Pages

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Open letter to the Braff brothers on "Wish I Was Here"

Gentlemen, 

What you have created here, is nothing short of a masterpiece. You have an inimitable way with words and ideas that when strung together in the manner you have, create an astounding and inspiring work of art. From your take on religion for the non-religious, to your ability to convey meaning and gratitude in the smallest of things; the wealth in 'family'; the honesty in parenting and the beauty in sincerity and simplicity; you have succeeded in inciting emotion in even the most unemotional person. 

In this film, it isn't just your main protagonist who is looking for answers, it shows that everyone, everywhere and in every walk of life is searching for more, everyone is afraid of never being enough, never living up to expectations, being confined to the monotony of working to survive rather than following their passion or moreover, never finding it. 

While the focus may be on Aidan, chased by death and expectation throughout the journey, fearful of what lies ahead, every character is battling the same war. Grace (Joey King) is seemingly searching for herself in religion yet it's clear throughout that she is the strongest of them all - her fervour for education and knowledge, her envelopment in Judaism and her sense of conviction about what is right and moral and what is kind and just, cements her as the strongest, most confident of all the characters, whether the rest of them choose to realise it or not. It is Grace that is able to get through to even the most closed-off characters in a manner that astounds even them.
Sarah (Kate Hudson) is trying to be an attentive mother, a supportive partner, a hard working employee and struggling to find where she fits in to it all, other than being the one solid thread tying everything together and becoming increasingly frightened as she feels herself starting to fray . 
Noah (Josh Gad) is trying to escape responsibility, escape emotion and connection and yet he craves it, needs it and in that, he is fearful.  Even Tucker (Pierce Gagnon) is trying to work out what is right among the stories he's told in school and the lessons he's learning every day of his life.

The film is shot so beautifully, every shot, no matter the content, is carefully planned and executed, mindful of the light, the most minute expression, the most expansive landscape. When we go on vacation, we say "Wish you were here" even though we don't, it's really a self-promoting, show of our good fortune but in "Wish I Was Here", it's an existential plea for wanting to live in one's own life. 

No question is silly, no answer ever patronising and while this film asks some vast questions, the answers - or rather, ideas of answers, are insightful and profound. Some go wildly against what we've been inculcated to believe and in breaking through those barriers, lends us a freedom that this film advocates in spades. 

It's an examination of contentment, an exploration of language and thought; of knowledge and meaning; passion and confidence, of lessons learned from the smallest being, the most mundane object or the most seemingly ineffectual moment in time, all enveloped in language from what will likely be the most quoted script, of yourselves as writers, or the late greats the likes of T.S Eliot, Robert Frost and Shakespeare and in the serene and complementary soundtrack that delicately draws you further into each scene. 

"Wish I was Here'  is a spectacular film and I'm so proud of the work you have done to irk out a small slice of profundity in an industry of predominantly nonsensical projects dedicated solely to mass entertainment. In this film, you've not only asked the big questions and have tried to answer them with profound resolve, but you've given even seemingly mundane items like contact lenses, grand importance and life, through all the things they've seen. 
The lessons learned are not only about passion and contentment, about simplicity and growth but that in not getting too caught up in where we think we need to look for spirituality or meaning but rather an expanse the likes of the infinite universe and imagining what that force may be trying to guide you through in the most challenging part of your life, no matter what form that guide may take, no matter what direction it may lead, just in accepting what comes, driving yourself forward and believing in the sense of self and in the pursuit of passion.

Congratulations on this grand accomplishment.


Thursday, March 19, 2015

The Divergent Series : Insurgent Review

I’d been looking forward to Insurgent ever since ‘Divergent’ came out. After watching ‘Divergent’, I pored over the book (and the following two in the series) wanting to perpetuate the story I’d just seen on film and while the two books that followed ‘Divergent’ felt rushed to me (I felt like so much time and work had gone into ‘Divergent’ and building the world and developing characters etc and felt like once Roth got a book deal and suddenly had a few months, maybe a year to push out two sequels, she didn’t give them the same attention as she had ‘Divergent’ and so certain character progressions felt forced or not in line with the character’s original self and felt that more time was needed to properly craft the sequels that was not given), they did fill the void left after the ‘Divergent’ movie screening.

I was aware that the film would differ from the book, that aspects like Tris’ aversion to firearms would fall by the wayside in favour of the action-packed, gun-toting badass they wants Tris to portray in the film version, or the mystical ‘box’ that in the book was a hard drive and didn’t exist in the same capacity as in the film, but there were also many discrepancies I didn’t expect.

