For All Your Movie Reviewing Needs! This blog will feature film reviews, the occasional personal blog, a tally of the films I see at the cinema and anything else I deem worthy of sharing with YOU, my loyal readers. I have archived my two previous blogs here too so anyone new can catch up with something they might have missed. Thanks for reading!
I should probably open by telling you that I was not fond of the first Sherlock Holmes movie and had no intention of watching this one. Until I started to hear those magic five words 'better than the first one'. Better you say? Oh well I might as well see it then, after all, December has been rather cine lite owing to my two week absence. Plus I probably won't see anything while I'm up north for Christmas. Lets give it a go!
From what I remember of Sherlock 1 (that's not a lot), Sherlock 2 carries on pretty seamlessly. Irene (Rachel McAdams) is still wheeling and dealing and getting Sherlock (Robert Downey Jnr) into trouble. Meanwhile Sherlock's long suffering colleague Dr Watson (Jude Law) is planning his wedding. All Sherlock has to do is take Watson on his 'stag do' and get him to the church on time, but of course nothing goes to plan when Sherlock is trying to get one over on Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris). One thing leads to another and the pair find themselves in Paris with a gypsy (Noomi Rapace) who is connected to Moriarty by way of her lost brother.
Simply put, whoever it was that said this was better than the first was either stupid or lying. It's over long, it's boring, it's complicated and it's contrived. I have never been a fan of Guy Ritchie but his direction of this film has to be some of the worst direction I have seen all year. He uses way too much slow motion, has these silly scenes of imagined fights before the real fight takes place, meaning you see every fight twice. And he's put in these ridiculous over stylised shots of running through forests. Just when you think it can't go on any longer or get any worse it does.
The one good thing that can be said about the film is the casting, but even that can't save the film. The two females in the cast Rachel McAdams, who reprises her role of Irene Adler from the first film, and Noomi Rapace, last seen with a Dragon Tattoo, have nothing to do. McAdams is written out within the opening 15 minutes and Rapace appears here and there throughout the film but you're never really sure how she (as an actress or the character) got involved in the first place. The final nail in Ritchie's coffin surely has to be the fact that he can take an actor like Robert Downey Jnr, one of the most charismatic, charming and funny actors around, and make a film so utterly boring that even Downey Jnr can't save it. Surely that speaks volumes about how bad a director he really is?
The cinema was obviously experiencing 'technical problems' with their heating as it was stiffling in the cinema but even so I haven't been as close to falling asleep in a film since I saw The Last Airbender. There's a bit in the film where Holmes and Watson are talking about going home, and the whole while I was thinking, "yes, please go home, because then this will finish and I will be able to go home" but then they decide to go to Switzerland instead, and so it drags on for another hour.
There is a lot of acting talent here but unfortunately for those involved, not a lot else. Please don't let there be a Sherlock 3. 5 out of 10.
Viewing Date - 19th December 2011
UK Release Date - 16th December 2011
Cast Overview:
Robert Downey Jnr ~ Sherlock Holmes
Jude Law ~ Dr John Watson
Noomi Rapace ~ Madam Simza Heron
Rachel McAdams ~ Irene Adler
Jared Harris ~ Professor James Moriarty
Stephen Fry ~ Mycroft Holmes
Director ~ Guy Ritchie
Writer(s) ~ Michele and Kieran Mulroney based on characters created by
Hugo is another film that I knew nothing about until my cinema buddy told me to check out the trailer. Even then, while I wanted to see it, I wasn't overly drawn in. Then as bad luck would have it, I was struck down with a horrible cough almost as soon as Hugo was released. And as I heard more and more good things about it I wanted to see it more and more. In the end I was so concerned that I would miss it that my cough be damned, I went to the cinema to watch it.
Hugo (Asa Butterfield) is the boy of the film's title. Following the untimely death of his father (Jude Law), his uncle (Ray Winstone) takes him to work - and live - in a train station in Paris in the 1930s. After his uncle leaves him there, Hugo decides to stay and carry on winding the clocks, figuring if the clocks are still running, the people at the station will just assume it's his uncle doing the work, and he'll be allowed to stay there, as he has no other home to go to. In his spare time, Hugo is trying to repair an automaton that his father brought home to fix before he died. One day, the toy shop owner Hugo had been stealing parts from, Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley), decides to steal something from Hugo to make them even. He takes Hugo's notebook, which once belonged to his father, and so begins Hugo's quest to get the book back. Hugo gets a lot more than he bargained for however when Georges past comes to light.
