skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Walt Disney Pictures
March 5th 2010
Rated: PG
In the light of 'Alice In Wonderland' grossing $1 billion I felt compelled to re-watch the film again but this time on DVD. Unfortunately I never got the opportunity to watch the film in 3-D just the now- old fashioned 2-D. The first time I watched the film in the cinema I've got to say I was disappointed. Maybe I missed something the first time I watched the film. I think I speak for a lot of us when I rejoiced at the thought of Tim Burton making 'Alice in Wonderland' a film that seemed so perfect for the slightly mad director. On top of a fantastic director we had one of the most versatile and fun actors in the business- Mr Johnny Depp.
Unfortunately however I was disappointed yet again. It has many good points but then many flaws- the latter becoming more apparent on a second viewing. I persisted however hoping that it would turn itself around and I would be proven wrong- I wasn't.
The film as a whole was- I felt, boring. It wasn't a fun roller coaster ride I was hoping for, it was magical yes- but not as magical as I hoped. Throughout it felt like Tim Burton was trying to get a message across to the audience- an important message, yet it felt a film like this didn't need to have a message, it needed to be light-hearted, yet sinister. It needed to be bright, colourful and dull all at the same time- most importantly it needed to be fun I know these are contradicting statements but for those who have already seen this film- they may know what I'm trying to get at. I've never read the book- so perhaps Burton was right on the money with the colour palette? any feedback on this matter would be appreciated- maybe shed some light.
The A-list cast who provided the voices are perfect- Alan Rickman even in a caterpillar form is fantastic and reminiscent of Professor Snape from the Harry Potter series. Matt Lucas was surprisingly funny and amusing as Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-Dee. The Red Queen- played by Burton's wife- Helena Bonham Carter slightly grated on me and her scenes could be amusing and then again would be dull- there was no consistency. Previously mentioned in various other reviews is Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter who was almost flawless. Up until he employs a Scottish accent when he is angry. It seemed pointless and most of all annoying. Mia Wasikowska who plays Alice looks the part but sadly seems out of her depth- the character didn't have the same vulnerability as other Alice's and she was very wooden. An honorable mention goes to Stephen Fry's Cheshire Cat- cute and menacing at the same time and his voice was made for that part.
The visual look was easy on the eyes and is wonderfully crafted. The set pieces give the film much needed personality. I'm curious as to how it would have looked in 3-D. There are so many sets that it's hard to mention one that stood out, the poster says it all. Lots of crooked trees and fog.
Considering it was rated a PG many children may be scared- its quite menacing and sinister. Surely borderline 12A? If your children are easily scared maybe stray from this film- it may stay with them long after the credits roll.
VERDICT
The film made $1 billion and surely this is down to inflation. This isn't Tim Burton's or Johnny Depp's master piece and there's no denying the chemistry they both share. Boring in places- but aesthetically it is a visual treat. I tried hard to like it the second time- but failed. It will appeal to the twisted side of a person, but this isn't the 'ultimate' 'Alice in wonderland'
2/5 (very close to a 3)
Warner Bros Pictures
UK: 28th May 2010
Rated: 12A
Based on the popular comic by Vertigo published between 2003-06 it tells the story of an elite special forces unit sent to Bolivia on a simple search and destroy mission- however this doesn't turn out to be so simple when they find out they've been double crossed by their handler, simply named 'Max'. Now presumed dead they go out to try and clear there name and- again quite simply settle the score with 'Max'
Personally when I watched the trailer, I didn't quite know what to make of 'The Losers.' It looked, all right. But that was it- nothing amazing stood out for me, it had a few giggles, bit of action and nothing much else- but I went with my instinct having watched Jeffrey Dean Morgan in the fantastic 'Watchmen' and took a gamble.
The story is typical and so laughably flawed- the punchlines come in when you expect and the 'carnage' (I use this term loosely) is broken up regularly with dialogue that tries to make itself out to be more important than it actually is. The film as a whole tries to be a bigger film than it probably should be- employing a cast which would have taken up a huge chunk of the modest budget (reportedly $25 million) but the cast needn't have been as A-list as it was. Although the cast as a whole performs well, there is just something missing. It sticks to a formula which is too commonly used, that in some instances it is a chore to watch.