The scenes in the book flow with a natural ease, there are soft romantic moments to build on the FourTris relationship and give it some natural progression, there’s explanation in adjoining scenes that helps to again, progress the storyline, however in ‘Insurgent’ the film, many important plot progression scenes are omitted and quite dramatically jump from one to the other, huge time period in between skipped over, leaving the audience feeling as if they’ve missed some explanation or story evolution. There’s simply no sense of consistency.

Pre-released clips, while shown in part in the final film, are missing important parts that have been omitted, I’m guessing, in favour of time for more special effects.

Fan favourite lines from the books are either omitted or have been given to other characters from other factions that have no relevance to the initially written and intended lines from the book.
One example being ‘I’ll be your family now’, something Four says to Tris in ‘Insurgent’ (book) but this line was given to Janine who says it to Caleb in Erudite after Tris ‘dies’. (Another scene which lacked the preceding scene that would have lent more explanation to the ‘death’ scene).

The first film played with light in such an inherently beautiful way - the scene where Natalie is cutting Tris’ hair, the scene where Tris and Four are on the balcony, the scene where Tris wakes up in Four’s apartment - all shining examples of the stunning effect light has on the film. In ‘Insurgent’, light is included, seemingly as an afterthought in only a couple of scenes and not as well done as in the first film. At one point, during basically the only kiss in the whole film (considering the target audience and the number of romantic moments in the book, one would have thought the director and screenwriter would have translated them all to screen), the pair are so engulfed in darkness that it may as well have been two key grips making out for all we could see and the kiss had zero chemistry whatsoever. (Also implied that they had s** which they don’t in the books until it is implied in ‘Allegiant’.)The soundtrack was also much softer in ‘Divergent’ which was traded for a faster paced and harder score in ‘Insurgent’.

To me, the director has put the budget and the focus into creating an action film filled with the most visually dynamic special effects, (I actually didn’t think it needed to be in 3D either as the 3D effects were minimal), and while with the book spending so much time in Tris’ fear landscapes and simulations, it would warrant some special effects, this was done more minimally (and more honestly in my opinion) in the first movie than the over-the-top effects of the second.
I can’t really fault the special effects, they are done well for the most part and do transport you in to the simulations to some avail but that they were the focus, rather than the integrity of the storyline is ‘Insurgent’s’ downfall.

Most importantly, special effects or shoddy scene progression aside, this film lacked ‘heart’. In ‘Divergent’, you were rooting for Tris, you saw her fighting, pushing herself to stay in Dauntless, to succeed coming from an underdog stance as the weakest one, pushing herself while injured to ensure she doesn’t get left behind. You root for her when you watch her fight for the rights of her fellow Dauntless, putting herself in place of Al in the knife-throwing exercise, you root for her and Four as you watch how badly he wants to tell her his secret and have her tell him the same but can’t break through because they’re both afraid, you root for them as they come together and you let out a sigh of relief that had been caught in your chest when he reaches for her hand in the train with the Dauntless soldiers, signalling that he too is Divergent. You root for them as she breaks him free of the simulation, as they fight to shut down the simulation and then you’re caught by the look of awe Four has on his face when he realises Tris’ has won, that she’s done what he couldn’t, the Stiff from Abnegation, triumphing over Erudite and Dauntless, and finally you’re swept up in the embrace they have on the train where Four is comforting her as they flee the city.

In ‘Insurgent’ however, the heart is gone, the chemistry that once flooded from Tris and Four is notably absent’ and the characters feel stiff and unfeeling, like two strangers who know nothing of each other thrown together in a room and being told they’re in love. I understand that Tris is hurting, she’s affected by the loss of her parents and her guilt in killing Will, but it also doesn’t translate as well in to film as it did the book. The Tris in the book just pissed me off, her constant fighting with Four was overkill but was necessary to the progression to ‘Allegiant’ and was notably entirely left out of ‘Insurgent’ (including almost all contact before and during her incarceration at Erudite), her aversion to firearms was natural’ but in my opinion, overdone, but the Tris in the film is just angry and she’ll beat a guy to death, throw people from trains, shoot people or try to stab people with a sociopathic ease and her conscience over Will is only referenced in a couple of nightmares and under the Truth serum (which I preferred in the book).

