From watching the opening few minutes of the Australian made "Jindabyne", Ray Lawrence's third directorial work, you could be forgiven for thinking that this is another attempt to screen a rather tired genre: serial killer mystery. Fifteen minutes in, however, you would realise that this is far from the truth. This isn't a film about a depraved killer's sickening acts of sex and violence on young women. This is a thoughtful, rounded meditation of how death can affect people, and the choices we make because of it. An in-depth analysis of this theme follows when a group of fishermen discover a body of a young woman floating in a river. Instead of reporting the body right away, they decide to tie it up and carry on with their expedition. On their return to the main town, they find themselves shunned by their wives and neighbours. Why didn't they call the police when they found the body? Why did they wait days later before you notified anyone? How could they do such a selfish thing? These question press for answers from both the characters onscreen and the audience watching.
A wife of one of the fishermen, Claire (brought to life by a career topping performance by Laura Linney) is deeply troubled by her husband's actions, and makes bold moves to paper over the wound that this act of disregard has inflicted on the local community.
We know who the killer is from the outset. We are not invited to play a "did the butler do it?" guessing game. Instead, with the controlled use of slowly evolving character development, we are shown an example of how powerful a medium such as film can really be. Using a big name like Linney could hinder rather than help an independent film such as this, but with pure skill she becomes a knotted-rope of a person, not sure where her loyalty to her husband ends and her own feelings of responsibility begin. Within this feast of beautifully observed emotion, some subplots take route, which could be the film's one and only mistake, diverting the attention away from the more important voices of the narrative. However, this is a small criticism on a film that can deliver more than just an evening's entertainment. What starts off as a story about a careless act of selfishness, it delicately escalates into a rather intellectual but wholly compelling reflection on actions and motives. And, being careful not to spoil anything, it features one of the best endings to a film I have ever seen.
Little Children, stylishly adapted from the Tom Perrotta novel, functions more or less as a social drama with two, somewhat difficult main themes in the centre: Adultery and Paedophilia. A wonderfully transformed Kate Winslet takes residence on screen as Sarah; a wife and mother whose life in upper middle-class suburbia is proving unsatisfying and solitary. She doesn't fit in with the other mums at the playground; she's bored and tired but remains sweetly loyal to her husband. This changes, however, when she discovers her husband's habit for internet girls. The splinter this causes in their marriage leaves a gap ready to be filled by good-looking, non-working, kid-caring Brad (Patrick Wilson), who seems to be perfect in nearly every way: hansom, intellectual, kind, loving. What starts as a fling between them develops into something ultimately more seductive and deep.
However, Brad and Sarah's affair is not the only gossip stirring the already rippling rumour pond of this well-trimmed Boston suburb. A convicted Paedophile has been released onto the community, a fact which isn't greeted by the local residence with celebration. Living with his elderly mother, the man in question is tempted by his previous distractions all too quickly, which leads to a tense swimming pool scene and the film's disturbing final act.
The filming style is glossy and almost as seductive as the main love story. However, the film's main problem for me is the lack of deeper substance and its habit of straying into the predictable. The acting manages to save the film from sinking beneath a tide of hysteria, but it is not enough to keep together the unsatisfying feeling of something missing from the story. Whether what it needs is a more convincing conclusion or a plot turn or two, it is hard to tell. The title itself is intelligent enough when seen in relation to the plot. "Little Children" could refer to the victims of the once-praying paedophile. It could also be a metaphor for the relationship between Sarah and Dan, as they play their adult, though slightly childish, games with one another, deceiving their married partners. The less obvious connection could be to the Sarah and Dan's own children, who helped bring them together by befriending each other at the park and the swimming pool.
Unfortunately the final moments of the film, (which focus around a very unpleasant incident in a well established children's park) still pack a punch, but seem ridiculous and startlingly different to the rest of the film. What could have been a thought provoking, intelligent finishing point ends up as an ill judged attempt to shock and surprise rather than end satisfactorily. Winslet and Wilson are faultless. It's the aimless script that lets the film down, succeeding in enticing the viewer but not rewarding them. As a whole the film is a thing of flawed beauty, but commits cinematic crimes, such as under using Jennifer Connelly, that stop it being the sharp, dark film it could have been.
