The Greatest Showman

Phineas Barnum (better known as P. T. Barnum - played by Hugh Jackman) is a tailor's son - mistreated, penniless, and dreaming of better things for himself, including a life with Charity (Michelle Williams), the daughter of a wealthy client of P. T.'s father. Seeking to change his fortune to give Charity the life of her dreams, Barnum sets about making his fortune with a museum of curiosities, adapting it slowly into a hugely popular and increasingly controversial circus of oddity performers such as a bearded lady, a tattooed man, and a dwarf soldier. But as the circus becomes ever more renown but at the same time more ridiculed, Barnum teams up with Philip Carlyle (Zac Efron), a theatre producer, and sets his sights on a higher class of audience.

The Greatest Showman is a passion project that took seven years to take to the big screen that has produced some of the most inventively staged and filmed musical set pieces of the last 20 years. It immediately bursts into life straight from the Fox logo with a silhouetted ringmaster prancing and dancing his way through the greatest show whilst singing at the top of his lungs to a percussive beat that will make you jam out in your seat; it's clear from the off what sort of musical you are in for. With contemporary influences poured onto lavish ensemble numbers, The Greatest Showman's greatest strength, quite appropriately, is its showmanship - its marvellous spectacle. Teaming powerful voices like Hugh Jackman and Keala Settle with Oscar award winning songwriters Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and topping it off with choreography by Mathieu Leopold, The Greatest Showman dazzles, astounds, and brings joy through its big numbers.

The problem with this is that the narrative falls victim to a lack of detail, a lack of care. A story of showmanship is sold with showmanship, but much like P.T. Barnum's true life ventures, there's an element of fraudulence here. So much is expended on the set pieces that a huge amount of what is in between is shallow and lacking in substance. The stars of Barnum's circus, his critics, and his colleagues are all superficial creations, existing without backstory or depth beyond the most surface elements. Major plot points are skimmed over and the audience are expected to just accept the world with which they are presented but it leaves a certain hollowness to the whole thing. It's a pity that the passion that went into getting the film made (see videos from the workshops and the B-roll footage for evidence) couldn't make its way onto the screen.

It could be argued that what La La Land (the songs in which were also penned by Pasek and Paul) lacked, The Greatest Showman has. It has flair, it has style, but it lacks the substance of it's Oscar dominating peer and that's the difference. It could be put down to rookie director Michael Gracey going through some teething problems in directing his feature film though the influence of his career in visual effects is not lost here. The film is beautifully shot and edited and the narrative, or what is there, is brilliantly emphasised through some digital trickery and imagery and smooth scene to scene transitions. It never drags and it is never unenjoyable.

One of the truest movie musicals in recent cinematic history. It's no Sound of Music but it is a heap of fun expressed through a impressively dominating production design and while you'll want to watch the songs over and over, the overall product is missing the definition that could have made it the greatest show. 

Keep It Classic Part 2: German Gangs

Germany, 1931. Only three years after the first full length 'talkie' film is opening into a whole new world of sound and languages. The foreign film becomes a fully fledged genre with the necessity for subtitles - or commonly shudder inducing dubbing - and today's film is one of these early spoken pieces of cinema that remains highly regarded by critics worldwide. But is it the masterpiece they all believe it is? This is M.

In a German city, children are going missing and turning up dead later on. The police have absolutely no leads to follow in order to capture the killer and they show no sign of being able to stop the killings. The city is getting more and more anxious every day. Parents watch their children intently and riots break out in the streets whenever someone is accused of being the child killer. The criminal underworld are also disgusted by the actions of the killer. They decide to conduct their own investigation, with access to a lot of options the police cannot use - and, of course, the police would not provide a harsh enough punishment for such a despicable human being, leaving the criminal boss Schränker (Gustaf Gründgens) feeling that justice needs to be taken into his own hands.

'My daughter is lovely, nein?'

Peter Lorre, the villainous killer, is a stand-out performance. Being little more than ominous footsteps and a whistle for around half the film, Lorre creates an undeniably menacing presence. But in glorious juxtaposition, he performs with a gentle softness that raises all kinds of questions of morality. Can such a disgusting murderer actually also be a victim and should he have a chance at redemption. Similarly, mob leader Schränker, played by Gustaf Gründgens, suggests that those who live through crime also have an ethical principle that they stand solidly by which is, arguably, more honest than the law enforcement as Schränker is not held back by protocols and rules. Despite this more humane view of criminals, Gründgens is definitely the most intimidating figure in the film. Dressed in a large leather coat and bowler hat, Gründgens looms over the crime underworld and even over Lorre, again raising questions of who the real antagonist: the constant crime underworld or the short term true evil that brought a city to its knees.

'Oh man, my Westside symbol went all wrong...'

A revolutionary film in so many ways and is still an inspiration to this very day for crime thriller around the world. Firstly, it is incredibly well written despite having no real antagonist or protagonist. The film forces the audience to engage with the failed efforts of the police, the investigation conducted by the criminal world, and the experiences of the murderer himself, creating a constant feeling of suspense as the three words overlap and the manhunt becomes a race as well. Then there is the technicality of the whole thing. Techniques of M are used commonly in almost all genres. Playing with shadows, jumping to silence, relating a single character to piece of music - in this case 'In the Hall of the Mountain King' from Edvard Grieg's 'Peer Gynt Suite No. 1', to introduce the killer. It is all so wonderfully created and incredibly ahead of its time. Also, as previously mentioned, it pressures the audience to consider their stance on crime, morality, and issues such as the death sentence. Do you side with the criminals and believe that such a gruesome killer should be executed, or do you agree with the notion of him claiming insanity and being locked away for life? Or is there a middle ground? M encourages you to think about these things.

A wonderful thriller that leaves you fully engaged until the very last second. It revived Fritz Lang's career and influenced generations of films for decades to come. It is worth the hype, having made it very rightly to #212 in Empire Magazne's Top 500 and #50 IMDb's top 250 #. A must see for all.

Best Bit? Watching the criminals track down the killer to a single building and the tense section of the film that follows as the criminals run ow on time to find him as the police rush towards the scene.

Blame The Government.

