What I'm watching

Hi all, this tumblr mainly exists as a way of tracking all the movies I've been watching and some of the initial thoughts, and general feelings, I've had about them.

5/5 - Fantastic movies; movies which need to be seen and enjoyed by everyone.

4/5 - Movies which are very good but don’t have that spark which compels you to make others watch them as well.

3/5 - Average movies; watchable and enjoyable, but nothing which elevates them higher. The baseline all movies are given before watching.

2/5 - Can be watched but really bland and forgettable.

1/5 - Minimal to no reason to watch these films. It may have some redeeming factors e.g. it’s so bad it’s good or there’s one character that’s awesome enough to make it not a total waste of time.

0/5- Total waste of time. Nothing redeemable about these films.

As with every review blog/site, this is all my own personal opinion so feel free to take everything with a grain of salt.

Also I'm Scottish so all reviews will be in UK English. Get used to theatre, colour and words ending in -ised.

free counters

Home
Archive
Subscribe (RSS)
Ask me anything
Random post

Catching Elephant is a theme by Andy Taylor

 

#478/#29 Hitchcock The supposed real life behind the scenes story of Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) and his wife Alma Reville’s (Helen Mirren) struggle to get Psycho made and distributed. I wanted to like this more than I actually did. The film looked to be an interesting insight into the master of suspense and could have maybe given us a peek behind his public facade but, sadly, that never really materialises. You’d think there would be a greater focus on his interactions with his leading ladies, and his supposed stalkerish tendencies towards them, or a more in depth study of his relationship with his wife, and her massive contribution to his work, but both of these elements, while present, are largely glossed over for some odd Dexter-like ghost conversations with the murderer that inspired Psycho and a fabricated almost affair. It was adding intrigue to an already interesting starting point and subsequently didn’t leave enough time to delve into the real elements which made it interesting in the first place. It just seemed like a massively wasted opportunity with this good of a cast. From said cast, Hopkins and Mirren are both in fine form, making each of their parts memorable while maintaining an easy chemistry together. Scarlett Johansson and Jessica Biel, playing Janet Leigh and Vera Miles respectively, don’t get a lot to do but they play their roles well and Toni Collette is really good as Hitchcock’s assistant. Lastly, James D’Arcy is pitch perfect as Anthony Perkins. He’s also not in it a lot but he just has the mannerisms and vocal patterns down pat. The film was also a little too clean, if you can follow my logic. It’s all very bright and shiny, with perfect 50’s cars, hair, make-up and costumes, making everything look really fake as a result of this. There needed to be a little bit more grime to the whole endeavour to make it feel real. It didn’t need to be as murky as some of the Hitchcock films can be but it did need to retain some of their down and dirty feel. It’s entirely watchable and does drawn attention to Alma Reville, whom I wasn’t aware of, but there is a more interesting Hitchcock film out there still waiting to be made. 2.5/5

#478/#29 Hitchcock

The supposed real life behind the scenes story of Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) and his wife Alma Reville’s (Helen Mirren) struggle to get Psycho made and distributed.

I wanted to like this more than I actually did. The film looked to be an interesting insight into the master of suspense and could have maybe given us a peek behind his public facade but, sadly, that never really materialises. You’d think there would be a greater focus on his interactions with his leading ladies, and his supposed stalkerish tendencies towards them, or a more in depth study of his relationship with his wife, and her massive contribution to his work, but both of these elements, while present, are largely glossed over for some odd Dexter-like ghost conversations with the murderer that inspired Psycho and a fabricated almost affair. It was adding intrigue to an already interesting starting point and subsequently didn’t leave enough time to delve into the real elements which made it interesting in the first place. It just seemed like a massively wasted opportunity with this good of a cast.

From said cast, Hopkins and Mirren are both in fine form, making each of their parts memorable while maintaining an easy chemistry together. Scarlett Johansson and Jessica Biel, playing Janet Leigh and Vera Miles respectively, don’t get a lot to do but they play their roles well and Toni Collette is really good as Hitchcock’s assistant. Lastly, James D’Arcy is pitch perfect as Anthony Perkins. He’s also not in it a lot but he just has the mannerisms and vocal patterns down pat.

The film was also a little too clean, if you can follow my logic. It’s all very bright and shiny, with perfect 50’s cars, hair, make-up and costumes, making everything look really fake as a result of this. There needed to be a little bit more grime to the whole endeavour to make it feel real. It didn’t need to be as murky as some of the Hitchcock films can be but it did need to retain some of their down and dirty feel.

