Watachable 1980s set coming-of-age memoir from writer / director Greg Mottola ('Superbad') 'Adventureland' sees cash strapped student James Brennan (Jessie Esienberg) slumming it in a menial Summer job at his local theme park. There, he meets and falls for troubled teen Em Lewin (Kristen Stewart) whilst encountering a variety of oddball characters and making some new friends along the way.
Jessie Esienberg doesn't let a passing resemble to Simon Amstel stymie his shot at stardom, for out of all the hopefuls in young Hollywood today; Eisenberg, though he tends to play similar roles, is the most likeable by far. His awkward, unassuming demeanour coupled with an ability to be cast in interesting, off beat projects (e.g. 'The Hunting Party', 'The Squid And The Whale', 'Roger Dodger' etc) makes him an actor to look out for in the months and years ahead.
Kirsten Stewart, who's got aloof miserabilism down to a tee, seems to have found her niche as the new Winnona Ryder (a post I'd always thought was reserved for Sarah Polley), Judd Apatow regular Bill Hader gets the most laughs as 'Adventureland' owner Bobby, newcomer Margarita Levieva plays ride geisha Lisa P with hidden depth and sensitivity whilst Ryan Reynolds risks stealing the show with his intentionally bland but nuanced turn as theme park handy man / adulterous poser Mike Connell. Reynolds brings a surprising level of depth and humanity to a role that, on paper, didn't seem destined to be anything more than a two-dimensional cad.
'Adventureland' is an easy going, mildly amusing film whose haphazard transitions from broad comedy to intimate drama are often as jarring and as the dilapidated rides in the titular theme park. Not bad, could've been a lot better.
If you like your traditional 'group of teens trapped in the forest being chased and picked off by hillbillies' type movie then this is the best there is. Although the plot has been used before the murders are inventive and the baddies have to be seen to be believed - truly terrifying. My all time favourite horror.
I liked (500) Days of Summer. That's not entirely true. I liked (500) Days of Summer apart from its nonchalant ending. So that's about 398 Days of Summer I actually liked. But what is it? Well, (500) Days of Summer is a charming and quirky 'romantic comedy drama' starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, from 3rd Rock from the Sun fame. Actor by day, Heath lookalike at night. And Zooey Deschanel, actress/singer/fan of the letter 'o'. The story revolves around the two actors and their acting counterparts - Tom Hansen and Summer Finn. It focuses on the romance, the comedy and the drama that follows from their chance encounter one day at work. Told in a fairly unconventional manner, the story jumps chronologically throughout, keeping things fresh and interesting. However, although these eccentricities may set it apart from other romantic comedies they also appear to be the films biggest criticism. For many, the film was too quirky, too idiosyncratic, too kooky. I disagree. Being asked to watch a revolving ceiling fixture that is supposed to 'dance' to songs from The Cure is quirky, idiosyncratic and kooky. (500) Days of Summer does actually possess some lure, and I certainly know which one I would prefer to watch.
Although told in an unconventional way, they story is nothing radical and it is probably for the best that it was told out of order. With one scene being juxtaposed against another, or one drama being juxtaposed against another adds an air of vigour to the film which is always appreciated. The two central performances are also very strong indeed. I haven't seen too much of either of the two leads. But whenever I have managed to catch a glimpse of them I have been impressed. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was fine in 10 Things I Hate About You, stand-out in Brick and great in (500) Days of Summer. Ms. Deschannel follows a similar suit. Fine in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, fantastic in Almost Famous and great in (500) Days of Summer. Add her talent together with an unbelievable amount of beauty and Zooey Deschanel will be someone to definitely keep an eye on throughout her career.
The word 'great' keeps reoccurring and it's perhaps the best suited word for the film. (500) Days of Summer is not an exceptional piece of cinema, but I don't think it ever set out to be that. It set out to be an enjoyable, great piece of cinema and it very much lives up to that mantra. With a petit runtime of an hour and a half, it isn't an endurance test to sit through. A trap a number of films seem to fall into more and more these days. Comparisons have been made with Annie Hall, High Fidelity and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Although I don't think (500) Days of Summer is better than any of the films named, I have no doubt that it is worth a bit of your time. It ranks favourable in my favourite films of 2009 list, sitting alongside such films as Star Trek and District 9. Don't quite know what that says about me really? Geek with a heart?....Maybe
I love it when there are comparisons made about movies, whether it is on the posters for the film or being pitched on an interview. You get great lines like its Psycho without the knife, or it's just like The Rocky Horror Picture show but with a Jane and a Buck. But with Antichrist there is no real comparison, it is nothing like you have quite seen before. It has been argued that it echoes the 1981 film Possession by Andrzej Zulawski. But I don't believe that to be true, as Antichrist is actually worth your time. Apart from an overtly intense performance from Sam Neil, Possession should only be consumed by the intoxicated and the dazed. Now for the divisive moment of the review - The film is directed by Lars Von Trier.
