Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo
All reviews - Movies (1602) - TV Shows (38) - DVDs (2)

Charming British comedy

Posted : 16 years, 8 months ago on 28 April 2008 06:17 (A review of About a Boy)

"I was in some strange territory. Was I frightened? I was petrified."

I usually enjoy watching these types of heart-warming British comedies, and About a Boy is certainly no exception. This one has a lot more heart than some other comedies I've seen over the years, and the great cast certainly help the film majorly.

Hugh Grant plays Will, a 38-year-old underachiever who is out of work, has a fear of commitment and starts a sudden obsession with dating single women. While attending a single parents gathering group, he meets Fiona (Collette) and her son Marcus (Hoult). Will's life is altered after Fiona attempts suicide, and Marcus feels that Will should marry her so he won't have to put up with her depression issues. Marcus and Will strike up a close friendship, and they both learn a thing or two about life while helping each other through their respective life problems.

Hugh Grant, although pretty much playing these types of characters all the time, is in good form and is quite hilarious at times. Young Nicholas Hoult delivers a questionable performance at times, but he's far from horrible.

I had not seen this film for a long time, and now that I've finally seen it again I rather liked it a lot more the second time around. I guess age has a lot to do with tastes in movies. The film is very charming, well made, and is quite side splitting at times as well.

British comedies are usually of varying quality, but About a Boy was a really good movie. The laughs are all over the place, the film is brightly told, and the cast is great. Makes for a great night out at the movies!


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Solid sci-fi adventure!

Posted : 16 years, 8 months ago on 28 April 2008 06:11 (A review of The Abyss)

"These guys are about as much fun as a tax audit."

James Cameron was indisputably one of the most influential directors throughout the 20th Century; with each new film brought new groundbreaking special effects as well as mind-blowing, innovative concepts.

The Abyss is undoubtedly a top notch, extraordinarily well made film that can be regarded as more of an underwater adventure film than a sci-fi outing. Being a big fan of Cameron's prior films, I was eager to see this one and I was far from disappointed.

During the height of the Cold War, a group of oil rig workers are assigned by the navy to investigate a nuclear submarine that mysteriously sunk somewhere in the depths due to causes unknown. The navy suspects the Russians are behind the mysterious attack, and scramble to get to the site of the submarine before the Russians get there first. While the operation is being executed, freak weather conditions damage the platform and sever its communication with the surface. As World War III looms above and tensions rise between the divers and a deployed SEAL team, the rescuers discover that there is something else in the deep abyss of the ocean besides the submarine.

The film is told at such a snail pace but is full of state-of-the-art special effects to capture the imagination of Cameron's inspirational ideas. Each new creature only heightens the 'wow' factor of the overall production. The film's only real flaw was the convoluted dialogue that becomes hard to follow. But on the other hand, James Cameron tells the story exceptionally well.

The production design is great, as are the Oscar winning special effects that are outstanding for its age. Although they may look a tad weak compared to today's standards, they were utterly groundbreaking upon first release. I found Cameron's direction throughout to be almost flawless.

The atmosphere allows the audience to really get into the action unfolding on the screen. This wouldn't have been possible without the engaging performances as well. Ed Harris was very good in the principal role. Kudos to the production team for giving the audience the sense that there was no escape. Thanks to their remarkable work we can feel the tension and the fear of the characters.

Overall, The Abyss is a groundbreaking masterpiece from a wizard of modern filmmaking. My respect for Cameron can only heighten with each new film he produces. The Abyss is a landmark film and an extraordinary experience. One not to be missed!


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Disappointing

Posted : 16 years, 8 months ago on 28 April 2008 05:46 (A review of Tristan & Isolde)

"I live in torture thinking of these moments. Every look he gives you I get sicker and sicker. There's a burning in me, I feel on fire and a guilt I can't comidify. Does it make you happy to know that?"

Typical, standard Hollywood epic is nothing more than light entertainment with some romance thrown in there.

A young orphan named Tristan (Franco) is heir to the British throne. During the period when the British were not at peace with the Irish, Tristan is wounded in battle and nursed back to health by young Irish royal Isolde (Myles). The two slowly fall in love, predictably. But their passionate romance is forbidden, and the two lovers must choose where their allegiance lies - love or honour.

Surprisingly, there are very few good things to find here. The performances are weak, but somewhat convincing. Franco wasn't given much to work with, with such a poor script. And Myles was bordering on average and poor.

