The Hunger Games Review.

The Hunger Games was a fairly new thing for me. The first time i’d heard of it was when the film was coming out, and I watched the first trailer. I was impressed by the trailer, it seemed to be an interesting film with an interesting idea, but even then it still wasn’t something that I HAD to see. Since then, The Hunger Games has blown up, being considered as the new Harry Potter, even the new Twilight, which in my opinion can only hinder the success of the film. The fandom of this film is a more hardcore version of the Twihards, they want to see some violence in this film.

So entering the cinema, I had a pretty open mind towards the film, only hearing from seemingly ever reviewer in the world that the film was amazing. The hip eon this film is pretty big, probably only close to that of Harry Potter and unfortunately Twilight.

The film centres around a girl, Katniss Everdeen, who is one of the inhabitants of District 12, one of the Districts in a dystopian world called PanEm. In this world, there is an event called The Hunger Games, where two tributes from each of the 12 districts must compete against each other, until only one is left standing. Katniss’s sister gets picked for the games, but in an act of selflessness, Katniss volunteers in her place.

The idea behind the film is a brilliant one, something that everyone can relate to in the idea of reality tv gone mad, but also different enough that people can recognise the fact that this is a different time and culture to our own.  Jennifer Lawrence is simply perfect as Katniss. Having never read the books, I didn’t have a previous idea of what Katniss should look like, but after seeing this film, I wouldn’t want anyone else to play her. Josh Hutcherson as Peeta, the other tribute from District 12, is also very good, if not a bit too angsty for my liking, but that’s fair enough really considering what he is about to go through. The supporting cast all work well, but Woody Harrelson is perhaps a bit miscast as the trainer of the District 12 tributes.

The film had to have 7 seconds cut out of it so that it could be rated as a 12 rather than a 15, but this film still packs one hell of a punch. The lack of blood in the film doesn’t really register, and the kills once The Hunger Games  start  look and feel very violent. There is definite tension when Katniss is about to go up to enter The Hunger Games, I personally felt scared for her as she arrived in the killing field where all the tributes start The Hunger Games.

The director, Gary Ross, does well with the film, but I think that maybe he uses a few to many close ups of characters and too much handheld. There were points in the film where I felt that I didn’t know what I was looking at, particularly when the killing started. I couldn’t tell who was being killed and who wasn’t. But overall, I think he did a good job with the film, the setting worked well and the whole film in general was very good.

I don’t think that this film can be compared to Twilight, the romance in this film between the two district 12 tributes feels necessary, not just there and the focus of the whole thing like Twilight is. I found myself wanting the two tributes to get together, instead of wishing one would kill the other. The emotions that the film makes you feel are also where the film differs from Twilight. When one of the tributes is killed, everyone in my showing was staring at the screen open mouthed and visibly saddened. My friend even started crying at this point, and she had no idea what The Hunger Games was about before we entered.

The Hunger Games is one of the best films i’ve seen this year, although my initial reaction after seeing the film was that it was a bit underwhelming. The around the film is so big that I was expecting some amazing, world changing masterpiece, but instead the film is simply an excellent blockbuster. It’s not going to win any oscars, but the box office is going to pile up. Just like Harry Potter.

rating   * * * *

Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace 3D review.

So the other day I went to see Star Wars with a friend. Both of us are fans of the films, but I had never seen this film in the cinema. My friend had, so the attraction of seeing Star Wars for the first time on the big screen was more of a pull for me than it was for him, but even so, we were both looking forward to it.

I’m skeptical over 3D conversions in films, in my experience 3D doesn’t add much to a film, even if it’s been filmed in 3D. The only memorable experience i’ve had with 3D was Avatar, but I still went into this film with a fairly open mind, expecting the 3D to make the whole experience more interesting.

Frankly, I found the 3D a little bit pointless. I found myself looking out for it more than just getting lost in it. Maybe because I was so sceptical about the whole 3D thing I was subconsciously expecting it not to live up to the hype, but I found the whole 3D a bit, boring. The only part that I thought actually looked good in 3D, and warranted a conversion was the final fight against Darth Maul. Personally, I didn’t think that the film looked much different in 3D, there didn’t seem to be much depth to the screen, it just seemed that the objects at the foreground of the screen were standing out. It all felt a bit, little for me.

Despite the 3D problems, I still enjoyed seeing the film on the big screen for the first time. I hadn’t watched the film for a while, so it was like watching the film with fresh eyes, being reminded of things that I had forgotten about since the last viewing.

