Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time

Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time
Year: 2010
Director: Mike Newell
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, Ben Kingsley

In My Own Words
A weekend away from reality is a great thing, even if it is raining. I don’t mind it raining though. I can still relax rain, hail or shine if I am away from home, and it gives me a chance to check out a new cinema! So my fiancé and I ventured half an hour up the highway to check out “Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time” at the Roxy Cinemas at Nowra. Now I love going to new cinemas when I’m away. I know it isn’t the typical activity one would enjoy when they go on a holiday, but there are so many different types of cinema complexes out there. For example, the Roxy was a great little surprise for me. The outside looks like an old cinema, but the inside was lovely. It had the big red curtains and two Roman statues on each side and Roman hangings on the walls. I don’t think Nowra has got much to do with Roman times, but it was great that the cinema had so much character to it. I feel that my local cinema too has a lot of character, not in the same way that Nowra does, but you definitely feel the difference between this cinema and others. The multiplexes usually don’t have the same character to them, as they tend to reflect each other. Yet the independent cinemas are not independent’s for no reason. They vary from each other and its treat going and checking out how their decor and architecture. Next time you go to the cinema, take a look around and think about what makes the cinema you are in special.

Another thing I love is when a highly anticipated film also turns out to be a good film. It doesn’t happen quite as often as it should. In fact, I think the only film Movie Critical has reviewed thus far that was highly anticipated blockbuster and was actually a decent film was “Avatar”. Oh I lie, “Alice In Wonderland” as well. “Prince Of Persia: The Sands of Time” thankfully turns that around. A blockbuster that has been advertised for months and a movie we come not to expect too much of because we know how it feels to look forward to a movie and be disappointed. It’s a great feeling to watch a film and it be better than what you thought it would be. I really was not bothered with the release of “Prince Of Persia” at all because I’m so used to being disappointed by blockbusters, but I was pleasantly surprised.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
“Look what we can do everybody!”

That is what Disney might as well being saying with the first 15 minutes of “Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time”. Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer films have always been good at pulling everything they have together to make a movie and showing to the world what they have. However, Disney have also always been good at making a good film, and this is exactly what they have done. Although sometimes looking like a three way cross between “ Lord Of The Rings”, “Pirates Of The Caribbean” and “The Mummy”, this film has got everything to make it an enjoyable adventure flick. Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) is taken into the royal palace when he is a young boy and raised as a prince. After ambushing the city of Alamut, he is wrongly accused of killing his father and flees with the beautiful princess of Alamut, Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton).It is then that he discovers the secrets of the mysterious dagger which Tamina carries, the dagger which has the ability to release the sands of time. A quest to clear his name turns out to be a quest to stop the dagger falling into the wrong hands for Dastan.

First and foremost, it is great to finally see an action/ adventure film with a solid plot, especially one which is based on a video game. Video games are a hard one to make a film out of because the game doesn’t give too much of a background story and just rely on action. So more often than not, this action aspect is the main feature of the big screen version and the story is weak. This isn’t the case with “Prince Of Persia”. Sure there is a great deal of action, but the story does not suffer as a result. The story is well scripted and well executed on the big screen. There are definitely clever twists and turns and there is suspense over the anticipation of what will happen at the end. The action scenes and stunts are spectacular, as are the visuals. The only criticism is that as spectacular as the cities in this film can look, at times they can also look very much like cardboard sets. Very nice cardboard sets at that though. This is not all the time, but at particular moments throughout the film. The CGI is also amazing in particular scenes, but in other scenes just looks very computerised.

Jake Gyllenhaal, is there anything this man cannot do? In his first real action role, he does extremely well. He definitely shows his versatility as an actor, as not many actors can pull off a dysfunctional teenager, a gay cowboy and a courageous action hero. Gemma Arterton is definitely better in this role than in her similar role in the also recently released, “Clash Of The Titans”. She plays with far more character, although at some times is guilty of over acting. The screen chemistry of her and Gyllenhaal is definitely there and there is plenty of emotion between the two. Ben Kingsley is great in his role and defiantly creates a relationship with the audience, be it good or bad.

“Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time” is an absolute treat. It is definitely the best adventure film we have seen so far this year and lives up to its expectations. Not only action and video game fans will enjoy this movie, as there is something for everyone. Great plot, characters, suspense and emotion. Well done Disney, you have done it again!
7.5/10

Letters To Juliet

Letters To Juliet
Year: 2010
Director: Gary Winick
Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Vanessa Redgrave, Christopher Egan

In My Own Words
I’m sure I have mentioned this before, but have you ever noticed how great tourism tools movies are? How many times have you watched a movie and thought about how amazing the location in which it is based is? Some locations are even more impressive than the film itself. Take for example “Couples Retreat” which Movie Critical reviewed last year. Very bland movie with an amazing location. I’m sure I’m not the only one who was dying to visit Bora-Bora after seeing it. “Letters To Juliet” has made me even more excited about going to visit Italy next year. Verona and Siena were never on my itinerary before, but after seeing this film I am dying to see some of the Italian countryside and have gelato in a piazza in Siena. I think many people will find that one of the reasons they love their favourite film is because of where it is set. I’m not saying that this is the only reason you will love your favourite film, but it doesn’t hurt! “Letters To Juliet” is far from my favourite film, but the fact that it was set in Italy is one of the reasons I liked it!

Does anyone else do this? When you are going on a holiday, do you make an effort to watch films or TV shows which are set in that place? I believe it is one of the best ways to get yourself excited for a holiday. Needless to say that because I am planning a trip to Europe in February, “Four Weddings And A Funeral, “Amelie” and “Life Is Beautiful” are definitely going to get a run in the DVD player at least twice before then!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
“Letters To Juliet” is an easy to watch film, yet unlike many other romance films this year, does manage to bring a tear to your eye. It can be argued who the true star of “Letters To Juliet” is. Is it Amanda Seyfried or the Italian countryside? Definitely a girl’s film with a ton of predictability and cliché’s, but still entertaining and sweet all the same. Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is a would-be writer who travels to Verona, Italy for a romantic getaway with her fiancé, Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal). However, the trip soon becomes a working holiday for Victor and Sophie finds herself having to experience Verona on her own. On a visit to Juliet’s balcony, she meets up with a group of women who respond to the letters that women in love leave asking Juliet for her advice. Sophie finds a letter which was written 50 years ago and responds to it, not thinking that the woman in question will take her advice and travel back to Italy from England to search for her once lover. Sophie decides to tag along for the journey with Claire (Vanessa Redgrave) and her grandson, Charlie (Christopher Egan).

As expected, some of this movie can come across as quite silly and farfetched. Yet, as silly and farfetched as the concept may be of girls leaving notes for Juliet, there is actually some truth to this. Many letters are sent each year addressed simply to “Juliet, Verona” and there is a group who responds to these letters, much like the one in the film. A romance film about this concept could only have a predictable ending, a girl finding her one true love while in fair Verona. There is no doubt at all during the film as to what the ending will bring. Some of the dialogue is a little too cheesy and simple and it is not quite as comical as what it would’ve liked itself to be. However, the cinematography and locations used are extraordinary. Italy is on show in this film and does not disappoint. The best thing about this film is that the scenery works with the romance aspect of the film and makes this light film even sweeter.

Amanda Seyfried is an absolute star in this film. She definitely shows her strong acting ability and lights up the screen in every scene. She is absolutely stunning, likable and this could well be her finest film performance thus far (“Mamma Mia” not being far behind). Seyfried exhibits every emotion perfectly and gives and extremely heartfelt performance. Vanessa Redgrave is also a delight to watch and very sweet. Christopher Egan also does well, and shows his talent with mimicking an English accent impressively. However, the character of Victor, as played by Gael Garcia Bernal is extremely irritating. From the first scene you just want to slap him across the face and he and Seyfried have absolutely no on screen chemistry. His dialogue is badly written and Bernal is badly miscast. If the film makers wanted the audience to dislike him right from the word go, they have achieved this.

