We Are As Gods

Gentle Viewers

2007-04-27T09:37:00.000+01:00

Suffice to say, I haven't been around much, but I'm not lazy, I've just moved and forgot to tell you -ever so sorry- so if you've been looking for me, I am now here

Toodles

White Noise: The Light

2007-01-10T20:37:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
Not that it seemed like a very spoilery movie… I suppose there were a couple of instances.

Another trip to the cinema, in the lovely calm Welsh winter weather…. Anyway, once we had settled down in our lovely seats, progressively peeled off our wet jackets and watched the enjoyable trailer for Hot Fuzz –which looks awesome by the way- I was ready to see the first mainstream film of the year! Perhaps if I were a fan of horrorish films I would have liked White Noise: The Light more… I am trying to be more open-minded, I swear!

Abe Dale’s (Nathan Fillion) wife and son are murdered by Henry Caine (Craig Fairbrass) for an unexplained reason. Suffering from depression he tries to kill himself, but is brought back to life after having a near death experience (NDE) from this he is able to –in simple terms- see when a person is going to die soon, and being a nice guy, Abe goes and saves three people; but not without consequences.

Best part of the film –hands down, and no offence- was the statistic at the beginning, I do not remember the exact figures, but it was something along the lines of; every American will pass by 1.7 people that will later die that day! How crazy is that!!!

Ok, so for all intensive purposes, I went to see White Noise the Light, because Nathan Fillion is a good actor –plus really cool guy- the director Patrick Lussier, of whom I can’t say I was originally familiar with, was a good choice for the director- after editing so many prolific slasher/horror films, but it isn’t the director who I have a problem with in this film, it’s the screenwriter, Mr. Matt Venne; whose script was absolutely atrocious, I’m sorry but some lines just had me rolling my eyes, because some of the dialogue just felt particularly unnatural… not to mention the absurdness of what was going on.
One thing that did hold the film together however was the editing; which was very good, so much that I thought I should mention it.

On the side of this awful script the acting was almost as bad –the only saving graces of the whole film were Nathan Fillion and Katee Sackhoff (well until her eyes rolled into the back of her head, because I just cannot stand things like that, I couldn’t even stand it in Fahrenheit) out of the whole cast, these were the only two characters that I found slightly convincing; and saying that, Katee’s character was written as a right 40s-esque female character –sorry I must be watching too much Whedon-feministy programmes. Though regardless of the character she was written; she played the character rather well, and the same is said for Nathan; who, similar to Katee, also had some bad lines, but shone through in the role. Personally I cannot say the same for his wife and child who seemed to share no chemistry with him whatsoever –wasn’t believable to me anyhow- except the tiny exception with the home video, but even in that it didn’t seem wholly believable with the wife and child.
Now, Craig Fairbrass did have a nice role, and acted it out pretty well also, but I could not stand his accent; sticking a Londoner in with a bunch of Americans will always sound forced -but Craig’s accent just sounded terrible for some reason- especially when a certain guy did some work in Eastenders.
Otherwise the only thing I have to say about the acting was I was actually hoping for more action from Nathan, because he makes any stunts look like they are happening (watch the ‘Filmmakers Journey’ featurette on the Serenity DVD).

I wasn’t so hot for the special effects; and I felt them to all be a bit bleh, I suppose it was the cheesy way they looked that got me, it could have easily been done with a tunnel; and would have the possibility to look much cooler!

One other thing that I found amazing about the film was its concept; personally I hated the whole NDE angle, not to mention the awful Bible bits too. But what I loved was the idea of seeing that someone was going to die that day; what an amazing concept for a game!!! Sorry, if it’s just me, but I would love that in a game, it’d be sort of like Tru Calling and you’d be able to chose to save a person or not, but you’d need to find out how they are going to die etc… It’d be amazing!! The whole three days later thing has to go though! Definitely so…

Now, I’ll get started on the whole NDE angle; which I hated, everyone that talked about it didn’t sound convinced in the slightest way whatsoever; cept for the one line that Abe said about bringing all of the absolute crap of the film into one sentence, and it was a great line, because his friend’s reaction, which if you ask me was akin to mine.
I think the main problem with White Noise: The Light was it was trying to be a thriller, but also a horror film at the same time, for instance the mass legions of dead people were just inappropriate and unnecessary.

I seem to be saying the same wish of Silent Hill in regards to White Noise, but I felt that if the last 5-10 minutes could be cut off, it would have been a better film. I loved the fact that Abe was killed; because that doesn’t usually happen, but that doesn’t mean he should be helping beyond the grave, see in my version he was shot, he also shot Shelley, the vicious cycle ends. The End! Instead it came off as cheesy, I do not like cheese!

As irrelevant as it is, I liked that rather than call it White Noise 2, they called it White Noise: The Light… sort of like Thief Deadly Shadows, or something a bit more similar. Putting a 2 on the end of the film immediately warns me of it. If they called it Batman 2 it’d be shit… doesn’t count with Superman though…

But as far as horror films go, it’s a standard, with some good acting from a couple of the characters, and many jumps galore for those of a sensitive disposition, so I suppose some people would really get off on the film, I just couldn’t be swayed by its ideas and theories.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 5½ /10
Although it was attempting to be different, it could not escape the cheesy horror film that it was. I can easily recommend the film to fans of Nathan, because he is simply one of the few good things about it, that and the Captain Tightpants reference, which was cute.

2006 Review

2007-01-01T02:11:00.000Z

2006 Review

With the hubbub of university and such this year has been very busy, though strive I will to write up a review of the year, similar to last years’ recalling the highs and lows in the film scene (which includes television and video game, so maybe it is in fact a review of ‘Charlotte’s World’

High points of the year

After the fun I had last year in frequenting the cinema I must say I successfully took the tradition into the next year and I watched far more films in the cinema than I probably ever have in my life.. not to mention the over-gorging on television that I (investigated) in my opinion of Afterlife. Though the videogame front has become a little quiet of recent, no REAL amazing games have been released, so perhaps next year will be the year for some engaging intelligent games.

Now I can easily say that this year was not a very good year for films; full of sequels, prequels spin-offs and just utter crap, little was to be found –in my definition- that was any good.
Sure there were the massive releases of Pirates of the Caribbean 2 –big sarcastic whoop- but otherwise little else was pre-emptive. ‘Cept of course Superman Returns!!!! Which although came off a tad disappointing did indeed deliver superman-y goodness.
Granted that there were some real gems of ‘less mainstream’ films, Severance was a particular surprise success with some good-old british black comedy. Then of course there were a few (what I will guess 2005 films) good new films shown at the Cramphorn, one of the best being The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada with an great performance by Barry Pepper. Not to forget the delight that was Breakfast on Pluto –Neil Jordan’s films never cease to be interesting. Then of course there was the Proposition, Good Night and Good Luck, Capote, Howls Moving Castle (finally!!) and a few interesting films that I managed to see elsewhere; Hard Candy, Walk the Line, Lady in the Water, Munich, Right at your door and Stranger than Fiction. The MUCH anticipated Silent Hill film which was slightly disappointing, but had some good bits; hopefully the next one will be better. Then there was the nice adaptation of V for Vendetta and undoubtedly the best film of the year –in my opinion- The Prestige!
Other than the big films of next year – Sin City 2, Spiderman 3 and the Dark Knight (if it comes out next year)

Oops I gave away my film of the year… well, here the rest is then. Any comments, please post em!

The Prestige

Severance

Superman Returns

Three Burials of Melquiades

Breakfast on Pluto

V for Vendetta

Howls Moving Castle

The Proposition

Good Night, Good Luck

Hard Candy

This of course was based solely on films that I watched at the cinema, as always there were many films that I could not make it to see, the likes of Perfume, Children of Men, Pan’s Labyrinth and countless others.
So I apologise if you have seen these films, and thought them better than those in my top ten, please, do tell me about them.

Low points of the year

When there is some good in cinema, there is always the bad, and as usual its big studios trying to cash in on complete shit (sorry) Regardless to say I did enjoy quite a few films this year, but there will always be the plain awful! Now don’t get me wrong, I have never seen these films, nor do I wish to. I am basing it solely on how they look. Usually when I see a film I already know that there’s a chance that I should like it. If there is one thing I never do, it’s waste money, and I know how my mind works.. I can tell if I think a film will be crap, or if I will like it.
So here it is, for you to bicker and moan at me, my top ten… Oh-my-god-that-looks-like-shit of 2006

Stay Alive

Jackass no 2

Date Movie

Little Man

Scary Movie 4

Shes the Man

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift

When a Stranger Calls

Big Mommas House 3? Whatever!

Beerfest

Now unlike last year, I do actually have some say in the films I have put in this top-ten, it was with much enthusiasm that I placed Stay Alive in the No. 1 spot! I cannot stand films that deliberately try to be cool and cash in on video games –at least Christopher Gans was trying!

Television

I have been watching quite a lot of television series, with many getting me hooked.
So for all of those interested I recommend you these… though they aren’t anything too special, I did really like Afterlife though.

Torchwood
Afterlife
Vincent
Robin Hood
I’m with stupid

I also managed to watch quite a few good one-off two part-er sort of dramas, so if you are somehow able to get a hold of them, these ones were particularly good. Losing Gemma was pretty funny too, whereas Born Equal sort of left you feeling a little dead inside.

Born Equal
Losing Gemma
Bon Voyage
Longwood

I also took my spare time to going back and watching some good television shows that I own, well… I managed to get a hold of the complete Black Books finally! I couldn’t help watching Spaced, Buffy and Angel

Buffy
Angel
Black Books
Spaced
This life

I do not believe that there is much in the New Year in regards to television that I am really looking forward to; after all it is difficult to know exactly what is to be shown in the next year.
I suppose, I am looking forwards to the New series of Doctor Who, and of course getting to see series 3 of Lost when they decide to show it for terrestrial viewers.

Games

So perhaps there has not been as much movement in video games as there was last year in terms of releases… unless you live in America or Japan
But the release of the long awaited Nintendo Wii came with amazing fun, as well as a few good waves of 360 games. Not to mention, the cute and stylish DS Lite, as well as the inevitable pink range of consoles including the PSP, PS2 and DS Lite.
I will take the time to mention a few of the gaming highlights of the year.

The new Sam and Max episodic games seem to be pure nostalgia in the best of forms, playing Sam and Max brought back all those nice warm memories of an amazing period in video games.
This year also saw the amazing Shadow of the Colossus, a beautiful addition to the Broken Sword series, the spectacular Twilight Princess, (game of the year hands down) PSYCHONAUTS, (because I can still mention it) and Dead Rising –which was great fun, and had some great music-. The year was pretty good for the 360 actually, with the aforementioned title, not to mention Oblivion, Hitman Blood Money –cannot wait for the next instalment- Rainbow Six Vegas, Viva Piñata, Gears of War, Saints Row and countless other titles.

Similar to how I have with films, there are also a great number of games that I am anticipating. First of course the new game from Double Fine Productions is at the top of my list; and if it’s anything like Psychonauts… well, then I’m in love! (Especially if just as many promotional items get released on their store)
Not to mention games on the way such as Bioshock, Mass Effect and Burning Crusade to only name a few!

When you look back on a year, you always forget just how many people died, here are just a few of the people that we had to say goodbye to in 2006.

Peter Boyle
Joseph Barbara
Richard Fleischer
Steve Irwin
Jack Palance
Robert Altman
James Brown
Charlie Drake
Chris Penn

So, the old year is over, I hope that this new one brings much fun and excitement, especially from the few more conventions I will get to go to! (showmasters rule ^_^)
I’ll leave wishing you all a happy new year, and many great ones to come.

The Prestige

2006-12-09T11:18:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
Because with the Prestige you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it because you're not really looking. You don't really want to know the secret... You want to be fooled.

Unfortunately there is not an Odeon in sight around Newport; which leaves us with the City Cinema (delivering only the mainstream) and the Cineworld. Never being to a Cineworld in the past I must say that I was extremely surprised at the layout and style; being very, very different to the more traditional design of Odeon’s. Hell I used a toilet with Emma Thompson’s name on the door!

It was also strange to see adverts different to those always featured at the Odeon; not to mention two 360 adverts, one for Gears and the Cops and Robbers one. Though I must say Cineworld suck with trailers! (Which in my opinion are one of the main reasons for watching films at a cinema; more than two trailers should be obligatory)

Being a considerable fan of Christopher Nolan from Memento and his previous team-up with Bale (and Caine) in Batman Begins, I thought it would make sense to go and see The Prestige, primarily as Nolan is really one of the few directors making good distinctive films of recent, that and so far Bale has never ceased to astound me.

The story follows the rivalry of two magicians -Alfred Borden (Bale) and Robert Angier (Jackman)- and the effect obsession has on many different people, as the two attempt to better each other in the discovery of the ‘best’ trick.
Very obvious to the film, are its recurring themes, rivalry is inherent throughout, with the main characters Angier and Borden, as well as Tesla (Bowie) and Edison, this rivalry also feeds off the central theme of obsession, this theme is exemplified through the character Chung Ling Soo, who was so dedicated to magic that he need put up an act for his whole life; only so that it would remain believable (and if that isn’t a bit obsessive I don’t know what is) this strongly links to Borden. Angier’s obsession leads to his abandonment of his life, similar to Tesla’s life story, and although it may be argued the film has too many themes going, most of those present only add to the film’s story.

