Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Year: 2011

Director: Rob Marshall

Cast: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Penelope Cruz, Ian McShane

In My Own Words

                When I first heard about the fourth instalment for “Pirates of the Caribbean”, I was completely sceptical. I had every reason to be. When the first “Pirates of the Caribbean” was released back in 2003, it was in my top 5 films for years. After the second and third film, I kind of lost interest. I think I was getting annoyed that the makers were milking the concept for all it was worth and using everything that was great about the first movie over and over again. I loved the freshness of the first one and the fact that there had never been a pirate film quite like that one before. There was romance, adventure, surprises and some good laughs in there. Of course, the second one and third one just doubled everything about the first. They were so over the top that it made it all seem so corny and silly.

                I can see why Disney would want to get the most out of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” phenomenon though. How good is the character of Captain Jack Sparrow? He is a character like none other and always a joy to watch. Disneyland even redid their “Pirates of the Caribbean” ride to include Sparrow after the huge success of the film, which was based on the ride to begin with. Depp deserved his Academy Award nomination for being the true spirit behind this character that will never be forgotten. There aren’t many characters these days which aren’t superheros that people can see not being forgotten in a hurry, so that makes Sparrow pretty special.

                And whether the fourth film is good or not, does it really matter in the eyes of Disney? Of course not! “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” had a $250 million production budget, and since it’s opening on Thursday, it has made $346 million worldwide. According to Box Office Mojo, this film had the highest earnings in its opening weekend in the United States ever. Why stop?

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

“Pirates of the Caribbean” may not have worn out its welcome just yet. Eight years after the first instalment was released, “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” is the fourth on screen adventure of the beloved Captain Jack Sparrow. “On Stranger Tides” is much like the previous films in many ways, but the good thing is that it has learnt from the biggest mistakes made in the second and third films and has made amends for them in this film.

Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) returns and this time he is in pursuit of the Fountain of Youth. He once again escapes the gallows and is again running from the authorities and the newly reformed Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) who are also after the Fountain of Youth. He runs into his old flame, Angelica (Penelope Cruz) who tricks him into coming along with her and her father, Blackbeard (Ian McShane) on the same quest. It is a race to see who gets there first, and who knows how to get there. Also, who can survive the journey.

“On Stranger Tides” is much like the last two “Pirates of the Caribbean” where there is so much going on at once. There are the two main stories of Barbossa’s journey and Blackbeard’s journey, as well as the romance between Philip (Sam Clafin) and mermaid, Syrena (Astrid Berges-Frisbey). However much there may be going on, it is still not quite as busy as the second and third film proving that the film makers have learnt from their mistakes. Because there is so much going on, the scriptwriting seems a bit all over the place. Many of the characters, besides Sparrow, Blackbeard and Barbossa are not very verbally gifted. There are still some good laughs to be had throughout the film, but no real surprises or suspense.

There are some really thrilling and impressive moments in the film. The scenery and landscape used for various scenes in beautiful and the editing and cinematography is very well done. However, there are some boring and drawn out scenes in the film which wind the film down and make it less enjoyable. There is, of course, the farfetched nature of many of the activities undertaken in the film, such as Sparrow catapulting himself from the top of one palm tree to another which resembles something out of a video game. However, “Pirates of the Caribbean” is supposed to be a fantasy so it can be forgiven. Just don’t try this at home kids.

Once again, Johnny Depp is the star of the show. Even though we are now up to the fourth film in the series, Jack Sparrow is still as funny as ever and he in no way has faltered since his first appearance in “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl”. Geoffrey Rush does well once again as Barbossa and Ian McShane gives a solid performance as Blackbeard. Penelope Cruz doesn’t seem completely comfortable in this film and although she fits the part of the female pirate, she struggles with her relationships in the film. There is no real father daughter relationship between her and McShane and there is really no romantic tension or chemistry between her and Depp.

At the beginning of the film, you do start to feel as though you are missing Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley as Will and Elizabeth and wish they would return. Though Sam Clafin and Astrid Berges-Frisbey do pick up the romantic roles in this film well. Sam Clafin’s character of Philip is really a valuable addition to the series and has a great amount of character to him. Although Berges-Frisbey does not say much, she still makes quite an impression on the screen. Not just with her beauty, but also her innocence and fragility.

It is now a fact that there will not be another “Pirates of the Caribbean” quite like the first film, but this film is an improvement on the last two films in the series. It is still entertaining and enjoyable for the most part, but it’s busyness and drawn out scenes of nothingness let it down.

