Oddly enough, it took me a good ten minutes looking for a quote even remotely un-serious for this one, and thats all I could find. This should be interesting.
So, I'm currently sitting in the Post-graduate area (oooh get me) in the library at Uni. There is really nothing special about it, aside from perhaps a little more elbow room either side. Shows how much Solent truly appreciate those who have survived the first three years and don't have the common sense to go somewhere better. That and somehow we have to find an extra £3500 for the privilege.
Anyway, it dawned on me the other day that I hadn't spoken to my old cohort of bitterness Greeners in a long while, so I shall hopefully be heading up to Newbury for a pint and such larks at some point. Be nice to catch up.
Anyway, Next!
2. The Godfather
I can never, ever get tired of this movie. I think there are only a few films in existence that can hold my attention and entertain me enough for me to say that.
You all know the story - Ageing crime boss Vito Corleone, through various circumstances both under and not under his control, leaves his empire to his youngest son, Michael.
Where the hell do I begin?
For me, this film has it all. Romance, comedy, action, drama in metric fucktons. It's wonderfully well paced, with the violence coming in short, sharp bursts, with the tension building between each set piece. There is no-one out of place in terms of cast - aside from perhaps the undertaker at the start, even though his opening lines set the scene for an awesome opening sequence.
My opinion of this movie harks back to something I once thought about after watching (or more accurately, enduring) 2001: A Space Odyssey. After sitting through that for god knows how long, I had a thought. '2001' and The Godfather were released only 4 years apart. Now both are hailed as classics (according to the IMDb top 250, The Godfather a darn sight more), yet for the life of me I can watch The Godfather at least twice a day, and I can barely stand the first 20 minutes of '2001'. Says alot about how well or not films age, doesn't it?
I can offer no praise of this film that hasn't been done to death by anyone and everyone since the seventies. All I can really do is something I hate doing to films I thoroughly enjoy, and that's find flaws in them. Firstly, as I've said, the undertaker. I completely understand his role in everything. He's there to dispel every preconception we believe regarding typical mafia behaviour. He asks Vito to kill - he says no. He's then asked for a favour - to clean a body for a funeral. He just irritates me for some reason. Probably because he's meant to, as his request for murder irritates the Don. Just not as comfortable with his presence as I am with the rest of the film.
I think the only other thing I have a problem with is the diner scene, in particular Sollozzo. Again, this is me being exceedingly picky, but I'd have put subtitles over the Italian to give us an idea of what Sollozzo is trying to do by speaking to Michael in public. It's a little confusing and takes a little away from what is still a classic scene, just would have tweaked it a little in post production. Means all those who speak Italian out there have an advantage over us. Damn you Macina!
Anyway, The Godfather. Classic. Next up. Take a Guess.
Thursday 15 March 2012
Sunday 11 March 2012
"Salvation Lies Within..."
Doing this MA and having all the problems with it that we've been having sometimes makes me wonder if its worth the time, money and effort. With all the irrelevant lectures, the absolutely pointless guest lectures and the botched student rep system employed by the MA, it's a wonder that Solent have noticed the £3000 we've each paid to learn this crap. Oh well.
Watching Doctor Who at 9:00am, as should be compulsory in the UK, brings to mind my recent binge of television shows on DVD. Boston Legal. The West Wing. Smallville (I know, I know), and a stab at 24. A little stab. I don't generally keep up with TV shows as they're aired. I don't have terrestrial, thats a big part of it, but I guess I just don't like to be constrained by the timetable of Radio Times. You could call it a pro-active approach to TV, rather than a Sky+ approach. Anyway.
My reviews, from today onwards, will be geared towards a slightly different purpose. I have, since its inception, been fascinated by the IMDb top 250 films of all time:
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?tt0120689
There are thousands of films out there, and more are arriving every week. From the good to the downright ridiculous, there is always something happening with film, thats just the nature of the industry. Now the IMDb top 250 is not a set list, as you can imagine. It does change from time to time, when a film is deemed worthy of it (bearing in mind that the films on the IMDb top 250 are decided by public vote). So, here's what we're going to do. I will, in descending order, be reviewing each film from this list, in as detailed a way as possible, to discern whether or not I feel they are worthy of their place on this list. As the list can change, I will review each film that as of today stands on the list.
So, with no ado, because there are 250 films to get through, and I still need to watch at least 100 of them.
1. The Shawshank Redemption
Now I'll be doing this in descending order so I can ask myself if one film deserves to be lower than one before it. So, starting off at the top, the mother of all films.
Shawshank is, as you had better know having seen it (if you haven't seen it, you do not deserve that air you're breathing just now) the story of Andy Dufresne, a banker incarcerated in Shawshank prison for a crime he didn't commit, and his friendship with Red, a prison entrepreneur and 'lifer'.