The film; with a well rounded cast, boasted a large amount of non-Americans –though strangely only on the male side- in the supporting cast; which I find very welcoming from Christopher Nolan’s films. With the likes of Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman and Michael Caine, as well as Andy Serkis and David Bowie the film has nothing short of a most excellent cast, and although I am not that big a fan of the brunt of the actors, I am warming to Michael Caine, and Hugh Jackman’s character was interestingly self-destructive. The same can be said for Bale’s who once again took his character completely seriously as well as fully encompassing himself in the role. Borden was, to say the least very interesting towards the middle of the film; when you begin to understand why he is always so indifferent; stoic at one part, then utterly charming the next, Bale plays the part extraordinarily.
Just thought I would also mention David Bowie who gave a rather interesting performance as Nikola Tesla.

Although I am a little unsure of Bale’s accent (I don’t believe I’ve ever heard him do cockney before) the same can be said for Bowie and Serkis’ equally distinctive accents, but saying this, none were so distracting enough to remove overall focus from the film; so they were not bad, just a little strange to hear.
I suppose I should also mention Scarlett Johansson, who had a small role in the film, nothing amazing though.

I absolutely loved the setting of the film –though of course integral to the novel and overall story- but then most period films are very enjoyable to watch, because if they get the mise-en-scene and the dialogue correct, the film can be the most believable in the world, and for this you also get really involved with the characters, not to mention the story.

If there is one thing present in all of Nolan’s films it’s his trademark non-linear narrative, and The Prestige is in no way different to that of Memento or Insomnia (or I am guessing Following). This of course left me to get completely confused and almost disorientated with the film. Wherein the actual scheme of what was going on left me bewildered; viewing one of the characters reading a journal of the other character, who was in turn, reading the previous character’s journal (which I think also makes little sense how I have written it), what really got me was trying to differentiate between past and present… which isn’t very good. But my sister tells me she was fine following the film; so it was just me.
But a non-linear storyline can also be much fun; most of this is had when trying to unravel exactly what has happened, while watching the story unfold before your eyes, by showing us the end and taking us back to the beginning.

I felt that cleverly a lot of tension was built in the film following Borden in jail, as with such a film -where you are required to feel some form of sympathy for the characters- there is most definitely a large expectation that Borden will actually escape; after all he is a magician.
If there’s one thing the film is not short of, it’s good quotes, not to mention the last line –as quoted at the beginning of my review- which is nothing bar awe inducing, I also adored the repeated lines throughout the film. “Are you looking closely”, and my personal favourite “No one cares about the man in the box, the man who disappears”

Nolan’s loathing of special effects is a welcome opinion in my world of film, and The Prestige could have easily been full of special effects, thankfully those used were just Tesla’s lightning, and the double effect thing (to my belief). Basically everything present was required; there was no substituting special effects or action for story –yahoo!

When the film was over, I came out slightly confused, somehow I did not feel completely fulfilled, I suppose I felt that it was a tad anti-climatic, but the more I think about it; the film was not about revealing some big unexpected twist at the end, but allowing you to unravel the events, and comprehend what exactly has been going on.

The Prestige is a hard film to peg to a particular audience, similarly I cannot see everyone watching Memento, but the audience at our cinema was particularly varied, so it depends on the person I suppose. As long as you have an attention span, which does not crave action every five minutes, this should be the film for you, an engaging storyline and an amazing cast embodying fascinating characters; a good piece of cinema to rival a lot of the crap getting released at this time of year.

I could literally go on and on about the film, but I feel I’ve said enough

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 7 ½ /10
Don’t get me wrong, The Prestige was a very strange breath of fresh air, but I couldn’t help the strange feeling about it once I left.

So now I simply await Nolan’s return in the Dark Knight!

A Name Written in Water (The Conclusion of afterlife)

2006-11-12T16:30:00.001Z

There will be spoilers herein, I mean come on! We are talking about possibly the final episode of afterlife ever!

Well the final episode came and went; and boy did it go with a (predictable but also) unexpected bang!
We all knew from finding out of Robert’s tumour in Lullaby that there was no way about it; he had to die, but strangely enough, no one really believed that it would actually happen.

I was particularly shocked to find that the beginning of the episode was exactly as to how I had imagined it in my head –which most certainly means too much drama- though I expect that with the specific subject matter it would have been impossible to deny the focus on Robert. Unfortunately that meant that the storyline of the night nurse was greatly underdeveloped; though granted, without the night nurse the episode would have probably been short of one fantastic scene with Lesley, as well as lacking the resolution that occurred close to the end.

As much as I hate Jude –sorry Anna, its not personal I swear!- she had a great deal of limelight in the episode, and her character seemed to have been healthily fleshed out compared to how she had been in the past. The same can be said for Barbara who –albeit like Jude acted extremely bitchy towards Alison- gave a great performance for the couple of minutes that she was on-screen.
It would be a crime to not mention Lesley’s heart-breaking performance, she was absolutely mesmerising throughout the whole episode! It’s difficult to mention Andrew Lincoln, who spent much of the duration lying down, but he did indeed give a heart-wrenching send off for his character, and as much as the episode left me feeling slightly numb, the acting makes it my second favourite episode, only to Mind the Bugs Bite –of course.

I am not entirely sure what to make of the final episode, as much as the series has had me completely enthralled, and feeling great sympathy towards the characters, I was unable to cry for them…
Which to me, makes absolutely no sense as I find myself unable to ‘get over’ the conclusion to the series, Lesley and Andrew’s acting was superb, the music amazing, and the script fantastic, but I couldn’t even shed a tear… perhaps I am broken.
Although I did not feel complete and utter –breakdown- sadness like some people… perhaps in situations where fans of the show cried, I was sitting there; my mouth agape… episode seven was really sad, but at the most I was just really shocked at all that was happening.

I must say it is a bit silly; looking on afterlife communities everyone appears to be denying Robert’s death, with the most plausible answer to the episode’s conclusion being that it was in fact a vision of Robert’s death, other possibilities including that Alison is also dead; which I must say I was under the belief that this may have been the case when I was watching it, but I prefer to be far more rational, Robert died! No way out of it.

I believe that it is safe to say I was no where near as distraught as some people; granted it bummed me out a bit and I was a little shocked that he did indeed die, but if there was one thing I was really horrified about, it was that we never got to hear what Robert had written on the manuscript for his book, I almost felt cheated when the credits rolled! Another part of the episode that I found particularly unsettling would have to be Alison’s rant at Robert, telling him that he must wake up so they can have more arguments; that just broke my heart… no tears though…

Regardless of the loss of crying on my part, I did find it a very sad finale of the series indeed. Robert was perhaps the one person to actually give a damn about Alison, and now with his departure she is pretty much alone, and if Mr Volk is going to leave it at that, then he is an awful, awful man!

I feel good that the series has come to an end, though I am not sure what to make of the prospect of a third series, I am just glad that I can now carry on leading my life normally; waiting for Saturdays to roll around was absolute torture, especially in anticipation for this particular episode.

This whole article/rant/entry whatever you wish to call it was pretty pointless, I just wanted to tell all you guys what I thought… Not that I have ever met anyone that watches the show let alone heard of it –though saying that I was in the British Heart Foundation charity shop in Newport and two old ladies were talking, and one of them was saying how they had watched afterlife the night before; which was cute ^_^

So, um… thank you everyone that made the show possible, it was one of the best supernatural-y programmes that I have ever seen on British Television, let alone ITV!

I am absolutely dying to watch it again; I should have taped it really, at any rate I wont get to see it again for a good couple of days, which is awful; because my television caused me to miss a couple of lines every now and again; especially when Robert had woken up; he was speaking so softly I couldn’t hear a thing. Regardless of that fact; I always seem to need to view afterlife a couple of times once I have seen it, its just that good!

afterlife

2006-11-11T19:20:00.000Z

Rarely do I get sucked into a television programme so much that I cannot wait for the next episode - but as I am sure my sister can tell you- with afterlife that was very much so the case. -to the point of annoyance with her I am sure.

A couple of years ago I would have scoffed at a show like afterlife –it’s one of those wannabe X-files type programmes that British broadcasters create to imitate the successes that America have revelled in. I faintly remember other attempts; Bugs, Sea of Souls, Spooks alongside countless others that I have not bothered to learn the names of.
But only up until recently have I really discovered the miracle that is television of the British variety! (I apologise for the numerous references to the X-Files)

The phrase British television for me would always conjure up the drivel that we get -the soap’s- Eastenders, Corination Street, Casualty, Emmerdale… the list just keeps going, but I believe that at the discovery of Doctor Who (or perhaps of allowing to open my mind a little more) something in me has changed. Through thoroughly reading the Radio Times I’ve watched amazing docu-dramas, discovered Jimmy McGovern, great one off pieces such as Longwood, drama series’ like Vincent, Torchwood, Robin Hood, I’m with Stupid (which I loved) and countless other amazing programmes.
This increase in viewing has also led me to discover tens of thousands of great British actors, writers and more. A few months ago, I did not really know the likes of Lesley Sharp, Andrew Lincoln, John Simm, Samantha Morten, Liam Cunningham, Mark Benton, Jason Hughes, Marc Warren, Paul Abbott and Jimmy McGovern to name a few; and it’s also peaked my interest in British cinema as well! Not to mention being able to stand Robert Carlyle (even if its only for his amazing performance in To Be a Somebody; I found a lot to love in Cracker)

So how did I begin watching such a show? Well actually before they started showing the second series on ITV they had begun to repeat the first series Sunday nights at 9pm. I was slightly interested in watching it from knowing of Lesley Sharp from the Second Coming; she’s one of those real British actors, the kind you would never really find from America.
Watching the first episode I was slightly hesitant; after all, the series is about a psychic medium who communicates with the dead. (Already my warning bells are going off to stay well away from the show) If there is one thing I can not really stand it is mediums, psychics all those kind of supernatural spiritual things; personally –no offence to mediums- they always feel so fake to me, and so I felt that this could only be more so magnified in a television series –similar to the awful show Most Haunted, I cannot stand things like that.
Once the show had finished my thoughts were very different from what I had expected. Sure it did seem a tad fake, but could I expect any less from a show about something I abhor. And then you have the Mulder/Scully angle with Robert and Alison, which also seemed to work rather well with Lesley and Andrew.
Of course subsequently ITV decided a repeat of afterlife did not pull in enough viewers, and opted to show Poirot instead, which I just as soon obliged to; though I was actually looking forward to seeing the rest of afterlife, and didn’t manage to until I rented the first series out.

The show pretty much lives off the relationship that Robert and Alison hold; without Robert’s rationalisations the show would seem far too out there for my tastes; there’s something about a person denying what is obviously going on around them that makes good entertainment… when Scully started to believe, the magic of the X-Files sort of dithered away.

Now, there is quite a lot of mixed opinion in regards to the overall acting quality afterlife gives. If it isn’t ‘Lesley doesn’t feel comfortable with the material’, it’s that ‘Andrew can not effectively embody Robert’.
Personally I felt that Lesley created a strange alluring person; with the most vital, dose of slightly crazy –which, may I add really picks up in the second season, episode 6 in particular- Alison is a great character, and if Lesley were not playing her, I am sure the series might have been crap.
In regards to Andrew I am unable to see any real problems with his performance... So I could go a miss with his overly emphatic hand gestures. But otherwise I do not understand what is wrong, sure he’s a little easy on the eyes, but I’m not very tolerable of a no-brained pretty faces –and I hope I stick to that too- after all if I wanted that, I could go and watch some WWE (oh sweet jesus those guys are awful!)
Alison and Robert were literally brought to life by Lesley and Andrew; they are believable characters, and really, can you ask for anything more?

The music and overall soundtrack for afterlife is fabulous; if its not the absolutely beautiful main theme, then it’s the ‘sadder’ theme; all strings and whatnot sounding absolutely beautiful, and if there is one thing that was done well to the highest extent in the whole series it was the music; composed by Edmund Butt.

So, ok I admit some of the programmes I have gotten into of recent are not amazing creations of unique genius; as entertaining as it was, Bon Voyage was simply a horror film, and as much as I keep watching Robin Hood I know that deep in my gut Maid Marian was more realistic…
But when a fairly good writer gets on board with a TV show, the actors merely compliment the process; and all the magic bursts from the scripts.
Good writers and convincing actors are what propel afterlife. With most episodes in both series’ written by creator Stephen Volk (something that very rarely happens in a television series and for that I commend him) you can usually tell when they are written by him; the dialogue is usually snappy, the tensions high, and a slightly spooky occurrence is taking place. The episodes written by others are in some senses weaker; but all close in on the same territory, though perhaps placing emphasis of the show in different areas.

Though in saying this, the change that afterlife has undergone through two series’ must be mentioned; whereas the first series was primarily based on the ghosts Alison must help to pass over (in particular to the running theme of Josh, Robert’s departed son) the second series was a lot more character central which personally I do not mind;( as long as a show has well written characters, I could watch them do anything. After all, nothing really frightens me, so a series just about a bunch of ghosts would turn me away, which is where afterlife makes a difference) granted some people do not like this particular aspect. But I never really watched the X-Files to see what new alien/monster is popping up; I watched it for the dynamic between Mulder and Scully.

