Into The Woods (2014)

Love Meryl Streep (obviously, because who doesn’t?!). Love James Corden. Love Emily Blunt. Love Anna Kendrick. I could take or leave Chris Pine, but I’m thinking you get my point. I pretty much love this cast. Do I love this film? Not so much…

This has been highly anticipated by me and my friends for a while now, and the rave reviews only heightened our enthusiasm, so perhaps that goes some way into explaining why it fell so flat for me. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t hate it, and if someone wanted to see it again I would, but my problem is that this film has no longevity. With musicals you usually expect something epic and awe-inspiring, something that will grab you by the gut and either gets you up singing and dancing or has you on the floor sobbing by the end. This film elicited neither reaction, and as such left me disappointed. The premise is that an old witch living next door to the Baker and his wife has promised to lift a curse she put on him and his kin if they procure four precious items that will return her youth, and in their adventures they come across popular Brothers Grimm characters along the way. It’s an extremely interesting premise, right? That’s not a trick question, I swear. The premise was a part of the reason I wanted to see the film after all. The thought of a mish-mash of fairytale characters interacting with one another and participating in one epic adventure sounds brilliant, and in its highly successful Broadway run it has proven time and again to be just that. In film however, something has been lost in translation.

Perhaps it’s the fact that the rights to the film belong to Disney, and so a lot of the gritty nature of the original script and story had to be cut in order to maintain that fun and friendly vibe we recognise from the main distributor of children’s entertainment. I’m no expert, as I haven’t seen an onstage version, but from my research I noticed a few essential moments were left from the film. Apparently the onstage version is much raunchier and violent, and I think that if this film had been picked up by a different distributor, it would have had the potential to be truly great. I’d just like to make it clear as well that I went into this film having done zero research, so the fact that I left knowing that something was missing is a clear indicator that this film has been altered too significantly to feel true to its audience. (Or its adult audience anyway).

That wasn’t my only problem with it though. I took issue with certain scenes that came off as either extremely unsettling or too rushed to feel authentic. For example, the short cameo made my Johnny Depp playing Mr Wolf saw him sing and act in a way that came off as highly paedophilic. Obviously playing the horrible wolf is going to have its drawbacks, but honestly I and my friend were looking at each other more than the screen (in abject horror) as we watched him creep behind the girl, pull the occasional suggestively erotic pose and then sing about her bright pink flesh which has no lumps. “Lumps”? In reference to a prepubescent girl? Yeah, basically the wolf is talking about the fact that this child has no breasts and how he finds this attractive in a victim. Frankly I was appalled that this was allowed in the film, because I know that if I was a parent I would be shielding my children’s eyes and writing letters of complaint to whoever allowed such blatantly erotic and paedophilic moments to play out in a children’s film. When Little Red admits to the Baker that she was scared but also “kind of excited” by the wolfs advances, that is really the last straw for me. And in a Disney film?! But anyway, I think I’ve said enough about this short section of the film to relate that I am NOT happy about Depp’s character. Oh yeah, by the way Disney and director Rob Marshall, thanks for ruining Johnny Depp for me. I’ll never be able to look at the guy in the same way again.

This scene was not the only thing I took issue with though. Unfortunately, I was not a massive fan of the singing talents of one particular character, the actor who plays Jack – Daniel Huttlestone. I hate to say this, because some may also recognise him from Les Miserables where he played Gavroche superbly, but in this film his talents did not transfer quite so...smoothly.Your guess is as good as mine as to why. When he was singing it honestly just sounded like he was shouting, and his acting came off as forced and exaggerated in parts which ruined key moments in the film. (God, I feel like such a bitch saying mean things about a kid. I’m sorry!). Wasn’t the biggest fan of Chris Pine’s singing voice either, but he played the Prince Charming who isn’t so charming very well, and his scene with Billy Magnussen singing under the waterfall was some brilliantly clichéd (that was what they were going for, so I mean it as a compliment) cinema.

The film wasn’t without its merit (namely a fantastic and enthusiastic performance of It Takes Two by Corden and Blunt which made me really happy and saved this film from being switched off half way through. Also Streep. Because Streep is a merit in everything she does) but it didn’t meet my expectations and for this I am bitterly disappointed. It felt rushed, contrived and too abrupt in parts to maintain my interest. Why Meryl Streep’s character, the driving force for much of the action in the first half of the film, suddenly disappears in the second half is beyond me. If an explanation was given, it certainly wasn’t blatant enough to offer me and my housemates any sort of resolution to her character. But, it’s a Disney film aimed mainly toward children, so I guess not everything has to be tied up neatly…

All in all, I was not happy with the outcome of this film. It wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t great either, which is surprising given the stellar cast and experienced crew (Rob Marshall and Steven Sondeheim) at its helm.

