Note: This is a little different for the blog! No, this isn't wrestling related, but a need of mine to broaden my writing...
Boyhood
I've just arrived home and felt the need to get what I felt about the film that I saw this evening of my chest.
Leading up to this film, I was intrigued by the idea that it had been filmed over twelve years, and used the same cast. Wow, what a fresh idea! It seemed like it would be my kind of film, too. What I mean by this is that I'm not much of a Hollywood Blockbuster film watcher; I much prefer my films to hit me with dialogue and substance; instead of wowing me with explosions and witty (crap) one-liners, I'd rather have a speech that shows me the layers of the character that I'm watching on screen.
Boyhood is a great example of this. And then some.
I'm not too hot on remembering who writes and directs certain films, but I was pleased to see, in the end credits, that this film was written and directed by Richard Linklater. Now, I'm not a huge fan of his, who knows everything that he's ever done, but I am aware of the Before series of films, starring Ethan Hawke (who plays an important role in Boyhood) and Julie Delpy. The first film of that series, in particular, blew me away when I first saw it. Quite simply, it is about two people who meet in the middle of Europe, enjoy each other's company, talk about everything and anything, and grow closer as the film moves forward. There's no dramatic explosions or crises; just great dialogue and interactions that allow you to see who these characters are.
From what I understand of Linklater's work, it's what he brings to all his films: real people in real situations. The Before series brought this by the bucket load and so does Boyhood.
The most pleasing thing about this film is the fact that it used the same actors over the twelve year period. Ethan Hawke can do no wrong in my eyes; his performances in the Before series hooked me in, and despite not seeking out all his other films on Netflix or other methods, if I see him advertised for an upcoming role I'm interested in what might be.
The boy, himself, that is the focus of this film, Mason (Ellar Coltrane) is also a great factor of this film. I'm not saying that they could have put any kid in there to do this role, but it's really pleasing to see the same actor grow up before our eyes over the twelve years that this is set. It's also pleasing to see him go through the same experiences that we all do when growing up; but unlike most films that skim over these experiences, and with different actors playing the different stages of life, this was so unique to see the same boy, with different haircuts, take us through this journey. It felt more personal, and almost like we knew the young adult that he turns into due to seeing him grow-up in front of us over the two-and-a-half hour duration.
I really like films that have a good and unique idea. They might not necessarily be the 'greatest' films ever made but they have a place in my DVD collection. Examples of this include Vanilla Sky (Tom Cruise) and The Butterfly Effect (Ashton Kutcher) - probably not your cup of tea, or not likely to be on the 'greatest movies ever' lists, but amongst my favourites anyway.
A film at the other end of the scale would be the masterpiece 'Inception'. I'd like to think I'm right in thinking that this will eventually be seen as one of the best films ever made. This is a great example of a film that I could never have imagined before I saw it. That, to me, is great film making - something that is such a great idea and captivates you throughout, wondering what's coming next, and how it might pan out.
This leads me to a film that I saw last night - Warm Bodies. This stars Teresa Palmer, and Nicholas Hoult as a zombie, who still has the ability to think. Hoult also narrates throughout the early stages of the film, giving the zombie perspective of an apocalypse. This is something I have never seen before. He attempts to explain why zombies do what they do and the awkwardness that comes with certain things: conversations with his 'best friend', M/Marcus (Rob Corddrey) being nothing more than a grunt-fest.
I really liked this take on the zombie film genre. Every other film involving zombies are always from our (living humans) point of view - our thoughts, feelings, worries and hope for the future; if there will be one, that is. This is the first time I have seen things through their eyes.
When I entered the theatre to watch Warm Bodies, I wasn't sure what to expect. The first five minutes hooked me in, though. Hoult introduced himself (unsure of his 'living' name; only remembering that it started with an 'R') and goes onto explains what it's like to 'live' life as a zombie. He also talks of his desire to 'feel' again and, essentially, live again.
He meets Julie (Palmer), whilst attacking her and a group of friends in an abandoned drugstore. During the fight that ensues, he smears his own 'stink' over her head so that the other zombies can't sense her. After uttering some of the only words he knows, he leads Julie to his home - an abandoned aircraft (at an airport) - where he eventually gains her trust. A surprise to her and to us as the audience, as it would be the norm in any other film for zombie to devour human.