Now before embarking on Antichrist or any of Lars Von Trier's work, an individual should take a little bit of time to look into Lars Von Trier. I'm not saying delve into an infatuation filled research project on the man; that would be ridiculous and probably bad for your health. Just have a small read into his filmography and perhaps take in the sights of a few reviews. Make those reviews eclectic and you will begin to have an idea of what to expect. However you cannot fully prepare yourself for a Lars Von Trier film, but a bit of background knowledge will soften the visual punch to the gut.
Antichrist stars only two people - Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe. They remain nameless throughout the film, and are referred as only he or she in the credits. Without divulging into an inordinate amount of the plot, the two leads suffer a loss very early on in the film. As a result of this loss the couple retreat to their cabin in the woods...And that is all the plot you are getting from me. What I will add though is that Charlotte Gainsbourg's performance is quite literally breathtaking. It is otherworldly and both fascinating and terrifying in equal measures. This breathtaking performance also stands alongside some breathtaking cinematography. From beginning to end, the film looks absolutely beautiful. Although the film deals with very dark and disconcerting subject matter, some of the shots are works of art. And as a viewer you begin to question whether it is 'right' for you to be looking at something so crass with a sense of delight.
There are many scenes that will stick firmly in the mind. Ranging from an obtuse scene involving a fox, all the way to falling acorns that drench Willem Defoe, Antichrist does pack an erratic punch. It also contains the much-talked about scissors scene. A scene an arts and crafts presenter wouldn't dare dream of even after the 9 o'clock watershed. Scissors and the southern reaches of the female form are the only things that I dare reveal about this scene, anymore and the article may be removed by the remaining followers of Mrs Whitehouse. Although a number of scenes may be graphic they add to the experience that is Antichrist.
But let it be made clear that Antichrist is definitely not a movie for all occasions; it is especially not a Christmas family move. I warn against you asking the family to sit down after the meal to watch Antichrist. It is a film that is probably best suited watching alone, probably at night as you are in a fixed state of delirium before you fall asleep. Once you ticked all the needed criteria, place Antichrist into the DVD player and let it entwine into your conscience. Just be prepared to ask yourself after the film has concluded - What did I just watch? But hopefully that question is accompanied by an auspicious grin rather than a deathly frown.
Shutter Island was a thrilling and psychological experience for me. I was blown away by the twist ending. Leonardo DiCaprio's performance as Teddy Daniels was superb. The editing of Thelma Schoonmaker was absolutely perfect in which she edited the film in a way as to make the audience think they were going insane. Martin Scorsese is a brilliant director and this is the best film that he has ever directed since GoodFellas. I absolutely love this film and watch it repeatedly over and over again. I rate this 5/5. Although the twist ending is predictable.
Let's begin with an attempt to sum up Pontypool's plot in the most succinct way possible. Okay, here we go - Canadian Horror Film. Based in a Radio Station . And then shown on film. Now obviously there is more to the story than what I just typed, but ultimately the last few line exposes Pontypool's downfall, with the emphasises on the word 'radio'.
For the majority of Pontypool the viewer is encased within the claustrophobic setting of the radio station walls. Now having a film that takes place in only one setting or location is not a bad thing. Not a bad thing at all. I have written before on the fantastical and macabre 'Rope'. An enthralling film all set in the one apartment. '12 Angry Men' is another film that is utterly brilliant, all set in the jury room where 12 males surprising decide on a guilty or not guilty verdict. Although that doesn't necessary sound like the most breathtaking of plots, it is a superbly pieced together film that has a thrilling and engaging story that all folds together like a beautiful origami crane. So with Pontypool being set all in the one location it didn't put me off. If anything I applaud it for being so daring, extra Brownie points all the way for you there. But if a film is attempting to keep within the location, the story has to grip and keep hold of you for its entire run time. We can excuse it a few drops along the way, but for the most part you as a viewer want to sit there and have your eyes on the screen, not on a clock face. Thank goodness for spell checker there...