Those of you who have been around this blog a while will remember Documentary Day, in which Catfish and Exit Through The Gift Shop were reviewed. However, these films could both possibly somewhat staged and scripted. Today's film is of the same genre, but does what the documentary film was invented to do: explore and educate. Left wing enthusiast, Michael Moore, takes us on a journey into 9/11 and the Iraq War. This is Fahrenheit 9/11 .

Moore: A professional film maker.

What really happened with 9/11 and the following war in the Middle East?  Moore explores the truth behind the Bin Laden family, the fact that they had connections with the US Government, as did a lot of Saudis. He looks into the hypocrisy of politicians who will happily ask their citizens to push kids into the army, but would never consider sending their own kin. He points out how much holiday time George Bush took compared to how much he worked. This is not a conspiracy film saying that 9/11 was an inside job, this is a criticism of the government's complete and utter dedication to their own greed and longing. Of course, as with any documentary, we only see one side of the story. This happens to be a very bias perspective in Moore's case, with stock footage of George Bush stumbling over words and questions, heartfelt interviews with victims of the war, and, naturally, some gore from the war zone to add a real punch. Take everything with a pinch of salt.

A flag to love America? Or to mourn it?

The film, on it's entertainment merits, however, is completely engaging. Moore is never condescending to his viewers but is to the big bad government men. His stunts are always good fun, whether it is watching him yell out to Bush, or reading the Patriot Act through the speakers on an ice cream van, or even getting senators to sign their kids up for the army, he keeps his tone light whenever he is in the camera's sights. All of his mockery is justified by research and points he has already made and this will always bring a viewer to his see life his way. Clearly Moore is smart, and the government is not - the way the viewer may be conditioned by the way the film is put together. Do not suspend your disbelief, but listen with an open mind. Be swayed to a view point, do not get dragged.

Overall, an entertaining and educational documentary. It was the first documentary to be top of the US Box Office, so it seems to appeal to everyone. Enjoy it, but don't let it control you. (Also not for the weak hearted. There is a (hardly visible) beheading and a lot of war injuries. I was cringing and flinching and I have a strong stomach. This is real.)

Best Bit? Moore trying to encourage senators to sign their kids up for the army was particularly entertaining.

Cults In Space

So yesterday we looked at Pitch Black, the tense, claustrophobic introduction to the life of Riddick. Today we look at the next step in his life; the universe-exploring adventures that followed the end events of Pitch Black. Expect it to be bigger and, well, not as good. This is The Chronicles Of Riddick.

Things happen. That is a basic summary of Chronicles Of Riddick. In a bit more detail, Riddick (Vin Diesel) is on the run from a bounty looming over his head. He takes out a mercenary ship captained by Toombs (Nick Chinlund) and, upon stealing the ship, flies to Helion Prime, where the bounty originated, and is reunited with Imam (Keith David). Then a deadly race of, well, super religious cult-type people called Necromongers invade the planet and plan on converting everyone to their religion. Riddick refuses and escapes the Lord Marshal (Colm Feore) and Purifier's (Linus Roache) plan to find out more about his past (which is all handily revealed throughout the film by a prophecy spirit type thing...). Riddick escapes but, conveniently, is caught Toombs who takes him off to a prison-planet called Crematoria where, super conveniently, Jack (Alexa Davalos) (now called Kyra) is incarcerated. The Necromongers try to track Riddick with the help, or hinderance, of the Air Elemental, Aereon (Dame Judi Dench), whilst Vaako and Dame Vaako (Karl Urban and Thandie Newton respectively) make a plan, for some reason, to kill the Lord Marshal. I think. There was probably a reason for that but it was lost in and amongst all the other confusing nonsense. There is a cult that do not really like Riddick... That's about it.

Riddick's brief stint as Santa didn't work out.

It is hard to know where to start with Chronicles of Riddick... Vin Diesel is reprising his role as Riddick, and keeps the same cool, cockiness that he originally portrayed, but loses the creepy. A lot of the issues with the film come from difficulty following what is going on. There is too much happening to fully appreciate anyone's performance individually. No one performs poorly, but nothing shines either. The plot, as one may have guessed, is overly complex, with six or seven plot lines entwining, but not enough time is spend on anything. Who is the prophecy fairy person? How do some people seem to be able to suddenly stop being brainwashed? Why do the Vaakos want to kill the Lord Marshal? Something about Vaako becoming Lord Marshal himself, it seems. There are a lot of questions that have answers, but they are buried somewhere beneath all of the rubbish piled on top. Everything that made Pitch Black excellent was forgotten in Chronicles of Riddick; the tension, the fear, the suspense, the well written dialogue, the basic plot. It was all gone.

For an intergalactic army, the Necromongers are pretty Medieval.

Not to say the film has nothing going for it. From a purely aethstetic point of view, the action is captivating, and the scenery is beautiful. It is just a disappointment that the context around the visually effective moments is lost in the confusing plot. Perhaps a suitable way to watch Chronicles of Riddick is with the mute function of your television put to good use. Everything really is bigger, but in no way better.

A short review for you all. Let us live in hope that Riddick (2013) will learn from Chronicles mistakes and Pitch Black's merits.

Best Bit? Watching Kyra and Riddick play who is the best killer is the simply the most enjoyable moment of the film. Mindless action that needs no explanation.

I'm Sorry.

We're almost half way through December and, after my best month blogging to date, I have posted nothing. I have no funny joke about a blogging coma. I'm genuinely sorry to all my readers. I don't want to go back to posting three or four posts a month. On top of apologising, I feel the need to let you know why I haven't posted. Obviously, I'm at university currently and December is ripe with a hundred different assessments but also I'm in three separate performances, fighting to prove myself to my Ultimate Frisbee team that I'm good enough to be captain next year, two singing societies with showcases, and a host of personal issues that are not to be discussed on this blog; this is for film talk, not my pathetic-ness.

I promise you will have a new post soon. I don't know what it'll be, I'll work something out tonight. In the meantime, feel free to visit the archive and see if there's anything you fancy reading there.

Yours apologetically,

Phil.

I have plenty of unwatched films to get through.
Yes my hair is getting long. I'm a hippy.