A rambler’s star rating?

The Matrix (1999)

IMDb Top 250 Ranking - #19

I’ve taken an extended hiatus from the film blogging arena recently, and this hiatus is the culmination of a busy few months. I started my second year of University in September and because of that became your stereotypically noisy alcohol-consuming 19 year old. Of course I also managed to get some studying done in between. The reason I’ve made a return to Film Rambler Extraordinaire is in part because I missed the freedom of getting all of my observations, joys and frustrations out onto paper, but also because I’m not sure when the blogging-bug will bite me next, so I should probably take advantage while it’s taken hold.

As you can tell from the obnoxiously large picture posted above, as well as the title of the post, I will be giving a quick review of my thoughts concerning the sci-fi smash hit The Matrix. I feel I may be able to lend a certain expertise to this review, as I did with Into The Wild, because we recently made a study of it in my Imaginary Worlds module.

There’s something extremely refreshing about studying contemporary works of art, especially when those works are of the cinematic variety (being a Literature student, it’s a rare luxury) - because your opinion is the pinnacle. There’s no referring to great literary theorists and borrowing the ideas of men and women whose ideas are far grander than your own, because it’s new, and therefore fresh territory. But enough with the nonsensical rambling, on to the review…

First of all, I’d like to address the elephant in the room. That elephant being my intense dislike for Keanu Reeves. Does anybody share this burning hatred? (Okay, I may be overstating myself a tad here). In my opinion his acting is wooden and emotional range almost non-existent. In every film the only expression he manages to pull off convincingly is one of quiet bewilderment, and frankly I think that’s only because his face is permanently frozen this way. Which is why, as I entered into my first viewing of The Matrix, I was prepared to be disappointed. You see I’ve never been a hardcore fan of either action or sci-fi (until recently), and these genres combined with Reeves made for an unpalatable experience upon initial impression. But oh how I love to be proved wrong! Surprisingly Reeves gave an excellent performance in his portrayal of Neo – a young man who discovers that his life is a part of a complex computer system called The Matrix, and that everything he has ever experienced has been a simulation created by ‘the machines’, who enslaved the human race and created this virtual reality.

See what I mean about that vague look of bewilderment? Its all I ever see and I apologize in advance if you'd never noticed, because now its all you'll ever see! Still though, Reeves pulls it out of the bag for this role...

Of course upon concept alone the film reaches epic proportions and as it unfolds quickly reveals itself as a classic of its genre. The films wide-spread popularity and cult-following lends credibility to its sci-fi roots. Once over the genre was regarded with nothing but general disdain and an association with less talented writers, readers and consumers. The tropes attached to the genre seemed far-fetched and ridiculous. After all, who really encounters flying spaceships and machines capable of time-travel? Ahem, that answer is NOBODY. However with the emergence of technology and the opportunities for advancement that it offered society came a looming evil that seemed much more convincing to audiences, and therefore much more terrifying. After all, we’ve all secretly wondered whether there will be a vicious robot-uprising that will enslave mankind, and if your shaking your head as you read this then you’re either lying or you suffer from a distinct lack of imagination.

This very real fear of technology is something the Wachowski brothers have picked apart and dissected to create a film that acts as a social commentary upon the very fabric that makes up our day-to-day lives. That fabric being our over-reliance on technology. It’s a strange dichotomy to acknowledge as a consumer, our reliance vs. our fear, and ultimately one the filmmakers make us choose between. The red pill or the blue pill – reality or illusion? The films concept is quite simple if you take the time to understand its message, which is layered with intertextual and religious reference.

In terms of the films aesthetic quality it echoes stereotypes associated with cyberpunk and horror – the film is layered in darkness even down to the clothing worn by the protagonists. This darkness is clearly a reflection of the society in which we live, which is filled with corruption and laziness, and adds a reality and visceral-quality to the action scenes in the film. To fans of this genre prepare to be pleased because the films fight-sequences are quite simply amazing. The speed, precision and strength of the characters is unbelievable and the films kung-Fu influences during the fight sequences between Morpheus and Neo, and then Neo and Agent Smith are evident.

Though the film is brilliant in many ways I do have one bone of contention – that being the final scene of the film in which we see our hero-protagonist fly off into the sunset. This seemed far too cliché for an otherwise well-rounded sci-fi film and left a bitter taste in my mouth which made me question the filmmakers intent. My other minor irritation is the lack of resolution at the end of the film. I know this was a deliberate move to pave the way for future sequels but still, I feel the filmmakers could have left the audience on steadier and more recognisable ground in terms of characterisation and “place” (by which I mean OUR place within this concept of a virtual reality, though I suppose this would have made for a much longer film!).

