7.5/10 | average film reviews : Ireland | movie reviews, clips and trailers…

film review: Burlesque (2010)

December 21, 2010 // No Comment

With snowmageddon going on here, it’s hard to think about going outside at all, let alone going out to go to the cinema. But then that’s just what I did today. Not to this though. I went to this weeks ago. Today I went to Catfish. But that’s not important right now.

Wikipedia (today, 21st Dec 2010) defines burlesque as “a humorous theatrical entertainment involving parody and sometimes grotesque exaggeration.” That’s not really what the people in this film are doing at all. It’s more… cabaret. Guess they couldn’t really call it Cabaret though. Given the number of remakes floating around these days that would have been way too confusing.

I just thought you should know that from the outset. If you’re looking for a film about burlesque, this is not it. It’s not even particularly humorous. Well, not intentionally… However, if you’re looking for a fun, light film with good dancing, fabulous costumes and great music then this is the film for you.

I have to admit, I was very skeptical about Burlesque. I was not impressed with the trailer at all. I really wasn’t on for a small-town-girl-in-the-big-city, realising-dreams, dramaorama. Fortunately for me, I decided to go along anyway… I like musicals and even though it didn’t look very musical, I’d heard it was, so all good.

Thinking about it, you shouldn’t even watch the trailer. It’s completely misleading and it really doesn’t emphasise the songs… which are great, and for which I actually think it has a good shot at an Oscar for. The one thing I will say about it is that at least it doesn’t really give anything away. Not that there’s much of a plot or anything to give away… but at least it doesn’t fall into that trap of showing you all the good stuff that so many trailers do these days. For some reason they’ve just decided to show you a load of crap bits instead. I really don’t get the trailer at all. Watch the video at the end of this article. It’ll give you a much better idea of what to expect.

But enough about the trailer. What of the film? As I’m sure you’ve realised by now. I really enjoyed it. It’s not a particularly good film in the sense of… well… however one would classically define a good film; I’d imagine you’d worry about plot, script, characterisation, that kind of thing… but like I said, if you’re just looking for a bit of light-hearted fun and some great singing then it’s great.

In my eyes it doesn’t take any massive mis-steps and that’s where a lot of otherwise comfortably cheesy films fall down. There’s no really annoying characters, the actors aren’t appallingly bad. There’s a few real clunkers of lines but nothing you can’t ignore, or laugh about if you’re so inclined. And while the plot is nothing to write home about, it was a little convoluted in places but there was enough there to keep it rolling along at a decent pace… you know, to fill in the gaps between the singing and dancing… and the looking at the fabulous costumes. Did I mention they’re fabulous? Fabulous. I am a bit of a magpie though.

That said, as much as I enjoyed it. I do want to complain about one thing. Stanley Tucci got a decent bit of screen time. He could have done more, had more of a character but no-one did so ok… but Alan Cumming was criminally underused. I love Alan Cumming. Plus he was the only character that did anything approaching burlesque in the film. They could have given him at least one full routine… even if it was just to justify the title… no? no? Bah. Anyway that out of the way, it’s still good.

Obviously now, I wouldn’t recommend everyone go see it though. First of all, you have to like musicals. This isn’t a true musical as it were but if you hate them, you’ll probably hate this. Second, you have to not worry about having to take a little leap of faith when it comes to plot. Lastly, you have to like Christina Aguliera. I mean she’s in it a lot so if you don’t like her or her voice it’ll be a problem. If you have one of these issues, stay away. Stay very far away…

…Or you might get hit by a sequin.

7.5/10

film review: Piranha 3D (2010)

August 24, 2010 // 4 Comments

Bouncing boobs and buckets of blood…

… that’s right, Piranha 3D is most definitely, and unashamedly…

… a B movie.

Then again, what were you expecting from a film about prehistoric killer fish?

Truth be told, there isn’t much to be said about Piranha 3D. It’s pretty much exactly what they promised. Between the fake website, the leaked set photos and the fact that it’s apparently used the most fake blood ever in a film, there was never another way Piranha 3D could go.

What surprised me though is that it’s actually pretty good. Not good like Snakes on a Plane, which actually had a plot and all, but good fun. This could have all gone horrible wrong. Lordi knows every time I think “How badly can you mess up a slasher flick?” I come across a film that proves exactly how big a mess can be made.

