Thursday 27 June 2013

Amélie (2001)

IMDb Top 250 Ranking - #68

Many people will have heard of this film and many people have probably already seen it, so you might be wondering why I would bother to write a review on it to begin with. (Well, aside from my obligations toward “The Challenge” that is). My only excuse is that with regards to Amélie, I am late to the game. I have never seen this film and frankly I was always reluctant to. You see I’m not really one for foreign subtitled films and I know that makes me quite a bad “Film-Freak” but I’m learning from my past indiscretions. In fact Amélie has made me an outright convert for them. And if you haven’t been such a fan of them yourself than allow me to do you a favour, because this film is pure perfection and if you don’t see it then you will miss out on something quite important (don’t worry, the world isn't going to end or anything. Or, well I mean…it could. And all because you didn't watch Amélie, tut-tut. Shame on you!).

I was first convinced to give it a go when my seminar tutor showed us a scene from the film (one of the first scenes of the film where we are introduced to a grown-up Amélie and her work colleagues) and was discussing how films can subvert conventional narratives to create something new. This is certainly something this film does. I was really quite intrigued by the structure of the film and as my classmates discussed Amélie I quietly sat in wonderment that I had never given the film a chance. It was kind of an epiphany, which might seem clichéd or trivial (regarding the fact that I had an epiphany about a film, of all things) but nevertheless it happened and you can stop rolling your eyes, thank you very much! So anyway, months passed and I still hadn't seen the film despite my promise that I would. You know, life gets in the way. You have friends to socialise with and university assignments to write and submit. But enough with the life story, I have seen it now and as you can probably tell, it had quite an effect upon me.

So let’s begin, shall we?

The actual story is a simple one in the plain light of day, yet it is told in such a fabulous and complex way that you get caught up in the many narratives that evolve from Amélie’s tale. Amélie is a quiet girl living a life of seclusion in her one bedroom flat with a bunch of neighbours whose lives she finds herself entangled in rather unwittingly. It is because of this that many of our charming subplots are borne and as Amélie endeavours to improve these lives and the lives of her co-workers she finds herself caught up in a romantic journey which will have you believing in true love. I would defy even the biggest cynic to come away from this movie without that fluttery little feeling making itself known in your stomach. Don’t get me wrong though, this film doesn't portray love as something utterly perfect. There is no naiveté in the narrative, though there might be some in its main character played by the almost-too-perfect-to-be-real Audrey Tatou. 

This is one of the last scenes of the movie and personally one of my favourites. This scene has such an understated perfection to it which might be down to how these characters interact once they finally come face-to-face.  
As the story plays out we learn about our characters through an uninvolved thirty-party narrator, who introduces each character with personal details along with their likes and dislikes. This narrative construct is not only hugely distinctive but also helps to endear us to each character and is an apt way of knitting together various subplots which each add an element to this story that leads to its charming conclusion and feels like a necessary lesson in life. What these lessons might be is up to the individual, though I think taking advantage of life is a theme inherent in this quirky film.

Aside from its unique narrative form Amélie also boasts quite a distinctive visual quality, which is perhaps a product of the narrative. Warm colours and vibrant backgrounds adorn this films setting and elevate the atmosphere to parallel its charming protagonist. The films aesthetic style has a timelessness about it reminiscent of the old-black-and-white-classics that remind you of grandparents who bemoan modern cinema and talk about the good ol’ days “back when movies were good and proper!”. I can’t quite explain why I would make that analogy but it seems to fit with what I thought of the films visual quality from that gorgeous bob that Tatou sports to the understated glamour of her simple apartment and belongings. Something about this film just screams “classic”, and I’m not just saying that due to hindsight. I swear!

That feeling of timelessness might also be derived by the films lead character Amélie who is played by a perfectly cast Audrey Tatou (interestingly the role was written for English actress Emily Watson, despite the fact that she speaks not a word of French. Well, with all due respect to Miss Watson, I'm glad she rejected it and Tatou stepped into the revered shoes of this wonderful character). Tatou brings this shy and lonely figure to life with what seems like an effortless charm and captures what it is to live life on the side-lines, more of an observer than a participant, yet as her courage and willingness to experience life becomes more apparent in the film so does Tatou’s flare and quiet fire. I won’t keep going on because at this point I think I've made my point about this film and its characters. That point being that here the stars have aligned and brought us what I think is perfection in film form. If you don’t believe me then give it a go yourself. I promise you, you will not regret this decision.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? Qui, c’est fantastique. A film ramblers star rating? 