“Letters To Juliet” is an incredibly sweet film is emotional enough to draw a tear, yet not emotional enough to make it heart-wrenching. It is very unlikely that any male will enjoy this film as it is definitely a chick flick, however many will be dragged to the cinemas by their girlfriends. A fine advertisement for the Italian countryside.
5.5/10

A Nightmare On Elm Street

A Nightmare On Elm Street
Year: 2010
Director: Samuel Bayer
Cast: Jackie Earle Haley, Rooney Mara, Kyle Gallner, Kellan Lutz, Katie Cassidy

In My Own Words
I’m not entirely sure why “A Nightmare On Elm Street” needed to be remade. Sure, the 1980’s version was extremely cheesy, but that is what made it such a classic. It was just a cheesy teenage, horror film with tons of sequels. Apparently Mr Wes Craven, the director of the original “A Nightmare On Elm Street” movies, was not impressed by this remake either. I felt the same regarding Rob Zombie’s remake of “Halloween” in 2007, why did it have to be remade? However, when I saw “Halloween” I realised why it had been remade. Zombie put his touch on his product by pumping up the sex and gore. What did Samuel Bayer bring to the table to differentiate his film from the original? Not a great deal I hate to say. A Freddie Krueger who’s nowhere near as frightening as the original and a group of teenagers who act more like twenty-something year olds and are way too serious to be watched and enjoyed. Surel y this film did not need to be remade, but they have definitely generated a profit by releasing this film so good on them.

Has anybody ever wondered what it would be like at an audition for the lead girl in a horror film? I’m sure guys would find it very easy on the eyes as all “scream queens” are very pretty, but it would also be extremely noisy. There is an easily recognisable scream that all girls in horror movies have. You would definitely need to have that scream perfected before you go and audition for such a horror film as this. I guess that’s why many actresses we see in such horror movies as “A Nightmare On Elm Street” and “Halloween” tend to have many a horror film on their resume. And why wouldn’t you? There is no reason why you shouldn’t use a scream like that to your advantage! And yes, I am being serious.

And I have to throw this in, before I even saw the original “Nightmare On Elm Street”, the only way I knew the storyline was from The Simpsons Treehouse Of Horrors special when groundskeeper Willie is haunting the town’s children in their sleep. It is true, there is a Simpsons episode for everything!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
The horror genre is one that produces many films which are classically predictable, especially if that film is a remake like “A Nightmare On Elm Street”. There is absolutely no reason why this film had to have been remade. There are definitely some differences between the original and the remake, but the differences of the remake are nothing of great importance. However, horror fans will flock to see this film just for the love of Freddie Krueger. As much as they will love seeing the man back on the big screen, they will surely be disappointed by his new look. The film begins with the first victim, Dean (Twilight heart throb Kellan Lutz)being killed in his sleep in front of his friends in a diner. Several of his friends start experiencing the same nightmares Dean complained of having, in which a man in a striped sweater with knives as fingers is trying to kill them. To stay alive, they have to stay awake, because if they fall asleep, they may not wake up.

“A Nightmare On Elm Street”, remake or not, is just a typical horror film. You know when the scares are coming and it is inevitable that there is going to be a scare right at the beginning and at the end. It is still a scary movie and it will leave many people gasping in fright in the cinema. There are some extremely gory bits, although there is a lack of sex which is actually refreshing for a horror movie as it is normally a prerequisite for horror films such as this these days. For a horror film such as this, it is surprisingly well made. The cinematography is not bad at all and the tranquillity of Elm Street is captured perfectly on camera. The disruption of innocence is also captured well and does definitely allow for some disturbing moments. The film can be very slow in parts, but maintains momentum for the finale.

Jackie Earle Haley‘s Freddie Krueger does not measure up at all to Robert Englund’s Krueger of the original films. The original Krueger was much creepier and unsettling than the new Krueger. The new Krueger’s bark is worse than his bite. You almost wish that you could just listen to Krueger’s eerie voice throughout the film rather than see him as this would be far scarier. However, Haley does not do badly in the role, he just has a lot to live up to, as horror far will agree. The supporting cast of teenage victims do not give over the top good performances, but are mediocre. The majority of them are just bland and do not bring much to the film. Perhaps the two best performances out of the group of friends are by Katie Cassidy as Kris and Thomas Dekker as Jesse. Cassidy, although her role is untimely brief, does give a good performance with true sadness and terror. Dekker starts of weak, but gets stronger as his role progresses.