Now this is the first of a trilogy of collaborations between Frank Darabont and one Stephen King (The Green Mile, which is the second chronologically, is also in the top 250, whereas The Mist is not) and the dark, gritty undertone of the antagonist in this one shows very well. Darabont, when working from King material, seems to have a sense of the underlying evil in his antagonists, and he shoots them incredibly. I can imagine if you were to ask a few people what their favourite part of Shawshank is, they would say "the reveal of the tunnel", and thats one hell of an iconic scene. But if I had to push the boat out, I'd say that the performances of Bob Gunton as Warden Norton and Clancy Brown as Captain Hadley really help make this film memorable. Every film needs a strong antagonist to make it work, and Shawshank, thanks to an excellent script and fantastic cinematography, has a pair of great antagonists.
See, I often find myself trying to find something I would change in a film, even a good one. The problem is, Shawshank is essentially the closest to perfect that I have seen in a film. It's perfectly balanced, no throwaway lines of dialogue, no unnecessary action sequences. It's all in the right place. The only thing I can fault is the use of voice over, but there are two reasons why this really doesn't matter. The first is because the use of voice over really sets the mood for this film, it doesn't really give anything away and thus is not of any detriment to the story .The second, is because its Morgan Freeman. Quite frankly, that man could voice over my life.
So, to summarise. This film is awesome. Number 1 spot in the top 250 is a safe bet for Shawshank. Explains why its been up there since day one.
Next up - The Godfather.
Watching Doctor Who at 9:00am, as should be compulsory in the UK, brings to mind my recent binge of television shows on DVD. Boston Legal. The West Wing. Smallville (I know, I know), and a stab at 24. A little stab. I don't generally keep up with TV shows as they're aired. I don't have terrestrial, thats a big part of it, but I guess I just don't like to be constrained by the timetable of Radio Times. You could call it a pro-active approach to TV, rather than a Sky+ approach. Anyway.
My reviews, from today onwards, will be geared towards a slightly different purpose. I have, since its inception, been fascinated by the IMDb top 250 films of all time:
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?tt0120689
There are thousands of films out there, and more are arriving every week. From the good to the downright ridiculous, there is always something happening with film, thats just the nature of the industry. Now the IMDb top 250 is not a set list, as you can imagine. It does change from time to time, when a film is deemed worthy of it (bearing in mind that the films on the IMDb top 250 are decided by public vote). So, here's what we're going to do. I will, in descending order, be reviewing each film from this list, in as detailed a way as possible, to discern whether or not I feel they are worthy of their place on this list. As the list can change, I will review each film that as of today stands on the list.
So, with no ado, because there are 250 films to get through, and I still need to watch at least 100 of them.
1. The Shawshank Redemption
Now I'll be doing this in descending order so I can ask myself if one film deserves to be lower than one before it. So, starting off at the top, the mother of all films.
Shawshank is, as you had better know having seen it (if you haven't seen it, you do not deserve that air you're breathing just now) the story of Andy Dufresne, a banker incarcerated in Shawshank prison for a crime he didn't commit, and his friendship with Red, a prison entrepreneur and 'lifer'.
Now this is the first of a trilogy of collaborations between Frank Darabont and one Stephen King (The Green Mile, which is the second chronologically, is also in the top 250, whereas The Mist is not) and the dark, gritty undertone of the antagonist in this one shows very well. Darabont, when working from King material, seems to have a sense of the underlying evil in his antagonists, and he shoots them incredibly. I can imagine if you were to ask a few people what their favourite part of Shawshank is, they would say "the reveal of the tunnel", and thats one hell of an iconic scene. But if I had to push the boat out, I'd say that the performances of Bob Gunton as Warden Norton and Clancy Brown as Captain Hadley really help make this film memorable. Every film needs a strong antagonist to make it work, and Shawshank, thanks to an excellent script and fantastic cinematography, has a pair of great antagonists.
See, I often find myself trying to find something I would change in a film, even a good one. The problem is, Shawshank is essentially the closest to perfect that I have seen in a film. It's perfectly balanced, no throwaway lines of dialogue, no unnecessary action sequences. It's all in the right place. The only thing I can fault is the use of voice over, but there are two reasons why this really doesn't matter. The first is because the use of voice over really sets the mood for this film, it doesn't really give anything away and thus is not of any detriment to the story .The second, is because its Morgan Freeman. Quite frankly, that man could voice over my life.
So, to summarise. This film is awesome. Number 1 spot in the top 250 is a safe bet for Shawshank. Explains why its been up there since day one.
Next up - The Godfather.
Saturday 10 March 2012
"Boom! You never know!"
I may or may not have had this conversation with someone at some point, so I'll have it with no-one in particular this time.