Hugo is such a charming film, an absolute pleasure from start to finish. The fact that it was directed by Martin Scorsese makes it all the more incredible. Now I'm not saying old Marty is not a good director. I'm sure we all agree that he has made some magnificent films, but these are films like Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, more recently Gangs of New York and Shutter Island. He's not exactly known for charming kids films.
The other impressive thing about the film being directed by Martin Scorsese is that this is the first time he's shot a film in 3D. And I think this might be the most impressive use of 3D I have ever seen. Everything pops, like a feast for your eyes, from the dust in the train station to the people on screen, it's a visual treat. Mr Scorsese hasn't gone down the classic route of having things come out of the screen, instead he's just made everything three dimensional. It's honestly amazing use of 3D. If you see Hugo, and I highly recommend you do, you should see it in 3D.
3D gushing aside, everything about Hugo is a joy. The setting is perfect, the train station is smoggy and dusty and full of fascinating characters. The little passageways that Hugo has to squeeze through in his daily routine of winding the clocks have a maze-like quality to them. The cast is a delight, the previously unknown Asa Butterfield has an innocence about him but also seems like an old head on young shoulders. I don't think Ben Kingsley has been better for many years, finally putting aside his hammier acting and tackling something seriously really pays off. Sacha Baron Cohen is brilliant casting as the Station Inspector, simultaniously making you loathe him for being Hugo's nemesis but also wanting him to get the girl. I can't fault anyone. And it's lovely to see Christopher Lee in the smaller, supporting role of Monsieur Labisse, a likeable character for him for once.
This is the type of film which my mum would say gives you 'the feel good factor', you come away from it feeling somewhat enriched by it. It's also the type of film you could take your kids to and your grandma and each of them would get something out of it. Before it leaves the cinema I urge all of my readers to go and see Hugo (in 3D) and marvel in it's storytelling greatness. 9 out of 10.
Viewing Date - 18th December 2011
UK Release Date - 2nd December 2011
Cast Overview:
Asa Butterfield ~ Hugo Cabret
Ben Kingsley ~ Georges Méliès
Chloë Grace Moretz ~ Isabelle
Sacha Baron Cohen ~ Station Inspector
Helen McCrory ~ Mama Jeanne
Ray Winstone ~ Uncle Claude
Emily Mortimer ~ Lisette
Christopher Lee ~ Monsieur Labisse
Michael Stuhlbarg ~ Rene Tabard
Frances de la Tour ~ Madame Emilie
Richard Griffiths ~ Monsieur Frick
Jude Law ~ Hugo's Father
Kevin Eldon ~ Policeman
Director ~ Martin Scorsese
Writer(s) ~ John Logan (Screenplay) and Brian Selznick (Book)
Ever since I saw Shrek 2 I have loved the sword fighting, boot and hat wearing Puss. He reminds me of Inigo Montoya, if Inigo were a cat. So I was excited as a kid at Christmas when I heard there was going to be a Puss In Boots movie. Especially since the last two Shrek movies have been less than impressive.
So after my two week long hiatus (I've been poorly sick) I decided that the best way to get back to the cinema, and back to my reviews, was to have a double bill. So as well as seeing Puss today I also saw Hugo. But we'll get to Hugo later.
Puss In Boots tells the story of the early life of everyones favourite sword fighting cat, his time as an orphaned kitten and how he came to own those fetching boots of his. It all started back when he was best friends with Humpty Dumpty when they were both orphaned youngsters. He meets Humpty again years later and the two of them, along with Kitty Softpaws, go on a quest to obtain magic beans from simple crooks Jack and Jill.
As Puss inevitably became the best thing about watching the Shrek movies, it's kinda nice that he has a whole movie to himself without being sidelined. That said I was slightly disappointed that there were no cameos from Shrek, Fiona or Donkey in this movie as I was expecting there to be some mention of the previous adventures Puss has had.
