One of the joys of writing about films on my modest (spin doctor alert) blog rather than being a proper film critic is that I don't have to analyze a film in any great depth. I walk out of the cinema and then tell you whether I liked it or I didn't. Whether I think you should spend your hard-earned to see it or not. After all, it's my aim to 'cut to the chase', not provide a review, per se, which you can find on a million other websites.
The Wolf of Wall Street is a little trickier. I saw it over a week ago and have given it quite a bit of thought since then and also read a lot of articles and reviews. As the credits rolled, the two people I was sitting with reacted strongly. One with "I hated that!" and one with "Really? I loved it!".
I enjoyed watching it a lot, in spite of it being three hours long. But I do see my hater-friend's perspective. Some of the characters in the film are truly awful people and that can be hard to watch.
The film is based on the memoirs of dodgy (convicted) stockbroker Jordan Belfort. To say he lived a life of debauchery on his rise to powerful multi-millionaire status would be an understatement and director Martin Scorsese really makes this spectacularly, graphically clear. There's a reason it's rated R here in Australia.
The cast is fantastic. Belfort is played brilliantly by Leonardo DiCaprio, scoring a best actor Golden Globe for his trouble. Co-stars Jonah Hill (with distracting weird fake teeth), Matthew McConaughey, Joanna Lumley and others are all great also. One pleasant surprise for me was Australian Margot Robbie who plays Jordan's wife. Never heard a hint of the Australian accent (same cannot be said of most Aussies in Hollywood) and quite apart from that, it was a terrific performance and I expect we'll see more of her on the big screen soon.
When it comes down to it, I enjoyed watching this film. You might walk out with mixed feelings like I did but I doubt you'll walk out thinking it wasn't worth the $19 ticket price. If you hate anything about it, it will likely be the awfulness of Wall Street depicted, not the film itself. If you see it, I'd love to hear what you think.
This review in The Guardian gave it 3 stars and this one in the UK Telegraph gave it 5 stars. You be the judge!
Trailer here.
Sunday, 19 January 2014
Saturday, 18 January 2014
HER - film
This film is hard to explain. The wikipedia entry for 'Her' opens: "Her is a 2013 American science fiction romantic comedy-drama". Confused? Hmmm. Indeed.
It stars Joanquin Phoenix in the lead as the guy at the centre of the romance. With a computer operating system. Yep, you read right.
At first I was loving the film. In a world of films that are all pretty same-same, this film is really different and just sings its difference from the rooftop. It's a story unlike any other, as the Wikipedia sentence makes clear. It asks a lot of questions, without actually asking them, about the nature of relationships, loneliness and more.
At just over two hours, it actually feels a lot longer which isn't a good sign considering it started so well. I enjoyed this but it did test my patience a bit the longer it went on. The friend who I saw it with hated it, thought it was just too silly to take. You do need to open-minded and just go with it if you're going to enjoy it.
It's nominated in the 'Best Picture' category at the Oscars this year and I'm glad it is. It's great to see something a bit unusual included. But would I recommend you rush out and see it? Well, frankly, it's not for everyone. Maybe one to save for DVD on a rainy night. Some will love, others will hate and with the cost of an outing to the movies what it is, it's probably a bit of a risk for the average punter. Especially when there's so many crowd-pleasers out at the moment.
If you want to read more about the storyline, background to the film, the cast etc, read the Wikipedia entry for yourself here...
Trailer here.
It stars Joanquin Phoenix in the lead as the guy at the centre of the romance. With a computer operating system. Yep, you read right.
At first I was loving the film. In a world of films that are all pretty same-same, this film is really different and just sings its difference from the rooftop. It's a story unlike any other, as the Wikipedia sentence makes clear. It asks a lot of questions, without actually asking them, about the nature of relationships, loneliness and more.
At just over two hours, it actually feels a lot longer which isn't a good sign considering it started so well. I enjoyed this but it did test my patience a bit the longer it went on. The friend who I saw it with hated it, thought it was just too silly to take. You do need to open-minded and just go with it if you're going to enjoy it.
It's nominated in the 'Best Picture' category at the Oscars this year and I'm glad it is. It's great to see something a bit unusual included. But would I recommend you rush out and see it? Well, frankly, it's not for everyone. Maybe one to save for DVD on a rainy night. Some will love, others will hate and with the cost of an outing to the movies what it is, it's probably a bit of a risk for the average punter. Especially when there's so many crowd-pleasers out at the moment.
If you want to read more about the storyline, background to the film, the cast etc, read the Wikipedia entry for yourself here...
Trailer here.
Wednesday, 15 January 2014
SAVING MR BANKS - film
This is the story behind how the film 'Mary Poppins' made it from the pages of author P.L. Travers' book to the big screen.
Relevant background information: Mary Poppins was my favourite childhood film. I have seen it about 739 times and still love it to this day.
So I went into this a little apprehensive. I didn't want it to take any of the shine of my old fav! But it has had some great reviews so I thought I'd give it a go. Perhaps it would make me love Mary Poppins even more.
It did not.
It's an ok film. A fine film. A film that's easy enough to watch, sufficiently engaging with great performances from Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson in the leads as Walt Disney and P.L. Travers respectively.
But I didn't love it and on reflection, I'd probably just sit down and watch Mary Poppins again instead.
3.5 star review from The Age here.
Trailer here.
Relevant background information: Mary Poppins was my favourite childhood film. I have seen it about 739 times and still love it to this day.
So I went into this a little apprehensive. I didn't want it to take any of the shine of my old fav! But it has had some great reviews so I thought I'd give it a go. Perhaps it would make me love Mary Poppins even more.
It did not.
It's an ok film. A fine film. A film that's easy enough to watch, sufficiently engaging with great performances from Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson in the leads as Walt Disney and P.L. Travers respectively.
But I didn't love it and on reflection, I'd probably just sit down and watch Mary Poppins again instead.
3.5 star review from The Age here.
Trailer here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)