Perks of Being a Wallflower
I belong to the sceptics. I have to admit to that. Whenever movies are hyped in the way that this one has been, I tend to not wanting to see them or being bored by them. So when I found myself with a copy of ‘Perks’, I had a feeling that I’d turn it off in the middle. It was not the case.
The film is aimed at teenagers and young adults and it is, in a sense, the ultimate film in the genre. It is actually filled with clichés, treated in a lot of films about maladjusted teenagers in high school. The best thing with this film is the theme of mental illness, and that is what makes this film interesting and moving. The rest is rather generic, though well acted and directed.
In all, I din’t think that Perks of Being a Wallflower deserves the hype, but it was entertaining and moving.
Why did I write this review? I have no idea.
But watch it. I cried.
A couple of weeks ago, me and my dad went to see Skyfall. He is terrific company in the theatre, though somewhat embarrassing, laughing loudly during the action sequences… The copy was digital (boring…) and the theatre waaaay too big.
Have been thinking of writing this review a few times, but I decided to watch the other films with Craig as Bond and I can say,without a doubt, that Skyfall is my favourite one.
I have to say that by any standard, Skyfall is one of the most beautiful movies of the year. The cinematogtaphy caused me, at times, to get goosebumps. The coloring and the conciousness of the director to emphasise the visuals and the almost overwhelming focus on colors and contrast made this film amazingly striking and intruding.
I have to say, after seing the other two movies, that the script for Skyfall is the best. The dialogue is better and more believeable; the story is better; the pacing is way better and the carachters are all more interesting, especially the villain.
Silva, played by the wonderful man that is Javier Bardem, is truly terrifying. His presence and his determination permeates the entire ambience of the film and he is the one villain in the “Craig trilogy” that has felt true and really threatening. His superiority is overwhelming and forces Bond to use his brain.
About the rest of the cast, all of them are doing well, especially Craig who has developed his expression of Bond considerably since Casino Royale. Judi Dench is bringing it too as a pushed M. The rest of the cast have relatively small parts, which I adore since it is a movie about Silva-M-Bond. The story is therefore focused and even though the film is long, maybe too long, the filmmakers keep the interest in the story alive. The concequence? The film is never boring and the running time of 143 minutes is easy to get through in a comfy chair.
In the end, what makes Skyfall the best Bond film? The direction. Composed by Sam Mendes, the film is thought through, interesting and beautiful. The film is beautifully put together as a modern action movie with a hint of the Bond that we are used to from the past.
Any drawbacks? Well a few, but most of them comes with the concept of James Bond. Clichés and overdramatic scenes comes with it and makes Bond what Bond is, but do I have to like it? No, I prefer some Bourne any day of the week…. (Oh, and the sound is strangely mixed, so be prepared to use your hearing at the best of your ability at times and cover your ears at others.)
Women: Oui, non? Peut-être: http://bechdeltest.com/view/3632/skyfall/
Skyfall: 4.5/5 (Movie Night, for sure! Where’s the biggest screen?)
Quantum of Solace: 2/5 (Uhh! I am so bored! What was that one about again?)
Casino Royale: 3.5/5 (Bond! Which is the good one? With Craig in the water?)
The only thing I got out of watching ‘New Year’s Eve’ was an urge to get a new dress.
I just saw ‘Stardust’. I’ve had it on my computer waiting for a good moment to watch it. So, now after a weekend packed with writing on my research proposal, I figured; why not?
My first thought when I saw the list of the cast was: Whooow! How can this happen? Claire Danes, Charlie Cox, Michelle Pfeiffer, Robert De Niro, Mark Strong, Sienna Miller and so on and so on, I couldn’t fathom WHY all of those would be in a movie like this. Now I do understand.
The script is very well written, not a boring second. The pacing is wonderful and the story is intriguing. The world sucks you in and the characters are well played. But the best, is the direction. Each moment is believable and the tone of the film, as a fairytale adventure is never lost.
Of course, it is not the best film ever produced, but it is very entertaining and engaging. Good for a fall night, when you want to get lost in a dream.