5.5/10

Insidious

Insidious

Year: 2010

Director: James Wan

Cast: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Barbara Hershey

In My Own Words

                Well, today was an eventful day in the cinema. Firstly, I remembered why I hate going to see horror movies by myself. There is no one to take out your horror and suspense on. I have always been known for my antics in horror movies out of fear or shock. The first time I saw “Scream” with my family when I was 14, I got so shocked in the Drew Barrymore scene when the killer threw a chair through the glass door, that I shoved the choc top in my nose. True story. Just ask my Dad. Thankfully I didn’t make the same mistake today when watching “Insidious”. I went for popcorn rather than a choc top. I wish I had gone with someone else to watch this movie though so I could be scared with someone. I also was one of the only people in the cinema, so out of fear I also thought I was seeing things that resembled ghost like figures! This was far worse than watching a scary movie by myself at home because it was a much bigger and darker space!

                So then there was the visitors we had in the cinema, that weren’t ghosts. They were just three teenage school students who joined in the movie halfway through. They came in with a grand entrance of making a lot of noise and sat down in front of me. They continued talking amongst the three of them before I asked them very politely to keep it down. One of the guys then turned around to me and said “Excuse me? Which film is this?”

                I looked at him very suspiciously and said “Didn’t you buy a ticket?”

                “Yeah, but we bought it for “Pirates Of The Caribbean”, and this isn’t it, is it?”

                “It’s Indisious”

                “Is it scary?”

                “Yes”

                As you may be able to tell, I didn’t believe this guy. I know when you are a school kid sneaking into movies seems extremely thrilling and rebellious. I don’t think it really is that exciting, and if you are going to sit through a film and talk the whole way through it, you might as well go and do so in the food court where you don’t annoy anybody. I was quite impressed with myself though, I didn’t lose my temper with them, even when they started talking on their phones. Maybe I am become more immune to people talking loudly in the cinema, although I shouldn’t have to.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

                Could these film makers do anything wrong? It is common for film makers who stay within their genre to become stale and have their new film compared constantly to their last one, yet when the director and writer of “Saw”, James Wan and Leigh Whannell and the producer and director of “Paranormal Activity”, Oren Peli, get together with a $1.5 million budget, you know you have a success on your hands. These film makers knew from their previous experience that a good story and script mixed with horror movie elements make a successful film. “Insidious” is different from the filmmakers past films and is not only suspenseful and creepy, but also at times quite emotional. Above all, it is enjoyable for those who like to be scared and entertaining.

                Josh (Patrick Wilson) and Renai (Rose Byrne) Lambert have just moved into their new house with their three children. Only days after they move, their eldest son, Dalton (Ty Simpkins) goes to bed after a fall and doesn’t wake up the next morning. He seemingly falls into a coma, yet it isn’t like any other coma the doctors have ever seen. When Dalton is moved from the hospital to the family home three months after his fall, strange things start happening in the household. There are voices heard on the baby monitor, strange noises coming from the attic and Dalton’s brother, Foster (Andrew Astor) complains about Dalton walking around the house in the middle of the night, which is impossible in the state he is in. It isn’t until a family friend who also deals in paranormal activities, Elise (Lim Shaye) comes to the house that they come to understand that it isn’t the house that is haunted, it is Dalton.

                “Insidious” is very well written and as a result of this, it is very suspenseful and surprising. It is perfectly played out by gaining suspense and fear as it goes on. The beginning is dedicated to the building of character so the audience can connect with them while the go through the horrors which they do.  It may be a tad predictable to some people in some ways, but there is still the feeling throughout the film of not knowing how everything is going to happen. A trait of all good horror movies is to keep the audience on the edge of their seats, not knowing when something is going to happen. “Insidious” does this perfectly, with not making scary images or happenings occur on cue.

The visuals are actual really quite frightening and may well cause nightmares to some members of the audience. The editing and direction are also very good. The house and rooms in it have the perfect feel for a horror film.

                There are segments of “Insidious” which are quite reminiscent of other horror films. The several shots of the house from the outside are almost like a memory of “The Amityville Horror” and although the story is completely different, there are some factors which remind you of “Poltergeist”. However, with every horror movie there will always be some things it has in common with other horror movies, as there is nothing completely new under the sun. Yet, “Insidious” has a very different script and story than any other horror movie.

