Review CLIII - The Cabin in the Woods

Review 153
The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

Hey guys! It's been a while, hasn't it? The semester started and my attempts for staying on top of my game have been futile. I haven't even been watching a lot of movies, and when I did, I just didn't have time to write reviews. However, I can recommend The Warriors (with its obviously strong racial message) if you're looking for a funny film and Sicario if you're looking for something awesome. Anyway, I realised Halloween was approaching quickly, so I knew I had to try and get a horror movie in here while I still could. I have a few films lined up, and I'm hoping to write some reviews before Halloween passes, but we'll see given the intense school schedule. Regardless, I'm here today to talk about Drew Goddard's The Cabin in the Woods starring Kristen Connolly, Anna Hutchison, Jesse Williams, Chris Hemsworth, Fran Kranz, Richard Jenkins, and Bradley Whitford. Whew, that's quite a few names - you know we'll be seeing some people dying in this one. Let's review this (popular?) movie!

Five friends head off for the weekend to cabin in the woods (whoa, that was unexpected), hoping to get away from their daily routine. However, it seems that their trip will actually be a murderous rampage for a bigger cause.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if you hadn't heard of this movie - it seems like one of those films you would eventually watch if you watched horror movies. I'm usually not a fan of horror movies - my boyfriend even less - so I raised my eyebrow when he asked to watch this one. The reason? A scene with an elevator and a S.W.A.T. team. Yeah, if you watched the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, let me actually review this.

The Cabin in the Woods pokes fun at other horror movies with its almost breaking-the-fourth-wall dynamic. You'll be sitting there thinking of a bunch of other horror movies while you watch this one, as early as when you see the cabin itself (The Evil Dead anyone?). For that, it breaks from the generic horror movie plot. However, that doesn't mean it's good and doesn't use stock horror jump scares to get your heart pumping. Honestly, I don't mind a clever jump scare - Insidious was not bad at all in this regard. It had some clever ones. But these typical ones where they're standing there, and it suddenly gets completely quiet, you're sitting there just waiting for the loud sound and sudden jump. It's such a cheap tactic and overly-used that it needs to change. I don't mind one every once in a while, but otherwise, I need an eeriness to the film that stays with me afterward.

I guess you could say the movie tries to do this, but... Okay, this will be a spoiler, so stop reading this paragraph if you actually care enough to want to watch this without spoiling it. All right, so, the movie is basically showing how these men are hired to kill people in a sacrificial way in order to give "blood to the blood god". They have a certain way these people have to die, and they set up the deaths as a horror movie set-up. It's trying to be self-aware, but let me tell you, this organisation is just bullshit. Not to sound like a conspiracy nut to the average Joe out there, but it's Baphomet all over the place. "Gods that used to rule us"? "Blood sacrifice in a gruesome manner"? One of the workers even comments at one point how it used to be easy when they could just throw people into a volcano. Now, all right, whatever, this is nothing new to me, but I was just sitting there wondering what the hell this dynamic of killing all the people in this particular order. I also don't understand why it had to be set up like this. Apparently it's to please the gods, but when they show Japan's failure (which is really hilarious - you'll get a good chuckle), they show a bunch of nine-year-old girls, not the dynamic set-up in the United States. So what the hell? Is it just based on horror movies from each country? Why would the gods care? And even then, why nine-year-old girls and not some guy after a hot chick? And what is with these shitty Gods? A bunch of people die horrifically in the process, but nope, it's not the designated people, so they fail. It's just bullshit. Not to mention the ending... The stoner (Fran Kanz) survives along with the "virgin" (Kristen Connolly), and the two decide they'd rather destroy all of humanity than sacrifice their lives. Which already means they buy into the bullshit story, but yeah, they don't care. They decide one last joint is all they need. And seriously, I would have preferred the stoner NOT giving us all these "premonitions" - why the hell would he guess that everyone is "watching them" and "alternating them". Sigh... The Cabin in the Woods is really just stupid even in its attempts to be above other horror movies. It fails. And the Baphomet/Illuminati bullshit is just bad writing. And let me say as well that the CGI was real cheap. Not good either.

However, you will laugh a few times during the film. When Chris Hemsworth's character dies, my boyfriend had a good laugh. But honestly, I'd rather watch Dead Alive for a comedic horror movie than a mediocre film about everyone being a designated, stock role.

The Cabin in the Woods is not the worst, but its pathetic CGI, bad writing, and annoying ending just make it a meh ride. While there are humorous parts, I'd only check it out if you're not into actual scary movies and want to play something in the background.

Review XCIV - No

Review XCIV
No (2012)

Hello folks! I reach out to everyone in a better mood than last time after having a nice Christmas dinner - though it really doesn't feel like the holidays, for whatever reason. Either way, I'm back and I'm here to review a film that I couldn't find back in 2012 when I was trying to review all the foreign films nominated. I also met someone from the country in question in the film and, well, what can I say? I'm a stalker in a sense, so I figured, hey, let's check it out! The film is, of course, Pablo Larrain's No starring Gael García Bernal, Alfredo Castro, Antonia Zegers, and Néstor Cantillana. But first, let's talk history briefly. I read about Pinochet's regime on wikipedia, so take it as you will.

President Allende was elected in 1970. He was a Marxist and, from what I read, Allende had issues governing, leading to an inflation of 300 percent. The United States also played a role in discrediting Allende given his left-wing status. In 1973, there was a coup d'état, and Chile ended up having Augusto Pinochet as their leader. While the United States was initially thrilled with having a more right-winged leader, it would result in a dictatorship that would last until 1990.

Pinochet was not any better in handling Chile's problems. Poverty rose to, I believe it was 33% or 36%, and millions who resisted the regime went unaccounted for. After international pressure, a referendum, or plebiscite, was planned for 1988 in which it would be determined whether or not Pinochet would rule the country for another eight years. A month prior to the election, the "si" campaign and "no" campaign were each given fifteen minutes of air time to help citizens choose which option was best for them. No depicts the people who filmed and put together the "no" campaign.

The movie was organic in its feel. It made you feel like you were standing there, and I liked that. After watching the film, a common complaint was that the events leading up to the plebiscite were simplified, and while I'm sure this is true, I like the ideas behind the film. A film doesn't capture every aspect of history - it just takes one part and puts it in the spotlight. While I'm sure the campaign was not the only thing that led people to vote no, it simplifies it for someone who only knew the name Pinochet prior to the film. I was able to casually follow along, and it interested me enough to read up on the regime. But anyway, about the actual film. I think the acting was pretty good with Gael García Bernal doing a great job as René Saavedra. Antonia Zegers' character seemed a bit... pointless to me - in fact, the whole romance did - but she did a good job. I find I don't really have much to say since I just took the film as telling me a part of history, but it was an interesting watch. Like I said, it makes the story accessible to outside viewers, though trust me when I say the whole story is even more interesting. But it captures a little bit at the end and how the people in the "no" campaign really believed that Chile was going to see happiness in the future. I can't really speak about its current status, but from I've read, it has definitely improved since Pinochet's time. But again, I don't really know much about Chile, so I can only put my hands in the air with this one and say, hey, check it out if you want to get a little piece of Latin American history.

By the way, that song the women sing at one point? The No me gusta, no/ No lo quiero, no? Catchy as hell.

Review LXXII - Jagten

Review LXXII
Jagten (2012)

Ahhh, Mads Mikkelsen, you seem to follow me. Or, rather, I really enjoy your films, so if I'm looking for a good film, I'll look to your name. One of those films - which is also Denmark's entry for the Best Foreign Film at this year's Oscars - is Jagten, or The Hunt, as it is known to us English-speaking folks. It is directed by Thomas Vinterberg (who also directed Festen - that film was brutal) and stars, besides Mikkelsen himself, Thomas Bo Larsen and Alexandra Rapaport.

Lucas (Mikkelsen), a divorcé, lives in a small Danish community and works at a kindergarten, where he is very popular with the children. He enjoys hunting with his many friends, including Theo (Larsen), one of his childhood friends. He tries to convince his ex-wife to allow their son to live with him, and his efforts prove fruitful when his son agrees. He also becomes successful relationship-wise when a co-worker, Nadja (Rapaport), takes an interest to him. Lucas' life seems to have finally improved, but a small lie will prove to have a huge impact on his future.

I really, really enjoyed this film, and it wasn't just Mad Mikkelsen. I made sure not to ruin the film for myself, avoiding even finding out what the lie was, but if you've seen Festen, you can already guess Vinterberg will not shy away from the brutal details. Plus every trailer tells you, but I refuse to write it here! The film was original - I have yet to have seen a film that deals with such subject matter in this way. Off the bat, this was great. I'm sure there are other films that are very similar, but this is just from my experience. Even so, even if it's been done before, I doubt it's done this way often. Originality is not necessarily a bonus, but, in this case, it definitely was.

