My Week With Marilyn (2011)

The white dress, the red lips and the unmistakable voice is finally revived after many years, My Week With Marilyn provides a brief glimpse into one of the world’s most iconic figures from decades past. Many are fascinated with her style, grace and more importantly her private life and what was going on behind closed doors. Simon Curtis has brought Colin Clark’s memoirs of his first job on set of a film (The Prince and The Showgirl) to life, and what a time he would have on this production.

Michelle Williams leads the production with a stellar cast to back her, including Dame Judi Dench as Dame Sybil Thorndike, and Kenneth Branagh as Sir Laurence Olivier along with relative newbie Eddie Redmayne as Colin Clark himself. From the outset I was relatively wary of how Marilyn Monroe would be portrayed but as soon as Michelle Williams appeared on screen you could see it would be smooth sailing from here on out.

Clark’s memoir begins with him describing how he ended up on site at Pinewood studios. Camping out on Sir Olivier’s company couch a job was found, 3^rd Assistant Director and Laurence’s skivy.  From then on his life became work, 24/7, exceeding his parents expectations and his own. After running around on set and in his own time for cast, crew and the big guys, he comes into contact with Marilyn for the 1^st time and is mesmerised.  Slowly she becomes more and more dependent on him as protector and confidant as their relationship blossoms. Clark’s life will change, for better and for worse.

Simon Curtis captured 1957 stylistically with the set designs and costumes. Marilyn being dressed in figure hugging clothes and her standard red lipstick transforms Michelle Williams into her carbon copy. Capturing her unease, vagueness and fear of failing others perfectly, Williams captivates the audience. Very few knew Marilyn up close and personally despite her shortly lived life being controversial and covered by press. Rumours were fuelling information within the press which could prove that becoming the actress completely would be difficult; however Williams rises to the challenge and hits the nail on the head. The only criticism I have is that despite spending most of the time on screen, I still left feeling like I knew very little about the actress and why she acts this way. Why does she need copious amounts of pills to get her through the day? What happened in her past to effect her bright future so much? Maybe lack of information and first hand details is why the film felt incomplete.

Eddie Redmayne appears, young fresh faced and raring to go from the beginning. Full of enthusiasm and enchantment the audience will fall in love with him as soon he appears on the silver screen, and feel for him when things start to go wrong. His character is much younger than he is personally, but his talent shows that he can situatehimself in a place where his life is just starting to take off and the world is his oyster. Despite being in small roles previous to this, he proved he has the weight and talent to carry on much further. I look forward to watching the next project he takes on.

My Week With Marilyn soars above my expectations despite not being as meaty as I wanted it to be. The acting was first class, despite Kenneth Branagh’s annoying accent. One question I find I keep asking myself is what happened to Marilyn, where did it all go wrong after The Prince and The Showgirl?

Immortals (2011)

Men, swords, gore and romance, what more could you want from a film? Everything in the case of Immortals, created by director Tarsem Singh, most famous for The Cell. In tribute to the Greek legends that have spawned many Hollywood films, Immortals had a lot to live up to. Early projects on Greek Mythology such as Jason and the Argonauts (1963), the first Clash of the Titans (1981), and more recently 300 (2006) set the tone and expectation. After seeing the previews I expected a fast paced, action fuelled, gore fest; hoping for it to be much like 300, both visually and content wise. Unfortunately it was not to be.

Chosen by Zeus to become Mankind’s saviour, Theseus (Henry Cavill – Stardust, The Tudors) sets out on a mission to prevent King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler, Iron Man 2) releasing the Titans from Mount Tartaros using the Epirus Bow. If this happens he can then over throw the God’s and rule over human kind….no big deal or anything. So the film begins with a look at Theseus’ life before he becomes hero, legend, God. He lives with his mother in a tiny building in a hole… in a wall… (the wall being a massive side of a cliff). Being a peasants son and a stonemason, he is looked down on and treated with disrespect. Unable to join the ‘good’ army of men who fight for their people, he carried on with the life he was dealt until the day his village comes under the wrath of King Hyperion’s army. Most are slaughtered, leaving him reeling and hell bent on revenge.

The next hour is then spent carrying out the various tasks:  

1. find the magical Bow preventing King Hyperion releasing the Titans

2. Hunting down the ‘good’ army to let them know Theseus and co are onboard

3. De-flower the virgin Oracle

4. Sulk around and fight a bit

I often found it hard to keep my eyes open when watching this, not only was there a lot of brooding and talking, it wasn’t actually worth paying attention too. Henry Cavill despite being alluringly looking is dull at best when acting this part. Mickey Rourke may have been the wrong choice when casting the Greek enemy as he comes across as a thuggish brute, not how I imagine a Greek ruler, albeit a evil one, to be.  The God’s were fleetingly interesting at the beginning however became tedious. Their head wear could have been what pushed it over the edge for me.