The battles did look most impressive at times, but the American PG-13 rating means that the medieval violence looks tame and underwhelming. The film tries to pass itself off as another Braveheart, but the difference is that the extreme battle violence in Braveheart made the battles a lot more entertaining. Here I was just yawning.

The non-sentimental approach to the characters also means that when I saw a character being killed I couldn't tell whether they were Irish or English. And what's more - I never cared when someone was killed! Each character looks similar and is not memorable in the slightest. Apart from the two protagonists, I can't think of another character that was actually developed.

And the romance was laughable. I never cared for the romance for a single second. A love story is superfluous if the audience do not care about it. The parallels drawn between this and the story of Romeo & Juliet are uncanny. This film may be based on legend, but the studio appears to do everything they can to ensure it's a pointless rehash of the classic Shakespeare tale told in a Braveheart kind of setting. The tagline mentions Romeo & Juliet, and even the title of the film is similar to Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet by inserting a '+' in the promotional title.

Still, the film is mildly entertaining at times if a little overlong. Tristan + Isolde told its story, but not well. The tame battle scenes and laughable romance leave this sitting in the mediocre category.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Gripping drama.

Posted : 16 years, 8 months ago on 28 April 2008 05:42 (A review of On the Waterfront)

"Hey, you wanna hear my philosophy of life? Do it to him before he does it to you."


On the Waterfront is a classic film that tells a remarkable tale of one man's struggle with his conscience and the union bosses that he works for.

The film is brutal, gripping, hard-hitting and categorically astonishing. It's just such a monumental shame that this film (along with a majority of classics) is so criminally overlooked during the time of modern cinema.

Marlon Brando, in one of his early performances, is an ex-boxer named Terry Malloy. Terry now works at the docks for a group of corrupt union bosses. But when a worker attempts to tell the authorities of the corruption that is occurring at the docks, the bosses send a clear message and have him eliminated. The dead man's sister Edie (Saint) is determined to find her brother's killer. When Terry and Edie strike up a relationship, Terry realises that he can no longer turn a blind eye to the corruption at his work-place that caused the untimely murder. Thus Terry must question where his loyalties lie, and has to make a decision about whether to stand up and testify against his corrupt bosses.

On the Waterfront is a gripping, groundbreaking masterpiece. It takes an uncompromising look its subject matter without holding back on the violence.

Marlon Brando is exceptional as Terry. He looks so young and dashing, yet every line he delivers is so powerful. I could barely recognise Brando due to him being so youthful. Eva Marie Saint, in her starring debut, is so potent and beatific. The chemistry between Brando and Saint feels so natural and real. And all the rest of the supporting cast add to the genuine feel of the whole experience.

The film's pacing is slow, and it requires heavy patience, but the performances from the cast are just so mesmerising. The scene in the back of the taxi is still one of the most moving and most powerful scenes in cinema history. The scene would not have been as good without the aid of such great character portrayals from all those in the cast.

The cinematography is another immensely brilliant aspect here. The use of grainy black and white makes it feel even more authentic. The great story is complimented by the remarkable direction of Elia Kazan. He won an Oscar for such inspirational directing. The music is used meagrely, but it is always loaded with so much power.

On the Waterfront is an astoundingly brilliant production and a marvellous movie. The film is so gripping and so compelling, with drama that keeps one engaged for the film's duration. Over 50 years on and the film has not lost any of its original impact. Highly recommended for those with enough patience. Winner of 8 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Writing and Best Art Direction.



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Dreadful filmmaking.

Posted : 16 years, 8 months ago on 28 April 2008 05:39 (A review of Pathfinder)

"There are two wolves fighting in each man's heart. One is Love, the other is Hate."


Pathfinder ended up being an appalling movie, and one of the worst of 2007. Truth be told I told myself I would see this one despite it looking mediocre...but it turned out to be quite terrible. For the duration of the movie, it's nothing more than a poor excuse to showcase many different ways for heads to be cut off and people getting killed with swords or axes.

The very little evidence of a plot that I picked up on had something to do with a young boy named Ghost (Urban) who is abandoned as a child. Raised by a Native American tribe, he proves to be quite a skilled warrior. When the Norsemen arrive on American shores with intentions of killing all villagers in sight, Ghost proves a saviour to the people.

From there it's completely predictable and the shallow plot completely disappears within the extreme mindless violence.