During the opening scene's narration, R has a vision of the airport, with living people walking around:
"It
must have been so much better before. When everyone could express
themselves and communicate their feelings and just enjoy each others
company."
This is accompanied by virtually
everybody in that vision on, or looking at, their phones/mobile devices.
This is a great example of how things weren't that great before -
and something that is extremely wrong with our society today. Even
before any apocalypse that may happen in the future, normal,
face-to-face conversation is... dead.
This goes nicely with a other examples of 'how things used to be'. Before their meeting, and during their time in the aeroplane, R (Hoult) plays records on his gramophone. This is something that Julie questions him over - why does he use a gramophone over, say, an ipod?
"Better sound... more alive" (whilst rotating his finger like a record).
There are several pieces of music throughout (as there is with every film!), that really encompass the mood of how a zombie might feel. R plays John Waite's 'Missing You' on his gramophone:
"And there's a storm raging,
Through my frozen heart tonight."
To add to this Julie shuffles through his record collection and finds a Bruce Springsteen classic, 'Hungry Heart':
"Everybody wants a place to rest Everybody wants to have a home Don't make no difference what nobody says Ain't nobody like to be alone."
These are great song choices as not only do they convey how a zombie might feel, as well as a human, but they are classic songs - in an apocalyptic world simple pleasures such as records; old classics such as these; would be such a comforting thing to hear. Additionally, there is the use of a Polaroid camera later in the film - showing that old hardware produces and preserves the best lasting memories.
This film is without doubt a comedy. It also has a very serious message (with the examples above) of how we take the things we have for granted - ipods, digital cameras, mobile phones and even the internet. These things also get in the way of true, organic human interaction. It also shows that, as humans, we will always see the good in others - whether that is fellow humans... or even zombies.
The most important message that it has on offer is the importance, and power, of human connection. This is displayed throughout the film, with the use of music, interaction and belief that there is good in everyone. The most important example is that of human touch - holding hands. After seeing R and Julie holding hands, the zombies, led by M/Marcus, feel something. This is later confirmed when they see more hand holding. It gives them hope that they can change. This change then leads M/Marcus to dream. This in turn gives hope for the future - that there can be a different, brighter future for them. It makes them feel more alive.
Ultimately, I don't wish for a zombie apocalypse, but it would make us realise what is important in life. It would open our eyes to what simple things we have at our disposal to make us happy and to connect with others.
Although this film does have a similar message to that of other zombie films - hope for the future; never giving up - it's nice that instead of a cure/antidote to get things back to normal, it shows that simple human emotion is the best medicine.
Here is the first four minutes of the film, just as a taster for you to go and see it:
50/50 is a film starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Seth Rogen, and deals with Cancer and the events that follow for one young man.
We are introduced to Adam Lerner (Levitt) at the start of the film as he is jogging. He reaches traffic lights, and despite there being no traffic whatsoever, he decides against crossing. This is the most important character trait that Adam has - he is very sensible.
We are also introduced to his best friend, and work colleague, Kyle (Rogen) and his girlfriend Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard). It appears that they are having problems in their relationship but Adam seems too nice to think that they might be serious enough to deal with. It is evident from his interactions with Rachael that she may be hiding something.
Adam goes to see his doctor, who casually tells him that he has a Neurofibrosarcoma Schwannoma (malignant tumor), before telling him what this is in plain English. After hearing the word 'cancer', Adam is in shock. After being so careful in life and never rocking the boat, how could something so bad happen to him? After researching this, he realises that he has a 50/50 chance of beating it.
This news shocks everyone, and each person responds in the way they feel will help; Kyle is a bit of a joker and he tries to put Adam at ease by wanting to have fun. Later, he also wants Adam to use his condition to pick up women. Rachael agrees that she will look after Adam despite him giving her the option to 'bail' if she wants to. Thirdly, Adam's mum, Diane, wants to protect her child (even though he is 27 years old), smothering him at every opportunity as she panics as to what's best to do.
After being out on a date, Kyle discovers that Rachael is cheating on Adam. He goes to see Adam that night and, in front of Rachael, shows him the photographic evidence of her betrayal. This leads Adam to end things with her. It also contributes to his change in attitude.
On hearing this devastating, life-changing news, Adam starts to doubt the way he lives his life. He has been so careful, never rocking the boat and it's as if he has been punished for this. He decides to take action; after all, he may die so this is now the time to live his life to the fullest.
