Directed by Daniel Monzon and starring Luis Tosar and Alberto Ammann, this Spanish Drama involves two men who are involved in a prison riot, one an inmate leading the rebellion, the other a young guard trapped in the violence.
Cell 211 completely contradicted my initial perspective of the film, expecting an action thriller and receiving a powerful drama. The film wastes no time getting into the story as it begins with the new young employee at the prison, a day early, ready to begin his new job, when all of the sudden the situation spirals out of control until before you know it he's lying in a prison cell bleeding. Although I did feel that this beginning was a little rushed, I do prefer it to when their is a long unnecessary build up to the main story in which your eagerly anticipating.As the film progresses the story becomes ever more interesting and intricate, with the help of the film's superb characters. Malamadre (played by Luis Tosar) delivers a terrifying passionate performance, in my opinion making the film what it is.
However it comes with the characters that brings my biggest disappointment, although the majority of the characters were interesting, I found that most were completely unbelievable and unnecessary. Malmadre's gang is heavily involved in the story but most of them just stand around doing nothing, then occasionally 'pop their head around the door, and drop a bombshell'. Even the character of Malmadre I thought at times was given an awful piece of dialogue to say which just turned off the intensity of the film and made it a bit unbelievable, obviously this is due down to the screenplay, therefore it would be unfair to judge the actors performances. Some aspects of the characters I believe that they got right, the director ,Daniel Monzon, resists the temptation to create another 'Hollywood hero' and instead creates a much more realistic character who helps to work the film along in a believable manor.
Overall however, despite the frustration over the character's, this film delivers an exciting and punchy drama, worthy of your attention.
80%
Calum.Russell
Monday, 25 June 2012
Attack The Block (DVD Review)
Attack the block is a dark comedy, which was released in 2011. Directed by Joe Cornish and starring John Boyega, Alex Esmail,Franz Drameh,Leeon Jones and Simon Howard all in their debut feature film. Attack the block follows the story of a group of teenagers who are trying to defend their block from an alien invasion.
I've been wanting to see this film since it's release back in 2011, so when I finally got round to watching it last week, my anticipations were high. Thankfully the film did't dissapoint supplying a funny yet scary film, which is bursting with originality. The film begins differently to what may be expected, showing the group of teens mugging a defensless woman, howver instead of following the woamn home afterwards, we as an audience, follow the gang after the mugging has taken place and we are introduced to the personalities of each charcter, which are quite different to the steriotypical teen. The teenagers are presented, realistically and are shown with a human, more gentle side to them which supplies comedy and even an odd connection which means that after 10 minutes you've forgotten about the mugging and are rooting for the hilarious gang. Then when the aliens appear, a perfect mixture of comedy and genuine horror in sues. The aliens are amazingly unique showing, a primate type creature which is terrifyingly gymnastic and vicious. These two factors are what makes this film brilliant, the continuous contrasts of the hilarity of the group, and then the tense scenes in which the teens are running away from the aliens, is just perfect.
Although I liked the majority of the film , I do feel that the ending did disappoint and felt slightly out of place. It just did't seem that realistic, and in a film of such originality and realism to see quite a clique ending was frustrating.
This is only a minor hiccup however, as on the whole I thought the film was brilliant. With 2011 being such a bland year for films, and then to see attack the block appear out of nowhere and show a original story that perfectly depicts the lives of 5 young teens whilst providing hilarious situations and intense alien sequences, is absolutely outstanding.
90%- An energetic comedy, filled with moments of tense horror. Let down slightly with a out of place ending, which however shouldn't deter you from the overall brilliant film.
Calum.Rusell
I've been wanting to see this film since it's release back in 2011, so when I finally got round to watching it last week, my anticipations were high. Thankfully the film did't dissapoint supplying a funny yet scary film, which is bursting with originality. The film begins differently to what may be expected, showing the group of teens mugging a defensless woman, howver instead of following the woamn home afterwards, we as an audience, follow the gang after the mugging has taken place and we are introduced to the personalities of each charcter, which are quite different to the steriotypical teen. The teenagers are presented, realistically and are shown with a human, more gentle side to them which supplies comedy and even an odd connection which means that after 10 minutes you've forgotten about the mugging and are rooting for the hilarious gang. Then when the aliens appear, a perfect mixture of comedy and genuine horror in sues. The aliens are amazingly unique showing, a primate type creature which is terrifyingly gymnastic and vicious. These two factors are what makes this film brilliant, the continuous contrasts of the hilarity of the group, and then the tense scenes in which the teens are running away from the aliens, is just perfect.
