This gallery contains 1 photo.
Starring: Don McCullin, Harold Evans, Michael Parkinson You may like this if you liked: 5 Broken Cameras (Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi, 2011), The War You Don’t See (Alan Lowery and John Pilger, 2010), The War on Democracy (Pilger … Continue reading
Starring: Steve Austin, Dolph Lundgren, Eric Keenleyside
You may like this if you liked: Maximum Conviction (Keoni Waxman, 2012), Recoil (Terry Miles, 2011), The Expendables (Sylvester Stallone, 2010)
Tommy Wick (Austin) works as a debt collector for Big Doug (Keenleyside), partly to pay off the huge debt his imprisoned younger brother has to Big Doug. Tommy is offered a job: Deliver a mysterious package to a local crime lord known as ‘the German’ (Lundgren, who I believe is actually Swedish) and all his brother’s debt will be wiped clear. Of course due to some hardly subtle hints, Tommy and ‘The German’ have a history. This may shock everyone here, but things do not go according to plan as various local gangsters attempt to kill Tommy and get their hands on this ‘package’.
Another week, another straight to DVD action film starring ageing action stars, this week it is the turn of seasoned thesps Austin and Lundgren. If you do watch this, then you get exactly what you expected. Some half baked copy and pasted plot intertwined with Austin trying to show us he can still pull off his favourite wrestling moves. There are plenty of ‘twists’ in the plot that are blatantly obvious, but it is almost a comforting feeling when watching. If an unexpected twist was to happen, it would be so disconcerting and unexpected that the world may well stop spinning. There is of course the usual less than subtle characterisation to clarify to all of us who the good guy and the bad guy are here. They almost go out of their way to remind us as with all films of this genre; the good guy goes out of his way for his family, never hurts an innocent person and even gives the bad guys the chance to call it quits. The bad guy is just a ruthless bastard who will happily kill everyone they see and take great enjoyment from doing it. I will let you figure out which one is which. It is just as well we have such subtle character traits; otherwise it would be so confusing!
Of course as a film in its own right this is pretty awful, but it would be unfair to judge it by those standards. Everyone involved knows what they are making and never even thinks they are producing anything else. The title and the cast means you are going to watch it with certain (low) expectations, and these are firmly met. For what it is this is fine, Dolph and Steve deliver (get it?) exactly what we all expect. This is forgettable nonsense, but good fun that is extremely easy to watch. Would we really want it any other way?
Starring: Adelaide Clemens, Kit Harrington, Sean Bean
You may like this if you liked: Silent Hill (Roger Avary, 2006), Insidious (James Wan, 2010), The Woman in Black (James Watkins, 2012)
Right, well after the events of the first film, Heather (Clemens) is now a teenager constantly haunted by darkly disturbing dreams and images which she does not understand. Heather and her father Harry (Bean) are constantly on the run moving from place to place every six months to keep away from a mysterious and dangerous group of people with some stupid name that escapes me. However, when Sean Bean is captured by this group, Heather must, yes that is right, go to Silent Hill to save him as well as finding out the truth of who she really is and fight her demons, literally.
I remember playing the games when they first came out and they were ground breaking for the time. They were beautifully crafted atmospheric experiences that were genuinely haunting. However, history seems to prove that games and films just do not mix. Videogames of films just tend to be shoddy and shameless cash-ins, though Toy Story on the Sega Mega Drive was fantastic. Though games could now be easily described as cinematic, it does not mean they work as films. They are still in my opinion two completely different mediums. This has lead to most game adaptations trying too hard to recreate the excitement and atmosphere of the game and in so doing just becoming an absolute narrative mess. Max Payne, Far Cry, Alone in the Dark, Resident Evil are a few examples. I enjoyed Hitman and thought it was slick fun, but mainly because it focussed on being an action film and left behind the stealth and creativity of the games. Roger Avary had a decent go at the first Silent Hill, though it was overlong, overstuffed and overly average, and despite slightly changing the story he tried to recreate the atmosphere and subtleties that made Silent Hill a genuinely haunting and chilling experience.