Even as a stand alone film, “A Nightmare On Elm Street” does not impress. It is predictable and covers all the usual horror film bases (besides the un-necessary sex scenes the majority have). However, the film is generally well made and the end is still very disturbing and suspenseful. We’ll see you again next time Freddie!
4.5/10

I Love You Too

I Love You Too
Year: 2010
Director: Daina Reid
Cast: Brendan Cowell, Peter Dinklage, Peter Helliar, Yvonne Strahovski, Bridie Carter, Megan Gale

In My Own Words
The lights come up and I am bursting with pride. Unless you live in Australia, chances are you have not heard of “I Love You Too” yet. This film is a highly anticipated Australian comedy and it definitely does not disappoint. It made me so proud to be an Australian and see such a great Australian film like this. What made me so happy about this film, is that many Australian films can often harp on the idea of what it means to be Australian and be very stereotypical, while this one is anything but. “I Love You Too” was just a great romantic comedy, but it wasn’t just about romance between a man and woman. It is also about the relationships between best friends, family and strangers. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not giving this film a good review just because it is Australian, “I Love You Too” is a very good film no matter where it was made. Unfortunately I cannot find any evidence that “I Love You Too” will be released overseas as of yet. If it does, I encourage everyone to go and see it to see the cream of Australian comedy, or just to see a unique romantic comedy which doesn’t blend into the mould of the one falls in love with the criminal whitewash we seem to be experiencing at the moment.

There is also much fun to be had playing “Spot The Celebrity”. Although the majority of stars in this film are Australian, there are quite a few that non-Australians will also spot. For example, see if you can spot Rose Byrne, whom I wasn’t 100% sure about until I read the credits. Popular Australian comedians Hamish Blake and Angus Sampson also have cameos, although blink and you will miss Sampson.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
Daina Reid’s film directorial debut, “I Love You Too” is a winner. It is a showcase of Australian comedy and acting talent in the best possible way. What makes this film so successful is that the story explores so much more than the typical romantic comedy as a result of an extremely clever script, great characters and some very real emotions. Jim (Brendan Cowell) has been dating Alice (Yvonne Strahovski) now for three and a half years, but has yet to say the L word. Fed up with Jim’s commitment phobia and his inability to grow up, Alice breaks up with him and decides to move back to London. Jim decides that he will do everything in his power to win Alice back, with some help from Charlie (Peter Dinklage) and very little help from his best friend, Blake (Peter Helliar).

“I Love You Too” is not only very funny, but very clever. The script is very well written by Peter Helliar, although it is a bit predictable. Like many romantic comedies, the conclusion is very predictable. The comedy itself can also be very predictable at times. There are some jokes and funny sequences that you are able to see coming a mile away. There are actually some very dramatic moments in the film as well, which makes the film extremely unique and unlike any other recently released comedy. There are underlying themes which will make the film a good life lesson for many people. One of the best aspects of this film is the character development. Each character is extremely unique and the audience feels like they know each character personally. The ensemble of actors work perfectly with each other and there is on-screen chemistry between each character in each relationship presented. Watching these characters on screen is extremely engaging and entertaining. Daina Reid’s directing is strong and the cinematography is also very strong.

Brendan Cowell here shows his acting versatility as a child in a grown man’s body. He does the role well, but sometimes fails to grasp the comedic nature of the role and is overshadowed by actors who specialise in comedy. Although Brendan Cowell is very good, it is Peter Dinklage who steals the show. He gives a fantastic heartfelt performance as the romantic widower. It is not often that an actor can give such an emotional performance in a comedy film, and witnessing such a beautiful performance here is a real treat. He wins the hearts of everyone in the audience and brings a tear to the eye in one amazing scene with Megan Gale. Gale also does very well in her role as a beautiful supermodel. Yvonne Strahovski is also gives a good performance remaining sweet and fragile throughout the film. Peter Helliar is very funny, but his performance is not anything different to other pieces of work that he has done. Helliar’s scriptwriting is actually stronger than his acting in this film.

