Film Review: (500) DAYS OF SUMMER (2009)

Director: Marc Webb
Running time: 92 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12

UK release date: 2nd September 2009

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 26th September 2009.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

Deep down I’m a bit of a romantic that’s been burned a time or several and so it was nice to find a film like this. It’s not you’re usual ‘boy meets girl – they fall in love and live happily ever after’ type of tale, no, it’s much more realistic than that… but with a large dose of quirkiness thrown in. I can’t say it’s my favourite romantic film, but it would probably make a top ten. But I digress, here’s a bit about the plot first.

Tom Hansen is working for a greetings card company when Summer Finn starts to work there. He is, of course, attracted to her but is afraid to make the first move. His friends, McKenzie and Paul, persuade him to talk to her at a karaoke night and one thing leads to another. She tells him that she does not want a boyfriend and he agrees to just keep it light. But as time passes, it’s clear that Tom is struggling not knowing where he is with her. He even asks advice from his street-wise little sister, Rachel. It seems the relationship is doomed when Summer leaves her job, and also Tom. He is heartbroken, but they are destined to meet again… more than once.

The story is told in a rather unusual way; we start near the end of the 500 days and then jump back to the beginning. This continues throughout the film which meant the audience has to keep watching or they could get easily lost. I found it a different and refreshing way to put the narrative on the screen. Decent performances all round, so honourable mentions go to; Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Tom Hansen, Zooey Deschanel as Summer Finn, Geoffrey Arend as McKenzie, Chloe Moretz as Rachel Hansen and Matthew Gray Gubler as Paul.

There are a lot of comparisons I can draw with other films; for instance, the character of Summer reminded me very much of Holly Golightly from Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961). There is a musical number performed in the street featuring Tom that could be from any musical you could name. At the end of the day I found it a very entertaining film, although Summer was a little irritating at times. But forgiving that, it’s pretty much recommended.

My score: 7.9/10

LINKS:
IMDb Site: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1022603/
Official Site: http://www.foxsearchlight.com/500daysofsummer/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi2234581785/

Film Review: THE HANGOVER (2009)

Director: Todd Phillips
Running time: 96 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

UK release date: 12th June 2009

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 26th September 2009.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I can’t exactly remember who recommended this on to me, maybe I was drugged, but I can’t say I was overly impressed. I’m not a huge fan of American comedies anyway (sorry guys, I just don’t get your sense of humour) so I guess that wasn’t the best start. I found many things I didn’t like about ‘The Hangover’, but it’s not all bad, there were one or two good things. But more of that later, here’s a short synopsis first.

Doug is getting married and, as is the tradition, he and his friends, Phil, Stu and the bride’s brother, Alan are off on a bachelor party in Las Vegas. The evening starts off well with impromptu drinks on the roof of Caesar’s Palace, but from then on it gets kind of messed up. Phil, Stu and Alan wake up the following morning in their hotel room. There is no sign of Doug and there’s a tiger in the bathroom. They also find a baby in a closet. It’s now a race against time to piece together the events of the previous evening so they can find Doug and get him to the wedding. On the way we discover, amongst other things, that they stole a police car, Stu got married to a ‘dancer’ called Jade and a Chinese man called Mr Chow is after them for some reason. Throw in an appearance from Mike Tyson and that’s your movie folks! Do they ever find Doug?... What do you think?... I guess it’s not too hard to figure out.

Unfortunately a lot of comedy filmmakers decide to make the characters so much larger than life that they just become gross parodies of themselves. For example, the character Phil is a teacher who is married with a son. He steals money from the kids in his class to finance his trip to Vegas. To me that’s reprehensible behaviour, but to some people that’s just funny. So, I found the humour in this film was pretty well wide of the mark to put it mildly.

OK, so what was good about it? I thought the cameo by Heather Graham as Jade was good and I found Ken Jeong as Mr. Chow very funny. Other than that there’s not much to recommend, the performances of the main cast were ok but the loathsome characters and the mindless plot just left me cold. I know there are a lot of people out there that may disagree with me on this one, but not recommended IMO.