                Rose Byrne is perfect as the role of the mother of a sick boy who is feeling like her whole world is caving in around her. Her performance is heart breaking at times, as she really has that motherly instinct that makes her lovable and extremely likable.  On the other hand, she can sure pack a good horror movie scream.  Patrick Wilson is good, but he is overshadowed by Byrne. He is really brilliant in some scenes, but then in others he is quite dull. He isn’t seen as much as a father until closer to the end. The first half of the film he seems to just stroll his way through. Barbara Hershey is very good as the loving grandmother and mother. It is also interesting to note that two of the female ghostly figures in this movie, are actually men! So well done to Joseph Beshara and Philip Friedman for making us believe otherwise!

                “Insidious” is one of those horror films which bypasses the blood, guts and gore and relies more on the story and ghostlier images rather than ghastly. It is a haunted house film, which isn’t to do with the house. Horror and thriller fans will enjoy it, but it isn’t for you if you like a good and peaceful night sleep.

8/10

Burke And Hare

Burke And Hare
Year: 2010
Director: John Landis
Cast: Simon Pegg, Andy Serkis, Isla Fisher, Tom Wilkinson, Tim Curry

In My Own Words
Well, what an intriguing yet disturbing story we have here! "Burke And Hare" gives us the story of two men who make a living out of providing corpses to the world famous medical school in Edinburgh in the early 1800's. The beginning of the movie states that it is in fact a true story...apart from the parts that are not true. So there is only one thing I can do, find out what part is true! Well, obviously the comedy part isn't true. At least I think so anyway. William Burke was actually married at this point in his life, but he arrived in Scotland alone after their seperation. He did fall in love with and live with a prostitute by the name of Helen McDougal. As far as I can tell, she did not appear in an all female version of "Macbeth".

There is a difference as to what happened at the end of the film compared to what actually happened in real life. I have to watch what I say here as it is a major spoiler if I say too much. There is truth in what happens to one of the pair, but not with the other. One of them we definately know what happened to them and the other is fiction. The ending in the film for this piece of fiction is rather glorified. You know, this is entertainment though. Fiction is far more exciting that what really happened. What really happened to this half of the pairing is actually unknown, so anything is more exciting than that! However, it may interest you to know that in Greyfriars Cemetary, there was a terrier who sat on the grave of his soldier master guarding it. Yet again, Bobby the terrier did his guarding in the 1850's onwards, while this movie is set in the 1820's. There is actually a statue of Bobby at Greyfriars!

Otherwise, as far as I can tell everything else is true! It is a rather disturbing story, but you have got to love a black comedy! Well, I do anyway. Give me a black comedy over a crude comedy any day!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
When William Burke and William Hare took part in a business venture which involved murder for profit, it is very unlikely that it would have crossed anyone's mind that one day they may be able to laugh at this. However, time has allowed this to happen. "Burke And Hare" is the recreation of one of Scotland's most notorious crimes as a black comedy. It is a unique mix of fact and fiction with streaks of hilarity throughout the film.

William Burke (Simon Pegg) and William Hare (Andy Serkis) are two Irishmen living in Scotland who are down and out on their luck and flat broke. When one of Hare's tenants who lives in one of the rooms he and his wife rents out dies, Burke and Hare profit from his death by selling his body to Dr Knox (Tom Wilkinson), who uses the bodies for autopsies at his medical school in Edinburgh. As fresh corpses are hard to come by Knox offers them a substantial amount of money if they bring him more bodies. Burke and Hare do all they can to find more bodies, which includes murder.

For the most part, "Burke And Hare" is a very good historical film. It is interesting the way the story is retold and very  cleverly written so as to make a serious situation funny. The biggest downfall of the film in that it does slow down considerably in the middle and get quite boring. This leaves you wondering whether the film is going anywhere at all, because it feels as though it is just stuck in a rut in the middle with nowhere to go.

However, there really are some very funny scenes and it has one of the funniest sex scenes you will ever see. One particularly strange thing about the script is the use of the narrator. The narrator is only around for the first five minutes of the film and again for the last five minutes. There really doesn't seem any point to having this narrator as he doesn't seem to be relevant to the story at all and his narration doesn't add anything to the movie.

The recreation of Edinburgh in the early 1800's is definitely commendable. There is a feeling of dread in the city and the dark feel adds to the mood of the film. There actually are some quite picturesque images of Edinburgh Castle. On the other hand, there are some vile images of corpses being cut open so one must try to leave there stomach outside.