There are not a great abundance of Australian romantic comedies like “I Love You Too”, which is more reason to see this film. Not just Australians will enjoy the humour in the film and people will be surprised at just how much emotion there really is in this film. Not one for surprise endings, but still a good watch.
7.5/10

Robin Hood

Robin Hood
Year: 2010
Director: Ridley Scott
Cast: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, William Hurt, Mark Strong

In My Own Words
There have been so many Robin Hood adaptations over the years. Robin Hood is actually quite a complex topic, a lot more complex than what I ever thought the story or the person actually was. Until I saw Ridley Scott’s latest adaptation of the folk story, I had always assumed that Robin Hood was a fictional, but now I find that this may not be the case. Well, it is a mystery as to whether Robin Hood did actually exist or not. Many people have speculated over the years as to whether he is just folk lore and was made up to cheer on the underdog or if there was a real person. According to research done over the years, there are several figures in history whom Robin Hood could have been based on. In my curiosity, I came across a fantastic site by the name of “Robin Hood Bold Outlaw of Barnsdale and Sherwood” (http://www.boldoutlaw.com/realrob/realrob2.html) . Allen W. Wright, the owner and writer of this site, has done some fantastic research of who the real Robin Hood was. According to Wright, there are a number of people whom the story of Robin Hood could be based on, such as Robyn Hood who worked in the kings court in the 1300’s, or Robert Hood who was from just outside Barnsdale and who’s wife was Matilda, which is what Maid Marian was also known by in some versions. Nobody has yet made a conclusion as to whether the legend of Robin Hood was based on a single individual, or if he is the result of the combination of many different historical figures. Whether the legend of the man himself is true or not, there is no denying that he has not only inspired many books, films and stage plays over the years, but he has been a representation of how the good hearted underdog can always triumph over the oppressor.

Unfortunately, I don’t think the 2010 Robin Hood will triumph as anyone’s favourite Robin Hood adaptation. Not as heartfelt as 1991’s “Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves”, even though that still isn’t my favourite Robin Hood adaptation. You can’t go past Disney’s 1973 animated version. Who can go outdo the brilliance of Robin being a crafty fox and Prince John and King Richard being lions? The fox Robin Hood is my perfect Robin Hood, although Kevin Costner and Errol Flynn are not far behind. Even though Russell Crowe is the oldest actor thus far to play the hero, he still fits the role and is the perfect choice out of today’s actors to do the job.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
Ridley Scott’s 2010 version of ‘Robin Hood’, which opened the Cannes Film Festival yesterday, is unlike other Robin Hood tales. This latest version is the prequel to traditional Robin Hood legends where Robin conquers over the Sheriff of Nottingham and sides with King Richard. Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is an archer in King Richards army when he is entrusted to deliver the kings crown back to London when he has been killed in battle, as the initial carrier, Robert Loxley(Douglas Hodge) is killed by Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong). Upon returning to Loxley’s hometown of Nottingham, he encounters Loxley’s widow, Lady Marian (Cate Blanchett) and finds out more about where he himself has come from. During this time, he is treated as a hero in Nottingham and wins the affections of Lady Marian. Upon discovering who he really is, Robin and his group of men set off to defend their country and rise up against higher powers in society.

The main disappointment about this film is that it starts off so strong. The beginning is so promising, with action and perfect character development. However, it does not maintain its excellence throughout the course of the film. When each of the characters are introduced, they are in such a way that the audience forms an emotional opinion about each one of them. For example, Prince John is in his very first scene obnoxious, immature and crude, exactly the way you would expect and want Prince John to be. Although he is so vulgar, it is almost exciting to see such a strong first impression of a character. Unfortunately, the film isn’t constructed in its entirety to maintain this strong opinion. This is no fault of the actors, but more of the scriptwriters and Scott as more effort should have been put into ensuring that the audience maintains an emotional connection to the characters. The actors definitely do all they can with the roles they are given. Russell Crowe is a perfect Robin Hood. He is an unlikely hero who is rough around the edges, but still shows his vulnerability and soft side. Cate Blanchett is also beautiful as Lady Marian and is also a lady, but definitely rough around the edges just like Crowe. Therefore, these two have a great on screen chemistry, but again, there is not enough to show how these two fell so deeply in love. It feels like it happened quite suddenly. Mark Strong is great as Sir Godfrey and Oscar Isaac is also very good as Prince John.