We don't care much for the actual story or the characters and try as I may I couldn't care less if he/she got killed- how many people died in a accident or why they are on a mission in the first place. This is a major drawback and makes the film very unremarkable.
The action throughout the film is pitiful and reportedly the director (Sylvain White) was happy with the 12A (PG-13) it received- but the violent action is what this film desperately needed and I was gravely disappointed in the lack of it. It reminded me in some respects to 'Tropic Thunder' (granted 'Tropic Thunder' was a much better film) in that the general feel and humor of the movie was similar. And for a film that is more often than not a comedy- it takes it self too seriously a little too much. It doesn't have the wit or action that previous films of this style had to carry itself through the 1 hour & 30 minutes. It starts off a very promising film but after about 20 minutes you begin to realise where the film in the end will lead.
The big 'bad' boss is such an absurd character- it will probably make most audiences ask for their money back- his attempt at being sinister is comical and you just can't take him seriously- hats off to Zoe Saldana though- she did the best with what she had- and the sexiness got me through the film (I'm sure many males will feel the same way) or for the ladies-Chris Evans who is often cast as the sarcastic- yet handsome male doesn't disappoint.
Despite the criticism however, it does have its odd moments where it is just a fun, dumb movie. I found myself in some scenes laughing out loud at the quips they all generally make to each other, kudos to the jokes- unfortunately however the laughs don't last long enough and we revert back to the negative points listed above. It will appeal to audiences who crave something which is easy to watch and where you don't have to think too much about what is going on. I wasn't expecting a classic but I was expecting a film where I could positively compare it to the likes of 'Tropic Thunder' sadly that wasn't the case.
Wait till it is released on DVD or to rent- It is easily forgotten and despite the above points will probably make more money than it was made for (although I feel this is down to the misleading stills currently on the internet)
REVIEW
on the whole: disappointing, flawed and forgettable. Bit more violent than 'Spy Kids', and children will probably lap it up- adults craving a bit more blood and guts will (like me) walk away demanding a refund.
2/5
Warner Bros Pictures
UK: November 6th 2009
Rated: 12A
I have to warn you that throughout this review I may contradict myself- occasionally I watched this film and I was enjoying it and couldn't wait to draft up a 3/4 star review on why it was good- and then all of a sudden I would hate the film and was dreading giving the 2/3 star review (it isn't much fun). Even now my brains processing what the hell happened in the 1hr and 40mins- so in advance, forgive me...
What appears to be a simple morality tale, seemingly turns into something which is confusing and contains characters which you don't much care for. As soon as the film starts we know that something isn't quite right- when a handsome couple played by Cameron Diaz and James Marsden find a box on there doorstep in the early hours of the morning. We quickly find out what the whole point of the box is when a hideously disfigured but equally charming man played by Frank Langella appears promptly at 5pm bringing with him a deal- press the button and two things will happen:
1) someone who you do not know will die and 2) you will receive 1million dollars.
It wouldn't be much of a movie if this is all the film was based around so it is hardly a give away when I say they press the button- what the film likes to delve into however is the consequences of those actions in a slightly bizzare and sci-fi kind of way. The film strays all too often for my liking, one minute it is a highly entertaining thriller, then before you know it, it changes to a horror. It will befuddle and frustrate some audiences (me included) but I stuck with it because try as I might I wanted to find out what happened (and this is where I contradict myself) here is a film which was annoying me, yet I wanted to find out what the whole aim was. Why did they receive a box? Who is Frank Langella's Arlington Stewart? What is going on?
perhaps the befuddlement was a deliberate move on Richard Kelly's part (he directed Donnie Darko) he wanted us to feel just as confused as Diaz and Marsden- or perhaps it was a formula which just didn't quite work.