I found most aspects of the film to be dull - the colour grading made the film difficult to watch, the blood effects looked bleak and the typical use of slo-mo and shaky cam during battles makes things extraordinarily hard to make out.

Karl Urban doesn't deliver many lines, but when he does it seems he makes no effort to hide his true voice. He sounds more like an American man rather than a Viking. The other performances weren't in the least bit memorable, nor did they deserve to be memorable. All characters are clothed the same, all characters speak the same. There's no distinction between characters, and therefore this non-sentimentality means that when someone is killed it may look cool, but I honestly never cared. Some of the action is intense, but it's useless if one doesn't care about what's going on. Without character development (of which there is none in this movie) how are we supposed to give a damn about anyone?

Pathfinder is an example of filmmakers using everything they can to craft an action movie that adolescents will delight over due to the extreme violence, but there's nothing here for anyone else. Give it a miss!



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Classic romantic comedy

Posted : 16 years, 8 months ago on 28 April 2008 05:34 (A review of The Philadelphia Story)

"I'm going crazy. I'm standing here solidly on my own two hands and going crazy."


The Philadelphia Story is a classic, enchanting romantic comedy that has gone down in history as one of the much-loved romantic comedies of all time.

I will admit that because the film is decades old it has lost some of its charm and appeal, but the abilities of the actors is what truly carries this movie.

Based on a Broadway play, The Philadelphia Story is about a spoiled young woman named Tracy (Hepburn) who is engaged to marry stuffy upper class executive George (Howard). But soon Tracy's ex-husband Dexter (Grant) enters the picture as the wedding day approaches, as well as a charismatic newspaper spy (Stewart) who is hired to take pictures and grab an interesting scoop on the wedding. The wedding attracts a lot of attention from the media, and Dexter invites journalists from Spy magazine into Tracy's estate to record events leading up to the wedding in an attempt to get revenge on Tracy for their break-up many years ago.

For a classic, this love triangle in a romantic comedy is quite sophisticated. The snappy dialogue flows fantastically from scene to scene, accompanied by classy direction from George Cukor.

My only complaint: the film didn't have enough to keep my interest throughout the running time. There just wasn't enough substance to sustain interest in the viewer for the full 110 minutes.

One of the film's strengths is its tendency to steer away from conventions and predictability, but maybe a few of these thrown in could have made the film a bit more entertaining. But don't think I'm looking for some mindless Hollywood romantic comedy - most of which I detest - but I'd much prefer a bit more substance to keep my interest. Even after saying that, I will admit laughing at some of the witty dialogue delivered by some talented actors.

Cary Grant is at his usual high standard here, as is Katharine Hepburn. James Stewart, in his Oscar-winning role, plays a very fascinating fast-talking (!) reporter.

Overall, I found The Philadelphia Story to be pure classic cinema from the golden age of MGM studios. It's appealing, albeit dated, and very well crafted. A must for film buffs.



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Brilliant biopic...

Posted : 16 years, 8 months ago on 28 April 2008 05:25 (A review of Ray)

"I hear like you see. Like that hummingbird outside the window, for instance."


Ray is a film that instigated a craze of music-orientated biopics in Hollywood, and there's little wonder considering the quality we're presented with here.

Before this film, Jamie Foxx had a limited number of memorable performances on his résumé. Suffice to say, Foxx proved an able actor and delivers a truly outstanding performance. Throughout the whole movie he seems like Ray Charles. He physically looks like him and talks like him. The resemblance is uncanny. The man we see on screen does not appear to be Jamie Foxx; it feels like it's actually Ray Charles. It's no wonder that Foxx got an Oscar for his remarkable portrayal.

Ray is the story of the life and career of singer Ray Charles - a man who lived an extraordinary life. The film traces his humble beginnings when he sang in night clubs right up to his clash with fame and creating a title for himself as one of the most legendary soul performers in music history.

One of the more interesting aspects of his life that the film examines is the man's drug addiction and the problems it posed towards his career. The sound editing also won an Oscar, and there's little wonder why it did. Whenever we see the character of Ray singing, the words appear to be in perfect sync with his mouth. Although Foxx never actually sang the songs himself, but rather used recordings of the real Ray Charles singing, you would never notice.

The whole film is made even more heart-wrenching during the tragic scenes, especially with the thought in mind that it actually happened. The whole film is made in an engaging style, and it's filmmaking at its finest.

