the actual owner, does it give him the right to claim the dog? This is one of few family films that I can remember that makes you question and makes you think. Because Marty is the representation of one side of the discussion, whilst Marty's father is the other side of the topic.
I watched this movie a lot when I was younger. And I only watched it again recently and I realized how incredibly mature and heartbreaking the movie actually is.
I honestly can't think of a family-orientated film that handles these kinds of mature topics that some family movies would try to avoid because it would be taboo or the kids would find it too sad. It is a sad movie. It's not that entirely uplifting for the most part. It deals with the real aspects of life and all of the themes that I mentioned above from a kid's perspective.
The film's acting is terrific. Blake Heron I thought was very good and held his own in this. Michael Moriarty is fantastic in this. I didn't like his character for most the film, but he still sells it. Ann Dowd plays Marty's mom and I thought she played the torn mother and wife perfectly as she sides with her husband, but agrees with her son. Scott Wilson plays Judd, Shiloh's abusive owner. He is a completely unsympathetic character. I didn't like him at all. But Wilson is great.
Shiloh is one of those movies that you think is going to be something but it takes you by complete surprise. Shiloh is an incredibly moving and inspiring film.
Rating: 4.5/5
Thursday 26 April 2012
An American Werewolf in London (1981)
Plot: Two Americans, David (David Naughton) and Jack (Griffin Dunne) are backpacking in England. One night, they're attacked by a werewolf. This results in Jack's death and David wakes up in the hospital. David is informed by Jack's ghost that he (David) will transform into a werewolf during the next full moon.
Review: This is a horror classic.
The plot isn't really anything that new. A man attacked by a werewolf, falls in love. It's been done to death. The only aspects of the plot that I liked are the following: the setting of London and Jack as a ghost. I found the setting of London was a unique reflection of David's character after the attack. What is happening to him is very foreign and he has no idea what to do. Kind of like what a tourist feels like going into another country, another continent. I also liked the ghost aspect of Jack. He provided some good comedy and the decaying of his corpse is very disturbing to watch. But I feel that the ghost of the werewolf's victim warning the new werewolf about his fate was very creepy to me.
What really makes this film stand out for me is the makeup. The makeup for Jack's corpse throughout the film, when he first comes on to when he continues to appear and is slowly decomposing is very gory and disturbing. It adds a great element. The werewolf makeup is amazingly done. The transformation is so scary looking. What I like about this transformation especially is that it looks painful. It's not like in other movies where it looks a little painful. Here, you see the bones stretching, hair growing and the sound effects in that scene will make you cringe. It's one of the most memorable scenes I've seen in a horror film. The film won Best Makeup at the Oscars for a reason.
Another element of the film I like is the suspense. They do it very well without it being cheesy. The leading up to the attack is very well done. The scene in the subway where the werewolf attacks people. It's one of those scenes that you think something will happen then it doesn't. And when something does happen, it takes you completely by surprise. The subway scene is another favorite of mine just because it's so unique and actually leaves you scared and wanting more.
This has been labeled a comedy-horror movie. The horror is very well done. And what surprises me is that the comedy is just as well done. We have great, funny lines that will just make you laugh. It's not a comedy that will make you laugh out loud crying, but will make you laugh nonetheless. It's actually very clever, which I found a little surprising. Because it's rare to find a comedy that's actually funny and clever at the same time. Like the scene where Jack tells David he's going to turn into a werewolf is very creepy, but also has good comedy elements, like when David covers his ears saying he doesn't want to hear it. And the scene where David wakes up naked in the zoo cage and steals a kid's balloons and the kid tells his mom "A naked American man stole my balloons". It works, even when you think it wouldn't.
I'll just make a brief point on the acting. The main cast is fairly small and I think every one of them was exceptional in their respective roles. David Naughton is very good as David and I think he has a decent comedic timing. Griffin Dunne is also fine as Jack. I think he has better comedic timing than Naughton does, but that's just my opinion. Jenny Agutter plays Nurse Alex, a nurse who cares for David, whom he eventually moves in with and falls in love with. And I think she does a good job and also had chemistry with David Naughton.
An American Werewolf in London is a frightening and funny film that will keep you entertained from beginning to end.
Rating: 4/5
Review: This is a horror classic.
The plot isn't really anything that new. A man attacked by a werewolf, falls in love. It's been done to death. The only aspects of the plot that I liked are the following: the setting of London and Jack as a ghost. I found the setting of London was a unique reflection of David's character after the attack. What is happening to him is very foreign and he has no idea what to do. Kind of like what a tourist feels like going into another country, another continent. I also liked the ghost aspect of Jack. He provided some good comedy and the decaying of his corpse is very disturbing to watch. But I feel that the ghost of the werewolf's victim warning the new werewolf about his fate was very creepy to me.
What really makes this film stand out for me is the makeup. The makeup for Jack's corpse throughout the film, when he first comes on to when he continues to appear and is slowly decomposing is very gory and disturbing. It adds a great element. The werewolf makeup is amazingly done. The transformation is so scary looking. What I like about this transformation especially is that it looks painful. It's not like in other movies where it looks a little painful. Here, you see the bones stretching, hair growing and the sound effects in that scene will make you cringe. It's one of the most memorable scenes I've seen in a horror film. The film won Best Makeup at the Oscars for a reason.
Another element of the film I like is the suspense. They do it very well without it being cheesy. The leading up to the attack is very well done. The scene in the subway where the werewolf attacks people. It's one of those scenes that you think something will happen then it doesn't. And when something does happen, it takes you completely by surprise. The subway scene is another favorite of mine just because it's so unique and actually leaves you scared and wanting more.