Roger Avary was apparently in line to make the sequel, but then the silly sod got put in prison. So British director Michael J. Bassett was enlisted, and his CV was not too bad. Deathwatch was a decent film with an interesting idea and great atmosphere, and Solomon Kane was a little silly but good fun. However, I am sorry to say that Silent Hill: Revelation is just simply awful and fails to work on any levels. Gone is the subtle atmospheric psychological horror to make way for constant over the top as colourful as possible visuals. There was potential here as Bassett obviously has an eye for visual flair. All the various demons and creatures we see are certainly creative, and it is obvious even watching it on DVD where the 3D moments were. This is pretty much constant throughout the narrative and the fact they are permanently there and so OTT makes the experience just venture into farcical silliness. This would be fine and the whole experience would be good silly fun, but everyone involved was too focussed on the visuals they forgot to include an actual good plot. There is a half decent build up that, like I said could have been fun, but the final third is so awful and such a damp squib that you cannot help but feel that you have just wasted the last 60minutes of your life. It does appear that they thought if they throw so many visuals at it that people would forget about a half decent resolution to the plot, which is a little insulting as most film viewers are not that stupid. The half decent cast are all half decent, though Malcolm McDowell must have fallen on very hard times to do the three minutes he turns up for.
So once again the film makers have taken what made the video game such an unforgettable experience, threw that in a (metaphorical) bin and turned it into an over the top visual mess with a beyond lazy plot resolution. It almost feels that they assume we will watch a film just because of the title and they don’t have to even make an effort with the story. This is lazy and insulting film making, and a truly terrible waste of 90 minutes.
Starring: Jessica Chastain, Joel Edgerton, Mark Strong
You may like this if you liked: The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, 2008), Rendition (Gavin Hood, 2007), Green Zone (Paul Greengrass, 2010)
Zero Dark Thirty is a chronicle of the ten years between the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the eventual killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The perspective of the story is solely from the point of the CIA and the protagonist is CIA operative Maya (Chastain) and her obsessive and determined quest to find his location, which she eventually does.
As you would expect, due to the subject matter, Zero Dark Thirty has been greeted with controversy and criticism for glorifying torture or being one sided. I found it to be none of these; I personally found Zero Dark Thirty a riveting, extremely well made and gripping drama. Despite the run time of 157 minutes the pace never lets go, and though it is quite exhausting the authentic feel of both the action and the CIA conversations kept me gripped from start to finish. I don’t believe I am the first to say this, but for a film when everyone knows the ending to still have you on edge and completely gripped shows a great film maker.
As for the apparent glorifying of torture; in Zero Dark Thirty the torture scenes are unpleasant, but in my view simply presenting it in a very matter of fact way. The sheer fact that pleasant negotiations and problem solving get more results than torture surely dispels any ideas that this film glorifies it. I have seen many complaints about apparent inaccuracies in the story; one sided biased or not showing the innocent people that lost their lives on both sides. I think this is all missing the point. Bigelow treats the audience with the respect knowing that we are all well aware of what happened in these ten years and a vast majority of us were not living under a rock or saw a bit of news between 2001 and 2011. We all know the innocent casualties on both sides, for Zero Dark Thirty to start showing all this would border onto a patronising and preachy attempt at showing morality. This would also possibly make the film a few hours longer potentially. It is all the better for not even attempting to preach any morals, as this would have been a mistake. There are no real good or bad guys, in terms of how anyone is presented, Zero Dark Thirty just wants to tell a story and not present any moral judgements. This is a film that assumes the audience is intelligent enough to form their own opinions of morality and know the circumstances behind the events depicted within the narrative.
