Click Title to go to IMDb Page
Starring: Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Stanley Tucci, Chris Messina
Director: Nora Ephron
Certificate: 12
Year: 2009
In Short: A good look at the roots of cook Julia Child and her biggest fan Julie Powell, it is compelling and sweet, funny and serious in just the right places and inspires you to get into that kitchen and somehow managing to remain completely un-sexist.
In Full: I watched Julie & Julia having never heard of either of them or read their books before so I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect, I was pleasantly surprised by the tale of both women and (though I have little to go on) thought both Adams and Streep gave wonderful portrayals of their characters.
The flashes between Julia and Julie were executed very well and there was, thankfully, no confusion which I find often happens when people swap between one time and the other, especially when they are closely interlinked.
I have never been fond of Amy Adams, though I could not tell you why, however I really liked her in this role and empathised with her when things didn’t go according to plan, I even found myself shouting at the tv when she overslept.
Meryl Streep, on the other hand, has always been one of my favourite actors and I particularly enjoyed the plumy accent she used for Julia, when watching her cooking show she reminded me of a 50s Nigella Lawson. She manages to create a very likeable character who is incredibly funny but you don’t laugh at her, you laugh at the situation.
The sets and costumes work in the movies favour as well as the script and the soundtrack which, while not very memorable, does not distract from the scene, which some scores definitely do. Both Tucci and Messina gave strong performances as the doting husbands, not to mention a variety of recognisable faces in much more minor, but still well-acted, roles.
The only real problem I had with this movie, and it is a rather little thing, was that I got the sense of a build-up to when the two would finally meet and there would be some sort of conflict or armistice between the characters, as well as a look at a 90 yr old Meryl Streep. If this is what you hoped to see you will be disappointed. However, despite giving a slight false impression, it is easy to look past this small flaw and enjoy the rest of the movie.
See This Movie If You Liked: Ratatouille (Brad Bird & Jan Pinkava, 2007), Evening (Lajos Koltai, 2007), The Cat’s Meow (Peter Bogdanovich, 2001)
06 June 2010
Alien Resurrection
Click Title to go to IMDb page
Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Winona Ryder, Dominique Pinon, Ron Perlman
Director: Jean-Pierre Juenet
Certificate: 18
Year: 1997
In Short: A better effort than Alien3 though still flawed in places. A good range of interesting characters and a decent plot twist. CG leaves a lot to be desired but Joss Whedon (writer) manages to create an original storyline using the same characters and a similar setting. Unusual characterisation from Weaver as the new Ripley though still enjoyable.
In Full: Alien has been a huge horror franchise since the first movie came out in 1979 and a great deal of famous faces have tried their hand at writing, directing and starring in all four of the movies. Resurrection is set 200 years after Ripley’s death in Alien3 where she is revived as a sort of Ripley-Xenomorph hybrid. Cloning has been tackled many times in films and although it is rather generic, this version still seems a lot more tasteful to me than others I have seen.
The other characters make strong backing to the new Ripley and once again when they are pitted against the Alien, we do actually want them to survive - though it is inevitable not all of them will. Strong female characters seem to be the trait of the Alien movies and Resurecction is no different with the introduction of Annalee Call (Ryder) who manages to stand up for herself and Vriess (Pinon) against the rather dangerous looking (yet strangely likeable) Johnner (Perlman).
Due to Ripley now being part Alien, she inherits some unusual traits, one of which seems to be a new sexual orientation. I don’t know if it is just me but all of a sudden Ripley seems very interested in women and her manner with Call (Ryder) can only be described as flirtatious (and slightly predatory). She is also faster, stronger and altogether better at fighting though sometimes gives the impression of being a little high.
The main problem with Alien 4 is that some of the scenes seem a little forced, not everything is needed and it gives the impression of trying to be in-keeping with previous Alien’s but still have an individual stamp. In most scenes this is managed but some leave a rather awkward smudge on the overall success of the feature.
Alien Resurrection is probably the least popular of the Alien franchise. However, I enjoyed it more than Alien3 and there is a very emotional moment towards the end of the film which I will not reveal for obvious reasons. Though I will say that killing the Alien might not be as triumph filled a moment as it has been in the prequels.
See This Movie If You Liked: Alien (Ridley Scott, 1979), Serenity (Joss Whedon, 2005),
War of the Worlds (Steven Spielberg, 2005)
Also available on boxset:
Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Winona Ryder, Dominique Pinon, Ron Perlman
Director: Jean-Pierre Juenet
Certificate: 18
Year: 1997
In Short: A better effort than Alien3 though still flawed in places. A good range of interesting characters and a decent plot twist. CG leaves a lot to be desired but Joss Whedon (writer) manages to create an original storyline using the same characters and a similar setting. Unusual characterisation from Weaver as the new Ripley though still enjoyable.
In Full: Alien has been a huge horror franchise since the first movie came out in 1979 and a great deal of famous faces have tried their hand at writing, directing and starring in all four of the movies. Resurrection is set 200 years after Ripley’s death in Alien3 where she is revived as a sort of Ripley-Xenomorph hybrid. Cloning has been tackled many times in films and although it is rather generic, this version still seems a lot more tasteful to me than others I have seen.
The other characters make strong backing to the new Ripley and once again when they are pitted against the Alien, we do actually want them to survive - though it is inevitable not all of them will. Strong female characters seem to be the trait of the Alien movies and Resurecction is no different with the introduction of Annalee Call (Ryder) who manages to stand up for herself and Vriess (Pinon) against the rather dangerous looking (yet strangely likeable) Johnner (Perlman).