The thing about the characters in this film is that you are made to feel a way about them which would have been completely ludicous in the time which the crimes were actually committed. The audience is actually made to feel sorry for Burke and Hare and see's them as the good guys rather than the bad guy's which history says they were seen as. Simon Pegg's Burke is the more likable of the two with the way he falls in love and feel's that he has to keep doing what he is doing to support his girlfriend. The audience feels sorry for him and has a real connection with him. Pegg is very good as Burke and the persona he creates and relationship his character forms with the audience is very good. Serkis is very funny in his role as Hare, but it is Pegg who steals the limelight from him. Isla Fisher is quite funny as Burke's love interest, Ginny. It is actually her funniest and most likable role in years.

John Landis has done well after his long hiatus from feature length films. "Burke And Hare" is well made and very interesting to watch. It is great to see such a creative stance taken where fact it taken and looked at from a different perspective to see things as they have never been seen before. It is not thrilling or consistantly riveting, but has the right foundations to support it through the dull times.
7/10

Your Highness

Your Highness
Year: 2011
Director: David Gordon Green
Cast: Danny McBride, James Franco, Natalie Portman, Zooey Deschanel

In My Own Words
Well, this movie may not be everyone's cup of tea. If you like crude humour,you will love it. If you don't like crude humour and don't like overuse of the "f-bomb", then you may want to avoid this movie like the plague. I am not usually one for crude humour and with some of the jokes of this nature in the film I could do little more than roll my eyes, but for some strange reason I found Danny McBride's overuse of the "f-bomb" and words of other such nature quite hilarious. I may need to check my temperature. I think it was the way which he swore most of the time was so non-chalant and random that it was just my type of humour. I understand that not everyone shares my sense of humour where I find the random hilarious, so that part of my thoughts about the movie appears in "In My Own Words"!

I've said it before and I will say it again, I have the utmost respect for James Franco. I love that he does movies like these as well as the dramatic film. Why? Because it is just fun! What better way to break up your films than to do a few dramatic films and then break it up with something like this? Plus I love the fact that he studies while being an actor, and he has done as many degrees as he has done. It's great to know that he truly appreciates film as an art form, rather than just what he does for a job. I salute you James Franco.

These are my own words and here is  my review.

Review
"Your Highness" is the most over the top comedy you will see this year. It is completely ridiculous, over-acted and there is no way you can take it seriously. However, the best thing is it knows it is all of these things. "Your Highness" does not try to be anything that it isn't, which is commendable. It laughs at itself and laughs at the genre it is in. It knows it is ridiculous so it plays up to it and makes it no matter how stupid it may seem, it is bearable and even quite funny.

Long ago in a medieval kingdom, there lived a king and his two sons, Fabious (James Franco) and Thadeous (Danny McBride). Thadeous is continually in the shadow of his older brother and the kingdom considers him to be a joke. When Fabious' bride to be, Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel) is kidnapped by an evil wizard, Leezar (Justin Theroux), the two brothers set off on a quest to save her. This could be Thadeous' chance to prove his worth to himself, his family and the whole kingdom!

"Your Highness" will definitely not suit everyone's sense of humour. There is a lot of sexual inuendo, crude language and images and dirty jokes which a lot of people will find downright disgusting. Yet, if you don't mind that sort of things and you can handle the sight of and find funny a minotaur humping one of the king's servants, you will have a good giggle at this film. "Your Highness" was largely improvised and no proper script was used for the majority of filming. When you think about this, it actually gives you more respect for the film and it's actors as they have come up with some very funny lines themselves.

The best thing about "Your Highness" is that it doesn't try to be anything that it is not. It knows what it is and accomplishes everything that it should. It is not a classic, it won't be remembered for years to come, but it does it's job for the here and now. It pokes fun at the fantasy genre and the over-the-topness of some of the key elements of fantasy films, such as the wedding song by Fabious and Belladonna and he valiant prince going to rescue his true love.

There are really no good dramatic performances in the film nor any performances which show what the actor is capable of. All you see is a group of actors having some fun with something different and trying as hard as they can to make their performances as over the top as possible. Danny McBride is the unlikely lead and is repulsive and disgusting as he aims to be. Yet, he is also very funny. James Franco's performance is so exaggerated that it is perfectly suited to the role which he is playing. His character is probably the most wholesome of all the male characters. Zooey Deschanel is good, but her performance isn't anything we'll remember when speaking of her best films. Natalie Portman holds her own well, but she is not particularly funny. While Portman may be at the top of her game in her dramatic roles, comedy is still not really her forte.