That’s it for now folks…



Monday 24 June 2013

Man of Steel (2013)


Man of Steel is undoubtedly the movie every person has been waiting for since we learned of its conception from producer Christopher Nolan (director of the Christian Bale starring Batman series) and director Zack Snyder (the guy behind Watchmen, 300 and Sucker Punch). If you know anything of these two it’s that they know how to make an excellent and action-packed feature, which is what we have in Man of Steel. Man of Steel has been highly anticipated by a plethora of individuals, all with a varying degree of insight into the importance of this feature and the DC universe. A lot of hopes have been hinging on the success of this feature so that Marvel doesn’t hold the crown for superhero awesomeness in film. The main reason being that every successful enterprise needs a little bit of good-natured rivalry so that it can stay on top of its game and here DC have accomplished this task. Competition is healthy, especially in the film business, because it prevents either from becoming stale and means that we viewers get the best of what both Marvel and DC have to offer. But enough with the logistics behind why this Superman franchise had to succeed (if you would like a more in-depth explanation then click this link HERE), let’s get on to why it did.

The story in Man of Steel is a cohesive one with very little plot-holes for the less DC-crazed of its viewership to get stuck in. The film starts with Kal-El’s (Superman’s Kryptonian name) genesis on the dying planet of Krypton where we learn the story behind his journey to Earth. Jor-El (played by a wizened Russell Crowe) realises that his planets only hope for survival lies within his new-born son and so he sends him (along with a funky gadget that holds all of his planets genetic coding called the codex) to Earth and into the caring and diligent hands of Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha (Diane Lane) Kent. As we watch the newly-christened Clark Kent grow into an awkward teenager struggling with his superior abilities we learn more about his reasons for remaining anonymous on the planet Earth. However this anonymity cannot last when Kent meets Lois Lane (played by plucky and head-strong Amy Adams) and reveals his superior abilities to her, along with the aircraft that once belonged to his now-deceased father Jor-El. Now that Lois knows that life exists beyond the human race she is determined to reveal this secret and tracks Clark down until finally she turns up at the farm where he was raised. As you can guess, however, Clark manages to convince Lois that revealing his existence is not something Earth is ready for, and the two form a quick alliance that develops as the film progresses.


Michael Shannon is excellent as the crazed General Zod yet even he manages to imbue the maniacal character with some purpose and if it weren't for the whole wanting to commit genocide thing then you might even feel sorry for the guy. As it is genocide is just a hurdle many can't make... Better luck next time pal (well, actually...maybe not!) 
The bad-guy in this stylish set soon makes himself known and when General Zod (Michael Shannon) demands that Superman give himself up to the only surviving members of the Kryptonian race Superman selflessly does so, thinking that his surrender will ensure the safety of his beloved Earth. This quickly proves to be a ruse however and Superman and Lois find themselves in a battle to save the planet and prevent General Zod from obtaining the codex and destroying the human race so that he might replace them with the Kryptonian one. This results in a series of action-packed fight sequences within the film which were seriously impressive, if not a little overwhelming in their frequency. If I could say one thing about the film then it would be that I would have preferred an emphasis to be placed on the relationship Superman has and forms with various characters, particularly Lois’. However when it is shown by Snyder it is portrayed very believably by the two actors whose sizzling onscreen chemistry was a highlight of the film. But back to the action sequences for a moment – these were quite extraordinary in their destructive force and must have taken a remarkable amount of CGI to achieve. Just picture for a moment a crumbling Metropolis with barely a single building left standing and a vast landscape of ruin in the wake of Earth’s battle against the Kryptonian race. It’s quite a vivid image and one which was painstakingly created by the talented makers of this film. To put it plainly the visual quality of this film is, in my opinion, award-worthy and will leave DC fans watering at the mouth for the already eagerly anticipated sequel.

These two played off each other beautifully which makes me very excited for the next in the franchise. Bigger and better things are what I predict...
As for the cast behind this mammoth-like production, all I can say is that I have no complaints. The man in that blue and red suit is the embodiment of the hopeful symbol that is Superman (hey, for those that didn’t know, that’s what the “S” stands for – hope) and any protestations that Henry Cavill makes that he “Just got lucky…” when he was cast in this role are, with all due respect, wrong. Talent earned him this coveted role and rightly so for he brings to it an endearing mask of strength and humility which perfectly capture the duality of playing a character that is superior to the human race he fights to protect and wants to be a part of. Amy Adams as Lois Lane sounds unconvincing on paper (or at least it did to me) but here she proves her worth in this strong-willed role and her intrepid nature is brought to life onscreen by Adams. For those who held similar reservations on this casting choice you need not fear, Adams does justice to the role. The supporting cast is equally as impressive as the main, with convincing turns from the likes of Costner, Crowe and a personal favourite of mine – Laurence Fishburne (Bobby, The Matrix). Each brings these comic-book characters to life with remarkable ease and adds an ounce of esteem to this already respectable production.