As a film, it’s not the best ever. But as a cinema experience, it’s one of this films where you can get lost in the envoriments, the story, and the fact that it’s Star Wars. Sure, the story isn’t the best, and the pod race goes on for what feels like 56 years, but despite that, it’s a good introduction to people who hadn’t seen the original trilogy first, such as myself, and those who are just coming into the Star Wars universe.

And I like Jar Jar, so I had fun.

 

The Woman In Black Review.

So recently I saw the film The Woman In Black, and it’s safe to say that I was looking forward to it. I’d only heard good things about this film, that it was the highest grossing British Horror since records began, and that it scared the living crap out of you. Whilst not being a masterpiece,  the film didn’t disappoint.

I knew nothing of The Woman In Black before I heard there was a film being released, so I had no previous experience of how scary it was, or what the play or book was like, so I went to the film with a pretty open mind, expecting the film to be pretty damn scary.

The film is definitely creepy, the opening showing three eerie, possessed kids throwing themselves out the window. The Victorian setting helps this, with fog everywhere when something ominous is about to happen, and creaky, rusty architecture on every building. You really get the impression that this village has been suffering under the wrath of this ‘The Woman In Black’ for a long time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Their was some trepidation when Daniel Radcliffe was announced as the lead of this film, as everyone of course knows him as Harry Potter, but I think that he really makes the role his own. The character of Harry Potter isn’t completely forgotten whilst watching him, how could it be when the films where so huge? Radcliffe does his best at distracting us from thinking throughout ‘Use your wand Harry!’ I don’t buy that he has a wife and a 4 year old son considering he looks about 19 despite stubble and permanently looking tired, but that’s not exactly his fault.

The scares aren’t as fast or obvious as the likes of Paranormal Activity, but this film is playing to a more, sophisticated audience. Instead of just stumping for things being thrown at the camera, the director James Watkins opts for things making you jump from the corner of the screen, a blurry movement in the back of the frame, a flicker of light, the ominous use of shadows. One particular scene involving a rocking chair scared the life out of every angle person in the cinema.

Underneath the scares, there is still a good story to follow. This film doesn’t just rely on scares, it follows a good story that actually justifies the scares. The film also benefits from a brilliant supporting cast, who all feel like real, well rounded characters within their own right. This film could’ve easily been the Daniel Radcliffe attempting to be in an adult film, but the end result is far more than that.

Overall, I really liked this film, it scared me enough so that I wasn’t to put off by the constant threat of something just being round the corner, but they kept my heart racing and my attention in check.

 

rating- ****

Review- War Horse

 

War Horse is one of those films that you have to see. The amount of Oscar buzz that this film has received is pretty overwhelming, but also expected considering who the director is. Speilberg isn’t someone who you would naturally choose to direct a film like this, a tale about a boy and his horse, who get separated when his Dad sells him to the War effort, and follows the horse’s adventures throughout World War 1. Spielberg is usually associated with Action, Science Fiction, big budget epic films that are guaranteed to get film goers flocking. War Horse could’ve been the very opposite of that. Take the play in London’s West End, the horses are played by puppets. It doesn’t get more low budget than that. But when you’re watching this film, there isn’t anything about it that doesn’t feel right.

The film starts off with a horse giving birth in a field, watched by Albert ( Jeremy Irvine). Instantly you get the idea that Albert is obsessed with not just horses, but the farming way of life, the outdoors. Albert watches the horse as he grows from a young, vulnerable horse to a jumpy, energetic one. You feel the chemistry between Albert and the horse from the get go, which is an odd thing to get from a film. You get the impression that they have known each other for ages, and that they have been life long friends.  One day, Albert’s father comes back from an auction for livestock, with a new addition to the family, that just happens to be the very same horse that Albert has been watching throughout it’s life. After a bit more bonding between man and horse, who has know been affectionately named Joey,  World War 1 comes into view, causing the  dynamics of the family to be ripped apart.

This film is probably one of the cheesiest, most cliché films that I have ever seen, but for some reason, this doesn’t do the film any damage. Despite the fact that it’s pretty predictable, the real life setting of World War 1 makes you believe that everything could actually happen, that it HAS happened. Also, using an animal that not many people are used to ( even though everyone knows what a horse is, not many will have gotten up close and personal the way that Albert does) you can still feel like you know this horse, that you can relate to it. That in itself shows how much of a master Steven Spielberg is at his craft.