Pontypool has none of this really. Nope, I apologise, it does have a few positives. The recurring idea that language is power/language is a weapon is an interesting one. Not an original idea by any means, but I always enjoy an individual interpretation on that message. So for that I salute. The voice of the leading actor Stephen McHattie is a joy to listen to. It is a voice that is truly envy inducing. The face of Helen of Troy is said to have launched a thousand ships. The voice of Stephen McHattie could add a boudoir to every one of those ships. A voice and an idea are two very powerful qualities, so Pontypool could have become a very powerful film. But it didn't. When the film ended I had one very prominent thought in my mind, and that was Pontypool would have been better as a radio play. As it turned out, with a bit of keyboard research Pontypool was produced both simultaneously as a radio play and a film. I haven't listened to the radio version, but I am positive it would be more affecting than the film that came out of the production.
You only have to look at The War of the Worlds radio production in the early part of the 20th century to see the effect a radio play can have. Orson Welles' radio adaptation of H. G. Wells' novel The War of the Worlds in 1938 caused genuine panic. With it being so close to the beginning of the Second World War anxiety levels were already on a high. And with Welles' creative prowess he was able to tip the anxiety ridden scales. The reaction he may have got may not have been 'good'; as people fleeing the streets may only be looked at as being good from the point of view of an introvert. But at least he got a reaction. With Pontypool I had no reaction to it. As I mentioned previously as the film ended it was an air of disappointment that filled my living room. That living room has been filled with many an air, but when that air is disappointment, it is always slightly saddening. But looking at other reviews of the film, I may hold the minority view.
So what can I suggest to anyone interested in pursuing Pontypool as a form of entertainment? Well numero uno - Check out the trailer for the film. If you find it intrigues you, move forward onto stage numero two. That stage being checking to see if you have a big enough biscuit selection in your house. If the answer to that is yes then look into purchasing or renting a copy of Pontypool. And if you do make it that fabled stage, I do hope you enjoy it...
Watch this and learn, Sam Raimi et al, this is how to portray true terror. CGI and blood spurting, chainsaw wielding, mask wearing creatures need not apply, just use a sinister shadow, a man with a scary bald bonce and a gravelly voice....and for true horrific moments.... a limp.
A masterpiece in vintage horror.....
New Moon is a quietly unnerving piece of work. For a film with stars quite so beautiful and scenery quite so idyllic, it's almost distressing that the underlying messages inferred by the story are so powerful, to the extent that they're almost harmful.
New Moon takes place in the quiet town of Forks, Washington, and follows on from the inexplicably successful 'Twilight'. Bella Swan, whose lovely name is perhaps her only redeeming feature, is embroiled in a relationship with a centenarian vampire, the effortlessly charming Edward Cullen. However when things take a turn for the worse, the relationship breaks down, and poor Bella spirals out of control. Or something along those lines. And then somewhere along the way, she ends up in Italy.
I feel at a considerable disadvantage for not having read any of the book series, nor did I watch the first film more than once. Is that fair? Should I have to conduct this much research to be able to follow some of the more basic plot points of the film? What I did manage to ascertain is that the vampires of the film are still not real vampires: they don't drink much blood and they can go out in the daylight as often as they please. For newcomers to the series, this film will present a real challenge. But I can understand why it offers so few entry points for those who would choose to dip in at movie number two - why waste precious screen time on such formalities when it's the teeth-grinding angst that most dedicated viewers are desperate to dive into?
Bella Swan is, quite simply, a truly unlikeable character. How she can be the focal point of a series of massively successful books and films, while having almost no redeeming qualities, will forever perplex me. Throughout the course of the film, Bella is consistently abused and mistreated by the men she chooses to involve herself with. But she refuses to learn. In fact, she thrives on this kind of abuse. It's upsetting that the film presents Bella with so many opportunities to bite the dust, and never cashes in. Her androgynous charm is something I never expect to understand, but apparently Edward or Jacob are always on hand to save the day. Topless, most likely.
Edward Cullen is a similarly unpleasant character. He has no discernible personality, at all. He speaks with contempt about Shakespeare and makes little attempt to be pleasant to anybody around him. His eyes are glassy and his expression invariably as stone-like as his performance, but he has women across the globe swooning like they've never swooned before. Bizarre. This is a character who, quite literally, takes his emotionally fragile girlfriend into the middle of the woods to end their relationship, and leaves her there. Just how is this a trait that so many people are willing to overlook, in addition to his vanity, selfishness, and complete and utter lack of personality?