There is an attempt to make the film more personal with a focus on a protagonist who does change throughout the film, and this is a good element. We do go on a journey with Maya as she becomes increasingly obsessed and determined. She is not necessarily presented as a saint or one of the ‘good guys’, just demonstrating all the strengths and flaws we all have. Her obsession with catching bin Laden does take its toll on her health, and this obsession and determination she has are basic human conditions that could be applied to any situation, making Maya a sympathetic and likeable protagonist. Making the story more protagonist driven does in my view make the experience more satisfying and involving. Here for me is the only emotional strain of the film, Maya’s obsession and single minded determination that takes over her life, not something as insular as the westerners being the good guys as some people seem to have interpreted.
I personally loved The Hurt Locker, and do feel that was certainly a more complete film than Zero Dark Thirty. However, that was a fictional story, allowing for more creative freedom. The fact is this film does feel episodic and maybe slightly unconventional in terms of structure. However this would be necessary to keep the running time down and present almost more of a faction than a conventional story.
I am sure there are moments in Zero Dark Thirty that may be exaggerated, as with all films, but overall this is a morally neutral, non-preachy account of true recent events. Any issues are certainly made up for by the final thirty minutes. I do not believe it is a spoiler to say they get him, but the whole sequence is gripping and has you on edge. It is extremely well made and really makes you feel like you are there, making the last two hours extremely worthwhile. I also felt the ending was handled correctly and made in the right tone. No high fiving and no deluded celebrations, just a pensive cautionary thought that in the grand scheme of things has anything actually changed?
Zero Dark Thirty is a gripping and intelligent thriller that is extremely well made. There is no single attempt to take any moral high ground here, just present one of the biggest news stories of the last decade through a very human protagonist demonstrating the flaws of us all. It does require you to watch carefully, but this his produces a highly involving edge of your seat experience that I would thoroughly recommend.
8/10
Starring: Not a single name anyone would recognise, unless you knew them personally
You may like this if you liked: Cockneys vs. Zombies (Matthias Hoene, 2012), Doghouse (Jake West, 2009), Shaun of the Dead (Edgar Wright, 2004)
Well, not the most subtle title is it? The title is essentially the plot, but if you are intrigued (and you obviously are) then I will tell you the ‘plot’: Everyone appears to know about zombies now, so when the un-dead start appearing, no one really cares anymore. However, ever the opportunist, Tony has a plan to rob a bank and hide, what better time to do that than in a zombie outbreak? Q (no I don’t know why either) is the getaway driver on his first job, just wanting to get paid and hide from the zombies. Things seem to be going to plan; so Q, Tony and his gang that are basically a list cockeney geezer stereotypes, head to the safe house. However, here comes the shock, things start to wrong: One of the gang has been shot and is bleeding to death, the safe house is patrolled by police, the zombie outbreak is becoming an actual apocalypse, petrol is running out and one of them really needs a piss. Can our bunch of stereotypical loveable cockney rogues survive?
So here we go again, another zombie horror comedy. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have a lot to answer for! Well, the idea of everyone being so over familiar with zombies due to too many films, and when it actually happens no one is actually shocked, is actually quite an interesting idea that has potential to be very funny. However, that lasts for about ten minutes. After this the plot is essentially stereotypical cockney gangster caricatures swearing, shouting and shooting at zombies, as well as each other.
This film is obviously intended to be a comedy, and I did actually find it very funny. However this was possibly not for the reasons the makers intended. The dialogue and acting is so poor and unimaginative that it is impossible not to laugh all the way through, but AT not WITH. The plot is minimal, but because of laughing at the characters so much, they actually become likeable. However, this film obviously had a small budget, but it appears after an hour they appear to run out of money (maybe ideas too) and the final thirty minutes are incredibly dull, non eventful and forgettable. The makers are obviously trying desperately to make a cult classic, but they have not.