All-in-all very pleased with this film and its message, as well as the credibility it has lent to its genre.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this movie? To sci-fi lovers and action afficandos I offer a resounding YES. If your less into these genres but want to see a classic then I would suggest you give it a go, and perhaps think more about its underlying message rather than its overt cinematic techniques. You might find yourself pleasantly surprised.
A film rambler’s star rating?

That’s it for now folks…

The Croods (2013)

When I heard about this film I won’t lie, I wasn't that enthusiastic. My reasoning for this is mainly that I thought it would be a rehash of other pre-historic animations we've been barraged with in recent years. Now I’m not pointing any fingers *cough* Ice Age *cough* too-many-sequels *cough*…okay, so I am. But anyway I figured that there was only so many ways you can tell that “its-the-end-of-the-world” story to a target audience of mainly kids without killing (pardon the pun) the subject. After watching The Croods however, I quickly changed my mind, because the film doesn't just tackle this subject but a whole lot more.

The film tells the story of The Crood family (duh-doy!) who are living a simple and desperately frustrating life in a cave where there day-to-day routine consists of hunting and sitting in the dark listening to the same stories from family patriarch and all-round fuss-pot father Grub (Nicholas Cage). All of this changes however when an earthquake destroys there cave and they must travel across the new and fantastic planes of a land they have never explored. Along the way the Crood family pick up Ryan Reynolds’ character Guy who shows them that there is more to their caveman lifestyle than simply surviving and forms a romance with the adventurer of the family Eep (voiced by Emma Stone). This romance instigates the anger of a figure we all recognise and have faced at one point in our life – the over-protective father. The scenes in which we bear witness to Grub’s attempts to keep these budding young-romantics apart are hilarious and endear us to the characters’ situations – making them more real and giving the older members of the audience something to chuckle at (either from fond recollection or Fatherly understanding). Aside from the conflict that naturally arises from Grub’s determination to keep Guy and Eep away from each other there is also conflict caused by Grub’s prehistoric and ultimately futile lifestyle and the rules he ‘implements’ to ensure this lifestyle does not change. For example anything new is viewed as dangerous and must therefore be destroyed, darkness equals danger and my personal favourite - curiosity killed the cat (he doesn't say it like that, but you get my point). When Guy shows up though he interrupts the status quo and shows the rest of the Crood family that things can be different, that new ideas and using your brain over your brawn are good and that living that caveman lifestyle is no longer necessary. Not when you've got a genius inventor/entrepreneur such as Guy in the family anyway.

Guy's sudden and commanding entrance into the Crood family sets in motion a host of themes within the film which in turn allow the characters to develop and understand a new world they have never been exposed to. While they learn these lessons however the earth that they have had so little interaction with (prior to the events of the film) is crumbling and moving beneath their feet, even as they seek homage elsewhere. We in the audience of course know that the reason for this crumbling earth is the creation of the many countries that make up Earth today, but the Croods and their tag-along idea man Guy think that the world is ending and that there only chance for survival is to seek the Sun. In their journey to find the sun and a new home the Crood family are brought together through the many struggles that they face which highlights the films main message – the importance of family.

The trivial frustrations and family-dynamics that we're all so familiar with in our day-to-day lives has been captured rather convincingly in this film. I mean, just look at their faces - awkwardness and good-natured ribbing is plain to see (especially in that sneaky old grandma!).

The characters that make up this family are surreal in their realism…if that makes sense?! We've got the pre-requisite rebellious teen Eep, the understanding Mother (Catherine Keener) trying to keep the family together, the loud and opinionated mother-in-law that you love to hate (Cloris Leachman), the oft-humiliated middle child (ain't that always the way?), the kid sister and the over-protective father. The actors portraying this everyday family bring an hilarity and sincerity to their roles and really play up to the stereotypes attached to each archetype (Yikes...lotta "types" in that sentence!), to the point where you’re watching and thinking “oh-my-god. It’s like my family. In fact it’s so much like my family that it’s kinda scary”. The fact that these animated characters seem like real people is important in emphasising that heart-warming message of love and family that we are left with at the end, and also makes those funny family frustrations that much more hilarious. Not to mention how freaky it is that the animators and the cast behind the characters are able to dupe you (or me, at least) into thinking of the Croods as real people.