That's not to say that the introduction of Kitty and Humpty doesn't make up for the loss of Shrek and co, just that it's nice to see a familiar face. *Stop reading if you don't want to know who the voices are* The voice actors are all very well suited to their roles and of course Banderas clearly relishes playing Puss for the fourth time. His voice is so well matched to that character that when Puss's voice becomes more high pitched at one point, it just sounds wrong.*Feel free to resume until you get to cast overview under the trailer*
The film isn't overly taxing for young 'uns to keep up with, but they may get bored as it is a little on the long side at nearly 2 hours (including ads/trailers). I think overall it will be an enjoyable, easy watch for adults and kids alike.
Finally I will say that while I have not been that impressed with Dreamworks animation until they made the amazing How To Train Your Dragon, I was sufficiently impressed with the animation on show here and am happy that they seem to be continually improving. They just need to better their stories a little to be on a par with Pixar.
One of the better animations of this rather dismal year for kids films. 6.5 out of 10.
Viewing Date - 18th December 2011
UK Release Date - 9th December 2011
Cast Overview:
Antonio Banderas ~ Puss in Boots
Salma Hayek ~ Kitty Softpaws
Zach Galifianakis ~ Humpty Dumpty
Billy Bob Thornton ~ Jack
Amy Sedaris ~ Jill
Constance Marie ~ Imelda
Director ~ Chris Miller
Writer(s) ~ David H Steinberg and Jon Zack with additional writing credit for Charles Perrault (Character), Will Davis (Story), Brian Lynch (Story) and Tom Wheeler (Screenplay).
Much like my review for The Thing, I feel I should prompt my readers to cast their eyes over one of my personal blogs, Wherever, Whatever, Have A Nice Day, before you read the below review as I feel it's important that you know where I'm coming from.
Most of the classic films I have reviewed this year have been seen at my favourite independent cinema, The Prince Charles Cinema in London. Stand By Me was no exception. I can't thank them enough for letting me tick another film off my cinematic bucket list. I just wish a certain little lady had been here to watch it with me.
For those who've never seen Stand By Me, it's a story of 4 boys who live in a small town in Oregon called Castle Rock. One of the boys, Vern (Jerry O'Connell) overhears his brother talking to a friend about how they witnessed the accidental death of a boy who had since been reported missing. They'd stolen a car and driven out to a lake and saw the boy get hit by a train. They don't want to tell the cops because they'll get in trouble for stealing a car. Vern immediately runs and tells his friends, Gordie (Wil Wheaton), Chris (River Phoenix) and Teddy (Corey Feldman). They realise that if they 'found' the body themselves, while on a camping trip, they'd be hailed as heroes. So they set out on a 30 mile trek to find the body of a dead kid. But they end up discovering more than they bargained for along the way.
So you've read the blog post right? Then you know that Stand By Me is the film that made me discover River Phoenix. The actor who's life (and death) has had the biggest impact on my life, the decisions I make, the people I mix with, ultimately, he shaped my integrity and the things I believe in. So that makes Stand By Me a film that had a HUGE impact on my life. It kinda made me the person I am today.
So what do I think of it? Well excuse me for saying d'uh! I love it of course! Parts make me laugh, parts make me cry and when Gordie shouts "TRAIN!!!" I still get nervous even though I know they make it across the bridge! As my brother just pointed out to me (though it wasn't really necessary), Wil Wheaton and River Phoenix give career defining performances. Performances which show vulnerability, courage and ultimately, strength. They portray complex emotions that their youth could surely not have prepared them for. And along with Feldman and O'Connell they show us a friendship that has lasted long after the camera's stopped filming.
Rob Reiner does a beautiful job of directing his young cast, never making the audience feel like they are inappropriately watching a bunch of young boys in the woods. He instead makes you feel like you are one of the gang and on their side no matter what they are doing, talking silly around a camp fire, trudging through a leech infested swamp or standing up to the bullies. I couldn't imagine any other director handling the material as well as he did.
Which brings me to the novella. Which, don't be too shocked, I have actually read. And love. With the exception of a few extra scenes that are in the story but not in the film, it's virtually exactly the same. Which as I know from reading IT by Stephen King, and watching the adaptation, is not an easy thing to do. I take my hat off again to the screenwriters and Reiner for sticking so close to the source material.
The only niggle I have is that the PCC's copy of the film hadn't aged very well and it meant that the film skipped dialogue during some of my favourite scenes. For this I deduct half a point as it did somewhat spoil the overall experience. If I was watching a perfect copy, it would have been a perfect 10. As it stands, Stand By Me gets 9.5 out of 10.