Does it fit in the ‘so bad it’s good’ category? Not quite. Though I did laugh AT it, this is just terrible in every way without actually any redeeming features. Would alcohol help? Without a doubt, but it would still not be enough as this would simply feel like a waste of 90 minutes of your life, and time is of course precious. In a genre that has become extremely overpopulated, there are much much better alternatives to this such as last year’s surprisingly half decent Cockneys vs. Zombies. Though there was definitely potential for this to be fun, trust me, just avoid this as there is always a better alternative.
Starring: Tom Cruise, Morgan Freeman, Andrea Riseborough
You may like this if you liked: The Island (Michael Bay, 2005), Minority Report (Steven Spielberg, 2002), Moon (Duncan Jones, 2009)
So what is Tom Cruise up to this summer? Well, this summer he has left behind being a tough ex cop in the present day and is now Jack Harper (no, not Reacher), a human living in a future earth that has been left devastated, contaminated and uninhabitable after a huge global war. Jack and his partner Victoria (Riseborough) are a team that maintain the drones that protect the machines that excavate the last of earth’s final resources to be transported to one of Saturn’s moons in which earth’s remaining population now inhabit. Jack has to protect the drones from the ‘Scavengers’, the alien race who started the war and still walk the earth. Haunted by dreams and visions, and having a collection of literature and music that he has managed to salvage, Jack starts to question his surroundings and investigate as to who the ‘scavs’ as they are referred to, actually are. One day Jack goes to investigate an explosion at one of the mining sites. He finds out that a ship has crashed there, on the ship are humans in cases maintaining them in some kind of forced permanent sleep state. The drones destroy all of them, but Jack manages to save one, a woman that is identical to the one in his dreams and visions. He manages to take her back to the metallic house on a giant pole that he and Victoria live in an attempt to find answers to his many questions. I am afraid I cannot tell you anymore as that would class as spoilers.
When Tom Cruise gets curious in a summer blockbuster we all know what is going to happen. Especially in this case if we have seen other sci-fi films set with a similar premise. Trust me.
So, in a summer yet again dominated by sequels it is refreshing to have an original sci-fi film to look forward to. Though I am afraid Elysium is not out until September. An immediate problem with Oblivion is that despite all the marketing, it is just a copy and paste of various other sci-fi films. To even mention them would be almost plot spoilers, but as I was watching this I was pretty much ticking them off. Trust me, you will too. All the themes, ideas and various ‘plot twists’ contained within the narrative have all been done before, leading to a rather predictable and flat experience. All the ideas presented here have been done many times, and this is fine if a film brings something a little new to the table. However it feels Oblivion does not even try.
Tron: Legacy director Joseph Kosinski’s eye for visual flair is there for all to see. There are some beautiful and striking landscapes created. M88 take over from Daft Punk to also produce a rousing techno score that brings the images to life. However, also like Tron: Legacy striking visuals and atmospheric music are pretty much all there is (apart from a clean shaven Tom Cruise instead of a hippy Jeff Bridges), with shoddy plotting and even shoddier dialogue, the actual story can only feel a little laboured, over familiar and all a bit of an anti climax. It seems Kosinski has passion for bringing what is his own idea to life on the screen, but appears to be too afraid to push any boundaries.