I was in the middle of one of two lonely shifts at the cinema, which are sandwiched in between a couple of excursions to Sweden, the second one pending, and a thought occurred to me. We are currently showing the film 'Safe House', starring Ryan Reynolds and one Denzel Washington. Now from what I understand of this film, its a sort of 'naive young guy takes the lead from chiselled veteran old guy' story. Now, stop me if I veer a little of the accuracy track here, but isn't this the sort of thing Denzel has done before?
Think about it. The Bone Collector. Unstoppable. Training Day. Safe House.
The interesting thing? All the 'naive young' characters are white. The Bone Collector was Angelina Jolie, Unstoppable would be one Chris Pine, and Training Day was Ethan Hawke. Now out of these four, I haven't seen Safe House or the Bone Collector, Unstoppable wasn't bad, and Training Day was really good. I have thus come to one conclusion.
Every film that Denzel makes from this day on should be entitled "Denzel Washington Carrying White Actors Through A Movie : Part 5" and so on.
So, that aside, here's a review.
The Untouchables.
Synopsis - A young detective brings together a team with one objective - to bring down Al Capone.
Now having sat through Dances with Wolves, I am in the unfortunate position of having seen Kevin Costner in more than one film in the space of 10 years. There is something about him that irritates me. Whether its the tone of his voice, or his accent, or his existence, I don't know. Point is, had I not seen Dances with Wolves and been so drained by it, I'd have been able to cope with Costner in this. As it stands, I am waiting at least a year before I watch Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves, purely because I can't deal with much Costner. The Bodyguard can fuck off. Insert Whitney Houston joke.
Costner aside, The Untouchables is a pretty good film. Sean Connery, although woefully out of place in terms of accent, was an awesome mentor for the lead character. Personally I don't think Andy Garcia gets enough work, because I enjoyed his role and I don't think I've ever seen him do anything bad (Confidence is a good movie, yeah, I said it), and lets be honest folks, if the character is Italian, Robert De Niro plays it well by default. He could probably try his utmost to act badly, and still come off as realistic. It's well shot, and having not read the script I will assume that it was fairly solid. If not, I blame Costner. It's a safe bet, look at Waterworld and the Postman. And Dances with sodding Wolves.
Honestly, watching this film and watching Costner makes me want to re-write his part. Not the rest of the film, thats fine. Purely Costner's role, to see if it would improve any more. Probably not a great deal, but it would be worth a shot.
I was in the middle of one of two lonely shifts at the cinema, which are sandwiched in between a couple of excursions to Sweden, the second one pending, and a thought occurred to me. We are currently showing the film 'Safe House', starring Ryan Reynolds and one Denzel Washington. Now from what I understand of this film, its a sort of 'naive young guy takes the lead from chiselled veteran old guy' story. Now, stop me if I veer a little of the accuracy track here, but isn't this the sort of thing Denzel has done before?
Think about it. The Bone Collector. Unstoppable. Training Day. Safe House.
The interesting thing? All the 'naive young' characters are white. The Bone Collector was Angelina Jolie, Unstoppable would be one Chris Pine, and Training Day was Ethan Hawke. Now out of these four, I haven't seen Safe House or the Bone Collector, Unstoppable wasn't bad, and Training Day was really good. I have thus come to one conclusion.
Every film that Denzel makes from this day on should be entitled "Denzel Washington Carrying White Actors Through A Movie : Part 5" and so on.
So, that aside, here's a review.
The Untouchables.
Synopsis - A young detective brings together a team with one objective - to bring down Al Capone.
Now having sat through Dances with Wolves, I am in the unfortunate position of having seen Kevin Costner in more than one film in the space of 10 years. There is something about him that irritates me. Whether its the tone of his voice, or his accent, or his existence, I don't know. Point is, had I not seen Dances with Wolves and been so drained by it, I'd have been able to cope with Costner in this. As it stands, I am waiting at least a year before I watch Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves, purely because I can't deal with much Costner. The Bodyguard can fuck off. Insert Whitney Houston joke.
Costner aside, The Untouchables is a pretty good film. Sean Connery, although woefully out of place in terms of accent, was an awesome mentor for the lead character. Personally I don't think Andy Garcia gets enough work, because I enjoyed his role and I don't think I've ever seen him do anything bad (Confidence is a good movie, yeah, I said it), and lets be honest folks, if the character is Italian, Robert De Niro plays it well by default. He could probably try his utmost to act badly, and still come off as realistic. It's well shot, and having not read the script I will assume that it was fairly solid. If not, I blame Costner. It's a safe bet, look at Waterworld and the Postman. And Dances with sodding Wolves.
Honestly, watching this film and watching Costner makes me want to re-write his part. Not the rest of the film, thats fine. Purely Costner's role, to see if it would improve any more. Probably not a great deal, but it would be worth a shot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)