Review dedicated to my best friend, Miranda Abigail Tennant, who died 3 years ago today. "I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
Viewing Date - 4th December 2011
Original UK Release Date - 13th March 1987
Cast Overview:
Wil Wheaton ~ Gordie Lachance
River Phoenix ~ Chris Chambers
Corey Feldman ~ Teddy Duchamp
Jerry O'Connell ~ Vern Tessio
Kiefer Sutherland ~ Ace Merrill
Casey Siemaszko ~ Billy Tessio
Gary Riley ~ Charlie Hogan
Bradley Gregg ~ Eyeball Chambers
Jason Oliver ~ Vince Desjardins
Marshall Bell ~ Mr Lachance
Frances Lee McCain ~ Mrs Lachance
John Cusack ~ Denny Lachance
Director ~ Rob Reiner
Writer(s) ~ Raynold Gideon (Screenplay), Bruce A Evans (Screenplay) and Stephen King (based on his novella The Body).
For background on what I think of the original 'The Thing' go here. I should point out that this review is for the prequel which is on general release at the moment and which is also called 'The Thing'. Note I said prequel and not remake. This is not a re-telling of the 1982 film but a film about what happened before that film. Gottit? Good. Let's move on.
For anyone who's not seen the 1982 film The Thing starring Kurt Russell, it's about a bunch of American researchers stationed in the Antarctic who witness a dog being shot at by Norwegians in a helicopter, who have come from their nearby base. The helicopter crash lands, killing both Norwegians on board, which leaves the Americans with no idea why they were trying to shoot an innocent animal. The Americans decide to head over to the Norwegian base to find out what's going on. Once there they discover what the Norwegians found under the ice, an alien ship and a creature that they estimate had been there for more than 100,000 years. This film, as I pointed out, is not a remake of that, but a prequel, showing what happened to the Norwegians who found the ship and the creature and what happened when it thawed out.
I don't feel the need to go any further into the synopsis as in spite of this not being a remake it does follow the very familiar pattern of the first 'Thing'. That's not to say that this is a bad move on behalf of the film makers. It would after all be kind of hard for them to change the pattern as what happens to the Norwegians in this film is almost identical to what happens to the Americans in the first film - the alien takes over the base, one person at a time.
There are differences however, a lot more time is spent on the alien ship for one. Fans of the original will be happy to see a scene involving a test to see who is 'Thing' and who is human has been given a new lease of life, but is still as nerve wracking to watch as the original scene was.
There are a lot of jumps in this movie but not really anything new in terms of plot. Plus I kinda think that one of the things which makes the original so scary is not knowing what the creature looked like originally. You only ever saw it in it's copied state or mid-transformation. While you don't get to see it clearly in this film, you do get more of an idea of what it looked like before it changed.
I also wasn't keen on the use of CGI as I'd heard they were going to make this the old fashioned way to mirror the first film. But in the end they went down the CGI route, I'm guessing because this is quicker and less costly than model making. But I did love the effects in the original, even if they seem laughable to audiences now.
I did come away liking The Thing 2011 though and felt it did wrap things up nicely, providing you stay and watch the extra bits that appear throughout the end credits. It's not as good as it's predecessor but it's enjoyable none-the-less. 7.5 out of 10.
Viewing Date - 2nd December 2011
UK Release Date - 2nd December 2011
Cast Overview:
Mary Elizabeth Winstead ~ Kate Lloyd
Joel Edgerton ~ Carter
Ulrich Thomsen ~ Dr Sander Halvorson
Eric Christian Olsen ~ Adam Finch
Kim Bubbs ~ Juliette
Jørgan Langhelle ~ Lars
Jan Gunnar Røise ~ Olav
Stig Henrik Hoff ~ Peder
Director ~ Matthijs Van Heijningen Jr
Writer(s) ~ Eric Heisserer (Screenplay) and John W Campbell Jr (Short Story 'Who Goes There')
I'm going to confuse everyone with this as I'm going to have a personal blog and a review with the same title. It's been a while since I wrote a personal blog though and in writing my review for The Thing (2011) I felt the need to elaborate.