FourTris in Divergent
FourTris is Insurgent
The absence of ‘heart’ doesn’t only extend to FourTris, but also to the overall film. You feel detached from the characters; you’re not rooting for them, not feeling for them or even fearing for them.
The plot holes and scene jumps felt forced and made it hard to identify with the characters, there was no chemistry, no passion and no life and honestly, to me it just felt like an extended sequence of sci-fi film trailers rather than the beautiful story Veronica Roth wrote. I feel that if ‘Insurgent’ had carried on the inflective narration of ‘Divergent’ from the beginning and end of the film, it would have helped the audience to relate and would have referenced many of the beautiful narrative lines Tris’ says in ‘Insurgent’ the book to help propel the story or build the character. ‘Insurgent’ didn’t cater for audience members who hadn’t seen ‘Divergent’ either, without Tris’ narrative to
introduce it and with only two crudely cut together flashbacks, my fellow movie-goer who hadn’t seen Divergent was heavily reliant on me to explain what was going on the whole time and how one scene related to the next based on information we were given in ‘Divergent’ that hadn’t been referenced in ‘Insurgent’.
It is my hope that they return to the direction of ‘Divergent’ for ‘Allegiant’ parts one and two. 

They’ve now left out so much of the story that was important to the next installment that I’m not sure how they’ll recover. They left out the butter knife scene from ‘Divergent’ which set up the character of ‘Edward’ for ‘Insurgent’, a major character that apparently due to scheduling conflicts with the original actor was substituted for a non-existent character, ‘Edgar’ who took over effectively what was Edward’s role in ‘Insurgent’, they left out all the conflict (and chemistry) and evolution of FourTris that happens in ‘Insurgent’ to such an effect that it doesn't allow for the progression to ‘Allegiant’s’ storyline and perhaps this is good news for readers/ watchers who are hoping that the big reveal of ‘Allegiant (part two) will not eventuate, that the story will be rewritten, but based on what I’ve seen of ‘Insurgent’, unfortunately, I feel that ‘Allegiant’ will again miss large portions of storyline and progress down the action-movie route, allowing the story we've all fallen in love with to fall by the wayside, only available to us in Roth’s original prose.
My thoughts exactly Tobias, my thoughts exactly.
I’m really just disappointed. Yes, it’s visually dynamic, but even the most visually dynamic advertisement is still made to evoke an emotion in the audience.


Saturday, September 28, 2013

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

It's rare that I find a film that really touches me. A film that I could possibly praise as high but I truly believe that "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" is the film that defines - not only our generation - but every generation.
It is the film that takes all the trauma, the pain, the life, the frivolity, the purity, the essence of being a teenager, of being any age - that feeling of standing on the outside, the feeling of being accepted, the feeling of being completely bat-shit-crazy and the pressure to reign it in for some semblance of acceptance in mainstream culture.

The film shows how music plays such a pivotal part in our lives, how it explains who we are and how we live. How one song can mean everything, like a sense memory, it defines us and simultaneously heals us, brings us to a future we haven't seen yet but know we'll achieve.

Every part of this film was effectual. The language, the words, the images and music, the emotion and power - all carries great effect and even the most uncaring viewer, like myself, will find that they care about Charlie.
This film is the 'On the Road' for the non-road-tripping generation. It's for those that stay at home, that have to stay caught up in the bullshit, stay entrenched in that feeling of loss and pain that is seemingly never-ending.


I managed to escape my own adolescence rather unscathed. I was friend with all different groups in high school, I wasn't bullied, I got good grades without being a nerd, I was weird and crazy and entirely myself. It was actually my twenties, when I began to read more, began to live more and that's when I started taking note of people's opinions and altering myself to fit in (ironically) and this film explains that period of estrangement perfectly for me.

The film stars Logan Lerman as 'Charlie', the lead protagonist who is just starting high school, completely devoid of friends and just counting down the days until he can leave school and live life. One day he steps out of his shell and tries to forge himself forward, to try to make a friend and he strikes up a conversation with Patrick (The supremely creepy 'Kevin' from 'We need to talk about Kevin' - Ezra Miller, who was wonderfully delightful in this film). From there, he is introduced to 'Sam' (Emma Watson) and their group of friends and is inducted into their 'island of misfit toys'.


Charlie's life changes dramatically, he is introduced to music and frivolity, encouraged to be himself, to push himself, to pursue writing and his passions. He learns about love and friendship, he learns about life and the choices he makes, about truth and mental illness and what he represses or displays.



Nina Dobrev also stars as Charlie's sister 'Candace' and by her success with 'The Vampire Diaries', I'm surprised she didn't gain a bigger part, but she was wonderful, especially towards the very end.
There's a one-sided pen-pal who helps Charlie evolve through their silence, like a sounding board for Charlie's thoughts, a conversation with his subconscious self.

Set in the nineties -mix-tape-generation of teens, it points out the importance of friendship, or having a truly great teacher who inspires you and encourages you, of having people around you who truly support you and your passions. It describes life, a writer's heart and mind's ability to escape - whether intended or not. It describes change and important events, it is the highs and lows of life and finding out who the hell you really are in a sea of mimicries.