Oblivion is by no means a failure, far from it. I found it to be a perfectly enjoyable and well made sci-fi film, but unfortunately no more. The story does plod along quite nicely, but unfortunately that is part of the problem. There is nothing memorable or surprising here, almost a sense that Kosisnki does not want to take too many risks with the story so as not too risk losing the potential box office takings from it being a Tom Cruise movie. This is pretty much the definition of a ‘3 star’ film. Unfortunately Oblivion feels like a B movie sci-fi movie that happens to star a Hollywood megastar and cost a lot of money. I was not sure if the title is Oblivion or Tom Cruise Oblivion as these days his name is in letters as big as the film title. Tom Cruise is undoubtedly one of the greatest film stars of all time, not necessarily actor, but film star. Once again he does not disappoint here, he is as committed and as energetic as ever, definitely being one of the films plus points and one of the reasons it is so watchable. As per usual, he is pretty much in every scene. However, this is a constant reminder of a fact that proves just how average a story we have here; if Tom Cruise was not the star no one would bother seeing it as the story itself, or at least how it is structured, is simply not particularly strong, unique or memorable. Maybe having Tom Cruise is part of the problem, he is Tom Cruise, and it sometimes feels like Tom Cruise protagonists have their own narratives. This could perhaps immediately add a sense of sour over familiarity and predictability. I am personally a big fan of Tom Cruise, but maybe he should not be the star of a sci-fi film that prides itself on having unravelling secrets that try to surprise the audience as the narrative develops. The fact it is Tom Cruise could perhaps ruin this, as for me it simply adds such a feeling of over predictability and safeness to what is going to happen in some ways. There is almost this safety net covering the film’s narrative, and particularly Tom Cruise’s protagonist which stops it from ever being surprising, and therefore memorable. However, as I said before; no Tom Cruise, no huge budget. It may be a vicious circle and have some kind of internal message about the state of modern movies, but that is a discussion for another time. However, Duncan Jones proved that ambitious and memorable sci-fi can be produced on a small budget with Moon, so maybe Joseph Kosinski should have a chat with him sometime as he is obviously a director with an eye for visuals and good ideas.
Oblivion has all the basics right to be a classic blockbuster: striking visuals and music, and a committed turn from a Hollywood megastar in its leading role. However that is unfortunately it, a surprisingly weak story and predictability that lacks any oomph and only appears to copy ideas from various other sci-fi films. It is perfectly enjoyable and good fun, but due to the laboured structure and predictability, no more.
6/10
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Peña, Anna Kendrick
You may like this if you liked: Training Day (Antoine Fuqua, 2001), Harsh Times (David Ayer, 2005), Pride and Glory (Gavin O’Connor, 2008)
In the harsh district of South Central Los Angeles two cops, Brian (Gyllenhaal) and Mike (Peña) are partners and best friends. Their natural commitment and desire to get recognised leads them, despite the warnings of colleagues and narcotics officers, to getting lucky by making two huge drug and human trafficking busts. However, these busts along with a few close moments have made Brian and Mike marked for death by the notorious Mexican cartel.
So, the so called ‘found footage’ style has inevitably found its way into the cop movie genre. This is achieved by Brian filming everything they do, due to some contrived nonsense that he is making a film for some project involving some random qualification. We are also treated to police car on board cameras (fair enough) and thankfully the Mexican gangs like to film what they are up to as well (now you are taking the biscuit). Why David Ayer has decided to adopt this style for his latest cop film is beyond me, considering it is a style that is commonly regarded as having run its course (if it ever had one). I can only guess this was to add authenticity and to really feel what it is like to be a cop in of one of Los Angeles’ most notorious districts. To add to this there are many moments where we simply see Brian and Mike’s bromance, banter and personal revelations as they are driving around. There are also many moments where we see what they do off duty with their respective families, and get to know the ‘real’ Brian and Mike, they film it of course!
I appreciate David Ayer’s genuinely good intentions here. However, this style of camera work is simply not necessary. It basically becomes irritating and detracts from what it otherwise a very well written and enjoyable (if slightly clichéd) cop thriller. Some of the excuses and reasons for it to be ‘found footage’ borders into contrived and plain silly. There are moments when Brian is filming for his ‘project’ and talks to the camera about himself or Mike, in my view this works. This is good economical character development and provides a different and more authentic alternative to a generic voice over.
It is the dialogue and acting that set End of Watch apart from maybe other average cop films. Ayer’s other films, such as Training Day, focus on the idea of the ‘bent cop’. Here there is no question, Brian and Mike, as well as their colleagues are the good guys. The many moments when it is just the two of them and moments when we see them outside of work produce two extremely likeable characters. We care about them and side with them, it also all puts into perspective that every day they go to work they put their life on the line. When you have great dialogue and acting, then this provide enough authenticity and intensity. Surely it would have been easier to simply use hand held cameras to provide the same effect without having to think of some extremely lame reasons as to why what we are seeing would be captured on film by those involved? Indeed some of these lame reasons become slightly laughable which seriously detracts from authentic and serious tone of the narrative.
