Review: 21 Jump Street

RATING: ***

I have never seen the TV series that this movie was based on, but I vaguely knew the story line...
Directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller, this movie tells the story of two 'cops' sent undercover to infiltrate a drug ring that is supplying high-school kids with synthetic drugs. Jenko (Channing Tatum) and Schmidt (Jonah Hill) have to relive their high-school experience, but where Jenko used to be the 'popular jock' and Schmidt the 'uncomfortable nerd', the two now find their roles reversed and have to deal with the consequences, as well as completing their mission.

If i'm honest, there is not much more to the storyline... and it is fairly predictable...

Buuuut...as an fan of Jonah Hill's comedy and of Channing Tatum's... well... err... physique.... I really wasn't that disappointed that I went to see this movie.

I definitely think that this is definitely a teenage guy's comedy, but that is not to say that it's not for girls either. A teenage audience can definitely get its kicks from seeing these two actors experience what they experience(ish) almost every day... in a completely unusual and O.T.T. kind of way...

It was an OK movie, with quite a few laughs but very little depth to the story line, and in a sense I think that's all it needs to be.

It is definitely not the best movie I have seen in a while, but definitely not the worst, so go and see this if you're bored on a rainy Sunday afternoon :)

Until we blog again,
x

Review: The Hunger Games (Cast Review)

(please note that anything I say is not giving away crucial parts of the story - though this is more a review for people who have read the books)

Oh my god.

Okay, so as you all know I am in love with this trilogy, so seeing this movie was a big thing for me.

I desperately tried not to build it up too much because I know that I can get easily disappointed, but I really, really wasn't.

I already explained the storyline in my review of the books... so I'm just going to go straight ahead with the movie review, if that's alright? ;)

I just want to first say, the cast is FANTASTIC!

Jennifer Lawrence, for a start, is perfect for this role. I love her because she doesn't overplay it, but somehow gets the right emotions put across in the right places. To me, she just is Katniss. Katniss is (in my opinion) supposed to be strong, but I think in the sense that she wants to show others that she is strong. She is still just a girl, who cares about her family and friends and her district, so the parts where she breaks down (without giving any spoilers) are my favourite, as Lawrence's really brings out Katniss' weaknesses.

Josh Hutcherson is another perfect choice. Peeta, I think, goes into the games with the acceptance that he is going to die (still not giving anything away). It's almost heartbreaking how he feels less important next to Katniss, but Hutcherson's way of showing it really strengthens Peeta's character, as we see how through this acceptance, he really wants to concentrate on saving Katniss - not himself.
Hutcherson's portrayal of Peeta is calm and genuine, which makes him entirely lovable - which is what Peeta is meant to be - as noted by Suzanne Collins (author of The Hunger Games) and character Haymitch who says in both book and film how Peeta is easy to like - and I definitely agree!

Gale, played by Liam Hemsworth, I almost just as I pictured him. Very tall, dark hair and completely attractive. One thing I loved about the film adaptation is the way we were able to see clips of Gale (even if they were very short) whilst the games were going on, as I had always wondered what his reactions would be. Hemsworth is equally as brilliant as his co-stars, though we see very little of him. The scenes he shares with Lawrence -though short- really allow us to see the relationship between Gale and Katniss straight away, and how similar they are in terms of their beliefs, family values and their attitudes towards the Capitol and the Games.

Nearly finished I promise....

The last Character I want to look at (though there are many more I could look at...) is Effie Trinket played by Elizabeth Banks. Effie is one of my favourite characters of the book, just because she is so groomed and particular, and I think she doesn't really know what she believes - just that she needs to do her job, and so she does it. Elizabeth Banks plays Effie to perfection. One thing I did notice straight away was that she has interpreted the Capitol accent. It was very subtle and seemed almost natural, but is so important to the overall character of Effie. Banks also managed to create a whole personna for Effie in the way she carries herself and poises her arms upright in a natural pose. It is definitely the smaller details all added together to create Effie's character and you can see how each has been individually thought out by Banks in the development of this character. She definitely didn't disappoint me.


Okay so, one more thing before I leave you all again...
I just wanted to point out that The Hunger Games is NOT a love story!
I would love to sit here and tell you what it is about, but really I think it is open greatly to interpretation. Perhaps one day I will do blog post on it.... ;)

Until we blog again,
x

Review: The Woman in Black

STAR RATING: *****

OK. I was really scared to see this movie.

