Film reviews by Samuel James

I am currently a university student in the UK studying Foundation Year in Law, Social Sciences and Communication Studies and will then progress onto my chosen undergraduate course - Creative & Professional Writing and Film Studies. Out of this course, I want to become a film critic. I have been writing film reviews since I was 16, and I take great enjoyment writing them. I even watch bad films because in the end, I can rip it apart in my review afterwards! In fact, they are the better and perhaps easier films to review and critically analyse. Films are like my whole life, and I simply cannot live without them! They mean the world to me like my family and friends do. I am a fan of all genres, but my favourites are horrors/thrillers, drama, fantasy/sci-fi and animation.

[sjmj91-blog]

'The Descendants' review

As you will very easily recognise from the theatrical trailer as well when watching the feature film itself, The Descendants really is your typical Hollywood bait as it consists of heart-breaking and thought-provoking emotion, personal connections between characters, some light-hearted humour and the wide variety of shots featuring beautiful landscapes. Plus, the fact that it stars a Hollywood gem - George Clooney, and both directed and co-written by Alexander Payne, who has made his first major project since 2004 comedy-drama Sideways. So, as a result of these, expectations were high and after watching it, The Descendants turned out a genuinely heartfelt film, not only about family and love but also loosely about revenge and justice that could lead you to tears.

Matthew King (George Clooney) is a Hawaiian land baron with a very long family history and still currently has many first and second cousins alongside him within Hawaii. Matt may have the financial benefits on his side but his personal life is currently hit breaking point after his wife Elizabeth King (Patricia Hastie) suffers from a boat accident that leads her into a coma and on life support and now has to re-connect with his two young daughters: 17 year old Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) and 10 year old Scottie (Amara Miller) to stand together as a family should anything positive or negative happen to Elizabeth. However, in one day not only discovering that Elizabeth will not wake up and that she will die, he also learns that she had been cheating on him with estate agent Brian Speer (Matthew Lillard) just before her accident. Speer has currently left for Kaua’i on vacation, so determined to get answers and perhaps even some kind of justice, Matt along with Alex, her “friend” Sid and Scottie venture to Kaua’i to track down and confront Speer.

The Descendants involves various beautiful landscape shots of Hawaii and as well as having its very emotional story, it makes it look a divine charm that adds lots of natural beauty and innocence to it. Plus, there are some moments that do consist of some humourous moments that’ll make you laugh. However, despite having its dazzling and friendly aspects, it does have its occasional dark tones too such as tremendous amounts of stress between the characters and also some suspenseful segments especially when on the search for Speer and having almost no idea how Matt is going to approach the situation and what he is going to say. It is in no way classed as a thriller, but having mixed emotion, beauty and tension into one and still managing to have its very tender and heart-breaking message, we are bought with something very special which is what we have with The Descendants.

After his tremendous work in comedy-drama Sideways and having that on his shoulders, Alexander Payne returns to another Oscar buzzing comedy-drama that has almost all particular emotional aspects with its light and dark tones and balances it all absolutely brilliantly! This guy really knows how to make people laugh, how to take his audiences on adventures, make them feel attached to what’s going on and to the characters and to these dark characteristics to them that we haven’t fully seen of him just yet and should like to see in the near future. Due to his fabulous directing ability, he doesn’t write the screenplays for his films alone. He has mostly collaborated with Jim Taylor, but The Descendants became the first film without Taylor as he works alongside Nat Faxon and Jim Rash. Together, the trio write a script that is easily worthy of winning the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay.

See, here’s the thing about George Clooney: in every film you’d see that he’s in, you’d always just expect him to just be George Clooney due to his frequent ladies-man and charming performances that we have seen from him over the years that has set his status as a Hollywood symbol. After his most recent Oscar nominated performances in 2009’s Up In The Air and 2007’s Michael Clayton, he goes somewhere totally different this time as we see a rather strong, angry and yet a rather vulnerable and emotionally-confused Clooney. His role is genuinely effective towards the audience as we are literally standing in his shoes by going down his road of emotional suffering but also his other path of revenge. So, Clooney definitely gives one of his greatest performances of his career and whatever he’ll be in the future will be difficult to beat this one.

Alongside Clooney comes along a trio of young newcomers who have suddenly risen to fame in The Descendants. Firstly, there’s 20 year old Shailene Woodley who gave an absolutely amazing performance as Alex. Her performance expressed the emotionally broken aspects of a young girl growing out of being a cute, innocent child into becoming a beautiful, sexy woman. Plus, there was something occasionally sadistic and rebellious about Alex as she desires to find the man who had an affair with her mother behind her father’s back and wants him to suffer for what he had done. Woodley was literally robbed of an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress but there is no denying that her role is still another truly fantastic young actor/actress performance to remember. Secondly, Amara Miller makes her feature film debut as Scottie King who is someone that you’d generally call a problem child and in some ways resembles Chloe Grace Moretz in Kick-Ass. Nick Krause also makes his presence known as Alex’s at-first arrogant but later on nice “friend” Sid in his satisfying and rather pleasant role.