The only positive attribute of the film were the final fight scenes. They were engaging and what I expected the whole duration of the film to be like, it’s a pity that expectations are rarely met or exceeded anymore.

Straw Dogs (1971)

Its 1971 and the US is in great turmoil. Domestically, Americans of different races are at war – The Civil Rights Movement having be on going for over a decade now is heading towards its end. On a international front, The Vietnam War has begun and the US have deployed thousands of men to fight against the tyranny of the Viet Cong. Millions of Americans protested the US involvement, major unrest was experience throughout the 50 states. Then along comes a film about a couple David and Amy (Dustin Hoffman- Rainman and Susan George) who have had enough with the constant threat of violence and mutiny in the US and decide to move to Amy’s home town Wakely, England. A quiet southern town in which village life is undisrupted and all previous worries can be forgotten, Straw Dogs (1971) unleashes that mayhem that the couple try to avoid.

It is immediately noticeable that the laid back and classy style the couple have is the polar opposite of every villager. Women, men, girls and boys are all fascinated by the two when arriving in town, maybe because they have never ventured out of that particular area. In comparison to the re-make these ‘hick’ villagers are not slow or thick, but creepy and perverted. The unrefined look of the film only adds to the backward attitude that resonates from the feature.

With the idea of living in a farm house, isolated from everyone, the couple soon realise that employing Amy’s old flame Charlie and his pals to work on their barn may have been the wrong move. They seem friendly and harmless at first but don’t judge a book by its cover. The tension between the characters is palpable from the first moment all feature in a scene together. The English men who are disturbing and wayward prove to intimidate and scare the new comers, hoping to get them to leave town, or at least push them to breaking point. The tension between the couple is also evident, not only do they seem to have a childish relationship, they don’t seem to have a bond you expect a married couple to have or maybe this is just my opinion. The saying “opposites attract” may not work in this case. Hoffman’s fun yet slightly uptight character seems to become exasperated with Amy the free thinking yet childish adult.

As Amy begins to feel vulnerable around Charlie and co.she stops wearing sparse clothing (for the 70s) and dons a bra, but having harassed and entered their house without permission, the men step up their tactics. Charlie, Del Henney, plays foul and forces his way into Amy and David’s’ home, in a very uncomfortable scene. When watching this particular part and thinking back to when this was made, I see their issues with banning it. The 70s was meant to be a progressive era compared to the previous decades. However with everything that was happening in the US at that time, Hollywood may have thought censoring provocative films and showing positive ones was the way forward. Susan George takes the role with both hands and throws everything she has into the attack scene. Confusion takes over her as she doesn’t know how to respond to his advances and then un-adulterated horror as the situation spirals out of control. It was upsetting and unexpectedly more graphic than the re-make.

The film climaxes with realistic violence, resulting from Charlie’s gang trying to get to the mentally handicapped man, Henry, who is involved with a young teens disappearance and now in their home. Dustin Hoffman’s character steps out of his comfort zone, taking on the men now trying to fight their way into his home.  His presence on screen is demanding and chillingly calm, I don’t know if his psychopathic switch just tripped but he got pleasure from taking on these unrelenting men.  His smile says it all as he drives away from the house, Hoffman can always be relied on to perform to task.

The film – obviously not having the same budget as Hollywood blockbusters now or a budget that other films would have had during that era – was well made. The setting of rural England, despite being dreary, worked well. Life is slow and the drive of the people living in the town was non-existent. The actors played the roles of inbred-like nobodies with believability, proving that you do not always need to set a film in the US to make it successful (despite few actually having seen it).

Home sweet home.

Straw Dogs (2011)

Straw Dogs – a term used to describe a type of person that excels during high school only to stay stuck in their home town, permanently. Dreams of moving away, becoming successful, slowly lose focus. This re-make of the 1971 original starring Dustin Hoffman (which was banned when first released because of the controversy of certain scenes) focuses on a wealthy and prosperous couple, Amy (Kate Bosworth - Blue Crush, Superman Returns) and David Sumner (James Marsden - Superman Returns, The Notebook). Looking for serenity and peace whilst working on his new screenplay, David convinces wife Amy to move back to her father’s secluded house in Blackwater, Mississippi.

The setting is ‘south’ through and through, with swamplands and low hanging trees, the audience can feel the dense humidity and hear the folk songs play from thousands of miles away. Very different to the original setting in Wakely, England where the sun’s rays don’t filter through the clouds and its perpetually grey.