This film truly is, infinite.

What: The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Directed by: Stephen Chbosky
Based on Novel by: Stephen Chbosky

Trailer: 



Thursday, June 21, 2012

Snow White and the Huntsman


I have to say, I was really excited to see this one. Not because it stars Kristen Stewart with all of her Twilight fandom but rather that here, finally was a new take on the Snow White tale, hot on the heels of the truly god awful (should-be-ashamed-to-call-itself-a-) film 'Mirror, Mirror'.

While at first, upon hearing Australian Chris Hemsworth narrating in an...I'm gonna say Scottish accent, my memory flashed to the searing sound of Anne Hathaway attempting to be British in 'One Day' - a dismal attempt- and made me question the quality of the acting for the rest of the cast, but as soon as Kristen Stewart and Charlize Theron spoke, it became quite clear that all worry was for nothing.

I loved the scenes in the Dark Forest and in Sanctuary where things really got supernatural, at times creepy and consistently creative. Kristen Stewart was believable as Snow White- not just for her looks (though was confused as to why young Snow White had brown hair?) - but for her ability to play action so well without giving up that necessary air of innocence.



Kickass girl flicks these days are generally unbelievable - an everyday girl randomly becomes badass out of nowhere, able to take down opponents with the greatest of ease, but here, Snow White is consistently frail, opposed to killing anyone, gentle and innocent, pure of heart and instead of her moxy or her inner Buffy, it's her strength of character, her courage that drives the picture, that brings together armies and makes the action actually believable. You completely buy that this girl could command an army.
For all the Kristen Stewart haters out there, you can't fault the girl in this movie, she has this uncanny ability to convey every emotion with her eyes- something she couldn't do behind those contacts in the Twilight Saga. I thought she was wonderful.

The effects are fantastic and as a testament to the demand for quality, the director, in one particular scene, decided that the fake blood on screen looked too much like raspberry jam, so substituted it for his own blood to make the effects more real.

The emotion in the film is a baseline and not a focal point and yet it is still very affecting where it needs to be. The score is lined with a lot of haunting ...I'm gonna say Irish.... melodies and the cinematography is simply breathtaking.
While the use of (no-idea-why-they-call-it-steadycam-when-noone-in-Hollywood-is-capable-of-holding-it-steady) Steadycam in the bar fight scene toward the beginning is difficult to sit through, the rest of the filming is done so beautifully, so seamlessly and with such impeccable art direction that you're really captivated for the full 2.5 hour runtime.


Don't be a jackass, don't be 'that guy'. This film may be aimed at the ladies being a fairytale and all, but the romance is sparse, the action- heavy, the supernatural aspect- well rounded and creative and the fights, epic. Ladies, you'll feel empowered - until, like me, you reach the cinema doors and have to drop your shoulder and heave yourself into the door to get it open...heavy doors- a man's work.

That's all I'm going to say because I don't want to go giving anything big away. It's a damn great watch - even if the end was a bit shit, for the two and a half hour runtime, you'll be captivated and empowered, affected and mesmerised.

Here's the trailer:

Saturday, April 14, 2012

The Hunger Games

Sorry Hunger Games, but no - I will not be jumping on your bandwagon. After avoiding watching the film like the plague, I was left without an alternate choice of film to watch and thus begrudgingly made my way to the theatre. For something that is supposed to be the Twilight Saga's biggest box office rival though, it seriously fell flat.


The camera operators can't seem to hold the camera steady, even if their life depended on it. The shots were messy and ill composed, and the effects, amateur.
The lead actress - who I should add is supposed to be starving- is chunky and therefore entirely unbelievable in the role. Her character is supposed to be from a poor district, one where she survives on handouts of very occasional bread, whatever she can gather and however many rodents or birds she can hunt - in reality though, she is very 'full figured' and looks as if she hasn't turned down a steak dinner or three tiered wedding cake in her life. Her ability to portray emotions accurately is non existent with Lawrence either grossly exaggerating or underplaying them when the role called for it. She came across as malignant, almost entirely vapid and blank and while a heightened situation such as the Hunger Games may suggest that the pairing of Peeta and Katniss may be logical, the fact that she only decides to give a crap about him when she finds they can both win the games, coupled with the fact that she's seemingly forgotten his actions up to this point add to my disdain for her and the strength of character Katniss clearly lacks. She already has something going on with a guy at home but blatantly ignores this to make out with a new guy, on national television no less. Poor guy.

Isabelle Fuhrman from 'Orphan' was great and I wish her role had been expanded, she plays the psychopath oh-so-well. Rue was another catch but again with the death. So many have complained about the racial choice for the character which differs wildly to that of the books but having ignored the books for a disdain towards young adult fiction, it made no difference to me.