Additionally, He reluctantly goes to therapy, where he meets his young and inexperienced therapist Katherine (Anna Kendrick). This is where his barriers come down and he is able to say how he feels. This doesn't happen at first as he is very sceptical about attending; especially when he realises that he is only her third patient. Eventually, they get closer and Adam feels he can open up more.
A very important encounter that he has during chemotherapy is with older patients, Alan and Mitch. Alan is probably in his late sixties/early seventies and Mitch a little younger. The three of them form a bond. When Mitch dies, Adam realises that this could very well be his fate, too. Alan doesn't respond well to this situation and doesn't help Adam's view of death.
The line between doctor/patient and friends gets crossed when Adam and Katherine share a car journey to get Adam home. There is an awkward moment between them that shows that there may be something there. Later, after Adam has a tantrum in Kyle's car, he phones Katherine and completely crosses that line when he tells her that he wishes that she were his girlfriend - this is something that seems to make her happy.
In a funny way, this situation that Adam finds himself in is the wake-up call that he needed in his life. He becomes unafraid of situations that he wouldn't have dealt with before: he does drugs (smoking weed with Kyle), he demands to drive Kyle's car (nearly causing an accident in the process!). He also stops accepting how his relationship is with Rachael, and once he finds out about her betrayal, he has no problem not pandering to her anymore. He also takes a chance and tells Katherine that he'd like her to be his girlfriend - something that a straight-edged Adam wouldn't have dared to do.
This film deals with various themes including friendship, reassessing close relationships, grief, and letting go and living life. Really good performances from Levitt and Kendrick, and some comic relief from Rogen in his awkward, try-to-say/do-the-right-thing role!
I'd been thinking of going to see this film as soon as I saw it advertised. I just saw the title, along with Rachel McAdams, and thought – I need to see this film. I'm a bit of a 'time travel film' fan so I jump at these types of films even if I'm told it could be a letdown...
I started my day going to the gym with my niece, who when I told her I wanted to see this film, told me the usual, that a friend of a friend said that it wasn't as good as they thought it'd be. This didn't deter me though as I wanted to give it the chance that I'd given previous time travel-esque films. So when I got home and checked the show times, I realised that I only had about thirty minutes to spare before it started so I hurried along to my local cinema to catch it.
My interest started back with stuff like Flight of the Navigator through to Back to the Future and then more recently The Butterfly Effect and, on TV, with Journeyman (which I'm still bitter they cancelled!!). I love the idea of these films and the 'trouble' it causes by accidently changing things in the past. I also still think that it's really cool - even after 20 years - the thought and magic of being able to travel through time. More recently with Journeyman, I became interested in the stress and strain that time travel has on marriages and relationships. This is one of the main themes of The Time Traveller's Wife.
The Time Traveller's Wife sees Henry, a 30-something guy, who inexplicably time travels without warning. This has been happening to him the majority of his life. The main focus is, obviously, with his wife, Clare who has to deal with the disappearance of her husband at random times. It also touches on other relationships that are strained through his 'condition' as he refers to it. It also show the great love and heartache that this situation causes the characters.
When I went to see this film, I only had one worry – Eric Bana – maybe I hadn't given him the amount of attention he deserves, but for me The Incredible Hulk did him no favours and I haven't bothered with him since! But I'm willing to give him some credit now as he does put in a good and believable performance – something I still think is hard to come by when trying to emit emotions to going through time! Because of the length of time he has been travelling, he seems to be at ease with it and it doesn't cause him too much stress. Added to this, Rachel McAdams seems used to it too – patience of a saint to be honest with you. As the cracks appear in their relationship, it's really different and refreshing to see the pain it causes them, as this is rarely shown in other films I've seen. My experiences of Rachel McAdams really only come from Wedding Crashers and Red Eye, but when you get past her beauty (and huge smile) this is a great performance – really portraying the naivety to the situation well.
As I've touched on before – this film really does have the feel of a combination of The Butterfly Effect and of Journeyman. For me most notably Journeyman (which was cut off in its prime!). So if you want to reignite the spark that was put out there then this is a must see, whether you catch it on the big screen or have to wait until the DVD comes out.
When I first heard about this remake, I was disgusted - another remake of a top film from my childhood (even though I was a little young for the original Arnie version).
This shouldn't be allowed.
The closer it's gotten to release date the more open I've become to giving it a chance - mainly to see for myself what a failure it would be.