I tried to sympathise with the main characters but was finding it hard too, the choice they were given appeared to be quite easily solved yet for the first 30mins they were struggling to come up with a solution- perhaps I'm sick in the head that I would have without a doubt pressed that red button and not looked back, but I'm sure a lot of readers would do too. Now this is where it got interesting.
You push the button- everything is perfect? well, not quite- amazingly I found myself questioning whether I would actually push the button, obviously I can't give too much away but the events that occur after the button being pushed will make most audiences uneasy and unsure- which is a great thing to happen, it keeps the film nicely paced and interesting throughout. The ending was disappointing, although perhaps it was the only way to end it? Although because of the sci-fi elements there was probably more satisfying endings that could have been employed- this one just seemed like a cop-out.
Stewart is a fantastic bad guy (or is he a good guy?) and is hauntingly charming. We hate to love him. The sci-fi aspect to him however was a little hard to swallow and found myself sniggering at the seemingly nonsensical turn it had taken- for the last 30-40 minutes it seemed that Kelly stuffed it full of Sci-fi because he forgot to do it in the first hour. It constantly made me think I was watching a different film to the one I started with.
The 50s-60s setting seemed pointless (but perhaps I'm missing the point?) however I can imagine if it was set in the present it wouldn't have quite the same effect- it reminded me of a film by Kubrick or Hitchcock. The musical score deserves a mention- echoing 'The Twilight Zone' and countless other classic sci-fi's of the past it adds to the suspense and is a tad eerie.
VERDICT
Some audiences will fall immediately in love with its clever pacing and refusal to stick to one genre- others become greatly annoyed, and maybe even confused. The question you still ask yourself long after the credits is: Would you push the button?
3/5
Well yesterday (Sunday 23rd May 2010) I was asked to do a short film- of course me wanting to be an actor immediately agreed. Now the premise was simple:
Guy gets a call of wife- she needs help- he runs to help out
I come somewhere in between all that. Some of you may have seen the advert I recently appeared in this year: The Homebase ad- ''Carlisle Train station'' now that was my first experience really in front of a professional crew with actual film cameras. This was my first film. Short as it may be it was experience non the less. So anyway- the great director Andrew Elliott asked me to help which I did- the whole point in making a short film is for a competition. The Virgin Media Shorts competition (http://www.virginmediashorts.co.uk//) This I thought would be a great opportunity- if we win I get to appear in another film (yey!) but despite this the Short film gets shown in Cinemas throughout the UK, on the TV, on your mobile via the internet-
basically every media outlet will show our short film- this is great exposure! I won't give too much away on what happens but there is a neat little twist and It was so much fun working on a set- talking to people that want to do what I want to do, dealing with professionals. I realised that this is what I wanted to do. I was on set for 2 hours and in these 2 hours we did a hell of a lot!
The short film is expected to go online throughout this week so keep a look out and vote for our film ''Panic!'' any support would be appreciated- so keep your eyes open and I will love you all forever!
Many thanks!
P.s- If you do watch the film- I am the lead thug - dressed all in white :-)
P.p.s - I will tweet when the film goes online so follow me on:
http://twitter.com/GreenLightLuke
or if FaceBooks your thing:
http://www.facebook.com/luke.pennington
Warner Bros Pictures
UK: October 16, 2009
Rated: PG
I wanted to watch 'Where the Wild Things Are' directed by Spike Jonze when it was first advertised in the cinema late last year, unfortunately I never got the chance too. Finally however I managed to grab a DVD copy and sit down and watch one of the best films I've seen so far this year. For those who have read the book written by Maurice Sendak- this film would offer little in the way of surprises but for those- like me who hadn't read or heard of this film until last year it was one big surprise.
Who are those funny monster things jumping, running and talking on that trailer? I didn't know but I wanted to. I was worried that when it finally came down to watching the film I would be sadly dissapointed and fortunately this was not the case.
The film doesn't offer much in the way of introductions- it immediately brings us to our host for the evening- Max. Max like every young child has an imagination- and he apparently utilizes this imagination to the greatest extent- so much so that if the people around him don't comply with his imagination he throws a tantrum. Watching Max do 'his thing' is amusing to watch and I couldn't help but smile at the innocence. What I was aware of however was I was drawn into a kids world- Max is a perfect archetype for a child who appears to be lost and just needs someone to play with.