The story is willing to leap over a number of gaping plot holes for the sake of keeping things moving. In a scene where Bella is rescued from the forest and brought home by one of Jacob's topless associates, everybody is grateful (even her father, who I suspect was quietly hoping she'd be devoured by mountain goats). "Thanks." Does nobody wonder why there's a topless guy carrying a semi-conscious teenager out of the woods? The half-ounce of logic in my brain telling me not to keep watching had a fairly reasonable argument.
My primary issues with this film revolve around its target audience. This is a film directly targeted at pre-teen and teenage girls. I only wish it realised what it's saying. New Moon's protagonist is a masochist; a girl who thrives on putting herself in abusive relationships with men. When they try to take themselves out of her life, she descends into a mire of self-pity. How, I can't help but think, can this be the kind of character we want young girls to be identifying with? New Moon is so misogynistic in its tone that it's virtually promoting this kind of behaviour. Or is the secondary message that 'men are monsters'? If neither of these are intentional, then it represents severely irresponsible storytelling.
On a lighter note, New Moon is beautifully shot (even if it does appear to have been a little washed out in post-production for the sake of atmosphere). The sweeping shots over the Washington forests are really quite serene. Catch it on Blu-Ray for sure, if you really want to get into it. If you're a girl looking to inflict a lifetime of pain upon yourself under the spell of a heartless beast, Forks is the place to do it.
Without doubt, if you're a fan of the Twilight series, you'll be happy with New Moon. It delivers much of the same as the first chapter. And in spite of my criticisms, I don't doubt that I'll still see the coming third instalment, Eclipse. Can the story redeem itself? Will the characters maybe get a sense of humour? I sort of doubt it, but I'm quietly hoping so. There are two films left to turn it around and make things right.
This is a highly recommended DVD, especially if you haven't seen the stage show.
I purchased this after seeing the show, and it is all I have watched.
The music is haunting and awesome, Colm Wilkinson is a wonderful Jean Val-Jean, and Michael Ball plays a good Marius.
At the end 17 Jean Val-Jeans from around the world come on stage and sing with the cast. It is breathtaking.
For anyone who is unsure about seeing the show, this is a must, and I can guarantee, like m you will watch this dvd over and over again.
Just awesome
Every so often, whether you are a champion procrastinator like me or an avid fan of a well known search engine, you will stumble into an article or a feature detailing someone's favourite films. You may find if you look closer a top ten list of unknown or hidden gems in cinema on top of that. In fact if you search in the correct places you may even find the ever illusive chicken wearing a fez, riding a unicycle video. But that is a different story for a different day altogether. Back onto point, during such searches I came across the film 'Once'. Now at that time three years ago, I had never heard of the film. Had not heard of the plot, not heard of the director and hadn't heard of the cast before. But that all change once I had managed to track down the film and view it...
Once is a small low budget picture, set in Dublin, and is essentially the story of the coming together of two individuals. Those two individuals being Glen Hansard and Markéta Irglová, playing the appropriately named 'Guy' and 'Girl'. I will leave it up to the reader to decide who is who. To continue, these two individuals come together over their love of music. Earlier I had to refrain myself from describing the film as a romantic piece, because ultimately it is more of a musical. In fact to be honest I may be wrong in saying that. As it may be more of an amalgamation of musical and love story, but a musical love story that doesn't necessary take the particular route a viewer may have first envisioned. When the word musical is mentioned, everybody has their own interpretations for what a musical is or should be. Some people think of thick black hair and ducktails, some people may picture the streets of Manhattan and others may think of the vibrant and colourful Cherbourg. Once doesn't follow a musical template established before it, it is itself its own unique being. Indeed, there are performances but there is no choreograph in site. The film takes a natural almost voyeuristic approach to capturing the music. The beginning of the film reflects this straight away, as the audience are shown Glen Hansard busking in the streets before belting out a powerful song with his guitar at night setting the story in motion. It is truly something quite special to behold.
Both Glen Hansard and Markéta Irglová have said that they are musicians first and foremost. However I think they are being incredibly modest with their words. Director John Carney had the tough decision to make when casting the leads. Would he go for outstanding actors that were weak singers? Or would he go for strong singers that were limp actors? In the end John Carney got neither. What he got in the end was something quite fantastic. He got a special pair of musicians, but he also got a special pair of actors. Both Glen Hansard and Markéta Irglová have since said they have they have no real continued interest in acting in the future, but that is perfectly okay, as we were privileged enough to be given Once as a gift.