On arrival the class difference between the out of towners and the locals is evident. The setting illustrates the low income town in comparison to the wealth that the new couple have (despite one half originally coming from there). The Jaguar they drive into town is prime example of the different walks of life, as everyone else owns dilapidated trucks. A hurricane having just wrecked havoc within the area, means the barn on their land needs of reconstruction work. Enter the 4 men who play crucial parts throughout the next 110 minutes.

The leader of the group, Charlie (Alexander Skarsgård – Melancholia, True Blood) sets his sights on his old flame Amy, possibly thinking she still has feelings for him and they can resurrect their love that died a long time ago. The other 3 men play up to their redneck roles but don’t come off altogether convincing. They try to charm the ladies with their southern drawl, yet undertones of menacing threat remain present. As they begin work on the roof of the barn, Charlie and his men begin to aggravate the couple. Its starts off with small incidents such as loud music, lewd looks and ‘southern’ hospitality, until it begins to escalate out of control. Amy and David find themselves in situations that the men construct out of pure despicableness, until one of the mentally challenged town folk changes this. Then the trouble hits boiling point.

In comparison to the 1971 version a lot of factors have been changed to keep it updated and fresh. The first instalment introduces David Sumner as a mathematician, its 2011 now and he is a screenwriter – more of a rock’n’roll profession. The acting felt different to the original, the men are perverted and small minded, but manipulative using false kindness. The 1971 English males were twisted and oddly inbred.

Alexander Skarsgård is domineering and threatening on screen as one of the three protagonists, he belittles James Marsden’s character time and time again, but in a teasing way that makes the audience hate him less. James Marsden does Dustin Hoffman’s character justice as he plays the hesitant David combined with the right amount of quirkiness. He captures the reluctance that the protagonist has at getting involved in uncomfortable situations until he realises he needs to take a stand. The last 30 minutes of the film show him becoming proactively violent to kick some serious ass. Cue the fire and explosions.

Kate Bosworth however was disappointingly cold. Throughout she winds her husband up, and toys with him, which is possibly the only note worthy part of her performance. Instead of appearing laid back, she cheapened the role. Walking around without a bra on and in skimpy clothes is seen as provocative instead of liberated. The infamous scene that caused the controversy 30 years ago was severely lacking in terror which is surprising as times have changed and there are no restrictions on film content now. They could have really gone for it, but were perhaps worried about shocking audiences, and a drop in sales unlike Sam Peckinpah. She proved she can scream the house down, but it just felt false.

Straw Dogs in 2011 is vastly different compared to 1971. There are different issues occurring in the US now compared to that time period of the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War. Times are less volatile, yet it felt as though it should have been received as it was in the 70’s. Meaning in this day and age it needs to be grittier. There was a certain raw quality to the filming, yet I didn’t feel shocked just stressed. The film kept the audience on the edge of their seat but Rod Lurie needed to add a element of psychological distress to get the full affect.

Rule number 1: don’t piss off your neighbours.

Paranormal Activity 3

2007 and 2010 saw the creation of Paranormal Activity 1 and 2, the third instalment has much to live up to. Being a firm believer in films failing to beat the first release I was proved wrong with the sequel. Lets test the theory for the third time, will the directors prove to scare the life out of the audience…I really hope so as very little fails to do so anymore.

The third chapter acts as a prequel, winding back through time to when the two sisters discover their ability of interacting with the supernatural. Not a skill one takes lightly or favours. Children are anything but ordinary, with susceptibility to things ‘other worldly’ and having fantastically creative imaginations their behaviour can be moulded by so many outside influences. The film takes the audience back to the two freaky sisters childhood home, living with their mother and boyfriend in 1980s California. As with the previous two films, the partner seems to have a fascination with camera’s and filming, think American Beauty but less morose and more abnormal. The use of static cameras are the common denominator of all three films, but still add the tension the films need. 

As Katie and Kristi Rey grow up together Kristi discovers an invisible friend, something many children create for a variety of reasons, loneliness, boredom or over active minds. Toby the ‘friend’ gradually becomes a permanent residence in their family home, slowly developing from an entity Kristi can only visualize to a force of reckoning upon everyone in the household. As Dennis sets up camera’s around the house, realising that something is a miss, things begin to slip out of control. Lights start to flick on and off, Kristi begins to wake at times children should be wrapped up in bed dreaming of Ballet and Barbies. Doors start slamming and noises are heard throughout the house, something is happening and only Dennis and Kristi know it. 