All in all Man of Steel is hugely impressive and an excellent addition to what I’m sure will be a lengthy and successful franchise – at least here’s hoping. Though it was a little action-heavy for my liking in parts the film did leave on a nice and highly suggestive emotional note for Clark Kent’s and Lois Lane’s characters, which left me satisfied for their future within the franchise.


To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? Definitely, I’m very excited for the future of this franchise and especially impressed by the actors who brought these larger-than-life characters to life. 
A film ramblers star rating? 

That's it for now folks...


P.S. For all the Smallville lovers out there a member of this shows ensemble cast, Alessandro Juliani who played Dr. Emil Hamilton  makes a cameo in the film as an IT tech guy. He even shares a scene with the actor who has taken over his role within the film. I guess that's Snyder's way of saluting the long-running show and its fan-base, many of whom, needless to say, have been eagerly awaiting the release of a new Superman. 

P.P.S. For DC lovers who still need that superhero kick on the small screen you should check out the TV show Arrow, it follows a character those Smallville fans will recognise: Oliver Queen. Its a gripping addition to the superhero kick our screens are seeing lately...

Okay, that really is it for now folks...

Thursday 20 June 2013

Room (2011) (novel)

Room is Emma Donoghue's 7th and latest novel. She is also a writer of short stories and literary history.
I know this is somewhat of a departure from my usual posts, after all this blog is called “Film Rambler…” and I've only reviewed one other novel before (Ann Patchett’s Bel Canto) but I thought it might be nice to expand and depart from the expected. Mix things up a little bit. It’s good for the soul after all, well…probably. So anyway, now that that little ramble is out of the way let’s get on with the review portion of this ramble (*cough*). Oh… I mean in-depth analysis. Of course.

I first read this novel in 2011 just before I embarked on the long and soul-crushing journey of attaining my A-Levels. I was attracted to it for two reasons. The first being that it was shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize and won a whole bunch of literary awards which meant that this novel was probably worth the price tag and would therefore win me points with my teachers who were curious what we’d read over the summer. The second, less conceited and more important reason for my interest in this novel was the perspective from which this story was told. I've always loved a novel that’s surprising in its narrative (whether that be because it’s set in the deep-south and is rich in culture or because it is an epistolary novel (which, as you can probably guess, are both styles I adore)) and boy is this surprising. You might need some context at this point though so I’ll go ahead and give you a little plot summary: Room tells the story of a five year old boy called Jack who lives with his Ma in a single, locked room. They don't have the key to this room because they are prisoners. Jack has lived in this single room his whole life, until Ma decides to escape. Much of Room follows the after-effects of their escape and their reintegration into society.

This slice of the story is enough to intrigue anybody’s interest, and my interest was further piqued when I learned that this story would be told from the perspective of the five year old Jack. I wondered how Emma Donoghue would tackle such a sensitive subject matter all while capturing the thoughts and feelings of a child whose life has been turned upside down. What I discovered was really quite amazing, though I hadn't expected to be as moved or as absorbed by it as I became. What I found in the pages of this book was an unflinching biopic of something very real and completely heart breaking (Donoghue in fact imagined the story when she heard about the Fritzl case of 2008). The amazing thing about this book is its narrator because while the reader understands that this boy has suffered more in his short lifetime then many could bear to imagine, he is blissfully unaware of this fact. This means that we are pulled between two forces as a reader, the first being to completely invest ourselves in this narrative and feel Jack’s pain at missing his “Room” (and therefore his former life of seclusion) and the second force being our moral and intelligent selves telling us that what this child experienced was wrong and that he shouldn't miss Room, because Room was wrong. It’s interesting to be pulled in two directions and speaks of Donoghue’s talent as a writer that not only can she emulate this character so convincingly, but that she can make us feel conflict at the fact that Jack no longer has Room.

If you are interested in more of Donoghue's (pictured above) work then you can view her website HERE

Though this novel is brilliant because of its unique narrator I have a feeling that this might also isolate its readership and accessibility to wider audiences. I will admit that at first I struggled to understand what Jack was going through and couldn't place myself within that situation, mainly because of the innocence and naivete with which Jack told his story. However I knew that this story was an important one and so I persevered, despite the references Jack makes to his mother breastfeeding him, regardless of his growing age, which made me feel slightly uncomfortable. I know that might seem insensitive and I understand the reason that his Mother continued to do this, but I couldn't help but cringe at the moments this was mentioned in the novel and I believe that Donoghue might have done this deliberately, to emphasise how both Jack and Ma’s perspective and worldview has been shaped (or in the case of "Ma", changed) due to the isolation they have endured.