My wish for the movie was that apart from a better choice of cinematographer and crew of camera operators that have worked in the industry for more than a day, would be that the translation of the book wasn't quite so literal. The overly vibrant colouring and costuming was too much and Elizabeth Banks' costumes specifically were atrocious. I understand character acting completely and the more logical choice for Banks' role would have been Helena Bonham Carter but alas... no such luck. It seems to me that in the scheme of The Hunger Games' dystopian style future, the choice would be to return to a more traditional steam punk era rather than the spin the creator has thrown on it. With everyone in the richer areas donning vibrant, colourful attire in all manner of shape and form, the designs still seemed to be modelled around Steampunk costuming albeit through the Crayola palette. It was as if the art direction was trying to emulate that of Tim Burton's but falling short and seeming so obvious in its approach.
The addition of the creatures at the end seemed ridiculous - if they're computer generated as they appeared to be, how do they actually kill anyone? To me, they just seemed to be a last minute rush for violent excitement, as if the author ran out of ideas.
Another thing I was questioning was why if the cannon goes off when a tribute dies and the screen pops up with the profile of who was killed, were there two instances where a cannon went off and Katniss ran to find if Rue or Peeta was killed (with no profile pop-up).
Continuity is clearly a factor that the filmmakers (and probably author) didn't take into account.

Overall, I have to say that the Twilight Saga are pretty safe in their standing and I can't see what any of the Hunger Games buzz is about. Jennifer Lawrence is a tawdry performer and her portrayal of the character was seriously sub par. The cinematography is dizzying and amateur and the storyline isn't strong enough to warrant the sequels in the works.

Well.... here's the trailer anyways...

Monday, March 19, 2012

Snow White and the Huntsman: Inside the action

I think it's pretty difficult at this point to conceal how much I'm looking forward to this movie.... For all the haters who think Kristen Stewart has the acting ability of a foot, you can eat a d!ck... I mean really, yes, she did the Twilight Saga where her character was written that way but she's starred in some pretty damn good films - mostly independent films that require an actress to actually be amazing for them to get off the ground and you know what? she did a damn good job in every one.

Snow White and the Huntsman is not 'Mirror, Mirror' - the ridiculous Snow White spoof that is hitting cinemas this month, it is an epic action flick that doesn't play on the sickly sweet fairytale version but rather more in the vein of Brothers Grimm with its dark, down and dirty style of storytelling.
There's something in there for everyone - the girls who want to see a kick-ass girl leading a bunch of men, the twi-hards who are there to support Stewart, the boys who want to watch the hard-as-nails, rough-as-guts fighting sequences and for effects aficionados, there seems to be an abundance of expertly done effects to swoon over. I hear it's being released in June which is a bit of a rip, but as with these things, the wait, the anticipation is all a part of it.

There have been some great releases so far - trailers, behind the scenes clips etc, and it all looks incredible so check this one out and stay tuned for more promotional stuff as it comes in.
Behind the scenes clip features courtesy of moviefanatic.com

Monday, March 12, 2012

Scream 4

Scream.... the trilogy that became a tetralogy (or in movie terms -quadrilogy). Also the abuser of the false start. Ordinarily, each instalment has one false start. One murder that seemingly has little to do with the rest of the film, just a taste of the action to get you hooked and serve as 'practice' for the killers but in Scream 4, there are three. 

The first: 
Lucy Hale and Shenae Grimes are discussing horror movies. Shenae has a facebook stalker but isn't fussed. Lucy Hale (Sherry) starts getting the ghostface calls and she hands the phone to Trudy (Grimes).They check the house. Stalker guy texts Trudy to answer the house phone. Ding dong - doorbell. Beep beep - text alert –"dare you to open the door". Sherry opens the door – nada - she turns around, comes back in to the house and Shenae Grimes gets a knife to the chest. Second killer shows up on the porch and whammo - Lucy Hale gets a throat slash. False start is revealed as Stab 6.

False Start Two:
Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell doing the same thing – watching Stab 6 and bitching about the Stab movies.
"There's something real about a guy with a knife who just snaps" Starts making fun of itself. Predictable. Then comedically, Kristen Bell stabs Anna Paquin in the gut just as she says 'you can see everything coming'. False start two revealed as Stab 7.