Fortunately, Piranha 3D has pretty much everything you want from this type of gorefest… Ridiculous deaths, miraculous escapes, plucky heroic acts, stupid cowardly selfish acts, hot girls, idiot men, dodgy techno, a floating penis… Alexandre Aja really crammed it all in there. Everything and the kitchen sink… Really, I wouldn’t be surprised if they only stopped at 80,000 gallons of fake blood because there wasn’t anything left down the fake blood bank. Personally, I could have done with slightly less boobage, I’m just not a big fan of staring at boobs, but I can appreciate how the film would have been diminished with less of them, so fair enough.

The thing I found most surprising about it was the quality of the support characters. I would have expected nothing but there were actually loads of people you’d know in this film, Richard Dreyfuss, Christopher Lloyd and Ving Rhames all made an appearance. Dina Meyer (Starship Trooopers), Ricardo Chavira (Desperate Housewives) and Adam Scott (who particularly stood out in the CSI and L&O episodes I’ve seen him in) may not be as well know but you’d certainly know them if you saw them.

I also want to make particular mention of Kelly Brook and Jerry O’Connell. Perfectly cast in their respective roles. I’ve always liked Jerry O’Connell, Stand By Me is one of my favourite films, he made Joe’s Apartment tolerable (no mean feat considering my morbid fear of cockroaches) and yes I’ll admit, I was a big fan of Sliders. As for Kelly, I presume this means that Ms. Brook has given up on the idea of having a real acting career? Ah well, at least she’s not doing crappy ads for breakfast biscuits with Johnny Vaughan. Shaking her tits in a Hollywood B movie is still 10 times better than that.

I suppose I have to throw a little criticism in here. It’s not perfect. There’s some stupid stuff in it, stupider than it should be… and I do think that Christopher Lloyd is criminally underused, though that might have been his choice. Also, there’s a few people I would have kept alive, it would have been nice to see them in the sequel. Given the critical response though I’m sure they’ll manage to rope in a few more names to fill their spaces.

Oh! Also, I’m still convinced that 3D films lately are much too dark. Would it really be that hard to turn the light up a bit? Maybe it is that hard but it’s still something they should work on. I, for one, am getting a bit sick of squinting at every dark scene in a 3D film. Avatar looked great so there’s no excuse. It seems like I wouldn’t be hard… just do it already! Of course, in the grand scheme of Piranha this was a fairly minor annoyance, I just though I’d mention it.

So the fact is, Piranha 3D is a triumph of its excess. I’m definitely looking forward to the sequel (presumably Piranha 3D 2?) and if you like a laugh and you’re not squeamish, I recommend you give Piranha 3D a look. Though not necessarily in 3D.

7.5/10

film review: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

May 19, 2010 // 3 Comments

I can’t say I was overly excited about a film based on a video game. Uwe Boll has made me wary… If you haven’t had the delight of watching a Uwe Boll video game adaptation I’d recommend Alone in the Dark… it truly is awful. Seriously. It’s terrible.

So, I wasn’t sure if I was up for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. It has one of those colon separated names… and it stars Gemma Arterton. I don’t like her very much… I don’t know why, she just annoys me when she’s on the screen. Well, to be fair (to me) she was crap in Clash of the Titans, The Boat That Rocked and particularly in Quantum of Solace… that’s probably why I don’t like her.

On the other hand I’d seen the shots from the set, I loved the computer game back in 1989 and I really liked Jerry Bruckheimer’s other big budget films, the Pirates of the Caribbean series so POP:TSoT had a few big things going for it too…

Also I was fortunate enough to get my hands on a ticket to a Walt Disney Ireland preview. That always helps.

Happily, I was not disappointed. First things first though… I really didn’t think the film would bear any resemblance to the games. After all, they’re platformers. How would they turn a platformer into a movie? As a result I had accepted that it was probably going to be Prince of Persia in name only. I was wrong, they did manage to keep the essence of the game… through the magic of parkour. It was pretty cool to see and fans of the game will appreciate it.