I'll dive straight into the acting. Guys, it was great. I have my bias toward Mikkelsen, but really, I thought this was probably his best acting job I've seen so far. His acting throughout the whole film was completely believable. I hope he continues to make films that test his acting as well as this one did because he can handle it fantastically. Rapaport was great - she spoke English, yay - but her screentime was limited, so I can't go ahead and bow down to it. Nonetheless, when she was there, it was good. Larsen was also great. I really bought into his character, and I thoroughly enjoyed his performance. Annika Wedderkopp was also very good in her role. I always feel better when you have a child who can act well in a film. She definitely did a great job.

I don't have that much else to say on the film, so I'll cut the review short. Honestly, I thought it was well done. I'm hoping it makes it as a nomination for Best Foreign film. I haven't seen the other entries, so I can't be sure, but I'm assuming it'll make it. Definitely check it out if you're looking to watch an interesting film! It's not a happy film, but it's very well done.

Pirate Bay torrent

Review LIII - Les Misérables

Review LIII
Les Misérables (2012)

Victor Hugo is a famous Romantic writer from France. He was born in 1802 and died in 1885, and in the span of his life, he wrote poems, novels, and plays, and he was also an activist when it came to fighting for political justice. He's well known for having written the novel, Les Misérables, but I really wonder how many people who have watched the musical broadway adaptation actually read the novel. Quite a few probably, but anyway, I just thought I'd give Victor Hugo a nod for being able to have provided Tom Hooper with the potential to make his remake of the musical, Les Misérables, win an Oscar. That sentence is way too long, but I don't care enough to go back and fix it! On to the review!

Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackson), after having been imprisoned for nineteen years for stealing bread and trying to escape in 19th century France, is finally being released on parole. However, Javert (Russell Crowe), a police inspector, reminds Valjean that he will never forget what the crimes the poor man committed, and that if he ever broke the law again, he'd be there. Valjean is turned away where ever he goes, but gets treated kindly from a priest, even after he steals silver dishware from the Church. He decides to find a better life for himself and breaks his parole. He becomes the owner of a factory, under a different name, and, unknowingly, one of his workers, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), is fired. She falls into a life of prostitution, but Valjean finds her in time to promise her he will take care of her daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen as young Cosette and Amanda Seyfried when older), before she dies. However, Javert is still on the case of the missing Valjean, and a cat-and-mouse game ensues while France tries to abandon a monarchical government once and for all.

I was actually pretty disappointed with this film, but I think the horrible video quality, as well as sound quality, really bothered me to the point that it made the film a bit boring at times. Still, I'll give my first impressions anyway... I thought the plot itself was interesting, but just that the whole thing wasn't that great. Alright, I'm going to bet I wasn't in the mood because I'm trying to think of something to nitpick about, and I can't even think of anything. I guess I can complain that the plot was a bit far-fetched - like how Valjean goes out of his way to help this one former worker of his. Not even just bring her to the hospital, but actually look after her daughter. Still, this makes sense to an extent. Valjean was imprisoned for years because he stole bread for his sister's son (if I recall correctly), and he felt he had sinned because he stole the silverware from the Church. However, he's forgiven in the eyes of God, and so he wishes to repent by acting out kindly to others. The part, though, that still bewilders me is when Cosette and Marius (Eddie Redmayne) fall in love just by looking at each other. While I have seen this in an opera before (they at least talked, though), it still blows my mind. They don't talk at all - they just look at each other, and suddenly they want to spend their lives together. At least make them talk or something! Otherwise, I can't really complain about the plot. It just felt like there could have been more scenes to justify everything, but I guess going for a three hour movie was not in their best interests.

As I said, I didn't find the songs that exceptional. I enjoyed some, but I should blame the bad sound quality on this one (evil torrents). I thought, though, the singing was really good at times. Every actor sang their own part, and I am quite impressed. Not only did they sing well, but they acted their parts well. While I thought Russell Crowe's character should have maybe been a bit more angry with Valjen, Hugh Jackson's character, at times, it was passable. Otherwise, the rest were quite good.

I think the version I saw, with its horrible video and audio quality, plus not being in the mood, both turned me off from the film a bit. I'd rather not give a rating, but should I ever watch the film again in the near future, I will possibly edit this and give the rating I thought it deserved. One thing is for certain - I really do love the poster for this film!

Review LII - Zero Dark Thirty

Review LII
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Kathryn Bigelow made history four years ago when she became the first woman to win Best Director at the Oscars for The Hurt Locker. While she wasn't nominated this year for her directing abilities, her film Zero Dark Thirty has been nominated for Best Picture! So, of course, I had to check it out. And for those who are curious, the title refers to a military term that refers to an unspecified time really early in the morning when it is still dark out.

Maya (Jessica Chastain) is a first-time CIA operative and she's introduced into the scene pretty horrifically - by witnessing a man (Reda Kateb) being tortured by a fellow CIA worked, Dan (Jason Clarke) in order to find out where Osama bin Laden is. (Quick note - on September 11th, 2001, in New York city in the United States, two towers, called the Twin Towers, were destroyed by terrorists, which resulted in the deaths of thousands. Osama bin Laden was believed to be behind this attack and a huge search was made to find him.) While she appears obviously affected by the act, it doesn't stop her from dedicating her life to finding out where Osama bin Laden is. This begins the long and strenuous journey to find the man who caused one of the most famous terrorist attacks on the United States in recorded history.

First I'm going to address this torture conflict that so many people feel the need to point out. Regardless if you agree with violent means in order to obtain information or not, it doesn't change the fact that these methods were used to extract information from individuals who knew about Osama bin Laden. Boycotting this film won't stop the government from doing this - protesting to the government will. Another thing is about how this film is unrealistic and how "Osama bin Laden isn't dead - it's all a lie!" While we probably all have a little Illuminati influence in us when it comes to the government, you can't claim he's alive more than I can claim that is dead. I have sources that are a lot more valid than you showing he's dead. It's a politically driven movie, though, so we'll always get these complaints, but I just thought I'd provide my two cents. Anyway, the film itself. It isn't my typical kind of film, that's for sure. I enjoy war films, but the war against terrorism never really interested me. I guess because I hear people saying, "Oh, all brown people are horrible people," it's turned me off. I'm living in the present day of this war so I experience the bias many people feel toward brown people, and not specifically terrorists, versus looking back at the Vietnam War and hearing how both sides were wrong. At the time, the Vietnamese were looked down upon, but it's not the same anymore. This movie isn't super biased, though, in my view. It just confronts the issue of terrorism and finding Osama bin Laden, and it's interesting. It's a compelling story about a woman trying to find this man and driving herself crazy to do it. While some information was withheld in the film to make it more dramatised, it's still a good way to familiarise yourself with this manhunt for Osama bin Laden. While I think books and articles give you a better picture, this film still takes a real story and makes it more interesting than I thought it would be. The final scene was super intense, and I really enjoyed it. I wouldn't say it was my favourite film of the bunch, but it's mostly the story itself that turns me off. Like I said, it isn't my type of film. Nonetheless, it's still a good film that, I think, deserves a nod from the Academy, but not necessarily a standing ovation.

I thought Jessica Chastain did a good job as Maya. Every time she swore extensively, it seemed almost forced, but I'm going to assume that is the point. She's trying to demonstrate her strength - and she does. Jessica Chastain was able to present a strong character, but was also able to show emotion when it was needed. Jason Clarke also did a great job, along with Jennifer Ehle as Jessica. They were able to convey emotion, but, again, able to show complete seriousness in their job. Everyone else (I'm clumping you all up, I'm sorry!), whether it be the captives or the crew helping out Maya, did a great job as well. It was believable acting, and it made the film that much more interesting. The characters, while they were brought into a no-laughing situation, they were still able to show the proper sympathy and emotions when the time came. Bravo!

I'd give the film seven point eight stars on ten. This is a really personal rating since, again, it isn't my type of film. While I can compliment it a lot, in the end, it isn't a film I would have gone out of my way to see. Still, I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. The acting is quite good, and the way it's filmed can be quite beautiful.

Pirate Bay torrent (not the best quality)

Review XLIX - Frankenweenie

Review XLIX
Frankenweenie (2012)

My winter break is coming to an end, so I've been trying to watch movies as quickly as possible. However, I decided to take a break from watching the Oscar nominees for Best Picture for a little bit. But that doesn't mean I didn't watch a film associated with the Oscars! I decided to check out some of the animated films, and I picked Tim Burton's Frankenweenie because it's the one I came across first. The film is a remake of a short Tim Burton did back in the eighties' and includes the voices of Charlie Tahan, Martin Short, Catherine O'Hara, Martin Landau, and Winona Ryder.

Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) is a young, aspiring scientist who doesn't have friends except for his amazing dog Sparky and his crush next door, Elsa van Helsing (Winona Ryder). His father (Martin Short) expresses concern over this, but his mother (Catherine O'Hara) tells him not to worry. Nonetheless, his father one day asks that Victor play a game of baseball. Sparky accidentally escapes when Victor hits a homerun and is hit by a car and dies. Victor is devasted. However, one day, while Victor's new science teacher, Mr. Rzykruski (Martin Landau), is demonstrating that a current running through a body can lead to it spastically jumping about as the human body contains nerves which makes it react to electricity, Victor gets an idea - why not try it with Sparky? In a typical Frankenstein manner, Sparky is revived and Victor is ecstatic. However, when Edgar 'E' Gore (Atticus Shaffer) finds out about his plan, Victor's science feat will lead to great consequences when his classmates decide they will win the science fair with such an experiment.

If you have any connaissance of horror films, you will recognise a whole bunch of scenes/monsters from them. Apart from the give-away Frankenstein reference given by both the name of the protagonist and his experiment, we have the names of other characters (like 'E' Gore, as in Igor) or just their physique (Nassor looks a lot like the Frankenstein monster, eh?). Mr. Rzykruski is based on Vincent Price, who is known in the horror scene because of films like the original House on Haunted Hill. It's also pretty cool since Martin Landau won an Oscar for playing Bela Lugosi, another familiar face in the world of horror, in Ed Wood. There are other references, but they come later, and I'd like to leave it up to you to guess where they come from (and yes, there is a Japanese character in the movie!). I thought this was a cute aspect - while a younger kid won't necessarily pick up on all the little "cameos", for lack of a better word, older audiences will and give them a little laugh. The plot is simple, but it's heart warming. I wouldn't recommend the film for really young kids since it can be pretty scary, but anyway, it's up to the parents, isn't it? It can be considered on the same level as The Nightmare Before Christmas. I thought it was quite nice - not as spectacular as Tim Burton has done in the past, but it was still entertaining.

I thought the puppets looked typically Tim Burton, but some of them really lacked in facial expression. Victor was able to look happy and shocked. Whenever he was sad, he still looked like he was smiling. Same goes for his parents. Other ones did have an array of expressions, but if the main protagonist is having a problem looking sad, well, I have a problem. Considering I've seen better from Tim Burton, I'm disappointed it wasn't as great as it could have been. The animation itself was still top notch coming from Tim Burton, and the voice acting itself was pretty good. I thought Charlie Tahan sometimes sounded a bit too bored, but I can't recall any other complaints in this department.

I'd give the film seven point three stars on ten. It was enjoyable, but it was far from being Tim Burton's best work. It awakens the nostalgia of classic move monsters and faces, but the way it's presented isn't as good as it could have been, especially considering Tim Burton has done way better.

Pirate Bay torrent

Review XLVIII - Beasts of the Southern Wild

Review XLVIII
Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

I'm always amazed when I see a director's debut theatrical release make it so far. In this case specifically, I am referring to Benh Zeitlin's Beasts of the Southern Wild. Out of all the films nominated for Best Picture, this is the one I had never heard of prior to it being nominated. This is understandable as one, it is Behn Zeitlin's first film (he's made shorts, so I guess this is considered a long film?), and two, it has actors and actresses who have never done work before this film. These include Quvenzhané Wallis and Dwight Henry, who are the main characters in the film.

Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis) lives in a Louisiana, United States bayou community, called the Bathtub, with her father, Wink (Dwight Henry). The community is cut off from the rest of the world, but they prefer it that way. Wink is a harsh father who wants to make sure his daughter will be able to survive on her own one day, especially given the fact that he is very ill. With the icecaps melting revealing ancient beasts that will rule the world again and a storm approaching the Bathtub, Hushpuppy will have to find the courage to stand up and face the world on her own, even in the search for her lost mother.

The film is original, to say the least. The story, while it follows a somewhat realistic depiction in certain areas, also follows an imaginary world concocted by Hushpuppy herself. The idea that some of the members of the Bathtub refuse to leave their community is a reference to the reaction of some people of the hurricanes New Orleans in Louisiana has faced. Certain people are adamant about staying put because they would be abandoning their home. At the same time, the storm is reflective of Hushpuppy's desperation in relation to her father's illness. I could go on explaining the symbolism, but I think this can already give you an idea that this film is not just straight cut. It's packed with a bunch of metaphors and symbols that the viewer has to uncover in order to understand. This can lead to either its uprising or downfall. When I first started watching the film, I was confused. I mean, they're going on about these beasts in the icecaps, which I thought was maybe a reference to global warming, but then it becomes something more when they actually escape. I went in thinking it would be one thing, but it wasn't entirely. If you buy into symbolic films, you'll have fun with this one because it leaves you to figure everything out. But if you're looking for a non-experimental movie, you won't like this one. As for me, well, there were some things I enjoyed, but I'm still thrown off by Wink's attitude toward Hushpuppy. I don't know if it's just a cultural thing to hit your children to show them the right way to do things, and there's perhaps a deeper meaning to it all, but it really turned me off. I was just sitting their open mouthed almost everytime Wink and Hushpuppy were together. There's being hot-tempered, and then there's being abusive. I really can't understand this part, besides it being a cultural thing, and if it is, it just disgusts me. Anyway, to sum it up, Beasts of the Southern Wild is a creative film that relies heavily on symbolism and the imagination to tell a story. It's definitely an original piece, though I don't find I was able to appreciate it that much. It wasn't a bad film, but it wasn't my type of film, so I think it's unfair for me to write a fair critique about it.

Nonetheless, I thought Quvenzhané Wallis did a great job. She was six years old during production for the film, yet she does a better job than most actors/actresses who are thirty years her senior. Good child actors are really hard to find, and finding a great one is even harder. Quvenzhané Wallis did a phenomenal job, so I guess she's one in a million. I really liked watching her act, and I never would have guessed she was as young as six years old. If she won the Best Actress category, I wouldn't be surprised. Quvenzhané Wallis was really amazing in the role. I'm glad she got a role like this one because it really showed off her acting abilities. I guess I'm mostly just governed by her age in praising her, but seriously, being six and able to act the way she does is pretty amazing. Dwight Henry also did a great job, especially considering he has no experience with acting. I didn't in particular like his character, but the man still played the part well.

Even though it wasn't my kind of movie, I'll still give it a rating - seven point eight. It's a bit experimental in the story-telling, and as it wasn't my kind of movie, it was hard for me to really enjoy it. Still, it was an original film that was able to get its message across with a bit of thinking, which makes it a good film if just for that. Worth a watch, even if just for Quvenzhané Wallis's acting.

Pirate Bay torrent

Review XLVII - Silver Linings Playbook

Review XLVII
Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

If there was one film I have been really looking forward to see, it would probably have been David O. Russell's Silver Linings Playbook. I've been told David O. Russell has quite the character, but he makes good films, and his latest film intrigued me. Plus it has Jennifer Lawrence in it, who has quickly risen to notable status due to her great acting ability. The film also stars Bradley Cooper, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, Chris Tucker, Anupam Kher and John Ortiz.

Pat (Bradley Cooper) has just been released from the Baltimore mental institution after suffering a bipolar "incident" with his wife, Nikki (Brea Bee), after he catches her with another man. He is forced to stay with his parents, with a overly concerned mother (Jacki Weaver) and an Eagles fanatic - and slightly obsessive compulsive - father (Robert De Niro), but, despite what everyone tells him, he is convinced he will re-unite with Nikki. While having supper at his friend's (John Ortiz) house, he meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a woman with almost as much character as Pat himself. Pat agrees to enter a dance competition with Tiffany in order to show his wife he has changed, as he believes he can find a silver lining in everything.

Apparently the movie is based on a novel from Matthew Quick. Sadly, I have not had the opportunity to read the book, so I won't be able to compare the two. However, I can definitely say the plot was enjoyable. It's a romantic comedy, but it has a bit of a different twist. I mean, we have two characters with one who suffers bipolarism and the other, well, you'll see if you watch the film. The two are obviously non-conventional protagonists, so it makes for an interesting story. The comedic elements, especially the one- or two-liners, in the film were also really good. You had a running gag concerning Danny (Chris Tucker's character), and I thought it was funny. Pat's outbursts were, at times, quite funny. The one with Ernest Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms, before he rants, made me laugh a lot (I'm glad I didn't see the trailer - it left it all new to me). Tiffany is also an interesting character who you automatically root for, or I did, at least. The fact that it tackles the relationship between these two people is what makes it unique, and I really enjoyed it.