Although I liked the majority of the film , I do feel that the ending did disappoint and felt slightly out of place. It just did't seem that realistic, and in a film of such originality and realism to see quite a clique ending was frustrating.
This is only a minor hiccup however, as on the whole I thought the film was brilliant. With 2011 being such a bland year for films, and then to see attack the block appear out of nowhere and show a original story that perfectly depicts the lives of 5 young teens whilst providing hilarious situations and intense alien sequences, is absolutely outstanding.
90%- An energetic comedy, filled with moments of tense horror. Let down slightly with a out of place ending, which however shouldn't deter you from the overall brilliant film.
Calum.Rusell
Sunday, 24 June 2012
A Nightmare On Elm Street- 1984 (DVD Review)
A nightmare on elm street is directed by Wes craven and stars Nancy Thompson and also Johnny Depp in his first feature. The film follows the story of a group of teenagers who all begin to experience disturbing dreams about a sadistic man, these dreams then start to become reality.
Knowing that this film is a well renowned classic, I was expecting an intense horror film, of which you would remember for weeks after. Unfortunately this is not what I experienced, as I finished watching the film I was undeniable disappointed.
I felt that this film moved along way too fast, as an audience we were thrown straight into the deep end and were expected to know every character perfectly. There was almost no character development, and along with this comes inevitability cliche characters, which I just didn't believe. These characters weren't helped by the actors and actresses who played them, (with the exception of Johnny Deep, who I felt was the most believable and well developed character) the characters portrayed seem to be the sturdiest people on the planet, dealing with their friends death as if it had never even happened. The story itself is simple and innovative, bringing some completely new concepts to the table, this however is dragged down by a few scenes which involve 'Freddy'. I did't particularly like the character of Freddy, for a start I don't think that he should have been revealed so many times in the film, by seeing his whole body along with all his facial features he quickly lost his shock factor and just became the 'bad guy'. It came to a point in which most scenes involving 'Freddy' became laughable, this is partly due the odd choices of interaction with the characters as well as the occasionally poor CGI. Now I can't really knock the CGI, as it was made in the 80's so I wasn't expecting anything phenomenal , however the CGI did affect a few scenes making them look a bit cheap and as I said previously, laughable, this for me lowered the intensity of the film, as I was chuckling at times that were supposed to shock.
I can definitely see why this film is loved by most delivering a really creative story-line and a classic horror villain. I just couldn't look past these positive points as problems like the acting and the characters were blocking the view.
70%- A solid film, with undeniable faults which may deter you from enjoying the inventive story.
Knowing that this film is a well renowned classic, I was expecting an intense horror film, of which you would remember for weeks after. Unfortunately this is not what I experienced, as I finished watching the film I was undeniable disappointed.
I felt that this film moved along way too fast, as an audience we were thrown straight into the deep end and were expected to know every character perfectly. There was almost no character development, and along with this comes inevitability cliche characters, which I just didn't believe. These characters weren't helped by the actors and actresses who played them, (with the exception of Johnny Deep, who I felt was the most believable and well developed character) the characters portrayed seem to be the sturdiest people on the planet, dealing with their friends death as if it had never even happened. The story itself is simple and innovative, bringing some completely new concepts to the table, this however is dragged down by a few scenes which involve 'Freddy'. I did't particularly like the character of Freddy, for a start I don't think that he should have been revealed so many times in the film, by seeing his whole body along with all his facial features he quickly lost his shock factor and just became the 'bad guy'. It came to a point in which most scenes involving 'Freddy' became laughable, this is partly due the odd choices of interaction with the characters as well as the occasionally poor CGI. Now I can't really knock the CGI, as it was made in the 80's so I wasn't expecting anything phenomenal , however the CGI did affect a few scenes making them look a bit cheap and as I said previously, laughable, this for me lowered the intensity of the film, as I was chuckling at times that were supposed to shock.
I can definitely see why this film is loved by most delivering a really creative story-line and a classic horror villain. I just couldn't look past these positive points as problems like the acting and the characters were blocking the view.