This brings me to my next point about the novel, which is Donoghue’s realistic and heart-affecting (I couldn't decide whether it was heart-warming or heart-breaking, so I went with “affecting” as an easy compromise) description of the bond between Jack and Ma. Of course they are a mother and child so affection and protection are expected, but their bond is more than this. Donoghue frequently emphasises the fact that these two characters only have each other and rely on each other to make it through the resulting media and public frenzy that ensues after their escape. Jack needs his Ma to help him navigate this new and unfamiliar world that has rules and social niceties that he has never been exposed to, while Ma relies on Jack as an emotional crutch who helps (in his own innocent way) her to navigate a world that she once knew. In a way Ma’s story is more fascinating than Jack’s because hers is one that understands her trauma and struggles to deal with its repercussions, however Jack’s feels more essential and his perspective is a fresh and wholly affecting one.

All in all, if you are looking for a read that will keep you absorbed from the very first chapter then this might be your ticket. Though be warned, this story ain't no picnic and if you’re looking for an idealistic happy ending then you will be disappointed. What it does offer though is realism, innocence and a perspective that is so fresh you will crave more stories like it.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this novel? Definitely, and not just for its literary accolades. This book will change how you look at things (I know I say this every time but I really do hate cliche phrases. It just so happens that I use them ALOT). 

Star rating? 

Well, that’s it for now folks…

Monday 17 June 2013

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)


If there is one event in human history which can draw fear and tears it is the events of 9/11, which witnessed the death of over 3000 people and the destruction of a sense of safety in western civilisation. With that event came an age of war and terror that is associated with the man who orchestrated the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Given that the age of terror in which we live began on this date it seems appropriate that Zero Dark Thirty begins our tale for the manhunt of Osama Bin Laden at this point. Director Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break, The Hurt Locker) takes us back to this day with a simple yet hauntingly effective montage of real-life phone calls from the twin towers from people desperately yet fruitlessly calling for help. Bigelow begins the film in this way perhaps to set the tone for the rest of the movie, which is a sobering and mind-boggling dramatization of the 10 year effort to capture Bin Laden.

When we think back to the day that our TV’s were barraged with the news that Bin Laden was captured we remember the images of smiling faces celebrating his death and we especially remember the moment that Barack Obama was broadcast across the world to confirm this death. On every newspaper we read headline after headline and feature after feature declaring one thing: that Obama had captured Bin Laden. Zero Dark Thirty, however, offers us the true story which is of special CIA operative Maya (Jessica Chastain) and her on-going and arduous battle to overcome the many obstacles in the way of such an operation. Given that this manhunt lasted for 10 years and that many attacks and terrorist operations happened in between this period it would be easy for ZDT to be bogged down by the facts and seem more like a documentary than a gripping yet faithful-to-the-events film. Bigelow and the writer behind this film, Mark Boal, manage to avoid this trap however and offer a gripping narrative which is separated by specific events that not only show the personal efforts of Maya, but also emphasise the network of people that helped bring down Bin Laden.

In this scene we see Chastain's determination and no-nonsense attitude come to the forefront in her bid to convince  her superiors that she has finally uncovered Bin Laden's location.

The film is a searing and at points uncomfortable biopic of the effort that went into gathering information and building up a profile of key people within al-Qaeda. Bigelow does not shy away from offering the audience the hard truth and this is intensely evident when at the beginning of ZDT we witness the torture of an al-Qaeda member who may or may not have vital information of terrorist activity. This makes for rather uncomfortable viewing and the fact that it was done in the effort of gaining information is a hard fact to bear, reminding the viewer that Bin Laden was not merely a man but rather an institution of fear and terror from which many drew inspiration, and whom many died to protect. The fact that torture was an oft-used instrument in gaining the necessary information speaks volumes of the personal character of Maya, who at the beginning of the film seems too vulnerable and feminine to be able to withstand such acts. But as the film progresses this vulnerability turns to hardness and her humanity and character all become fixed on one goal – to capture Bin Laden at any cost.

Chastain’s performance of this character is one deserving of the Oscar-nomination she received not only for the fact that Chastain could depict a person who so dramatically changes to assimilate with the pressures and necessities of capturing such a figure, but because she so effortlessly captures a feeling which many felt when news reached that Bin Laden had been killed. That feeling of ‘What now?’ which is so clearly etched upon Chastain’s face as the film comes to a close is perfect and transcendent of the global feeling. The many questions that we face seem to be embodied by Chastain’s character, a character (who is based upon a real CIA operative known only as ‘Jen’ in “No Easy Day”, a book written by one of the Navy SEAL members involved in the Bin Laden operation) whose whole life revolved around Bin Laden.