False Start Three:
Random girl and Britt Robertson discussing the stupidity of the Stab movies -  is the beginning of Stab 7 really Stab 6? and the beginning of Stab 6, Stab 5? and if so, what's Stab 4 about?
They live in Woodsboro and though knowing the tale of Sidney Prescott and her late friends, random girl runs upstairs to check on a noise and finding nothing, ghostface calls Britt Robertson trying to scare her. Noise on phoneline, random girl comes downstairs to find a dark house and an abandoned phone and cue ghostface. Cue Brit Robertson's body flying through a window and it's see-ya later random girl aaaaaaaand cue Scream 4 opening credits over truly terrible song. 

Sidney is back in Woodsboro to promote her biography 'Out of Darkness' on the anniversary of the murders (like that can't go wrong). The whole town is covered in Ghostface memorabilia and everyone we're introduced to is uber creepy. 
Dewey's back. Gail is back. Sidney has an over-the-top publicist, there's a creepy boyfriend, two creepy AV geeks, the creepy deputy Sheriff (played by horror movie damsel Marley Shelton) and the new breed of horror movie victims - namely, Hayden Panettiere, and Emma Roberts who are introduced discussing how they received ghostface calls from the girls we just saw killed a moment ago. 
Sidney's book signing is crashed by ghostface in a very 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' style prank, people die the new rules are explained and the usual roleplay is enacted over some murderous theatrics. 

It's all very much the same format, the same story, the same people and same murders and the film still plays with the film-within-a film dynamic to add an extra level. But before you decide that I've written this film off, it's the twist that I loved. Finally, they changed the format somewhat. They did something they hadn't tried or seen in another successful trilogy. They made it something a little more honest, a little more feasible than just two kids having fun or enacting a vendetta. There's no momma murderer like in Scream 2, or the ridiculous half-brother murderer in Scream 3 played by the miscast Scott Foley. The only combo that really worked was the original and that's what the fourth instalment harked back to. The simplicity and mastery of the original. I loved who it was in the end and while it wasn't a major whip to the viewers, it was still something very welcome to discover. 

Williamson is apparently contracted for a fifth and possible sixth instalment but won't work on a fifth until there is a completed script due to the dramas of late or unfinished pages on the filming of Scream 4.  It's noted that the fifth instalment will be feature those that survived Scream 4 (which doesn't account for much of a cast) but those that are left are getting on a bit in age and I don't think they're particularly relevant anymore in the Scream franchise except in a supporting role as they were in Scream 4. 
Who knows, Kevin Williamson writes some pretty kick ass movies and TV series so maybe a fifth instalment may have some merit after all. In regards to Scream 4, I think that once you get past the irritating three false-starts and focus on the film, it's a good watch. There are no fake sounding stab actions, the storyline is sound, the premise is basically back to the original but with a twist and it's that twist that won it over for me. 

Verdict: It's not going to win any awards, but it's worth a watch.

Here's the trailer: 

One Day

I'm not a fan of chick flicks - I'm sure anyone who has read a single review on here will know that but for he sanctity of film critique, I have to be objective. 
The problem with that comes when you find a film that is not only a chick flick, but a terrible rendition of one. I didn't read the book - chick flicks translate to chick lit and again that's not my thing, but I've heard the book was a 2010 Galaxy Book of the Year and sparked intrigue of women the world over so I presume it was inherently good and that its demise lies solely in the film adaptation. 

First up, if Anne Hathaway could make up her mind whether she's playing Irish, Scottish or English and narrow down her accent selection to one specific area of England, the movie might not have been such a disaster but because she's entirely unable to maintain just one accent for any one set amount of time, it fails. Miserably. What adds to this torture is that the DVD actually features an interview/ featurette with Anne Hathaway dedicated to the cultivation of this accent.......... pause for shock.
The only time I enjoy a British accent (an actual one), is when it's Jude Law, Anthony Stewart Head, Cary Elwes (in Princess Bride).... ok, so I could continue to name a few, but it's generally actual, legitimate British people, not actors playing a part.

The tired plot line offers nothing new to the genre except for that it only takes place on one day of each year, spanning a decade. While the premise may seem intriguing, it's really like watching two decades of friendship sped up into just the highlights- the fights, the love, the drama, the lust, the highs, the mega fails and while the idea of seeing this film sped up would be appealing, in its reality, it's a feature length bitch fight set to the soundtrack of Anne Hathaway's god-awful accent attempt. Sped up into thirty seconds set to a novelty game show tune would probably do it more justice than was done by Lone Scherfig.