All-in-all this film is a fun family affair which will be sure to keep both the kids and the adults of the audience very happy. The lessons of love and family make it a heart-warming addition to the animation box-set, with the added bonus that the film does a good job at providing a fun history and science lesson. The films encouragement of innovation and teaching of the inevitability of evolution make it seem slightly smarter than your average animation movie. But, then again, each animation has an important message to offer. That is, after all, why we all love Disney and Pixar even as adults – they never fail to teach us something very important. And on that note, I’ll stop because I can feel myself getting cheesy, and nobody wants that.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? Yes. Its kinda like The Flintstones for the kids of the 21st century and who would we be to deprive them of that awesomeness?! 

A film ramblers star rating?

That's it for now folks...

Dark Shadows (2012)

Dark Shadows sees the return of working-duo Depp and Burton in their 8th feature film together and like their previous cinematic jaunts we are given a weird and sometimes-wonderful slice of gothic pie. For those unaware this is based on the long-running TV show of the same name which aired from 1966-1971. In its time the show was a popular staple and its fans include Depp, Burton and Pfeiffer themselves, which perhaps explains why this adaptation was made. I certainly don’t think its Burton adhering to the vampire-fad that’s been seeping into cinema and TV since Twilight graced our screens. Indeed this film bears no similarity to the teen-fad that is Twilight, with Burton lending a dash of his trademark dark humour to the vampy proceedings.

Of course when it comes to gothic Burton is the unofficial King of the genre, with each film in his directorial past reminiscent of the stereotypes of the genre. In this film that gothic edge is brought to the forefront with hanging buttresses, hidden passageways and foggy settings contributing to the dark and gloomy atmosphere of the film, not to mention the pre-requisite crazy witch-bitch (It’s not really gothic without that last one now is it?). Said crazy witch-bitch is played by the talented Eva Green who brings a quirky-hilarity to the role of scorned and vengeful Angelique who has some serious issues when it comes to Depp’s Barnabus Collins. Angelique embodies that one ex you have who just can’t seem to forgive and forget and this is shown to the extreme when she kills Barnabus’ family and fiancé and curses him to eternal damnation by making him a bloodsucking vampire. To add salt to the wounds she sets the village locals on him on your stereotypical dark-and-stormy-night who chain him in a coffin where he stays put for 196 years (the devils in the details) until he is accidently set free.

His release into this new world that is the 1970s sets in motion a whole host of events which is set against the backdrop of Barnabus acquainting himself with the much-changed town of Collinsport, where our film is set. His confusion and reaction to this much-changed world is where much of the films hilarity is sourced and Depp is quite convincing as a disillusioned vampire with a biting (no pun intended!) determination to restore his crumbling families former glory. This modern-day Collins family is comprised of family matriarch Michelle Pfeiffer, rebellious teen Chloe Grace Moretz, haunted and disturbed Gulliver McGrath, and scumbag absentee-father Johnny Lee Miller. Each actor is well-cast in his or her role, yet I couldn't help but feel slightly disturbed by Moretz’ character who was highly-sexualised given her age. This just seemed a rather unnecessary attribute to Moretz’ character and was played with such a hyperbolic energy that I couldn't help but cringe slightly when the character came onscreen. I don’t know, maybe I’m just overreacting. After all this is the same actress who at 13 years old played the foul-mouthed Hit Girl in movie sensation Kick Ass, so maybe Moretz is just keen to avoid having that oh-so-innocent child-star quality in her films and on her resume.

Moretz' character is a somewhat bizarre one, even for a Burton production, and her subplot just feels like a clumsy last-minute addition to the screenplay.

In terms of this films enjoyability I think that might be somewhat hindered by its ‘all-over-the-place’ quality, with too many sub-plots confusing the films main purpose and too many characters vying for attention in this ambitious production. For example the film begins by introducing us to the Collins’ new governess “Victoria Winters” (played by Bella Heathcote) and so I assumed she would take centre-stage (alongside Depp of course) throughout the film, which was apparently a foolish assumption to make. Though this character does have a romantic link to Depp’s their relationship is never given enough screen time to feel authentic, nor is Heathcote’s character throughout the film in general, though as it turns out her genesis is vital to the plots cohesion. This lack of screen time was not only irritating but seemed clumsy on Burton’s part (she’s the romantic lead after all. It would be like a 2-hour Harry Potter film with only 30 minutes of said character being shown!).