However, there is no denying that “Robin Hood” is a well made film. Medieval England and France are recreated so beautifully. The scenery is breathtaking and the way in which it is captured on film is commendable. Scott’s choice of settings for each scene is perfect, especially for the battle scenes. The editing is also very well done and the score is perfectly suited to every scene that it accompanies. It should also be mentioned that Scott does not fall into the trap that many other films about this era do, he does not cave into the idea that medieval England was glamorous. The wilderness is still a rugged place and only the king and queen have costumes which could be considered fashionable. It is definitely not the way the film is made that is the let down, but rather the way the story is carried out. Despite the majority of the audience knowing what the outcome will be, there is still no suspense or tension. Although the film is 2 ½ hours long, it does not feel that long and it is actually confusing why so little is accomplished in this time.

This latest adaptation of the Robin Hood legend is nowhere near as powerful as what it should be. It could be so much more, but instead is just very soft and dry. It is still a good watch, as there is some impeccable acting and cinematography. Adventure lovers will enjoy seeing this film, as will fans of Crowe’s work.
6.5/10

Iron Man 2

Iron Man 2
Year: 2010
Director: Jon Favreau
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell

In My Own Words
Ah the action sequel. The second film in a superhero series. There are two givens with a film such as this, high expectations and box office success...and “Iron Man 2” definitely comes with both of these! There was never any doubt that this film was going to make a significant amount of money and draw in huge crowds. The first “Iron Man” was a massive success and delighted movie goers that were not normally superhero fans, which in turn meant a success for the second film as the “Iron Man” phenomenon had such a large appeal. And the high expectations, were they met? Do the majority of expectations for an action sequel ever get met? The answer to both these questions is no.

I pose the question. Are action sequels just made for the money or for the love of the director for the film? I would say both, but an action blockbuster sequel (or any sequel to a film which had any success at the box office for that matter) does equal money, no matter how bad the film is. Don’t get me wrong, “Iron Man 2” was not one of the worst sequels I have ever seen, but it was not one of the best. However, the overall quality of the film in this case will not affect the box office figures. “Iron Man 2” has not received favourable reviews from other sources, yet in its second week it is still topping the US box office. The film does do its job, which is to entertain. If you do go to see “Iron Man 2’, I can guarantee you that when you look around the cinema as soon as the lights go up, you will see the same thing on everyone’s lips, “It wasn’t as good as the first one”.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man 2” is not quite the action packed sequel the world was expecting. While most sequels tend to heighten the action sequences, comedy and sex, it seems like “Iron Man 2” went backwards with all this. Sure the gadgets are all there, but the film just lacks. Even as a stand alone film and completely disregarding the first film, it is still a disappointment. If it were a stand alone film, it would probably be even more of a disappointment considering the stellar cast, most of which are Oscar-nominated performers. The film takes place six months after the last film and the world is at peace as a result of Iron Man/ Tony Stark’s existence. Everyone loves Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr. ), and Tony Stark loves Tony Stark! Stark has now become completely absorbed by his fame and is consistently making rash decisions, according to his partner, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), which land him in hot water. At this point in time, Stark refuses to hand over the Iron Man technology, which earns him new enemies with the government and rivalling companies. To make matters worse, he also has Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) after his blood as a result of past tension between his family and Stark’s. And while Stark has all this going on, he also needs to run his company and find some way of saving the world and himself before it is too late.

As is evident from this synopsis, “Iron Man 2” has way too much going on. Sure these stories do tie in with one another and do make logical sense when watching the film, but it is way too much to feel any suspense. Funnily enough, for an action film, there does not seem to be much action at all and the action sequences that are featured aren’t particularly outstanding. Funnily enough though, the film is very well shot. There are moments of fantastic cinematography which Favreau must be complimented for. Visually, it is a pleasure to watch and it does serve the purpose of entertainment, however dull and overly busy it can be at times. There is no tension or emotion in the film and is not anywhere near as clever as the first film.