Paranormal Actrilogy

Horror movies have a habit of spinning out of control when the term 'franchise' is mentioned. I mean, look at Saw, Friday The 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street. They all have seven movies or more and the sad truth of the matter is that most people will not want to watch past the fourth or fifth one. I mean has anyone seen Jason X? There is little parallel to the fear that reaches deep inside any horror fanatic when it is announced that there will be a series of films following a successful horror. Today, we look at one example of this in recent years: The Paranormal Activity franchise.

What follows are three reviews, one of each of the current Paranormal Activity films, and they will be chucked full of spoilers, so if you want to know nothing about the plot or, more importantly, the scares, just scroll to the end for spoiler free reviews. Right, let's get started.

Paranormal Activity


The film that started it all. Released originally on a tiny budget in 2007 and was almost unheard of until 2009 when Paramount picked it up for general release and it exploded. Oren Peli, who shot the film in ten days in his own home, could never have predicted the success and profit that his small, handheld horror would have. With enough actors to count on one hand, there had to be some secret to the success...

Bonus points for the first movie because
Katie Featherston is beautiful

One could argue that it is simplicity that slay the industrial beast of cinema. With only two actors for the majority of the film and a plot, if it can so be called, that a five year old could follow, the film appeals to a wide audience, horror fan or not. What does the demon want? Katie. That's all. Micah and Katie don't try any whichcraft or exorcism, they just get terrorised. And then the hauntings. Playing with the unknown is possible the simplest, yet hardest, horror technique. How do you make someone scared of something that isn't there without being too explicit about it? Magically appearing footprints are a good start, along with other things that appear out of the corner of your eye. The audience question what they're seeing and, in doing so, get sucked into Micah and Katie's world and experience the same scares.

Or perhaps it's the avoidance of over used horror clichés. Hauntings in the day time and genuine human emotion rather than rash, night time decisions provide something fresh on the screen. And it is not all down hearted like a lot of horrors; even when things get more intense, Micah provides comic relief. While it does suffer from being slow and losing tension in the majority of the day time footage, the fresh and simple perspective on ghosts is something that  cinema was craving. Horror fans went crazy for it and horror 'haters' went to see it in order to say, 'Well, it wasn't really a good movie...' But the biggest shock to all movie fans is that this was a good movie as well as a good horror. It ticked the boxes for both categories. The real question is: did the sequels?

Paranormal Activity 2


The first sequel is a lot bigger in every sense than its predecessor. It delves into the life of Katie's sister, Kristi, and her family after the birth of her first son, Hunter, and happens only weeks before the events of the first movie. Jumping straight into the reviewing, this film is no where near the first one in terms of quality. In fact, it is pretty awful. Think back to what worked about the first one: the simple plot, the combination of subtle hauntings and explicit demonic activity. Evidently, the writers of this instalment threw those out of the window and decided on a far too complicated plot and next to no hauntings at all. 

Looks like I wasn't the only one to doze off...

Well, I say too complicated a plot, but really it is a very satisfactory plot. One that explains more of the demons intentions and why the events in the first movie happen. And yes, it is completely needless. However, its biggest flaw is the terrible timing. Nothing even remotely important is mentioned until half an hour in (and even that is more important for the third movies plot) and nothing particularly scary happens until about 50 minutes into the movie. That scare, a shadow moving over Ali while she sleeps, is followed by nothingness for a bit, unless you count terrible writing and horrid characters as 'something'. Ali leaves the house, while baby sitting, and the door slams behind her. Rather than doing anything logical, she wanders off until her parents get home. And this still isn't the most annoying her character gets. Her disobedience, rudeness and laughing at others will encourage nothing but the hope that the demon kills her.

 
In fact, the only character worth a damn (minus the dog) is the dad, but even he is completely blind to the events happening around him and doesn't trust his family. The other major flaw with the plot is that the main point -that there's a curse from the grandmother on the first born male in her family, Hunter - is so irrationally jumped to after an hour or so on Google. No one even suspects that there's another explanation. And after all this, the family is safe. Good. A nice wholesome ending. Wait... Nevermind. The entire point of being able to transfer the curse is pointless because, as well as killing your sister in law, you also kill your own family. Smooth. Not scary, badly written, and completely unsatisfactory.

Paranormal Activity 3


A prequel that shoots back much further than a few weeks. We're now in Kristi and Katie's childhood. This time the writers have remembered what made the first film work and used it and built on it. Something that is completely understandable with a bigger budget and an ability to use larger special effects. So it turns out that Katie and Kristi, their mother, Julie, and their step-father, Dennis, were haunted, rather violently, as kids. They never talk about it though, even when it comes back in the other two movies. The glaring issue with this film, and the second, is everyone's ignorance of the issues. Everyone has cameras, but only Micah in the first movie really checks it. Well, that's not true. Dennis checks his footage daily. But whenever he tries to show it to Julie, she ignores him. Then she dies. And he dies. Well played, Julie. Four for you. 

The ghost normally stops being scary by the third movie...
But this is a new low.

But don't get me wrong, the third instalment is a massive step up on the second. The plot is simpler, the scares are both bigger but some are more subtle, and stuff actually happens. The basic plot, is there's a ghost or a demon. Kristi talks to it and calls it Toby. Scary stuff happens. Easy right? Well, until they throw in the side plot to tie the films together. Something about a covenant of woman who marry girls to demons who take the first born male. (See the link now?) This side plot is actually the beginning of a downfall for the otherwise fantastic ending. After Julie goes to check on her mother and doesn't return, Dennis goes investigating and finds an empty house. A shadow in the window when there turns out to be no one there gets you to the edge of your seat. And then he opens a door and there's a load of crazy old ladies who chase him. Honestly, it seemed like it was plucked from another movie completely. Then Julie's body is floating, dead. Then Kristi shows up and they hide in a cupboard, then Katie scares the pants off of you. Then Julie's mum turns up, Dennis gets broken, and Julie's mum walks off with Kristi, Katie, and, apparently, Toby.


