Film Reviews
All film reviews that I post here, I will rate using the 'Leonard Maltin' method. Back in the day (before the internet) I used to always buy a copy of 'Leonard Maltin's TV Movies and Video Guide'; a hugely thick tome which contained details of thousands of films, both old and new. It was updated every year to keep up with the new film releases.
I loved his guide and I thought it was terrific for many reasons. Firstly, it gave you a decent amount of core information about each and every film listed. (Director, writer, stars, running length, whether it was based upon a previous work etc). It also listed every film in strict alphabetical order (ignoring articles of speech); and this really appealed to me.
Also, I really liked his rating system. To me, any rating system should have an odd number of possible values. This means you can have a 'middle' value which can represent 'average' and then have additional values either side of that point. Leonard Maltin used a star system running from one star to four stars, including half-star increments. So four stars is the highest value and only awarded to the very best films and one star is the lowest of the low. One point of note is that rather than saying a film was 'one star', he would use the term 'BOMB' instead. (I liked that too!)
I loved his guide and I thought it was terrific for many reasons. Firstly, it gave you a decent amount of core information about each and every film listed. (Director, writer, stars, running length, whether it was based upon a previous work etc). It also listed every film in strict alphabetical order (ignoring articles of speech); and this really appealed to me.
Also, I really liked his rating system. To me, any rating system should have an odd number of possible values. This means you can have a 'middle' value which can represent 'average' and then have additional values either side of that point. Leonard Maltin used a star system running from one star to four stars, including half-star increments. So four stars is the highest value and only awarded to the very best films and one star is the lowest of the low. One point of note is that rather than saying a film was 'one star', he would use the term 'BOMB' instead. (I liked that too!)
|
|
|
13th November 2013 Empire Cinema, Poole Format: 3D Rating: **** |
'Gravity'Good grief, this film is some achievement! Aside from the technical prowess of the film (which is immense), as an emotional and physical ride, it really delivers and works.
I was left a little bit exhausted when the film finished - and it's only 90 minutes long! Aside from the fact that taken as a whole, the film is preposterous, I only have a couple of little niggles. Firstly, Mr handsome (you know who) I think is just a bit too laid back. Yes yes, I know it's his character and he's meant to be the 'old jock' who has seen it/done it, but for me it didn't ring quite true enough for a film that reaches so greatly for realism. I can't believe any real astronaut would be quite that chilled out. Secondly, I don't think this film will win any awards for its script. I found it a bit stilted at times. Also for me, Sandra Bullock's performance; whilst 'okay', again I felt it was a bit 'restricted'. Since reading up about the making of this film, I can understand why some of these issues have surfaced. The film was incredibly complex to shoot, due to the technicalities of the special effects etc. With no room for any spontaneity (in fact each line having to be delivered perfectly on cue etc) - I really do think you can see this come across in the film and it hamstrings certain aspects of the production. However! I am being a bit picky! Aside from these little grumbles, I give this film four stars. The script and the performances are not really what the film is about. It's the visuals. The design. And for that it is a TRIUMPH! Truly groundbreaking I think. I do think we will look back at this film in years to come and see it as a technical turning point. What's more, the film is BRITISH! - Probably American money and obviously has American actors, but it's a British film with all the effects being handled by a British effects house based in Soho, London. They should be very proud of themselves. I applaud any film maker who does something different and this film is different. It's just so nice to not be watching 'The Avengers vs Hulk vs Thor VII or something. For me, this was the best film of 2013 by country mile. |
|
15th February 2014 Empire Cinema, Poole Format: 2D Rating: ** |
'The Monuments Men'What a disappointment this film was!
I grew up watching lots of films from the 40's, 50's and 60's, including many World War II films. Many of these are still amongst my very favourite films. (For example, 'The Train') - which incidentally is also about protecting the art that the Nazis were attempting to steal towards the end of the war. So when I heard that Mr Clooney was making this, I paid very close attention. I read that he had wanted to make a film 'that was like the films he used to watch when he was young'....so to me, that also meant films I used to watch when I was young too! Good news! Furthermore, it's about WW2 and it's about saving art and treasures from occupied France. He then managed to assemble a terrific cast. Bob Balaban (who I love), Matt Damon, Bill Murray, John Goodman. These are all good actors. So I went along to see this with my hopes high! Unfortunately, my hopes were dashed. For starters, NOTHING REALLY HAPPENS! The cast of characters come together, but then they don't really ever DO anything. I'm not sure how he managed it, but Clooney has somehow made a WW2 film that is devoid of drama and tension. I think it was a mistake to 'split up' the characters and send them out into France separately too. But even when they're together, there is no real emotion. You don't care about of any of them. George's character constantly bangs on about how important the art is, but I didn't believe him and I didn't really care about him either. This is a big failing. By far the best character (and actor) is Cate Blanchett. There is at least a tiny amount of tension centred around her and there is a nice scene between her and Matt Damon's character but it's not enough. The ensemble cast hardly say or do anything. Bill Murray looks like he slept walked through the entire production! I'm not sure how many lines he has, but it's barely any. The other problem is that you never feel you are watching anything other than the ACTORS bumbling around. We should be seeing past that and seeing the characters they are playing; but you don't. It's just Bill Murray, John Goodman etc dressed up in WW2 uniforms. Like fancy dress or something. I think another important point, is that the film doesn't seem to know whether it's a drama or a comedy. Most of the time, the film tiptoes along the edge of comedy and this is a big failing I feel. The lightheartedness just doesn't work and it robs the film of any tension. The plot as well, feels like a series of separate little scenes, rather than a coherent, completed film. It also seems to me that Clooney has watched lots of old WW2 films and thought, 'I'll put that bit in' and 'I'll use that bit here' etc. It doesn't feel rounded and complete. On the plus side, the film is pretty well made and produced (but you would expect that from Clooney), but overall it's a flat, uninteresting, insipid creation. What a shame! |
|
|
Lots more to add (both old and new!) Stay tuned..... |