Jennifer Lawrence did a great job, but I guess given her reputation, and her Oscar-nominated Golden-Globe-award-winning performance , it was expected. She plays Tiffany well, and I will admit, I liked Tiffany's character. She's strong-willed but still visibly fragile. She was definitely really great. Bradley Cooper also did a great job, though it was undermined a bit by Jennifer Lawrence's performance. I bought Pat, until Tiffany came on, who I really bought. Still, I know someone similar to Pat's character, and I believed Bradley Cooper's performance. Robert De Niro did a good job as a crazy Eagles fan, but nothing extraordinary compared to what he has done before. I still enjoyed his performance, though. Chris Tucker also had a fun character to play, and he did it well. I've kind of been shot down (scarred is probably more accurate) by his performance in The Fifth Element (*shudders*), but I still thought he did a great job. It's nice to see him doing something else other than Rush Hour films! Anupam Kher was great as the psychiatrist as well.

While I really enjoyed the film - I thought it was great - some things didn't sit well with me. I thought the ending was a bit too abrupt for my liking and some parts of the film didn't sit well with me. I thought Pat's brother, Jake (played by Shea Whigham), was a bit unnecessary. I know it's to show how his brother has always been "better" than Pat, but Pat takes everything nonchalantly and then it's dropped. While I get what they were doing, it still seemed like Jake didn't need to be there. There's also the idea that Pat wants to get his old job back, but again, that's skimmed over. It seems that, while many things went into depth and were solid, many things were not. Initially I didn't pick up on them, but having some time to think about it, I started to pick this out. I guess, in the end, the film is funny to watch, but it's still, in a sense, a typical romantic comedy that doesn't aim for anything than to make a person laugh... Which it does, so this critique was pointless. Moving on!

I'd give the film eight stars on ten. It was quirky, funny, and enjoyable, if you like romantic comedies. It also has a pretty good soundtrack, though the songs seemed out of place. For example, Girl from the North Country, the version with Johnny Cash, from Bob Dylan is a song that plays in the film while Tiffany and Pat are practising their dance. I love that song (in fact, Nashville Skyline is a great album, but that's me just promoting Bob Dylan now, hehe), but the lyrics don't fit with the scene. It seems like a more appropriate song could have been chosen, but again, I'm just nitpicking. Great film, definitely way better than average, but not extraordinary.

Pirate Bay torrent

Review XLVI - Skyfall

Review XLVI
Skyfall (2012)

I have never seen any of the James Bond films, nor have I read any of the novels. I know Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan played James Bond at some point, and there was a guy who played James Bond only once, but otherwise, I don't know anyone else who played him. Please don't hit me - I know there were other, probably better, actors that played him, but for whatever reason, I never watched the films. I guess twenty-five movies and seven actors later, I was bound to see one at one point. It ended up being the latest one (big surprise, right? I mean, excluding the fact that I put the title of the film and all... Whatever!), Sam Mendes' Skyfall with Daniel Craig as the double-o-seven agent. The film also stars Naomie Harris, Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes, Bérénice Marlohe, Ben Whishaw, and Javier Bardem. I actually wanted to watch this film way back when it first started getting advertised because Ben Whishaw was in it. Then when I saw Ralph Fiennes in the film, I was really glad I had watched it. I really love Ralph Fiennes - great actor!

In Istanbul, James Bond and Eve (Naomie Harris), two MI6 (Secret Intelligence Service for the United Kingdom, though MI6 stands for Military Intelligence, section 6) agents, are chasing a mercenary, Patrice (Ola Rapace) who has stolen a computer hard drive which contains the information of the undercover agents who have been placed in terrorist organisations. While Bond and the mercenary battle on top of a train, M (Judi Dench), the head of the MI6, tells Eve to take a shot at the two, even though the shot isn't clean. Bond ends up being the one who is shot, allowing the mercenary to get away, and falls into a river and dies. Wow, that was a short movie! In reality, Bond is not dead, and eventually returns when the offices at the MI6 headquarters are destroyed. A game between the bad and the good begins, and with Bond trying to recover psychologically, as well as physically, this may end up being the hardest mission he's ever faced.

We all know what I should begin this review with... Okay, maybe not, but I'm going to comment on the opening song, Skyfall, sung by Adele and written by Adele and Paul Epworth. First off, the intro animation and all was pretty captivating. It was beautiful to watch, though maybe a bit out of place. Still, it was beautiful, but made even more so because of the song. It takes the original elemental bits from the James Bond theme at times, but overall, makes a very compelling song. I really liked it! I'm even listening to it right now. The other music throughout the movie, which, again takes elemental bits from the original James Bond song, was really good.

Okay, the movie itself. I always thought James was supposed to be shown as a completely indestructable, lady's man who only really said, "Bond. James Bond," but apparently not! The film shows James Bond as having weaknesses... I mean, other than not being resistant to bullets. He obviously has psychological issues with his past (Skyfall is where he grew up - I was pretty clueless on that one until the end), and while he could probably get any woman he wanted, he only had two lovers in the film - one of which is seen extensively and is his partner of sorts. Obviously there's more to this man than I thought! Anyway, the plot itself. I thought it was very interesting. It's not just a villain who wants to take over the world, but one that has emotional ties. I don't really want to say anything beyond that since it'll ruin the film, but it's still interesting. I mean, kind of typical, I suppose, but it had justification in it. It's a James Bond film, so you can expect a certain type of plot. Still, well executed, and I definitely enjoyed it.

I have no other James Bond to compare Daniel Craig to, so to me, he did a great job. He plays Bond as a three-dimensional character generally, and I bought him as James Bond. Judi Dench did a great job as M. She hides her emotional side well while doing her job, but it shows up every once in a while, and Judi Dench shows it well. Naomie Harris' character is not just the lady who appears just for sexual provocation, but is rather a strong person as well, and Naomie Harris does a good job of acting it. Ralph Fiennes, well, he's pretty awesome, but I'm biased here. Bérénice Marlohe is the James Bond woman in this film, but there isn't really much to be said. Sévérine, who she plays, is vapid, so we don't get to really see Bérénice Marlohe's acting ability. There is one scene, though, that I will comment on. When Sévérine is talking to Bond at the table, she is obviously shaking because she's scared. Yet Bond comments he knows when a woman is pretending not to be scared. Anyone could see she was scared! Jeez, man, always putting on an act. Javier Bardem, though, was the guy who really stole the show as Silva, the main villain. He was interesting, articulate, evil, yet you sympathised with the man. I find the man already has the face of a villain, and the fact that he can act just adds to that. I really enjoyed his performance, even with the scene with the pretty fake looking CGI.

Finally, the cinematography was beautiful. The scene where Patrice and Bond fight in the window walled room in Shanghai was really well filmed. We get their "shadows" fighting, and it just looked really cool. I also recall, nearing the end, we get a shot of M in the dark and Bond partly covered by the light of a dark, blue-ish gray sky. I thought it looked really beautiful, and it probably symbolises aspects in the film too. Anyway, most of the time, I don't really notice this in films. I mean, I'll find it looks pretty, but in this film, I really noticed it. Maybe because I was looking for it, but anyway, it was well filmed! Good job!

In the end, this is an action film with typical villain-esque plot. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed it. I'll give it eight stars on ten. The cinematography was really well executed, the music was compelling, and Javier Bardem did a great job as the antagonist. Again, not a masterpiece, but a fun movie to watch nonetheless. If you can still catch it in theatres, definitely check it out.

Pirate Bay torrent (saw it in theatres, so I can't confirm quality or anything for this one!)

Review XLIV - Argo

Review XLIV
Argo (2012)

I remember when I saw the trailer for Ben Affleck's Argo, I didn't seem too impressed. I couldn't remember exactly what the film was about, minus that the main character, played by Ben Affleck, was making a fake movie for some reason. When I saw that it had been pretty widely acclaimed (and this was only recently) and was based on a true event (which I saw in the trailer, but I always take these claims with a grain of salt), I decided I should give it a shot (uhh... no pun intended). I was probably being hasty on my judgement because I didn't want to end up seeing a bad movie. Anyway, let's review this baby!

Though it seems almost too comical to be true, this film is based on true accounts. The film begins with militants and civilians storming into the American embassy in Iran's capital, Tehran on November 4th, 1979, in support of the Iranian revolution (it's explained in the film so I won't go in depth). Six, out of the fifty-eight Americans that were there, manage to escape and are taken into the home of the Canadian ambassador, Ken Taylor (played by Victor Garber). The six Americans are Tate Donovan), Lee Schatz (Rory Cochrane), Mark Lijek (Christopher Denham), Cora Lijek (Clea DuVall), Joe Stafford (Scoot McNairy), and Kathy Stafford (Kerry Bishé) However, the American government realises that it won't be long before the Iranians find out six have escaped, so they need a plan to get them out. Enter Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck), a CIA specialist, who disagrees with all the ideas of having them pose as teachers in Iran. He comes up with an idea when he puts Battle for the Planet of the Apes on to watch it with his son. The idea? To pretend to make a film that is being filmed in Iran and have the six escapees as the crew. With the help of his supervisor, Jack O'Donnell (Bryan Cranston), a Hollywood make-up artist who has done previous work with the CIA, John Chambers (John Goodman), and the great film producer, Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), they may just be able to pull off the greatest fake film of all time - Argo.