The film though, looks amazing. Like properly beautiful. Speilberg used a different type of filming during the production, instead of using purely digital, he used Avid, a form of editing that doesn’t change the film digitally, but in a non destructive way. This really shows when you’re watching War Horse, some of the shots feel like you are actually there, watching the events take place. This seems to have done the job better than 3D has in terms of immersing the audience in the narrative.

The acting as well, is top notch. Jeremy Irvine in his first leading film role, having come from a theatre background, really makes you believe that he has lived on a farm his whole life, and that he really cares about Joey. You really get the feel that, as the War takes hold of his life, that he has changed from the innocent young farm boy to a soldier fighting for his life. Irvine never forgets his character throughout, he stays true to the roots of his character, and stays true to Joey. Throughout the film, you never get the feeling that Albert has forgotten about Joey, or that he was just a part of his childhood.

It says alot that Joey feels like part of an ensemble cast, not the breakout main star. As Joey goes through his life in the War, going from new people, such as two German boys and a French Granddad and Granddaughter, they all feel relevant, important and part of the picture as a whole. Even though they all have little parts to play in the whole film, they still feel as though they have contributed something to the narrative, that without them the effect of Albert and Joey reuniting wouldn’t feel half as emotive. Particular stand out supporting actor performances are Tom Hiddleston and Benedict Cumberbatch as World War 1 officers. Despite there limited time in the film, they both come out as two of the most memorable parts of the film.

I personally think that War Horse was a brilliant film. Despite the lengthy running time of 2 and a half hours, you never get bored, never have time to think about other things, you are that drawn into the plot. Speilberg came good in the end, he has shown that he isn’t just one type of director but in fact can turn his hand to anything he wants to, and make it a masterpiece.

 

rating  * * * * *

review: sherlock holmes: a game of shadows

I’m going to start this off by saying that I really enjoyed the first Sherlock Holmes film, despite having to study it in A-Level Media, I still think it was a good film. I also really enjoy the Tv Series Sherlock, so maybe i’m a bit biased towards this film. But i thought it was pretty damn good.

This film starts off with the return of Irene Adler, played once again by Rachael McAdams. She, in my opinion was one of the best parts of the first film. However, she’s in the film for about, 10 minutes? This just goes to show how confident Guy Ritchie is in the film. Getting rid of one of the stand out characters early in the sequel? Risky, but it works. This film feels like a stand alone feature, one that you could watch and enjoy even if you hadn’t seen the first film, but there are still links to the first that fans can understand, adding a little bit extra to the film.

This time around, Sherlock (Robert Downey Jr) is having to solve a mystery surrounding a series of anarchistic bombings. On finding a letter from one of the anarchists addressed to his sister Sim (Noomie Rapace) he sets off to find her, and solve the mystery…Not wanting to spoil anything, but this film also introduces Moriarty ( Jared Harris), a very shadowy character from the first film, both literally and metaphorically, with intentions best left to you to find out…

The Sherlock Holmes films have always been fun, that was one of the stand out moments of the first film, the fact that although it was solving a mystery that was deeply involved in the macabre, there was still an air of fun and humour throughout. This continues in this film, probably more so. One standout sequence is Watson (Jude Law) and Mary’s (Kelly Reilly) honeymoon, which is crudely interrupted by Sherlock, pushing his way in. The screening I was in, the majority of the audience was chuckling throughout.

That’s not to say that the film stints on the action. The film has a bond-esque feel to it, in that it rushes from country to country, going from London to Germany to a final stand off in Switzerland, but despite the globe trotting, the film never feels rushed. The fight scenes are just as good as the first, if possibly a little, too…much? Another highlight of the first film was the way that Ritchie showed Sherlock’s mind set during each fight, how he worked out the fight before it had even started. This continutes, but after a few of them, it does get a little, grating.

Moriarty is a fine villain, a match to Sherlock both physically and mentally. There is a strong feeling that Sherlock is in danger here. Rapace does a lot with a character that has little personality. Sim is never given much of a personality, all her emotions come from the worry about her missing brother, who may have something to do with the bombings…

The only character that I felt misfired is Stephen Fry as Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock’s brother. Fry feels miscast, he doesn’t seem to fit the role. He is played mainly for laughs, makes sense him being a comic actor, but his character brings down the threat level, making the story seem a bit, farcical. His character could have been great if they hadn’t made him out to be a Victorian Stephen Fry.