I’m sure I’ve said this a thousand times over in my other rants/opinions of numerous media; if there is one thing I love, its humour, I’m never too good with overly serious, but neither can I do stupidly funny. I always prefer a bit of laughter to break the ice, and although afterlife gave more humour in perhaps uncomfortable situations, I loved it all the same. If the X-files had been deadly serious all the time it’d get boring, there would always be a snap of quick humour here and there, and afterlife does exactly that too.

One small comment as well is, if there is one thing that almost scares me every now and again in episodes of afterlife, its Alison’s clothes; granted I am not the most fashion-conscience person around, but some of what she wears is very… interesting to say the least, which granted is a good thing; it really shows her character!

As with a lot of television programmes I find numerous uncomfortable moments; segments in a show where you will sit there and think ‘oh god that is silly/embarrassing’ after all it happened in Doctor Who more than enough times, and the séance in the finale to the first series of afterlife did exactly that to me; but it didn’t stop me from enjoying it any less.
Afterlife as a show has received some good and bad press; I think it’s really you love it, or you hate it, all boils down to everybody’s taste.

Afterlife also did something that has not happened to me in bloody years; and that’s one episode in particular genuinely surprised me which as an awful person -I am always trying to figure out the narrative of a story- completely blew me away! I was focusing so much on the episode, but did not see it coming in the slightest way whatsoever! Which for me; makes the show that bit more amazing.

So now that’s over and done with; I’ll leave you with a bit of banter of my opinions of each episode, and I hope you enjoyed reading and that you will go out and watch afterlife, maybe tell me if you think I’m wrong on my opinions.

Series One
More than Meets the Eye – being a first episode; they never seem to be very good always introducing the characters and whatnot especially in dramas, though the story itself was good enough

Lower Than Bones – was a good insight to Alison and her actual abilities, though the conclusion was a little off; I probably would have preferred it with perhaps a different conclusion

Daniel One & Two - great episode! Taking Alison back to a psychiatric ward, some nice interactions, and a good conclusion

Misdirection - was nice in terms of an insight into characters, and the overall point of the episode was nice but a little silly; I actually felt the title misdirection would have suited the next episode far better. Though Mark Benton as a guest star was a definite plus!

Sleeping with the Dead - bit iffy in terms of Alison’s abilities, though the episode as itself was all-round decent.

7:59 Club - best episode in the season in terms of character development, we find out loads about Alison, and a bit more about Robert. As I’ve mentioned I did not really like the séance; it was nice to see Robert believe in Alison’s powers, but it didn’t make me believe them any more.

Series Two
Roadside Bouquets - amazing episode! Nuff said, though the time change between 7:59 and then was a little; ‘5 months later’ kinda thing (so cutting corners in a way), loved the episode though

The Ratman - another amazing episode, with a partially chilling ‘bad-guy’, and more delving into Alison’s past/character, though the resolution was a bit quick for my liking.

Lullaby - could have been something more; the side story with Robert was rather dominative, and I can’t say I felt much towards the couple with the child, but was first episode of the second series written by someone other than Volk, perhaps would have been more shocking to watch if I hadn’t of missed it when it was on TV; and watched it after seeing up to episode 6

Your Hand in Mine- again a bit of an iffy episode, though none-the-less an enjoyable episode, Liam Cunningham was a plus as well.

Mirrorball - a rather controversial episode it would seem from response on the net; full of some –close to- graphic sex, I must say it was also not my exact cup of tea. But it did have relevance; either way, an interesting episode, if you forget all the sex.

Mind the Bugs Don’t Bite; one of the best episodes ever! Not only does it make great use of flashbacks to tell us about Alison’s past –I really loved the tone of the flashbacks- as well as the events surrounding her mother, and the eventual passing of her. Hands down, amazing episode!

Things Forgotten - similarly to other episode’s that I felt a little detached with; it was not written by Volk, and the young boy’s story; if not a little predictable on my standards, was almost pushed to the background and seemed to come off as a little less important with a lot focus being put on Robert; for good reasons too, with a shocking ending; though it had to happen sooner or later. The inclusion of Claire Rushbrook as a stereotypically fake medium was great fun though!

A Name Written in Water - I wait in anticipation for it to be shown; the last in the current and perhaps whole of the series, and there are still 11 hours to go as I write this, but personally I cannot wait to see how Volk leaves us –especially after the ending of the first season.

Torchwood

2006-10-23T08:46:00.000+01:00

I thought that I would attempt to resume my blogging to coincide with the arrival of Torchwood -a spin-off of the recently revived Doctor Who- sort of like Russell T Davies’ Angel to his Buffy; that’s how it very much seemed to me anyway.

So, I thought I’d get a review in before the internet is swamped with them and here it is. I’ll say it now, I kept out as many spoilers as possible, and so you should not spoil your potential viewing experience if you read my opinions.

One quick bit I’ll get out of the way, relating to the many questions over the speculation of the show’s target audience; and many parents were asking over the internet if they should allow their children to watch it.
To clear things up, if I had children they would most definitely not be allowed to watch Torchwood; as I previously said, its like Angel. And if anyone is familiar with the two shows, you’ll know that Angel was the much darker, much more adult version of Buffy, and that is very much what Torchwood is, except with maybe a bit more sex, and a tad more blood when it is present, though I must make it known that these elements were not dominating the show.
I must say though, it is refreshing to see a science fiction programme that is adult in terms of sex, violence and language, not to mention a lot of the sexual overtones were not just heterosexual in nature; which is bound to turn some heads, but once again; it is refreshing.

With a show first starting out, I for one can never judge much on the first episode; especially when the creators have the arduous task of setting everything up and starting the ball rolling, which made a particular saving grace that the BBC chose to show two episodes rather than one.

The two stories were fairly straightforward… well I say that, and I became a little confused in the first episode, mainly due to its ‘twist’. Anyway, the first episode set off with our main character; much like Doctor Who’s Rose, Torchwood gives you Gwen Cooper as your emotional link to the show. The first episode basically informs the audience of who Torchwood are, what they do, as well as the main characters of the show, and it manages to do this effectively in about 20 minutes, -very efficient- while at the same time, setting up a series of mysterious murders; but these are put on the side for the main part of the episode. Long story short Torchwood gets an opening, and Gwen takes the job.

Episode two: Gwen’s first day on the job, so of course she messes up as quick as possible; setting a parasitic-gas-sex-alien thing free from a recently crashed meteorite. The episode focused on Gwen’s role in Torchwood as their link to humanity. (similar to in Angel how Cordelia always goes on about how Angel is so detached from the world, and need to get back into real life)
Now this episode in particular is where the show gets fairly adult, did I mention this parasite has pretty much sex on the brain, it successfully takes control of a young girl and pretty much goes and has sex with a bunch of people, killing them in the process (gave me the vibe of Lonely Hearts - coincidentally the second episode of Angel)

The first episode was basically an introductory episode, and the second episode was good -the whole alien wanting orgasmic energy was a little iffy- and if there is one thing the show did, was it had good actors that successfully carried the show; unlike some programmes that we get over here in England.
The first two episodes had rather interesting stories, most definitely showing that Torchwood is indeed much more adult than Doctor Who. (there were thankfully no farting aliens) On the topic of aliens, all those present looked rather good; special effects wise (I’m talking CGI and good old prosthetics here), especially the weevil; whose face was amazing!

With the dialogue in the show I must say I was a tad disappointed; expecting the amazing stuff I found in Doctor Who I came back a little empty handed, nothing was really bouncing out at me; but then I must also say that can be a good thing, (going off in a babble) waiting for Torchwood to start I switched on The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen -on C4 at the time, and this is a film mind you- Mr Hyde had just been caught yada yada and he changed into Dr Jekyll and I just thought ‘Dr Jekyll at your service’ and right out he went and said it and literally blurted out “eurgh” and turned over. Sure it happens a lot, you can predict lines in films and television alike. But there’s something I find with a good writer and that is that you do not predict their lines, very much the case in Torchwood; writers like Russell almost create characters that are alive… not just hollow shells full of ‘writing clichés’ if I can call them that, so in actuality I really did like the dialogue in the show.

The music of the show was nice; fairly contained and its low mechanical tones kept in with the mood of the show particularly well, the same can be said for the intro; which is lovely and short. I must say though, that I am very bad with sound, although I have now been told in many of my lecturers pay close attention to sound, I always end up getting so caught up in anything I’m watching the sound becomes insignificant so, sorry Mr. composer.

The acting is always a big priority, not above the writing of course but either way, I must comment.
Torchwood is explicitly set in Cardiff and they aren’t making out its London, which is great fun because all the actors are actually Welsh; I love welsh accents, actually scratch that, I love any of the UK’s accents!
But yes I digress; unlike Afterlife (which I’ve been watching) which is made with actors from all around the UK I find that occasionally the guest stars can be a bit stale though Torchwood seems to have gotten a hold of the cream of Wales in my opinion. So I’ve gotten that little rant out the way; the guest stars were good, but what about the main characters.

Captain Jack Harkness one of the most fun characters to emerge from Doctor Who; he had everything…. and then he was ‘kicked’ off in the first season… but then given his own series.
I must say from watching Torchwood I miss the old Jack, understandable he is now far less trusting, and you can see the old Jack in there vaguely but he doesn’t seem as fun. What the show now needs; if you ask me is an episode to delve into each character, and by that I mean each member of Torchwood… though it probably won’t be doing that any time soon.
Gwen’s character seems fairly well rounded, and Eve (from being host to the Gelth in episode three of Doctor Who 2005) seems to be doing a fairly good job as cop-cum-torchwood operative, same can be said for Barrowman and the rest of the Torchwood gang.

Fun was definitely had; I was hoping for a few more laughs, -I love to laugh- I watched When the Wind Blows the other day; and although it was a terribly chilling and disturbing little animation I found some occasions where I could laugh out loud. I love that. Doctor Who gave me that every now and again, but Torchwood didn’t have anything laugh out loud funny, and saying that both ‘dark’ situations and humour fit very nicely into Angel which is what I loved about the show, so I can only hope to see more humour in Torchwood, not to say there was none evident in these first episodes; there was and some rather funny situations, but nothing overbearingly funny.

Now if you’re paying any attention to what I’ve written you’ll have noticed that I keep referring to Angel, now here is where you find out why. Littered throughout Torchwood were tens of thousands of high aerial shots of Cardiff at night, not to mention how everyone seemed to end up standing on roof tops looking rather reflective, now this just screamed Angel to me –granted none of them were progressive, but still I must have it known, and hence have mentioned it.

So what can I say; I enjoyed Torchwood, it kept me watching. There were thankfully no ‘Oh-my-god-I-must-roll-my-eyes’ moments, and the acting and writing were both pretty solid, I can only hope for the show to get better.
Reflecting on the show, I am actually glad that it is not as comical as Doctor Who was and that it is not as boring as –can’t ever get into it- Spooks. I find there’s something about action/adventure/serious science fiction that I can never get into when it comes from the UK.

Just a small rant; I adamantly refused to watch the ‘next week spoilers’, because it is effectively a spoiler! Why must they show them, if I watched the show and enjoyed it then I’ll tune in next week, but don’t spoil the episode for me. Next thing I know television programmes will start copying Battlestar which just gives you the whole episode at the beginning of the show, why do that!?
So I hope to see more; great looking aliens (though I think next week is a ghost story) and more Angel-esque stories.

Now it will probably turn out that I am the only person enjoying Torchwood or something; I’ve been following the BBC’s recent Robin Hood as well, and even though its not as amazing as some people thought it should be, I’ve found it entertaining… sometimes I feel that I can watch anything and still get something from it, though personally Torchwood seemed miles better than Robin Hood.

Torchwood is on Sundays on BBC3 -repeated a lot on that particular channel. And Wednesdays on BBC2

Small Hiatus

2006-09-15T10:30:00.000+01:00

I’m sorry my adorning fans, but due to the getting used to university life (when it begins) I will be having to put my reviews on a small hiatus… not that they aren’t already or anything, but starting from the end of my review of The General it might be a while until I write another… though don’t fret in line for reviewing goodness is the amazing Brief Encounter, Lady in the Water, Severance, Right at your Door, and the soon to be watched Black Dahlia… lets hope soon I will get a nice website up and running yeah?

If you think I should spend time on such a project, please share your views (

Lovingly yours

That weirdo that appears to be looking in through your window

The General

2006-09-01T16:15:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
But if you have not seen the General… then you haven’t lived my friend.

The General starring Buster Keaton; one of the absolute classic films of silent slapstick comedy, so of course when the opportunity arose to go and see it at my local independent cinema, I pretty much jumped at the chance.

Watching a silent film at the cinema was amazing, the screen was pretty much packed, with people of all ages, and what’s better is that everyone seemed to really enjoy themselves.
Although the rather annoying young girl on the row along from me couldn’t keep her attention on the film, and found it much more entertaining to watch the projectionist do his work –can’t stand people without the attention span for something; just makes my blood boil.

