"Living in Hollywood can make you famous. Dying in Hollywood can make you a legend."
A couple of times a year a film is released which doesn't make much noise at the box office, but, through word of mouth promotion is revealed to be a fantastic piece of film making.
Hollywoodland fits nicely into this category of film. It didn't set the box office alight (Collecting $14.415 million in the US and a mere £65,735 in the UK.) however the word of mouth surrounding this film, particularly the surprisingly strong performance of Ben Affleck in his first screen appearance since a cameo in Clerks 2 has made Hollywoodland a film to watch.
Hollywoodland is the story of a Private Investigator (Adrien Brody) looking into the alleged suicide of former TV Superman George Reeves (Affleck), a case which isn't as simple as it first may seem.
Hollywoodland is a truly worthwhile film as the performances are first class, the script is note perfect for the period, and the film develops in a way far more complex that the average detective film.
Monday 18 August 2008
Wednesday 13 August 2008
Mamma Mia!
The best advice I could give about Mamma Mia! is that if you think you won't like a loveable 90 minuite romp through the music of Abba, don't bother going to see the film.
If however, you want to see a film which is incredibly entertaining and great fun, then Mamma Mia! is the film for you.
Mamma Mia makes no pretences and doesn't for one minuite dissapoint, even Pierce Brosnan's incredibly awful singing is entertaining and you are left at the end of the film with a big smile on your face and the songs of Abba playing in your head. If you want a fun trip to the movies, Mamma Mia! is definately the film for you.
If however, you want to see a film which is incredibly entertaining and great fun, then Mamma Mia! is the film for you.
Mamma Mia makes no pretences and doesn't for one minuite dissapoint, even Pierce Brosnan's incredibly awful singing is entertaining and you are left at the end of the film with a big smile on your face and the songs of Abba playing in your head. If you want a fun trip to the movies, Mamma Mia! is definately the film for you.
Craig reveals interest in filming gay Bond experience
Bond to be more unpredictable?
Daniel Craig talks about Quantum of Solace
James Bond star Daniel Craig has recently spoken of his interest in having James Bond partake in a gay experience during the forthcoming 007 film Quantum of Solace.
The British star, 40, is currently one of the biggest names in popular culture following a string of box office successes such as Casino Royale and The Golden Compass.
Daniel revealed that he believes a gay experience would help to revolutionise the character of James Bond further as such as scene would make the character more unpredictable.
He said: "Why not? I think in this day and age, fans would have accepted it. I mean, look at (British TV series) 'Doctor Who' - that has had gay scenes in it and no one blinks an eye."
It seems as though Daniel Craig is intent in making his incarnation of James Bond one that will never be forgotten, and, if he is able to break down some oppressive barriers in the process, it will be for all the right reasons too.
Daniel Craig talks about Quantum of Solace
James Bond star Daniel Craig has recently spoken of his interest in having James Bond partake in a gay experience during the forthcoming 007 film Quantum of Solace.
The British star, 40, is currently one of the biggest names in popular culture following a string of box office successes such as Casino Royale and The Golden Compass.
Daniel revealed that he believes a gay experience would help to revolutionise the character of James Bond further as such as scene would make the character more unpredictable.
He said: "Why not? I think in this day and age, fans would have accepted it. I mean, look at (British TV series) 'Doctor Who' - that has had gay scenes in it and no one blinks an eye."
It seems as though Daniel Craig is intent in making his incarnation of James Bond one that will never be forgotten, and, if he is able to break down some oppressive barriers in the process, it will be for all the right reasons too.
Thursday 24 July 2008
Tuesday 22 July 2008
Shoot ‘em Up
Shoot ‘em up is a entertaining romp of rubbish, there’s not a lot that you can say about the movie. It lasts for 86 minutes, contains about 108 deaths and some incredible moments during which a carrot is used as a weapon. Why this film got made I do not know, as it is about as good as a feature length episode of The Bill. Watch Shoot ‘em up if you want mindless violence and a film that, apart from the mindless action scenes, is complete trollop.
Across The Universe
What’s it about?
Set in the 1960s Across the Universe is the latest attempt to use the music of The Beatles within film. Across the Universe is the tale of Jude, a young lad from Liverpool who travels over to America and falls in love with Lucy, and the film is about the existence they share.
What’s good?
If you love the music of The Beatles, you won’t be upset by the film’s soundtrack, no less than 33 Beatles songs form the soundtrack for Across the Universe.
What’s bad?
The film, for me, simply didn’t work. I found it to be a muddle of cheap references with action and visuals put in to give some form of validation as to why Across the Universe wasn’t simply released as an album of Beatles covers. The characters were underdeveloped and I found myself constantly looking at my watch and trying not to fall asleep.