Yes, that was a massive spoiler, but I needed to point out how ridiculous the ending became after such a tense promising start. The best thing about Paranormal Activity 3 is the ghost activity. Some of it is fantastic. There's a sheet, like a child dressed as a ghost, which suddenly collapses. The entire kitchen lifts into the ceiling while off camera only to slam down with perfect timing (something the second film REALLY lacked) and a mysterious figure appears behind Dennis but only briefly. And those are just the more obvious ones. There's the fast shadow that shoots past doors and Katie skipping down the corridor at night. And there's something great in the build up. Kristi talking to the ghost and playing with him creates some kind of suspense that is difficult to create. Though 'Toby' seems very fickle. He attacks Katie and protects Kristi and then later it switches without any real reason. That's too simple a plot. Elaborate, please. 


Spoiler Free Below:

A quick word about all three movies. The camera work is a big thing with this series, obviously, being shot from handheld cameras. The first movie had a single camera which caught just enough to intrigue the audience, but not enough to scare them silly. The second one caught far too much. Most night time scenes were five minutes of nothing but different views of the house. It was like watching Big Brother at three in the morning. The third one got the cameras right. It gave purpose to having the handheld, unlike the second, and he developed his filming as the hauntings progressed. He started with one camera, switched to two, and then ended with three, the last on a neat swivel so that it could catch a panoramic view, and also created large blind spots for a few seconds. This captured just the right amount of ghost activity. It's a pity that the story wasn't better. Will the fourth one get it right? And let me know your opinions on anything Paranormal Activity related and especially what you think of the upcoming one.


Paranormal Activity 1: For the best storyline, a fresh look at horrors, the best characters, and actually being scary, I reward you with:

Paranormal Activity 2: For terrible in almost every sense, but still managing to make me care about the dog, take this petty prize:

Paranormal Activity 3: For best special effects, camera work, and ghost activity, you should be the best. However, your plot lost its way too often and you ruined a great ending. Take this:

Sci-Fi. Aliens or Time Travel... Or Both?

Trilogy is a word that causes film nerds to hide in fear. They grab their copies of Lord Of The Rings, the original Star Wars trilogy, Back to the Future, and all three Toy Stories. For the kids of course (Ed: Lying bastard. Everyone loves Toy Story.) So how did this trilogy excite people? How did it manage to convince people that it may be different? Two words: Will Smith.

When Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement) escapes from his high security prison on the moon, he swears revenge on the Agent who shot his arm off and arrested him in 1969. However, instead of finding revenge in the present day, he decides to go back to where it began. The past: 1969. The Agent he want's revenge on? Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones). Back in the present, Agent J (Will Smith) realises that something's different. No one has any recollection of Agent K. J does the only sensible thing, goes back in time to stop Boris the Animal. (Ed: It's just Boris) Back in 1969, he meets the younger Agent K (Josh Brolin), and together they team up to save... well... Agent K. Of course, in 1969, there are now two Boris the Animals, only one Agent K, Agent J, and a strange man called Griffin (Michael Stuhlbarg) who can see all outcomes of any time space combination. Time travel is hard.

Time to strap in... to the love train

All brain numbing paradoxes aside, (don't get me started!) there are plenty of good performances to keep the movie going. While this is, as the other tow movies were, completely Will Smith's movie - normally playing next to Tommy Lee Jones' straight man, Agent K - Josh Brolin is the one who really comes out in this film. One of the most perfect pieces of casting ever known. Brolin channels his inner Tommy Lee Jones perfectly and it is hard to tell that he is not an actual younger version of him. The big difference is, the younger Agent K is more charismatic and this encourages a really nice partnership between him and J. Of course, Will Smith is still brilliant. It's nice to see him going back to his Men in Black character and that he still remembers it, despite the long gap between movies. Tommy Lee Jones, as well, is fantastic and one can't help but wonder if working with Josh Brolin in the past helped the pair learn more about one another which greatly helped their performances.

Despite his might, Boris needed a hand to escape.

As mentioned earlier, there are serious paradoxical issues with the script writing. Of course, Men In Black is an alien franchise primarily but I will forever have issues with people who go back in time to stop something which will lead to them to not wanting to go back in time at all causing a ripple in the time-space cont... oh no I've gone cross-eyed. There are little faults in terms of technical elements; the CGI is perferctly fine (and should be with such a high budget.) The biggest issues come with the script, not just in terms of time travel, but also in terms of heart. There is little heart in the movie until one point that just seems to be thrown in with little thought. Once the audience get past the 'aww' factor, they will question the purpose of it entirely.

Overall though, it is a fun film and one that will present a good laugh, despite jokes falling flat or just not developing completely far too often. Serious Sci-Fi fans beware, but if you're after a simple laugh with a friend, this may suffice for you.

Best Bit? There is a really nice moment when K, J, and Griffin are all gathered at a ball park, in the past, watching a baseball game from the future. It is a part of the movie that actually is touching. That and the very last joke of the movie (The best joke in the movie) are the best parts for me.

Patriotic Superheroes Are a Thing Of The Past

With the record breaking release of The Avengers (which I will be reviewing, don't you worry) I thought it's about time we jumped back and had a look at some of the other movies that have led up to this. I've already looked at Iron Man 2 but I've neglected a couple of others. Let's make it up to them. Now we look at the first (and also last) Avenger: Captain America.

Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), a scrawny little fella, has dreams of joining his fellow men in laying down his life for his country. not because war excites him, but because he thinks, 'why should he do any less.' Unfortunately, he's completely unsuitable, physically, for the army and keeps getting rejected. That is, until Dr Erksine (Stanley Tucci) presents him with the opportunity. He immediately signs up and heads off to boot camp. It's obvious, when he stands next to the other soldiers, that he truly was not suitable for the army, as Colonel Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) isn't hesitant to point out. Once again, Dr Erksine comes up with a solution. An experiment known as Project Rebirth put together by Dr Erksine and Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) (Tony Stark's father). Rogers is chosen because of his humanity, because he's a good person, because he, above all others, will value the rewards of the experiment. Project Rebirth gives Rogers super human strength and abilities. The allies begin using him as a form of propaganda under the name Captain America. But when it turns out the Captain's old friend Bucky (Sebastian Stan) might be in trouble, he turns to Stark and Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) to help him take matters into his own hands and find the evil Schmidt (Hugo Weaving), otherwise known as Red Skull.