My score: 5.3/10

LINKS:
IMDb Site: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1119646/
Official Site: http://hangovermovie.warnerbros.com/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi2105934361/

Gig Review: MIKE PETERS at the The Gassienda (Keighley) 23rd September 2010

Mike Peters is most noted for being the lead singer of The Alarm, the 80’s anthemic rock band (that’s how I always saw them anyway). Here he’s just one man with an acoustic guitar, a harmonica and one heck of a lot of great tunes! Not to everyone’s taste, I’ll admit, but I for one enjoyed his perfromance very much.

I can’t claim to know all the songs he played by any stretch of the imagination, but there were several there that I did recall from a long time ago… in a galaxy far, far away… OK, too far, I dial it back a bit. Of course he played the two biggest hits I remember for the Alarm, ‘68 Guns’ and ‘Where Were You Hiding When The Storm Broke’, but it was the other songs that made it a memorable perfromance. Also, The Gassienda is quite an intimate venue, it only holds about 200, and I could see he was a little nervous when he came on stage. Things soon warmed up when he got the first couple of songs out and by the end for the night the room was rocking and I could see he was very much enjoying himself.

I will be definitely looking up some of his back catelog and putting them on the old mp3 player. Would I see him again? I think the answer would have to be a resounding YES. Although I don’t see him coming to Keighley too often… but I’d love to be proven wrong here.

My score: 8.5/10

Official site: http://www.thealarm.com/directaction/index.html

Film Review: BOTTLE SHOCK (2008)

Co-writer/Director: Randall Miller
Running time: 105 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12

UK release date: 28th March 2009

Watched on Sky+ Monday 20th September 2010.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

There have been one or two films about wine over the years, but very few about American wine. This independent film, I guess, looks to cash in on the critical success of the very enjoyable Sideways (2004). It is based on true events, but unfortunately it doesn’t quite hit the mark, for me at least. But more of that later.

This film tells the story of how, in 1976, Californian wines from the Napa valley became internationally acceptable. It all came about because a rather stuck-up wine expert, based in Paris, called Steven Spurrier decided to broaden his horizons and arrange a blind tasting of French and American wines. We then learn about the lives of those making the wine. In particular vineyard owner Jim Barrett and his son Bo, and some of the people they employ, Gustavo Brambila and Sam Fulton. Mr Spurrier goes to the Napa Valley and tastes all of the wines on offer. He makes a list of the best of them and samples are shipped to France for the tasting. And this is where history is made.

You would think, from my very short synopsis that the plot would concentrate on the Steven Spurrier character, but no. The vast majority of the film is taken up with the relationships between Jim, Bo, Sam and Gustavo. Although, yes, that part of the story was interesting up to a point, the important events were kind of just thrown in here and there. This made for quite a disjointed film that I found a little difficult to watch. Having said that the cinematography was spot on, some great use of the scenery and the light. Nobody particularly stood out, for me as far as performances go, though Alan Rickman was pretty good as Steven Spurrier. Honourable mentions go to Bill Pullman as Jim Barrett, Chris Pine as Bo Barrett, Rachael Taylor as Sam Fulton and Freddy Rodríguez as Gustavo Brambila.

Over all I didn’t warm to the characters in this film as much as I though I would and that made it kind of disappointing for me. The cinematography was good but the plot needed to be refined a lot more. It’s not a great film, but not a bad one either. I won’t be watching it again in a hurry, but if you’re not averse to downing a bottle or two and you love the Napa Valley then I guess it’s recommended. Otherwise, maybe give it a miss.

My score: 6.1/10

LINKS:
IMDb Site: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0914797/
Official Site: http://www.bottleshockmovie.com/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi232587545/

Film Review: HARRY BROWN (2009)

Director: Daniel Barber
Running time: 99 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 18

UK release date: 11th November 2009

Watched on DVD Sunday 19th September 2010.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I have always been a fan of the work of Michael Caine and I unfortunately missed this one when it came out. This film described has as many things, ‘Death Wish for geriatrics’ was one of my favourites. What it is is a revenge thriller with some vigilantaeism thrown in for good measure. But more of that later, here’s a short synopsis first.