Everyone should give Once a try. I keep repeating myself hear, but Once is a special, special film. A film with a great deal of heart; it is something which we often don't get to see coming out of the multimillion pound monolithic Hollywood conveyor belt. Both the DVD and the Blu-Ray have fallen nicely into the affordable blind buy category for many. So don't hesitate if you see the cover stare you in the face online, or in the high street to pick it up and make a purchase. It is a film that should be seen, even if it is only Once....
Although it's not as gripping as Grey's Anatomy, Private practice works as a spin off because Grey's fans are already enamoured with the main character- Ms Addison Shepard. We already know that she has come out of a failed relationship and we cried with her when she devastatingly found out that she couldn't have children.
Therefore in LA, we are more than intrigued and quite flabbergasted when she is tempted by a local doctor of alternative medicine, despite his similar CV to her ex husband AKA Seattle Grace's very own Mr Mc Dreamy!
Private Practice itself is quite a departure from its parent show; less characters to focus on and hardly any blood and gore but somehow it's got the formula that works. Characters with humanity that we feel we know by the end of the first 45 minutes. I for one am hooked and long may the series continue!
Unable to cope with her ex husband's new relationship, Addison Shepard decides to up sticks from Seattle (Grey's Anatomy)and find herself in Los Angeles. On finding that her best friend Naiomi is going through a painful divorce, she decides to remain in LA permanently to support her, ends up working in Naiomi's wellness centre and kissing a few cute doctors along the way!
Ok you thought big brother was the business and then comes along Ed tv! A very good film played by the luscious Matthew McConaughey. At times you can guess what is coming next but doesn't every film do that! Yes this was released sometime ago but it's the first time I have seen it and felt the need to say how good it was. Directed by one of the 'Waltons' Ron Howard it is a feel good film with some slap and stick included! Both a chick flick and one for the men. Fame isn't for everyone and is it for him? Watch the film you wont be disappointed.
The film is fantastic, Gerard Butler plays the role really well, he isn't an evil man but he wants revenge for his wife and daughter and quite rightly so, and plots brilliantly against the legal system to get his revenge.
The film also has a real twist in it but you must buy it and watch it to find out what that twist is. Jamie fox is the prosecutor but soon enough becomes a target himself.
Really well writen storyline and action packed, a great film. You shall enjoy.
I loved this movie, didn't get much in the way of hype and probably all the better for it.
The premise sounds a bit weak and maybe that it's a monster movie - I guess it is of sorts but more about the monster within than the ones outside trying to get you!
Some strong performances from a mostly unknown cast.
The FX aren't amazing but aren't shoddy either, thankfully this came out before everything had to be 3D or they might have messed with it!
Also there is a great ending that'll have you shouting 'nooooooooooooooooo' at the TV!
Worth a purchase I'd say.
A stunning film, beautifully shot, very sweet and sincere, bound to put a smile on any face.
See Paul Walker in an unusually emotional role as a guy on death roll for a 'last chance' crime gone horribly wrong. This film is all about deception, misconception, and whether reality and truth even exist. Whilst the film has a slow feel to it, the underlying suspense makes it an enjoyable watch, certainly with Paul Walker outside of his comfort zone roles, doing justice to a movie which he should get mention for once people get over his type-casting.
My sister's keeper is such a tearjerking film, but definitely worth a watch! It is such a sad but beautiful storyline putting both Anna in such a horrible situation! Watch this and you will find it hard to keep your eyes dry as you see Anna fighting for the rights to her own body, though basically if she does not carry on donating to her sister, she could put her sister's life at risk!
well worth a watch
Avatar for me was wonderful to watch, it's a brilliant film and well acted out by the actors/actresses, stunning scenery too and the film has so much action in it that you are left wanting more, and seeing what happens next as the film goes on. I watch this in two halves as I can't watch it all at once but it's one of my top films of all time :)
It is an action packed comedy, fulfilled with great humour of light hearted gags. Owen Wilson at his best, non-stop laughs from start to finish. I'm awaiting a sequel; although I doubt you'd top this!!!
I thought the film was good, the special effects were outstanding and the acting was superb. It was a slow start though.
Positives were the special effects, acting and the good looking main actor.
Negatives were I didn't like the ending, I thought it could have ended better, possibly with the two main characters getting married or something, anything other than what it was.
Also the story never really explained why they wanted the rock and the importance of it, which was important to the whole story line.
Overall Well worth watching, but overrated I think.
This site uses cookies.
More details in our privacy policy