Directed by Buster Keaton and –one reason that I love both Keaton and Chaplin, was simply because they would always direct their own films. I’d like to see some actors do that! - Starring Buster Keaton (Johnny Gray), Marion Mack (Annabelle Lee), Charles Henry Smith (Mr. Lee) and Glen Cavender (Union Capt. Anderson).

The General takes place around the American civil war, and the film follows Johnny Gray (Keaton) as he -pretty much- saves the day with the help of his trusty locomotive ‘The General’. Now the way I’ve put that makes it sound something akin to Thomas the Tank Engine, so believe me when I say; this is one of the best comedies ever made!

The film is suitable for anyone; granted small children will have difficulty with the titles, but otherwise the film’s amazing physical humour will lighten anyone’s mood. The General is a film for anyone that loves film; and prefers something a little more sophisticated to the likes of today’s humour –this is kind light hearted comedy, not in your face, obnoxious and rude sex romps… but then I call The General sophisticated, and its just really good slapstick comedy at its finest.

Without a doubt the absolute star of the film is Buster Keaton; with his deadpan expression and his amazing physicality makes the film awesome, without him the film would be nothing and it is his physical presence alone that makes the film so fantabulous. Similarly I could never see anyone play Sam Lowry in Brazil, I could never see anyone else play the part of Johnny Gray besides Buster Keaton.
I also love Marion Mack in the film because she has that silent film actress look to her; also for all the humour on her part as well, for instance while she’s in the sack, and when she ‘does-everything-wrong’ with the train.

The screenplay and plot are pretty standard, and it is really hard to comment on factors such as lines in a silent film. But it is not the plot which is integral to the film –it is everything that happens along the way. Such as the scenes on the train, the big battle sequence and Johnny’s spying on the North, which all happen as a result on the basic theme of the civil war. One scene in particular I love that comes from this is particular skit in the recruitment office

I had high hopes that we would be lucky enough to have a live pianist playing for the film’s soundtrack; though I was being way too optimistic, but all the same it was still an amazing experience.

The film is amazing, I don’t think I can say it anymore than I have already, every scene is a guaranteed laugh as well as being extremely memorable and an absolute classic of silent cinema, up there with City Lights, Modern Times and The Kid in my books, which is saying a lot!
One scene I absolutely love –just remembered it- is when they are running extremely low on wood, and Johnny tells her to put everything in, and he makes sure she puts this minuscule piece of wood in the incinerator, and she then procures a broom out of nowhere and starts sweeping the train’s floor, ah the look on his face..

I don’t think it is possible to say that there are any bad points to The General, the acting is great for the time, as is the story (as far as some silent films go, except with Chaplin’s films of the same era), the humour is great and there are some scenes in particular that are prime examples of classic cinema.

A film so prolific I would most readily recommend it to anyone that enjoys films, or pretty much just wants a good laugh. So if you ever have the chance of watching it at a cinema, GO SEE IT!!!

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 10/10
An absolutely amazing experience, one I shall cherish for ages; not simply for the timeliness of it. But also for the highly amused uproar of most of the cinema patrons; each and every humorous act met with such laughter. Something that is definitely not comparable by audiences of today’s comedies.

Superman Returns

2006-08-20T19:13:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
If that is the case run off to the cinema and watch it; if its not showing at the cinema anymore then watch the original as an alternative.

Well, if you don’t know me, I am a big fan of comic characters, and Superman is one example (much like Batman) who near always makes great movie adaptations (mainly because they always tend to be directed by good folk, and starring half-decent actors) that and because I am smitten by their characters, namely to Batman for his dark overtones, and to Superman for the ever-lovable Clark Kent, who is the most important aspect of anything Superman, as far as I’m concerned Superman can fly around the world all he wants. But I go to see a Superman film for the Lois-Clark dynamic, because it’s always great fun to see the mild-mannered Clark Kent blither around like a fool.

One thing I was most definitely not pleased with –though, being oh so very British I did not complain- was the sound in our screen at the cinema was a bit buggered and led to some annoyance on my and my sister’s part, but this was no fault of the films, so I will not complain anymore than necessary.

Directed by Bryan Singer –who I of course know from directing the first two X-men films and the Usual Suspects- Starring Brandon Routh (Clark Kent/Superman), Kate Bosworth (Lois Lane), Kevin Spacey (Lex Luthor) James Marsden (Richard White), Parker Posey (Kitty Kowalski), Frank Langella (Perry White), Sam Huntington (Jimmy Olsen) and Eva Marie Saint (Martha Kent).

The film takes place after Superman II (this choice makes much sense later on) and Superman has been away from Earth for a very long time until –surprise, surprise- he returns. Though, during Superman’s absence Lex Luthor (Spacey) had since left jail and courted a rather old lady –for money and a big boat- in order to complete his ever growing quest for world supremacy. This time around he aims to accomplish this by creating a large land mass –with the aid of the crystals from Kal-el’s (superman) fortress of solitude- beside America and then renting the land to the highest bidder, similar to his plan in the original Superman film, similarly the film also features a ‘miss Teschmacher’ (character from original superman film) who realises Lex’s evil plan and ends up routing for Superman. After much action and Kryptonite usage Superman manages to save the day, and unfortunately discovers the worst thing that I say could have happened in a Superman film.

Superman Returns is a film intended for family watching –much like any of the others in the past- it doesn’t contain the slapstick humour of Superman 3 but it’s not quite as serious as Batman Begins. So it’s pretty much a film for the whole family, though personally I couldn’t see a child enjoying a superman film, but that’s simply my opinion. In my head I cannot imagine children enjoying anything other than ‘real’ children’s films.
That said some humour is dark (those scary dogs in particular), but the plot is nothing short of a normal superhero film.

The actors were good, Brandon Routh managed to create an imaginable Clark Kent –and maybe I will tell him that if I pluck up the courage at Gmex2 (scifi convention)- though less Cary Grant than Reeve’s portrayal, for which I was a little disappointed because you can’t not love Dr David Huxley (Bringing up Baby).
Though with this excellent Kent, I felt that Kevin Spacey’s Lex was somewhat too caring, perhaps if I put it into context it would make more sense. Gene Hackman’s Luthor did not care about anyone but himself, and left Miss Teschmacher to die, John Shea’s Lex was similar in nature. Though Spacey’s Luthor showed much emotion, and grew somewhat sad when some of his henchmen died. Now I realise this effectively gives makes him more than a one-dimensional bad guy, but it was for that reason that I liked Hackman in the role, he made a truly maniacal megalomaniac that you loved for being so egotistical and self centred.

Everything scripted; plot and dialogue all seemed very fitting of Superman; the plot was slightly clichéd and featured the usual ingredients, but little else could be expected. The dialogue of the film was great reminiscent of everything that is Superman, nice and witty. Though I must say I was a little disheartened when the phrase of ‘truth and justice’ was used, though it was devoid of ‘the American way’ which is basically Superman in six words… I don’t want a new Superman (sure a new Batman is a nice improvement) because one of his majesties is his forever plight in battling for the American way.
In speaking of the script I have chosen to ignore the horrible little addition of the small boy in the film, and unfortunately the film ends with Superman’s death in my book.

Of course the amazing John Williams’ Superman theme was ever-present and as good as always, otherwise the music had a suitable mood for the film; the composer John Ottoman, working on the X-men films previously with Bryan Singer.

Other than naming certain performances or certain parts of the film much of the film was amazing, I was a little sceptical of Kate Bosworth, but I found her as a rather sufficient Lois, and the same can be said of Routh and Spacey.
One thing I loved about the film was the beginning with the credits, CUTE!!! It was so ‘cute’ that they kept the same animation type style, making it feel like a Superman film within the first few minutes.
The other part I loved was that –although Lois is married- the Lois-Clark dynamic was still there (of course mainly in Clark), and the small scene where Richard (James Marsden) speculates whether Clark could be Superman was priceless.

The big surprise!!! Was the most awful thing that could have happened to Superman Returns, it is basically like giving him superdog as a side-kick. If you don’t want to spoil the surprise then don’t read this.
**
Giving superman a child is up there with my hatred of children having unlikely advantages over an adult and killing them, not to mention the complete confusion it creates; sure Superman and Lois had sex in the second Superman film, but then he wiped her memory… I mean, how immoral is that? Anyway, I believe this is the main reason most people had irks about Superman Returns, so I am comforted with the fact that it is not only me being all moaney.
**

The film itself was great, nothing short of my expectations, though I feel the end made the film a little weak, and on the verge of silliness. Superman Returns is definitely a good summer flick, though unfortunately competing with POTC means that there may in fact be little chance of a sequel due to poor box-office results, and just after I was warming to Routh as Superman.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
With the enormous amount of comic to film adaptations it begins to get a little embarrassing. But after the amazing feats that Batman Begins achieved I could not wait to see a return to the Superman franchise, even if it does have its faults. It did not fail to deliver.

Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest

2006-07-29T16:54:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
So don’t come running to me if you spoil the film!

Very unlike myself, I went to see a Disney film at the cinema; oh the actual terrible shock! I would have not chosen to go and see such a thing, except a group of friends were venturing out to do the very thing, so we tagged along and enjoyed the ride.

The cinema was absolutely packed, I love that whenever I go to the cinema simply with my sister there is always a very low attendance, but you add one other person to that group, suddenly the cinema always seems to be packed.

Directed by Gore Verbinski and Starring Johnny Depp (Jack Sparrow), Orlando Bloom (Will Turner), Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann), Jack Davenport (Norrington), Bill Nighy (Davy Jones) Jonathan Pryce (Governor Swann), Lee Arenberg (Pintel), Mackenzie Crook (Ragetti), Kevin McNally (Gibbs), David Bailie (Cotton) and Stellan Skarsgard (Bootstrap Bill)

Well, the film –most obviously- takes place after the events of Pirates of the Caribbean (Whatever they may be, I for one have not seen the original) and follows the misadventures of Jack, Will and Elizabeth, with all pretty much similar screen time which was surprising to see. Ok, so the point of the film is that Captain Jack Sparrow made a very Faustian pact with Davy Jones, and now like all these deals, Jones wants his soul. But of course, he won’t let him have it, and this is when adventure ensues.

Well, being a Disney film, and based on a theme park ride, the film is very much intended for children, and granted there were some funny parts, the humour was all very obvious, nothing extremely clever, so yes. Very much a children’s film.

Well, in comment to the actors, the real selling point of the film is no doubt Johnny Depp, an actor who is now so recognised, hoards of young girls –and women- flock to his every film. Though it must be said that he creates such a character that can be remembered, it is almost impossible to say much else about the other actors.
It was a little strange to see so many British cameos, and I was rather estranged in seeing Mr Jonathan Pryce playing a role in the film, but regardless it must be said that hardly any of the other actors/actresses really compare to Depp’s performance, which I must say isn’t exactly his best one either.

The soundtrack was pretty cool, sounded similar to Monkey Island, and had me singing –Monkey Island- for a few days afterwards.

Good pirate films are few and far between, and one thing that I loved of Pirates of the Caribbean DMC was simply the pirate aspect. The film was full of beautiful costumes, fitting to the era, and the locations were gorgeous, (cant say that and not think of Little Britain) and as I do not see many period pieces, I must say that it was some of the best mise-en-scene for a film I have seen in a while.

For one, the film was quite long, and dragged a little, the other obvious downfall to the film was its extremely open-for-sequel-end which I abhor in films (unless its Batman Begins because they took that from the comics and it was awesome). Otherwise the film was ok, it’s not going up there on my ‘best films of 2006’ but it was ok. Like Fantastic Four last year, Pirates of the Caribbean was simply an enjoyable family film, not something I would usually chose to go see.

As I’ve already mentioned the film was entertaining, with a standard script and standard performances from the actors, not terribly engaging, but then, I did not expect such of the film.
Though if you have a hankering for light entertainment on a hot summers day, I can safely say that you will have some fun watching Pirates of the Caribbean 2; though I myself would chose to see Superman Returns if such the occasion arose.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 6/10
I love to see people’s reactions to films, and children are particularly vocal in this aspect, so much that the child next to me, jumped enormously at some parts, laughed her head off on others, making the film much more enjoyable. Because I feel that if someone else is enjoying it, it makes the experience much more entertaining.
It would be very interesting –in my humble opinion- that instead with the third in the series, that they do not bring back Depp’s character, just to see everyone’s reaction, because there is no way they are going to keep their flagship out of it.

Hard Candy

2006-07-25T11:03:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there will be some spoilers in here for you! So if you do not wish to find out, or rather, work out the ‘twist’ I suggest you avert your eyes.

I went to see Hard Candy on a whim, I had heard that it was good and it was out of it, or the Lake House, feeling like watching a more intellectually challenging than the romantic remake, I decided upon Hard Candy, a film based on the hot-topic of chat room meetings.

Because you all love to hear the comings and goings on when I frequent the cinema, watching Hard Candy was particularly strange, as the staff had not turned the lights on in the screen, so it was difficult to find my seat and took me about twenty minutes until I could find it. The other patrons watching it were also out of the ordinary, not to be stereotypical at all, but they were pretty much all (although this was only 3) very old men, which I thought strange as old people don’t tend to frequent our ‘popular’ cinema, unless Johnny Cash is involved.