First of all, I really like the cover for the film. I find it very expressive and the contrasting blue and red colour make it an interesting view. It's not really necessary for the critique of the film, but I just thought I'd mention it. Ahhh, Ben Affleck, haha.

Anyway, the film is definitely interesting. You get the perspective of the six Americans held captive in Iran and how stressed they are, and then we get the perspective of the CIA trying their best to come up with a good idea. When the film idea is pitched, it is initially put down, but in the end, seems to be their best bet to get their fellow people out. While this is obviously simply based on true events and thus some aspects are dramatised, this was not - they actually pretended to make a fake movie to get these people out. These real life events just seem like a good plot to put on film, and with Ben Affleck's directing, it was really well done. It was suspenseful and really crazy at some points, but mostly, heartfelt. Tony Mendez went on a line with his life doing this, and so did Ken Taylor with actually accepting them in after they had been turned down by other embassies. Just a little tidbit, but apparently Lee Schatz actually stayed with the Swedish embassy for a week before joining the rest of the group. Ben Affleck went ahead and commented that this demonstrated real international relationships between nations, with risks of their lives and their stature, and I couldn't have said it better. The film captures this very well, as well as the suspenseful bits. Even though I knew what would happen, I was still yelling as I watched the film. It also had some funny aspects ("Argo fuck yourself!"), which made it even more appealing. I'd also like to say, as a side note, that, while it doesn't place Iran in the best of terms, it isn't fair to criticise it for doing so. The film is seen from the American perspective, and while Iranians did attack the U.S. embassy as a revolt for reasons that maybe you support, it can still be considered a good movie. It mostly focuses on how they got the Americans out, and, again, this is a film from the American side of things as it is based on an article written by an American. If you're going to simply boycott watching the film because it is biased, you're missing out.

The film's plot was really interesting, but I couldn't say the acting was really all that exceptional. It wasn't bad, not in the least, but it wasn't exceptional. I really enjoyed Alan Arkin's performance, but Ben Affleck's performance wasn't anything extraordinary. The six Americans also didn't have exceptional performances. Again, I have to reiterate that the performances were good, but they were not anything really remarkable, minus the great crabby portrayal of Lester Siegel from Alan Arkin. Still way better than I could have been, though!

The film was a really interesting piece of history, and I thought it was a really good film. The plot was great, and the acting was good, so I guess the film gets eight point five stars on ten. It's not my typical kind of film, but it was enjoyable nonetheless. Now I'd like to see the "real" Argo come out!

Pirate Bay torrent

Review XLIII - Searching for Sugar Man

Review XLIII
Searching for Sugar Man (2012)

Sixto Rodriguez has been quoted as the "Mexican Bob Dylan", a revolutionary poet of his time. His songs were highly praised by the producers of his albums, and he propelled into stardom - but he never knew until twenty years after the fact. This was the story Malik Bendejelloul decided to make his 2012 documentary on entitled Searching for Sugar Man. The film has been nominated for an Oscar, so that just meant I had to see it.

While Rodriguez never got popular in the United States, his two albums, Cold Fact and Coming from Reality, were regarded as gems to the citizens of South Africa. However, it was only after two huge fans, Stephen 'Sugar' Segerman and Craig Bartholomew Strydom, heard he had committed suicide that they decided to try and find out who Rodriguez was. Rodriguez was not dead, but he had believed his career as a musician had died after the failure of his second album, until he was made aware that he was an Elvis Presley figure in South Africa. The two finally reached him and his music days were revived in consequence.

The story about Sixto Rodriguez, I find, is really inspiring. This man had believed his musical career was over, and twenty years later, he was told he had been, unknowingly, super popular in South Africa. It seems like a very surreal story, and that's why it's such a great idea for a documentary. It's an interesting story to tell, and one that, in passing, would seem almost like an urban legend of sorts. This film definitely gets points for originality. Even though I had never heard of Rodriguez prior to this, I nonetheless really liked it! The interviews were really engaging, and I enjoyed listening to everyone talk about this man of mystery, whether it be the producers who really thought he was a genius, to a fellow coworker of his from recently, to his own children. The documentary starts off with this man of mystery, explaining how no one knew who he was. We get the history of how his albums provided a hope to destroy a constrained society in South Africa and how no one knew who this Rodriguez actually was. It's only once we actually get the two men, 'Sugar' and Craig, get to the part of their story where they finally talk to Rodriguez do we meet the legend itself. It follows a kind of linear pattern, and this makes it interesting throughout. It made the viewer ask who this man was, just like South Africa did, and when the two adventurers find him, so does the viewer, in a sense.

This doesn't count in the documentary, but Rodriguez himself seems like a really modest and kind man, so I like that a documentary was made about him. People like seeing the underdog rise above expectations. This film tells this story, so again, wise choice.

The way the documentary is filmed is also beautiful. The way the city names came up and disappeared was creative, and the cinematography was just nice. It seems like a meaningless detail to bring up in a documentary, but when something is appealing to the eyes, it deserves to be mentioned. This just adds to the foundation of the film. Not to mention Rodriguez has some pretty good music! If there's one thing I love thanking a film for, it would be in introducing to me some really good tunes. While I wouldn't go so far as to call him a Bob Dylan equivalent, he does have some pretty good lines, but mostly, pretty catchy yet calming music. Thank you for that!

I thought it was a really good story and interesting documentary, and it was very well executed. I give the film eight point six stars on ten. It was inspiring and engaging, and it left a lasting impression. Good stuff!

Pirate Bay torrent

Review XLI - Rebelle

Review XLI
Rebelle (2012)

I was enjoying my stream of movie watching, but I was having trouble keeping up with reviews for films, so I neglected writing a few. I'm back, though, and here to present Kim Nguyen's Rebelle, or as it is known in English, War Witch. The film stars Rachel Mwanza, a Congolese actress in her first role, and Serge Kanyinda principally, with Alain Lino Mic Eli Bastien and Mizinga Mwinga.

The film begins with Komona (Rachel Mwanza) explaining that, at twelve years old, she was taken by rebel fighters from her village. We get a scene that shows a tranquil life for Komona, until the rebels come and kidnap several children to join their army. However, before she leaves the village, she is told to kill her parents with a gun, which she does in order to spare them being killed by the commander of the rebel group (Alain Lino Mix Eli Bastien) with a machete. She gains the ability to see and speak to the spirits of the dead, who warn her of danger. This allows her to escape death from government soldiers, which leads to her to gain the nickname "witch". Her celebrated status is not only recognised by the rebel group, but especially so by a fellow albino child soldier who is called the magician - or "magicien" in French (Serge Kanyinda).

The first thing I want to compliment the film on is the way they interpreted the spirits. They're the person simply covered in a white paint with bluish white eyes. I thought it was such a creative idea, and it made them really stand out, versus them being animatedly done. This totally gets a paragraph on its own because I was very impressed.

Alright, so the film itself. I really enjoyed the story because it doesn't just focus on a war stricken country and how horrible everything is. Instead, while it does set up the premise of Komona being a twelve-year-old girl thrown into a war she barely knows, it is about Komona, and not just a war. It demonstrates that these kid soldiers are able to escape to a certain degree and are thus capable of living a more regular and normal life after the war. It focuses on a young love between two of these soldiers, and I thought it was really sweet. While I realise it is important that we recognise that many African countries face civil wars concerning corrupt governments and the masses being unhappy with the state of the country itself which leads rebel groups being formed (which is basically what is happening in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the film takes place, right now), it seems like so many films dwell on African residents as being unable to cope with life. This film shows that even a fourteen year old girl in the midst of a horrible situation is able to move on. I guess I sound naive in saying that I think this is possible, but I really think it is. People face horrible things, but there can always be a silver lining on the darkest of clouds. Rebelle demonstrates this, and I applaud it for it. Nonetheless, this film shows a pretty accurate description of the cruelties of war. It is still a film concerning a young girl thrust into a rebel army. The Congo wars have shown really horrible acts between human beings, and the current situation in the Congo is still bad, even with the ceasefire agreement between the rebel groups and the government. The wars are relevant to Rebelle, but I'll let you guys read about the wars yourself (here is a link to the Wiki article about the civil wars in the Congo).

I really enjoyed the film, making me both cry with happiness and sadness. While I did enjoy the young love plot, at the same time, I'm not sure if they incorporated it super well. We get an image of them in the war, then suddenly they run off together. Perhaps I missed something, but it still seemed a bit strange. I'd give the film eight stars on ten. It definitely is worth a watch.