Overall, The Descendants is a very tender and genuine story mixing the natural beauty of Hawaii and relationships between families that leaves the all-important message: to always stand as a family in order to go through any crucial changes that occur in natural every-day life. This rightfully deserves all the Oscar fame that it has received and could walk away with a various number of awards upcoming. It is very important to know that The Descendants really isn’t for the faint-hearted and will take you on an emotional journey that is bound to make one cry and will leave you jaw-dropped as the ending credits roll.

RATING: 9/10

[sjmj91-blog]

'Shame' review

Although Shame had begun and processed with a rather easy and short combination of a low budget at only £4.2 million, a very short duration during the shooting of the film that lasted up to 25 days and after its release, receiving a low box office taking - $9 million approximately, it earned its well-deserved positive critical acclaim despite it’s overly explicit sexual content that sealed it with an NC-17 rating in the US. Considering that there are films which either receive an NC-17 rating or anything mostly consisting of sex can be completely misunderstood for something involving pornography, Steve McQueen brings forth a film with a slight Stanley Kubrick and Bernardo Bertolucci-like style and approach to it that makes it a very gripping and magnificently filmed accomplishment with a very that leaves a very interesting but thought-provoking message.

  Thirty-something Brandon Sullivan is a New York yuppie. He is also a sex addict who thinks about sex all the time when he's not having sex. He surfs for porn on his work computer, masturbates often even in his office's men's room, and eyes strange women in whatever situation he's in in the hopes of having quick anonymous sex with them. The arrival back into his life and his apartment of his sister Sissy Sullivan, from who he was estranged due to the emotional baggage associated, changes Brandon's life, especially in what he can do in what used to be the privacy and sanctity of his apartment. Brandon's life begins to spiral out of control following Sissy's arrival. He gains a better understanding, albeit an unpleasant one, of his life following an incident involving Sissy.

  Considering that the plot and the background passions that Brandon has and can occasionally become a bit awkward whilst watching the film, Shame expresses that mesmerising feeling of pure beauty behind it. It provides a whole new meaning to sex that we hadn’t really thought about before: the act as a whole is quite possibly the most passionate and pleasurable feeling one could ever endure but at the same time, this passion and pleasure could turn into something rather dangerous and become the biggest trap of all! Shame is one of those films that you’d watch where the story almost has absolutely nothing to do, therefore you cannot predict what is going to happen. So, what we have with Shame in that sense is that there are a few unexpected twists and turns around the corner.

  Michael Fassbender has already broken through the layers of blockbuster triumphs and collaboration with famous directors after appearing in a vital role in Quentin Tarantino’s war film Inglourious Basterds and then progressed to renovate the role of Eric Lehnsherr/Magneto as a young man in X-Men: First Class. So, now with two different cinematic experiences on his shoulders, Fassbender goes on to portray yet another extraordinary role that hasn’t really been bought forth previously as we embark on his unorthodox adventures following his sexual passions and fantasies. Fassbender provides almost everything that you could ask for as we understand Brandon’s struggles that not only become deeply emotional but also rather horrifying at the same time. His performance is without a doubt one of the most powerful performances of 2011 and it will be very difficult for him to be able to pull off a stronger and more thought-provoking performance in the future than what he gave us here.

  Alongside Michael Fassbender is the young and incredibly beautiful Carey Mulligan as Brandon’s sister. Mulligan has been recognised just like Ryan Gosling throughout 2011: delivered absolutely outstanding performances where she has been a strong and favoured Oscar contender for more than one film but has been completely shunned by the Academy. Her role as Sissy was occasionally all sweet and innocent but as we understood her a bit more, there turned this psychologically dangerous girl with a few problems. Another pointer about Mulligan in Shame is there is another whole new side to her that we hadn’t seen before: she is an absolutely fabulous singer! James Badge Dale becomes a huge effective character in his role as Brandon’s sleazy and flirty boss David, so he is yet another reason why Shame works in every aspect so exquisitely.

  At approximately 40 years old, Steve McQueen makes only his second feature film throughout his entire career after 2008 biographical-drama Hunger, which also ironically starred Michael Fassbender. Together, they collaborate once more in another eccentric film that has identical filming and screenwriting aspects particularly to Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut and Bertolucci’s Last Tango In Paris. It is the eerie and rather slow styles of camera angles especially in sexual scenes, unique forms of music and the occasional use of vulgar language. Each of this films as part of different generations provide the fact that film is a form of art in the various key aspects as well as for pure entertainment. McQueen’s next project Twelve Years A Slave in 2013 will become another exciting film to look forward to with Michael Fassbender appearing again.

Overall, Shame is one of those rare films that you’d watch and find both easy and difficult to watch on equal fronts as it expresses the pleasure and dangers of sex with a surreal and eerie approach to it. It is undoubtedly the greatest British film of 2011 and like many other public favourites; it has been snubbed massively by the Academy and Golden Globes! Shame could easily be described as a true dark horse of a film as it’s another great piece of art that becomes something very beautiful but also grippingly intense to watch.

