Reviews

1

The Wolfman (2010)

Synopsis: SPOILER ALERT - the final score is 7/10 but the last part of the review contains a (slight) spoiler!! To be honest I wasn't expecting much until I heard that Rick Baker was involved. Being familiar with Rick Baker's passion for Horror classics (the original 1941 Wolfman was one of his influences) I was expecting a horror classic from this special effects master - especially considering the cast involved. We join the story near the hamlet of Blackmoor in the mid 1800's. Blackmoor is a very dark black and gloomy Victorian-Gothic style place where the roads are black, the horses are black and everyone wears black - from the villagers to the gypsies. The usual events take place - a man dies, his death is investigated and another man is bitten by a werewolf and the villagers bemoan the death and tell tales of a beast in the full moon etc etc... nothing given away there. Really there's not many surprises and twists in terms of story from there on. An alternative structure, yes, but the sucker punch this film delivers is actually in content and style rather than story. Some scenes float by almost like Victorian poetry while others explode from the screen like a well crafted horror trailer. Not sure what Art Malik was aiming for with his 'Kensington Singh' but apart from that that minor accent hiccup the performances all round were to die for. A Directors dream. Intense and pure but not hammy or overacted in the slightest (the non-werewolf scenes). Weaving owns his screen time as only he can. Hopkins is satisfyingly dark and mysterious. Del Toro balances the confused hero with the victim well enough and Blunt's portrayal is a classic tough-damsel, despite the weak writing for her character. Overall this film mild for horror fans, ideal for Rick Baker fans, a little OTT for regular fantasy fans (it's Rick Baker gore, no holds barred) - a reasonable mix, blended together with cool, dark cinematography and just the right amount of CG. I reckon this would have been a satisfying 8/10 but I'm taking off another mark for one big reason (Spoiler time): Besides that (hopefully) unintentional comedy, Wolfman is great popcorn munching stuff. 7/10

0

Youth in Revolt review

Youth in Revolt was definitely different compared to the usual, monotonous romantic comedies which have been released in recent times(With the exception of Valentine's Day), but this film was definitely a 'different breed' of this genre. It was definitely an interesting film, although it wasn't a constant flurry of entertainment, it still maintained some remnant of comedic value throughout. Michael Cera(playing Nick Twisp) definitely stood out in Youth in Revolt compared to his past efforts; playing a different type of character from what he usually plays, a dull, wooden version of himself. That isn't to say that he isn't funny, after a while, the same type of character begins to run dry and repetitive. Francois, Nick Twisp's alter ego in the film was a character which to me, added more differentiation to the characters Cera usually plays. There were moment within Youth in Revolt which I found relatively humorous, and it was these moments which were most memorable. Primarily the scenes with Francois were the ones which stood out, as they were different to what I'm usually used to seeing Michael Cera in. Portia Doubleday(Playing Sheeni, Nick's love interest) had an interesting character, but what gravitated me more toward her was her dialogue. Or, the way she was performing her lines. She had such an eloquent style when she spoke, which was complimentary to the lifestyle of her parents in the film. Not the most exciting film of the year so far, but still an interesting look at Cera doing something different. Lovely dialogue, great cast choice, moderately funny romantic comedy. 7/10