I appreciate that this is an attempt to take a different approach to a very similar story, but I am afraid to say that when the actual action and plot takes over this simply does not work. The whole plot, final action sequences and ending are all very typical of the genre but just do not work when in the whole ‘found footage’ style. Indeed there were many shots when I thought it couldn’t be filmed by anyone in the mise-en-scène. So this immediately becomes a distraction and undermines any authenticity. It is because of the excellent character development that we care about the two protagonists and this makes the final third of the film involving and emotional. However, this is a very typical ending of any film of this genre and almost feels it is there just to please the masses. This is the heart of the problem with End of Watch, a severe lack of focus as it tries to be too many things and please too many people. The overall plot is as generic as you get with this genre, and does not fit if this is supposed to be a more authentic character study. However, because we genuinely care about the characters because of all the good work that precedes the final third, the film just about gets away with it.
End of Watch is inconsistent and too much of a pick n mix of various styles to be anywhere near a masterpiece, however the great acting and dialogue produce a solid, enjoyable and emotionally involving experience. It is even better if you forget it is supposed to be ‘found footage’ style.
Starring: Ben Affleck, Olga Kurylenko, Javier Bardem
You may like this if you liked: The Tree of Life (Terence Malick, 2011), Blue Valentine (Derek Cianfrance, 2010), Two Lovers (James Gray, 2008)
While travelling, American Neil (Affleck) meets a Ukrainian living in Paris called Marina (Kurylenko). They share an extremely passionate romance when visiting Mont. St. Michel. When back in Paris, Neil asks Marina if her and her daughter Tatiana want to live with him in his home state of Oklahoma, she happily accepts. They settle into their new life in America, at first their relationship is as passionate as ever but they grow increasingly distant. When her visa expires, Marina is forced to return to France with Tatiana. As Neil and Marina struggle with a long distance relationship, by chance Neil comes back into contact with a high school sweetheart Jane (Rachel McAdams) and with rekindling old feelings, they begin a passionate relationship. Back in Paris, Marina falls on tough times including Tatiana moving to live with her father and on hearing this Neil breaks Jane’s heart and Marina moves back to America. Once again all the positive and negative passions alight. All the while the local priest Father Quintana (Bardem) constantly has a crisis of faith and struggles to find answers to his countless questions on what faith actually is.
The term ‘maverick director’ is banded about way too much, but it may well be fitting when it comes to Terence Malick. Just like Lars Von Trier, Quentin Tarantino (!), Michael Haneke to name a few examples, he only does films his way. This is of course to be admired as long as there is some reason or actual genuine meaning or message behind these films. Though I admired its ambition, I was personally disappointed by The Tree of Life as for me there were so many aspects of it that did not work. So I was a little apprehensive about To the Wonder, especially as it is only two years later, as opposed to the usual ten.
As this is Malick once again, To the Wonder does not contain a conventional narrative or the usual techniques associated such as character arcs, character development or narrative closure. I will warn anyone reading this that has never seen any Terence Malick films that To the Wonder is perhaps not the best place to start. The Thin Red Line or Badlands are possibly better introductions to Malick as they are in my view much more accessible viewing experiences (and superior films). Anyone who has seen The New World or Tree of Life can basically expect more of the same; Painstaking attention to detail, fast editing, swooping camera work, every shot pretty much a moving portrait, jump cuts, whispered voiceovers and of course corn fields. This is a film that is beautifully shot, but this being Malick that is basically now a given. To the Wonder’s dialogue is pretty much all narrated by Kurylenko, McAdams and Bardem. Though Affleck is in a vast majority of scenes, he actually says very little.