Was it a good film though? Personally I thought Prince of Persia was great craic. It was nice to see an action film with a bit more story than usual. I did think it got a little bit long in the middle – it’s just under two hours long – but it’s difficult to see where they could have cut it from. There’s quite a lot going on, which is good, so I guess they could have just shortened some of the scenes. I think it would be fair to say that it’s very similar to the Pirates films in that sense; it’s not just a whole heap of running, fighting and explosions, there’s actually a story and there are real characters in it. Mind you, they’re pretty stereotyped characters, so it’s not as though they had too big a job to do on characterisation.

I didn’t even find Gemma Arterton that annoying. Ok, she was a bit annoying and the chemistry with Gyllenhaal could have been a little better, but it could have been a helluva lot worse too so, small mercies…

Ah, maybe I’m not being fair, there is chemistry there – definitely more than there was with Sam Worthington in Clash of the Titans anyway. I think perhaps this brings us to the crux of Prince of Persia though…

… Jake Gyllenhaal is fantastic in it. And I’m not just saying that because he buffed up for it. I ain’t into them muscular types anyway… He’s just really good in it. He was funny, believable in the action shots* and he was convincing in the character as well. I wasn’t expecting that – I wouldn’t have pegged him as a action star – but maybe that’s why he’s so good in it. He’s actually an actor, not just a body who can recite lines.

So anyway, I probably don’t need to say much more than that. I thought this was a really good film. I mean it’s not… taxing on the brain in any way. It’s not without its mis-steps either, like I said, it’s a little long and yeah, it’s pretty clichéd. Time travel can be a difficult and confusing subject for some but they took the option to steer clear of anything too messy and that’s probably to their advantage – it’s a subject that can sometimes (not always) alienate wider audiences. At the end of the day it’s a big budget, big action popcorn flick. Don’t expect anything more than that. Don’t short change it too much either though, this could have gone horribly wrong and it didn’t.

I hope it does get a few sequels. Totally deserves them. I just hope they can keep the story up. And keep Jake Gyllenhaal too, he definitely get the chance to do a few “less serious” roles.

Oh I forgot to mention one thing… just so you aren’t surprised. They all have British accents. I’m not sure why but they do, even Gyllenhaal… and might I mention, he’s good at that too.

7.5/10

* obviously there were stuntmen but looking at the shots he was in

film review: Up In The Air (2009)

January 16, 2010 // 4 Comments

Ok, I know this has only just released in Ireland so technically it’s 2010 here but it released in the US on 23rd Dec 2009, just in time for the Oscars.

Up In The Air is based on a novel of the same name by Walter Kirn. I don’t know that novel but I am familiar with the director – Jason Reitman. He directed Juno but more importantly he directed the excellent Thank You for Smoking. A film I would heartily recommend to everyone. Up In The Air I also recommend… and on balance I would recommend it to everyone… but with certain reservations.

I guess I’ll have to explain a bit about this film, I won’t be giving anything away that you haven’t seen in the trailers though so don’t worry.

Basically George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a man who’s dedicated to his job. His job happens to be a professional firer. He’s contracted out to other companies to tell their staff that they’re fired. He lives his life in airports, on planes and in boardrooms all over the USA, rarely physically “touching base” as they say. When a new recruit, played by Anna Kendrick, comes on board, Ryan finds himself saddled with… baggage.

To be honest, I didn’t find it completely engaging, but then again I did like it. It’s a bit of a puzzler because so many people I know really thought it was brilliant. I found it difficult to relate to. Course I am lucky; I still have my job… I know more than a few people who have lost theirs in the last 12 months, but this film isn’t really about that anyway. It’s about… what people value in life… to sum it up in one. I still don’t really know why I found this film so difficult to relate to though. Perhaps it depicts a lifestyle and an attitude that is so far from my own that I just don’t understand it.

So, when I say I’m recommending it with reservations it’s because, while I wasn’t mad about it, I can’t deny that there is something to it. I’ve thought long and hard about what I didn’t like about it and I can’t point to it so I have no reason to not recommend it. Especially when there’s a chance that others will take a great deal from it. The only thing I will say against it is that I thought it was a little slick…

For what it’s worth, it is a smart, solid story and, as I mentioned earlier in the week, there are some great poignant scenes. There’s a bit of drama, there’s a bit of romance, but it just never quite came together for me. It is however a very good character study and George Clooney does a good job. Anna Kendrick is grand as well. I’d never heard of her before but I gather she’s in Twilight, so good for her, this should keep her out of the typecasting for a while.