The film again, looks beautiful, for the most part. One stand out scene, a slow motion run through a forest whilst our heroes are being shot at, is particularly inspiring, but there’s still one thing that bugs me that hasn’t changed from the first film. The use of green screen for wide crowd shots is so painfully obvious, it feels like the progress that has been made with that technology has just been ignored. Obviously the crowds aren’t actually there,  but they could at least make it look like they are? the wide shots of Victorian London don’t match the visuals of the close ups, making certain parts seem very amateur.

Despite this, the film is genuine fun, you can follow the mystery, it grips you throughout and you genuinely feel for the characters. The ending as well, brilliant.

rating   * * * *

Movie review- Paranormal activity 3

I recently saw this film with a friend, I’d been looking forward to watching it for a while, having seen the first one which I thought was actually pretty scary, and after seeing the second one, which although wasn’t half as good as the original, still had it’s fair share of jumps. The third was either going to be really good, a really good horror movie or would just go into the area of laughable, a joke film that lost all it’s horror elements and just became to big budget for the film to handle. In my opinion, the film was more on a par with the first, it was actually pretty scary, it made me and my friend jump several times, and actually had some people in the cinema screaming and gasping out of the tension that was coming out of the screen.

I do have some problems with the film however, the budget has clearly been upped since the first one, meaning that the visuals don’t look as real. Ironically. The first film had such a low budget, $11,000, that it had to make do with practical scares such as a door opening, footprints being left in flour, or a burned photo being found in the attic. One noticeable scene in this film was when the young katie was dragged into the air by the demon, purely by her hair. This scene was more laughable than anything, it just didn’t look like she was being dragged around by her hair. Obviously she actually wasn’t, but there was still little believability in this particular scene. Another scene that springs to mind following this vein is again a scene involving young Katie, where she is dragged by her feet by the demon, whilst her little sister  Kristi watches helplessly. This scene is a clear rip off of the scene in PA2 where an older Kristi is dragged down the stairs by the same demon. Maybe this was meant to be a case of foreshadowing by the filmmakers, a way of saying to the audience that these films are all linked and that Kristi witnessing her sister being dragged by the demon lead to her having the same fate. However, I think that the filmmakers decided to do this in the 3rd film because her being dragged down the stairs in PA2 was such a success with audiences, being one of the most memorable parts of the film, that they decided it deserved to be used again.

Gladly however, this was really my only problem with the actual visuals of the film. The higher budget, although not working with the hair puling scene, did work for the rest of the film, especially the ending where the nature of the demon is finally revealed ( I won’t go into details about this, in case people are reading and haven’t seen the film- SPOILERS) Also, a noticeable scene where the bigger budget helped to make the film more scary was the scene when the grils mother is waking into the kitchen to find all her furniture is gone, only for it to drop from the ceiling. This particular scene was very effective in the screening I was in, and could possibly be this films dragging down the stairs moment.

The change of pace from focusing on the two girls in their separate lives is interesting, audience members finally get to see what happened to them as children so as to lead to their adult lives being as they are. The fact that Kristi is the one who is affected by the demon first relates to the fact that she gets scared a lot quicker in the second film when things start happening compared to how Katie does in the first film. Also, the ending helps to explain why they can’t remember anything that happened in their childhood, and also makes the joint narrative of the three films click into place.

The scares do come thick and fast in this film, the demon starts getting to work much quicker than he does in PA2, where it takes about an hour before anything interesting happens. This film starts the scares straight away, with a door opening slightly, a banging being heard from far away, a child talking to someone who isn’t there. The demon is considered more of a person in this film, with an early shot of dust landing on it’s shoulders, clearly showing it’s human outline. The scares have also become more relatable, people are used to the scenarios that the characters find themselves in, hearing noises at night, lights flickering, things moving from where they originally were, or so you think. The idea of the characters playing bloody mary is also intriguing, suggesting that this game that everyone has heard of, even if they haven’t played it, is dangerous, and will release a demon into your bathroom and cause a huge commotion outside the door, is a pretty scary concept.

This film is far more effective than the second instalment, but is still not as good as the first instalment. The first one was new, interesting, nothing anyone had seen before. The use of tension is so much better in this film compared to the second, you’re sat there holding your breath, waiting for the scare that you know is coming to finally reveal itself. Despite how good this film is, and I did think it was a good film,  there’s no getting away from the feeling that we as an audience have seen it all before. The only way that the filmmakers have made the viewing of Paranormal Activity 3 a necessity for fans of the series is by finally revealing the origins of the demon.

rating 8/10

 

(please don’t make a 4th one though, that one can only be bad.)