Harry Brown is an ex marine; he lives on a high-rise estate in London. His wife has recently died and he has just one friend, Leonard, left on the estate. There is a lot of trouble with teenagers using drugs and committing crimes around the place and the police seem incapable of doing anything about it. Eventually Leonard decides he has had enough and confronts some of the youths. Unfortunately this does not go well and he ends up being killed. The police, in the guise of D.I. Alice Frampton and D.S. Terry Hicock call on Harry to break the news. The investigation gets bogged down in red tape and Harry decides it’s time to take action. Using his military training, he begins to take revenge on those who murdered his friend.

Now, I have heard that the level of violence depicted in this film is too high. To me it’s about right. The level of violence used by Harry Brown is entirely justifiable in my opinion. If anything, the character is very restrained compared to the low-life’s he’s up against. But I digress, great performances all round, particularly from Michael Caine as Harry Brown, I thought he was outstanding. Honourable mentions must also go to; Emily Mortimer as D.I. Alice Frampton, Charlie Creed-Miles as D.S. Terry Hicock and David Bradley as Leonard Attwell.

I found this film very engrossing; I felt for Harry’s character and could sense the frustration of Alice. The bad guys were very intimidating as well which added to the tension. A very well made film with some great performances, if slightly too violent for some. Over all, recommended.

My score: 8.2/10

LINKS:
IMDb Site: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1289406/
Official Site: http://www.harrybrownthemovie.co.uk/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi4084073497/

Film Review: X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (2009)

Director: Gavin Hood
Running time: 107 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12

UK release date: 29th April 2009

Watched on DVD Sunday 19th September 2010.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I have quite enjoyed all of the X-Men films, I can’t say I was a fan of the comic books, but I do remember the animated TV shows. So I was intrigued to see the back story of one of the most memorable characters from the films. I can’t say I was overly impressed, but I think that is due to the limitations the filmmakers were working under. But more of that later, here’s a short synopsis first.

We begin with Logan as a young boy discovering that he has a mutation, at this time his claws are bone. He and his brother, Victor, escape after Logan murders his father and they fight side by side all through the American Civil War, World War I, World War II and Vietnam. Yes, they are both indestructible. We come to the present day and the pair is recruited to a special team run by Col. William Stryker, a shady character to say the least. After one particular mission where Victor goes too far, Logan turns his back on the team and goes to live in Canada. He lives a simple live with the love of his life, Kayla. Six years later Victor re-appears and starts murdering the remaining members of the team. He eventually comes after Logan and ends up killing Kayla. Swearing vengeance, Logan is approached by Stryker who says he can give him the tools to beat Victor. Logan agrees and his body is infused with the rare metal alloy called adamantium. Now with his metal claws Logan is turned on by Stryker and is on the run. He eventually discovers exactly what Stryker has been doing and it’s not good news for mutants. I’ll leave it there, don’t want to give the ending away.

This film was OK, the effects and stunts were very well done but it did suffer from two problems. First of all I felt they tried to fit too much into the plot which meant that many things were only half explained, or the audience was left to fill in some gaping plot holes. The second problem was the fact that it only had a 12A certificate here in the UK. This meant the level of violence was very limited and this was to the determent of the film in my opinion. There’s lots of talk on the DVD about Wolverine being more ‘Bad-Ass’ in this film, but you just didn’t see it on the screen. If it had been a 15 certificate I’m sure it would have been a very different movie.

Having said that, the performances all round were pretty good, so honourable mentions go to Hugh Jackman as Logan / Wolverine, Liev Schreiber as Victor Creed, Danny Huston as Col. William Stryker and Lynn Collins as Kayla Silverfox.

Over all, it’s a pretty entertaining film despite the rather confusing plot. Some great action sequences and all the CGI bells and whistles we’ve come to expect from these films. If you’re a fan of the X-Men films then it’s recommended, otherwise, maybe not.

My score: 5.6/10

LINKS:
IMDb Site: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0458525/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi520356633/

Film Review: CIRQUE DU FREAK: THE VAMPIRE’S ASSISTANT (2009)

Co-writer/Director: Paul Weitz
Running time: 105 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12

UK release date: 23rd October 2009

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 18th September 2010.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

Based on a series of books by Darren Shan, this film received mixed reviews when it was released almost a year ago. I have not read the books, so I cannot make any comparisons there, but I have read that people that have read the books were somewhat disappointed with this film. I’ll give you a brief synopsis before I tell you what I think.