Just the day before I had been queueing at the cinema waiting to see a different film, when my cousin came out of one of the screens, completely freaked out and shaking, telling me that the film she had just seen was completely terrifying!

The Woman in Black.

To be honest I was fighting two thoughts in my head. The first said 'it's a 12A... how bad could it be?' and the second voice said 'don't go and see it - it's going to be reaaaaally scary'. I mean, seeing my cousin's reaction wasn't the only time I had been forewarned about this movie - my other peers and official reviews also emphasised that it was probably going to give me nightmares for the next few weeks.

.... buuuuuuttt... I went to see it anyway ;)

I have to be honest, I wasn't scared as I thought I would be. I'm not sure if this was because the hype had geared me up so much that I was expecting the worst and it therefore seemed less scary when it didn't match my expectation, ... or if perhaps I was putting on a brave face whilst surrounded by other cinema-goers.
...But I wouldn't deny that it is very very creepy and very haunting. This movie is exactly the type of example that can be used to show the difference between a horror movie and a ghost story. It is definitely a ghost story, and although this label implies a lack of scariness, this is definitely not the case. I may not have been terrified, but I was definitely cowering into my seat for some parts.. and I did jump... a lot.

The story is based around Arthur Kipps, played by Daniel Radcliffe, who is called to a remote mansion called Eel Marsh House to settle the late-owner's estate. He arrives to the nearby oh-so-creepy village where he intends to stay whilst carrying out his business, only to receive very unwelcoming attitudes from the local residents, with the owners of the inn he is supposed to be staying in telling him they have no spaces, and the local solicitor telling him to leave town on the next train and he is not needed.

Yes, yes, very suspicious! We get the immediate feel of eeriness and a 'hidden secret'.

Spooky stuff.

Anyway so, Kipps ignores them and continues to the house the following day. Almost immediately after he walks through the front door of the old mansion, you begin to sense something is wrong. This feeling is probably encouraged by the haunting music and grey colours that seem to scream GHOST!!!!

After a few jumpy moments... the ones that make you think that something big is going to happen, Kipps begins to experience some ghostly happenings, such as noises and seeing things out of the corner of his eyes Once he even sees the Woman in Black herself, though at this point he knows nothing of her....

and then the story really begins...

... and that is where my general plot-overview ends. I really can't give anything away, you see ;)

To generally review the film, Daniel Radcliffe is absolutely brilliant. I was concerned about how young he is and looks... with Arther Kipps being a father and all, but if you think about it, in this Victorian era it was probably common to be a family man at such a young age, when old age was so uncommon. Nonetheless, his mannerisms really accentuate maturity and the way he acts with his on-screen son really makes you believe he is a father. I really did imagine I would be thinking "oh my god, it's Harry Potter" the whole time... but it didn't actually cross my mind once. To me, he was just Arthur Kipps.
Aside from Radcliffe's outstanding performance (in my opinion), I was so impressed with the general direction (James Watkins) and screenplay (Jane Goldman). The particular scene(s) in which Kipps stays in the house for an entire night, were exceptional. It wasn't until after the movie had finished that someone mentioned to me that, in this section of the film, there was about thirty minutes where there was no dialogue at all. I hadn't even noticed, and I think that really is a good sign, don't you think? To be so caught up in a story... it's what you really want out of a film.

Okay, so I know I keep giving movies good reviews... but I guess I have just seen some good movies lately. The Woman in Black is definitely one of the best films I have seen in a long time. It is a fantastic horror(ish) movie that also holds a great storyline, which I think is so hard to find.

A definite must-see.

Until we blog again,
x

Review: The Vow

STAR RATING: ****

In general, the films I tend to go for are 'the really good ones'. I like a good story line, with strong characters and that special something that makes me leave the cinema thinking 'I definitely just watched a good film'.

I have never been a fan of really, really cheesey films with a predictable storyline, but I do have a few exceptions, and one thing I can't resist is one of those soppy love stories. You know the ones like The Notebook, Dear John and Titanic. Mostly just Nicholas Sparks novels-turned-movies. They don't have a particularly deep plot, and are mostly just boy-meets-girl kind of stories, nothing to serious...

...but perhaps that's why I like them, and probably why I was desperate to see The Vow starring The Notebook's Rachel McAdams, and Dear John's Channing Tatum.

The film is about a married couple, Leo (Tatum) and Paige (McAdams) who are involved in a car accident which results in Paige's memory loss through which she fails to remember the last few years of her life, including the part of her life she shared with her husband.
With his wife not knowing who he is, Leo attempts to reconnect with his wife and make her fall in love with him all over again, at the same time trying to help her remember her life with him.