One problem when a film is structured in this way is that it is extremely easy to over analyse and look for things that simply are not there. It is easy to look for specific meanings that are linked by certain images; though there may well be obvious metaphors sometimes you can just drive yourself insane trying to figure it all out. This can often lead to the whole ‘I don’t get it all therefore it must be brilliant’ tag, which is not necessarily the case, for example Revolver (Guy Ritchie, 2005) made no sense but was simply terrible. For me To the Wonder is more a collection of moods, interpretations and ideas based around the universal themes of love and belonging. In my view, to try and analyse every single shot just ruins the whole experience. I accept this is a style of film making that will frustrate and alienate many, but I personally enjoyed it and found it had an extremely emotional effect on me.
I found the story extremely simple; it is basically what I described earlier, the story of a couple having ups and downs with one showing more devotion than the other. This is of course usually presented in more conventional ways, but Malick appears to want to do something different and make the whole experience more personal. We are given access to the inner thoughts of three different characters simply pursuing a basic human desire; to feel loved and feel belonging in return for the devotion and personal sacrifices they have made. The fact that it is the inner thoughts of three characters desperate for these feelings adds to the power, as Affleck’s character faces almost a different situation. He has offers of love and devotion, where as the other three offer it but are desperate to have it reciprocated.
I have read many complaints about the lack of character development and that it is impossible to care about the characters. Though I accept there is truth in this, it is not the characters in front of us that we should care about, but more apply their feelings to ourselves. This is why in my view there are no character arcs or narrative closure in To the Wonder, as life does not have such things. Life often presents more questions than answers, and To the Wonder demonstrates this. Like other Malick films, I feel that this is a film that will mean different things to different people. As I stated before, these are universal themes that we can all relate to and all have various experiences of. Your experience of this film may differ due to your own experiences and even what is going on during your life at the time. If a film can have an emotional effect on you in this way, then it must be doing something right. Though there may be no character arcs within the narrative, there may well be a character arc for us the viewer.
Bardem’s priest proves a perfect antidote to the thoughts of Kurylenko and McAdams. Quintana’s crisis of faith proves that religion, just like love with other human beings, can fulfil the human need for belonging, reciprocated love and affection. I am not a religions person myself, but what Quintana desires was easy to understand and empathise with. These are things we all desire from life at certain times, it just that in the case of Quintana that he choose religion to provide this. Where as it is the love of Neil that drives Kurylenko’s and McAdams desire for these kinds of feelings. This only adds to fact these emotions and desires can be applied to anyone and whatever they are personally passionate about. I personally find that some films may seem a little boring or pointless while watching and maybe are trying your patience. However, after watching and being able to analyse the film as a whole I almost get an epiphany moment and the emotional themes of the narrative hit me. To the Wonder to me was like that, at times it truly does test your patience and Malick’s unique narrative style may feel tedious and repetitive at times. However, I felt my patience was rewarded once I was able to think of the film as a whole. I know people will have a different view of the film than I do and what it meant, and that is partly as to why To the Wonder is such powerful and personal experience.
In my view To the Wonder is a perfect demonstration of one of the many different ways how film, as an art form, can depict themes and emotions, without presenting a simple spoon fed linear story. Art should present rich debate and discussion where there are enigmas and different interpretations, and Malick is a director that proves film can most definitely be like this. As I said before, many will find this film infuriating and alienating, but others will find it deeply personal and extremely involving as I did. This is definitely not Malick’s best, but still an unforgettable and involving experience. If you like a film that is an experience and it makes you apply what is happening on screen to your own personal experiences, then I would thoroughly recommend To the Wonder.
7/10
This gallery contains 1 photo.