Sitting with fingers digging into the arm of the cinema chair, the directors play havoc with the audiences tension threshold. Figures appear then vanish, in one memorable moment there is some child’s play with hair pulling, only taken to the extreme. The film features the game ‘Bloody Mary’ horror lovers may know, the directors pull influence from films like Urban Legend and Poltergeist but take the viewing experience into modern Hollywood. When the paranormal activity becomes too much and Julie, the mother, finally believes what her family are experiencing they break away. Space should cure all evil, surely.

The children Jessica Brown (Kristi Rey) and Chloe Csengery (Katie) excel and make the film shocking in parts. Adding children into a plot will always make others feel uncomfortable, it’s no longer 1930 with The Hays Code to abide by, children being involved in horrible situations add extra terrifying factors. Although being main protagonists, both adults Lauren Bittner (Julie) and Christopher Nicholas Smith (Dennis) fail to deliver. They act with little believability and rise to the task merely because they need to. Perhaps they don’t believe in Paranormal Activity, but millions pay to see the film because they do, whether they admit it or not.

Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman delivered an acceptable piece of cinematography however it didn’t meet the expectations that Paranormal Activity 1 and 2 set. That’s not to say the twists in the storyline didn’t surprise, maybe they can reign it back with a sequel to the prequel and totally melt the audiences mind. 

How much more can you take?

Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark

Secretly, most loath being stuck in the dark, no matter how old or young. Guillermo del Toro takes the audience back to childhood with memories of monsters under the bed in his version of Don’t Be Afraid Of The Dark. Children of the past and present will remember those quiet moments spent under duvets trying not to shout for their Ma or Pa. The film is loosely based on a group of crazed tooth fairies, who seek young children’s teeth to satiate their hunger. Toro uses his eccentricity and talent at creating gloom and mysteriousness in a childlike fashion, similar to previous projects such as Pan’s Labyrinth.

Set in a eerie Manor that is under renovation in the country, Sally (Bailee Madison, Brothers, Just Go With It), a young girl, finds herself flown over to her father Alex (Guy Pearce, LA Confidential, Rules of Engagement) and his interior designer girlfriend Kim (Katie Holmes, Batman Begins, Disturbing Behavior). Her high flying mother no longer wanting the responsibility and commitment of a child. Being in a new area with strangers including her father, brings Sally to turn to the house and the voices she begins to hear...new potential friends, or are they?

The setting is perfect for the plot, creating the illusion of loneliness, darkness and isolation. With long winding corridors, and huge heavy curtains blocking out light, the mansion fulfilled the requirements and the vast land creates the seclusion Toro needed to instil fear. The plot however lacked the terror I was certainly looking for. Toro created a storyline that sat middle of the fence of both child’s play and adult horror. Preferably he should have taken it a step further and tormented the audience. In some places the plot dragged, so much of it was based on building the loneliness of Sally that it stepped into the realm of boring, instead of entrancing. It felt like it needed to be taken that extra mile to make it worthwhile, instead it bordered on typically average. Average seems to be Hollywood’s expectation level these days.

Bailee Madison who was casted as Sally, and looks uncannily like Suri Cruise (Katie’s daughter) captivated the audience throughout the production, more so than Katie Holmes and Guy Pearce. She had a certain air and maturity that is unusual in children, maybe not so much in child actors. She made the audience want to reach out to her, protect her as children should be protected against the evils of this world. Her apprehension gave the film authenticity, one of the only reasons I liked it.

However Katie Holmes fell into the trap familiar to some actors, for example Matthew Mcconaughey. The trap being repeating the same style and characterization in every film. There’s no doubting her ability at acting like the confused, tense, and tortured women but surely there should be some adaptability with these skills. Guy Pearce, despite having an attractive look failed to simply act, it felt as though he was just going through the motions. In simple terms, it lacked passion.

Don’t Be Afraid Of The Dark failed to live up to my own high expectations. Hollywood no longer produces truly scary films anymore, especially for those of us hardened to the Horror Genre.

I want to be afraid of the dark again, please!

Melancholia

Melancholia, sadness, depression. A perfect word that encompasses Lars von Trier’s film making technique. Melancholia is the oddest disaster movie ever made, with no reference to the impending doom until over half way through, many may seem perplexed with the plot. A new planet has emerged from behind the sun and is on a crash course with Earth minus the special effects.

Similar to Anti-Christ, Lars begins the film in the same fashion, with slow moving, artistic visuals that would not look out of a place as a art installation. The main characters are introduced whilst going about their day, but not in the normal sense, each scene is steeped in gloom and foreboding. Visually the start is eye catching and interesting, but confusion reigns from beginning til end.