Best friends, Darren and Steve go to see a Freak Show after a mysterious car drops a flyer by them in the street. There they see many fabulous acts, including Mr. Tall, Evra the Snake Boy, Madame Truska and last but not least, Larten Crepsley, who Steve believes to be a vampire. Darren is fascinated by the fantastic spider that appeared on stage with Crepsley, and goes to his changing room to kidnap it. Taking the spider to school, Steve finds it and is bitten by it. Darren goes to Crepsley and asks for his help, but he will only cure Steve if Darren is made a half-vampire and becomes his assistant. Darren eventually agrees and Steve is saved. Unfortunately, it means that Darren must now leave his friends and family and join the Freak Show. Throw in a war between two different factions of vampires and the mysterious Mr Tiny and that’s the bare bones of the film.

Now, given the success of the Harry Potter films I can see what the studio were after here, unfortunately it didn’t work too well. I thought the story was a little too complicated and all the way through so much dialogue was wasted explaining what was going on. It is visually very well made, but this didn’t make up for a poor script. Decent performances from all of the main cast, so honourable mentions go to; John C. Reilly as Larten Crepsley, Chris Massoglia as Darren Shan, Josh Hutcherson as Steve, Jessica Carlson as Rebecca, Michael Cerveris as Mr Tiny and Ken Watanabe as Mr Tall. Also nice cameos from Salma Hayek as Madame Truska and Willem Dafoe as Gavner Purl.

It did have its moments and the ending was quite good, but this didn’t make up for a rather uneven and over-complicated plot. I believe it didn’t do all that well at the Box-Office and I can see why. It’s not a great movie at the end of the day, it’s a bit too long and the teenagers will get bored quite quickly. Unfortunately, not recommended.

My score: 5.4/10

LINKS:
IMDb Site: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0450405/
Official Site: Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant - Official Site
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/screenplay/vi828178969/

Film Review: ANAMORPH (2007)

Co-writer/Director: Henry Miller
Running time: 99 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Netherlands release date: 5th August 2008

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 12th September 2010.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

If we look up the word ‘Anamorphosis’, from which the title of this film was derived, we get the following definition:

Anamorphosis is a distorted projection or perspective requiring the viewer to use special devices or occupy a specific vantage point to reconstitute the image. “Ana – morphosis” comes from the Greek words meaning “formed again.” (Source: Wikipedia)

So it’s basically a piece of artwork that is painted in such a way that if viewed from a particular point it will make a complete picture. Unfortunately, the filmmakers didn’t get the complete picture when putting this rather poor effort together.

A troubled cop, Stan Aubray, is investigating a series of murders that are thought to be copy-cats of a killer called “Uncle Eddie” whose case he investigated and was thought to have been killed five years previous. He is helped by his partner, Carl Uffner and art expert, Blair Collet. The art expert is needed because the killer places all of his victims in poses that depict works of art. I really can’t say much more about this one, that is the basic premise of the movie.

As I said earlier I found this a rather poor effort. I usually like the work of Willem Dafoe, but he must have seen something in the script we didn’t see on the screen, because it is very poor. The pacing is way too slow and the dialogue, with great long pauses, is pretty dire. I did like the performance of Peter Stormare as Blair Collet; he was the one bright point in this movie. I will give honourable mentions to Willem Dafoe as Stan Aubray and Scott Speedman as Carl Uffner just for making the effort and turning up to make it.

I usually enjoy a good serial killer movie, but this one is certainly not going to feature in any of my end of year awards… unless I do a top ten worst of the year! Over all, very poor and definitely NOT recommended.

My score: 3.7/10

LINKS:
IMDb Site: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0497323/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdblink/vi4120773657/

Film Review: THE INVENTION OF LYING (2009)

Writer/Directors: Ricky Gervais & Matthew Robinson
Running time: 96 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12

UK release date: 2nd October 2009

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 12th September 2010.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I remember last year when this came out it was a bit of a flop in theatres and wasn’t well received by several critics. Now I’m not a great fan of some of the work Ricky Gervais, however, there is a certain something about it that keeps me watching what he produces on the screen. And so we come to this film. A gentle comedy, of course, written and produced in the unmistakeable Gervais fashion. Here’s a little about the plot before I tell you what I think of it.

