Reviews

0

He's Just Not That Into You review

Synopsis: I was insanely hesitant to watch this film, as it never occurred to me that romantic comedies can also be full of complexities and finely woven stories which intertwine with each other. He's Just Not That Into You was a film that was quite different to those rom-coms I've seen in the past. It wasn't just a simple guy-falls-in-love-with-girl-encounter-a-problem-then-get-back-together-story, it was much more than that. Considering the film was adapted from a self-help book of the same name, it made it even more interesting to see how such a book could be made into a film. So Gigi(Ginnifer Goodwin) is the girl who needs the help, funnily enough, and the events that unfold were ever so cringe-worthy, not because they were badly acted out(because they weren't), but because the things that she was doing were ever so hard to watch. It was precisely the scenes with Goodwin in I enjoyed the most because of her ability to portray such an awkward character. Justin Long playing Gigi's friend and confidant was a role which he fit in, up until a certain point I thought he was gay, reminiscent of Zack and Miri, but I was proved wrong later on. There were times within HJNTIY which were definitely clichéd and redundant, there were even instances where I said "I KNEW that would happen!", but no matter how many of these moments were in the film, there was always a counter-balance to these clichés, which eventually outweighed these negative factors. He's Just Not That Into You was a film that was, to some extent, a 'traditional' rom-com simply because of the predictability that seems to be present in a vast amount of romantic comedies these days, but nicely back-pedals due to some unique storytelling. Good film, interesting story with several sub-plots and twists, He's Just Not That Into You delivers an unexpected array of goodness in the form of a contemporary romantic comedy with a difference. 8/10 Kazed

0

Edge of Darkness review

Synopsis: From watching the trailer, the first thing that came to my head was- "Mel Gibson's daughter is a terrorist threat???" Of course, it was slightly different to how the trailer was making it seem; misleading, if anything. First and foremost, I'd like to address Mel Gibson's performance in this, something which I thought overshadowed the entire duration of the film. Although the film wasn't the most spectacular, the plot was relatively interesting and had my attention the whole way through, but admittedly by the end of the film I was slightly disappointed, albeit amused. Bojana Novakovic though, who plays Gibson's daughter, showed her lack of experience in the Edge of Darkness, but very accurately portrayed a person affected by radiation poisoning perfectly(*). I couldn't help but feel almost a religious undertone throughout, more specifically in the end scene, it was such a clichéd ending, something the film could most definitely done without. Ray Winstone had a minor role, in which he portrayed a sort of neutral party, up until halfway through the film, when things went in a different direction, but questions which were unanswered at the beginning became...well, answered. Ultimately, I enjoyed Edge of Darkness, although it wasn't a film I would purchase on DVD, it kept me entertained for 120 minutes. Decent acting from the cast as a whole, decent plot, clichéd ending, overall a decent film. 5/10 Kazed *Honestly, it was...well, crap.

0

(500) Days of Summer review

Synopsis: I had heard alot of positive things relating to this film, so naturally, I thought I'd buy the DVD and see what the fuss was all about. The Author's note at the beginning of the film is strangely a disclaimer, something I haven't seen that often, at the start, anyway. The note states: "The following is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Especially you Jenny Beckman. Bitch." Upon reading this the first time, I thought nothing of it. I thought it was simply some sort of inside joke, which technically, it was. Only, it wasn't a joke, apparently, (500) Days of Summer was based on the experiences of the writer of this film, Scott Neustadter(Read more on this here). The film was anything but conventional; the chronology of this film going back and forth, the traditional 'rom-com' formulas thrown away for something that was far more enthralling, and kept my attention the whole way through. The way in which the story was depicted was what attracted me to this film the most, sure, it was certainly confusing on occasions, but for the most part it worked well in delivering the plot. The film was a love story, but the most unconventional love story I've ever seen. The story was definitely one of the most unique I have heard. As the film progressed, the story evolved a lot more, as did the characters, and was something which shined greatly in this film, as well as the performance from Joseph Gordon Levitt. Zooey Deschanel seemed quite plastic to me, although I feel her charm brought in a lighthearted warmth to the film, it felt as though she wasn't projecting herself as well as Levitt was. However, that's not to say her performance wasn't enjoyable, it just didn't seem to fit in at times, for example, the scene in the copy room, right before she makes her move, her face was just...blank. There were other minor annoyances in an otherwise great film. A good film with an unconventional twist, lovely story, lighthearted rom-com with a difference. 8/10 Kazed