Something bad is going to happen, the question is when? Kirsten Dunst (Justine) heads up a cast of heavy weights, Kiefer Sutherland, Charlotte Gainsbourg, John Hurt, Alexander and Stellan Skarsgard in this project. Dunst has moved away from her usual rom com ditzy characters and taken on a role of complete complexity, darkness and seriousness. The film cuts to her wedding day as her and her new husband Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) head to their reception at her sisters beautiful country manor set back from the ocean.
The first segment of the film focuses on this special day, marrying someone you love more than anything else is meant to be joyfully spent with family and friends. Justine (Dunst) however seems to find the whole performance tiring, with no real excitement at being there. Her family and friends seem to have issues with her, perhaps with the end of the world looming this seemed like the right time to let all problems come to head. Her mother hates the institution of marriage and scornfully offers up her words of wisdom at inappropriate moments (during the Grooms speech). Her sister (Gainsbourg) seems to be the stable rock in her life, but no longer wants to deal with her problems. The brother-in-law (Sutherland) is generally annoyed at his wife’s family at how atrocious their behaviour is. Last but not least Stellan Skarsgard plays the arrogant boss sucking out any life that Justine has left. So far Lars von Trier could happily submit this for the Worst Wedding of The Year Award, as the Groom leaves the bride heading off into the dark with his family.

Half way through and I am thinking when will this end, but am also desperate to find what the elephant in the room is, and why Dunst is so self absorbed and depressed, is she dying? Bored?

The second half of the film focuses on Claire (Gainsbourg) and how her life revolves around Justine and now, the end of the world. Justine, who seems to have manic depression comes to stay seeing as their last moments on earth are hurtling towards them at a rapid pace. The family are now obsessed with catching a glimpse of Melancholia (aptly named) and debating over the chances of it missing and life carrying on. Up until now Dunst has played the crazed and manic sister who seems to care about nothing, but over the last hour the audience see’s the switch between characters. When dealing with the end of her life and her familys' Claire looses it, reality slowly slips and she becomes the unstable sibling, looking at Justine to make sense of things. Sutherland who throughout seemed together and logical also slips off the edge.

The first half of the film highlights the tensions that many families experience, either on important days such as this, or in general. Life is tumultuous and the happy Hollywood formula of making life look peachy definitely got ousted when this was written. The film disjointedly runs through two days in a life of a family who don’t know whether they are coming or going. The scenes are hard to follow and for the cinema goer who likes simplicity and easy plots, I definitely advise to NOT watch this. With half the audience walking out because of sheer boredom Lars von Trier has created a product that you will either love or hate. I still don't know where I stand after much debate.

Strangely Intriguing, yet slow. Maybe Trier just really hates the institution of marriage, your life ends when you say ‘I Do’.

Climate Change Central - The Day After Tomorrow

Hello climate change, 2004 saw the creation of The Day after Tomorrow, another film about natural disasters set to destroy earth and the human race. As far as disaster movies go the usual focus is a type of mass devastation, meteorites, floods, tsunamis, tornados, excess snow, rain and sun courtesy of global warming. The list really could go on, and most of the time audiences end up leaving the cinema feeling less than awed.  

The film stars Dennis Quaid (Any Given Sunday, Vantage Point) and Jake Gyllenhaall (Brokeback Mountain, Love and Other Drugs ) as father and son who end up on opposite sides of the US when Mother Nature goes berserk. Quaid, plays a climatologist Jack Hall, who on discovering that Earth is in some serious danger warns government officials of his research and findings. The predicted date will not be in their life time, however on reconstructing results they find it will occur way sooner than forecasted. The government ignore this leaving citizens of earth (America) to carry on their day to day lives. Blissfully ignorant until D Day, leading with the attitude that it’s too late to undo the damage inflicted on earth , let’s deal with it as it comes….if only they knew.

 

Mean while in Manhattan, catastrophe capital of the world, son Sam Hall (Gyllenhaall)  is going about his business with his friends, attending a college event when calamity ensues.  NYC, one of the most desired cities in the world to visit, begins to get hit by the most violent tsunamis, tornados, snow and ice storms. The beheading the Statue of Liberty doesn’t stop it from toppling, against all odds its left standing in the snow. A nice metaphor on American resilience in times of trouble, completely co-incidental.

As he becomes stranded in the New York Public Library after out running a humungous wall of water which rapidly turned to ice, him and his friends switch to survival mode. Now the fight to outlast the weather begins, and Quaid determined to be reunited with his son decides to do the impossible, cover the extreme conditions to get to New York through rain and snow..literally.

The better parts of the film are watching Manhattan get pummelled by everything Mother Nature can throw at it, the special effects are visually striking and fast paced. Although the acting was not the best, and Quaid and Gyllenhaall have certainly stared in better films, its entertaining and the glimpses of impending doom are daunting. Being someone that recycles, walks when possible and is generally worried about the state of the environment, I was anxious it won’t be too long until winters turn arctic, and sun rays will become unbearable.