Truthfully, I was never really a Ray Charles fan before watching this movie. But after this experience I felt compelled to begin listening to some of his songs, and now it's impossible not to enjoy the man's music. Kerry Washington and Regina King both are stunning here as the leading ladies in Ray's life. And with each new character added to the story, the performance from the respective actors is tremendous.

Ray is a cinematic masterpiece. The whole film is brilliant, heart-wrenching and powerful. Quite simply, this film cannot be missed. The real Ray Charles died during production.



0 comments, Reply to this entry

A potent, powerful narrative

Posted : 16 years, 8 months ago on 28 April 2008 04:42 (A review of In Cold Blood (1967))

"Look at me boy! Take a good look! Cause I'm the last living thing you're ever gonna see!"

Truman Capote painstakingly wrote a non-fiction novel of the true story surrounding the brutal slaughter of a Kansas family in their home. This novel was a literature masterpiece that is still widely acclaimed to this day. The novel was titled In Cold Blood and was the source material for this film of the same name.

The true story that is told in the movie: Perry Smith (Blake) and Dick Hickox (Wilson) were convinced (by Hickox's former cell mate) that a wealthy family in Kansas possessed a safe containing $10,000. Driven by the promise of cash they drove several hundred miles to the home. On November 14, 1959, the two men broke into the Kansas farmhouse belonging to the Clutter family. Failing to find the safe, they killed all four members of the much-respected Clutters.

The film chronicles the lead-up, then the aftermath of the murder. The men are on the run as they travel first to Mexico before returning to the United States where they are eventually caught. The other half of the film tells the story of their conviction and subsequent execution. While we see Perry and Dick on the run we are also shown the other side of the story; the investigation by Kansas Bureau of Investigation (they are called this because the FBI did not approve of the script) as they work to find the identities of the men who committed such a heinous crime.

Some criticism the film received (from dumb audiences) is in relation to the film following the two men who executed a horrendous crime. Why are we supposed to care about them? It's very straightforward - the men are not shown as psychopaths or deranged killers. There is no need. In real life the men were ordinary and real. This makes the film even more chilling; that individually they are two personalities incapable of conceiving the crime. But together they form a third personality that committed the quadruple homicide.

In Cold Blood is a character film that boasts several fine performances. Robert Blake's performance is iconic and flawless. I was immediately engaged in everything he was doing. And the final shot of the movie really hit home. Blake is truly electrifying. The poignancy of his portrayal broke me down to tears. He is matched by an equally superb performance from Scott Wilson as his partner Hickox. Both men never appear to be acting; they are wholly believable and engaging. For a few times during the film I forgot I was watching a movie.

The direction and cinematography assisted in this feeling as well. Using grainy black and white photography almost makes it appear to be archive footage. The film has been tagged as a "semi-documentary" because it frankly feels like a documentary rather than a staged movie. The writer/director Richard Brooks created an unnerving atmosphere. This is definitely one of his best movies. His script was naturalistic and exceptional; even finding space for some sneaky film references (such as Blake talking about The Treasure of the Sierra Madre). Topped off beautifully with a jazzy score courtesy of Quincy Jones. The score really helps to establish the atmosphere as well.

Overall, In Cold Blood is a powerful and compelling experience that tells a truly fascinating story. Like the book, the film is a documentary-style narrative that portrays the characters exactly how they were without being over-the-top or typical Hollywood. In this day and age it's very hard to find a movie as moving and potent as this sublime production. In a nutshell: In Cold Blood cannot be missed at any cost. The story of Capote writing his novel is told in the film Capote.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Essential classic film.

Posted : 16 years, 8 months ago on 28 April 2008 04:14 (A review of The Hustler)

"I'm the best you ever seen, Fats. I'm the best there is. And even if you beat me, I'm still the best."

The Hustler is another classic film that reminds audiences that lots of the world's greatest movies are filmed in black and white. The film is an atmospheric adaptation of a novel by Walter Tevis.

At first glance the film superficially looked like a simple film about pool. That assumption is only half true. While the film does revolve around the game of pool the film is about something a lot deeper - human nature, strength of character and the negatives of gambling.

The Hustler introduces us to the central character; Fast Eddie Felson (Newman). Eddie is a swaggering small-time hustler who makes his money by suckering people into a high stakes game of pool that he can easily win.

His luck soon changes when he and his partner walk into a pool facility that gives people the opportunity to shoot a few games of pool. Eddie is pitted against Minnesota Fats (Gleason), but his greed gets the better of him. The rest of the film stems off of that initial game of pool against Fats. Eddie meets an array of new people who teach him quite a bit about life.