0

The Lovely Bones review

Synopsis: I have been told that all reviews must contain an equal balance of positive comments, and negative, so that the reader can make up their own mind as to whether to watch the film or not, after watching this film I am not sure that I can stick to this rule, however I will try. Now, The Lovely Bones was an absolutely wonderful book. I have read it numerous times throughout my life, and was ecstatic when I heard it was being turned into a movie. I have loved most of the movie adaptations of my favourite books lately (mainly the Twilight saga...) and after seeing the trailer, I had high expectations for this adaptation. I went to the cinema with two others, my friend Hayley who is also a massive fan of the book, and my boyfriend James who has not read it. By around ten minutes in to the film, me and Hayley were thoroughly disappointed. Many main points of the book were completely omitted from the movie, which I understand, but this was beyond the expected amount of book-to-film omissions. The plot had giant holes which slightly confusing even to someone who knew the story well. James had to ask what was happening several times throughout the film as he was as (if not more) confused as me and Hayley! The positives - although it was slightly confusing if you haven’t read the book, there were many beautiful scenes of Susie Salmons version of heaven, and the soundtrack is absolutely stunning. There is a very ‘arty’ feel to the film, and in some scenes it is very surreal which is very aesthetically pleasing. I would suggest you see this film if you have not read the book, or if you are able to completely get the book out of your head prior to watching the film. Not the most positive review, but in all honesty, I was hugely disappointed. A meagre 4/10 from me. Lola

0

3 Idiots Review

I wouldn't normally waste my time reviewing Bollywood junk but today is an exception. It's really, honestly, not junk. Owning a screen at our local cinema here in Leicester since late December, I was accompanied by some friends who had all seen the film before - one of them seven (yes, 7) times, to see 3 Idiots. The showing was still, 2 months after release, fully packed. In the future I truly believe we will look back and identify 3 Idiots as a classic film and a major stepping stone in Indian Cinema. The multi-award winning maverick film-maker Vidhu Vinod Chopra and National Film Award winning director Rajkumar Hirani come together (again) to push the boundaries of the 'Bollywood Film'.

The film is an adaption of the novel Five Point Someone by Chetan Bhagat which dives in at the deep end and expresses a story based very much on the authors own experiences of an issue at the core of Indian Society. The 3 idiots in question are students at the prestigious ICT (a fictional college that I'm sure has nothing to do with IIT - the college where the real Chetan Bhagat studied). Students at IIT - sorry ICT - are put under an enormous amount of pressure by the social and educational system, which has lead to many suicides at the real IIT - I'm not going into it here - go look it up on Google. The core issue here is the life-threatening value that is place on the qualifications and not on the pleasure and excitement of genuine learning - expressed beautifully by the many antics of lead Idiot Rancho (Aamir Khan). While the structure of the film is fairly cookie-cut and predictable - and interjected with the usual irritating musical numbers - the core issues are so powerful (and the dialogue so ridiculously funny) that just the script alone would score an 8/10. Added to this is a near perfect production, fantastic sets, gripping dialogues and moving performances from all. Wait.. there's more.. Not only do the A-list lead and his girl perform a 5-10 second long lip-smack (rare on Indian cinema screens) but there are CG images of sperm(!), animations of babies being born, electrical shocks to peoples groins and comedic scenes and exchanges that are a little more evolved than usual pantomime nonsense that Indian film goers would be used to. Although the target audience is Indian, I'm quite sure that non-indian audiences will love the film - especially anyone from a culture where education is academic achievement is paramount. The nature of the jokes and dialogue, and scenes of suicide and have pushed the certification to a 12A (not that it stopped most of the audience bringing their seven-year-olds) and it's a sensible decision. This is a fun, but teen to adult film that will wrench your heart out of your chest, kick it around the cinema for 3 hours, then put it, aching but inspired, back into your chest. I'm taking off 1 mark for certain panto-esque scenes towards the end, and a major plot point that seemed to be more of a dramatic after thought, but these are minor quibbles. Go see this if it's still showing! If not, find the DVD! Now! 9/10

1

Valentine's Day 'joint review'