Hmm… It probably is time I started talking about the Oscar buzz. Everyone else is after all.

This is probably one of the most hotly tipped contenders for the Oscars. It’s been nominated for 6 Golden Globes and it’s George Clooney who’s attracting most of the heat. So far in the awards season he’s well ahead in the Best Actor stakes. Ok, last night he just missed out on the Critics Choice Award however with the Golden Globes tomorrow it’s hardly the one he’s focussed on.

Having seen the film, I don’t know if he’ll get the Oscar. We all know that it’s not necessarily all down to the performance but I just don’t know that he’s done enough here to win. The other thing is is that I do believe that the Oscars like to be different… so all his wins may put him out a little bit here. Then again, I hear this year they’re trying to be a bit more populist, extendeding the best picture category to 10 to take in a bigger range of films and all. It’s really a hard one to call.

Then again, who are the other contenders? As I also mentioned earlier in the week, I hear that Colin Firth gives the performance of a lifetime in A Single Man. I’ve seen The Road now and while I’d say Viggo Mortensen has a good chance at a Oscar nomination but I don’t think the buzz is there and I’m not sure the range in his performance is big enough win it for him. I’m still holding out for Jeremy Renner and his performance in The Hurt Locker but the thing is I’m really not feeling the buzz around anyone else this year. Maybe Clooney has it in the bag.

Best picture wise… again I’d like to say The Hurt Locker over Up In The Air? Well actually I’d like to say Inglourious Basterds but that’s just not going to happen. What do you think yourselves?

Anyway I forgot to do the rating before I started talking about awards… so here you go.

7.5/10

film review: Sherlock Holmes (2009)

January 5, 2010 // 3 Comments

Apparently there have been many many many screen incarnations of Sherlock Holmes…. I haven’t seen any of them though. I actually know pretty much nothing about Sherlock Holmes beyond the fact that he’s a detective, he’s got a friend called Watson and he lives at 221B Baker’s Street. That last one was courtesy of a recent table quiz.

This latest film adaptation is Guy Ritchie‘s version of Sherlock Holmes. I haven’t seen many Guy Ritchie films, nothing against him but I just haven’t been interested in anything he’s made. Well, I was almost interested in RocknRolla but then it just passed by… out of interest; people who did see it, was it any good?

So… not knowing much about Sherlock Holmes and not having an opinion on Guy Ritchie meant that I was fairly unencumbered by expectations. Actually come to think of it I don’t know why I went to see it at all… I wasn’t even particularly interested when I saw the trailer… Whatever the reason, New Year’s eve saw me at the newly opened Swan Cinemas in Rathmines at 1.40pm heading to Sherlock Holmes….

… and I’m glad I did. This is a fun movie. Throughly enjoyable from start to finish. Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law and Rachel McAdams are all excellent choices for their roles and the plot is engaging and sufficiently mystery filled to sustain interest. Well actually the plot is a bit randomly complicated but I felt it worked for the characters so that was grand.

Aside from that there isn’t a whole lot to say. It’s a detective movie with some action thrown in… oh yeah. The costumes and sets are cool as well, is this eligible for an Oscar? They love that period kind of stuff.

Anyway I heartily recommend this if you’re looking for a fun easy watch this weekend and I for one hope they get to make that sequel.

7.5/10

film review: 2012 (2009)

November 14, 2009 // No Comment

I haven’t actually seen many Roland Emmerich movies… well ok, looking through his IMDb I’ve seen Stargate, Independence Day and 10,000BC but I didn’t know he did Stargate so… anyway… The point is I haven’t seen The Day After Tomorrow. Though, I’ve seen bits of here and there and it looks an awful lot like 2012. I guess he has a type, he goes for a epic story… and he has a slight fondness for the epic disaster. That’s cool, I like a good epic film as much as the next person. I haven’t actually seen that many disaster movies though and they’re not know for being great films though so I didn’t want to expect to much out of this one.