The film focuses around the 15th of July every year, visiting the couple whether they be together, spending the day together as friends or spending it apart. Saint Swithin's Day. The Ides of July. The end of the world as we know it repeated annually like a skipping DVD. 
Where it should have ended is merely the beginning of another chapter and not in the way that ends one film and becomes another, but rather that it goes on and on for far longer. As with all of these romance films, someone inevitably dies or goes away and the story turns from being about the romance to being about that person's struggle to cope with their loss - in this case, a loss for something they failed to even rate for two decade or so.
And while the way that certain character is removed was highly comical for me and a major relief, it wasn't intended to be so and thus makes an awful climax to the film.
The rest of the film, the stage I like to call 'Pining'... isn't an endearing look at the pain and depression of the one left behind, and nor is it a comment on our reactions as a whole but rather a mediocre attempt to show one person's despair - underplayed, underwhelming and overdramatised.

While I'd like to find something good about the film to point to and say "Hey, watch it for this part at least", there's nothing remotely appealing.... unless of course you'd like to turn this epic fail into an hilarious drinking game...

Verdict: Don't bother.


Here's the trailer: 

Friday, March 2, 2012

One Tree Hill: A Rush of Blood to the Head 9x08

***SPOILER ALERT - If you haven't seen the episode 'A Rush of Blood to the Head' (Season 9, Episode 8) and you don't want to know intricate details about what happens, look away now - possibly to one of the many glowing / scathing and spoiler-free film reviews on the site. ***

Ordinarily, television series episodes out of context to the whole season don't spark enough excitement for me to write about. Usually it'd be a series or season-long arc or the overall theme of a series but this week's episode of One Tree Hill left me reeling.
It's highly possible that I haven't been paying attention properly (very possible considering I normally have it playing on my laptop in the background (ahhh sweet internet TV) while I work), or that with so much work on these past few weeks I've just been entirely daft and blind to where these particular storylines were going - but I did not see this week's resolve for Clay coming!

The minor cameo story for Skills, Lauren and David seemed more like filler to me, but the main four arcs were fantastic. Haley's narrative is so reminiscent of Lucas' original narratives at the beginning of early series episodes that really became the heart of the show, and the thoughts she conveys are so provoking, so heartfelt and her recollection of minute moments in their relationship in such intricate detail, was touching.
Haley is devasated when she receives news of a development in Nathan's case, newly paroled Xavier is terrorising Brooke, Chase is worried about Chuck's homelife as he prepares to go back to active duty and Clay finally gets the break in his treatment he's been looking for.

When Haley (Bethany Joy Galeotti) reached the gurney at the morgue, the sheet is peeled back and she breaks down, I partially believed it might be Nathan because with the way the episode was heading, (and the fact it's the last season ever (sob...)), it's a good possibility, but the other 90% of me knew they wouldn't kill off Nathan so unceremioniously. I guess it was the hopeful part of me that is sick of seeing all these bigtime thugs, gangsters, murderers etc come to this small town, wreak havoc and kidnap the main characters who always seem to find a very simple, very easy way to get out of the situation completely intact. It would have been a brilliant change of pace for the show - which is certainly much darker than previous seasons – to not give that particular storyline a happy ending, to have Nathan be killed by the Russian bad guys who are holding him captive and not show his end of days, just show Haley break down the way she did and have that be the unhappy yet somewhat resolved ending to that character's overall arc. Not dwell on his death or unsurprisingly allow him to escape their foul clutches, just not even show him – let the end of his story be told through Haley's reaction and the implication derived from that.


The Xavier/ Brooke/ Julian storyline intrigues me because Julian (Austin Nichols) and Brooke (Sophia Bush) have something to lose now. It isn't just the threat of losing one or the other if things with Xavier get to a murderous point, but with Jude and Davis now in the picture too, losing one would not only make life infinitely worse for the other, but also lend the boys an air of the original series premise, to their lives growing up. Granted it's not quite the same – but growing up without a parent just screams so loudly of Lucas' season one struggle.
It also peaks my interest because we're not entirely sure what Xavier (Devin McGee) is trying to achieve. Is he just terrorising Brooke because of her speech at his parole hearing? Is he trying to find a away to apologise and being a criminal, not exactly knowing how to do that the normal way? Or is he trying to finish what he started?
Julian has become embroiled in this underworld type situation through his involvement with Dan and through his guilt over the incident with his son. He's seeking out punishment in some form and that may mean that as the season progresses, he will find himself in increasingly dangerous altercations with Xavier – somewhat purposefully and certainly, at a detriment to both his relationship with Brooke and the safety of their family unit.