Leading up to the showing, I saw a trailer for it and noticed that it was a 12A certificate... this worried me as the original was an 18 rating. Was this to make it more accessible to all? Did this mean that the violence would be toned down? - The answer to both of these questions was 'yes'; the remake isn't as brutal - probably because of the styles of the directors - Paul Verhoeven's is known for his sexual and violent style (see Basic Instinct or Starship Troopers for examples of this).
Standout differences between the films are that there is no Richter (played by Michael Ironside in the original) - instead, the remake makes more use of Lori Quaid (Kate Beckinsale) in the role of hunting Doug Quaid (Colin Farrell).
There are also no roles for the characters of Benny and Kuato. These are best suited to the Mars-themed original.
This is possibly the biggest difference between the films; the original was based in a future where Mars is an attraction as a livable planet. In the remake, it is set on Earth where a major war has left only two 'territories': The United Federation of Britain (UFB) and The Colony (the former Australia). The rest of the Earth is uninhabitable - therefore, living space is the most valuable commodity there is.
Other differences include the use of Doug's 'friend' Harry (used instead of the doctor sent in to convince Doug it is all a dream), Hauser's involvement in locating Matthius (the resistance's leader) and, to a point, Cohaagen - the main antagonist of both versions of the film.
I feel that Ronny Cox's version of Cohaagen is an eviler, vicious villain with a bigger presence. Bryan Cranston's version doesn't compare - not really showing his true colours until later in the film (sorry Breaking Bad fans!).
Overall, I think this remake tries to be its own man, but gives too many nods to the original (three breasted girl, 'two weeks' woman). It also feels like it relies too much on the character's reputations from the original, therefore not needing to explain as much.
There are positives though; Farrell's acting in comparison to Arnie (I still prefer Arnie though!) and most notably Beckinsale's Lori - a really great hunter of Doug, who massively overshadows the character of Melina (Jessica Biel).
Maybe all the nods to the original was their way of appeasing fans of the 1990 version - they knew that this one would be seen as inferior.
Jimmo's rating: 2 out of 5 (Probably an unfair review / comparison, but I love the original so it's hard to be fair to it!)
Review – Inglourious Basterds (18) – Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent, Eli Roth
Monday 24th August 2009
“... we're gonna be doing one thing, and one thing only... killing Nazis”.
Straight to the point and the one line that drew me to the cinema for this film. Once you see the whole of this first Aldo Raine (Pitt) speech, you're instantly motivated to jump on the bandwagon with them. I think Hitler would even be proud of this. A motivational speech touching on what the Nazis have done across Europe and what he wants to happen so that the Nazis get a taste of their own medicine.
Inglourious Basterds sees a group of Jewish-American soldiers on a mission to do one thing – 'bring the scalps' of as many Nazis as they can get their hands on. Their leader, Lieutenant Aldo Raine, wants nothing less than pain and suffering to be delivered against the murderers of the Jewish masses. In a way, lowering themselves to the Nazis level, but also to show them that there is another force to be reckoned with and that the Nazis have something to fear, too.
There are other stories going on in this picture too. The film starts in Nazi-occupied France, where a SS Colonel, Hans Landa arrives at a French farm in search of Jews. Landa is a ruthless man, known as the 'Jew Hunter', who with his own unique way, gets the information he seeks. His first scene is maybe a warning of his powers. It seems as though he knows the answers to the questions before he's even asked them. He is clever in that he 'thinks like a Jew' in order to catch them out. This adds to his dangerousness. Landa is played by Christoph Waltz, who is by far the standout performance.
The other critical story in this film is that of a female cinema owner, who after unwillingly befriending the star of a Nazi propaganda film, gets the 'honour' of hosting the showing of this film to the Nazi high command and guests.
The film comes to a conclusion when all parties involved; the Nazis high order, Raine and his Basterds, and the cinema owner, with her own agenda, descend on the small cinema in Nazi-occupied France, where all hell breaks loose...
Pitt is likable in his role as Raine. I felt that he came across as a simple American officer, who has one thing on his mind. But the real star of this film is Christoph Waltz - you would probably refer to him as the biggest 'basterd' in this film. If you were in any doubt about seeing this film – go for Waltz' performance alone.
Jimmo's rating: 3 (out of 5) – a really enjoyable 3, a must see for Waltz' performance.