70%- A solid film, with undeniable faults which may deter you from enjoying the inventive story.
The Hunger Games Review
The hunger games is based on the best selling children s novel by Susan hill. Set in a futuristic world a lot like our own where 2 children from every 12 districts are called up, to fight against each other in a sadistic contest called the hunger games.
Having read all three books in this series, its safe to say that I was pretty excited to see this film. Hoping to watch a faithful adaption that would re animate my love for the books. That's pretty much what I got. This film pretty much follows the book page by page, yes a few things are missed out but nothing major. However this complete faithfulness to the book, is why i didn't particularly like the film as much as i probably should have. I felt as if Gary Ross, the director, was clinging so tightly onto the pages of the book that when he let go to add something new, he was worried he was going to upset fans, as a result we receive some nervy short scenes of which some are confusing and unnecessary and add nothing to the tension that the film slowly builds up, (Hint- Final scene). As expected from a book which involves children killing each other there should be a lot of gory violent scenes in the film. Unfortunately the 12A certificate burden drags the film down, and as a result scenes that need to be gory that aren't lose their impact and intensity, especially the 1st scene of the games. More so, the story actually needs the gore to send its message across, the message that the most innocent of people are killing each other with such violence, for the entertainment and satisfaction of the public. This powerful message that the book gives off isn't mirrored in the film, as it goes without blood for the majority of the film. Saying this I do think that with what Gary Ross was given in terms of a certificate, I think he did a pretty good job, yes the violent scenes weren't very gory but they were filmed with cinematic finesse, that kept you stimulated. This finesse also shines through in the pre-hunger games scenes in which the capitol is shown in all its futuristic beauty, however with one minor hitch. The citizens of the capitol are supposed to be rich, 'hip' and trendy, this factor in the film is completely over the top, as the people are shown in a weird, almost in a 'the cat in the hat esque' fashion. As I said though this is only a minor problem which can easily be overlooked.
Jennifer Lawrence's role demands a lot of attributes, a tough, brave heroin, with a sentimental soft-spot. I think that she really delivers in this film, showing realistic and heart-felt emotions, maybe not as good as in her Oscar nominated 'Winters Bone', but still a solid performance, in every aspect. More stand-out performances come from Woody Harrelson and most prominently Elizabeth Banks whose characterization is spot on whilst playing a nervous yet kooky 'Effie Trinket'.
I would say that i see the film as 3 parts ; The leading up to the hunger games, the actual games, and post- hunger games. I think that the pre- games scenes were done very well, emotions are presented brilliantly and the character development is also done excellently. I do however think that this section is dragged on way to much and as a result the actual hunger games seem quite short, very rushed and anti-climactic. The post games also suffers from the running time of the 1st part as it includes an abrupt ending which for me didn't really suffice.
Although it sounds as though I hated this film, there were some aspects of it I loved. Ignoring the problems, the majority of the story is gripping and exciting, and the deep character development provides characters which the audience can relate to. New scenes which have been added to the original story supply a simple story-line which is fairly easily understandable to those who haven't read the books.
70%- A thrilling and enjoyable film, with undeniable faults.
C.Russell
Having read all three books in this series, its safe to say that I was pretty excited to see this film. Hoping to watch a faithful adaption that would re animate my love for the books. That's pretty much what I got. This film pretty much follows the book page by page, yes a few things are missed out but nothing major. However this complete faithfulness to the book, is why i didn't particularly like the film as much as i probably should have. I felt as if Gary Ross, the director, was clinging so tightly onto the pages of the book that when he let go to add something new, he was worried he was going to upset fans, as a result we receive some nervy short scenes of which some are confusing and unnecessary and add nothing to the tension that the film slowly builds up, (Hint- Final scene). As expected from a book which involves children killing each other there should be a lot of gory violent scenes in the film. Unfortunately the 12A certificate burden drags the film down, and as a result scenes that need to be gory that aren't lose their impact and intensity, especially the 1st scene of the games. More so, the story actually needs the gore to send its message across, the message that the most innocent of people are killing each other with such violence, for the entertainment and satisfaction of the public. This powerful message that the book gives off isn't mirrored in the film, as it goes without blood for the majority of the film. Saying this I do think that with what Gary Ross was given in terms of a certificate, I think he did a pretty good job, yes the violent scenes weren't very gory but they were filmed with cinematic finesse, that kept you stimulated. This finesse also shines through in the pre-hunger games scenes in which the capitol is shown in all its futuristic beauty, however with one minor hitch. The citizens of the capitol are supposed to be rich, 'hip' and trendy, this factor in the film is completely over the top, as the people are shown in a weird, almost in a 'the cat in the hat esque' fashion. As I said though this is only a minor problem which can easily be overlooked.