After a dispute with his mother Max runs away- fed up with life at home- now we are transported to wherever we are transported too. It is nothing but beautiful woodland. Spike Jonze captures the most beautiful landscapes and I couldn't help but be captivated by it all.
Now this is where the film gets good- with the introduction of the inhabitants in Max's new found world. We do not know them, they could be good or bad, but just at the sight of the 'Wild things' I found there faces amusing and immediate warmth towards them, I wanted to get to know them they have so much spirit and this is before they have spoken! When they do eventually talk, we are in as much wonderment as Max is, its just like having a pet dog- we just want to play with them. After Max convinces them he is a king of an unnamed world the 'wild things' real boast character- this of course is boosted by the terrific voice overs provided by the likes of James Gandolfini, Catherine O'Hara, Forest Whitaker, Paul Dano and Chris Cooper.
Strangely however, unlike most of the films I've watched were not introduced to the characters right away. We bear witness to a very fun chase scene (which I wanted to be apart of) then after all the laughs have been exhausted we want to know who each one is- we snap back to reality. It was a different way of introduction and one that seemed more realistic to just the usual: 'right this is him and this is her...'
The ''Wild things'' are far from shallow characters- which is what i expected them to be, but this along with all my other assumptions where soon proven wrong- I found myself having to keep being reminded that these are monsters- not humans. They are animated creatures but are so very real at the same time, each one has there own attribute which we can assign to someone we all know, the loud type, the commanding type, the shy type etc.
This film has one of the best soundtracks I think i've heard on a film. It perfectly represents an emotion, a moment, and the film would be empty without it. Although it appears this film is full of happiness and sunshine- this isn't the case, after all this is a children's book and what children's book would be complete without a moral, a message. And so conflict sets in.
The situations presented are very real and are very difficult for a young child- hell an adult to deal with. What happens when people you care about are at each others throats? (in this case sometimes quite literally) how do you solve the problem? Max begins to realise not everything can be fixed even if you are a 'king'. This is where the film has its heart, and i feel the message, for young children isn't clear enough- but in saying that it would distract from the sheer enjoyment of the film if it was. Max always seems to be the one stuck in the middle (now how many of us have been in a similar situation?)
Notable scenes is the ''Building of the fort'' which perfectly sums up my own feelings as a child. We all want to be in charge of our own little word, and this is what Max is doing, taking charge, doing things his own way, and its very heartwarming to watch. Another scene is the ''Dirt clod fight'' it was such a funny scene, and very reminiscent of when I was a kid (minus all the dirt) See my point though- everything I describe in this film I can relate to my own life as a child- this is what I enjoyed the most about this film, it has real heart and realism. It may seem hard to believe- but you just need to watch it.
Finally, when Max departs, its not preceded by a big fight, death or explosions (which is what I was expecting) It ends as if it was just another day. Obviously there is some sadness but is quickly changed to a beautiful departure. Something which provides a hope- best example I can think of is when you go abroad- when it's time to go, you don't want to but know its inevitable. This is just another chapter in Max's life. And unfortunately like many of us that chapter has came to an end.
VERDICT
It's hard to fault a film so beautiful and I've tried but can't for the life of me think of one. A classic, beautifully directed, acted, written. This is a film you must see and I wouldn't hesitate to watch it again. I just really want to build a fort right now.
5/5
The film as a whole was- I felt, boring. It wasn't a fun roller coaster ride I was hoping for, it was magical yes- but not as magical as I hoped. Throughout it felt like Tim Burton was trying to get a message across to the audience- an important message, yet it felt a film like this didn't need to have a message, it needed to be light-hearted, yet sinister. It needed to be bright, colourful and dull all at the same time- most importantly it needed to be fun I know these are contradicting statements but for those who have already seen this film- they may know what I'm trying to get at. I've never read the book- so perhaps Burton was right on the money with the colour palette? any feedback on this matter would be appreciated- maybe shed some light. 