This has been labeled a comedy-horror movie. The horror is very well done. And what surprises me is that the comedy is just as well done. We have great, funny lines that will just make you laugh. It's not a comedy that will make you laugh out loud crying, but will make you laugh nonetheless. It's actually very clever, which I found a little surprising. Because it's rare to find a comedy that's actually funny and clever at the same time. Like the scene where Jack tells David he's going to turn into a werewolf is very creepy, but also has good comedy elements, like when David covers his ears saying he doesn't want to hear it. And the scene where David wakes up naked in the zoo cage and steals a kid's balloons and the kid tells his mom "A naked American man stole my balloons". It works, even when you think it wouldn't.
I'll just make a brief point on the acting. The main cast is fairly small and I think every one of them was exceptional in their respective roles. David Naughton is very good as David and I think he has a decent comedic timing. Griffin Dunne is also fine as Jack. I think he has better comedic timing than Naughton does, but that's just my opinion. Jenny Agutter plays Nurse Alex, a nurse who cares for David, whom he eventually moves in with and falls in love with. And I think she does a good job and also had chemistry with David Naughton.
An American Werewolf in London is a frightening and funny film that will keep you entertained from beginning to end.
Rating: 4/5
Wednesday 25 April 2012
Mrs. Doubtfire (1993)
Plot: After a bitter divorce, Daniel (Robin Williams) disguises himself as a female housekeeper, Mrs. Doubtfire, to spend time with his kids that are being held in custody by his ex, Miranda (Sally Field).
Review: This is one of my favorite comedies.
The film's plot is actually kinda weak. This is the kind of plot that could completely put a film down. It's a cheesy plot and not exactly entirely original. But it's not the plot that makes the film work surprisingly well. It's all of the other production elements.
The film's makeup is one factor that makes the film work. The makeup for the character of Mrs. Doubtfire herself is amazingly well done. The movie won the Oscar for Best Makeup- and for good reason. There have been many films release since this one about men disguising themselves as women and the makeup isn't that good. They should take tips from these makeup artists.
For me, the acting from the incredibly talented cast is the core factor that makes this film work. Robin Williams is absolutely phenomenal in this. His ability to change his voice constantly and consistently is incredibly entertaining to watch, especially in the scene when he makes numerous calls to apply for the nanny job. His posture and how he presents himself as a woman just makes you laugh. Even the way he looks at someone will make you laugh. His comedic timing is priceless. Robin Williams is one of those people that just makes you laugh whenever he does something. Sally Field is also fantastic in this. She can be seen as the antagonist in some ways but I think she was very convincing in her role. Lisa Jakub, Matthew Lawrence and Mara Wilson play the kids Lydia, Christopher and Natalie. I thought all three kids did an exceptional job and worked off very well with Robin Williams. Pierce Brosnan plays Stuart and although his character isn't that likeable, I think he did a fine job. Anne Haney plays Mrs. Sellner, a worker assigned to oversee Daniel. I think she was funny, even though her character wasn't all that likeable. The entire cast is great, but this is Robin Williams' show and he owns it.
The film's humour is and can be over the top and that what suits Robin Williams. He is a very energetic performer and I think that this kind of humour and story appealed to him and worked well for him. There are many jokes and gags that are done that I don't think would've worked if it was a lesser actor portraying Mrs. Doubtfire. So thank goodness for Robin Williams and his talent. Nonetheless, this film will make you laugh at loud. It's over the top hilarious.
Mrs. Doubtfire is a highly entertaining and funny film that will be seen as a comedy classic.
Rating: 4/5
Review: This is one of my favorite comedies.
The film's plot is actually kinda weak. This is the kind of plot that could completely put a film down. It's a cheesy plot and not exactly entirely original. But it's not the plot that makes the film work surprisingly well. It's all of the other production elements.
The film's makeup is one factor that makes the film work. The makeup for the character of Mrs. Doubtfire herself is amazingly well done. The movie won the Oscar for Best Makeup- and for good reason. There have been many films release since this one about men disguising themselves as women and the makeup isn't that good. They should take tips from these makeup artists.
For me, the acting from the incredibly talented cast is the core factor that makes this film work. Robin Williams is absolutely phenomenal in this. His ability to change his voice constantly and consistently is incredibly entertaining to watch, especially in the scene when he makes numerous calls to apply for the nanny job. His posture and how he presents himself as a woman just makes you laugh. Even the way he looks at someone will make you laugh. His comedic timing is priceless. Robin Williams is one of those people that just makes you laugh whenever he does something. Sally Field is also fantastic in this. She can be seen as the antagonist in some ways but I think she was very convincing in her role. Lisa Jakub, Matthew Lawrence and Mara Wilson play the kids Lydia, Christopher and Natalie. I thought all three kids did an exceptional job and worked off very well with Robin Williams. Pierce Brosnan plays Stuart and although his character isn't that likeable, I think he did a fine job. Anne Haney plays Mrs. Sellner, a worker assigned to oversee Daniel. I think she was funny, even though her character wasn't all that likeable. The entire cast is great, but this is Robin Williams' show and he owns it.
The film's humour is and can be over the top and that what suits Robin Williams. He is a very energetic performer and I think that this kind of humour and story appealed to him and worked well for him. There are many jokes and gags that are done that I don't think would've worked if it was a lesser actor portraying Mrs. Doubtfire. So thank goodness for Robin Williams and his talent. Nonetheless, this film will make you laugh at loud. It's over the top hilarious.
Mrs. Doubtfire is a highly entertaining and funny film that will be seen as a comedy classic.
Rating: 4/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)