I'm sure I've mentioned before that I am a lifelong horror fan. Cheesy ones, scary ones, classic ones, horrors about aliens, ghosts, boogie men, vampires, werewolves. You name it, I've seen it and probably loved it. The Thing (1982) however, was something entirely different. It might not have been the first film to scare me but it's the first film that I remember being genuinely afraid of.
But before I talk about that I should give you some background so you know how hardcore a horror fan I really was. I grew up watching Hammer Horrors. "Not scary" I hear you cry. Maybe not. But when I say grew up I mean it. I can't have been older than 5 when I saw my first. I used to sneak downstairs at night and watch them with my mum. You might think badly of her for letting me watch such things but I didn't sleep as a child, so what was a single mother with two other kids to do? I would only fall asleep with my head in my mum's lap as she stroked my hair or my back. It was soothing to me. So the chances of me falling asleep alone in my bed were slim to none unless she stayed with me and she didn't have the time. Plus it didn't turn me into a psycho so it was clearly fine. And I loved them. Christopher Lee as Dracula, Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. Great films. And so the child of horror was born.
We swiftly moved on to 'Halloween' and it quickly became our tradition to watch it every year on Halloween when BBC2 used to show it. It was only when I then showed Halloween to my neighbour (who must have been about 8 or 9 at the time) and she screamed at the pumpkin in the opening credits that I realised I was not like other girls my age. I was tougher. Able to laugh in the face of horror.
I then moved on to Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm St. Nothing could phase me. Or so I thought.
I don't remember how old I was when my brother told me 'The Thing' was going to be on TV but I must have been in my early teens. I thought nothing of watching it on his recommendation. He likely told me "You like horrors, you'll probably like this", or words to that effect. It was on late, I was the only one still awake as I'd stayed up to watch it. Lights off for dramatic effect. And it scared the crap out of me. I don't know why it resonated with me so deeply but nothing had ever scared me so much. Maybe it was the idea of being taken over by something which imitates you, you cease to exist but something is pretending to be you? Maybe it was just the grizzly deaths? Maybe the isolation? Maybe all of these factors? Whatever it was, I still find it scary - though not to the extent I did that fateful night - but it remains one of my all time favourite films, not just a favourite horror film, to this day.
My review of the prequel, which is also named The Thing, can be found here. But if you haven't seen the original I would highly recommend it. I recently re-watched it with some friends who'd never seen it before and it was a highly enjoyable if somewhat nerve shredding evening.
I'm sure what I'm about to say will be a shock to a lot of my regular readers and to a lot of my friends too. I have never seen a Marilyn Monroe film. I don't consider myself a fan of hers and in truth I've never been that intrigued or beguiled by her as most people are. I am however, intrigued by the way she died. As a lot of people are. I think there's a lot more to it than meets the eye.
I also think she was beautiful, a shining star of her era, and I think her death was a tragedy because she never got to reach her full potential. That's why, despite my lack of enthusiasm towards Marilyn herself, I wanted to see this adaptation of a supposedly true story. A window into the life of one of the most iconic women in the world.
The film is set during the time that Ms Monroe (Michelle Williams) spent in England filming 'The Prince and the Showgirl' with Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh). The third assistant director on 'The Prince and the Showgirl' was Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), who had been hired as a favour to a relative who worked for the studio making the film. During his time on set Colin gets to know Marilyn and becomes one of the few people she trusts and she relies on him as a confidante. They become ever closer when Marilyn's husband, playwright Arthur Miller (Dougray Scott), leaves the UK to go back to his children in the US, leaving Marilyn in a strange country and feeling alienated from the cast and crew who she's convinced all hate her.
I saw this movie with my best friend who is a lifelong Marilyn fan. And what a difference this made, it gave me an insight into the 'true story' this film is based on that I wouldn't have otherwise had. I was reliably informed that a lot of 'borrowing' went on in this film, something which has been backed up by articles I've read since seeing it. Things we know happened have been interwoven into the screenplay to make everything else all the more convincing.
Colin Clark's memoirs after all can't really be contested, as the one person who could confirm or deny their contents wasn't here when the books were published. And although the film doesn't quite confirm an affair between the two it is certainly implied that they were very close. And no matter how lonely Marilyn felt, I find it hard to believe she would have been so open and 'friendly' with a guy like Colin.