Pirate Bay torrent (English subtitles provided in comment)

Review XL - Kon-Tiki

Review XL
Kon-Tiki (2012)

I really wanted to watch Joachim Rønning's and Espen Sandberg's Kon-Tiki, but I kept seeing comments that there were no English subtitles readily available. My advice is to never listen to the masses because I soon saw a comment on a pirate bay torrent (don't worry, it will be linked) that provided English subtitles. As I speak both French and English, I'm going to assume that, since these scenes were subtitled correctly, the Norwegian parts were also accurate. The film stars Pål Sverre Valheim Hagen, Agnes Kittelsen, Anders Baasmo Christiansen, Gustaf Skarsgård, Odd Magnus Williamson, Tobias Santelmann, and Jakob Oftebro, and is based on the true events of the Kon-Tiki expedition of Thor Heyerdahl. Let's dive in! (I love puns.)

Thor Heyerdahl (Pål Sverre Valheim Hagen) spent years with the Polynesian with his wife, Liv (Agnes Kittelsen) studying their culture. After hearing an older man explain that everything came from the "east", Thor Heyerdahl proposes a theory that South Americans sailed to Polynesia by boat and populated the area. However, no one believes his theory. Thor Heyerdahl decides to prove his theory to be correct by building a similar raft to what the South Americans would have used in Pre-Columbian times in order to get to Polynesia. Together with Herman Watzinger (Anders Baasmo Christiansen), a refrigerator engineer, Bengt Danielsson (Gustaf Skarsgård), the Swedish ethnographer and "cameraman", Erik Hesselberg (Odd Magnus Williamson), Torstein Raaby (Jakob Oftebro), and Knut Haugland (Tobias Santelmann), who are all war friends of Thor Heyerdahl, the group set out into the Pacific to change the course of science.

I love watching all these films because I'm definitely getting more informed about historical events, even if they are dramatised. I'm going to go ahead and say that I thought the film was beautifully filmed. I was really glad I got to see a good quality version because the way the film is captured is just pretty. The animals that are encountered are really interesting, and it doesn't feel as fake as, well, how Life of Pi depicts it. While Life of Pi did do a wonderful job, I liked this film because everything didn't feel as CGI-ish to me. Maybe it's because I didn't see it on the big screen, but I'm going to remain sceptical about that. Anyway, it was beautifully filmed, so even if the story were boring, at least there was eye candy attached to it.

That being said, I didn't think it was boring. It was an interesting plot (history is often very interesting), though it could have been much better. For example, I thought there would have been more hardships in relation to people's emotions on the boat, and while they did exist, they didn't seem as frequent. Without giving anything away, it just seems like sometimes the group should have been more tense but wasn't. Afterall, this is a dramatisation of the real expedition, and I'm sure there was a bit more drama in relation to the problem the crew faces. Maybe I just expect too much emotional outbursts from people... The story also tried to add in the bit about Liv, his wife, and while I'm glad they included it, I'm not sure they should have included it the way they did. I'm finding it hard to criticise this since it seems necessary, but it just doesn't seem like it was done to the best of the film's abilities. Otherwise, the story itself was good. I enjoyed it, and I definitely would like to check out the documentary that Thor Heyerdahl released in relation to the expedition.

I enjoyed the film, though I do believe there could have been improvement in it. I'd give the film seven point eight stars on ten. It was enjoyable to watch, but it could definitely have been much better than it was.

Pirate Bay torrent (with English subtitles, as found in a comment on that torrent, here)

Review XXXVIII - En kongelig affære

Review XXXVIII
An kongelig affære (2012)

Today we're going to take a look at Nikolaj Arcel's En kongelig affaere, or as it is known in English, A Royal Affair. This is Denmark's submission for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar for this year's awards. I actually wanted to watch another film from Mads Mikkelsen, who stars in this film alongside Alicia Vikander and Mikkel Boe Følsgaard, but I found this film instead in a search, so I decided to watch it.

This film is a historical drama, but I don't need to provide a history lesson because everything is explained in the film. The film begins with a young woman, Caroline Matilda of Great Britain (Alicia Vikander), who belonged to the Royal Family in Britain, explaining that she would be marrying Christian VII of Denmark (Mikkel Boe Følsgaard), the King of Denmark. She has great hope that, while she has never met the man, she will be able to love him unconditionally. Unfortunately, the first day reveals his mentally unstable nature and cruelty to her. The two live in great dismay in relation to each other, and while Christian goes off to brothels to satisfy his thirst for alcohol and women, Caroline stays at home tending to her son, Frederick. When Christian falls ill while touring Germany, he acquires a personal physician, Dr. Johann Friedrich Struensee (Mads Mikkelsen). Christian is not the only one to take a liking to the doctor, but Caroline as well. Soon Caroline and Johann Struensee begin an affair, while all three aim to change the way Denmark is run politically... for the time being.

Again, because this is a historical drama, I can only criticise the plot to an extent. I will go ahead and say that I thought it was wonderfully put together. The film creates a great atmosphere and really introduces the characters. Given that is it two hours and a quarter, it seems almost like a given, but it should be noted that movies have been longer and established little characterisation in protagonists. I digress... The movie shows how Caroline Mathilda really did wish to have a happy marriage at first, but within such a small amount of time, she is turned off from him. When Struensee is first brought to her acquiantance, she is also turned off from him as he appears to encourage Christian's behaviour. However, after their initial meeting, when the two realise they share common radicalist idealogies, they form a bond. It was strange hearing that these ideas stemmed in the 18th century. Apparently Caroline Mathilda even wore male clothing (as read in the Wikipedia article about her) to demonstrate her prominent ideas. Now that I found very interesting! Anyway, the film took an interesting piece of history and was able to portray it well on film.

Mikkel Boe Følsgaard does a great job of showing a childish man who doesn't seem completely aware just how much power he has. He reminded me of Wolfgang Mozart, as portrayed by Tom Hulce, in Amadeus, and with good reason. While Mozart wasn't mentally disabled as Christian VII was (according to sources, that is), Mozart never really... grew up. And Mikkel Boe Følsgaard shows this side of Christian VII, but also with a hint of being greatly disturbed. I really liked his performance. Same with Alicia Vikander, who delivered a great performance of disgust, anguish, love, and happiness. As for Mads Mikkelsen, I thought he did a great job, though sometimes I found he didn't exactly portray his emotions as well as he could have. It's quite possible it was just him being in his character and trying to keep everything in control, but other times he seemed so serious when you think there would be something else there. His perfomance was overall really good, but there were a few times when it flickered a bit, in my opinion.

I really enjoyed the film, and so I'm going to give a rating of eight stars on ten. If you enjoy historical dramas that are romantic, you're bound to enjoy this. I liked that it followed a letter Caroline Mathilda was writing to her children (not a spoiler, it shows this right at the beginning), and the film was enjoyable. Oscar worthy? I wouldn't think so, but I have other films to watch to see to that.

Pirate Bay torrent

Review XXXVII - Lincoln

Review XXXVII
Lincoln (2012)

The Golden Globes and Academy Awards are drawing closer and closer, and I've been looking up the films that have a high probability of being the contenders for "Best Picture", "Best Foreign Film", "Best Director", and all for the Oscars. This year's prediction for "Best Picture" (as well as "Best Actor in a Leading Role", among other nominations) for the Oscars is none other than Steven Spielberg's historical film Lincoln, starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn, and Tommy Lee Jones.

I might as well provide a bit of a history lesson again before I review the film. I don't know American history very well, so it did me some good to be informed before the film began. It explains it later on in the film, but regardless, here it is! During the 1850s, the United States was seeing a separation between the South and North due to the debate between the expansion of slavery. Seven Southern states (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) ended up forming their own sort-of union, the Confederate States of America, in 1861. This occurred shortly after republican Abraham Lincoln (who openly opposed the expansion of slavery) won the presidential election in 1860, but before his inauguration (before he was sworn in, you could say). The North (or the Union) and the South soon began a Civil War that same year in relation to slavery. The war lasted until 1865 when the Confederacy was finally defeated and slavery was abolished.

The film begins in 1865, soon after Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) wins his second term in office. Abraham Lincoln is talking to two Black soldiers serving in the Civil War. While one of them aims to be friendly with the president, the other speaks out against the injustices that Blacks face, especially given the fact they are allowed to participate in the war amongst the whites. It is revealed that Abraham Lincoln is proposing to add the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This amendment is to abolish slavery. He believes if he can get this to pass, it will end the war. However, many states are proving to be a problem as they are sitting on the fence about the issue or simply opposing it. The film focuses on his journey to get the amendment into the constitution and to end the war.

Every time I ever discussed the abolishment of slavery in the United States with friends, they always told me Abraham Lincoln did it for his own benefit, not because he was actually against slavery. When the film began, I went in with this very idea, which ruined the beginning of the film for me. However, no one can say Abraham Lincoln's true reasons for ending slavery except for Lincoln himself, and he's been dead for almost a century and a half. For this reason, I decided to just enjoy the film instead of trying to take everything as historical fact, and I did. I can't really comment on the plot since it is a historical interpretation ("I hate how the war lasted four years. Only four? That doesn't make sense!"), but I can say that it was definitely interesting. Even if you are not American or even into history that much, the film is still interesting. It's well put together, and even though you know the end result, it still provides suspense. The story is also interesting and it was well portrayed.