Here Chris Pratt and Joel Edgerton play two of the SEAL team members preparing for the operation. There roles are brief but pivotal in this History-thriller. 

The actual scene which depicts the capture of Bin Laden comes at the end of the nearly 3-hour film and is an intense 25-minute sequence (very close to the actual time it took for the Navy SEAL team to carry out their mission) which left me on the edge of my seat. Shot in the cover of darkness it depicts the accuracy and efficiency of the Navy SEAL team and takes us through those final moments which saw the death of those closest to Bin Laden and depicted the purportedly accurate compound in which Bin Laden spent the final months of his life. This scenes sense of adrenaline and camaraderie are fabulously depicted by the actors depicting the Navy SEAL team, most notably Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt, whose sense of triumph is almost contagious as the film draws to a close. The intensity of this scene is aided by its claustrophobic setting and the darkness under which these men were operating, which is as true a reflection of the real events as the audience will ever get.

The intensity of this film is a product not only of the main and ensemble cast (Mark Strong, James Gandolfini, Mark Duplass and Jason Clarke to name but a few), whose performances depict rather wonderfully the sense of urgency and desperation in capturing this terrorist figure, but also of our own feelings as the film progresses. As we witness torture and bribing and the many other tactics that were involved in Bin Laden’s capture our own feelings of urgency and wonderment become a part of this films intensity. This film is a searing and intense experience because for so many it draws to conclusion the decade-long hunt to end terrorism and restore hope into all of those, young and old, caught up in its effects.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? I would. The sense of closure it offers is hugely cathartic despite that ‘What now?’ question that is left hanging at the end of this film. 

A film ramblers star rating?

That's it for now folks...


Thursday 13 June 2013

For A Good Time, Call... (2012)


Okay first things first, I know this movie will raise a few eyebrows amongst you, but I urge you not to judge this film based off of its synopsis. Don’t get me wrong, this film is what you think, but it’s also NOT. It all revolves around two former-college “frenemies” (I really hate that term, but whatever…) who both need to find a roommate so they can stay in New York and live the “American Dream” which is when mutual friend Jesse (played by an hilariously camp Justin Long) forces them to move in together. The two women, strapped for cash, very quickly set up a phone-sex-line and realise a lucrative, if not slightly filthy, business opportunity. The phone-sex-line however, is not the centre of this film, though it certainly plays a significant part. The heart of this film lies in the friendship that grows from this business, and this is where a lot of our laughs and “awh” moments come from.

The film gets off to a slow start and if I were one of those obnoxious types to walk out of a movie within the first five minutes, then I probably would’ve done with this one. It’s not filthy or obscene, as you might expect, it’s just boring. And boring isn’t what you want in a film (especially given the aforementioned title). As it turns out though this is quite important for the films central protagonist (or one of them at least) Lauren Powell (played by the writer of this quirky little film, Lauren Ann Miller) who finds herself stuck in a boring life with no prospects. Enter Katie Steel (played by the hilarious and charming Ari Graynor), who injects some foul-mouthed fun into Lauren’s life and makes her realise that she doesn't need to settle for boring.


In this scene Katie (Graynor) introduces Lauren to the 'phone side' of the business. It makes for a funny moment in the movie with an unexpected outcome. 

This film is borne from a post-Bridesmaids we-women-can-be-just-as-filthy-and-funny-as-men era and it takes that female empowerment to a whole new level with both ladies showing their modern-esque sexuality and embracing there situation. They don’t lament their career and pity themselves for running such a service. In fact they revel in their power and it’s quite an empowering, if not slightly wacky, message to bring to our screens. Aside from the I-am-woman-hear-me-roar quality to the film though comes the message of love that slowly grows between the characters, and this is where the film really grows on you. The chemistry between the two lead actors is very convincing and as I watched I couldn't help but think that they had a truly distinctive “Womance” (that’s the female version of a bromance) that is rear to see in film or TV. In fact now I think about it there is no pop-culture media-frenzy womance that really comes to mind, which is irritating really. Maybe this awesome little film will pave the way for more womances in the future, I certainly hope so.

My favourite aspect of this film is undoubtedly the hugely talented Ari Graynor who brings such an energy and charm to the production as Katie Steel. She steals every single scene with her foul-mouthed exuberance. Some may recognise Graynor from the 2008 Independent-Indie Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist where she played the drunk but adorable Caroline and much like that film here Graynor brings her quirky adorableness and adds to it with a role she can really sink her teeth into. The growing vulnerability and innocence with which she portrays the “all-talk” Katie is very convincing and she actually makes you empathise with this character (which is quite impressive considering, well…her day job). Another quite impressive aspect of this film is the cameos it managed to pull from the likes of Kevin Smith and Seth Rogen. Granted Rogen is married to star and writer Lauren Miller but still, the ensemble cast is impressive and really adds credit to this Independent-flick.