I digress however as this is a review of the film and not my opinion on a book I've never read. Though it's hard to review one without mentioning the other. One of the main reasons I wanted to see this (as I'm not a Marilyn fan) was Michelle Williams. As mentioned in my Blue Valentine review, I have been a fan of Miss Williams for a number of years now. And while she is good in the title role, she's not at her best. I would definitely say "don't believe the hype" in this case, that way you might be pleasantly surprised rather than mildly disappointed with her performance. You can tell that she's put a lot of research into her character, and it pays off to some extent, but she just doesn't quite pull off Marilyn.
But then I defy you to find someone who could. This is the problem with making films about film stars of old. They had old school Hollywood glamour on their side, they were icons of the silver screen. How does one imitate that? Clearly the answer is that they don't as Michelle, try as she might, just can't capture that star quality that Marilyn seemed to ooze from every inch of her. I mentioned above that I've never seen a Marilyn Monroe film. This is true. I have however seen bits ofMarilyn Monroe films. And seen enough images and interviews etc to believe I know what I'm talking about when I say she oozed star quality. There's a reason she's the icon she is, no-one has come close to matching her je ne sais quoi. Whatever it was that she had that made her so appealing, no other movie star has ever captured it. And I don't think they ever will.
That said, Michelle Williams does a good job of an impossible task and you don't come away annoyed or angered by her performance. And I think that's the most you can hope for. Branagh and Dench on the other hand are both fabulous in their respective roles of Sir Olivier and Dame Thorndike. Dench doesn't have an awful lot to do but you relish every time she's on screen and she fills her character with such likability that I can only hope Sybil was as nice in real life. And from the little I've seen of Laurence Olivier in The Prince and the Showgirl I think Branagh's portrayal of him is spot on. Unfortunately for Branagh I imagine he'll be largely overlooked as all the talk will be about Williams. Finally, Redmayne, although still a little too weird looking for my tastes, is fittingly bland in his role of Colin. That's not to say he's not good, it's just that his is the least showy of all the lead roles and he plays this to perfection. Support is ably supplied by Dominic Cooper, Emma Watson and Zoe Wanamaker amongst others.
Overall, an interesting, if a little indulgent film but one which I imagine is more fiction than fact. 7 out of 10.
Viewing Date - 28th November 2011
UK Release Date - 25th November 2011
Cast Overview:
Michelle Williams ~ Marilyn Monroe
Eddie Redmayne ~ Colin Clark
Kenneth Branagh ~ Sir Laurence Olivier
Judi Dench ~ Dame Sybil Thorndike
Emma Watson ~ Lucy
Julia Ormond ~ Vivien Leigh
Dominic Cooper ~ Milton Greene
Dougray Scott ~ Arthur Miller
Zoe Wanamaker ~ Paula Strasberg
Derek Jacobi ~ Sir Owen Morshead
Geraldine Somerville ~ Lady Jane Clark
Michael Kitchen ~ Hugh Perceval
Toby Jones ~ Arthur Jacobs
Jim Carter ~ Barry
Director ~ Simon Curtis
Writer(s) ~ Adrian Hodges (Screenplay) and Colin Clark (based on his books 'My Week With Marilyn' and 'The Prince, the Showgirl and Me')
I can't even put into words how much I was looking forward to Breaking Dawn. As a huge fan of the Twilight books and films, I had been excited to see this in the flesh (so to speak) from the moment I started reading the book.
Writing the review however, is something I was not looking forward to. I feel much like I did when I was faced with writing the review for Source Code, my first review of a Jake Gyllenhaal film. Being a huge fan of his, and knowing that most of my readers were aware of that fact, left me feeling like I was going to be subject to more scrutiny for that review than for most others. And in many ways I was, but I also think I managed to surprise most with how impartial and objective I was to that film and I hope to do the same here. Yes, I am a Twilight fan, but this will not automatically make me biased and a bad reviewer!
My job is also harder here than say, when I was writing the review for the last Harry Potter film, as I have not reviewed any of the previous Twilight films. Therefore I ask you to bear with me while I sum up. For those who have been living under a rock for the last six years, Twilight is the first in a series of four books and so far, four movies. Twilight tells the story of Bella Swan, a normal teenage girl who lives with her mother in Phoenix but decides to move back to her father's home town of Forks when her mother remarries. On her first day at her new school she meets Edward, who just happens to be a vampire. Edward is immediately drawn to Bella's scent and thirsts for her blood over all others, which makes it particularly trying for him when she starts to fall in love with him, and him with her. The situation is exacerbated when a group of nomad vampires come to town who are hell bent on ending Bella's life.