"Your Highness" is not for everyone. This point cannot be exaggerated enough. Yet, it is actually refreshing to see such a crude comedy in a different light rather than it being about modern day men on quest for their manhood. If you are open, "Your Highness" is a bit of fun and good for a giggle.
5/10

Water For Elephants

Water For Elephants
Year: 2011
Director: Francis Lawrence
Cast: Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, Christoph Waltz

In My Own Words
I have actually had a close encounter with Reese Witherspoon. Well, not close in that I have met her or touched her...but I have been in the same room as her! I was lucky enough to be in the audience at a filming of "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in November 2008 when she was on to promote "Four Holidays" (otherwise known as "Four Christmases"). It was a stroke of luck to see her really, because she was supposed to appear the night before. I hadn't even realised that Witherspoon had to change to the night I would be going until I was strolling down Hollywood Boulevard during the day and there was the sign! She was lovely. I was very impressed at how down to earth she was. She raved about her children and all of the animals they own on their property. Witherspoon even rattled off all the names of her geese, chickens and pigs! It was so nice to hear her lovingly talk about her life away from Hollywood. I am sure that with her love of her farm animals she would have loved doing this film considering she got to work with horses and the elephant!

The bottom line is definitely go and see "Jimmy Kimmel Live" on Hollywood Boulevard if you are there, because it is basically the only place in Hollywood where you are guaranteed to see celebrities!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
The film maker who decided to adapt Sara Gruen's bestseller "Water For Elephants" was always going to have a winner on their hands. The picture you paint in your mind with the idea of a love story in a travelling circus in the 1930's conjures up glamorous images of women in sequined costumes and all sorts of exotic animals. That's exactly what the Franis Lawrence directed "Water For Elephants" is. It is a visual delight which is entertaining, moving and suspenseful.

Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson) has the world at his feet when he is just about to graduate from college in veterinary science when his parents are killed in a car accident and he is left without a home. By accident, he ends up on the same train as a travelling circus, which needs him about as much as he needs them. As the new circus vet, he comes to know the ringleader, August (Christoph Waltz) and his beautiful wife and star, Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). August has an aggressive streak, which becomes even more evident when Rosie the elephant is introduced to the show and when Jacob falls in love with Marlena.

"Water For Elephants" is incredibly moving and really a beautiful film. There hasn't been many circus movies in recent times and this is definitely the best one in decades. There are some scenes in the film which some people will find quite disturbing and shocking. Yet the fact that we do take these moments in the film so to heart is because the mixture of images, musical score and the cinematography enhances all of our senses to experience what is going on in the film with the characters. The film is actully nail-biting in many scenes and you know the ending could go one of two ways, but there is no disappointment and no sense of predictability.

The images in this film are magic. The way in which all the animals appear on screen is beautiful and loving. Although the brutality of life with a travelling circus is talked about, the brutality even depicted by Lawrence is still in its own way quite beautiful.  The cinematography and editing for the big top scenes are exquisite. The musical score and sound effects all add towards the emotion of each scene and the score for the scenes with Rosie are particularly good.

One of the best things about this film is that the character development is brilliant. Each of the three lead characters have so much character to them and they make so much of an impression on you that you really do take them with you when you leave the cinema. Robert Pattinson's does well in the lead as Jacob, yet he seems to have the least dialogue out of the three main characters. Pattinson relies more on his facial expressions to show how he feels , which works but there isn't any scene which really stands out for him. However, it is great to see Pattinson smile a great deal more in this film than he usually does!

 Reese Witherspoon is just beautiful. She is perfect in this role and shines every moment she is on the screen. Credit must also be paid to her for all the tricks she had to do with the elephant and the horse. Christoph Waltz is also fantastic. He comes into the movie and everyone thinks he is just a typical boss who is protective of his business, but he changes throughout the film in character and becomes more psychotic. What truly is brilliant is that he is scary, but it is so subtle in the way he is aggresive at times and then so obviously brutal at others. Hal Holbrook is also commendable as the older Jacob. He is completely believable and very sweet.

However, the only problem is that the romantic chemistry between Pattinson and Witherspoon is nearly non-existent. You can't really see the love between the two characters at all and there is no heat or passion in the love scenes. They both seem to do well in their roles individually, but there is no chemistry at all to be felt. The older Jacob shows more emotion towards Marlena than the young Jacob. As a result, the film is more moving in regards to the animals and not with the romanticism.