Then again, I loved Armageddon; and Independence Day; and Deep Impact… So maybe I never really had anything to worry about with 2012. It’s a big, silly, cheesy, funny epic disaster movie. I laughed a lot, I might even have shed a little tear or two; what more do you want! It is as cheesy as quattro formaggi pizza, but like Armageddon, you just have to go with it, this isn’t high art here…

The best thing about it really are the action sequences, when things start exploding and flying through the air you kind of forget that they had just spent half an hour or so trying to tell you when and why this was going to happen. It doesn’t matter anyway. Though, for what it’s worth, the plot exposition at the start wasn’t particularly painful. It was kind of interesting. Looking back though, I couldn’t really tell you what excuse they gave for this particular armageddon… it had something to do with solar flares, mutant neutrinos and bubbling magma (I don’t think they actually used the word magma though. That might involve having a character explaining what magma is). Anyway whatever, like I said, it doesn’t matter at all. All that matters is that it leads to some amazing, fantastic special effects sequences. I saw this in one of the biggest cinema screens in Ireland and I wished it was bigger, and louder. I guess I should have just sat closer…

In case you don’t know, 2012 actually has a great cast as well. John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson and Danny Glover, all great actors who perform ably in this. Woody Harrelson in particular is excellent. In fact I do think that with a lesser cast this could have been awful. As it is, it gets away with it. I’m sure it wasn’t a particularly taxing role for any of them but a script like that requires some skill to not make it not sound horrific…

Let me make this clear though. This is not a good film. Don’t blame me if you go see it and you think it’s the stupidest film you’ve ever seen. I never said it wasn’t stupid. The stuff that happens in it is actually outrageous. Really ridiculous. But it’s also an enjoyable, hilarious film and honestly, I’ve never seen the likes of those effects before. Well, not on that kind of scale. I mean really, they’re amazing. Amazing and funny. I do recommend that if you don’t mind your movies served with cheese you should go see this. See it now.

7.5/10

Oh actually, I do have one criticism. At 158 mins it is a bit long. I was fine because I knew it was going to be long but I know some won’t be up for that. They could have shaved 15-20 mins off it easy. We don’t really need the monk stuff, and the boat stuff is a bit unnecessary. Ok, it was a bit emotional and I like that but there was already plenty of space for that kind of thing with the rest of the characters. So that’s the reason it’s not getting 8, 9 or 10.
Share

film review: The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009)

November 1, 2009 // No Comment

Looking over Terry Gilliam‘s filmography on IMDb, I notice that I’ve actually seen 9 of his 14 films… so you’d think I’d have an idea by now of what to expect. But the fact is that you just can’t know what to expect with him. Except that it’s going to be odd.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is odd. To be honest, I don’t know if I liked it. It was interesting but it wasn’t particularly satisfying. It looked good but I don’t know… I thought it would look amazing, that it would be set in this fantastical whimsical land and it wasn’t. But at the same time I don’t know why I really expected that… jumping to conclusions… I guess the word Imaginarium conjures up, for me, a carnival kind of atmosphere and that’s kind of backdrop we’d have on the story. But it wasn’t. Which is fine, it just wasn’t what I expected.

What it was, was a loose modern-day old style cautionary tale. Or at least that’s the best way I can describe it. My problem with it was that the story was… clouded. Or not clouded enough, they could have gone either way and like so many films, they just didn’t really decide which way to go. I suppose my opinion has to come in here as well… I like a good reveal and it kept looking like there was going to be one but in the end it was split. There was a reveal but there was a drip feed as well and I just don’t know if the timing really worked. There wasn’t really that convergence that you need with if you’re doing both.

There is, of course, the inevitable question. How much of an effect did Heath Ledger‘s death have on the film? I don’t think the effect is particularly apparent but how can I know? Terry Gilliam’s films are such personal works that it’s hard to imagine that it wasn’t affected in some way. I do think the transitions are seamless though, Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell can be proud of their work. They really do uphold Heath Ledger’s legacy, they completed his last work while in no way treading on it. The faces changed but the character continued on.