The film features yet another memorable, magnificent performance from Paul Newman. His character of Fast Eddie Felson is an anti-hero for sure. There are several disagreeable character traits exhibited throughout the film - he's greedy, boastful and a drunk - but somehow Newman manages to allow the audience to empathise with him. Eddie is a despicable character; however Newman's portrayal can't be faulted. He displays an assortment of different emotions expressed during the film. When he's sober he appears quite calm. A few drinks guzzle down his throat and suddenly he becomes a different person. For scenes that call for it, Newman is absolutely exhilarating.

Other important characters include a girl named Sarah Packard (Laurie); a girl that Eddie meets by chance. Laurie had her moments to shine; especially when she appears distraught or simmering with anger. George C. Scott is stimulating and riveting as a gambler who teaches Eddie how to win when it really matters. The icing on the cake was Jackie Gleason as Minnesota Fats. Fats is not a significant character, but an important symbol. Gleason truly is remarkable in this movie.

The technical aspect of The Hustler is flawless. I was captivated when a pool game was being played. The cinematography in particular was outstanding. An Oscar was earned for the cinematography and there is little wonder. These scenes captured the genuine atmosphere of a bar or a place where people like to shoot some pool.

And of course the long shots that show a character sinking multiple balls must have been head aching to film. Each stroke of the pool cue looks very precise and planned out. The director must be applauded for achieving such realism in this aspect. The typical environment was captured skilfully on camera. In a pool-shooting environment the scene is lit by the dim glow of a bar lamp or the glare of an overhead pool table light. As a result the film is almost faultless.

The Hustler is an impressive classic gem of a movie. In addition to being exceptionally crafted, the film is also fantastic entertainment marred only marginally by its over-length. The film delivers a poignant message and moves at a brisk pace. I'm very glad I finally gave this film a shot (pun intended).


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Riveting western...

Posted : 16 years, 8 months ago on 27 April 2008 10:12 (A review of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid)

"I'm not crazy; I'm just colorful."


Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid opens with a title card that reveals "most of what follows is true". That title card is accurate. In reality, there were two men named Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. They really did rob banks in addition to trains.

The filmmakers executed substantial research before getting involved with the project with the intention that they could make the movie as accurate as possible. No-one will ever know what actually happened of course (apart from the two men), but the film was never meant to be an in-depth history lesson. The filmmakers are allowed to get away with inventing some creative dialogue. Even if the two men were alive today they wouldn't be able to know what they said word for word.

Butch Cassidy on the Sundance Kid tells an engrossing, funny, fast-paced tale of the two historical figures in the form of a western. Butch Cassidy (Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Redford) are the two leaders of a gang of thieves. The two men are exceedingly proficient in their main area of aptitude - for Butch it's ideas and brains, for Sundance it's his ability with a firearm. When their gang commit a few too many robberies a special posse is organised with the objective of eliminating the two outlaws.

The plot is a complex of interesting sub-plots with the main objective in mind of chronicling the rise and fall of the protagonists. However the film is not powered by the plot - it's powered by the fantastic performances and great character development.

The film runs at a brisk 105 minutes and moves at an invigorating pace. There are a lot of exciting western shoot-outs and engaging robbery scenes. The film works because there's always something interesting to exhibit on the screen. The film was crafted beautifully; each shot has been framed with style, each location looks gorgeous. And above all the costumes and props look highly authentic. The costume donned by each character looks genuinely stunning. And the atmosphere is spectacular. It's easy to find yourself immersed in the action occurring on the screen because every detail you see is impenetrably hard to fault. The film won an Oscar for Best Cinematography with good reasoning!

I was very impressed with the performances from all the actors. Paul Newman makes a realistic Butch Cassidy. He looks like a person who would use his brains rather than brawn. Newman's dialogue is snappy and fascinating. Kudos to Newman for pulling off yet another great performance! Robert Redford has the look of a gun-touting outlaw.

The film's atmosphere is also established skilfully by director George Roy Hill. It's his direction coupled with the fantastic cinematography that gets the audience engrossed in the film. Within the first 10 minutes I was already hooked.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is a classic western that is witty, funny and entertaining. In the film you'll find both action and humour; a prize-winning combination for a western. Don't be put off by its age. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is quite simply one of the most breathtaking films in history.



0 comments, Reply to this entry