I was really surprised by Abraham Lincoln at first. He's a soft-spoken man even though he appears to tower over most of the people he encounters. However, I thought Daniel Day-Lewis did a wonderful job. Lincoln is a great speaker, a man who is very caring, and struggling to make the country united once again while providing the Blacks of America what they have been asking for for ages. Daniel Day-Lewis delivers a spectacular performance as the 16th president of the United States, and it is easy to see why he has won two Oscars. Could he potentially win a third? Yes, definitely, though I still have other films to watch, heh... I thought David Strathairn did a wonderful job as William Seward, and Tommy Lee Jones was also phenomenal as Thaddeus Stevens. I definitely got many laughs out of him. Sally Field also delivered a great performance as Mary Todd Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln's wife. I would have liked to see more of her, but anyway, she portrayed a spunky woman, especially given the time period. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is also in the film (which is actually why I knew of it) as one of Abraham Lincoln's sons, not to mention John Hawkes and Jackie Earle Haley!

The film is not spectacular, but I can't say I didn't enjoy it, either. I give the film seven stars on ten. The film is an obvious choice for "Best Picture", and Daniel Day-Lewis gave a wonderful performance (as well as Tommy Lee Jones and David Strathairn). When I say obvious, I want you to know that it just seems like the type of film that would win. While I think Daniel Day-Lewis's performance will be remembered, the film can win "Best Picture" for 2012, but I'm not sure if it will be remembered as fondly in, say, fifty years time. A good film, but not a classic.

Also, I think the poster is beautiful.

Review XXXVI - Amour

Review XXXVI
Amour (2012)

I am not new to the works of Michael Haneke. I've watched his 2001 film, La pianiste, or the The Piano Teacher, for its English release.The Piano Teacher won the Grand Prize at the 2001 Cannes festival.I've heard of Funny Games (the original and the remake) and Das weiße Band, Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte, or, as it is known in English-speaking countries, The White Ribbon. The White Ribbon won the Palme d'Or for best film at the Cannes festival and the Golden Globes award for best foreign film in 2009 and was nominated for Best Foreign Film that year at the Oscars. Obviously this man has a talent for telling a story. In 2012, he won the Palme d'Or again for his latest film, Amour, or Love, in English. Since it is quite possible it might make the final list for the Academy Awards best foreign film as Austria's entry, I decided to check it out.

Firemen break into an apartment and discover a dead woman laying in a bed with flowers in her hands and surrounding her in a taped up room. The next scene cuts to a man playing a piano concert and being congratulated by the same woman who was found in the apartment. This woman is Anne Laurent (Emmanuelle Riva who is married to Georges Laurent (Jean-Louis Trintignant). The two are eighty-something year old retired piano teachers. The two have an musically aspiring daughter, Eva (Isabelle Huppert), and they lead a quiet life in Paris. One day Anne suddenly goes silent and unresponsive while eating breakfast with Georges. Concerned, Georges brings her to the doctor where it is found she has a blocked carotid artery (found in the neck). However, the surgery goes wrong and Anne becomes paralysed on her right side and no longer able to walk properly. Anne makes Georges promise not to bring her to the hospital again. The situation gets worse when Anne suffers from a stroke, and while Georges strains to keep his promise, his own mental well-being is strained as well.

Apparently the film is based on a personal story Michael Haneke experienced in his family. I actually went through a similar predicament recently in a somewhat similar fashion to this. I have to praise the completely realistic depiction it had on the worsening condition of Anne and the stress it has on the family. It definitely made me choke up at times, one for being reminded of what happened with me, but also just because you feel so much for the characters. The plot is depressing, but if a film can capture such a stressful and negative situation in such a way, it definitely deserves a watch and praise.

Emmanuelle Riva did a wonderful job. She shows an aggressive side of wanting to keep a certain level of independence even in her failing state. When she's very sick, she makes, again, a very realistic performance. Jean-Louis Trintignant also shows this mentality of wanting to be independent and show care for his wife even when having to face the difficulties he is forced to encounter. He loves his wife but taking on such a responsibility is extremely hard, especially given he is not in the prime of his life. I thought it was a bit strange that he seemed to lack emotion in certain situations, specifically anger, but when I discussed it with someone, they told me some people just hide their emotions like that. I'm not sure if maybe it was just me, but sometimes his acting seemed lacking when dealing with people telling him what to do. However, he expressed it well in other situations, so maybe I'm just crazy.

The film was a bit peculiar at some points with symbolism really taking over, but Michael Haneke seems to have that in his films. Anyway, it's not a negative element, just an observation. I'd give the film eight stars on ten. The lack of emotion, even if it was intentional, seemed off to me. The ambiguity was also a bit strange at times, but the story itself was very well portrayed most of the time. Some scenes were extremely touching and heart wretching (sniffle). While I think it is a film one should watch, it isn't something to casually watch on a Sunday. This film really asks for your attention and investment, and I say make sure you give it that.

Pirate Bay torrent

Review XXXV - Django Unchained

Review XXXV
Django Unchained (2012)

Happy new year to everyone! I decided to start out 2013 by watching a Quentin Tarantino film, and it was his latest theatrical release, Django Unchained. The film stars Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Kerry Washington, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Samuel L. Jackson, among others.

The film begins with a scene of a group of black slaves being forced to walk in chains across the country. While being transported by their owners, the Speck brothers (James Remar and James Russo), they are stopped by a man who appears to be a dentist, the German Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). He asks the slaves which one worked for the Brittle brothers previously. Django (Jamie Foxx) is that man, and after quite a persuasive argument with the Speck brothers (cough), Dr. Schultz buys Django. Dr. Schultz reveals himself to be a bounty hunter (he hadn't practised dentristry in five years) and explains there is a bounty on the Brittle brothers, but as he does not know what they look like, he is in need of Django's help. Django agrees, and a partnership is formed. However, Djanhgo's main goal is to find the man who bought his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). This turns out to be Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), a plantation owner and Mandingo enthusiast, and Django will stop at nothing to retrieve his wife back.

The first thing I want to talk about, no, need to talk about, is the soundtrack. If there's one thing Quentin Tarantino can do right in his movies (and, in my opinion, he does many "right" things, but anyway), it would be the music he chooses. The film is a Western, and music from several Spaghetti Westerns are taken, but there also some R&B and hip pop, which may sound inappropriate, but it worked well in this film. The film was enjoyable even just for the music. It worked well with each scene, and while it was jarring to just cut off the wonderful music after a scene was done (slight exaggeration) which seemed to happen often, it was superb.

Now for the film itself. I thought the story was interesting. It takes on a different light on the slave trade that occurred in the United States, similar to that of how Inglourious Basterds took World War II in a different light in relation to the Jews. Obviously there still exists some more realistic elements to the film (e.g. the language used and violence the blacks endured), but this is Quentin Tarantino's depiction of it, in a sense. It's definitely original, but what more can we expect from this director? If you've seen any Quentin Tarantino movie, you know he takes the B-movie element of originality and brought it into the mainstream media with near perfect success. I'm over-praising, sorry. The story is a love story, but the main theme is slave exploitation. It's always present, it's always there, but with a twist. How many times have I said "twist" and "light" in this paragraph? Too many. It's a Western, so it has violence in it, obviously, and let's just add the fact that it is a Quentin Tarantino movie, so while there is gore, it's overdone to make it comical. The film also had its taste of black (ahhh, pun intended!) and dark humour, which makes you laugh, despite the seriousness of the situation. I love dark humour, and this film had just the right amount.

The acting. Well, I don't really think I need to go in detail. Look for yourself - Jamie Foxx (won an Oscar), Christoph Waltz (won an Oscar, and he's Austrian - yes, I am totally of Austrian/German/Lithuanian descent partly), Leonardo DiCaprio (nominated for an Oscar three times), and Samuel L. Jackson (nominated for an Oscar). Hell, throw away the Oscar and other awards bit, and I'm sure you can name them in multiple films you enjoyed. These people can act, thus it's only expected that they would do wonderfully in their roles. They did. Jamie Foxx is a strong character who is haunted by the memory of his wife and forced to succumb to the segregated and racist Southern peoples and laws. Christoph Waltz plays a sympathetic and apathetic man who doesn't care about the colour of your skin, but, rather, cares about the justice he sees fit. Leonardo DiCaprio comes off, to me, as slightly caring towards the black population, but that slight care only goes to the exceptional - the one in 10 000. Truly a passionate play. Samuel L. Jackson is, well, a jerk, but he plays him well. He's in a good place in his life and will never give it up. He reminded me a bit of Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks. Not to the extreme of hating the blacks and praying to be white, but still speaking down to them. The other actors who took on the roles of being racist Southerns (like Don Johnson, for example) did a great job as well. Kerry Washington, well, it's hard to praise considering she wasn't a protagonist in the film - more of an objective, and please, I did not mean that offensively. Still, she nonetheless proved a good actress in the intense scenes she was in. She also spoke German wonderfully!