"Water For Elephants" is one of the most entertaining, enjoyable and beautiful films released so far in 2011. It is a beautiful story with beautiful images with beautiful characters. It is not often a book adaptation is amazing, but this one truly is.
8/10

Source Code

Source Code

Year: 2011

Director: Duncan Jones

Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga

In My Own Words

Jake Gyllenhaal is in the position that many, many actors would love to be in. How many actors are typecast in a particular role and can’t seem to break that ice? Gyllenhaal doesn’t have that problem at this stage in his career. It must be a great feeling to know that you can do any genre and any role you feel like, while others feel like they cannot venture outside the roles they are known for as it is too much of a risk, and for fear that nobody will want to see them in these roles. Let’s look at his last few roles. There is of course his role in “Source Code”, which is an action thriller and his role before which was in the romantic comedy, “Love And Other Drugs”. The lead role in Disney’s action adventure fantasy, “Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time” and the brother of a troubled American soldier in the drama, “Brothers”. He has been acclaimed for each one of these roles. He has done many other different roles over his 20 year career. He is a lucky man to have so much freedom with his choice of roles, he will never get bored of what he does as long as he is able to do so many different roles. Well, at least we hope not!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

“Source Code” is the breath of fresh air that the action thriller genre has been waiting for. 2011 has not bought anything new and surprising to the table for the action thriller genre until now. “Source Code” resembles a cross between an Alfred Hitchcock film and “Groundhog Day”, a combination which, thanks to the creative choices of Duncan Jones, works and works well. There is suspense from the word go and surprises along the way with impressive special effects, the exact elements which make up a successful action thriller.

Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up on a commuter train heading towards the city of Chicago in a body which isn’t his own and without any recollection of how he got there. He is accompanied by Christina (Michelle Monoghan), who believes he is teacher, Sean Fentress. While Stevens is trying to figure out who he is, the train which he is on unexpectedly blows up, and he then finds that he is part of a project in which he is inserted into Sean Fentress’ body in 8 minute intervals to find out who planted the bomb on the Chicago train. Although the main object of the source code is to find the bomber, Stevens has different objectives in his mind.

If Hitchcock was alive and making films today, there is no doubt that “Source Code” would be a film he would make. The creepy music in the opening scene with a montage of trains is something which would have just been typical of a Hitchcock film, as well as the psychedelic images that link reality and the source code. While the images are reminiscent of Hitchcock and his film making, the story is completely original. Yes, it does have the déjà vu aspect of “Groundhog Day”, but it has a completely different story and is definitely well written. The “who done it” may not be too surprising to some, but there are other psychological twists and turns which keep the audience on the edge of their seats and guessing. The musical score and images all add to the overall intensity and suspense of the film.

Jake Gyllenhaal once again proves that he can do any role he wishes with putting in a great performance as the once helicopter pilot who is confused and frustrated with his situation. As well as there being the moments of intensity in his performance, there is also surprising emotional moments which show his acting versatility. The film revolves around him and he once again shows how he can hold his own as the lead star with perfect characterization and character-audience relationship. Michelle Monaghan is sweet as Christina, but there is no real substance to her role. There is really no risk involved in this role or any character development. Vera Farmiga is more impressive than Monaghan, but it is still not a ground breaking role. The decisions which should be emotional ones do not seem so. It is Gyllenhaal who is the main star and the one who, rightly so, makes the biggest impact in the film.

“Source Code” is a very entertaining and intriguing film. It keeps the audience’s full attention from the beginning to the end and is something new and not in the trend of Hollywood action thrillers.

8/10

Something Borrowed

Something Borrowed

Year: 2011

Director: Luke Greenfield

Cast: Ginnifer Goodwin, Kate Hudson, John Krasinski, Colin Egglesfield

In My Own Words

Hi, my name is Nicki and I am a fan of chick lit. Cue the "Hi Nicki". It's a girl thing, I know I am not the only closet chick lit addict out there. Personally I will read anything which is thrown at me, I love reading. Chick lit is perhaps the easiest type of reading there is next to children’s books. You will always catch me reading a book of this genre after I have read a fairly dramatic book and I need some light reading. Some of the chick lit authors who I happen to be a fan of are Marian Keyes, Sophie Kinsella, Weisberger and the pairing of Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus. There are many, many more great chick lit authors out there who have made a name for themselves and provide a good break from our lives in the form of the written word, but these are just my personal favourites.