Directed by David Slade –who is up for directing 30 days of night, which will hopefully be interesting- Starring Patrick Wilson (Jeff Kohlver), Ellen Page (Hayley Stark), Sandra Oh (Judy Tokuda) and Jennifer Holmes (Janelle Rogers) making up a very small cast, which you really do not see these days, as the film is much more centrally character based than story.

I suppose the film’s synopsis was what drew me to the film –correct me if I’m wrong- but it’s the first film (tv seems to do it a lot) to touch on the subject of people meeting through internet chat rooms, and the idea of the male counterpart being in trouble made much speculation as to how the film could follow through.
So basically the film is about Hayley (14), who meets Jeff (23) over a chat room, and the two meet, she is very forward with him, and eventually it leads to him drugged and tied up in a chair, subjected to torture and the like, as she tries to have him confess that he (along with another person), murdered a young girl who had met a person over the internet.

Above all –and not surprisingly being a Lionsgate film- the film is extremely visceral, and very does little more than it says on the tin. With such subject matter the film could appeal to pretty much anyone, it’s a very hard film to peg to a particular audience, and while it is an eighteen; I am a little unsure why… from what I recall the film itself contained little in the way of violence, (the BBFC chops it down to ‘strong sadistic violence’) perhaps it is simply the situation, speculation and subject matter that gives it such strong a rating.

Now, with this film I can say that the main –and really only actual characters- characters played their parts flawlessly. Thankfully they cast Ellen Page (as Hayley); who despite being 18, looks very convincing as a 14-year-old (unlike some films that cast people in their twenties-thirties as teenagers.) I must say that –in my opinion- she played the role exactly as she should have, because I hated her like crazy, and I believe this was what they were trying to do. While all the time you are left sympathising with Jeff, who is all innocent and tortured and scared for his life due to the crazy 14-year-old. Then comes the twist –after the very long ‘torture’ sequence- and after watching the film for an hour-and-a-half you seem to understand what exactly is going on. The twist may be a shock, or you may have seen it coming. Personally I saw it coming in the back of my mind, but was kind of hoping otherwise.
Unlike I usually do, I wont disclose the twist because as simple as it is, it is also pretty effective.

The story was great, something new and not yet investigated before, albeit the idea of a 14-year-old getting the better of a 23-year-old is a little ‘out there’ it is also very believable in the context of the film. You’ve got a young girl who isn’t perfect, she keeps making mistakes, and he almost gets the better of her, but all the while through the clever writing makes for an extremely engrossing experience, Hayley’s dialogue really makes it seem like she is particularly enjoying herself, and Jeff’s whining and reasoning really makes you empathize with his situation and makes you want him to escape.

The best points in the film –as I believe I’ve probably already pointed out- were most definitely the acting from both Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page, who had me involved with their characters.
The other point of course is the current subject matter, thinking on the matter they could have taken the story any way possible, but the film itself was delivered greatly, the torture scene was one that shall be remembered for years to come (or it should be) though I must say I saw outcome of the torture from a mile off.
I did also particularly love it when everything started to go a little pear shaped for Hayley.

It really is true that when you try to remember something from some time ago you only remember the good points, and in writing this review it is very true. I can only remember fantastic parts of the film, and other than saying I hated Hayley’s character simply because I wanted to kill the girl there is little else I can complain about, even though my point should not be taken as a bad thing. David Slade wanted you to hate her, to want to kill her, because then you’re just as bad as Jeff.

The film was very much a new experience, filmed with a very gritty look and two actors before now I’d never heard of, a greatly enjoyable film, I suppose I can recommend it as pretty much a revenge film, nothing too clever, but not over the top ridiculous, maybe I could relate it on par to that of Oldboy or Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, but then I suppose maybe that isn’t a correct judgement…

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 7/10
Nice film, great acting, interesting subject matter, nice twists and turns along the way.

On another note, I have noticed a few regular people reading my blog, please don’t just lurk around in the shadows, comment on my blog, comments make me happy :D

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada

2006-07-22T19:02:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O

Usually watching a film at our independent cinema is pre-meditated, and I know well enough about the film to know that I wish to see it. Though in the case of Three Burials, I had never heard of it in my life –other than small mention and a review on blogcritics- but, as always; I picked a winner, and Three Burials was an amazing film.

Directed by Mr Tommy Lee Jones –in his directorial debut (if you excuse some tv show)- Starring Tommy Lee Jones (Pete Perkins), Barry Pepper (Mike Norton), Julio Cedillo (Melquiades Estrada), Dwight Yoakam (Belmont), January Jones (Lou Ann Norton), Melissa Leo (Rachel) and Levon Helm as the Old man with the radio.

The title, rather self-explanatory is based around the three burials of Melquiades Estrada, as well as the events leading up to his death, while also showing developing the bond between him and Pete, and those whose actions led to his death.
The last ½ of the film was fixated on Pete’s quest (with the unwilling help of Mike) to give Melquiades his ‘dying wish’.

The film itself is a strange piece. Set in modern day Texas –as constantly reminded through technology- the film has a feel of the past, this mainly coming from the inherent values of the old west, based on friendship, loyalty and commitment on Pete’s behalf for his best friend.

I must say the acting in Three Burials was superb, this comment coming mainly from Barry Pepper and Tommy Lee Jones, who as the main characters gave terrific performances. Especially Pepper, whose character truly evolved throughout the film, he had you hating him, feeling sympathy and overall loving the guy.
Tommy Lee Jones who held a character that you could only respect, every action had meaning, and you could never hate him for any of his decisions, can’t go without saying that although all acting in the film was great, Pepper and Jones really outdid themselves.

Similar to the Australian outback in the Proposition, Three Burials had some beautiful Mexican landscapes. Another plus to the film was its characters; the film took the time to explore just about every character, giving every person some sort of very human, relatable qualities.
There were also certain points in the film that came to mind, when I couldn’t help but laugh; two scenes in particular I remember were that of when Pete had to get the ants off Melquiades, and of course when Mike saw the television programme on the television in the desert –that point I just cracked up, not entirely sure if this was intentional for a giggle, but I sure as hell found that bit particularly hilarious.

One thing I know I can say is towards the timeframe of the film, it felt rather confusing at first; differentiating before his death and after his death, and made the film a little hard for me to pick up at first.

The film, overall was a very rewarding experience; really picking up in the middle of the film it never once faltered afterwards, with good performances from Jones and Pepper, I would recommend the film to anyone wishing to see something enjoyable, but also different.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
To the strange title of the film I never expected what I received, though I what I did get was a thoroughly good film, and some nice characters.
The absolute feel of a western, but set in modern day.

Capote

2006-07-07T14:32:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
So you know… there is my warning, take heed if you must.

Now a long string of nice serious films came out last year, and Capote was one that I didn’t want to miss, though for some reason they did show Good Night and Good Luck upon release at our local Odeon.
Much like Catherine, I am most definitely not Philip Seymour Hoffman’s biggest fan. Though I must say he is a pretty darn good actor.

Directed by Bennett Miller –of whom I have never heard of- Starring of course Philip Seymour Hoffman (Truman Capote), Catherine Keener (Harper Lee), Chris Cooper (Alvin Dewey), Clifton Collins Jr. (Perry Smith), Mark Pellegrino (Dick Hickock) and Bob Balaban (William Shawn).

The film follows the period of time wherein Truman Capote -author of Breakfast at Tiffany’s- writes “In Cold Blood”; one of his most famous books. The film is more of an exploration of character than anything else.
The film was definitely not for those with a short patience, it is rather slow paced as an overall film even though it runs at only two hours.

Philip Seymour Hoffman was amazing, and if there is one thing he has proven in Capote; its his diversity of roles –whereas Catherine thought he only could act like a total arsehole- in Capote he proves that he can act as a complete arsehole that you also cannot bear to hate. It’s really Hoffman that drove the whole film, without him it would probably be nowhere as recognised. Also as always, it was funny to recognise a familiar face: Mark Pellegrino from the episode of the X-Files with Chad Donella.

The story was interesting, following Capote’s troubling decision from keeping the friend he had made -through research- (Perry Smith) alive through legal backing, and being in anticipation of his death so that he could finish his novel.

Strangely the music sounded familiarly composed, something like two composers melded together, it was weird, especially because I have never even heard of Mychael Danna (sorry Mychael), whole thing weirded me out –I’m usually good at recognising composers.

The film if anything, was engrossing, with such a large emphasis on Truman, and Truman alone. Otherwise little else calls to itself as alarmingly brilliant. The mystery of the murder is also an intriguing factor. Much like other films with similar subjects, Capote also invited you to feel compassion –of sorts- towards the rather gentle convict Perry Smith, who has a lovely surprising turnaround; one great part of the film.

Overall my comment to the film is that although it was a little different to what I had expected, it’s a slow paced drama possibly for those who enjoy good acting, a slight base on story and an exploration of the man; Truman Capote.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 7/10
I was actually surprised that I managed to watch the film.. and after watching it I realised how different it was to what I thought it might be. I was defiantly not expected simply the delving into Truman Capote’s character rather than a story.
Also I must say that being the third film in a line of films taking audience at our little independent cinema.. My bum is not taking too kindly to the seating.

Doctor Who

2006-06-30T00:35:00.000+01:00

Those of you that know me, and read this -so about one- know that I tend to review films, games on occasion; but only when I feel up to it. So I felt that I would be unorthodox and review a television series… how strange.Anyway, as some of you may know that on Sunday 2nd July 2006 I am attending a convention, and present will be various film and comic related people. Now of course I want to meet as many of the guests as possible, and very hopefully get pictures of them with moo.
Now, with a large number of the guests affiliated with the recent Doctor Who series on television. I felt it most appropriate to watch at least the episodes pertaining to the guests. So, forth-with I obtained the whole of series one and most of series two.
Now I must say I would have otherwise had no intention to watch the programme. Undoubtedly due to Billie Piper’s appearance as a main supporting character, as well as my automatic adherence to the show. Though to quote Ransom it is pretty awesome, and most probably down to the same two words that he had stated; ‘Christopher Eccleston’

Unknown to myself; it is an actual fact that Doctor Who is the longest running science fiction drama in existence, though really I could care less about the old series’ full of cheap British set designs, and a very 70s-ish look I would never choose to look back upon the old series’. But if there is one thing television does well, it is improve. Now we’re talking humour, drama, character interaction, even believability through special effects. Though through all these changes I still try and distance myself as far as possible from most British television, simply because, in my opinion, we can do nothing more than comedy well -and even with comedy there are some real ifs. Though something very rare to find the UK produce is good science fiction, which is most probably the reason for my dislike of programmes such as Doctor Who.
Anyway, I very much digress, I should get on with this thing.

Doctor Who is based upon the surviving time lord, known only as ‘the doctor’ -played by Eccleston, who if perhaps was not chosen for the role, would have been the downfall of the show. He is really the complete opposing actor that you would give to the position of the doctor to. After all I only know him as that guy from 28 Days Later, and Shallow Grave. Or the guy that dies at the start of eXistenZ. Both roles not exactly shining as heroes, when I first heard that he would be assuming the role I thought it a bit strange and could never imagine him in such a television programme; as set in my mind Eccleston was a relatively serious actor... boy was I wrong
Now to my surprise the series began with the introduction of Rose; setting her as a rather important character, as well as identifying the doctor and giving a little bit of info along the way. Throughout the whole episode I was telling myself “thats Billie Piper, she can’t act” But I must say that by the end of the first episode I was actually ‘liking’ her character.

Now I think the main part of the show that surprised me was how little of it was actual science fiction. Now this is the reason I do not prefer to watch programmes like Star Trek and Stargate; because I find them boring, they’re all about the science, and space etc. Though I like shows such as Firefly and the X-files because it gets to a point where you are really rooting for the characters, and you begin to like them. Rather than focusing on the science in the episode, you have emotions, history, and dialogue that is funny to anyone joining in.
And as much as I dislike British television, it's always an extra bonus to be able to understand what people are talking about as well as understanding the jokes -as it is set in my country.

I must say though, one problem I did have with this series was in fact the special effects. Now I hear that they were spending out £1 million on each episode, which is quite a bloody lot! And I feel that for this, in terms of special effects there isn't really much to show. Creatures like the Slitheen just looked really silly when running about. I know many people have commended it on having amazing special effects, but if you ask me... on a show like Doctor Who -with most creatures- you should go animatronics all the way, simply because they are so much cooler, and that they are corporeal, I mean sure, some things cannot be handled without special effects, but other things can also be handled with animatronics. (Then again, they’re most probably more expensive... if anyone knows this to be true I would be interested in finding out)

When it got to the final episode I was rather put out that there would no longer be any Eccleston; with David Tennant already taken over the role. Especially as the newer series feels very different; Eccleston brought out a dark, but funny character, not afraid to insult though quite a loner, yet caring, and alongside his portrayal also came pretty much joint screen time with Billie Piper.
Now I prefer guys as much as the next girl, but it was a nice change to watch a show where the two main characters were actually equals; whereas now with the newer series, her role seems to be much smaller and insignificant somewhat of a downfall if you ask me.