We're gonna try something new, a discussion review between myself and Dan, seeing as it contained an all star cast, this review will contain a(relatively) all star cast also...But from Movieville. Dan: Now this isn't the sort of film I would go to the cinemas to watch or even watch at all really. But for the sake of Movieville I was taking one for the team. What made it even more strange was watching it with a dude. We will move on from that swiftly. Although this film isn't exactly my cup of tea, I was pleasantly surprised. I was impressed by the amount of Hollywood talent in the film and dare I say it, I was slightly excited. Kazed: Definitely, although it wasn't a film of epic proportions, it was still a film which deserves some sort of recognition because of the talent involved, and most definitely live up to the name each cast member have made for themselves. With the exception of Taylor Swift, who surprisingly did a decent job, and wasn't completely one dimensional. Dan: Agreed. With the exception of Ashton Kutcher and Jessica Biel, I was pleasantly surprised by how the characters developed. Oh, almost forgot to mention this but Jessica Alba is just as awful as she is in every other film. I don't know what it was I didn't like about the other two previously mentioned characters. I thought Ashton just wasn't very interesting and didn't really bring much to the film for a character who is fairly integral to the plot. Maybe this is because although there are a lot of big star names in the film, not many of them get huge amounts of screen time and for me it was the minor characters who provided me with the occasional LOL moments. Kazed: Really? I actually thought Kutcher did a decent job here, I felt that it it was his character that had an integral part within the film, granted, the film had a few central characters, but Ashton seemed to stand out quite a bit more than any of the other cast members. I definitely agree with Alba though, I see what you mean, I was a small fan of hers, but this film really showed me what she was capable of. Or not. Dan: Well it wasn't that he was bad, but I think when put against all the other big guns he just doesn't really shine. I'm not Kutchers biggest fan anyway though if i'm honest. And on the Jessica Alba thing, you have a very small fan of her's in your pants. I made a funny. Back to the film. One of the things that annoyed me about the film was its length, for the plot it had it just can't justify being 2 and a half hours long. After around an hour and 45 minutes and after you had been for a piss I was just waiting for it to end. It felt like it was just giving the stars the screen time that their contracts probably demanded. I was pretty satisfied with how it ended overall, for such a shallow film I was quite surprised that it managed to surprise me. Kazed: Haha, again though, I must disagree with you, about the length this time. I can see why you're saying that, but it didn't bother me. In my eyes, the length of the film was required in order to tell the stories of each of the characters. When I did come back from my urination, I was eager to know what was going to happen, I wanted to know the ending, I wanted to see how each story ended. Yeah, it may have been unusually long for a romantic comedy, but it worked. Dan: This film pretty much followed a similar convention to Crash in that the character stories intertwine that unravel to create the ending. Now Crash did this in 107 minutes and was a much more engaging and portrayed the characters in much more depth. I realise that Valentines Day never was going to be or even tried to be a rival to Crash but you see what I am saying. The fact that during your prolonged urination period you literally missed absolutely nothing kind of proves my point. There was a lot of unnecessary scenes in the film that didn't really reveal much and just weren't integral to the plot. Maybe it was because I went to the cinema with a dude that I didn't get into the spirit of the film. Remind me never to go watch a chick flick with you EVER again. I have a ladyfriend for that, even though your rugged looks are ever so hard to resist. Kazed: Fair enough, I suppose I didn't miss that much, but I still wanted to know what would happen at the end of each sub-plot. The reference to Crash I totally get, if you've seen 'He's just not that into you' (I reviewed it not long ago)it follows a very similar structure to that of Crash and Valentine's Day. I suppose we can both agree that it was a good film with several scenes which were interesting, with certain filler scenes which could have been removed purely because of wasted time. Otherwise an interesting, romantic comedy with an interesting look at several individual's love lives. Dan: I think I do agree with you for once. Although I have pretty much only spoken about the bad points of the film, it did have it's good points too. The all-star cast didn't disappoint and it was good to see a big budget hollywood film in the form of a comedy, they seem to be quite rare these days. The stories that came together were satisfying enough to make the ending a good one and and it did have it's laugh out loud moments. I think where I went wrong was laughing and giggling at the film with you (no offence). It is a chick flick and should be watched with a chick, it just adds to the movie somehow. Kazed: Fair enough. Rating out of 10? Dan: Overall I think I would give it a healthy 6/10. Kazed: 7/10 from me. Kazed & Dan