Schmidt rehearsing for the annual Nazi show...
They're doing Hamlet. 

A wonderfully well cast movie. Hugo Weaving was a nigh perfect Red Skull. He was delightfully evil and equally chaotic and plain insane. It's always hard to play a super hero antagonist just right as everyone has different interpretations on how they should come across on film (For example, the realism in Christopher Nolan's Batman movies compared to the cheesiness of some other superheroes.) Hugo Weaving managed to strike a nice balance that should please everyone. Chris Evans was fantastic as Captain America, the soldier with a heart the size of America. Admittedly, it was hard to focus on him as every time he appeared on screen my friend had a little fan-girl session. But he did a swell job even though his face and voice did not match his small body at the beginning. Stanley Tucci... well, what can't he do? Another fantastic role from him. I never felt any care, however, for Hayley Atwell's Peggy. She seemed far too plain for Captain America. I honestly felt more attached to the random blonde who randomly kisses Captain America in a cheeky moment of weakness.

On second thoughts... Fan-girling over Chris Evans is allowed.

There were some brilliant decisions with the movie. Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark was a bit of casting genius. The CGI was all solidly handled - people really looked like they were exploding in a plume of blue. Considering how cheesy Captain America has the potential to be, Joe Johnston handled it extremely well. He kept the cheese but presented it with a slight disdain and focused more on the darker elements of the Cap. The war, Red Skull's insanity, the deaths. Things like the sequence of cheesy propaganda stops to Star Spangled Man (A fantastic song. Why was it nominated for an Oscar? Academy? You have some explaining to do...) were fantastically cheesy but Johnston made sure you could see the way it ate away at Rogers. My only major issue with the film was the pacing. There were moments that dragged and dragged on and then they were followed by some incredible action. My advice to the film makers would be cut half an hour. Dragging is one of the worst things in a movie. If someone has to check how long is left, you;ve made a mistake with the pacing.

Overall, a good superhero movie. Not quite as good as the first Iron Man or Thor, but enough to keep us excited for more in the form of The Avengers. A good back story to a good character and one that I could
happily see in more movies, providing that they're shorter.

Best Bit? I'm always a sucker for a good army training montage. Therefore, I shall say boot camp. I loved seeing Rogers at the top of his intelligence and heart.

The Misleadingly Titled Games

In our world that is running ever short of good ideas for new, original movies, producers often turn to books. It's no secret that if you write a successful teenage-aimed book series, you are almost certainly going to be offered a film adaptation. We saw it with Harry Potter, with Twilight, and some of us are waiting eagerly for more formal news on the Cherub series, but there's something different about this series of books. The following is more of a cult following rather than mainstream. The plot is devastating and horrifying rather than joyous or loving. There's very little fun involved. It's The Hunger Games.

Some time in the future, North America has collapsed. War and poverty overran it and now it is a whole new country known as Panem. Panem is ruled by the Capitol which is surrounded by thirteen districts. District Thirteen, however, was destroyed after an uprising - known as the Dark Days in the novels - and as a constant reminder to the citizens of the other districts of the Capitol's power, a boy and a girl are selected from each district every year to fight to the death live on television for all to see. It is the year of the 74th annual Hunger Games (which have very little to do about hunger) and in District 12, Primrose Everdeen (Willow Shields) is selected as the female tribute. Horrified, her sister, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), volunteers as tribute. After much crying an screaming, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) is selected as the male tribute. The two of them are taken by Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) to the Capitol where they will be interviewed by Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), made pretty by Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), trained by Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), and thrown into the arena by President Snow (Donald Sutherland) and Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley) with 22 other contestants. With plenty of twists and turns along the way, the District 12 tributes will have to fight for their survival against tributes who have trained their whole life for this.

In a post-apocalyptic society, TV is really dull.

Starting straight away, the acting in this film was pretty much spot on. As a fan of the books, I could see more or less all of the characters. Admittedly, there was a lack of developing, but that's simply because films cannot capture everything. Someone who had not read the books would not know the difference. Jennifer Lawrence is fantastic as Katniss. Her fear is portrayed in both the most subtle of ways - like when she is trembling in the tube before the games - and in the plain obvious - when Primrose is selected as tribute. She truly nailed the image I had of Katniss. The cold, distrusting approach to people but her caring heart hidden behind that. Josh Hutcherson, as the male lead, is also great. I've heard some people claim that he lacked charisma and he seemed too young, but he is meant to be sixteen. He is young. And lack of charisma? The interview between Peeta and Caesar is enough charisma for three people. I think he really captured Peeta's soft and gentle side as well as his more outgoing side. Stanley Tucci was superb as Caesar with his flamboyance and confidence that a chat show host needs and Donald Sutherland, while not at all how I imagined President Snow, perfected the character. Seemingly harmless but more deadly than nightlock berries.

'Come on, Katniss. Give us your rendition of 'Hound Dog''

The technical elements of the film were brilliant. The soundtrack was perfectly orchestrated to create the right atmosphere for the movie. Even more so, the lack of sound at moments in the film were used even better than the moments with sound. The sound editing really captured the moments portrayed on screen and jumped between heartbreaking and joyous with excellent balance. The cinematography was really good as well, though far from perfect. There were some shots that were outstanding but the overuse of close-ups and shaking camera shots near the beginning was a little tiring. Now onto one of the most crucial things in an adaptation: the script. The writing was excellent. Considering the book is written from a first person perspective, there were plenty of completely necessary changes that needed to be made. For example, the reader would only know as much as Katniss would know, but that would get boring on screen. The viewer is treated to behind the scene conversations with Snow and Crane as well as seeing how the games are pieced together. Bits and pieces were jiggled to make it more suitable for screen but they didn't really annoy me that much. That being said, some moments really got to me. (See Spoiler section at the end for details. That's where most of the negative elements of the film will be)

I included this photo simply because I think Jennifer Lawrence is beautiful.