Starring: Emad Burnat, Soyraya Burnat, Mohammed Burnat You may like this if you liked: In This World (Michael Winterbottom, 2002), Frontier Blues (Babak Jalali, 2009), Times and Winds (Reha Erdem, 2006) 5 Broken Cameras begins with Israeli authorities erecting a … Continue reading
Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Bruce Willis, Channing Tatum
You may like this if you liked: G.I.Joe: The Rise of Cobra (Stephen Sommers, 2009), Battleship (Peter Berg, 2012), Transformers (Michael Bay, 2007-2011)
Well, for those of you (some would say lucky) people that did not see the last one, due to some outrageous form of Cobra technology Zartan is able to be an exact lookalike for the president (Jonathan Pryce) and is now running America. For Cobra to achieve world domination for reasons that are never really mentioned, they need to eliminate the good guys, the G.I.Joes now led by Duke (Tatum). No I don’t know what happened to Dennis Quaid or Marlon Wayans either. Zartan frames the Joes for the assassination of the Pakistani president and orders a strike to kill them all. The few that survive, along with some former legends (yes you know who I mean) now must prove their innocence and stop Cobra from achieving world domination. Though still no mention of why they want it.
Well, where to start, Rise of Cobra was loud, fast but enjoyable nonsense. Retaliation is in my view louder, faster, even more ridiculous than and just as enjoyable as its predecessor. With a few provisos of course.
This was never made with the intention of being Hamlet, so is there really any point in going through in any real detail exactly what is wrong with it? Not really as looking at the poster will probably tell you everything you need to know. The plot is as generic as any action film you will ever see, every character is a cardboard cut out caricature, the dialogue is embarrassingly clunky, the acting is cheesy, logic is left at home and Bruce Willis apparently has high cholesterol. There is even a quick catch up for those that have not seen the first film with some awful Top Trumps-esque introduction.
All this aside (!) Retaliation is actually loud frantic fun. In the opening sequence Dwayne Johnson has these pieces of equipment on his hands then generate enough heat to melt military strength wire. This basically sets the standard. If you don’t think about the plot, or indeed logic then the action is half decent and the pace never really stops leaving a very entertaining, but obviously forgettable 90 minutes. In fact the film has no regard for logic or explanation, but trust me, this is a good thing. If the film decided to give us some half baked explanations or add in a little character development it would have only resulted in cringe worthy moments of clunky dialogue that only slow the frantic pace down. Every aspect of this film, including the running time, action and plot show that they know what they are making and just do not care. On the subject of logic, I do not feel it is a plot spoiler to mention that Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) is very much a part of the plot; he seriously died in Rise of Cobra yet appears here with not a single scratch, and no explanation. This is the kind of nonexistent logic we are dealing with here. This is also a very funny film, some of the dialogue and scenes are so bad it is impossible not to laugh, though predominantly at than with as you would expect. So anyone who hates Retaliation does quite frankly have only themselves to blame for watching it in the first place.
A footnote: Once again the 3D adds bugger all!
Basically G.I.Joe: Retaliation is exactly what it says on the tin (well, poster): Loud, frantic, nonsensical over the top forgettable nonsense but undeniably good fun if you leave your brain and logic at home and know what to expect.
5/10
Discovering the joy of art
I'm Emily, a female biker who loves to travel, drink coffee and pet dogs.
we travel, then walk, on a budget
The ramblings of an opinionated movie blogger.
Film reviews, news, previews and general insane ramblings of a film enthusiast!
Dedicated to movie nerdom, nostalgia, and escape. In the late 90s, I worked at Blockbuster Video where they let me take home two free movies a day. I caught up on the classics and reviewed theatrical releases for Denver 'burbs newspapers and magazines. Today, while raising two young, beautiful daughters with my amazing wife, I look forward to anything rated R and not Bluey. Comments and dialogue encouraged!
Places - Nature - Photography
Bite-sized reviews and insights into your favorite films.
Thoughts on Cinema and Filmmaking
Serving up piping-hot film criticism to over a million readers in 2024...
Movies, TV Shows and Whatnot
new films in the retro style. Roscoe Forthright now lives on AmberRiverwood.com
Movie, TV Reviews, Discussion, News
Follow up daily for awsome facts
The Cinema Cynic 