It’s entirely watchable and does drawn attention to Alma Reville, whom I wasn’t aware of, but there is a more interesting Hitchcock film out there still waiting to be made. 2.5/5

#404/#121 Amistad In 1839, after rising up and taking over the slave ship La Amistad, West African slaves are recaptured by American forces once they reach American shores. There they are put on trial for the murder of the Spanish crew and it quickly becomes a heated debate over whether the Africans were within their rights as people to defend themselves from those attempting to imprison them or if they, as slaves, were not. I knew little to nothing about this film before watching but it turns out this is a really well acted and interesting story about a small scale incident with large reaching implications. It’s also a Steven Spielberg film so odds are it’s going to be pretty high quality stuff. There are some really great performances from both Matthew McConaughey and Anthony Hopkins, the latter getting to make a really stirring speech to the Supreme Court, but the movie belongs to Djimon Hounsou as the main West African Cinque. Speaking very little English throughout the film, all of his performance comes from his body language and expressions. He has a presence in this that just overshadows everyone else in the movie. It is easily his best role. The only actor I don’t think was pulling his weight was, surprisingly, Morgan Freeman. The inclusion of his character to the narrative was apparent for the film but any competent actor could have filled the role. There was nothing added by having it be Freeman. It’s in no way a bad performance, just a misuse of a great actor. I watch a lot of films but it’s only the really good ones that I get engrossed in and this movie does just that. It’s not one I’ll probably go back to but I do feel better for having watched it. 4.5/5

#404/#121 Amistad

In 1839, after rising up and taking over the slave ship La Amistad, West African slaves are recaptured by American forces once they reach American shores. There they are put on trial for the murder of the Spanish crew and it quickly becomes a heated debate over whether the Africans were within their rights as people to defend themselves from those attempting to imprison them or if they, as slaves, were not.

I knew little to nothing about this film before watching but it turns out this is a really well acted and interesting story about a small scale incident with large reaching implications. It’s also a Steven Spielberg film so odds are it’s going to be pretty high quality stuff.

There are some really great performances from both Matthew McConaughey and Anthony Hopkins, the latter getting to make a really stirring speech to the Supreme Court, but the movie belongs to Djimon Hounsou as the main West African Cinque. Speaking very little English throughout the film, all of his performance comes from his body language and expressions. He has a presence in this that just overshadows everyone else in the movie. It is easily his best role.

The only actor I don’t think was pulling his weight was, surprisingly, Morgan Freeman. The inclusion of his character to the narrative was apparent for the film but any competent actor could have filled the role. There was nothing added by having it be Freeman. It’s in no way a bad performance, just a misuse of a great actor.

I watch a lot of films but it’s only the really good ones that I get engrossed in and this movie does just that. It’s not one I’ll probably go back to but I do feel better for having watched it. 4.5/5

#119 Thor Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is about to obtain the throne of Asgard when some Frost Giants break in and try to retake their source of power which Odin (Anthony Hopkins) took from them in the last war. Mad, Thor attacks their home world against Odin’s orders and begins war once more. For his stupidity, Thor is banished to Earth where he must prove himself worthy before being allowed back to his realm and control of his magic hammer, Mjollnir. Usually superhero films either fall into the very good category (i.e. The Dark Knight, Iron Man, X men) or they fall into the very bad category (i.e. Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Elektra). It’s almost odd to have one which falls so squarely in the middle between the two. This is where Thor lands however. All of the actors are really well cast and good in their respective roles. Hemsworth is a strong main character, Hopkins a good elderly adviser (as he should having played the same role for the last 10 years) and Tom Hiddleston is good as the lamentable villain Loki (as we are shown the rationale behind his motives). The humans (Natalie Portman and Kat Dennings) weren’t really given that much to do but Stellan Skarsgard as the older scientist and Idris Elba as the gate keeper are probably the most interesting characters overall just because they’re a little cooler and gets a couple of good comedic lines. All of Thor’s friends are really pointless. The story is very basic and almost paint by numbers. I wouldn’t call it boring but its just been done a hundred times before so you know which character is going to do what and when. The fight sequences are ok but there are a lot of really close up CGI fights which (and I’m not sure if this was just because I saw it in 3d) were very like the transformers fight scenes. A lot of moving parts and the overall feeling of something happening but looking really crap. The static visuals of Asgard were in complete contrast to this however. They were fantastic and really helped to build the idea of a different world. It also peaks a little early in terms of action having the big Frost Giant battle early on so that when we finally get to the giant robot battle (during which all I could think of was The Day The Earth Stood Still) you’re left feeling unimpressed. If it weren’t for the actors all working so well I don’t think it would have been a strong enough film for the amount of hype being put around it. Seeing as they are however, it brings it up to just ok but I definitely felt it was the weakest of all the avenger films so far (even behind the Incredible Hulk). Meh is pretty much how I would describe this film if I could only give a one word review. Not bad but nothing that great about it either. 3/5

#119 Thor

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is about to obtain the throne of Asgard when some Frost Giants break in and try to retake their source of power which Odin (Anthony Hopkins) took from them in the last war. Mad, Thor attacks their home world against Odin’s orders and begins war once more. For his stupidity, Thor is banished to Earth where he must prove himself worthy before being allowed back to his realm and control of his magic hammer, Mjollnir.