Btw. This movie is worth watching, just because of Ricky Gervais. And Robert De Niro in a dress. And Ian McKellen’s voice. (I can go on for a while… I won’t)
Review of ‘Magic Mike’.
Chain of reactions: Interest- boredom- embarrassment- giggles- frustration- dozing off- giggles- “How long is this movie?”- giggles- boooring- “Was that it?”.
Soderbergh, you can do better. And lay off the sepia filter. It worked for ‘Traffic’ but illustrating hot climate can be done otherwise.
I’ve been putting off seeing this film for a very long time, even though I really wanted to see it. Already when I saw the trailer I knew that ‘Like Crazy’ would be an emotionally straining thing for me to see. So, I’ve been putting it off, but finally saw it a few days ago. It has since permeated my thoughts and been present with me, stirring up emotions that I thought were forgotten.
The story is about two young people in an American collage, he, Jacob played by Anton Yelchin, is American. She, Anna played by Felicity Jones, is British. They know from the start that they will have to move away from each other, but they can’t help but throw themselves in to a passionate relationship. We then get to follow their fight for their love and the changes in emotions that they experience.
The biggest strength of the film is that it is shot in a beautiful way. The raw and very unpolished way it is shot, almost without steady cam and the lighting that feels very natural gives the film a genuine feeling. The acting, is also very natural, and it is easy to notice that they have had a lot of freedom and have been improvising. The acting is, though, a bit shaky at times, probably because the lack of direction but at times, the actors are shining like stars.
The dialogue is very credible, but the story, on the other hand is less credible. There are moments in the film that I really feel are genuine and they fit in perfectly, but other have a constructed feel to them. The consequence is that some of their actions seem unmotivated.
Even though the film has its flaws, I watched it with a constant physical pain because of the emotional strain that it brought me. It brought up memories and emotions from some of my past relationships and I really could relate to the events and the emotions that this film portrays. The mix of big events and tiny moments that defines relationships were in it, but also the unreal expectations and the disappointment. For me, ‘Like Crazy’ will stay a film that I’ll go back to and remind myself of my past, both the happy times and the mistakes I’ve made.
The film is for me worth to see for everyone, especially young adults, and it deserves a sober mind and a rainy day.
Going to see this film, I felt like that I needed to be in the right state of mind. Therefore, I decided (and forced my friend) to see it in a cinema that is smaller and provides an environment that encourages thought. Instead of popcorn, I had a large, organic, fair-trade latte. No sugar. You might wonder why this is important to note, but it is and I’ll come back to it later.
The trailers were nice (a french film and more artsy partsy things), but the audience was talking and didn’t notice them. When the film started, I was happy to see that it was a 35mm copy but realized quickly that we’d gotten seats too far back. But in the end, it all set the mood for a very enjoyable experience.
I really love to see films in the cinema when people are laughing at different things. And this film was like that. I heard laughs and chuckles from all over the theatre at different times and I sat there with a grin all over my face most of the time. Why? Wes Anderson’s vision is very different from the ‘standard’. One notice quickly that he is very interested in fiction and the unreal. The situations that the two protagonists find themselves in are often very bizarre and the supporting characters are drawn up like caricatures. Sometimes, Anderson even make a point of it being unreal through the usage of strange special effects and sets. The film gets a rather dreamlike feeling through through these odd elements.
As a fan of Wes Anderson’s previous work, I felt at home. His characteristic way of presenting families and places brings back memories of at least a couple of his past films. The story line is also presented in a way that a fan of Anderson’s work will recognize, this time in the shape of an old man setting up the premisses of the story. Even though many of the elements of the film already has been used in his previous films, he succeeds in making it feel fresh and new. The dreamlike feel to the story and the perspective that is a child’s, make this film very interesting, funny and exhilarating.
Even though Moonrise Kingdom is the work of the director, one have to mention the cast, especially the children. The awkward acting of the kids have great effect on the dreamlike atmosphere as well as the stiff, exaggerated acting of the adult cast.