Jennifer Lawrence's role demands a lot of attributes, a tough, brave heroin, with a sentimental soft-spot. I think that she really delivers in this film, showing realistic and heart-felt emotions, maybe not as good as in her Oscar nominated 'Winters Bone', but still a solid performance, in every aspect. More stand-out performances come from Woody Harrelson and most prominently Elizabeth Banks whose characterization is spot on whilst playing a nervous yet kooky 'Effie Trinket'.
I would say that i see the film as 3 parts ; The leading up to the hunger games, the actual games, and post- hunger games. I think that the pre- games scenes were done very well, emotions are presented brilliantly and the character development is also done excellently. I do however think that this section is dragged on way to much and as a result the actual hunger games seem quite short, very rushed and anti-climactic. The post games also suffers from the running time of the 1st part as it includes an abrupt ending which for me didn't really suffice.
Although it sounds as though I hated this film, there were some aspects of it I loved. Ignoring the problems, the majority of the story is gripping and exciting, and the deep character development provides characters which the audience can relate to. New scenes which have been added to the original story supply a simple story-line which is fairly easily understandable to those who haven't read the books.
70%- A thrilling and enjoyable film, with undeniable faults.
C.Russell
Saturday, 23 June 2012
Tree Of Life Review
Starring Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, The tree of life follows the story of a boy who witnesses the loss of innocence when he sees the death of his friends he is then faced with the conflict of accepting the way of grace or nature.
Let me start by saying this film is in no way for everyone, its a marmite film, you'll either love it or hate it. Personally I loved it. This film has got to be the most beautiful films, in terms of cinematography, that I have ever seen. The first half hour of the film is centered around the beginning of time and the creation of the earth, showing the most stunning pictures of the world around us, with fitting opera music over the top. For me this scene completely personified the film, you could've paused the film every 30 seconds, and you would be faced with a fascinating picture that could hang on your wall. Every scene was art.
After this awe-inspiring scene the film just kept on delivering. When were introduced to the boy for the first time the main story really starts to kick in. The scene in which he is introduced, in itself is also fantastic, showing childbirth, through an abstract scene in which the child exits his underwater bedroom and rises to the surface. What in-sues after this point is a story of such beauty, filmed with such elegance, about a boys childhood. Brad Pitt plays the brutal father and the nature, side of life. While the comforting mother represents grace. Both characters are acted with such passion and because of this the film becomes more enticing, and real. However the real acting credit goes to the eldest boy, played by Hunter McCraken, to meet the heavy demands of the main character with such realism is an incredible feet especially at such a young age.
But don't get me wrong, there are clear problems with the film, Sean Penn's role being the most prominent problem, for one main reason. Why is he in the film! He doesn't need to be their, in fact I would go far as saying it would be a better film without him there. I realize the intentions of Terrence Malic for including him in the film. But he doesn't need to be there, and I think the film suffers because of his appearance. The scenes without him are the best but the scenes with him are the worst and most pretentious.
Being the most beautiful film that I have ever seen it would be impossible for me not to give this film a high rating, however the inclusion of Sean Penn does put a downer on the film for me. I will finish this review the same way I started it by saying, this film is definitely not for everyone, you'll either love it or hate it.
80%
C.Russell
Let me start by saying this film is in no way for everyone, its a marmite film, you'll either love it or hate it. Personally I loved it. This film has got to be the most beautiful films, in terms of cinematography, that I have ever seen. The first half hour of the film is centered around the beginning of time and the creation of the earth, showing the most stunning pictures of the world around us, with fitting opera music over the top. For me this scene completely personified the film, you could've paused the film every 30 seconds, and you would be faced with a fascinating picture that could hang on your wall. Every scene was art.