Quick mentions as well, I thought Lily Cole was very good. I look forward to seeing her in more films. Andrew Garfield (who played Anton) on the other hand was crap, he almost spoiled the film on the me to be honest. What surprises me is that I’ve read other reviews where people really like him. I don’t know why he was in the film at all… either get a better actor to bump up the character or write a role for him that is *ahem* better suited to his talent. Actually it’s annoying me thinking about him… I’ll forget him now.

So, what more can I say? It’s a strange film. I would recommend it because I definitely think it’s worth a watch, it’s extremely imaginative… In fact the more I think about it the more I liked it, maybe I should watch it again. But the problem remains, I just didn’t think it was that fulfilling… though it did remind me… if you play with fire…

7.5/10

N.B. You know what, I’m not actually sure what the Imaginarium was in the end… was it the mirror, the show or the imagining?

film review: Zombieland (2009)

October 11, 2009 // 1 Comment

The plan, on heading to the cinema for the evening, had actually been to see Pandorum… however a scheduling miscalculation meant that I missed the 6.40pm start time so had to go to Zombieland instead. And, despite being at the theatre 20 mins before Zombieland was due to start, I still managed to miss the first minute. Turns out 20 mins is not really enough time to pop down to McDonalds and get dinner… oh well. At least I got to see a film and I had been planning on seeing this one anyway so that’s cool.

If you don’t want to know what kind of zombies they are, skip the rest of this paragraph. If you do, they went for the fast-running plague infected zombie. It’s the modern choice I guess. Personally I’m not a zombie purist or anything, I accept all zombies as they come (film zombies of course, for real zombies I have a sword by my bed).

Zombieland is billed as a horror spoof and that’s pretty much all it is. It tries to distract us for a while in the middle with other, more meaningful, stuff, but to be honest you spend most of that time wondering when they’re going to kill another zombie. So you may as well ignore that bit and concentrate on the horror spoof part.

As a horror spoof it’s very good. Aside from that bit in the middle where they go soft on us, it is, as some people like to say, a “rollicking romp”. There’s blood and guts and flying words all over the place. Everything you want from a zombie flick. Well, you probably weren’t expecting the flying words (I think the last time I saw flying words in a film was Day Watch in 2006) but they looked good in the context. They also have a great cameo, so that’s cool as well.

The only real problem I had with it was that somewhere along the way they tried to be something more than a horror spoof. Now there’s nothing wrong with trying to be a little more than that but they didn’t quite pull it off. It was a little bit like they got worried that they wouldn’t be taken seriously so they tried to get a smidge serious and they slightly tried to weave a little romance into it as well. It worked for Shaun of the Dead however Shaun of the Dead was exceptional, they really worked the drama into the zombie story. My recommendation on this kind of mix is that if there’s a chance somewhere that it’s not going to work, then don’t try it. You can’t just shoehorn in a little bit and hope.

Aside from that it was strong all round. Great casting, Jesse Eisenberg and Emma Stone seem to be two excellent up and coming actors, even if I do think there’s a good chance they’re going to be type cast for the next while (not into horror, just into their respective geeky boy and strong girl characters). Woody Harrelson was brilliant, great comedic actor and that cowboy hat really suits him. The plot made sense, which can be oh so lacking in some horror films. Characterisation… well, it wasn’t important.

All in all, Zombieland was a fun way to spend a Sunday evening and I can recommend it if you’re willing to overlook a bit of a drag in the middle. I can assure that it ends on a high.

7.5/10

film review: (500) Days of Summer (2009)

August 28, 2009 // No Comment

Saw this one courtesy of Phantom 105.2 Thanks guys!

(500) Days of Summer is essentially a love story. I know it says it isn’t, but it is. It may be a quirky indie love story, but it’s still a love story. I wouldn’t let that put you off though; that is, if you are the kind of person who is put off by love stories. Personally I’m not but off by the idea but that’s because I like a good weepy film… this isn’t actually one of those but it still has plenty to recommend it.

First up is Joeeph Gordon-Levitt; who I suspect will be known as “that kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun” long after the kids who’ve never heard of 3rd Rock from the Sun grow up. I’d like it if he were known as “that guy from Brick” but that’s not going to happen. Brick, by the way, is a great film but to be honest, it’s not for everyone…

Anyway… the last film I saw with Mr. Gordon-Levitt was Stop-Loss. I thought he could have done better in that one, it was ok but it was no great shakes, fortunately that isn’t the case with this one. I do think he puts on a strong performance as the lead in this, he’s likeable as Tom Hansen and not too whiny, which could have been a risk with another actor in this part.