It is such a shame for a cast like this to have so little characterization for some, and too much for others. Sam Rockwell in his role as Justin Hammer, is completely and utterly annoying. Rockwell himself is a fine actor as has been proven in other films, but he is so ill-suited to this role. He takes the cake as the most annoying villain thus far this year. He talks way too much and his anger in the film is just laughable. Scarlett Johansson’s character, Natalie Rushman, is completely bland and monotone. She fulfils no other purpose in the film besides looking gorgeous. Mickey Rourke is not bad as the devilish Ivan Vanko, but it is a huge step down from his performance in “The Wrestler”. Again, it is not Gwyneth Paltrow’s best performance, but she is in no way bad during the film. She definitely shows that she has a talent. However, it is impossible not to like Robert Downey Jr. Yes he is obnoxious and narcissistic, but he does it so well. He is extremely charismatic and is, as he was in the last film, the perfect man for the role.

Like many action sequels, “Iron Man 2” does not live up to its expectations, nor does it even reach to low expectations. It is entertaining enough, but there is no “wow” factor to it. It can be silly and annoying, and also dull and lifeless. But who can resist the charm and cool of Robert Downey Jr., who is about the only thing (besides Scarlett Johansson in a tight suit for the guys) makes this movie watchable?
5/10

Beneath Hill 60

Beneath Hill 60
Year: 2010
Director: Jeremy Hartley Sims
Cast: Brendan Cowell, Steve Le Marquand, Harrison Gilbertson

In My Own Words
I am so ashamed that it has taken me 7 months into Movie Critical’s existence to review my first film from my homeland, Australia. It really is very sad how little media attention Australian films receive here in Australia. One would think that they would be insanely popular, but no. I am a big supporter of Australian film as I do believe that there are great Australian filmmakers out there, but the problem is that the Australian film industry is nowhere near as successful of has as much financial support as other countries. According to Screen Australia’s website “Get The Picture”, the total box office expenditure of 2009 was $1087.5 million, with only $54.8 million of this being made by Australian films. 349 films were released in Australian cinemas last year and only 46 of these were Australian films. I can only hope that this review will encourage more Aussies to go and see more home grown movies, and that it will encourage overseas readers to watch out for Australian films at their local cinema.

“Beneath Hill 60” has recently been brought by UK film distributor, Momentum Pictures, which is great news meaning that the world will get to see more great Australian cinema. One of the problems that many Australian films face in being taken abroad is that the films do not appeal to the global audience. However, I do believe that this will not be the case with “Beneath Hill 60”. Yes, there is a lot of Australian slang used in the film, but first and foremost it is a war film based in World War I and has greater appeal than just Australians. It is the best Australian was film since “Gallipoli” and there is no reason why it shouldn’t be considered for the Australian Film Institute Awards in 2011. For our overseas readers, I also have to say that this film was released just in time for Anzac Day here in Australia. ANZAC stands for Australian New Zealand Army Corps and 25th of April is the day that we pay tribute to all the soldiers that have fought for Australia. “Beneath Hill 60” was released on April 17th and was perfectly timed for this occasion.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
A good war film is never an easy ride, as “Beneath Hill 60” proves. It can be completely gut wrenching and tear jerking at times, not to mention completely suspenseful. The hardest part of this film, and indeed any war film, is realising that it is not all just make believe, that there are people out there who have and will continue to experience these horrors. “Beneath Hill 60” is based on the true story of Captain Oliver Woodward (Brendan Cowell), who finds himself on the western front in World War I, working in the underground tunnels below Hill 60. Here, he and his group of soldiers work in the tunnel system to try and carry out the biggest man made explosion to date.

Like many war films, this film shows the horrors of war and how war takes its toll on the soldiers. There are some very emotional and hard-hitting moments, and many scenes that are not for the faint hearted. However, the setting of the underground tunnels does set this film apart from the stereotypical war film of fighting on land, although there is this as well. The script is very well written and tells the story of these soldiers in such a way that it is enthralling from start to finish. The film is very suspenseful, yet the first half is more suspenseful than the second. It seems like the first half and the second half are almost two storylines, but nevertheless, both are good in different ways. The cinematography is good for the most part, but the special effects are not quite as lifelike as what one would hope. The musical score and sound are also fantastic, as is the ability of director, Jeremy Hartley Sims to recreate the warfront and early century Australia.