Waking up from this dreamlike experience, too far back in the theatre, I felt relaxed. Even though the film was unpredictable, loud and intense at times, I felt relaxed. It was like visiting a place you once knew. Everything is what it used to be, but the change makes it a new place to visit.
The coffee? Well, If you like organic, fair-trade lattes… You might like this film too.
Les femmes? Oui/
Grosse Pointe Blank (seriously, the title. what kind of title is that?). 1997. John Cusack and Minnie Driver.
Seriously, if you haven’t seen this one, you’re in for a treat! In my opinion, it is a classic and it should get much more cred than it does. It is a story about a professional killer that goes home to where he grew up, both to finish a job and to attend his High-School reunion. The story is strange… Why is it a good film?
- The script is amazingly well written! It is seldom that Hollywood manage to create something that is as funny and that incorporates the action sequences as seamlessly. Great work! A fun plot+ great dialogue= WIN!
- Acting. I know, I know. John Cusack and Minnie Driver as the lead actors… It is too much 1990’s to be tolerated, but they make me long for this type of acting and actors in Hollywood nowadays. They bring charm to characters that normally would seem dull and their chemistry is prefect!
- The soundtrack. The Clash, The Cure, Violent Femmes, The Beat, Queen, Guns N’ Roses, The Specials, Pixies. The list goes on and on. Better soundtrack is difficult to find and the music just fits in perfectly to the story and its surroundings.
Well. A list of a few things that I find is great with Grosse Pointe Blank. See it with a friend or two and if you happen to have a beer in your hand, all the better. It is a riot.
Any suggestions for ObG?
Where can I smoke?
Short review of film: Probably one of the strangest films ever made. But it’s bloody brilliant!
The Bourne Legacy Trailer. Well, this gets me going. Renner+ Bourne. unf.
I’m watching American Psycho again, and I’d forgotten what a complete psycho Bateman actually is….
- No of films: 2
- Genre: Action/adventure/comedy/drama
- Secret agents: Far too many.
- Release: not that long ago.
- Pretty boys: Yes.
- Quality: Polar opposites.
We’re talking: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol vs. This means War. Hit it!
Script: MI:GP, is winning this fight. TMW has no chance. TMW has got the disadvantage of wanting to be an action/comedy, whereas MI:GP has a well written script that on occasion delivers a funny line- It works better. Neither of the scripts will win any awards, but both the story and the dialogue is better in MI:GP. Even the villain is cooler and menacing in MI:GP and it is an old Swedish dude (Mikael Nykvist aka, the worst fake violin player on screen EVER (not in this movie but still, whenever I see him it’s all I can think of)).
Directing: K.O for MI:GP! TMW and its ‘director’ McG (yep. that’s his name) stand no chance. Nothing in it is made in a credible way and the interaction between the actors (not their fault) is horrendous. MI:GP, pretty good and most of it seems natural and nice, nothing great but passes.
Acting: MI:GP wins after a wobbly round…. Well the quality of the acting is on many different levels here. Tom Cruise does his thing in MI:GP. So does Simon Pegg (typecasting?) the girl is not that great and Jeremy Renner is great with nice delivery. In TMW, everyone is doing just fine (under the circumstances) and Reese Witherspoon is suuper charming as always. Waste of talent.
Action: Well, TMW does not even stand a chance. I mean, I didn’t dare watch some of the stuff Cruise did in MI:GP. And he can certainly run. And the rest of the cast kick some nice ass too. TMW, nothing interesting that I remember, but it looked cheap.
Ok, Guys: TMW wins IMHO.
But, MI:GP has a Jeremy Renner… close, so very close.
Ok, Women (Bechdel test):
TMW: Does not pass.They talk about guysguysguys… http://bechdeltest.com/view/3055/this_means_war/
MI:GP : No way! The two women (that speak) in the movie kick each others ass but no talking: http://bechdeltest.com/view/2967/mission:_impossible_-_ghost_protocol/
Well if you have to choose, pick Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, and never look back.