Billie Piper... Billie Piper, Billie Piper, Billie Piper... it's hard not to imagine her outside of her ‘singing career’ especially acting. Though I must say I was pleasantly surprised by her performance in the role. Apart from the fact I didn’t think I could stand her... she was completlely bearable, and a hell of a lot better than the majority of female heroines. Billie Piper is pretty much a good representation of Britain –unlike some females they stick in television, and for that I like her exceedingly in the role, she plays it very human.
But with Billie Piper leaving, I feel that the show may not be itself. Of course it wasn’t really the same since Eccleston left. It just goes to show that the overall character development in the show is pretty spectacular, as otherwise I wouldn’t give a damn if a character left or not.

Now Christopher Eccleston came on with his outlandish behaviour, his ‘fantastic’s and most notably of all his strange face: the sort of face that science fiction should have, someone who has character.
Also if there is one thing I love, it's discovering ‘new’ actors, it's always so great to realise that someone has been there under my nose, and I had an inkling to who they were; but really knew nothing about them, and I’m pretty sure I can vouch this with most actors. That I am always very successful (in my opinion) that when I spy a good actor, that it always turns out that they are in fact a pretty darn good actor, and Christopher Eccleston has gone on to join that list.
Either way his portrayal brought with it, a sort of annoyance, but you also couldn't help but be on his side and laugh along the way, and from this I must say there were no actual annoying characters... sure some of the antagonists can be roll-your-eyes-increasingly... but antagonists are there to be stupid and annoying -at least, they always seem to be with myself.

The writing is pretty darn humorous I must say! With most episodes written by Russell T. Davies, who wrote Casanova -which was hilarious- and Queer as Folk, his dialogue is snappy, monologues not too long and all-round amazing writing, almost on par with Joss Whedon in my books!

The music of Doctor Who was also something rather surprising -not sure who the exact composer is- showing that it could be emotional, actiony and intense and all work really well with everything else going on. Whereas most British television just sticks the latest pop songs in the background.

Not since firefly has a science fiction show seemed so fun. Sure Doctor Who had it's moments when I think, ‘this is lame’ (Parts of ‘Bad Wolf’ in particular), or ‘this has to be meant for children’ (World War Three and toilet humour...), rolling my eyes etc.
But Doctor Who has proved to be a most exhilarating ride. Though from what I have already seen, I don't feel that the 10th doctor lives up to Eccleston’s weird eccentricity in the slightest. But then of course, it's all down to the writers. Which seem rather eccentric themselves.

I’m not too sure if its possible for myself to grade something like this… so at the very least, I’ll give it a Cptalbertwesker thumbs up : )

The Proposition

2006-06-09T19:11:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
Add line relating to the film, of what will happen if they have not seen the film

I would have seen the Proposition when it was showing at my local Odeon, though they were only showing it late at night for a week, so I missed my chance until our small cinema picked it up

Directed by John Hillcoat –Whom I have never heard of before; probably because he is Australian- Starring Guy Pearce (Charlie Burns), Ray Winstone (Captain Stanley), Emily Watson (Martha Stanley), Tom Budge (Samuel Stote), David Wenham (Eden Fletcher), John Hurt (Jellon Lamb), Richard Wilson (Mike Burns), Danny Huston (Arthur Burns)

The film pretty much followed both Captain Stanley (Winstone), and Charlie Burns (Pearce); of the burns gang as a resolution is sort after Captain Stanley offers Charlie a proposition that will save himself and his younger brother, Mike’s life; though giving him the remaining –and much more violent- members of the Burns gang.

One comment to Guy Pearce was just how famished he looked, after seeing him in Adventures of Priscilla which was made over ten years ago, he most definitely looks like a different person, still his performance as Charlie Burns was none-the-less decent as was Ray Winstone. Danny Huston also shone out along with Emily Watson and John Hurt. Pretty much a good ensemble cast.

The soundtrack was great, something every western deserves is a fitting soundtrack; and Nick Cave got it just right, with the great backdrop of 1800s Australia alongside breathtakingly extraordinary landscapes gives the film a lasting appeal.

One big reason for me liking a film like the Proposition, is it’s setting; now I am not much of a Western fan, but that is really due to the thousands of John Wayne films; which, sorry but I find sort of boring. There are some Westerns: Destry Rides Again, Once Upon A Time in the West, Paleface (if it counts) and also (if it counts) Serenity, and currently I am only just getting into the Western genre, but moreover Spaghetti westerns are usually the most enjoyable, because the violence and action that follows them makes good cinema, and the Proposition’s gritty setting is just the sort of film that appeals to myself.
As I have already slightly mentioned, one other great point of the film, were the deserted landscapes that encompassed the film, never before have I seen such beautiful desolate horizons and authentic stifling heat in a film.

I must admit that it was a little slow in some parts, though this was usually accompanying breathtaking views, which you really cannot complain about, one problem I did have; which may or may not have been down to our cinema, but similarly with Breakfast on Pluto, it was a little hard at times to understand what people were saying… or perhaps I am not good at deciphering the Irish accent.

Well… hmm it was a good film, ranking pretty high, some gorgeous landscapes and interesting characters, I suppose I would recommend it to fans of Westerns, for this film is something of a new route of westerns, I not being much of a hardcore fan thoroughly enjoyed it, and would recommend to all.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – Orthodox 7/10
A nicely slow-paced western, strangely also receiving bad press, similar to that of A History of Violence and the countless other films I seem to be reviewing.

The Da Vinci Code

2006-06-07T14:45:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
But then I’m pretty sure millions of you have read the book, and therefore have some idea of what the film is about.

Choosing to see the Da Vinci Code was no way intentional, but when Catherine won free tickets to go see it at our local cinema, I was not one to give up the chance.

Directed by Ron Howard –Of Splash, Willow, Cinderella Man and hosts of other films- Starring Tom Hanks (Robert Langdon), Audrey Tautou (Sophie Neveu), Ian McKellen (Sir Leigh Teabing), Jean Reno (Captain Fache), Paul Bettany (Silas), Alfred Molina (Bishop Aringarosa), Jurgen Prochnow (Andre Vernet) and Jean-Yves Berteloot (Remy Jean).

Well unlike the 60 million people that have bought copies of the book, I am not one of them, and so I write an unbiased view; the film mainly telling the story of Robert Langdon (Hanks) who is caught up in a conspiracy of the whereabouts of the Holy Grail; along the lines being offensive to Christian’s claiming that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that they had a child together; this mystery/thriller takes the protagonists across Europe in a final resolution in pretty much the death of the main antagonists, while Robert and Sophie live happily ever after finding out the ‘truth’ that they were searching for.

Aside from the fact it seemed like a rather long film, it has to be said that it is a film for those with patience; no stereotyping here, but after it ended the amount of men complaining how boring it was, was unprecedented. While all of the women thought it was rather good, no problems with its length.

The obvious saving grace for the film was most definitely Ian McKellen’s performance, as the witty old Englishman, otherwise no other performances were shining out, which was surprising seeing as it had quite a few decent actors thrown in there.

The story seemed pretty much like a standard thriller, not exceptionally brilliant, but neither did it come off as awful. There is a lot of press on the film damning it as the worst film this year, but how can you say that with the Date Movie’s and Big Momma’s Houses out there?!

One thing I can say that I felt looked a tad cheesy were the effects showing ‘old’ London etc, and although I know a couple of critics loved these effects, I thought that they looked pretty much ridiculous, especially when Robert and Sophie was walking through them. The same can be said when Robert was working puzzles out, I just thought that it all looked too silly. Otherwise it seems pretty hard to remember what was bad or good of the film, and unfortunately I can only give it a low score and not explain myself, obviously the film did not shine out to myself as exceptional, or perhaps I would remember certain points.

Overall it was a decent thriller, similar to silent hill, it would seem that only the critics have given the film a bad time, whereas normal folk seemed to have liked it.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – Orthodox 6 ½ /10
Undoubtedly the best part of the film was watching the religious discussion had at the end; which was highly entertaining.

Silent Hill

2006-06-02T12:42:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
With such a film as Silent Hill I will most likely rip it apart and constantly compare it to the series, so if that is not want you wish to hear, then I am not forcing you to read, but perhaps you will be interested to see how I felt the film was.

Well obviously, like most other films I see there was a reason, and the reason for watching Silent Hill was simply because I am an extremely big fan of the video game series; that put forth intriguing plots and twisted ideas into a media that does not always get such great ideas.

Directed by Christopher Gans -of The Brotherhood of the Wolf, which I have yet to see; though it can be said that I have actually heard of him- Starring Radha Mitchell (Rose), Sean Bean (Christopher), Laurie Holden (Cybil), Deborah Kara Unger (Dahlia), Kim Coates (Officer Gucci), Tanya Allen (Anna; who reminded me quite a bit of Christina Hendricks), Alice Krige (Christabella) and Jodelle Ferlan (Sharon/Alessa; whom I found extremely annoying).

The film is basically a re-telling of the story that the prolific Silent Hill set out to tell - except with a load of changes along the way, leading to pretty much overall confusion, but leaving you with the satisfying feeling that you have witnessed the telling of a story of Silent Hill.

Someone that knows little of the franchise could probably see the film as pretty much a moderately successful horror film, the film's premise and middle are altogether a great cinema outing, though I believe past the story of Alessa the film falls on its knees..

As I have already mentioned; I could not stand that of Jodelle Ferlan (Sharon/Alessa) now, if you know me -I badger on about it time and time again- if there is one thing I cannot stand it is child actors; now there are exceptions, I did not mind Dakota Fanning in War of the Worlds, and you cannot possibly hate Drew Barrymore in E.T, or Natalie Portman in Leon. but Silent Hill is a horror film; and if there’s one thing horror films succeed it, it's creating -'stupid, I'm really evil'- children that I cannot help but roll my eyes at (be careful more ranting is in store). Now that all of that nonsense is out of the way, Radha Mitchell, Sean Bean and Laurie Holden were bearable, I could not stand Dahlia, but then I could never stand her in the game either; she always had a big case of overacting, and suffice to say I do not think there was much acting present that I could call outstanding.
Except of course -enter fan girlish pathethicness- that of Pyramid Head. Now I am extremely unsure if they were using a real actor, or if he was CG, but he was awesome; amazingly capturing the raw strength and atmosphere that he sufficiently deems in Silent Hill 2 (the videogame).

As for the screenplay, I'd have to say the film faired pretty well; other than the whole cult thing (which was really silly if you ask me) the film had a pleasant vibe of Silent Hill.
When it came to the soundtrack it was the one part of the film which could never fail; but then again, I was expecting full on Yamaoka, after all one of the most memorable parts of any Silent Hill game is its music. Though I must say I was a little put-down by what the film had to offer, only being given a few tracks thrown in every now and again; lyrical songs on the radios, and composed ones popping up at the most inappropriate of times, making it feel at times uncomfortable because it just didn't feel right. I suppose they should be given props for actually including some of the Silent Hill series' best tracks.

The film probably fairs well in this review because it’s based on the fictional town of Silent Hill; and anything and everything that they throw at me is held in high regard. The story seemed very different to that of the game, which was refreshing; though I would have much rather preferred a straight out original tale of Silent Hill. The acting was ok, the music was good, and the ending was... well... confusing. The film had some lovely set designs, and some nice CG going for it; the other side of Silent Hill looked magnificent and the endless supply of fans, mesh fences and rust was a warming sight; the strange cult members in their gasmasks were also a rather nice overall touch. There really isn't so much bad as there is good, which surprised me for a series that I feel so strongly about.

Ok, ok, now stop me if you've heard this before. But if there is one thing I cannot stand its child actors! I do not care if they are good actors or not, it is just that their portrayal or all-round characters always end up getting on my nerves... I think two films that summarise my hatred are Identity and Pet Cemetery wherein a child takes down an adult three times their size; it’s just ridiculous and stupid. (If you ask me)
Now I realise that Silent Hill needed Cheryl (or rather Sharon in this case) but I just couldn’t stand the girl -that whole stupid “I’m on fire” thing just seriously irritated me. Secondly on the same note, audience’s are going to be leaving Silent Hill thinking they have just seen some sort of Japanese orientated film, now of course on a few levels it is, but they made Sharon to look like a “ghost-girl” as my media class would say, which irritated me just as much as the fact that she was a small girl.
The only other problem I have with the film is the third act; completely unnecessary, I did not need to know about the cult or anything else, the film could have ended just fine at the telling of Alessa's tales of woe and I would have been satisfied, but instead they needed more of the ridiculous cult; with no mention of Samael, and all their stupid witch burning, but I shall not dwell, because ultimately Silent Hill is my least favourite of the series.

Although the critics have really attacked Silent Hill; strangely I have not heard any untoward comments of it. Specifically of people I know, loved the film... so it completely baffles me as to who will like the film. Though if you are a die-hard fans of the series, it can most definitely be enjoyed as more of a Silent Hill story, than a remake of the original, though I suppose if they had set it on Silent Hill 2 and butchered it, I would be up-in-arms, but then who is that really going to benefit?

Cptalbertwesker Rating - Orthodox 7/10
Although the film went off on a tangent after about an hour and a half it faired pretty well, and as a stand-alone film it was pretty good. I would be very pleased to hear any opinions non-players had of the film, or if you were simply able to get along with the film, regardless of the fact you were watching it with no prior knowledge to the series.
Nice little anecdote here; apparently the directions that Rose has to memorise are none other than, that’s right, the Konami Code!!!