It’s the end of the world as we know it.

Red State

"In God We Trust........"

A film encapsulating all that’s wrong with religion, Red State throws together sex, sinners, guns and gore with dark black comedy. Kevin Smith (Clerks, the silent half of Jay and Silent Bob) uses his slightly twisted sense of humour to test the horror boundaries.

A small hick town in the United States and its residents find themselves shamed on a regular basis because of the 5 Point Church, its followers and the founding Father Abin Cooper (Michael Parks, Kill Bill 1 and 2, Death Proof). Demonstrations at funerals of the dead gay community fill up their social calendar, whilst the rest of the time is spent abiding by the strictly ‘Christian’ lifestyle as well as listening to Abin’s absurdly entertaining yet sick spiels. The man talks and his people listen, devout doesn’t begin to describe it, think James Jones. 

Unfortunately for three sex-crazed teens, their skirt chasing ways lead them into a spot of bother, i.e. a trailer park in the middle of nowhere with a ‘lonely’ middle aged women. Praying Mantis eat your heart out. After consuming many illegal alcoholic beverages they wake to find themselves in bible belt hell. 


What ensues is a fight for their lives, the psychotic religious sycophants believe killing homosexuals is the best way to reach the pearly gates. God, in this case will see the cleansing of the sinful population of Hicksville as Christian work, clearly the only logical way to reserve a place in heaven.

Whilst calamity carries on inside their Alcatraz style compound the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms division) arrive with John Goodman (Blues Brothers 2000, Roseanne)  leading the small ensemble of men. After being informed of the crazy hypnotic hillbilly preachers’ antics they organise damage control. The Chief of Police however fires a accidental shot, and all hell breaks loose.

Kevin Smith brings in an excellent cast with Michael Parks playing the antagonist, man of God, with sinister charm. He draws in the audience with his smooth southern swagger and absurd ideas. John Goodman, now older and usually casted in less controversial films, suited this role. His immediate presence on screen proved his an old school pro, his years of experience in the acting game shined through. The three young protagonists depict typical small town teens, wishing for bigger and better not glum and insular lives. Billy-Ray, Jarod and Travis sound like the next Kings of Leon yet the actors nail the roles. Tension rolls in waves as the reality of their unlucky situation sinks in.

Terrified, nervous and confused emotions flow from the screen to the audience throughout the hour and a half of insane ramblings, blood splattering death and quirkiness. The cast definitely added credibility to Mr Smith’s latest project as the plot was fairly simple, slightly lacking depth.

Red State = internet dating gone wrong.

Vegas and Vampires - Fright Night 3D

Vegas, vampires and viola you have another teen vamp film however this time expect tension, blood and humour. Twilight this is not, Mr Farrell would kick Edwards brooding ass to Hell and back. The first scene introduces his character terrorizing suburbanites in Vegas, a perfect place for Vampires to live normal lives at night, and get some shut eye during the day. Blacked out windows are common, not just for the average serial killer.

Forward to an ‘average’ American High School, a self confessed ‘dweeb’ Charley (Anton Yelchin, Like Crazy, New York I Love You) has escaped the social boundaries that soulless teens enforce on others to become part of ‘the cool crowd’ His bagged himself a high school hottie and along with her, her attractive friends. His previous BBF’s are a long and distant memory despite one, Ed (Christopher Mintz-Passe, Superbad, Kick Ass). He not only blackmails him in to tracking his missing friend, but also proposes the ludicrous idea that a vampire has come to town, more importantly his neighbour Jerry (Colin Farrell, Horrible Bosses, In Bruges), and preparation is key, Blade style. Its time to man up and protect his new love and mother (Toni Collette, Muriels Wedding, Her Shoes).

The acting skills of some of the cast were lacking in excellence, Charley was sarcastic yet a little lame, and definitely lacking the cheeky teen bravado. David Tennant plays vampire expert and magician extraordinaire Peter Vincent. He lives up to the rude, brash English stereo type, controversial compared to the American general public. His character pranced around in fake tattoos, hair, makeup and leather pants that even Kate Moss would have a hard time slipping in to, reminiscent of Russell Brand, just not as entertaining or eloquent. Colin Farrell makes the film attractive to watch, with his tight fitting tee's, irritable vampy looks and violent behaviour has most women fawning, yet I still feel he could have brought more to the role.

Fright Night 3D worked well as a 3D film, unlike some previous ventures, despite the chunky glasses and misty lenses. With blood splattering, bodies combusting and explosions the creators chose the right special effects to include to make the audience duck for cover and jump. One highlight was finally seeing Vampires turn into the vile creatures they are meant to be, and Jerry the vampire's (Farrell) face is a shocker! Opinions on falling in love with vampires, Twilight style, will definitely change after seeing his ugly mug.