So yes, to tie a bow on this little ramble, this film may be about two women who run and operate a phone-sex-line but it is also a film about friendship, love and independence. Plus it premiered at Sundance to rave reviews, so how bad can it be?! But hey, don't get me wrong, this film may come highly recommended but that's mainly for the many laughs it provides. 


Best Line: 
Jesse: You girls are living some fucked up version of the American Dream.

To cut a long story short…

Would I recommend this? I would, without a doubt. Although perhaps not to the more…prudish (no offence intended!!)…of this readership. A film ramblers star rating? 

That's it for now folks...


Monday 10 June 2013

Flight (2012)


If you've seen the trailer for Flight then you might be under the impression that this film is a thrilling all-speed-ahead drama, and while this is, in part, true, the film is more a searing character-study which explores important moral issues than anything else. Given its director, the acclaimed Robert Zemeckis (the brilliant mind behind Forrest Gump, Back to the Future and Cast Away to name a few) this might not come as a surprise, because based on his repertoire of films he seems to relish a thoroughly thought-out character. Yet one defining difference behind this character Whip Whittaker (Denzel Washington) is that he is unlikeable, filled with hubris and infuriating to watch in his self-destruction.

To some this would be a justifiable reason to dislike the film, because without a character we can like or even empathise with how can we enjoy or begin to understand the film or its character? Despite the heroism and bravery of Whittaker in the first act of this film in which he manages to save 96 of the 102 passengers aboard his crumbling aircraft his actions and behaviour afterwards are despicable and colour the audience’s perception of him. His aggressiveness to those that try and save him from his inexcusable downward-spiral makes for irritating viewing. You might question why I call it “inexcusable”. You might think that this “downward-spiral” is the consequence of the traumatic events of the plane crash. It is not. His alcoholism and substance abuse, which is portrayed by Washington with astonishing reality, is a long-standing and widely known characteristic amongst his work colleagues, which is a shocking thought really. It makes you question not only your own safety, but also how such a character could exist that would put innocent lives at risk.

This is where the question of morality comes in, because the audience is forced to make a decision about this character. The audience is forced to decide whether this man is a hero for pulling off the impossible and saving many lives, or whether he is a morally-bankrupt individual who must be sent to jail for his actions. If the character was a more likeable one throughout the film then the answer to that question would be easy for most viewers. The answer would be that his actions deserve praise rather than condemnation. You might not think so now that I am laying it out plain for you, but if you are honest then you will recognise that sometimes we do root for the bad guy. Zemeckis prevents this instant reaction though by making our hero a sinner and forcing us to question our own views. It’s an interesting thought to consider, isn't it?

But enough with the question of morality and this films place within that question… I’ll get down to the stuff you’re really interested in.



Here Whittaker sees for the first time the repercussions of the plane crash.

I’ll start with our lead, the incomparable acting-god that is Denzel Washington who gives a searing performance as a conflicted and troubled pilot struggling with addiction and the scrutiny of his superiors and those close to him. Washington makes excellent work of this character and I can tell you this with my utmost assurance because I genuinely disliked his character, which is a tough feat considering how much I admire the actor. Washington portrays the self-destruction of this character with remarkable reality and in one scene, where Whittaker is intoxicated to the point of incoherency, Washington manages to portray not only this incoherency but also the characters vulnerability and fears. His nuanced performance and the subtlety that he lends to this performance is another example of Washington’s effortless talent. One point I feel the need to make however, is my annoyance at Washington’s increasingly familiar roles as of late. It seems to me that he is reprising the same roles and the examples I offer you are very recent additions to his resume: The Taking of Pelham 123 and Unstoppable. I don’t know whether Washington is just growing comfortable in this role of hero-with-a-problem but if he continues then he may just run the risk of becoming boring and type-cast. I know that may seem like sacrilege to some but it is a point which needs to be made. I want to see this fantastic actor take on more varied roles and I want to see this because I appreciate his scope and talent.

One aspect of this film which should rightly-so be showered with praise is its special effects and visual-quality. Zemeckis has been praised countless times for his ability to handle special effects with reality and ease and that talent can be seen here to a fantastic quality. The scene which catapults this character-driven film is visceral and terrifying and as we watch Washington turn the doomed-aircraft upside down in the air to avoid crashing into a busy suburban town we as an audience are struck-dumb by the terrifying reality of the scene. It is an action-packed sequence and one which unsurprisingly causes our brief yet intense hero-worship of this character who managed to save countless lives and remain calm in the midst of chaos.