Breakfast on Pluto

2006-04-30T21:58:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O

Breakfast on Pluto was seen as a celebration to the end of my art exam, it was sheer coincidence that a friend had watched it a week before it was showing at our small independent cinema, so there was no question towards our visitation.

The tiny screen was packed full of people –namely 50s plus, and yet they were watching the film blind without prior knowledge to the film… how do people do that?

Directed by Neil Jordon –who up to this point I have never heard of, though upon researching (as I always tend to do) he is a rather prolific Irish director, who also directed Interview with the Vampire among numerous other films- Starring Cillian Murphy (Patrick (Patricia) 'Kitten' Braden), Liam Neeson (Father Bernard), Ruth Negga (Charlie), Laurence Kinlan (Irwin), Stephen Rea (Bertie), Brendan Gleeson (John-Joe) and Gavin Friday (Billy Hatchet).

The film follows a busy time in Kitten’s (Murphy) life as he/she attempts to find his/her mother, the film is most definitely a road movie of sorts as Kitten’s journey take us across many colourful characters and scenarios. Oh and did I mention that Kitten is a transvestite in the form of a very feminine Cillian Murphy, whose lips make him look like he was born to play the part.

The film itself is strange, it starts a little corny with talking birds and such then mildly tracks Kitten growing up comedy-esque, then we follow Kitten around when life seems to get a lot more serious, as does the tone, with perhaps some distressing scenes of terrorism, all the while continually popping back to innocent fun. So it would really appeal to anyone; as road movies usually do. If you strip it down to the bare minimum, Breakfast on Pluto is a dramatic comedy set in 60s and 70s Ireland/London.

A comment to the actors, they were great! Knowing Cillian Murphy from extremely different roles I was flabbergasted at how greatly he portrayed Kitten, Murphy is definitely an actor with great potential and large diversity for films!
The supporting cast was also rather good, but then with Liam Neeson, Brendan Gleeson and Stephen Rea you couldn’t go wrong!

Being based on a book, sometimes effectiveness is lost in the translation, and such sometimes a film comes off as awful compared to the book. Though with Breakfast on Pluto I felt that the film could not get any better (and so I can imagine that it perhaps did justice), lines are delivered perfectly –usually by Murphy- and the film has a great quality, in that you will never know what will happen next.

I felt the soundtrack was awesome, some great tracks fit amazingly with the feel of the film, and without them the film would not have been the same, though it did seem a little loud compared to the film’s sound.

Well besides the good acting, and the great soundtrack there were many a humorous situations throughout the film. I think its safe to safe the best part of the film involved Cillian Murphy as secret agent, deep throat, great stuff!! As well as Kitten’s short lived period at school.

I honestly did not enjoy the robins, I realise the old ladies behind me did, but I didn’t, what else did I not like? It is sometimes a little hard to understand Irish persons, especially when they are extremely softly spoken as Cillian Murphy played this particular role. Though this was not a bad point to the film, it made it a little difficult to understand, especially when the whole cinema was cackling (yes, cackling!) with laughter on a line that I could not hear...

Overall the film was fun, it was probably the most fun film I’ve seen in a while, because it was pure dramatic comedy at its best, and the actors involved simply improved the experience. It’s a film that pretty much anyone could enjoy, and I recommend it to you all!

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 7 ½/10
Breakfast on Pluto was an outstanding road movie with a great cast of actors and a rather strange story to boot, its one of those feel good movies, where everything turns out ok, though with many twists and turns on the way. I only rate it a half from an eight for the robins, which I disliked, but do not let them fool you that the film will remain just as that, trust me. It gets better.

V for Vendetta

2006-03-27T19:20:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
So if you read my review and don’t want to see spoilers, do not be surprised if you explode etc.

Being the latest comic book adaptation film, V for Vendetta was the most obvious film that we could go see. (although I personally wanted to see The Proposition but our cinema is crap) so yes, being a comic-book based film there was really no question… unless it were based on a boring comic book, like She-Hulk or Electra. Although I must say that I was rather put off by Jonathan Ross’ review of the film, though I can safely say that I am glad I went against his better judgement.

Directed by James McTeigue – being his first film as a fully fledged director- Starring Natalie Portman (Evey Hammond), Hugo Weaving (V), Stephen Rea (Finch), Stephen Fry (Dietrich), John Hurt (Adam Sutler), Tim Pigott-smith (Creedy), Rupet Graves (Dominic) and Roger Allam (Lewis Prothero).

The film is based on Alan Moore’s ten issue limited series that appeared in the British comic Warrior, I will talk about the film as though it is based on the graphic novel, even though Moore severed the connection.
Based in the near future V for Vendetta follows V, a freedom fighter who is on a personal vendetta to get his revenge on those that have created such a dystopian society and ultimately destroying his life for reasons unknown, he attempts to reclaim the society that once was, the ‘land of do-as-you-please’ (I love that phrase).

From the original premise of the film (and the Wachowski brothers being involved) I would have labelled it as perhaps as a hard action flick, though I was pleasantly surprised that –in my opinion- there was little of what I would class as action per say. I suppose I would agree with Imdb.com it is an action/drama/sci-fi/thriller, personally I would recommend the film to anyone as it has a nice mix of genres and it complemented by a good story, though some might find it a little controversial… and not to moan but it seems that many Americans feel the film is awful simply because America is mentioned in passing as destroying itself and no longer being the super power that it is… I suppose being British makes the film more enjoyable for me, because for a change it’s a film based in an area that I can easily recognise and relate to. Although we do not all say bollocks as much.

With a lot of the cast being English I didn’t really understand the casting of Natalie Portman, I read into it and apparently both Scarlett Johansson and Bryce Dallas Howard were both up for the role of Evey, and if you ask me I think Bryce Dallas Howard might have done a better job… but she would have probably looked a little too mousey, so perhaps Portman was the better choice (I am not a fan of Johansson’s lips, and she looks way too innocent for my tastes).
Being a film set in London it was fun to see actors like Ben Miles (Coupling) and Stephen Fry (Blackadder I suppose), and although they did not have very large roles it was a nice touch to make the film that bit more British.
As for Hugo Weaving, I felt his casting –like Natalie Portman- was also rather strange, seeing as James Purefoy was originally up for the role –although apparently he didn’t like the idea of his face being in a mask through the whole movie, vain huh?- and he, like the rest of the cast being British fit rather nicely… but instead they chose an Australian actor? (I suppose that I am sometimes mistaken for Australian so it does make sense) and perhaps with the Wachowski brothers there was some sort of thing, him being used by them before. Although as for his acting I can say that I was rather surprised (not having seen many films containing him other than the obvious), as he was fully capable of bringing a costume to life, as well as apparently stirring a lot of fan girls just because of his voice (as you will find on most forums), though I felt that V seemed more impressive in the comics, not sure why.

With the screenplay written by the Wachowski brothers and being disowned by Alan Moore I did not think that the screenplay would be too fantastic, full of action and fighting and whatnot. Though I found that both the screenplay and the story was a lot better than I had expected, and after reading the original graphic novel that the film was based upon it is true that there are some obvious changes, but the film kept in spirit with the novel rather well if you ask me.

In comment to the music, after reading the comic I think ‘every time we say goodbye’ should have been included in the film. Though I felt ‘cry me a river’ went nicely anyway. On the subject of it I was rather surprised that V and Evey danced so much in the comic as opposed to the film (who I thought might have made it up).
The nice touch of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 overture, which I believe was also featured in the comic when he broadcasted a message across the radio, rather than blow up the old bailey, I felt in all the music was well used, and very fitting to the film.

It would seem that there is mixed opinion to the final fight scene of V, specifically towards the bullet-timesqueness of it, though I felt it looked rather good. I was particularly worried that the whole film would end up in bullet time but I was surprised that it was done rather well, and nowhere near as over the top as it could have been.
Much like Catherine has expressed on the film, I have also found myself a fan of the sort of dystopian environments that are not usually present in films, and for this I was grateful of a movie adaptation that stuck by pretty faithful to the comics, rather than completely change the setting (albeit the year).
As much as I seem to go on, and moan I did genuinely like the film, it appealed to me in the Phantom of the Opera sense, as well as its totalitarian atmosphere, its fun to have a film based around an insane terrorist of sorts based not in fact but fiction.

When I think of bad points (as I read the comics subsequently after watching the film) they are more of parts that I felt should have been included in the film from the comics, specifically that it was never actually mentioned that V had to of been sent to Larkhill for a reason, questioning the possibility of him being gay, or perhaps even Evey’s father. Some other parts I felt were rather good in the comics were times when V’s creativity and variety was expressed; through a magic trick including a rabbit, and that most of his tricks of illusion being that of dummies with tape recorders, that I found rather novel.
In terms of the adaptation from comic to film I felt it was accomplished rather nicely, and that the film is pretty much perfect as it is, especially seeing as adding anymore would have excelled the film to around two and a half hours, which is too long for the average cinema-goer to bear…

Overall it was a great film, and I enjoyed it thoroughly, and although it would seem that there are many mixed opinions on the film I would heartily recommend it to anyone that can withstand an action film containing some meaningful and eccentric dialogue.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
I was not used to so many people in the cinema at once, and especially the refurbished chairs. I believe that I can safely say that I enjoyed the film, and even more so after reading the graphic novel, which I felt was done justice. I know there are many mixed opinions about the film circulating, but being British I enjoyed a Hollywood film being based around a dystopian London.

Good Night, and Good Luck.

2006-03-02T23:21:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!

Aptly named by myself as a film I would like to see this year, there was no way about my watching it at the cinema... though I myself am a little unsure what led me to the decision of wanting to watch it.

Not really a surprise, –considering the subject matter of the film- but I could not help but notice, how alongside myself and my sister, the cinema had about 3 couples in their 40s-60s…

Directed by George Clooney –how you know the director- Starring David Straithairn (Edward R. Murrow), Robert Downey Jr. (Joe Wershba), Patricia Clarkson (Shirley Wershba), Ray Wise (Don Hollenbeck), Frank Langella (William ‘Bill’ Paley), Jeff Daniels (Sig Mickelson), and George Clooney (Fred Friendly)

The film takes place in the 1950s; the era of McCarthyism and paranoia, with the main focus of the story occurring in the CBS broadcasting building. The film is really about Edward Murrow, star of CBS’ See it Now, seemingly famous for his closing words good night and good luck. Although never stating him as a communist sympathiser throughout the film (without prior knowledge) it is clear that his intentions against senator McCarthy are obvious, simply put the film follows Murrow’s pursuit in letting television viewers know the McCarthy that the public had not seen, though as we can tell from the beginning of the film, his pursuit of justice leads to his dismissal.

The film, almost to the point of a documentary or biopic would not suit everyone; with its political tones and serious manner the film will only really appeal to those with a decent attention span, it has its points occasionally a laugh can be had, but not often. But if you’re looking for a good film among the Date Movie’s and Big Momma’s Houses out there, then this is the film for you.

I believe that it could be easily said that every actor that contributed to the film was excellent, Straithairn’s portray of Murrow was excellent, bringing a certain air of power to the screen. But I felt that the subplot of Don Hollenback (Wise) was by far the best supporting performance in the film, similar to Twin Peaks I feel that Ray Wise can make a character easily terrorised and sympathetic, this was the same in his sad portrayal of Hollenbeck.

The screenplay was awesome, not scared to perhaps confuse those that are not paying attention the film spoke its truth, nothing had seemed to be dummed down, so I was pleasantly happy.

The soundtrack was awesome, being set in the fifties the singing of Dianne Reeves helped to add a great level of realism, making the intervals in-between the ‘action’ every now and again all the more enjoyable.

Good Night, and Good Luck has got to be one of THE most beautiful films that I have seen in a while, and it is for sure that if it were not in black and white, such stunning lighting and cinematography would not be possible. It were as though each individual shot were meticulously planned (Robert Elswit also worked on all of PT Anderson’s films). Alongside the great visuals the film put forth a great message, said by Murrow; that television is not only for entertainment, but for education and the better for people.
It gave a feel to what the broadcasting business was like in the fifties, something that before now I would have surmised to be similar to today’s standards.

For a film based on the controversial deeds of television news broadcasters the film seemed to lack any ‘real’ drama, and I suppose that this was the only real downfall to the whole film.

Overall it was a good film, and didn’t take me too long to get involved, the use of actual footage of McCarthy and the film in black and white seamlessly brought the film together tightly. If anything I would highly recommend the film, though I felt for an hour and a half it was a tad short, perhaps a film for a more understanding audience, that seek to know how McCarthy’s ‘reign’ fell.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
A thoroughly interesting film that definitely does not insult your intelligence, full of absolutely wonderful cinematography and a superb cast of actors.

Walk the Line

2006-02-26T09:32:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
So look away or I’ll… do something untoward to y’all.

Well I had planned that we go see Walk the Line two weeks previous, but as it turned out the screening was too late and the film was too long, so we saw it this week instead, and contrary to what my older sister stood by –it looks crap- I found it to be a good film.