Overall, a fantastic adaptation from a brilliant book. Handled very cleverly as they didn't include things that would make the film reliant on a sequel, but did enough to make you want to know more. That is how to handle a book series intelligently. It blows other adaptations out of the water but, in all honesty, I would love to see an R/18 rated version of this movie. While it captured the atmosphere around the games, the nightmarish world of the games was lost due to the PG-13 killings. It is impossible to make a film about brutally murdering teenagers as good as it can be without showing the brutal murders. Though I completely understand why they did it, I hope there might be a special edition DVD that is slightly more gruesome.

Best Bit? There were lots of good bits. My favourite bits in the novel (the tracker jackers, the muttations) were slightly anti-climatic because of how dark they are in the books and how that can't be recreated on screen for a young teen audience. So my best bit is Jennifer Lawrence. Just her. With brown hair. I think she is fantastic and beautiful in every way. But in all seriousness, I had tingles when the tributes arrived in their chariots. When Peeta and Katniss held their hands in the air, I was captivated. Good film making.

SPOILER SECTION (Read on at your own peril (Contains book spoilers too))

There was very little I disliked about the film. I didn't mind the slight changes in plot in order to make it less reliant on a sequel. However, I did mind how badly the muttations were handled. I saw a review were the reviewer, having not read the book, thought that they had been inserted digitally. Of course, in the book, the real horror of the Mutts is that they are made from the dead tributes (Glimmers eyes are what Katniss notices) and that is a horrifying concept. Without that, they are just big dogs and that's a bit boring. Also, I didn't like the way such important information was so skimmed over. The Mockingjay pin is crucial in the next two books and yet we only see it in the beginning and end of the movie, and Madge was cut out all together. Still, that can be recovered in a sequel if need be.

It was a long film, though it didn't seem it and I just wanted another 20 minutes or so to explain things like the Mutts, or Gale and Katniss' relationship. (To anyone who didn't know, the cut aways to Gale seemed cheesy and unexplained. I honestly found them too 'Twilight love triangle') And the injuries sustained by Katniss and Peeta are minimal. Peeta should lose a leg! Katniss should be deaf in one ear! The games are a lot less nightmarish without this. And what about Peeta claiming his real love for Katniss? And Katniss shooting him down on the train home? While the relationship was handled well, I wanted that bit, that crucial, crucial and heartbreaking bit.

Movies That I Haven’t Seen But Should Have - Part 1: Zombies

There are a lot of movies I’m ashamed to admit I’ve never seen. But rather than pretend I’ve seen them or change the subject when they’re mentioned, I’ve decided to share them with you. These films that are cult classics or masterpieces that I have missed or avoided, I am sitting down to review. So let’s start with the father of all zombie movies: Night Of The Living Dead.

Barbara (Judith O'Dea) and Johnny (Russell Streiner) travel across the country in order to put a wreath on their father’s grave. The graveyard gives Barbara the creeps and Johnny pokes fun at her for this. ‘They’re gonna get ya!’ He laughs gesturing to a man stumbling towards them. Barbara goes to apologise to the man but he tries to attack her. Johnny jumps in to protect her sister and she runs. She is chased by the mysterious man until she finds a house. She hides away in the house and her sanity slowly leaves her. Another person, Ben (Duane Jones), finds the house and begins to board up every window and door to make himself and Barbara safe. The house slowly becomes surrounded by people who, as the television will tell Ben and Barbara, are the animated corpses of the unburied dead. Ben takes charge of the house, much to the disapproval Mr Cooper (Karl Hardman), who was hiding in the cellar with his four others.

Duane Jones was actually related to Indiana Jones.

Well, this is the one that really started it all. The father of all zombie movies. The part of Ben, the protagonist, was given to Duane Jones simply because he was the best actor, his race was completely ignored. And rightly so. Duane Jones is brilliant. In a movie of extremely low budget special effects that look as cheap as they are, Duane Jones stands out above everyone else. He's the strongest character but his subtle vulnerability is wonderfully shown through angry outbursts and moments of quiet. Karl Hardman was also brilliant and an ideal confrontational partner for Duane Jones' Ben. Their scenes together played out better than most of the scenes in the movie.  Judith O'Dea also manages to pull off catatonic rather well. (Disturbingly well, perhaps?) She shivers and shakes with just the right amount of understanding of the situation.

'Say hello to my little friend.'

What really makes this film stand out for me is all behind the scenes. The work that went into it. George A. Romero and his team started with an idea and no money. Their investors were given roles in the movie. Karl Hardman (One of the $300 investors) was not only given a role, but also helped with make up, sound effects and took the still photos for the credits. The team won the sound mixing equipment in a game of chess with one of the investors. When they finished the movie, they threw it in the trunk of a car and drove to New York to try and get it played. Made for only $114,000 it has made over $30million worldwide. It went into the public domain after there was an issue with the copyright and now anyone can distribute it. This really is proof that an idea, combined with determination, can become something incredible.

I really enjoyed this movie. Yes, it is very cheap and there are some really cheesy moments. But one has to remember that the movie was shot in the 60s for a micro-budget. And yet, despite all this, the second it finished, all I wanted to do was watch it again. There's something very captivating about it. A good watch.

Best Bit? There will never be any moment better in a zombie movie than when the zombies start outnumbering the people fighting them. The fear, the panic, the strength, the teamwork (or lack of it) I find it all fascinating. 

The Great Return

Apologies. I slipped into a movie related coma after the Oscars but the good news is their back on our screen! It's been six years since they released any form of movie (The Wizard of Oz) and 20 years since the last time they had their famous TV show. Finally, with great vision and determination, they return with a post-modern, biographical (sort of), comedy starring themselves. Who am I talking about? Yes, it's The Muppets.

Three Muppet enthusiasts, Gary (Jason Segel), Mary (Amy Adams), and Walter (voiced by Peter Linz), head off to Hollywood to see the Muppet theatre and to celebrate Mary and Gary's tenth anniversary. However, on the tour of the theatre, Walter overhears Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) discussing his plans to buy the theatre and destroy it to get to the oil underneath. In horror, the trio set out to find Kermit and with him, hatch a plan to get the gang back together, raise the $10 million, and return the theatre to its glorious state. They begin to travel around the world in search of the other Muppets and try to find a TV company that will air their telethon. It's a tough time for them though considering they're no longer considered 'popular' and on top of this, Tex Richman is keeping a close eye on them.