The film strays from the horror genre but keeps the gore, with many one liners the audience chuckled along. Yet I left feeling slightly disappointed it wasn't gorier or frightening. When will a truly horribly enjoyable vampire film be made is the question?

Death is obviously for the light hearted as well.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Everybody had a childhood superhero or comic book character that they idolised and wanted to be, either stemming from moguls of the Superhero brand, Marvel or DC. The last few years has seen Marvel releasing films as fast as a production line produces the costumes, in order to build up to the much anticipated The Avengers. I won’t lie I am dying to see it.  Captain America is one of the hero’s included in the upcoming film, therefore earning the a movie, Captain America: The First Avenger.

Now never having read Captain America comics I went into the film knowing fairly little about it. The lead, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans ,Fantastic 4, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World) appears at first to be a scrawny young lad who has yet to hit puberty unlike his fellow friend and soldier, Bucky. Due to this lack of height or manliness he is rejected as a volunteer by the Army a impressive 5 times . Then Hollywood works it magic and suddenly Steve is presented with a opportunity to become the ‘Ultimate’ war hero. He enters a high tech lab for an experiment and enters a capsule, with bright lights flashing in around 3 minutes the capsule doors open and out steps Steve, with a impressive array of muscles that any body builder would die for. Cue women swooning, including myself.

Captain America it turns out has a sole purpose - to convince people to donate money to the war, he was created purely for propaganda. The hero status dramatically diminishes and herein lies the problem. His not really a super hero, not like Iron Man (who despite being a regular human, becomes special when wearing his suit) or Superman. Captain America as a whole, despite being a “nice guy film” is boring, which makes the it unwatchable. The plot lacked a specialness, it failed to keep me on the edge of my seat in anticipation and at some points seemed disjointed. Chris Evans failed to impress with his unexceptional take on the character, who had no sense of humour and was about as interesting to watch as paint drying. He could have taken it so much further, been a little more risqué and intense.  

Action films are meant to make the audience want to be that protagonist, yet I would most definitely take any other hero or superhero if given the chance. Captain America/Steve fumbled around trying to do good, admittedly he achieves this sometimes, but I just simply did not care. Defending America's ideals was the aim, 

The only enjoyable scene was seeing Tony Stark’s (Iron Man) father played by Dominic Cooper, and Samual L Jackson make appearances. Again linking the production to Marvel and the highly anticipated The Avengers. I plead with the film god’s and hope that it proves to be the best yet. 

Crash and burning like Captain America is not an option.

Keep on Screaming

The horror genre and its film-makers like to recycle plots and formulas, adjusting to make their own chilling rendition but ultimately finding influence from movies past. Some hit the bulls eye, others go sailing past. Scream 4, born from the Scream trilogy follows on from the previous three, it features the main characters from all the prior films, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), Gale Weathers-Riley (Courtney Cox), and Deputy Dewey Riley (David Arquette). Now the 'teens' from the 1st scream-a-thon are responsible, hard working, adults. Do NOT mess with them.

Sidney, a published author, finds herself on the last leg of her book tour with the annoyingly happy PR representative, in, who would have guessed, Woodsboro. Let the fight till the death commence. Cue Ghostface and his legs of jelly, now fully out of retirement and ready for one last stab-a-thon. The teens of Woodsboro should be running scared as Craven pays homage to the first film. This time Sidney, her cousin (Emma Roberts) who plays a very unconvincing petrified teenager, along with friends including Hayden Panettiere the too cool for school film chick with an attitude, find themselves as targets. Expect to see scenes of tension waiting for that smiling face to appear as well as laughs a-plenty, intended or not as he or she begins to pick off the victims, easily some may say.

When remaking another Scream it’s a no no to stray from the techniques that made the film famous in the first place, including the iconic phrase “what’s your favourite scary movie?”. Sticking to the formula that worked so well, Wes Craven features the phone calls from the 80 a day smoker in the beginning scenes and throughout the film, the trio of characters that have stuck together through thick and thin, attractive young women running around wearing little to nothing, and handsome young men trying to save the day, not forgetting the infamous blood and gore from Ghostface's knife.

Horror fans, especially Scream fans will find little parts of previous films included in the fourth instalment, including the ‘Rules to Survive a Horror Film’, re-occurring ‘Stab’ film jokes, and gags about the slasher horror genre as a whole. The Scream series has never claimed to be serious, as every time a new sequel is released it tends to become sillier, outrageous, and hilarious yet great to watch.

Sometimes you just need to laugh at the ridiculousness that is film, sit back and enjoy!