Usually superhero films either fall into the very good category (i.e. The Dark Knight, Iron Man, X men) or they fall into the very bad category (i.e. Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Elektra). It’s almost odd to have one which falls so squarely in the middle between the two. This is where Thor lands however.

All of the actors are really well cast and good in their respective roles. Hemsworth is a strong main character, Hopkins a good elderly adviser (as he should having played the same role for the last 10 years) and Tom Hiddleston is good as the lamentable villain Loki (as we are shown the rationale behind his motives). The humans (Natalie Portman and Kat Dennings) weren’t really given that much to do but Stellan Skarsgard as the older scientist and Idris Elba as the gate keeper are probably the most interesting characters overall just because they’re a little cooler and gets a couple of good comedic lines. All of Thor’s friends are really pointless.

The story is very basic and almost paint by numbers. I wouldn’t call it boring but its just been done a hundred times before so you know which character is going to do what and when.

The fight sequences are ok but there are a lot of really close up CGI fights which (and I’m not sure if this was just because I saw it in 3d) were very like the transformers fight scenes. A lot of moving parts and the overall feeling of something happening but looking really crap. The static visuals of Asgard were in complete contrast to this however. They were fantastic and really helped to build the idea of a different world.

It also peaks a little early in terms of action having the big Frost Giant battle early on so that when we finally get to the giant robot battle (during which all I could think of was The Day The Earth Stood Still) you’re left feeling unimpressed.

If it weren’t for the actors all working so well I don’t think it would have been a strong enough film for the amount of hype being put around it. Seeing as they are however, it brings it up to just ok but I definitely felt it was the weakest of all the avenger films so far (even behind the Incredible Hulk).

Meh is pretty much how I would describe this film if I could only give a one word review. Not bad but nothing that great about it either. 3/5

#47 Shadowlands Based on the true life relationship of the author C.S.Lewis (Anthony Hopkins) and the American woman, Joy Gresham (Debra Winger), he fell in love with. If this wasn’t about C.S.Lewis, didn’t have Anthony Hopkins in it or wasn’t directed by Richard Attenborough this film would have been made by the lifetime channel. It’s all about longing and talking and cancer and children and blah blah blah. I like slower moving drama but dear God does this film drag. It’s such a shame as well because Lewis is a really interesting person. There was a whole section of his life before and leading up to him writing the Narnia books that would have made a good film. He and a friend agreed to look after each others family if the other died in WWI. The friend does die and Lewis kept his promise. There was speculation if this caring for friend’s mother actually resulted in them becoming lovers or if they were just close. The slow burn of that storyline would have been worth a watch. We also could have followed his path back to becoming a Christian and then to writing the Narnia books. But no, we get to see his heart soften as he finds an intellectual equal and then go through the pain of losing her when she dies of bone cancer. (I don’t count this as a spoiler because I just saved you 2 hours of your life). Dull, dull, dull film 0/5.

#47 Shadowlands

Based on the true life relationship of the author C.S.Lewis (Anthony Hopkins) and the American woman, Joy Gresham (Debra Winger), he fell in love with.

If this wasn’t about C.S.Lewis, didn’t have Anthony Hopkins in it or wasn’t directed by Richard Attenborough this film would have been made by the lifetime channel. It’s all about longing and talking and cancer and children and blah blah blah. I like slower moving drama but dear God does this film drag.

It’s such a shame as well because Lewis is a really interesting person. There was a whole section of his life before and leading up to him writing the Narnia books that would have made a good film. He and a friend agreed to look after each others family if the other died in WWI. The friend does die and Lewis kept his promise. There was speculation if this caring for friend’s mother actually resulted in them becoming lovers or if they were just close. The slow burn of that storyline would have been worth a watch.

We also could have followed his path back to becoming a Christian and then to writing the Narnia books. But no, we get to see his heart soften as he finds an intellectual equal and then go through the pain of losing her when she dies of bone cancer. (I don’t count this as a spoiler because I just saved you 2 hours of your life).

Dull, dull, dull film 0/5.