In the second book/film, New Moon, Edward decides to leave Bella in the hope that she will have a much more normal and safe life without him in it. What he doesn't know is that her best friend Jacob is about to have a life altering experience of his own which will again put Bella's life in danger, when he realises he is a werewolf. Meanwhile, Edward's sister Alice who sees visions of the future, informs Edward that she has seen Bella's death, only for the 'vision' to be revealed as one of Bella cliff diving, rather than committing suicide. But it's too late, Edward has already approached vampire royalty and all round law enforcers, The Volturi, to end his life as he cannot live without Bella.
Book and film number three, Eclipse, sees The Volturi take more of an interest in Bella as one of the 'laws' of their world is for no human to be aware of their existence. As she does, they give Edward an ultimatum, that Bella be killed or be turned. The latter being a prospect Bella would be quite happy with, but which Edward does not want to happen. He believes that humans have a soul and that transforming Bella would take hers away. But with the wolfpack growing in numbers, the return of one of the nomads, and a visit from The Volturi fast approaching, Edward may have no choice but to turn Bella or risk losing her forever.
Which brings us to book number four, Breaking Dawn which is being split (a la the final Harry Potter book) into two films, Breaking Dawn Part 1 and Part 2. Now the cynical person in me says this is a money spinner for Summit, the production company behind the Twilight films, as Eclipse was easily as big a book as Breaking Dawn and they only felt the need to make one of those! But the fan in me is quite happy that they have split the final book as there is a LOT in it and it would have meant a lot of cutting or downsizing of important scenes.
*The only spoilers in this review are already contained in the trailer so if you've seen that, fear not!* In Breaking Dawn Part 1 we open on preperations for Bella and Edward's wedding. Which as weddings go, goes pretty much without a hitch. The honeymoon however is a slightly trickier situation as Edward is much stronger than Bella. This matched with his blood lust is a combination that screams trouble. But as any normal girl would, Bella wants her honeymoon to be normal, and that means sex. What neither of them was expecting was for Bella to be expecting soon after. And so begins a race against time to save Bella before the thing inside her kills her from the inside out.
It's funny how when I reviewed Harry Potter, I had only read the first few books, and so for the later films I couldn't compare the two. Yet for Twilight, having read them all (several times over), I feel like I have to compare them to the books. And I have to say that this one remained pretty darn faithful.
*Spoiler Alert* The one scene I was worried about was the birth scene as I wasn't sure if the film was going to end before/during that scene and even if it was intact I wasn't sure how it could be done as in the book it's very gory. It was probably the only scene in the film that I didn't feel they'd done right. That's not to say I didn't like it, it just wasn't how I'd imagined it would be. Everyone goes on about the sex in Breaking Dawn, but there really isn't any in the book, it's all just implied, whereas the birth scene is described very clearly, and it wasn't how I thought it would be. Having said that, I re-read the birth scene when I got home and was surprised at how close they kept the movie to the book. Other than one change it was pretty much word for word as it is in the book. *End Spoiler Alert*
The wedding was beautiful and actually better than I'd imagined. The honeymoon was almost exactly as I'd pictured in my head. The one aspect that shocked me was how good the special effects/make up was in the latter stages of Bella's pregnancy. The look they went for was much more horrific than I'd imagined, and so well done.
Some of the green screen surrounding the house looks a bit naff and the wolf telepathy scene is a bit of a bore but I don't think they could have done it another way. Overall I think Bill Condon did a great job. He's come in on the last two films, the ones which the fans are probably most protective of and most anticipated of all the Twilight films, with a cast who are already so close they're like a family, and he's had to make sure he's lived up to their expectations as well as ours. I think he's done well and I have high hopes for part 2.
The cast, well I know this will be the most scrutinised part, "Kristen can't act/Rob's wooden/Taylor just takes his shirt off and calls it acting", I've heard it all a million times. I know how much stick I'll get for this but I do actually think Kristen Stewart is a good actress, maybe she's not showcased it so much in these films, but there's no denying that she can act. And she definitely gets to do more in this film than just lust after the sparkly one. Speaking of which, Robert Pattinson also has more to do in this film than just shine, he (literally) gets his teeth into this part finally and does some fine work in the birth scene. Taylor has a few good scenes in this film and although I still don't like Jacob, I do like his portrayal of him more than I liked the character in the books.