So why is it that it is not often that a chick lit book adapted into a film is actually a success and an acclaimed film? I can think of more chick lit books which are a good read and successful on the bookshelves that are flops when it comes to a screen version, than are, as we so often hear, as good as the book. I’m not saying that all chick lit novels adapted are ridiculous films because this is not true at all. Just look at “The Devil Wears Prada”. Great book as well as a great film which earned Meryl Streep an Academy Award nomination and catapulted Emily Blunt into stardom. Yet, films such as “Confessions Of A Shopaholic” and today’s reviewed film, “Something Borrowed” are just messy and all over the place. The book versions flow from start to finish and are a load of fun, but the films are the opposite. They are pretty to watch with lots of fun things such as shopping, New York City and weddings thrown in which make every girl happy, but these things aren’t enough to make a good film. You watch the films thinking “If I actually read this, it may have worked”. I can’t understand why so many film makers fail to make a good girls film out of a book. The better “girl films” come from actual screenplays rather than novels.

If I am a girl and talking this way about my dislike for the majority of films adapted from chick lit, I only hate to think what men think about them!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

“Something Borrowed” has everything in it that makes a good girl’s film. It has romance, best girlfriends, the setting of New York City, parties, a wedding….sounds a lot like “Sex And The City” so far, doesn’t it? It has everything that makes a good girl’s film, only it isn’t a good film. It is messy and can be quite boring the way it shuffles along with no real direction or urgency. It is the pretty, girly themes and images which keep this film interesting over the slow 103 minutes, but of course it is only girls who will find this interesting. The majority of men who’s wife or girlfriend will drag them along to see this will be checking their watch every few minutes to count down till the moment they can run back to the world outside. “Something Borrowed” actually really could have been a lot more successful than what it has turned out to be, but director Luke Greenfield just made some really left field creative decisions which haven’t paid off.

Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin) and Darcy (Kate Hudson) have been best friends for as long as they can remember. Rachel has always felt that she has always been in the shadow of centre of attention Darcy, especially now since Darcy is engaged to Rachel’s old law school buddy, Dexter (Colin Egglesfield). One night after her 30^th, Rachel reveals to Dexter that she used to have a crush on him and one thing leads to another. As the wedding gets closer, Rachel and Dexter become closer without Darcy knowing. Rachel battles with her inner demons knowing that she is in love with an engaged man, and that she is in danger of hurting and losing the best friend she has ever had.

Possibly the worst creative decision for this film was the idea to have the film start in present day and then have flash backs to the college days of Rachel and Dexter. The diving into the conflicted situation in the present day doesn’t create any shock or any other emotion for that matter. No character development or any type of relationship between the movie and the audience has been established so how there is supposed to be any feeling associated with what they are seeing on screen? From there, going back and forwards just loses intensity of the situation of hand and leads to the unsteadiness and messiness of the film. Once Rachel and Dexter first kiss so close to the beginning of the film, it feels way too fast for the film. It is funny because it tends to drag in the middle of the film where it should be moving quicker and it moves too quick at the beginning of the film.

The best part about the film is the pretty images of New York City and the Hamptons. The themes are enough to keep the female audience interested and it does have some romantic, cute and fluffy moments. There are also some very funny lines and scenes throughout the film. Yet, these are just a set of moments which don’t really add to the story, they are all just there to make the film seem more attractive.

Ginnifer Goodwin is one of the only things which keeps the film bearable. This is Goodwin’s first lead role since her success playing Margene in “Big Love” and she proves herself by being extremely likable and sweet. After the diving in of her and Dexter’s first kiss, there is a great amount of character development for her Rachel. For the situation which she is in, the audience backs her in a situation in which people would rather back the man’s fiance. Kate Hudson is, on the other hand, not likable at all. Yes, it is planned that as Rachel is the one which the audience is rooting for, Hudson’s Darcy shouldn’t be as likable. Hudson is starting to fall victim of being typecast in the same roles we see her in in romantic comedies, so this role really does not seem like anything special. She comes across as annoying and even laughable in the scenes where she is in anger. Colin Egglesfield is also nothing to write home about. Nobody believes that he is really in love with Rachel and he just comes across as dopey and a silly little boy who has no idea what he wants. John Krasinki’s role as childhood friend Ethan is almost useless and it really is a wonder he was included in the movie at all. Obviously, he had a larger role in the novel and was to be kept in the movie to keep it true to the novel. He is actually a saving grace for the small part he plays and his comedy antics.

Unfortunately, there is not too many good things that can be said about “Something Borrowed”. It is quite a shame really as with a few different decisions in the making of the film, it may not have been a classic, but it would have been better than what it was. Thankfully, the decision to have Ginnifer Goodwin as the lead and have the film set in New York City (even if it was in the book) put some credibility into the film. Just a word of advice to the girls out there, keep the peace in your relationship and don’t take your man to see this. He won’t be happy with you and you will probably have to go and see that action film with him that you have been trying to avoid.