When they realised there wasn't enough seatbelts to go around,
The Muppets got scared.

There is very little in terms of human performance here. Jason Segel was absolutely fantastic as Gary. Not only is he absolutely hilarious, he is also so touching and heartfelt when the moment calls for it. Not to mention he can sing and dance like a pro. His voice in Man or Muppet - which won Best Original Song at the Oscars - is natural and raw. It gives me tingles every time. Amy Adams was also a delight in this movie. Her innocence and charm made her perfect for the role of Mary. And we all know she's a wonderful singer because of Enchanted. Finally, Chris Cooper played a mean (if not overdone) baddie. There was several things I disliked about Tex Richman as a character which I don't think was down to Chris Cooper's portrayal; I think it was down to the writers and directors. All the cameos in this movie were fantastic. They were so perfectly inserted with excellent jokes and pure wit.

Our Lord and Saviour... Kermit.

The film was spearheaded by Jason Segel and the promotion of it was fantastic. The world became excited for The Muppets. The film was great fun for all the family. Kids will love it because it’s silly and its protagonists are puppets and adults will love it because it brings The Muppets back to the screen with plenty of clever jokes and meta-humour. The script, while at parts dipped in quality and dragged a little, was mostly true to The Muppets style with a typical ‘good vs evil’ plot and silly comedy mixed with well thought out jokes. The songs in the movie were fantastic – probably the best parts of the movie – and were all worthy of an Oscar nomination (though Man or Muppet rightfully won.)

I find The Muppets sense of humour hilarious. Things like travelling by map or the line ‘They must have got broken in the dance number I was just doing,’ just make the movie that little bit better for me. Also, if you know me, you’ll know I’m a fool for singing and dancing, especially songs as good as the ones in The Muppets. I would definitely suggest this movie to people. It’s just plain good fun.

Best Bit? Man or Muppet was a definite highlight for me due to my love of songs, puppets and Jason Segel. I also very much enjoyed the post modern collection of the rest of The Muppets.

9/11 Happened And It Was Sad

Movies often use worldwide events as a basis for their plots. Look at any war film ever made. The issue with these sorts of movies is they must be handled right. Think about [Robin Williams’ movie] about the holocaust. It was not handled right and therefore was not very good. Unlike Schindler’s List which handled the holocaust right and is considered a masterpiece in film. Today’s film takes a heavy and recent event that shocked the world: September 11^th. This is Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close.

Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn) loses his father Thomas (Tom Hanks) who was in a meeting when the World Trade Centre was hit. This leaves him alone with mother, Linda, (Sandra Bullock) and his Grandmother (Zoe Caldwell). Thomas used to set up little missions for Oskar to carry out which would teach him plenty as well as encouraging him to talk to more people, something he found hard. Oskar is a bright kid but also a very emotional one. After his father dies, he doesn’t enter Thomas’s room for a year. When he eventually does, he finds an envelope with a key. The only clue to where it leads is the name Black. Hoping that it’ll lead to something his father left - as a mission, perhaps – Oskar sets off to find what the key opens. Along the way he meets hundreds of people and gains some help from a man he simply knows as ‘The Renter’, who does not talk.

Oskar's social issues meant he couldn't talk to people normally.

I want to start with the good aspects of the acting. Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, Max Von Sydow Are absolutely brilliant. It really is a pity that they all have fairly small parts. Hanks perfectly captures the emotions of his character. Half of his performance is voice and through his voice you can hear every thought and every emotion. Max Von Sydow is really the star of this movie and is rightly nominated for Best Supporting Actor with a good chance of winning.  The lack of speech makes it far harder to portray what he wants and yet he makes it seem effortless. The most in depth character of the film. Unfortunately, there is one large let down for the acting/ characters in this movie. Doubly unfortunately, that is the protagonist. Oskar is one of the most frustrating and annoying characters I have come across. He is rude, loud, and believes he is superior to everyone he talks to. He’s horrible to his mother, extremely rude to his doorman, and completely controlling of The Renter, despite his attempts to help. This may not be Horn’s fault. It may be more to the writers/director. I mean, who gives a kid a tambourine? They’re incredibly annoying on their on their own, let alone when a kid is shaking them constantly. I feel no emotional attachment to him, which is what the film relies on.

How to make the worlds most annoying child:
Give him social issues and a tambourine.

As I mentioned a moment ago, I feel the negative aspects of this movie are almost completely down to the writers and the director. I’ve not read the book, so I cannot speak for how it has transferred to the screen. But I must say, I don’t like the way they used the disaster that was 9/11. I don’t mind movies using it, as long as it is used well and handled rightly. This isn’t. Tom Hanks’ character could have died in a car crash and the story would have made just as much sense. The use of 9/11 was for completely emotionally exploitive reasons. It was like the movie was screaming: ‘THIS IS SOMETHING REALLY SAD THAT HAPPENED! FEEL SAD!’ It was just trying too hard to evoke an emotional reaction but instead it simply became uncomfortable to watch. The film was too long for such a simple premise. I found myself really bored and there was nothing special in any of the technical elements.

Honestly, I don’t recommend this. I’m actually rather angry that it was nominated for Best Picture over the likes of Drive, Tintin, Shame and, The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo. There is something good here; a decent premise done completely wrong. Three or four great performances but a horridly annoying protagonist. It just all comes together wrong. A more accurate name for it would be Extremely Long and Incredibly Dull.

Best Bit? The phone call between Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock is probably the most emotional scene in the entire film. Genuine emotion and some great acting. Also, when The Renter and Oskar visit a particularly angry Black together and The Renter has a little bit of fun ringing the doorbell over and over again.

Film History In Paris

Recently, children's movies have not had the best reputation for being the most intelligent films around. But here we are with a children's film nominated for eleven Oscars, including Director, Screenplay, Score, and, of course, Best Picture. Can a children's film really be that good? Can it live up to that hype? Let's have a look at Hugo.