All-in-all it is an impressive film with fantastic performances from all those involved however I am left unsure as to whether I actually liked the film. Like I said, can you like a film when you have no reason to like its main character?

Best moment: Undoubtedly the moment that Captain Whittaker does the impossible and performs a miracle when he manages to safely land the doomed-from-the-get-go airplane.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this? I’m not sure really, this film feels like a bit of a hit-and-miss. I suppose if you’re a fan of Washington then yes, you should give it a go. 
A film ramblers star rating?

That's it for now folks...


If you enjoyed this post or are interested in more films of the same genre then just click here and have a browse...

Thursday 6 June 2013

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013)


If there is one surety in movies these days, it’s that Hollywood is determined to suck dry any and all fairy-tales until we've seen it all and, like any fad-thing, got bored and moved on. While it’s nice to see our old childhood fairy tales reincarnated for our adult eyes to enjoy, it’s a sad inevitability that what we once loved we will begin to hate. (Hollywood will never learn, will it?) Given this little tirade it would be fair to assume that I didn't enjoy the film, and while this is not the case, I would warn those who prize originality over anything else in a movie there going to spend money to see, that this may not be the film for you. I’ll dispense with my minor irritation though and get on with the rest of this review…

The film is pretty faithful to the original tale, with the added bonus (and Hollywood obligation) of a damsel-in-distress sub-plot which serves as the reason for the escapade into dangerous-giant-territory. Here Jack is played by the goofishly-charming Nicholas Hoult, who brings to life our fairy-tale fool with an ease reminiscent of his starring-turn in About a Boy. Of course the story has changed and the actor has grown, but the performance is just as grade-A and the awkwardness and wit we saw in that film can be seen in JTGS. Hoult manages to bring life to this character and his quiet heroism is an endearing aspect of this otherwise somewhat stiff and disappointing film.

What I disliked about this film I am not quite sure, the cast was stellar with starring turns from Ewan McGregor and Academy Award nominee Stanley Tucci, and the CGI with which our dastardly giants came to life was quite extraordinary, but something in this film fell flat. I think perhaps that can be attributed in part to the screenplay, which tried to be funny, but only in a very broad and cliched way. There’s only so much good acting and a visually-convincing set can do, in my opinion. 

The CGI and other special effects are a fantastic and enjoyable aspect of this otherwise lack-luster film. It will certainly have  its younger audience cowering behind the sofa. I mean just look at that guy. Yuck, huh?! 
The screenplay is the backbone of any good film, just think about your favourite lines from your favourite movies. Sure the actors said them in a certain way and a certain piece of music was playing as it was said, but it’s all down to the pen and the paper. The impression I get from this film is that the writers were so determined to create a swashbuckling-beast-of –mish-mashed-genres and fairy-tale legends that they were too broad with the entire thing. Tucci’s character, for example, is glaringly stereotypical as the buck-toothed villain with the skinny sidekick to boot. I know stereotype is an expected aspect of any fairy-tale legend, but here the writers had a fantastic opportunity to add something new and exciting to the legend, and failed to deliver. Perhaps they should have taken a note out of director Tommy Wirkola’s book and took our beloved Jack and the Beanstalk legend in a similar direction as Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters.

The film isn't entirely disappointing and I wouldn't write it off completely, especially if you’re looking for something which will appeal to a younger audience, however if you were hoping for an original take on this fairy-tale classic then look elsewhere. Not to say that I didn't chuckle in parts and root for our hero throughout, but I just wasn't convinced by the general tone and execution of the film.

All-in-all a fantastic set of actors, especially the eponymous hero played by ever-charming Hoult, but a somewhat disappointing production which failed to raise itself to epic heights (no pun intended).


To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this? To a younger audience, I would. But the late teen and adult demographic will come away from this film with a feeling of indifference. 
A film ramblers star rating? 

That's it for now folks...



Monday 3 June 2013

Safety Not Guaranteed (2012)


This indie time-travel flick is as outrageously funny as it is sincere and heartfelt. While the premise might have some movie-goers titillated by its sci-fi roots this isn't where the strength of the film lies. Or at least not where its emphasis is placed. It is the reason behind the characters motivation to time-travel into the past which really drags this film into brilliance. I know, I know – we don’t need another film that leads to romance to add to our already heaving shelves, but I assure you, this one is worth it. But hang on, I've jumped the gun and given quite a bit away in a short period. Let’s backtrack… 

The film takes centre stage around an ad placed by Kenneth (played by Mark Duplass) seeking out a partner to time-travel back into the past with. The ad goes like this: 

WANTED: Somebody to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. P.O. Box 91 Ocean View, WA 99393. You’ll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before. 