Simply the Best - Good Will Hunting

Having not seen this film in years I recently purchased a copy and decided to become re-acquainted with Mr. Damon, pre-Bourne and Mr. Affleck, pre- J-Lo. Fresh faced and eager to please, Good Will Hunting showcases both Damon and Affleck’s acting abilities as well as their debut in writing.

As soon as the film flicked to 90’s Boston it was amazingly apparent how far film quality has evolved in fourteen years. Do NOT let this cast disillusion on the experience, the film is good, very good.

The story follows young men in the Irish community of Boston, more importantly Will Hunting’s life. The agenda – work, hang out with friends, party in the evening, solve ridiculous math equations in spare time. Damon plays the likeable Will, a cleaner at the prestigious MIT ( Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Whilst cleaning corridors he comes across complex and impossible math equations posted outside the room. He gradually takes it on himself to solve these problems, leaving students and Prof. Gerald Lambeau (Stellan Skarsgard) stunned. As all things in life, when trying to be secretive the off chance of being caught is high. The Professor discovers the mysterious puzzle solver is in fact an average teenager with a more than average intelligence.

Soon Skarsgard’s character learns Damon can use his brain in ways that most cannot, re-calling information as though he had only just read it. A photographic memory is a wonder many wish they could possess however Will feels differently. Being uncommonly intelligent is a burden, with friends and mentors now expecting him to use his remarkable skills to further himself, to do what they can not, the pressure mounts.

As well as being remarkable bright, Will remains haunted by childhood abuse from foster parents after being orphaned. In steps his psychologist Sean (Robin Williams), the treatment being a condition of parole.

Robin and Damon’s chemistry takes on the father/son formula, and works well. Not only do they antagonise each other, but they bond over male favourites, women and sports. Williams who is a lonely widow, who works in a lesser role than his rival and long time friend Skarsgard, responds to Damon’s lack of stability in life. Having always relied on friends Damon finds himself growing out of his home in South End, Boston and his life there.

Throughout Damon’s acting excels, with Affleck taking the back seat in this production. One particular scene in which he embarrasses a student in a bar whilst simultaneously impressing his love interest (Minnie Driver) leaves the audience in awe. Not only is Damon believable in his role as a genius but his unassuming presence makes the film shine.

There is more to life than just coasting along, and the future is brighter than he could have imagined

5.3 days, 7620 minutes, 457000 seconds or 127 Hours.

5.3 days, 7620 minutes, 457000 seconds, no matter how you look at this time frame, being stuck in a life and death situation, on your own, in the middle of nowhere, is unimaginable.

127 Hours tells the story of Aron Ralston the adventure and adrenaline junkie who found himself in a horrifying predicament in the middle of the Utah desert. James Franco (Pineapple Express, Rise of the Planet of the Apes) embodies the laid-back attitude and rugged look of a traveller, portraying the real life character with effortlessness.

For the people that had never heard of this astonishing act of courageousness before, seeing Franco speeding around on his mountain bike in the first few scenes sets the uneasy tense tone of the film. With the blinding colour of the desert and daring stunts, it’s hard not to be instantly captivated. The scenery is desolate, which is clarified when he meets only two women before his plight with the boulder.

As his arm becomes trapped he instantly switches to survival mode, distraught but single-mindedly trying to find a solution to his impossible circumstance. Armed with a backpack filled with necessities for one days trekking, he begins to formulate plans. How to keep warm? Is there any way to move the boulder? How can he make the little sustenance he has last? Every minute spent in the crevice was a minute that could be spent getting out. The movie shows how Aron kept a video diary, a sort of progression to death from Day 1, 5 hours in. A perpetual reminder of the trauma he endured, to be prepared and ALWAYS tell someone where you’re going if you’re alone, or simply to pass time. The passing of time is ultimately what Danny Boyle needed to present when directing this, as visually, it can become tiresome to watch someone wait, and wait.

Franco’s interpretation of Aron’s ordeal shows surprising sanity; his acting hits the mark in so many ways despite obviously not truly understanding the terrifying situation. As the feature includes only one protagonist, in one setting, the composition of the film needs to be attention-grabbing. His behaviour is what the audience monitor throughout the film, going from proactive but realistic in the first few days, to the delusions and hopelessness of his last few hours. Danny Boyle (28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire) incorporated the true life drama with an element of whimsical hallucinations, his interpretation of acceptance.

James Franco delivers a believable and evocative performance. His depiction of grief at not seeing the people he loves the most in the world whilst waiting for death, grips the audience. It’s a tale of desperation that pushes a man to extraordinary lengths.

Live fast and die young obviously wasn’t in his vocabulary.