I think fans of the books and previous films will love it. Those who think Twilight is for girls should probably avoid. It's not perfect but it's very faithful to the source material. 8 out of 10.
Viewing Date - 18th November 2011
UK Release Date - 18th November 2011
Cast Overview:
Kristen Stewart ~ Bella Swan
Robert Pattinson ~ Edward Cullen
Taylor Lautner ~ Jacob Black
Gil Birmingham ~ Billy Black
Billy Burke ~ Charlie Swan
Sarah Clarke ~ Renee
Ashley Greene ~ Alice Cullen
Jackson Rathbone ~ Jasper Hale
Peter Facinelli ~ Dr Carlisle Cullen
Elizabeth Reaser ~ Esme Cullen
Kellan Lutz ~ Emmett Cullen
Nikki Reed ~ Rosalie Hale
Anna Kendrick ~ Jessica
Christian Serratos ~ Angela
Justin Chon ~ Eric
Michael Welch ~ Mike
Michael Sheen ~ Aro
Christopher Heyerdahl ~ Marcus
Jamie Campbell Bower ~ Caius
Charlie Bewley ~ Demetri
Daniel Cudmore ~ Felix
Mia Maestro ~ Carmen
Maggie Grace ~ Irina
MyAnna Buring ~ Tanya
Booboo Stewart ~ Seth Clearwater
Julia Jones ~ Leah Clearwater
Alex Rice ~ Sue Clearwater
Kiowa Gordon ~ Embry
Tyson Houseman ~ Quil
Chaske Spencer ~ Sam Uley
Bronson Pelletier ~ Jared
Alex Meraz ~ Paul
Tinsel Korey ~ Emily
Director ~ Bill Condon
Writer(s) ~ Melissa Rosenberg (Screenplay) and Stephenie Meyer (Novel)
My loyal readers will be well aware by now of my well documented crush on Ryan Gosling. Therefore it was a given that I'd see The Ides Of March, even if it did look a bit dull and like it might hurt my brain with all the political speak.
Seeing it however, proved to be more of a problem than I'd anticipated as it finished at my local Cineworld after only a week on release, and when I planned a trip to the next town (which has a bigger cinema) the week after, they stopped showing it too. Just when I'd given up completely and resigned myself to waiting for the DVD, my cinema buddy told me the Odeon had picked it up for one week only.
The Ides Of March is essentially about a governor - Mike Morris (George Clooney - who also co-wrote and directed) who is running for presidency. One of his aides, Stephen (Ryan Gosling), is asked to meet with fellow aide who works for the opposition. Once he does, although nothing comes of the meeting, he feels compelled to tell the governor and is subsequently fired. But he soon learns something about the governor which makes him question the morals of the man who would be president. Something big enough that could stand Stephen in good stead if he chooses to use it. But as that would be as morally wrong as what the governor did, will he be able to make that choice?
The Ides Of March was pretty much what I expected it to be, a well acted and intriguing film. But I found myself pleasantly surprised by it too. It wasn't as dull as the trailer implied and wasn't so heavy on the political speak that it alienated me from the story. The performances are all excellent as you would expect from a cast including Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and Marisa Tomei and the direction is slick and well paced. I also think that when George Clooney directs himself it makes him a better actor!
The story flips between politics and the people behind the speeches and decisions and this is what stops it from being boring and keeps it interesting. A taut and intelligent film, not to be missed. 8.5 out of 10.
Viewing Date - 16th November 2011
UK Release Date - 28th October 2011
Cast Overview:
Ryan Gosling ~ Stephen Meyers
George Clooney ~ Governor Mike Morris
Philip Seymour Hoffman ~ Paul Zara
Paul Giamatti ~ Tom Duffy
Evan Rachel Wood ~ Molly Stearns
Marisa Tomei ~ Ida Horowicz
Director ~ George Clooney
Writer(s) ~ George Clooney (Screenplay), Grant Heslov (Screenplay) and Beau Willimon (Screenplay - based on his play Farragut North)