The heated topic of the war in Iraq has now leaked out into the cinemas. Under the surface of topical debate that surrounds this fact, it is more likely than not that film makers are putting these stories on screen not because America has found a side to cheer on. It is because they are still searching for their side between the two extremes: support the war/ oppose the war. "In the Valley of Elah" doesn't endeavour to answer that question, nor does it take a deliberate, clear side in the debate. What it does do is attempt to explain what effect the war has on the young soldiers that are out there in the desert fighting. This is a difficult but well exercised angle on a growing issue, but the film does not set out into making an obvious judgement, but tells the story of one man's investigation into the killing of his son. Tommy Lee Jones's self controlled character Hank has already had to deal with the sudden death of one son in his life. Now he is faced with another emotional upheaval; the death of his second son, Mike. Assisted by a female police officer in New Mexico near his son's military base, Hank comes to learn that his son was murdered, and that his ampuated remains were dumped and then moved. But trying to see the real truth instead of the army's version of events proves confusing. It soon becomes clear, by a small array of (somewhat convenient) evidence, that Iraq made his son a different person. A person that had changed because of what he had seen. Throughout the film, the police procedural elements take up most of the discussion and action, which is a shame as there are so many themes to explore in the subject matter; heroes, villains, sadism, PTSD. All of these do, however, provoke thought. One particular incident filmed on a mobile phone in Iraq, which concerns the treatment of suspected terrorists, is the type of footage that haunts you for weeks to come. In an interview recorded during cinema promotion of this film, the director/writer Paul Haggis said in no uncertain terms that "America is bleeding right now". In the Valley of Elah does show a bleeding and wounded country, but it also shows the wounds war makes in humanity. If we look past the dusty police work we see a society both fighting back and controlling itself at the same time, emotions running mixed and confused. Haggis manages to bring out startling performances from a cast that generally doesn't need any coaxing, but his true success in this distressingly melancholy crime drama is the emotion packed away and stored within Hank, which we see slowly overflow as the movie comes to its climax. Possibly edging too far into the CSI field than it needs to, this is still a excellently made and relevant piece of cinema. Apart from a final part that seems a little confused with itself (as I've said before: heroes, villains, sadism), the plot still stays solid. It seems to be up to the audience to decide on it's overall message, but if watched as a character study of a grieving father desperate to know the truth (and there have been a few those on film) this is up there with the best.
Katherine Heigl stars in this rom-com about the girl who"s just ALWAYS the bridesmaid, never the bride...James Marsden co-stars as "the one" who"s going to change all that. Heigl is an absolutely luminous new star, always watchable, likeable and looking radiant here.
So why does this film not light up the screen? It"s just disappointing on all levels, and fundamentally flawed in that the star quality of Heigl is wasted completely. Her character Jane isn"t given anything redeemable, in a barely two-dimensional sketch of a persona she pretty much only thinks about her male boss, and how to get him to notice her. Oh, and she"s the obligatory "great friend" (hence the 27 bridesmaid appearances).
With a wittier script, or some plot surprises (or just an actual plot, come to think of it), this would enable us to suspend reality enough to get involved the film and enjoy it. I kept waiting for the story to begin, but that"s literally it; one idea, no real story. How patronising to the intended female audience, and more importantly what a criminal waste of Heigl"s comedic talents, far better displayed in the likes of "Knocked Up". Heigl is one of the best young actresses around able to carry off a genuine, funny performance.
Marsden is also curiously unlikeable as Jane"s true love, journalist Kevin; again, just no wit or spark in the script to life his performance, it didn"t even raise a smile. Disappointing in the extreme.
Great one off special to kick off the new series of Family Guy heavily Inspired by Star Wars fun family fun lots of laughs and giggles
If you like old time chick flicks this is the film for you. It is a bit like miss congiuality because you have a regular beauty pagint but with a twist n the story line. All ages love this film. I watch it all of the time. It is defitnely worth watching and buying. The sun has gave it a rewive of "GLORIOUSLY REFRESHING JET BLACK COMEDY" and i couldnet agree more.This film is also about in the game of beauty there can only be one survivoor and it's all out war.
This film stars:
Ellen Barkin - The mother.
Kirstie Dunst- The spoilt girl.
AND MANY MORE.
so please give this film a try its worth every penny.
I thought that this was a fantastic series and believe that Russell T Davies knows exactly how to grab our attention and draw us into this amazing world.
Doctor Who does not take itself too seriously which is probably just as well, and is able to get the best mix of humour and action. All the storylines are superb and there are constant twists in each story. I particularly like the way certain words are placed in almost every episode that link to the end. I never spotted that first time watching and I doubt others will have either. I won't say the words for fear I might spoil it for someone who hasn't seen it yet.
I should probably warn anyone over 60 who might be reading this as it may not quite be your "thing". You don't know what you"re missing.
My only major criticism of Doctor Who is that even though the Daleks are one of the Doctors main enemies it is hard not to think to yourself, "How dangerous can a sink plunger be?" to which Captain Jack would reply, "It depends entirely on how you use it".
Doctor Who returns after being absent from our screens for 16 years. Christopher Eccleston plays the Doctor with new assistant Billie Piper.