After this awe-inspiring scene the film just kept on delivering. When were introduced to the boy for the first time the main story really starts to kick in. The scene in which he is introduced, in itself is also fantastic, showing childbirth, through an abstract scene in which the child exits his underwater bedroom and rises to the surface. What in-sues after this point is a story of such beauty, filmed with such elegance, about a boys childhood. Brad Pitt plays the brutal father and the nature, side of life. While the comforting mother represents grace. Both characters are acted with such passion and because of this the film becomes more enticing, and real. However the real acting credit goes to the eldest boy, played by Hunter McCraken, to meet the heavy demands of the main character with such realism is an incredible feet especially at such a young age.
But don't get me wrong, there are clear problems with the film, Sean Penn's role being the most prominent problem, for one main reason. Why is he in the film! He doesn't need to be their, in fact I would go far as saying it would be a better film without him there. I realize the intentions of Terrence Malic for including him in the film. But he doesn't need to be there, and I think the film suffers because of his appearance. The scenes without him are the best but the scenes with him are the worst and most pretentious.
Being the most beautiful film that I have ever seen it would be impossible for me not to give this film a high rating, however the inclusion of Sean Penn does put a downer on the film for me. I will finish this review the same way I started it by saying, this film is definitely not for everyone, you'll either love it or hate it.
80%
C.Russell
Paranormal Activity 3 (DVD Review)
Paranormal activity 3 is the latest installment in the increasingly confusing horror franchise. With the story going back to the very origins of the haunting's, this installment follows the creepy childhood of 'Katie' and 'Kristi'.
When reviewing horror film's the first thing to look for is the obvious, is it scary? To that I would give a resounding yes, yes it is, and this is clearly the aim of the film compared to the 1st installment which relied more on a griping story and your (wild) imagination. However a thing that the 1st film did terrifically was that it supplied clever horror scenes which would stick with you for long after your viewing. Sadly the 3rd film doesn't follow in it's footsteps, yes it supplies scares, but cheap jump ones, that are always going to catch you out, but only supply a short- term scream.
To support the moments of terror, a strong and immersive plot is needed which the film fails to deliver , unless you've been paying scrict attention to the previous 2 films. The storys almost indecipherably confusing, which inevitable builds up to an anti-climactic ending in which your thinking, 'what did i just see!?'. The plot however is confusing in more ways than one. The characters in this film confuse me to the point of laughter, especially the adults who seem abnormally relaxed and confident. With these characters come some ridiculous scenes in which the handheld camera in taken all around the house, into every scary situation and filmed. This created an completely unrealistic atmosphere which for me in a way ruined the film.
With the franchise slowly becoming the Halloween blockbuster hit, I can see plenty more sequals (or prequals) over the horizon. Hopefully what they bring is something more inivitive and clever, otherwise I can see the unfortunate downhill fate of the franchise slipping into a saw like state.
30% (Friday night fun?!)
Calum. Russell
When reviewing horror film's the first thing to look for is the obvious, is it scary? To that I would give a resounding yes, yes it is, and this is clearly the aim of the film compared to the 1st installment which relied more on a griping story and your (wild) imagination. However a thing that the 1st film did terrifically was that it supplied clever horror scenes which would stick with you for long after your viewing. Sadly the 3rd film doesn't follow in it's footsteps, yes it supplies scares, but cheap jump ones, that are always going to catch you out, but only supply a short- term scream.
To support the moments of terror, a strong and immersive plot is needed which the film fails to deliver , unless you've been paying scrict attention to the previous 2 films. The storys almost indecipherably confusing, which inevitable builds up to an anti-climactic ending in which your thinking, 'what did i just see!?'. The plot however is confusing in more ways than one. The characters in this film confuse me to the point of laughter, especially the adults who seem abnormally relaxed and confident. With these characters come some ridiculous scenes in which the handheld camera in taken all around the house, into every scary situation and filmed. This created an completely unrealistic atmosphere which for me in a way ruined the film.
With the franchise slowly becoming the Halloween blockbuster hit, I can see plenty more sequals (or prequals) over the horizon. Hopefully what they bring is something more inivitive and clever, otherwise I can see the unfortunate downhill fate of the franchise slipping into a saw like state.
30% (Friday night fun?!)
Calum. Russell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)