For one, I did not expect anyone else to be in the screen watching it with us, –as usual- I was even more surprised to find that the larger proportion of people taking up the seat were probably at the youngest 65+

Directed by James Mangold –from Copland and Identity- Starring Joaquin Phoenix (John R. Cash), Reese Witherspoon (June Carter), Ginnifer Goodwin (Vivian Cash), Robert Patrick (Ray Cash), Dallas Roberts (Sam Philips), Dan John Miller (Luther Perkins), Larry Bagby (Mashall Grant), and Shelby Lynne (Carrie Cash)

What can I say; the film follows the life of American singer Johnny Cash up until the year 1969. Growing up on a small farm with his family, an accident with a work saw leads to the death of his brother Jack. Speeding up to about 10+ years the film follows Cash as he joins the army and begins to write songs, we speed ahead in time again to where the focus of the film begins; the 60s a time of singing, drugs and women for Mr Cash. As well as divorce marriage and singing in a prison, whoa that was like six spoilers at once, someone put me out, ‘cos I’m on fire here…

Well judging from the films audience I would say it’s for fans of Johnny Cash, or at least people that know who he is. Although I would recommend it for a person that can stand country-esque rock music in a film about a drug addict that looses faith in pretty much everything with a bit of comedy and romance on the side, then watch away; I find that some people these days are very narrow-minded about the films that they watch. I can say that I myself am guilty of such sin, but it’s only because I will not stand to watch most teen horror and most teen comedy, but I’m pretty sure that I am not the only person out there.

Larry Bagby played Larry in Buffy, now that’s where I remembered him from!
I know that due to its release at the opportunistic time that both Phoenix and Witherspoon were both nominated for certain awards due to their portrayals, and I can’t say I blame the award-people… not that I knew June Carter and Johnny Cash personally. But I felt that they’re singing was almost identical to that of their targets, and it will probably revive Cash somewhat, if not here then in America.

Well with the screenplay being based on Cash’s autobiographies I did not actually know what the film was about, nor did I know Cash’s life history, so I can safely say that I did not know what would take place in the film. Though I can say that Gill Dennis who co-wrote the screenplay played Man with a Cigar in Eraserhead, such a small world!

I’ve got to say, this was probably the second film wherein an actor/actress impressed me through singing the songs themselves (the other film was Nicholas Cage singing Love me Tender in Wild at Heart… which was a little creepy in the film)

Well one point in particular that I liked about the film –strangely enough- was that the two Phoenix and Witherspoon really looked like they were involved in the film, for instance in the duets they sing together, they have a good chemistry which makes the film that more enjoyable.
Now I’ve already mentioned the fact that the actors went through vocal training and such, but they are excellent with singing, Cash’s voice is almost identical. Now with Phoenix it wasn’t too much of a surprise that he would do a good job. It was Reese-Legally Blond-Witherspoon that was the real surprise of the film, besides her own singing in the film her onstage performances were the highpoint of her character –off stage she just seemed to nag a bit.
Alongside these points, I must also say I love when a film based on what could be seen as a serious matter, can also turn around and be funny in point, so its not always ha-ha funny, but sweet funny, and its always nice when a film reaches this particular point.

Well as per usual I cannot think of many bad points to the film, although I was a little surprised that they ended it so soon in 1969, and unless someone makes another biopic following after, people will never know exactly what happened to Mr Cash and his re-discovery of god an-all..

Well for an overall comment I thought it was a good film, although I could probably only recommend it to open minded people (that will watch any film), or fans of Johnny Cash –my older sister would not touch the film due to its relation to him, whom she apparently detests.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
A nice film, but I did not like the group of four old ladies sat behind myself and my sister that needed to talk to each other about the film, but thankfully they did not spoil the film that much.

Final Destination 3

2006-02-23T18:00:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If you have not, then I will have to kill you in a very clever and inconceivable manner!

After enjoying the original Final Destination, and its chain of events that cause death to each character I felt that as it was the only decent film showing I should go and see it.

I was pleased to see that James Wong (X-files writer, and writer/director of the original Final Destination) had returned to direct the third film in the likely ongoing series.
Some anecdotes of my first viewing of a film during the school half terms: oh my god! For one the screen was almost packed, I had to sit next to some guy who felt the need to omit the word “Savage” every time he witnessed someone die, though this was no where near as bad as the group of four girls sitting at the back of the cinema, shouting as though it were funny during the adverts, only to be told by almost everyone in the screen to shush.

Directed by James Wong –Of the X-files :D – and starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Wendy), Ryan Merriman (Kevin), Kris Lemche (Ian), Alexz Johnson (Erin), Sam Easton (Frankie), Jesse Moss (Jason), Gina Holden (Carrie), Texas Battle (Lewis), Chelan Simmons (Ashley), and Crystal Lowe (Ashlynn)

The film follows a group of teenagers in a graduation class that visit a fair as a sort of last trip. A large group of them pile onto a rollercoaster, but Wendy (Winstead) is not so sure of the whole idea, finally giving in, she joins her friends as they slowly begin the motions that would lead to their death.
Much like the other films in the series, the film begins with a premonition and leads to a select few escaping death. While the rest of the film tracks the deaths of each individual, not as inventive as the two previous films, but all as entertaining.

The actors and feel of the movie made it clearly known that this was a film for teenagers, going back to its roots, Final Destination 3 follows high school students rather than normal aged people.
I would say that it is a film that would attract people my age, rather than that of an older crowd… though I say this and I saw two older couples (late 30-40) at my particular screening.

The actors were nowhere near exceptional; after all for such a movie was I to expect any better? The acting was sub par, and nobody really stood out, sorry actor people … Though I can say that Chelan Simmons and Crystal Lowe were good at playing stupid bimbo type ditzy ladies.

In comment to the screenplay it was much better than that of the second movie; with only slightly referring back to the original films making Final Destination 3 a lot easier to tolerate than its direct predecessor. The same can also be said in regards to the films dialogue and characters, I was pleasantly surprised that the characters were fairly innocent throughout, and the screenplay kept me guessing.

The soundtrack was like any other teen movie, though I felt the continual use of “Turn Around, Look at me” was rather funny, and I believe that my sister would agree.

One definite plus to the film was it was nothing like Final Destination 2; which as you may have guessed, I appalled. Even though the film could have been, it was not a revisit to the original films, they were mentioned in accordance and that was all...
I suppose another point that I love of the film is that it is a sequel (which usually suck and I wouldn’t see) but there was no doubt that I wouldn’t enjoy the film (thankfully this was the case).

Unlike the original film and the sequel I found that the causation of the deaths were rather bland, and easy to predict (with perhaps the exception of Frankie… you knew the car was gonna crash, didn’t see that fan coming :P), for this I did not enjoy the film so much, but it was pretty well done all the same.
There is something that I cannot quite put my finger on in terms of the film, perhaps I did not enjoy how it was all put together, especially with most of the characters being fairly obnoxious, and extremely materialistic. For instance everyone owns a Mac, no PCs, only Macs, second… ‘oh I forgot my iPod!’ dear god!! But nowhere near as bad as ‘man when I die, will you bring me something like a PSP to play on?’ Um… HELLO!?? Advertising people!!… for this I probably could not stand the film, I hate… no, I detest blatant advertising like ‘oh look at my fantastic …..’, its almost like in the Truman show when Meryl advertises household objects because they are actually on TV advertising.

Overall it was a good film, tons better than the second, but not as good as the original. Not intended for the squeamish; trust me the film is full of blood, decapitation etc. I would recommend it to fans of the horror/teen movie genre, no real difference in the film to that of its predecessors.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 6/10
An ok film, but would have perhaps been more enjoyable if the cinema was devoid of annoying people

Munich

2006-02-11T12:55:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If you have not seen it, then I shall terrorise you (that’s real bad, sorry)

I hold a great amount of respect for Steven Spielberg, mainly because I cannot stand the hoards of people that seem to think he is an awful example of Hollywood. I mean really… all of his films are usually good and yet most stuck up film students will laugh at someone calling him their favourite director… its stupid that’s what it is.

I knew that I would be going to see Munich as soon as I had heard about it… Spielberg makes some good films, and I was not surprised that once again he had made another.

Directed by Steven Spielberg –of rather large fame- Starring Eric Bana (Avner), Daniel Craig (Steve), Ciaran Hinds (Carl), Mathieu Kassovitz (Robert), Hanns Zischler (Hans), Ayelet Zorer (Daphna) and Geoffrey Rush (Ephraim).

I found Munich to be rather strange with the tons of actors from many different countries and thought it a nice change from just Americans, I thought it was really ‘nice’ to have actors like Mattieu Kassovitz and Moritz Bleibtreu as well as Daniel Craig, Eric Bana and Geoffrey Rush on the side is really unusual for such a high profile film.
Anyway, about the film; its based on the 1972 Olympics, in which the whole Israeli team were taken hostage and killed. The film follows the assassinations of members of Black September, the group that organised the situation. This is all seen through the eyes of Avner (Bana) who leads the team of agents (Craig, Kassovitz, Hinds, and Zischler) to assassinate their targets.

I don’t believe I have any quick opinions of the film, it was interesting, I had attempted to watch Black Sunday once, but it failed to get my attention, whereas Munich had all the pizzazz of a regular Spielberg film, darting across countries, troubled characters, etc.
Judging from the ranges of ages that saw it at my cinema it attracted many people.

What can I say about the actors, everyone seemed pretty top-notch, I didn’t really like Daniel Craig, but that’s probably because he’s British and looks weird, but the performances given by all were pretty much appreciated by myself, though no one stood out as omigod amazing.

As far as I can remember the screenplay was pretty flawless, and thoughtful, little in the way of predictable dialogue, which was very much a plus in a film that could have gone in a completely different direction.

If anything I can say that John Williams’s style sounds really different, whereas in Star Wars and Superman sound very alike, I have recently felt that War of the Worlds, and Munich hardly sounded like him. Although there are composers out there that have stuck to their style throughout like Thomas Newman; you can always tell when he has composed a score, the same goes for Jon Brion.

I can’t say I have seen many ‘assassination’ movies, but of all the ones I have seen I must say I very much enjoyed Munich, I believe most of all I think the flashbacks to what happened to the Israelis were very well received by myself, giving much more character to these 11 hostages, for which the film didn’t appear to be showing much of. The other main bonus of the film was the hoards of great actors, which strangely enough Spielberg’s films are full of.

I cannot think of anything bad… I may just be thinking too highly of it, but at the moment, the film was pretty awesome, although a friend of mine complained that it was too slow, though I did not find this myself. Only bad thing I can think is that the film went too fast! Seeing as the end came rather abruptly.

Overall it was a pretty good film, quite a bit of violence (as a warning) and bombs exploding, so if you are sensitive to that sort of thing, I suppose you should not watch it, otherwise I suspect I would recommend it to anyone.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
It was a good film, first cinema experience that made me jump. Only aspects I didn’t care too much for was the old lady behind me that spoke rather loudly and the usher tore my tickets in half!! I had to tape them back together again!

Fun with Dick and Jane

2006-02-11T10:13:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If you haven’t seen it then I will…. Steal your eyes or something

Fun with Dick and Jane was, I suppose a spur of the moment choice, it was that or Jarhead/Brokeback Mountain (the other two choices ending too late) so yeah, we picked the less thought out comedy *yay* But um, anyway it was alright.

We were placed in the same screen as Cinderella Man (i.e. mahusive), and once again only a few people were watching the film. What a coincidence.

Directed by Dean Parisot –who has never directed anything that I can say that I have watched, other than episodes of television shows- Starring Jim Carrey (Dick Harper), Tea Leoni (Jane Harper), Alec Baldwin (Jack McCallister) and Richard Jenkins (Frank Boscombe).

When a family go bankrupt due to a large case of fraud in Dicks company; eventually leading to the decimation of the corporation, Dick and Jane (Carrey and Leoni) resort to stealing/bank robbing in order to regain the life that they once had. This of course results in many humorous scenarios, and ultimately allows Dick to get all the pension money lost of the employees from Jack McCallister who staged the whole fraud thing.

It was generally a family film, granted not my usual cup of tea. But it was made for all ages, appealing to old and young audiences due to Carrey’s physical humour, and the references to the collapses of these major corporations such as Enron and Worldcom.

In comment to the actors I have little to say, Tea Leoni was a nominal female support, like any in a film such as Fun with Dick and Jane. Jim Carrey of course was the half decent reason of the film, alongside Richard Jenkins (if you ask me) who I found rather strange. Alec Baldwin was just playing pretty much the same role I’ve seen him in recently.

Being a remake, and a family film it was easy to predict what would happen in the film, the spontaneous way that goals were achieved, or attempted on the other hand I felt were rather unpredictable. Otherwise it felt like a regular Sunday afternoon family film, nothing spectacular.

The film was probably not something that I would jump at the chance to see; sure it’s got Jim Carrey in it, and I am in the group that find him funny.. but otherwise the film doesn’t really have anything going for it, ‘cept a few laughs. The physical comedy involved when Dick is trying to take his gun out of his hoodie was rather funny.

The film seemed too… I don’t know, perhaps it was the screenplay or something, but I would rate it low against other family orientated Carrey films like Liar Liar or the Mask.

It’s a family film, although the younger audiences will not understand the businessy aspects of the film, they will probably find a lot of it funny..

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 5/10
A pretty low rating, but not a preferred genre of mine, only highlights of the film were some funny parts and Jim Carrey’s physical humour.