As far as the storyline goes, I didn't think it was that complex, if anything it was very simple. However, director Michael Sucsy really played on the emotions of the couple and their relationship rather than the cliché 'journey of the couple finally getting back to their old selves and falling in love all over again'.The story definitely played on the idea that one small event, or 'moments of impact' as narrated by Leo, really has the power to change your life completely and unexpectedly.

As much as I was expecting a completely cheesey Rom-Com type movie, and in places it almost reached this point, what I actually got was a movie that was very touching and thought-provoking.
Of course, we were always going to get the oh-so-predictable 'oops-you-walked-in-on-me-naked' type scenes, but I genuinely thought they added a light touch to a movie that is actually, quite depressing.

Channing Tatum, I thought, was fantastic. It wasn't completely different from that character he always seems to play (the tough guy with the cheesey grin and the kind heart), but he somehow managed to put so much more emotion into this role without overplaying it. It must be so difficult to play a guy who's wife has no idea who he is...

Tatum portrays Leo as, not a man suffering from unrequited love, but a man who honestly has no idea what to do with the situation that has been thrown at him. He loves his wife and seems to have such trouble understanding how isn't the same person she was, but also has no idea how to bring her back. You can really see how Leo is trying to stay calm and patient for his wife, but slowly losing hope for her, and it definitely made me feel for him.

Similarly, Rachel McAdams does an amazing job of playing wife Paige. It really can't be easy to play the role of a person whose accident has resulted in such unusual consequences. It would not have been good enough for her to just act like she didn't know her husband and have no connection with him what-so-ever. We have to take into account that, yes she has lost her memory, but she also has this man in her life that tells her that he's her husband and so she must be thinking 'well I must love him if I married him', and I really do think McAdams has taken this into account whilst playing Paige. You can see throughout most of the film that Paige doesn't just look at her husband and think 'who the hell are you?'... instead she sees a man that she is supposed to know and love, but doesn't know how to get that back. She is just as frustrated as Leo and doesn't want to hurt him, and I think that that is what makes her character more relatable in such a rare situation. (I used the word rare since it is noted in the end credits that the movie was based on true events).

OK so, I did go in to the movie expecting something very cheesey, and there was not as much cheesey as i had hoped for, but I wasn't dissatisfied. Without giving anything away, I was extremely please with how to story played out - in a way that i completely didn't expect.

If there a negative I could give this movie it would be that I would have liked a little bit less emphasis on Leo's emotions and a little more on Paige. I guess the story is partly told from Leo's point of view, but I would have like to have seen more of Paige on her own, or even Paige and Leo together, just the tow of them. Perhaps that's the romantic in me talking... who knows.

I wouldn't give this movie five stars, but only because compared to every other movie in the world, it doesn't exceed them all in terms of screenplay or originality, but I will give it four stars because the soppy-romantic in me really enjoyed it and I recommend it to anyone that likes that kind of movie :).


Until we blog again,
x

Review: The Descendants

Star Rating: ****

Directed by Alexander Payne, new movie The Descendants starring George Clooney tells the story of a father, husband and lawyer, Matt King (Clooney), who is forced to deal with the various consequences that arise due to his wife's unfortunate boating accident off Waikiki, where she now lies in hospital in a coma she is not expected to recover from.

From breaking the news to his two daughters, Alexandra (Shaileene Woodley), and Scottie (Amara Miller) to the discovery of his wife's affair before the accident and the search for her lover, this story is about how Matt has to step up to the mark as a family man and reliable father whilst learning to deal with all the emotions that have suddenly crashed into his life.

We learn early on that Matt is Hawaiian Royalty, owning a vast amount of land of which he inherited along with other members of the family in a trust, which they now intend to sell. This is also a common theme of the movie and also plays a large part in Matt's life at this time, as he alone is to make to final decision on who they should sell the area of land to. This is all added pressure onto Matt's life, along with the trouble-making of his two daughters (Scottie's "unusual" homework and bullying her peers, and Alexandra's rebellious teenage behaviour). We get the immediate feel that Matt's life is as complex as it can get, however, we also can tell that Matt is a strong character, and one we are probably going to like.

Clooney completely surprised me in this role. He stepped out of his comfort-zone and into an unlikely role which he plays fantastically. The fact, that he plays the role so low-key, really emphasises how normal this man's life is in terms of tragedy and stress (though we probably do not relate to his financial situation).