If i were to compare this to any movie it would be cabin fever, shrooms is what cabin fever should of been like. It is one of them american kids go in to the woods films but its a odd one, because its suprisingly good. This film is very suspensful, a bit like lost but in less than 2 hours. The characters are a bit american college, which they are, and thats bad but it still makes for good viewing. Its like a lot of bad things that have been thrown together and because its attributes are consistantly badit somehow makes it a good film. If i was to put a money rating on this film it would be 7quid, and 7 quid well spent
I got this in a 3 for 20pound deal, and it is the least zombie like zombie film i have ever seen and ive seen the resident evil movies. Its the type of film you watch and think, if someone foreign was watching this with me i would be quite ashamed. The film is set in 3 "diaries" which are played in order and all come together towards the end. I never give this a rubbish rating because the 2nd and 3rd diaries lifted the rating of the 1st which really dragged. Its a zombie film so i was always going to give it a chance but one of its main points it seemed to be selling me was it is set up in the diary format that the blair witch project, i got bored of that after 5 minutes because of that, and thats not good, if you have any taste at all and think this looks good, you're going to be very disappointed.
I was expecting to be dissapointed by this film, 3 quid from tesco, it was one of them films you see on the shelf and never pay any attention to but this is actually a great film, a smooth flowing story line and well cast. It is the only film i can ever remember where they dont give the main character (daniel craig) no name, and I never even noticed till the end. When i saw it was about drugs i thought, great (sarcasm) a gang of chavs driving around on a council estate and saying "me like mate" after everything hor an hour and 40 minutes (aprox), but that couldnt be further from the actual film, excluding a few chav like characters. If i had seen this before i bought it i would of payed up to 10 quid for it, if you get this for less than 7 as i did, you have a bargain.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Donnie Darko. Even though some found it difficult to follow, I still found it compelling and entertaining. This on the other hand is a mish-mass of concepts, plots and performances that gives David Lynch a run for his money. I understand that a lot of this film ended up on the cutting-room floor, but in my opinion not enough of it did. The pace of the movie is all wrong and it"s also too long to keep the average viewer entertained. I am not disappointed by many films but unfortunately this was one of those rare exceptions.
This is he best of the X-trilogy, forgoing the need to introduce the characters and the world of the story and going straight into the story which is executed beautifully. The addition of Cummings as Nightcrawler and Cox as Striker were both excellent choices in my opinion and the rest of the cast are also superb thanks, in part to Singer, I imagine. Singer knew these characters and got the actors to surpass their skills from the first movie and move beyond their previous performances. To compare the acting found here with what was on offer in the third film, it"s clear that this is where the actors reached their peak and by the third instalment, the whole concept became a farce for everyone involved.
This is an amazing Sci-fi classic from the 60's to watch with the family on a weekend afternoon. It"s got everything, time-travel, explosions, monsters and a love story.
The special-effects have aged gracefully and the only aspect of the film that may grate on today"s contemporary audiences is the somewhat stiff-acting performances made by some of the cast.
The special features are minimal with a small feature on other forays into time travel made on celluloid and some production notes but the sheer quality and entertainment of the film makes up for that. This is a film which everyone must see at some point in their life and would be an asset in anybodies DVD collection.
Based on the seventies novel by Hubert Selby Jr (who also co-wrote the screenplay), this adaptation is a hard-hitting twin-narrative of a mother and son on their personal spiral to self-destruction through personal drug use.
I originally saw this movie when it came out and at the time, the editing and soundtrack really added something to the movie, upping the pace of the film and keeping the audience from losing interest in the increasingly disturbing and depressing narrative. Unfortunately when I revisited the film again recently these same techniques seem rather tired and unexceptional. For the first time viewer, this film is captivating and the DVD making of features are in-depth making this DVD a bargain for its price, but if you"re looking for a DVD-gem to watch again and again, this is not the best option out there.
Society, Brian Yuzna's debut film is a very underated addition to the horror genre. This film is now a cult classic and has some horrifyingly realistic special effects by Screaming Mad George. The basic plot of this movie is about a young man called Billy who suspects that his family and friends are involved in strange and weird activities such as incest and cannabilism. As the film progresses Billy becomes more and more suspicous of his surroundings until the gruesome climax where the truth is revealed. This film is a must have for any serious horror and cult film collectors and comes recommended 5 stars by myself.
In the current "movie climate", when a film is branded a horror movie, you could be forgiven for expecting something disgusting, torture-crazed and sadistic. This unfair contamination of the genre has been down to recent efforts such as the "Saw" franchise, "Hostel" and the recent Brit blood-splasher "W?Z". Those who expect something similar with this Spanish film will be disappointed. Those who would rather be claustrophobically menaced by subtle plot developments and a well written script, this is a treat. The plot's refreshingly old fashioned premise is intriguing; a married couple and their son move into a large, rundown house. This house holds memories for Laura, the wife and mother, memories which have remained buried. It was her childhood home when it functioned as an Orphanage, and she wishes to revive this status by opening it as a home for handicapped children. However, she has taken it for granted that the memories of her old have vacated along with the past residents. She realises that this is not the case, when her own son starts to make friends with invisible children, and then, in a terrifyingly tragic scene, disappears without a trace.