0

Invictus review

Synopsis - Where to start with this film exactly then? I have to admit that I went into the movie with a few preconceptions of how I was going to feel about it. I'd heard good reviews and I'd heard terrible reviews, and I was more prone to take the latter on board. This is where you'd expect me to say I was pleasantly surprised and that the film turned out to be an inspiring piece of work, full of suspense and drama, with admirable performances from its stars, while drawing on an important political event. Well, you're wrong. Sort of, anyway. It was neither a great film, or an awful one. It sat between the two extremes, and not necessarily comfortably plodding along neutrally at half-pace, but zig-zagging forward and backward between the excellent and the down-right terrible. There are a couple of main points I feel I should tell you about this film. Firstly, this is a film about rugby. You can dress it up as a political and historical drama, but in the end, it is a sports film. Secondly (and I know I'm going to get a lot of stick for this), Freeman is terrible. There, I said it. To go back to the first point, this film is unashamedly about rugby. While I'm sure director Clint Eastwood would insist rugby is simply a device used to show how the problems of history and a country's guilt can always be reconciled, there's no denying that the sport itself holds the main impetus of the narrative and film as a whole. The final match goes on for around half an hour of the film for Christ's sake! Now I'm a massive rugby fan, and even though I was only eight at the time, I do remember the 1995 World Cup, and specifically the final, and therefore the way in which they created past events and the movie's attention to detail was very exciting for me. However, for anyone uninterested in the sport I can imagine the amount of screen time given to match sequences is simply far too long. As for the match sequences themselves, considering we are supposed to be watching the best teams in the world, the play looks incredibly sloppy. It looks almost like one of those bad video-recordings by a proud dad watching his 12-year-old son playing in Sunday league. Though rugby holds the centre stage of the film, I couldn't help feeling it was all a little watered down for the masses, as if the film felt the need to explain every little detail of the game to its audience. Also, I couldn't help laugh when South African captain Francois Pienaar, played by Matt Damon, in what was supposed to be an inspiring mid-match team-talk said "Forwards, you need to start scrumming!". WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN? Some researcher somewhere obviously wasn't doing their job right. So, to go back to Freeman. I know he's treated as a rather holier-than-thou, untouchable, King Midas of an actor, but I honestly thought this was the worst performance I've ever seen him give. Granted, he looks like Mandela. And maybe he acts like Mandela. But that's all I can see. I don't see Mandela. I see Morgan Freeman trying to be Mandela. I know it was Mandela's personal request to have Freeman to play him in the film (hell, I'd probably do the same, right after Brad Pitt), but in all honesty, I think it was a mistake to cast such a recognisable face as the President. Freeman's depiction of Mandela generally consisted of him shuffling around, looking morose, which really started to grate on me. I understand both Freeman and Damon spent a considerable amount of time with their characters' real-life counterparts, so perhaps Freeman was doing an accurate job, but it just didn't work on screen for me. Freeman also brought a childlike innocence or naïvety to Mandela, which instead of appearing charming and peaceful, made the President appear more stupid and vulnerable. I know Mandela is a political legend, and an icon for a generation. His story definitely deserves telling too. However, if Freeman's representation of him is accurate, then maybe his personality just wasn't made for the screen. As for Damon, he was comparatively brilliant next to Freeman. I'll admit, I like Matt Damon anyway, and while it wasn't one of his best performances he didn't completely disgrace himself. His accent was passable and he was fairly believable as the Springbok captain. However, as I said for Freeman, perhaps it would have been better to see an unknown face playing such an icon, as it was rather amusing watching Jason Bourne (and Will Hunting for that matter) running around a rugby pitch. Aside from Freeman's performance, there was another huge problem for me in this movie, and that was that the first two hours were a complete snore-fest. It's a long film at the best of times, but when the action doesn't start picking up until after the two hour mark, time becomes a real problem. The drama only actually starts picking up as South Africa begin approaching the World Cup final, and like I've said before, all the action is rugby-based. I'll admit though, I really did enjoy the last half hour. The game footage really picked up pace and I found myself watching the match as if it was a real game. The only problem for me was that I knew the outcome, down to the drop-goal that secures the match. This is what the whole film hangs on, and when creating a historical drama such as this, you really need something else to build suspense other than the factual events themselves. I'm still really undecided about this one to be honest. I loved taking a trip down memory lane, seeing familiar faces like Pienaar, Williams, Stransky and Lomu, but Freeman's performance and the first two thirds of the film really hold it back. Obviously it's very Hollywood and over-produced (what else would you expect with Eastwood at the helm?), but I can't really use that as the overriding basis for criticism. That said, try not to cringe too much when the song Colorblind is played over a scene of Mandela majestically arriving at the Springboks' training ground by helicopter. All in all, go and see it if you enjoy rugby and don't mind a big-budget Hollywood cheese-fest. If you're after a realistic and inspiration tale of political struggle, maybe give this one a miss. 5/10 Steve

0

Moon review

Synopsis: Ok, so, I have been asked by the Big Man (Kazed) to write a blog of sorts about movies, new or old. Unsure of where to start, I decided to wait until I viewed a film which inspired me to write. This happened to me last night when I watched a wonderful film called ‘Moon’ which was released last year. This is the first feature film from director Duncan Jones (who is the son of David Bowie) and has been nominated for a whole array of awards including two BAFTA’s at the 2010 awards. A psychological science fiction film, about a solitary employee of a lunar company, Sam Rockwell starts to experience weird goings on at the end of his three year contract. This British film which includes the voice of Kevin Spacey as Sam’s trusty robot friend GERTY amazed me for a number of reasons. I’m not usually a fan of British films. Now don’t get me wrong, if they are good I can appreciate that, I just never seem to come across these half as often as I do the awful British gang type films. However, this film is truly magnificent, and subtly brilliant. It does us Brits very proud. Although the idea behind the film is extremely farfetched, it is somehow exceptionally believable (I really do not want to give anything away, but when you see it, you’ll know exactly what I mean). The story line is just full of amazing twists which shock you throughout. It is an exceptionally well thought out film, and keeps you thinking about it for a long time afterwards. The acting is just outstanding. Considering the two main characters within the film is actually the same person, the difference between the two are so extreme it makes you completely forget that it is one actor, playing the same character twice (again, really quite hard to describe, but once you see it, it’ll all make sense). Perhaps for my first review, I should have chose a film which is not so complicated and hard to explain without revealing anything which might hinder your viewing experience - but i loved it nonetheless and if this review encourages at least one person to watch the film I’ll sleep well tonight. This gets a mighty 9/10 from me. Lola