Due to Ripley now being part Alien, she inherits some unusual traits, one of which seems to be a new sexual orientation. I don’t know if it is just me but all of a sudden Ripley seems very interested in women and her manner with Call (Ryder) can only be described as flirtatious (and slightly predatory). She is also faster, stronger and altogether better at fighting though sometimes gives the impression of being a little high.
The main problem with Alien 4 is that some of the scenes seem a little forced, not everything is needed and it gives the impression of trying to be in-keeping with previous Alien’s but still have an individual stamp. In most scenes this is managed but some leave a rather awkward smudge on the overall success of the feature.
Alien Resurrection is probably the least popular of the Alien franchise. However, I enjoyed it more than Alien3 and there is a very emotional moment towards the end of the film which I will not reveal for obvious reasons. Though I will say that killing the Alien might not be as triumph filled a moment as it has been in the prequels.
See This Movie If You Liked: Alien (Ridley Scott, 1979), Serenity (Joss Whedon, 2005),
War of the Worlds (Steven Spielberg, 2005)
Also available on boxset:
Robin Hood
Click Title to go to the IMDb Page.
Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, Matthew Macfadyn, William Hurt
Director: Ridley Scott
Certificate: 12A
Year: 2010
In Short: A rather mundane remake of Scott/Crowe effort Gladiator, over-complicated language from another Hood who cannot speak with an English accent (it ranges from Irish to a bizarre blend of Scottish and Australian, clearly another actor who got the ‘British‘ accent from Dick Van Dyke). Some good turns from Blanchett and Oscar Isaacs as Marian and Prince John.
In Full: Robin Hood is a classic British legend which has received more than one American interpretation, this latest effort consists of old time pals Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe (who have worked together on four films previous to this one) along with a range of famous faces with not much to do and yet another baddie to add to Mark Strong’s resumé.
We are led to believe the movie will reveal the ‘untold story’ of Robin Hood the man, but as far as I can see, there is very little different from anything we have seen before though unfortunately, not as enjoyable this time around.
The scenery was very formulaic for a medieval war film (see Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, Gladiator), never-the-less it works in the movies favour as we are familiar with the set and the expectations we have for this sort of movie help to carry it along and as we all know, mud and blood spattered men are popular to both men and women (though, I assume, for different reasons).
One thing that doesn’t work in the movie’s favour, however, is the language which seems to be a blend of bad Shakespeare and as many metaphors as Brian Helgoland (the writer) could think of. It is clichéd and rather broken making for difficult viewing in what should really be a popcorn flick.
The trailer gives a pretty accurate impression of what you are going to see (which is more than I can say for a lot of films) though I was impressed by Blanchett’s performance, something I had not anticipated from her screen time in the trailer. This is a small reprieve for a movie which is quite obviously an attempt to claw back some of Ridley/Crowe’s former glory. They may as well have called it Gladiator 2.0.
All in all, a movie worth watching if you can manage to completely switch your brain off for 140 minutes and forget everything you had ever been told about Robin Hood. I would stick to the 1991 Kevin Costner version (which is worth watching for Alan Rickman alone)
or the 1973 animated version, Hood never looked so good as when he was a fox.
See The Movie If You Liked: Beowulf (Robert Zemeckis, 2007), Gladiator (Ridley Scott, 2000), DragonHeart (Rob Cohen, 1996)
Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, Matthew Macfadyn, William Hurt
Director: Ridley Scott
Certificate: 12A
Year: 2010
In Short: A rather mundane remake of Scott/Crowe effort Gladiator, over-complicated language from another Hood who cannot speak with an English accent (it ranges from Irish to a bizarre blend of Scottish and Australian, clearly another actor who got the ‘British‘ accent from Dick Van Dyke). Some good turns from Blanchett and Oscar Isaacs as Marian and Prince John.
In Full: Robin Hood is a classic British legend which has received more than one American interpretation, this latest effort consists of old time pals Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe (who have worked together on four films previous to this one) along with a range of famous faces with not much to do and yet another baddie to add to Mark Strong’s resumé.
We are led to believe the movie will reveal the ‘untold story’ of Robin Hood the man, but as far as I can see, there is very little different from anything we have seen before though unfortunately, not as enjoyable this time around.
The scenery was very formulaic for a medieval war film (see Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, Gladiator), never-the-less it works in the movies favour as we are familiar with the set and the expectations we have for this sort of movie help to carry it along and as we all know, mud and blood spattered men are popular to both men and women (though, I assume, for different reasons).
One thing that doesn’t work in the movie’s favour, however, is the language which seems to be a blend of bad Shakespeare and as many metaphors as Brian Helgoland (the writer) could think of. It is clichéd and rather broken making for difficult viewing in what should really be a popcorn flick.
The trailer gives a pretty accurate impression of what you are going to see (which is more than I can say for a lot of films) though I was impressed by Blanchett’s performance, something I had not anticipated from her screen time in the trailer. This is a small reprieve for a movie which is quite obviously an attempt to claw back some of Ridley/Crowe’s former glory. They may as well have called it Gladiator 2.0.
All in all, a movie worth watching if you can manage to completely switch your brain off for 140 minutes and forget everything you had ever been told about Robin Hood. I would stick to the 1991 Kevin Costner version (which is worth watching for Alan Rickman alone)
or the 1973 animated version, Hood never looked so good as when he was a fox.
See The Movie If You Liked: Beowulf (Robert Zemeckis, 2007), Gladiator (Ridley Scott, 2000), DragonHeart (Rob Cohen, 1996)
Delay
Hello readers (assuming there are any)!
I would just like to apologise about the lack of reviews on here. I've been incredibly busy procrastinating and writing other things but I will try and get a couple reviews posted over the next couple of days, bear with me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)