To add fuel to the “random plot twists” fire there is also the case of Moretz’ character and her interesting…”progression” (for lack of a better word)…at the end of the film which was just a confusing and unnecessary addition to this already heaving film. The fact that there are so many subplots and character-dilemmas might be explained by the fact that the film is based upon a TV show, so it would be a fair assumption to make that the film takes its inspiration from one or two (or several) episodes, but since I've never seen the series upon which the film is based I can’t be certain (just idle speculation).

All-in-all the film is a relatively enjoyable one and certainly if you’re a fan of a Burton-Depp production you’ll derive some pleasure from this quirky comedy, but don’t hold out too much hope for a cohesive plot and direction. The film is slightly wacky but its overall look and tone is splendid and well-worth at least one viewing.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? I guess, but it’s more the kind of film that you’d watch on a Sunday afternoon when there's nothing else on. 

A film ramblers star rating?  

That’s it for now folks…

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…

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...

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...

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)

Fairytale stories and the fables that we remember from our childhood are popular subjects for film and television right now, you only need to look at programmes such as Once Upon a Time, the 2011 flop-film Red Riding Hood and Jack the Giant Slayer (to name a few) to see that. Why is that, I wonder to myself? Is it because Twilight opened up the gates for a reinterpretation of traditional stereotypes – the vampire who is good… Or maybe because Hollywood has run out of original ideas? Or is it, just maybe, because everyone enjoys revisiting a familiar tale… The interesting thing about this tale is, though we remember it vaguely, it was never something brought to screen (not to my knowledge, anyway) for our childhood innocence to enjoy, meaning this film right here can do pretty much anything it wants – which is where the fun begins.


Rather than rehash a familiar tale writer and director Tommy Wirkola has transported the audience into the future, taking us on a journey set after the brave Hansel and Gretel defeat the terrible child-eating witch, and puts a unique spin on the story. The fact that Wirkola has made our childhood heroes adult is very important to the plot, because let me tell you right now, this film is NOT for kids. As our protagonists grow and their lifestyles morph into bloodthirsty witch hunters with a passion for slicing and dicing, so do their…language. Innocence and precociousness take a back seat to the “F#!*cks” and “Sh*#s” that come (in a hilarious nature might I add) from our protagonists mouths. Not to mention the odd dash of sex they add from time to time. As I said, not for kids. This places the film in a unique position and could very well have been the one thing that ruined it, though happily it didn't if the plans for a sequel are anything to go by, because it very much isolates the audience and relies on sentimentality for the childhood tale to draw cinema-goers in. If my opinion is anything to go by, then it is very much worth the purchase. Which brings me on to the cast and film portion of this post…


We begin our tale with the protagonists as children, witnessing their first witch murder, and boy does it get bloody up in that joint. Fast-forward to adulthood and we see Hansel and Gretel as professional witch hunters tasked with finding the coven which is responsible for the kidnapping of 12 children – of course it’s not long before the duo figure out that there is much more than your average ‘kidnap-and-eat’ scenario going on. 


Cue a bunch of awesome action sequences involving punches, cursing and the odd stab-wound here or there as well as a scene near the end which is oddly reminiscent of this moment in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe:

Except with less Minotaur's and dwarves and more strange looking witches with very bad teeth.

In terms of quality, this film has it in spades. The aesthetic style is reminiscent of films such as Sleepy Hollow, Red Riding Hood and Van Helsing, where much of the action takes place in a sleepy village and the inhabitants don’t seem to trust anyone: even the heroes! While the film is in keeping with the expectations of such a genre it does mix it up a little, and the plot takes a few twists and turns, which may surprise die-hard fans of the original fairy-tale. The surprise-twist definitely affects the genesis and development of the characters and adds a depth that opens this film up to a sequel. I don’t want to give away too many SPOILERS (so you might want to look away now if you want the film to remain a surprise) but for Gretel, the whole being a witch-hunter is something very close to home and her own situation.


All-in-all this film is definitely worth the view, the star-studded leads are excellent in all of their foul-mouthed-kicking-butt glory. Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton have the perfect onscreen chemistry as brother and sister and bring a life to these characters previously unseen. If you’re a fan of either of these I would highly recommend this production, it is an excellent addition to their already eclectic and increasing resume. 


Best line: (It seems fair to give the two main characters’ best lines…equal opportunity and all that. Plus I couldn't pick, both are hilarious and Hansel’s (Renner) is particularly well-placed within the film)


#1 Gretel: The curse of hunger for things that crawl. I fucking hate that one. 
#2 Hansel: Whatever you do, don’t eat the fuckin’ candy!


To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this? Yes, if your open to the idea of a classic childhood tale being turned on its head (albeit in an excellent and believable way). A film ramblers star rating? 

That’s it for now folks…