Zooey Deschanel performs ably in her role as well. Summer Finn not as well-developed a character – it wouldn’t be, since the story is told through Tom’s eyes really – but with a weaker actress it would have been easy for the character to just hang there as a cold bitch and I don’t think this was the case.

The supporting characters all worked for me too… in particular there was a line from Matthew Gray Gubler‘s character that I really liked. I won’t quote it here but if you can guess which one is was (I think it’s obvious anyway) then comment, I’m just wondering if it stood out to other people as well…

The only problem with me saying that I liked the characters is that (500) Days of Summer is undoubtedly one of those films which will be seen differently through different eyes. It’s about a relationship and everyone’s lives are coloured by different relationships, good, bad and indifferent. I can’t imagine it will be possible for anyone to watch this without relating to it somehow, even if the feeling is a thanks that you’re not anything like any of them.

Through my eyes it was a cute story about a mis-matching of emotions, an amusing look at a modern relationship. I liked how it was all told in a very genuine way, after all, it’s a story that’s been played out a thousand times in real life and on the silver screen and for once it was nice to see the two tellings match. Funnily enough I found myself wishing that Tom was someone I knew, just so I could give him advice like all the other characters… but then again that might just be because I’m nosy.

So, (500) Days of Summer is definitely a film worth seeing if you’re in the mood for that kind of thing; but it really is a film you have to be in the mood for. If you fancy seeing The Final Destination or Inglourious Basterds then don’t go see this just because they’re sold out… on the other hand if you were thinking about The Time Traveller’s Wife then this might be a good alternative.

7.5/10 – but like I said on twitter, I’d like to see it again to be sure it wasn’t too clichéd. I’m not sure I was entirely focused on it and I’d like to have been, who knows? Maybe it was better than 7.5/10…

review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

July 27, 2009 // No Comment

It’s been said before but I’ll say it again, Harry Potter is a phenomenon, both literary and cinematic. In terms of Irish box office, all of the films so far have been in the top 5 of their year… and this is a country where The Hangover is currently #1 for the year.

I actually don’t know if I’ve seen all the films but I do know that I read 5.5 of the books. I only got about half way through this particular book. I had enjoyed them but after the behemoth that was Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix I just couldn’t face another one. I really just thought that HPATOOTP was crying out for a good editor and I couldn’t read another one thinking the same thing. That said, I did know what happens in the end of Half-Blood Prince, a wikipedia vandal spoiled that one for me!

Personally, while I do think it’s a brillant story, I haven’t been that pushed on going to the films. They have been so close to the books that you don’t really need to see them, they are pretty much exactly as you imagine them so what’s the point. I’ll probably go along and see the next two though, just because I never got around to reading the last book. So it was with a certain lack of anticipation that I went along to the Savoy to see it at the Irish première…

… and about 3 hours later (there was a delay) I walked out thinking ok, that was how I imagined it. Which is not to say that I didn’t enjoy it but it seem a bit like… ok.

I really did enjoy it though, I thought it looked brillant and I really like how it was that bit darker. It was well balanced but if I had to criticise I’d say that it almost swept over things too quick… I’m not sure how, since it was 2 and a half hours long… but it did.

My word of warning would be that it is not a stand alone film. Harry Potter is absolutely a series and if you haven’t read the books or seen all the other films, then there really is no point in going. It will not make sense. I think that’s fair enough but I do wonder now if film really was the way to go… given how rushed some part of this one felt, and how they are splitting the last book into two films, perhaps they should have just made it a TV series spanning a few seasons?

Anyway I don’t have that much to say by way of critque to be honest! It was exactly what it said on the tin, the actors were the same as they’ve always been (ok, not amazing), as were the effects (excellent), and the score (suitably dramatic) so as it was a good story well told, I gave it an 8/10 on twitter. On further reflection I’m going to downgrade that to a 7.5, I’m taking that half a point off as it felt a bit like a placeholder film really…

7.5/10