Brendan Cowell is the star of “Beneath Hill 60” and gives the standout performance of the film. He carries himself beautifully throughout the whole film and shows the change in his character as the film goes on. He is able to be the tough soldier, the smart mouthed new guy, the gentleman and the mentally wounded ex-soldier all in one film and carries each persona out perfectly.

“Beneath Hill 60” may be too much for some people to watch, as it is gory in the way which war films are and can be very upsetting. It shows the ways in which war affects soldiers emotionally and how boys come back from war as men and no man comes back the same as they left. However, it is a beautifully made film and definitely one to be seen and praised.
8/10

Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky

Coco Chanel And Igor Stravinsky
Year: 2009
Director: Jan Kounen
Cast: Anna Mouglalis, Mads Mikkelsen, Elena Morozova

In My Own Words
What is the truth behind “Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky”? The film is based on the novel “Coco & Igor” by Chris Greenhalgh, but there seems to be very little information about the affair between the fashion designer and composer available elsewhere. In every biography of Coco Chanel on the internet, there is usually a passing reference to her relationship with Stravinsky, but nothing of great detail. I would love to read a whole biography book on Chanel to find out how much of this film is actually true, or is it really something that was blown out of proportion? Either way, it does make for good entertainment.

The film was very different to what I thought it would be, as it wasn’t a traditional romance film. It did definitely make me think, which is definitely a good thing. I love it when a film encourages you to think, and not often do you find that a romance can do this. The thing that really got me thinking is, did these two really have a love for each other beyond the physical? They just seem to have fed off each other artistically, but that is all they seemed to have gained from the affair. It just seemed extremely selfish on both their accounts. I know, it sounds like I was expecting it to be a rosy romance story and I admit, I am a romantic. Don’t get me wrong though, I did enjoy being mentally challenged by watching the relationship of Chanel and Stravinsky. And I did enjoy the film.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
“Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky” closed the Cannes International Film Festival 2009 and what better way to close the prestigious French film festival than with one of the most famous French icons herself. Unlike the earlier 2009 release of “Coco Avant Chanel”, this Chanel biopic focuses primarily on her affair with Russian composer Igor Stravinsky, played by Mads Mikkelsen. It takes place in 1920 when Chanel had gained her popularity and was in the process of creating her world famous perfume, Chanel No.5. This film is far from a typical romance, instead explores the complexity of the relationship between Chanel and Stravinsky, as Stravinsky is also married and so his wife, Katia (Elena Morozova) is also part of the complex relationship. This movie is the thinking person’s relationship biopic.
It is also a fantastic film for fans of music, fashion and early century France.

Besides the complexity of the subject matter, there is far more of this film to be spoken about. Many people will find it very slow and that it focuses more on the cinematography than the script and the telling of the story. The ending is also very vague and many people will be very disappointed by it. However, there are also some amazing things about this film. The costume design is definitely one of the best in the 12 months and serves as a fantastic representation of Chanel the brand. The musical score is also brilliant, as is the choreography involved in the opening scene of Stravinsky’s ballet, The Rite Of Spring. The cinematography as a whole is impressive. There are some amazing choices of photography made involving both the actors and the landscape. There is something to marvel at in this film from beginning to end.

Anna Mouglalis is superb as Coco Chanel. She captures the look perfectly and she doesn’t even need to open her mouth to display how much she captures the true personality of Chanel, you can tell everything just by her factual expressions and how she carries herself. Mads Mikkelsen is also very good as Stravinsky and Elena Morozova is definitely notable as the cheated Stravinsky wife. The movie, unfortunately does not involve any high emotion moments, so the acting is extremely subtle. Many people will see this as a sign of easing acting, but all the actors give so much away in just their facial expressions that do indeed make up for this.

Coco Chanel was indeed an extremely strong character, as is shown in this film. “Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky” is definitely the better of the Chanel biopics to be released. There is so much beauty in the film, but not much pace or recap. Don’t see this film expecting to see lovers confessing their undying devotion to one another, but see it expecting to see two artists feeding off one another in order to show the world their best work, as that is what this film is.
7.5/10