4/10

Fast Five

Fast Five ( Fast & Furious 5)
Year: 2011
Director: Justin Lin
Cast: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Jordana Brewster, Dwayne Johnson

In My Own Words
This was one of those films I didn't think I would enjoy. I've never been one who is really into cars  and honestly, a lot of the names of cars they spoke about in this movie they might as well have been speaking another language because I had no idea what they were talking about. I know I wouldn't be the only one who felt like this out here. Yet, "The Fast & The Furious" series is funny like that. It's not only people who love cars who see these films. It's got cars and action for the male audience and the "eye candy" for the female audience. How clever are the film makers? They have all bases covered! So if we talked about an action film about cars, and one did not know we were talking about "The Fast & The Furious", we would normally think that this would be primarily a boys film. Yet, they add a pretty male face such as that of Paul Walker and the muscle of Vin Diesel, and voila! We have a film that girls are going to flock to as well! Of course, these decisions were made 10 years ago when the first "Fast & Furious" came out, but actually watching the 5th installment as a critic made me realise that love or hate the films, first movie director Rob Cohen definitely know he was onto something!

And no, I never hated the films. They just happenned to be one of those things that reminded me of a bad stage in my life. Just like songs that you relate to a good or bad stage in your life, movies will do the same for me. For example, the first and second "Fast & Furious" were released at a bad stage in my life and were a favourite of some people who weren't too nice to me at that stage. Therefore, the films left a sour taste in my mouth. Thankfully that stage and those people are long gone now and this film has cured my allergy to them! On the other hand, films can also give you good memories. Take for example, "Disturbia". Not one of my all time favourites, but it always make me happy because I saw it for the first time when I was in Los Angeles for the first time. Also because I was lucky enough to be in Hollywood the night of it's premiere! I'm not saying I critique films purely on my personal and emotional experiences with it's release, as that could not be further from the truth! Yet, the thought of different films will always provoke different feelings for me based on what was going on in my life at the time.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
One would believe that once the 5th installment of a series of films comes along, the franchise should be losing it's intensity. "Fast Five" does everything but prove this theory correct. "Fast Five" is one of those action films that stays true to it's genre, there is no lack of action or special effects. Unlike many other action films, this one doesn't lack in the story. Sure it has it's moments where the script is quite corny and the acting dull, but it is able to carry the storyline through in a straight line from beginning to end with the action being welded into it.

 Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker) and Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) meet up again in Rio de Janeiro to try and win a life of freedom. They assemble a group of players in order to cut one of the countries richest businessmen of his fortune and take it for themselves. Of course, this is no easy task. They have to do so with Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and his hand picked agent, Elena (Elsa Pataky) watching their every move.

It is always a delight going into a film which you suspect will have no substance only to discover that the film in question is more than just impressive explosions and slick-looking cars. "Fast Five" is able to carry the story through from beginning to end and is one of those rare films where if you took all the action away, you will still have a fairly decent movie. Although it wouldn't be anything like what it is now and wouldn't be any near as interesting. However, the film does tend to have some moments where it feels like not much is happenning at all, which does detract from the overall suspense.

The cinematography and special effects are great, as are the sound effects which accompany these visions. Even if you know nothing about cars, they are very impressive and can do some amazing things. Although, there isn't as much of the film focused on the cars as such. The cars are just there as tools for the big mission. This is a good thing really, so those who are not big car fans can enjoy the movie rather than be bombarded with automobile references.The location shots of Rio de Janeiro are extremely impressive. The camera is able to grasp many different aspects of the city. It shows the beauty of the landscape, the brutality and danger of the residence and also the fast paced city life.

The lowest part of the film is the acting, but "The Fast & The Furious" movies were never supposed to put forward contenders for the Academy Awards so it can be forgiven. There really isn't any stand out performances in this film. Perhaps the best performance is from Jordana Brewster who plays O'Conner's partner and Torretto's sister, Mia. One scene in particular she is quite impressive in when she is trying to protect her brother. However, one has to wonder how a pregnant woman can jump through roof's and run through the streets of Rio. Dwayne Johnson's performance is very lame and his part very stereotypical of his acting range. Paul Walker and Vin Diesel may be the stars of the show, but their acting just mediocre.

"Fast Five" is an entertaining 130 minute action spectacular. Although very unrealistic just in the way a good action flick should be, it is suspenseful with extremely impressive visuals and special effects. One for the girls and boys.
7/10