Chase (Stephen Colletti), at the end of the episode was the bravest, stupidest and most accomplished I've ever seen him – which is saying a lot because when I see Stephen Colletti I just think of Laguna Beach and the insipid scenarios he was consistently either creating, or embroiled in with LC and Kristin and because this was the first time in his acting career (One Tree Hill, Mask Maker (aka Maskerade)), that I've actually responded to his performance. Something about that look as he's sitting in the police car, his face covered in blood spatter, his eyes full of resolve for what he's just done, for Chuck's safety, there was something innately attractive and empathy-inducing about that. It kind of bugged me how pissed off Chuck (Michael May) looked at Chase though. Clearly Chuck was afraid when he ran out of the house (I kind of thought for a moment there with the way the camera focused on the keys left in the car trunk that Chuck was going to take the car) and Chase was idiotically, but heroically going in to save the day and secure Chuck's safety but Chuck was looking at him with such anger and disappointment rather than the nod that would imply a degree of reverence to some effect.... Ok so not quite, "thanks for beating my dad (presumably) to death" but a nod to him acting on his behalf at least. It may be a reflection on Michael May's (Chuck) acting but I'm sure I've seen him supply the camera with the look I'm imagining on occasion, previously in the series.


Dan (Paul Johansson) is still on the hunt for Nathan (James Lafferty) and is looking up as many of his lowlife underworld contacts as he can including heading back to prison to visit an inmate for information but this particular storyline bugs me because of what I mentioned earlier in relation to these big time thugs wreaking havoc and our main protagonists getting away scott-free (no pun intended). It seems too easy to have Dan find the kidnappers simply because he's an ex-con and in actual fact, it seems too easy that Nathan was kidnapped when he got back to Tree Hill considering these guys came across him in Europe with qualms about his apparent poaching of Russian mafia-subsidised players. Why wasn't he taken over there? Why is it that Tree Hill, in the middle of nowhere, is suddenly overrun with Russian hitmen and dirty cops? And while the natural choice for Haley would be to blame Dan considering that he wouldn't leave her house until Nathan actually got back home – which he never did, it's just gotten old. Dan has clearly been trying, and is clearly still trying to win back her trust, she has found herself able to trust him of late so it seems too easy for the writers to go back to having Haley blame Dan in the first instance and continue to blame him until Deb (of all people) (Barbara Alyn Woods) convinces her not to.

The big shock for me however, was Clay's (Robert Buckley) storyline. As the episode progressed, I was beginning to imagine more that Clay's dissociative fugue disorder was due to him separating Sarah's (Amanda Schull) death into a an alternate reality, because of the way he kept repeating how he didn't think it could be real, and that for the past few years, he's been living his life separate to that event. That in his eyes, it wasn't real – an acceptable theory because of the way she remained in his life as a hallucination for so long. He couldn't let go of the way things were before her death. I had never even thought that Logan could be his son, or that he could have one at all, because in all this time, nothing had been mentioned – though the hint of Quinn (Shantel VanSanten) and Brooke's conversation about kids popping up earlier in the episode should have been a red flag as a precursor to the next pinpoint on her story arc. I had been thinking of Logan as more of a sounding board for Clay. Someone that was brutally honest with him – the way children are- and who showed him how simple life really is. Someone that allowed Clay to kind of embrace that purer form of himself and come to a realisation about his separation from his own life that has him sleepwalking. Or even, the possibility that Logan was actually another hallucination. It's highly possible I just wasn't paying attention because I'm usually first to pick up on these things, but this time around, I connected the dots when the twist was revealed and not before. Seeing the plane, then the mobile in the nursery, I got it and I was actually shocked enough to sit up, move the laptop to a better viewpoint and give the screen my marked attention.
It won't have an effect on Quinn – or it shouldn't unless the writer's are recreating her character unnecessarily, and I disagreed with the way Clay handled the news, declaring Logan wasn't going home with him etcetera because Clay has formed such a bond with him, the realisation should have been a surprise, but a somewhat welcome one. Walking out the way that he did was reminiscent of his fugue walk in a prior episode which at the time was self explanatory but in this instance, held no merit.
That- and I wanted to give Logan (Pierce Gagnon) a hug and Clay a slap. The kid knows how to act!


One Tree Hill has always had two things perfectly right - literary quotes infused into television series scripts and a perfectly suited music selection. This episode, and in particular the coda, had the best music. As the last scenes play, 'Sorrowing Man' by City and Colour plays as we watch our four main storylines wrap up for the episode and it is the perfect song choice for the scenes. The lyrics, the tempo, the wailing melody that simultaneously saddens and heroically lifts the viewer, is a seamless fit for what we're seeing onscreen. The struggles, the conviction, the pain and despair, they all tie in to the song in such a momentous way.

With only a few episodes left to go in the last EVER season of One Tree Hill, I'm left hoping that the story and character arcs are all wrapped up in an acceptable way and that they don't take the easy way out of any given arc to fit it into the allotted episode order.

Well done on the episode Mark Schwahn (creator) and everyone who acted/ produced/ took coffee to set that week. Seriously well done.

Here' the song...