Orphan, Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) lives in a train station in 1930s Paris. He winds all the clocks in the building without anyone knowing he's there. But he has a secret. Behind the walls, where he lives, he has a broken automaton that his father (Jude Law) bought at a museum before he died. It is mechanical man who is supposed to be able to write with a pen. Unfortunately, it's broken, but Hugo has been trying to fix it by stealing parts from toy maker Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley) and avoiding the watchful eye of the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), who has a thing for arresting orphans. The automaton is missing one key part. A heart shaped key. On his journey to fix his mechanical friend, he meets Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), Georges' god-daughter. He introduces her to movies, much like his father did for him, and she introduces him to books, with some help from Monsieur Labisse (Christopher Lee). It turns out that she and her god-father have more of a connection with the automaton than was apparent and this leads the two children on an trip of discovery into the history of film making, with Georges as their guide.

Hugo had been fighting for his Hogwarts letter for months.

Another film that requires a young protagonist and Asa Butterfield is great. Admittedly, is far from perfect, but  with a bit of time, he will grow up to be a fine actor. Much like his co-star Chloë Grace Moretz has done. Already her CV has such a solid range in it and Hugo will only add to that. An absolutely wonderful performance from her, as per usual. In fact, all the performances were exactly what should be expected of a multiple Oscar nominated movie. Ben Kingsley was outstanding. He was perfect for his role as a man whose dreams had been ruined by the war, leaving him in a toy booth. Sacha Baron Cohen was brilliant as the antagonist, or the closest thing to an antagonist. He is a perfect mix of hilarious and frightening. Just what is needed for the baddie of a children's film. 

The opening weekend of Hugo had a  massive turnout... 

The film's real stand out element is its art direction. It's rightly nominated for an Oscar. Martin Scorsese and his production team have made an absolutely wonderful world for Hugo. There is nothing particularly magical about the plot but it feels like a magical journey. Probably done to reflect Méliès' logic that making movies was like magic. But the audience go on the journey with Hugo and it's like it is magic. The score was superb and the visual effects were spot on. Both elements are rightly nominated for Oscars. The cinematography is also nominated and it is beautiful. It is the most solid film in terms of surrounding factors.

In a world littered with computer generated chipmunks and dancing penguins, as well as their sequel, it's rare to find a children's film, not made by Disney, that is intelligent and enjoyable for all ages. Hugo is that rare film. A kids film that adults will like, and maybe even more than their kids.

Best Bit? There are so many wonderful bits. Here's two: When the children start reading about films and the audience are treated to a host of clips from early movies (The Great Bank Robbery etc) and when Georges Méliès is filming a movie and we see how his 'magic' was created. As a massive movie person, these were my favourite bits.

Baseball Is About Money?

Every year there is a sports film nominated. Every year there is an underdog movie that gives us a little guy to root for as they stick it to the man. Every year there is a film about smart people doing something cool with their intelligence. This year, we get all of the above. This year they all arrive in one movie. This year, we have Moneyball.

Ex-Baseball player, turned scout, turned general manager of the Oakland Athletics, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), is facing a tough time with his team. With his incredibly limited budget and bigger teams taking all his best players, he needs to make a change. While trying to gain new players, he meets Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a Yale economics graduate who has moved into the Baseball world with radical ideas about analysing players. Beane hires him and together they begin a new way of choosing players with their limited budget, much to the anger of the more traditional scouts and the Athletics coach, Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman). But Beane and Brand believe in their theory and they call it moneyball. (MOVIE TITLE!!!)

Brad got a group together to watch the other Oscar nominated  films.
This was the turnout for Transformers 3.

Brad Pitt, another of my favourite actors, is nominated for another Oscar (his fourth nomination, no wins), stars in this movie and in my opinion, was average for the majority of the movie. Now, he had moments were there were completely genuine emotions and moments were he really deserved an Oscar nomination. However, that being said, to me, he seemed very Brad Pitt-ish. More often than not he just seemed like he was doing the slight cocky attitude that is underlying in most of his characters. Obviously, I'm comparing him to the other Best Actor nominees and personally I thought he was not to the standard of George Clooney or Jean Dujardin. Jonah Hill, on the other hand, went miles away from his normal comfort zone. His normal role of the rude and fat friend that has way too much undeserved arrogance is completely thrown away. Peter Brand is smart, quiet, and shy. Up next to the big names in Baseball, he shows all his nerves and how uncomfortable he is there. He is out of his depth and he knows it. Definitely worthy of an Oscar nod and as only two of the nominees are in Best Picture nominated films, his chances with the Academy are put up. Also worthy of mention is stingy coach Art Howe, played brilliantly by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Billy Beane's daughter, Casey, played by Kerris Dorsey. Dorsey was really the emotional undertone of the movie. She hits you in the heart with an absolutely wonderful singing voice and adorableness.

'I just ordered 5000 of these fancy hats. Reckon we can sell them?'

Also nominated for Best Sound Mixing, Best Editing and Best Adapted Screenplay. As far as editing goes, I don't think it tops other nominations, but surprises happen. With the sound, it was mostly nothing special. On the other hand, there are moments of sound, or lack of sound, that are breathtaking. The thwack of a bat followed by silence. The silence in between bursts of noise from Beane's radio. It can be outstanding. Camera wise, there was only one shot that I was significantly impressed with. Apart from that, there were plenty of generic long locker room shots, empty fields and ball parks. Finally, the writing, while good, does not live up to Aaron Sorkin's previous works (he won the Oscar for The Social Network last year) and I just felt that the dialogue was patchy.

Overall, it was a good film. A sport movie that doesn't involve much sport and the underdog is behind the scenes. A bit slow in points and everyone involved (with the exception of Jonah Hill) have done better work. If I was to predict its Oscar wins, I would predict the only one it's possibly going to win is  Best Supporting Actor. But then., they say the right people win Oscar's for the wrong films so perhaps it is finally Brad Pitt's year. I plan to put up a full prediction list when I have watched all the movies so stay tuned. 

Best bit? I must say, I loved hearing Beane's daughter sing but my favourite part was right in the middle of the movie when Beane and Brand have got their theory in full swing and the entire pace of the movie picks up for a few scenes.