In a world where everyone is honest and nobody tells a lie, in fact they don’t even have a word for it, in this world Mark Bellison is an unsuccessful screenwriter. When we first meet him he is on a date with Anna McDoogles, a girl he has loved from afar for a long time. Things don’t go too well, she is way out of his league and she tells him she won’t be seeing him again. To add insult to injury, the following day he is sacked from his job. His landlord wants the rent and he goes to the bank to get some money out. This is when he discovers he can lie! He pays his rent and then goes out to test his new-found talent. His two friends Frank and Greg tag along and they go on a bit of a spree. Mark makes up a story and writes it up as the best screenplay ever written. This gets him his job back, much to the annoyance of his colleagues Brad Kessler and Shelley, who both think they’re better than him. He contacts Anna again and she agrees to go out on another date with him but he is called to see his dying mother in hospital. Wanting to comfort her, he makes up a story about a wonderful afterlife and, once this gets out, this is where life gets just a little bit more complicated for Mark! And I’ll leave it here.

This is a nice gentle comedy with some nice moments in it. No, it’s not the funniest thing I’ve ever seen, but I did find it quite entertaining. I particularly liked the way the advertising was done; when you can’t lie it makes it kind of interesting! Decent performances all round, so honourable mentions go to Ricky Gervais as Mark Bellison, Jennifer Garner as Anna McDoogles, Jonah Hill as Frank, Louis C.K. as Greg, Rob Lowe as Brad Kessler and Tina Fey as Shelley. There were also some nice cameos from Christopher Guest, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Edward Norton.

I found the world this film inhabits quite interesting at first, but about two thirds of the way through it got a little annoying. Having said that, I did like the understated way the story was portrayed although I did find the ending a little predictable. So over all quite an entertaining film with some nice moments. I quite enjoyed it: Recommended.

My score: 6.8/10

LINKS:
IMDb Site: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1058017/
Official Site: http://the-invention-of-lying.warnerbros.com/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi2028667417/

Film Review: BLACKOUT (2007)

Director: Rigoberto Castañeda
Running time: 82 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 18

German release date: 9th February 2008 (European Film Market)

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 5th September 2010.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I had heard nothing about this film before it came up in the TV listings. I hadn’t even seen it on the shelves of my local DVD store. I read the write-up on the TV and it looked interesting and so I decided to watch it. Not the best film of its type, but still quite a good watch, but more of that later, here’s a brief synopsis.

Three people board an elevator in an old apartment building. It is a holiday weekend and most of the residents have gone away. The elevator rises past the ninth floor and then a power outage leaves it stuck between nine and ten. As time passes we learn about the three occupants. Karl is a surgeon; he has a young daughter and is grieving for his wife who had died tragically. Claudia is asthmatic, a student who is worried about her grandmother who has a terminal illness. Tommy, who has bruised knuckles has come from his girlfriend, Francesca’s house and is in a hurry. They do all the usual things, press the alarm button, open the doors and shout, but to no avail. We are told in flashback the events that led these three to be on this elevator and it makes for some interesting revelations, especially when we discover one particularly gruesome secret that makes one of them very dangerous. But, of course, I’m not going to give that away, so I’ll leave it here.

This is quite a tense claustrophobic drama that unfolds into an exciting thriller in the end. I like the way the back-stories of the three main characters slowly unfold, which adds to the tension. Decent performances from the entire main cast, so honourable mentions go to Amber Tamblyn as Claudia, Aidan Gillen as Karl, Armie Hammer as Tommy and Katie Stuart as Francesca.

This version has a running time of only 82 minutes which, I felt, was just right. Any longer and I think I may have got bored. As I said at the beginning, it’s not the best film of its type, but having said that, I did find it quite entertaining and pretty gruesome in places. So, it’s not one for the feint hearted, but quite an interesting film none the less. Recommended.

My score: 6.3/10

LINKS:
IMDb Site: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0844666/