Although we have got into the habit as a movie going public to think "more visceral violence the better", "The Orphanage", which is presented by Pan's Labyrinth director Guillermo Del Toro, reminds audiences that less gore is more. The jolts and frights don't rely on images of flesh eating and zombie rape. They are engineered by the clever manipulation of the viewer's fear of the past and the unknown. This may be an over-used idea by film-makers, but in this case the film really does benefit from the art of narrative restraint. The suggestion of something more terrible than fear itself is a constant theme; as we see Laura and slightly drippy husband Carlos desperately attempt to find their missing son by looking into Laura's murky past and the time she spent at the Orphanage when she was a child. The most fear inducing scene in the film is when Laura is confronted by someone from her past; a childhood acquaintance who dons a bag-stitched mask, and has a habit for following people down empty corridors.
Bayona's direction is effective, making the "grab-your-friend's-arm" moments increase in frequency as the movie progresses, but doesn"t let them loose shock impact. This could be because the whole film is shot with deceptively beautiful camera-work, with watercolour greys mixed with deep reds. We can truly empathise with Laura as a character, as we see Belen Rueda"s near-perfect performance of a mother's pain bleed out of the screen.
For a film that, by rules of it's genre, is obliged to scare, it goes further by making us cry not with fear, but with the moving emotion we are seeing onscreen. Mixing echoes of Barrie's Peter Pan with themes reminiscent of past similar works (The Others, The Sixth Sense) "The Orphanage" not only proves that horror is, as a genre, continuously evolving. It reminds us that Spain is becoming a movie making giant that is prepared to stand up to Hollywood cliché'.
If you don't treat this with the seriousness it thinks it deserves, this film is absolutely fantastic. Just don't eat pie while you're watching it.
When Truman Capote read about the tragic slaying of a Kansas family in the New York Times, his sharp, inspiration driven mind saw potential in not only the story of the victims but the motives of the killers. With help from fellow writer Harper Lee, he set about a famous investigation into the deaths. Dreamily beautiful and delicately handled, this biopic concentrates on the changeable period in Capote's life when he befriended the two murderers, Richard Hickock and Perry Smith. By interviewing these two convicts as they await execution of death row, Capote found an emotional connection with Perry Smith, the more sensitive and intellectual of the two, who notably placed a pillow under a teenage boy's head before shooting him in the face. This little quirk is of the kind Capote desired, weaving together accounts of the murders with his own narrative style to create "In Cold Blood", allegedly the world"s first "non-fiction novel".
The course of the film mostly serves as a detailed look at the relationship between Capote and killer Perry Smith. It handles the would-be-friendship with a balance of intelligent script-writing and very natural acting, without blowing it out of proportion. The result is exceptional, as you start to wonder what Truman Capote"s motives really were for "In Cold Blood". In discussions between himself and his editor, Capote speaks of needing a definite ending to the book. Of course, as an audience we know the outcome, but Capote flirts with the idea of trying to stop the execution, or at the very least delay it. He knows, however, this would not give the desired satisfying conclusion to his forthcoming work, but the thought of two gold-mines of literary inspiration being wasted leaves him confused and heart-broken.
While watching the film the viewer is not confused. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's outstanding acting not only makes Capote an interesting character to get to know, but he is wonderful to watch. With the famously high pitched voice, this could have been a comic, zany, caricature. Instead we get an almost melodic tone of voice that isn't at all hard to listen to, with the emotional backing that cries out for award recognition. The most harrowing scene is the moment before the execution, when Capote knows that the outcome he partially hoped for is now imminent. It is all the more hard to watch for the viewing audience, as we have come to wish the convicts dead, but also sympathise with them and their position.
This is not a popcorn movie, nor is it exciting entertainment. But I do not mean this as criticism. This should earn the film more respect for not straying into these tempting, money making genres. By keeping sombre and unglamorous, "Capote" is an uncompromising success, definitely worthy of all the awards and recognition it has received.
for those who like action and don't mind the americans then this is the program for you it is a great show and real life so no fake punches and stunts all real.
It's so juicy that no-one could make it up. All the actors within the series are fantastic, especially Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Natalie Dormer and Sam Neill. The series covers all events of the time and it doesn't just focus on Henry and Anne Boleyn, which i think is very important. When it was on BBC 2 i was addicted to it, and i can promise you that if you purchase this DVD, you will not be dissapointed. As soon as you watch one episode, you will want to watch the next!
This site uses cookies.
More details in our privacy policy