As ads go its short, to-the-point and bloody well intriguing. As well as, of course, completely crazy. So if you’re a journalist looking for another story to earn that monthly pay-check then this seems like a pretty good way to do it. Hey, you might even get a few laughs from it. This is what Jeff (Jake Johnson) thinks anyway – though he has ulterior motives for wanting to visit the town in which the crackpot ‘time-traveller’ lives. But we’ll get to that a little later. 

Then of course there are the requested interns: Darius and Arnau, who jump at the opportunity to become involved in the research and production of an actual story (anything’s better than re-filling the toilet paper dispensers.) There are the beginnings of the story, and I won’t go into too much detail on the rest. Mainly because I want to discuss the quality of the film and I don’t want to spoil it for you if you actually wind up watching this. 
Mark Duplass (left), plays our intrepid time-traveller Kenneth opposite Aubrey Plaza as Darius. 
As far as genre goes we have a pretty spliced up son-of-a-bitch here, and that is kind of what makes this film so bloody good. While you would expect this film to deal with the sci-fi elements more extensively, this isn't the direction it takes. This film has a surprising amount of heart and sentimentality behind it from the get-go and boy is it absolutely laugh-out-loud hilarious. The deadpan lead Darius (played by Aubrey Plaza) develops a complex relationship with Kenneth based upon both her curiosity of this guy’s sanity and her desire to get a good story. With time though, Darius learns that it isn't Kenneth’s destination or sanity she really cares about, but the journey they both take in their endeavour to right the wrongs of their individual pasts. It’s a heart-warming realisation and leads to the inevitable romance between the two leads. 

So yeah, this isn't really a film about time-travel per see, but more about the things that develop out of regret and desire – the reasons for wanting to time-travel. Don’t get me wrong, this film isn't hugely “deep” (well, not in a tears-and-tissues-after-watching-Titanic type way) but it does explore certain issues that in more serious films could be a heart-breaking topic to discuss. Here though these topics are dealt with in a light-hearted and humorous manor which is ultimately quite touching. 

Jake Johnson plays the wannabe-Lothario reporter whilst he lets his intern-reporters do all the heavy lifting. These three play against each other with a natural and highly amusing rapport.

I particularly love Jake Johnson’s character in this film because when things get tense or dramatic he always comes in with a fabulous one-liner or dickhead-charming comment that saves this flick from becoming too serious. His story-line revolves around finding his high school sweetheart to discover whether she lives up to his memories of her as well as helping the charmingly-clueless intern Arnau finally get laid. While it’s not a particularly thrilling or original sub-plot on paper Johnson brings to it something new and hilarious that speaks of his talent and creativity as an actor.

Huge credit is owed to the writer of this unique little production Derek Connolly who approached each genre that this movie includes with a humour and relevance that is bewitching in its simplicity. Also of course, the director Colin Trevorrow who filmed this movie against an unexceptional background (plain town, plain clothes – nothing too extravagant or eye-catching) which is a rather brilliant ploy, because it allows the story to speak for itself. Beyond this great direction he also handpicked Plaza and Johnson and, in my opinion, made an excellent decision in doing so – the mixture of her deadpan humour with his outrageous-one-liners is brilliant to see onscreen and is an endearing quality to this already endearing film. 
If you have seen this film and enjoyed the writer/director duo’s work then you might be excited by their next collaboration – Jurassic Park IV. If these are the projects we can expect from Connolly and Trevorrow then I am very excited for this pair’s collaborative future. 


I’ll finish with this – if you’re looking for something new and quirky then Safety Not Guaranteed is your best bet for an entertaining night. The mish-mash of genres is excellent and refreshing. 

Interesting fact: This film is based upon an actual ad which appeared in Backwoods Home Magazine in 1997. It was written as a last-minute filler by John Silveira, an employee of the magazine, who is credited in the film as "Time Travel Consultant”. 

Best line: 

Jeff: There's something off about this guy, okay? So you gotta go slow, like you're trapping a skiddish animal. You lure him. Play coy. Girls know how to do that shit. 
Darius: You're dangling my vagina out there like bait. What if this guy's a murderer? What if he cuts me up to little pieces and eats me? 
Jeff: Then the story is even better. 

To cut a long story short… 

Would I recommend this? Er, duh-doy (that’s a Community reference. I hope you watch Community. If you don’t then you haven’t lived. Seriously, you just haven’t.) 
A film ramblers star rating? 

That’s it for now folks…