Overall
If you truly love the music of The Beatles give this film a try, it is firmly for the die hard fan, on DVD it may fare better than it did on film, however with Julie Taymor’s history in theatre, I would not be surprised if Across the Universe finds its way onto a Broadway stage before too long, where I do believe this show could be a hit.
Set in the 1960s Across the Universe is the latest attempt to use the music of The Beatles within film. Across the Universe is the tale of Jude, a young lad from Liverpool who travels over to America and falls in love with Lucy, and the film is about the existence they share.
What’s good?
If you love the music of The Beatles, you won’t be upset by the film’s soundtrack, no less than 33 Beatles songs form the soundtrack for Across the Universe.
What’s bad?
The film, for me, simply didn’t work. I found it to be a muddle of cheap references with action and visuals put in to give some form of validation as to why Across the Universe wasn’t simply released as an album of Beatles covers. The characters were underdeveloped and I found myself constantly looking at my watch and trying not to fall asleep.
Overall
If you truly love the music of The Beatles give this film a try, it is firmly for the die hard fan, on DVD it may fare better than it did on film, however with Julie Taymor’s history in theatre, I would not be surprised if Across the Universe finds its way onto a Broadway stage before too long, where I do believe this show could be a hit.
The Producers
When I first saw the original movie of The Producers, I fell in love with it. I absolutely adored its subtleties. I also loved the songs and the way that Mel Brooks seemed to have a near perfect balance between humour and music. I’ve heard some of the songs from the stage show version of The Producers which was based on the original film and I loved the new songs. So, when I heard that Hollywood were making a movie of the play which was of a movie which was about a play (Confused yet?) I was very pleased.
I went to see the new movie of The Producers. I wasn’t so pleased.
The main problem that I had with the new film is that it’s not sure what time period it’s set in. The original movie was set in the mid 1960s, when it was made. It was the story of two very stereotypically Jewish characters who, after discovering that they can make more money by producing a flop rather than a hit, decide to make the worst play ever written, a play that shows Hitler in a sympathetic light, written by a man who was and is still a member of the Nazi party. Because the original story is set like this the tension between the characters is at an all time high and never looks like sagging.
That’s the original film in a nutshell.
The new film is supposedly still set in the mid 1960s however little things are done to try and modernise the scenarios to convey to a 2006 audience. Such as having animatronics pigeons that can perform Nazi salutes and calling Franz (the Nazi writer) a, “Neo – Nazi”.
The film was still funny in places, the audience in the cinema where I was, seemed to enjoy the film quite a lot. However I didn’t.
A major problem that I had with this new version of the film was the direction, Susan Stroman may be a very successful choreographer, however, she’s clearly not a film director. Essentially, she filmed a theatre show on a film set, which is a problem as films and plays are performed in very different ways. In plays the characters sometimes need to over state the joke or the action in order to convey what’s just happened to the audience, they also need to leave time for the laughter/ applause to settle. In a film, actions don’t need to be overstated, as the camera picks up on everything that it sees. The end result in the movie were gaps where the actors waited for their queues which in return slowed the film down and took away nearly all of the tension that made the original film so great.
My recommendation is that if you want to see The Producers, you see the original. As it is far superior in every single way.
I went to see the new movie of The Producers. I wasn’t so pleased.
The main problem that I had with the new film is that it’s not sure what time period it’s set in. The original movie was set in the mid 1960s, when it was made. It was the story of two very stereotypically Jewish characters who, after discovering that they can make more money by producing a flop rather than a hit, decide to make the worst play ever written, a play that shows Hitler in a sympathetic light, written by a man who was and is still a member of the Nazi party. Because the original story is set like this the tension between the characters is at an all time high and never looks like sagging.
That’s the original film in a nutshell.
The new film is supposedly still set in the mid 1960s however little things are done to try and modernise the scenarios to convey to a 2006 audience. Such as having animatronics pigeons that can perform Nazi salutes and calling Franz (the Nazi writer) a, “Neo – Nazi”.
The film was still funny in places, the audience in the cinema where I was, seemed to enjoy the film quite a lot. However I didn’t.
A major problem that I had with this new version of the film was the direction, Susan Stroman may be a very successful choreographer, however, she’s clearly not a film director. Essentially, she filmed a theatre show on a film set, which is a problem as films and plays are performed in very different ways. In plays the characters sometimes need to over state the joke or the action in order to convey what’s just happened to the audience, they also need to leave time for the laughter/ applause to settle. In a film, actions don’t need to be overstated, as the camera picks up on everything that it sees. The end result in the movie were gaps where the actors waited for their queues which in return slowed the film down and took away nearly all of the tension that made the original film so great.
My recommendation is that if you want to see The Producers, you see the original. As it is far superior in every single way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)