I wrote a lot more than I normally do. Sorry about that... I'd give the film eight point two stars on ten. The plot was great, though the film did feel like it was dragging near the end. It could have been wrapped up earlier on, but the ending itself was still good - typical Quentin Tarantino, but I suppose that alone could tell you whether or not this film is for you.

Review XXXIV - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Review XXXIV
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

As I mentioned in my Dead Alive/Braindead review, I've only watched the first Lord of the Rings film. Though I have the series, I never got around to reading it, and I tried reading the Hobbit a while back, but I was too young, I believe, to fully understand it, so I gave up after chapter one. Of course, all this didn't stop me from watching the newest installment to the Lord of Rings franchine, Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, starring Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman (I do not watch Sherlock, but I know of the obsession) as Gandalf and Bilbo Baggins, respectively. I can't compare it to the novel, nor even to the other films that follow in the series (except the first), so my opinions will be based purely on the film alone.

I missed a bit of the beginning of the film, but it starts off with Bilbo, a hobbit, as an older man (Ian Holm) telling Frodo (Elijah Wood) a story about the journey that changed him. This journey cuts to Bilbo as a young man (Martin Freeman) smoking on a bench in front of his house. Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), a wizard, approaches him and asks him if he'd like to participate in a journey. Bilbo automatically refuses and thinks this will be the end of the affair. Quite the opposite - that night, thirteen dwarves (the leader being Thorin - played by Richard Armitage) appear at his doorstep and ask him to be the burglar on their journey to reclaim Lonely Mountain, their home before it was taken from them by a dragon. Reluctant at first, Bilbo eventually agrees to help them, and so begins his unexpected journey.

I saw the film in 3D, but I'll tell you now that the three-dimensional effects were not extraordinary. I'd say skip out on it - it doesn't make it that exciting. However, the scenery was very beautiful - whether it be the made up villages or just the mountains and fields of New Zealand. Aesthetically, it was extremely appealing. I enjoyed just watching it for how beautifully it was put together.

The plot itself I thought was interesting. I mean, J. R. R. Tolkien's books are pretty well known, at least in the English speaking areas, so even if you never saw any of the films, you know that the point of the Lord of the Rings was to destroy the "ring to rule them all." The first film for the Hobbit is the prequel to the series so, though it is about the dwarves reclaiming their home land, it also shows the evil that was lurking prior to the events of the ring and its discovery of the masses. Anyway, the main plot itself is interesting. It's one of heroism and adventure, and if you love fantasy (and, most likely consequently, read the Hobbit), then you'll love it. I heard complaints that there were a lot of scenes that could have been taken out of the film because they weren't necessary for the main plot, and considering the film was ten minutes short of three hours, it would have been appreciated. I personally didn't feel the film was that long while I watched it, and I enjoyed every scene. Sure, some parts could have been shortened, but I don't know, I think it was still really enjoyable. It added to the authenticity of the film to the novel. However, yes, I can agree that the film could have been shortened for its cinematic release. The bit with Radagast the Brown was unnecessary, but I still enjoyed it, even if it was a short-lived part of the film. The acting was also really good - I especially enjoyed Martin Freeman's perfomance. Everyone played their part very well.

My friend also told me that they apparently mentioned the titles of the chapters every time a new one began. I can't confirm this, but if you're looking for an easter egg, this could potentially be one.

Overall, I really enjoyed the film. I'd give it eight point five stars on ten. It could have been cut in length, and some parts were a bit peculiar being there given they are never followed up on. Nonetheless, I totally bought into it. Again, I can't compare it to the novel, but I really enjoyed the first film, and since I got to see it in theatres, I found I appreciated this one even more. Definitely worth a watch if you enjoy fantasy and amazingly gorgeous visuals!

Review XXVII - Seven Psychopaths

Review XXVII
Seven Psychopaths (2012)

Martin McDonagh's In Bruges is definitely a film I would recommend. It has a perfect blend of dark humour and clean-cut humour, plus it has Ralph Fiennes and Brendan Gleeson in it! If you only know those two because of the Harry Potter franchise, shame on you - they've been in way better movies. Anyway, a friend of mine really wanted to see the new film Seven Psychopaths, so I went to see it with him. When I realised it was a Martin McDonagh film, which was only after I watched the film, the film made a lot more sense to me. I watched it on opening night which was almost a month ago, so bare with me on this review. I just want to review a film, and it was between this and Silent Hill. I suppose you can understand why I chose this one.

Marty (Colin Farrell) is an aspiring script writer who wishes to write a movie about seven psychopaths. However, while he does have a few strong stories in the bag, he's lacking in the amount of psychopaths in his story. Billy (Sam Rockwell), his good, but crooked, friend, decides to help him out, along with Hans (Christopher Walken), a mysterious man who loves his cravat. However, a real-life psychopath, Charlie (Woody Harrelson) falls upon the three when his precious dog is kidnapped by Billy, and hilarity ensues.

If I had to describe the movie in one word, it would be... lacking. Yet, in the end, it doesn't really lack anything. The film revolves around Marty and his story, yet it doesn't exactly because there are so many subplots about the psychopaths. It's strange because we might be given five minutes about the story of a psychopath, and then, that's the end. I realise it's only about the writing process, but it's strange because we're given that time to connect with a psychopath, and poof, they disappear from the plot. While some come back later, most appear and disappear just as quickly. The film has so many characters, yet doesn't go in depth of all of them... Which I guess is sometimes the point, but other times, it isn't. This review is getting to be as confusing as the film. Okay, let's break this down...

The main plot is a good and funny one. Marty recounts funny stories for the psychopaths in his story, or he is told funny stories about them. I won't give any away (I really would like to, though) because it's these stories that make the movie so funny. However, while there are seven psychopaths in the film, some are only stories that Marty comes up with, but some are real life people. For example, Woody Harrelson's character is a real-life psychopath. While it is assumed that Marty later includes him in his screenplay, we're still introduced to him as a real psychopath. And, as I said, we just assume that Marty later includes him. It's never said, "Hey, Charlie will be one of the psychopaths." He's labelled a psychopath by the film, so we just assume he's part of the story. It's strange when a second earlier, we're told about a fake psychopath, who is also labelled. It seemed a bit... random, but I guess I can't really complain because we do meet each psychopath. It just felt weird to me.

I would also go ahead and say that each psychopath has a mini-subplot of their own. This leads to so many subplots that it almost gets confusing. The fact is, there is a tangent for each one, which leads to five minutes of explaining a man's story. While some psychopaths return, some are named and disappear forever. It makes you wonder whether or not Marty actually had seven psychopaths in his screenplay, or if there were actually less. This is another element that bothered me. While you don't have to follow up with each psychopath in great detail, it leaves the viewer feeling a little lost when we're given a psychopath and then they're gone forever.

... Which leads me to characters. Marty, Billy, Hans, and Charlie are the main characters. Charlie is maybe more of a secondary character, but he becomes more important. However, there are so many tertiary characters that come in as psychopaths. The problem is, they're tertiary characters, but they're given the spotlight for a while for a short while to explain their story in some of the cases. This makes it really confusing, and, as I said, I felt ripped off when I'd learn about a psychopath and then they disappeared for the rest of the movie. Some are forgivable, but if you watch the film, you'll understand what I mean. It seemed like there were too many characters that couldn't be explained. I think they could have incorporated them in better, especially when they would be given screen time of a minute or two.

I've been complaining, but I can go ahead and say the acting was phenomenal. Have you seen the actors in this film? Two of them have been nominated for an Oscar (one of them, Christopher Walken, even won it) and the others have been nominated for other awards or are just good actors in general. I can't really speak of Colin Farrell that much since I've only seen him in In Bruges, but I thought he was great in that movie. In this film, he does just as good a job. He has such a good shocked reaction and face. Sam Rockwell also does a great job in his role. Woody Harrelson and Christopher Walken, well, it's a given that they'd both deliver at least enjoyable roles. The acting from the rest of the group is good too, maybe even more so, so we definitely get a well rounded group of actors and actresses who know what they're doing. This means you can definitely enjoy the film, even if the plot is confusing and random at times.

I complained about the film, and I mean, it really was pretty spastic at times, but I still enjoyed it. I'll give it seven point seven on ten. It has really funny parts, but it can be slow and weird at some points. However, the acting and good humour make it worthy of at least checking out, though I'd say wait until it comes out on DVD (it's still playing in one theatre near my house, so I'm going to assume it's still out!).