Woodley also deserves to be recognised for her outstanding portrayal of Alexandra, who puts her rebellious teenage mannerisms and attitude aside in order to help and support her father (along with her boyfriend Sid played by Nick Krause).

This story sounds simple and uneventful, but in reality it is fantastically portrayed tale of family, loyalty, friendship, trust and most importantly, acceptance. It doesn't need action, a huge twist or a fancy show to hide behind, just its story alone and the amazing actors that make it so touching and believable.

I went into this film expecting something mediocre, and came out feeling that I had definitely seen something that deserves to be recognised.

If I could, I would have told you more about the plot, but really, I just want you to go and see it for yourselves, without me giving away most of the story.

Until we blog again,
x

LOVE

I recently asked two of friends (who both have boyfriends, might I add) how they know they are "in love".

I did give a *CHEESEY QUESTION WARNING!!* beforehand, don't you worry.

But, in general, I was just curious.

I mean, both these girls argue constantly with their boyfriends that they so claim to "love" and I suppose I was just interested in what makes them know they love their boyfriends despite their arguments.

How do you know when you're in love? and how can you differentiate between lust and love?

The first of my friends replied "Well... you just know"

-.-

As  you can tell this was NOT the answer I was looking for...

My second friend said to me "I want to be with him all the time, and when I'm not with him I want to talk to him"

Okay, so this gave me a little bit more of an insight into what i'm looking at, but even so, this isn't to do with how you feel.. is it?

I came to the conclusion that it is indescribable, like my first friend said "you just know"..

But then that lead me to a further question, how do you know you've found 'The One'.

Surely the answer to this is.. you don't... and what does this term even mean?!
People think they have found that one special person nearly every time they begin dating them. At the beginning, everything is seen through rose-tinted glasses and you may as well be running towards each other in slow motion in a meadow.

Okay, some people eventually get married... but then again, some people get divorced. I bet you anything that when that person first started dating their ex-partner that they could have sworn they were "The One".

My first friend also said "you just know when you've found that one person you're going to be with for the rest of your life"... but really?

OF COURSE YOU DON'T

This brings me to my next utterly-miserable point.

LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT IS NOT REAL PEOPLE!!!

We are completely brainwashed my movies and television that encourages us to believe that you can meet eyes with someone and then automatically love them.
I'm not saying that linking eyes with someone isn't possible. It may lead to talking. or a date. maybe eventually marriage.... but the feeling you felt when you first saw that person wasn't love. It was lust.

which is just plain fancying the pants of someone. And if you meet eyes with someone on a night out, they are probably looking for a hook-up.

sorry... :/

If anyone has ever seen the film He's just not that into you, alothough slightly cheesey, it actually provides a perfect insight into dating in general (if you cut out the part at the end where boy gets girl blah blah blah).

I think that is all I have to complain about...

Until we blog again,
x

A Whole New World.

This evening, I sat down with my housemates to watch Disney's Aladdin. This movie was one of many that played a huge part in my childhood. Every girl wanted to be a Disney princess at some point. Seven-year-old me would have given anything to be Cinderella is a pumpkin carriage, or Belle held captive by a mysterious prince-turned-beast.

One thing all of these films had in common was that the girl always got the guy. After all, it would have been pretty boring if after everything, Belle thought to herself 'You know what... I kind of fancy the bad guy after all' or Jasmine thought 'I can't believe Aladdin lied to me. Better find someone with money'. those scenarios would have certainly been entertaining... and probably more realistic... but of course, Disney would have never let us be influenced by something that was not a fairytale ending.

I love Disney movies, but actually.. they give young children a pretty unrealistic image of what to expect in life.

You probably think I'm being over-dramatic (I probably am.. ) but c'mon... In real life you would never be able to automatically tie your hair up with a single ribbon and expect it to stay exactly the way you styled it all day - at least not without three cans of hairspray and a few bobby-pins. And on a more serious note, the majority of us would never be able to be carried away on a white horse into the sunset... or marry a prince (though I hear Harry is still available...).

OK so, I complain a lot... but really I love the majority of Disney movies. Even the unrealistic princess ones! They gave me imagination... and the idea that the majority of animals can talk.
Oh and not forgetting the talking furniture (Thanks Belle...) and of course talking Toys.

OK so now we can move on to that topic. That one film (or three films..) that is loved by children and adults of all ages. Yeah, you said it...


TOY STORY!!!

yes. I love it too.

OK so that is all I have to say :)

Until we blog again,
x