The Kings of the Summer was one of the nicest surprised of 2013, a no… MoreThe Kings of the Summer was one of the nicest surprised of 2013, a no hype little independent that came from no where. It's in good company, as there is always that little gem of a film that takes everyone by surprise that comes around every so often, that doesn't fit in any particular category, time or place and is just what it is. I love it for that alone. It's pure escapism, filmed beautifully and with great characters. The acting is strong, as is the script and humor. I haven't been a teenage boy for some time but there are certain things about adolescence that you never forget and they got pretty much everything regarding that right. It's nice to see an alternative to the 'frat' style youth film, one that represents the majority and one that doesn't rely on misconceptions and false realities. I give it five stars because I loved and also because I just can't fault it.
Japon's visual style is stunning and apt for the mood of the story.… MoreJapon's visual style is stunning and apt for the mood of the story. The story is strong and well conceived but as a tribute to Tarkovsky, it doesn't quite work. Imagine if Harold and Maude wasn't a comedy, imagine how grim that sounds and times by a hundred. Ok, so 'that scene' aside, there is a lot to relish here, the near suicide scene and the last 10 minutes of the film are absolutely breathtaking and redeem it somewhat, but the reference to it being a film (the scene with the builders/demolishers) was a step in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned and after watching an interview with Magdalena Flores, I'm starting to wonder if she was actually tricked into the role which doesn't sit well with me either. Still, like Lars Von Trier once said, "a film should be like a stone in your shoe" - and this is a particularly sharp one. I'm being as generous as I feel I can be.
The Woman in Black is directed beautifully by James Watkins who I have… MoreThe Woman in Black is directed beautifully by James Watkins who I have to say has done really well considering this is only his second feature film. The cinematography, set, props, costume etc are fantastic and really make the film. The acting is not so great though, Roger Allam and Janet McTeer are good in their supporting roles but I'm afraid this film only backs up my opinions regarding Daniel Radcliffe's acting skills - he hasn't got any. Shame really, as this film obviously used his big name and his 'What's he going to do after Potter' status to its advantage but it would have been so much better if another actor had played the part in my opinion. The big problem I have is that the scares got a bit cheap and a bit too frequent to really play on the suspense which I thought it lacked. It's only really big scare was stolen from the far scarier, superior and far more suspenseful Gin gwai (The Eye).
Lucas Belvaux does melodrama better than he does comedy, that's for… MoreLucas Belvaux does melodrama better than he does comedy, that's for sure but he also does Thriller better and that's probably what he should have stuck to. Apart from showing the world how clever he is when it comes to continuity, I'm not sure what the overall point of Trilogy is? This is a good film but after watching the second installment it's fairly frustrating to watch loads of the same footage for the second and in some cases third time. This detracts hugely from what is a good film. Clever - yes, entertaining - not always.
The whole is greater than its parts but the second installment of… MoreThe whole is greater than its parts but the second installment of Lucas Belvaux's trilogy, An Amazing Couple, is not very good at all compered to the first and third films. The first film is the 'thriller' and this film is the 'comedy' but unfortunately, it's not very funny. Sure, Belvaux has interweaved the films very skillfully but An Amazing Couple really only belittles the first installment and adds nothing of real value to the story as a whole apart from bridging the gap between one and three.
On the run is my favourite of Lucas Belvaux's trilogy. It's a decent… MoreOn the run is my favourite of Lucas Belvaux's trilogy. It's a decent thriller full of suspense and intrigue and I looked forward to seeing how the story would interweave with the other two films. The ending was brilliant, not to everyone's taste but I thought it was very brave and unexpected.
Life in a day is Koyaanisqatsi for the YouTube generation. The main… MoreLife in a day is Koyaanisqatsi for the YouTube generation. The main difference between Life in a day and the qatsi trilogy though is that Life in a day is more groundbreaking. All the footage featured took place in one day, so everything you see is more or less taking place simultaneously around the world. That is an awesome concept. The other thing that holds Life in a day higher than the qatsi trilogy and other films of its ilk, is that it is more human. There is human involvement, this is where the YouTube element comes in and is probably the best way I have seen the Internet used in a very long time. Life in a day is funny, touching, infuriating at times, tragic and real. It also feels unifying and quite humbling at times. It deserves to be seen on the big screen too, as some of the footage is quite amazing. This isn't just a groundbreaking film though, this is an important historical document that I believe will be talked about for years to come. I know I'll be watching it again, maybe at decade-long intervals and maybe one day my children and then my grandchildren will watch it in the class-room. I kid you not, it's that important and that inspirational. Joe Walker should give himself a big pat on the back for the monumental task of editing tens of thousands of hours of footage into just 90 mins, he kept out all the show offs and unfunny entries too thankfully, the only thing I was really worried about. An amazing film, highly recommended!
I hated this film immensely. The characters are very unlikable, I… MoreI hated this film immensely. The characters are very unlikable, I guess they're meant to be but without a protagonist or anyone to get behind it becomes a tiresome wait for the end credits. I know it is unfair to compere someone to their parents when they're parents were so successful but I'm going to anyway because I really think Nick Cassavetes is cashing in on the family name. He's roped in all his Dad's mates for starters - all are horrible in his films because he can't direct (or write) for toffee. The direction on this film is horrible. I think Ben Foster probably came out best in this mess but over acting is at least acting. If I could unwatch any film it would be this one. No redeeming features. Don't get me started on Sharon Stones fat suit...
I went to college with Crispian Mills and I didn't like him. I didn't… MoreI went to college with Crispian Mills and I didn't like him. I didn't like his bloody Kula Shaker either but it does seem like he's finally found his calling. With a little help that is. There is quality within the film, the idea was sound and the production looks beautiful - every composition is fantastic and the classic film references suggest that everyone involved knew their stuff. It's just so badly written. Apparently it was meant to be a short film and they decided to extend it. It really shows unfortunately and takes a lot away from all the good elements of the overall film. The 'hip-hop gangster rap' scene knocked a couple of stars off on its own! Oh, and Sheridan Smith is not in it like flixster say she is.
Short Cuts has quite a cast. Of course it does though, it's a Robert… MoreShort Cuts has quite a cast. Of course it does though, it's a Robert Altman film and it's based on collected short stories (and one poem) by American classic, Raymond Carver. They must have been climbing over themselves to be in this film. It is essentially, an actors film. Thing is, the performances aren't very good. It hasn't passed the test of time as it should have. This film is still celebrated but I can't see why. Altman, one of the biggest hit & Miss directors of all time, had good intentions with this experiment but it just didn't work. The film is 20 years too late, aesthetically and in mood, and cast for that matter. It's a product of that horrible late 80's/early 90's style (or lack of style I should say) where clothes, hair, acting etc are just drab and unexciting. Hollywood churned out some real stinkers between 88 and 94, moody, shallow, self-centered and self-important nonsense. I challenge anyone to say they enjoyed this film more the second time round. The length is totally unjustified, the direction and performances are totally self-indulgent and unconvincing. It has it's moments but at over three hours long you'd expect so.