Ps. Any suggestions for future reviews? just ask… :)
Now you might think: Already?
Yes already. I’ve seen the Avengers a few weeks after its release, but so what? I’m going to review it anyway because I have stuff to say about it that might be slightly unpopular. Or a fresh breeze on a hot summer day that is this hype.
All I’ve seen so far among the internet reviewers (mostly on youtube) is praise, praise, praise, praise. And I agree, it is a good movie, but that good? :S
Since everyone know what it is about, I’m not going there. Let’s just say: a bunch of superheroes get together and a lot of fighting ensues, among them and against Loki, the villain.
First of all, the film is a wonderland in special effects. It looks awesome and it sounds even better. I saw it in 3D and I came out of the theatre wishing I’d seen it in 2D. Some of the 3D was a bit wonky and distorted perspectives a bit (don’t know if it was the cinema or the movie though) and I generally think that 3D is a bit straining to the eyes. But at times I actually thought: WOW!, because of the 3D effects.. so… your choice, but I think I’ll stop watching movies in 3D
When it comes to the story, I am happy that I’ve seen the previous films, because I think that it is needed in order to understand the plot properly. In my opinion is it a big minus. To not get the plot if it is a proper sequel is understandable, but the Avengers have been promoted as a film on its own and that annoys me. The story in general is a strange one. It is a weak story and therefore it has to be character driven, which is ok, because the avengers are all strong characters. But they are too many. Of course, each and every one of them have a proper place in the film and that makes them all feel important, but it also give some of them too little room to shine.
Thor is in my opinion the character that gets the least room. He is a goldmine for comedy and secondly, he has the closest connection to the villain and neither are used enough. He is also an awesome fighter, but that does not get through. On the other hand, Iron Man/Tony Stark is overexposed. He is not the funniest of the bunch and I find him annoying (anyone who have read my other reviews know that I don’t like RDJ, so that might influence me, but Iron Man in general is self-important and uninteresting.). The only thing I enjoyed about Stark was his friendship with Bruce Banner, which was cool.
Scarlett Johanson had more to do than I thought which I liked because she is kick ass and Black Widow is a strong female that is just as important as the guys. I really like that!
Ok, and Loki? Probably the coolest guy in the film. He is plain crazy and Hiddles does a great job! I am:
So what bothers me then? The script is weak and the fight scenes are a bit to long, scattered and not as engaging as I would like them to be. Since they choose to spread out in the big fight, it did not feel as intense and menacing as I would have liked it to be, and the end of the fight… boring and a disappointment to be honest. Anticlimactic.
Well, it is big shoes to fill, and the film is a very entertaining ordeal with some of the best action around and it is very funny too (I laughed a lot), but it is a bit chopped about and there is not enough room for interesting developments. But since we can expect several films to come, I guess we can enjoy it for what it is: an adventure that is stunning and entertaining.
So from me it gets a:
Side notes: I was the only one in the theatre (250 seats or so) that laughed at the Stan Lee cameo in the end. Does that make me a nerd?
Bechdel Test: Nope. About three women in this one, but of course, they don’t interact. You can do better, Marvel!
Haywire is a movie that I’ve heard a lot log different accounts of. Bad? Good? Awesome? Awful?
Gina Carano plays a woman that ous seriously kick-ass and is drawn into some business that she does not approve of. She solve her problems with violence and she does it in an awesome way. All the fight scenes are so well made that u root for her and like her ways. But really, she is the least bad of the bunch.
Sotherberg delivers again and it is exciting to see him go back to a smaller budget. The similarities in the way he use the camera and sounds with the way he did it in ‘traffic’ are striking and I really do like it.
The actors, except from Carano, are impressive and some scenes made blew me away (McGregor+ Fassbender= me screaming at the screen). Carano, as said is kick-ass but not a good actress at all… But that did not bother me, strangely enough. :S
Well, my verdict? Better than I thought it would be, and it had some great and some horrible moments. Def a movie to watch with a beer in hand and a good friend next to u. :)