RATING: 9/10

[sjmj91-blog]

'The Iron Lady' review

The most important thing to understand about The Iron Lady before watching it is that it’s not aiming to only appeal to those part of the Conservative Party that Margaret Thatcher led for so many years, and nor does one have to like her to get full enjoyment out of this film. Meryl Streep chosen for the role of Thatcher is literally like fate meets the eye as one of the most powerful film actresses in history portrays one of the most powerful women in history. Considering that The Iron Lady does have its fair share of flaws and could have been a masterpiece, Streep’s breath-taking performance as Margaret Thatcher saves the film and is another one of her most memorable and treasured performances.

The Iron Lady is told in roughly three separate time scales as it tells the story of Margaret Thatcher (Meryl Streep)’s young life before she became PM, when she met and married her husband Denis (Jim Broadbent), the birth of their twins Carol and Mark and her professional progression into the serious but complicating world of politics. Plus, her difficulties and struggles throughout the 11 years of her life as British Prime Minister and her personal life as an old lady after her long resignation and the death of her husband with the support from daughter Carol (Olivia Collman).

The most surprising yet biggest controversial flaw that The Iron Lady suffers from that it’s not only a bio-pic but there were numerous scenes particularly in the scenes with elderly Thatcher, that there were aspects of psychological-drama that frequently consisted of on-running gags and occasionally dark scenes. Plus, having to mix in However, the positives within those components are that it added a slight more emotional attachment and realism to Thatcher’s character and her current situations in her life. The Iron Lady perhaps would have been a stronger film if it just included the story of young Margaret and PM Margaret and the fact that it was mixed in three different stories at the same time with the approximate 105-minute duration made the film as a whole feel rather rushed and incomplete.

Phyllida Lloyd, the lady behind beautiful musical Mamma Mia! ironically starring Meryl Streep makes only her second feature film thus far and collaborates with Streep once more with a more serious story with up-close and personal aspects to it. The biggest problem with Lloyd’s direction within this one was that although the art direction and costume design were spectacular, there is something that is a tad too glistening and colourful which has been the largest fault for many historical motion pictures over the years. Plus, there were the occasional humourous segments that were rather unnecessary and were more or less like on-running but totally unexpected gags that are thrown in rather than adding jokes that are appealing to make the audience feel somewhat humoured and lively entertained by it.

Meryl Streep has been an Oscar goldmine in the majority of her films throughout her career following 17 Academy Award nominations with only 2 wins, but her performance as Margaret Thatcher is beyond belief as she brings forth not only Thatcher’s featured characteristics in terms of physical appearance but manages to portray her posh British accent very accurately and her mannerisms and general attitude to peers around her! Streep’s role as Thatcher almost precisely resembles the breath-taking Academy Award winning performance from Helen Mirren in her role as Queen Elizabeth II in The Queen. So, with this very strong positive aspect that the film bestows, The Iron Lady is a film that has been miraculously saved from major disappointment that could walk away with an Oscar.

Jim Broadbent has been in some of Britain’s most favoured films over the years, including an Academy Award win in Iris back in 2001, but although he looked fantastic as Sir Denis Thatcher, alongside Meryl Streep as the Iron Lady, there was something about him that wasn’t entirely appealing. For example, within the subplot about Thatcher’s older life after Denis had passed, Broadbent was more of a less-serious character than somebody seeking to aid his wife in moving on with her life. So, in that sense, one could say that he was a bit of a sadist. Other vital cast members Anthony Head, Olivia Colman, Richard E. Grant, Alexandra Roach and Harry Lloyd all deliver fine performances in their respective roles too.

Overall, The Iron Lady is one of those films that is enjoyable to watch but unfortunately could have been something truly great in so many other aspects that we didn’t really witness. You will have already seen better bio-pics in the past but at the same time, the same could be said oppositely as there are other ones out there that are even worse. As already stated, you don’t need to be a fond lover of the Conservative Party or Margaret Thatcher to appreciate The Iron Lady but Meryl Streep’s performance is mesmerizing and it has given her yet another solid opportunity for her to receive a third but long overdue third Academy Award win.

RATING: 7/10

[sjmj91-blog]

'Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows' review

After the incredibly fun, amusing yet slightly overrated predecessor back in 2009, we are granted with another Christmas treat - the sequel, but this one looked a lot darker, perhaps funnier and more serious. Being a film based upon fictional legends, you’re going to have to fill in the realism of the 1800s, the actors to give solid performances as if they were really that character and yet to add a bit of comical concepts to it by mixing modern-day humour together with intense action with dazzling effects and make-up. Both of these films achieved this tremendously, but the sequel especially attains a darker dialogue, even more comedy and a lot stronger chemistry between the characters. Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows picks up just when the first one ended with Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law and Rachel McAdams returning to the cast and Guy Ritchie returning as director. Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is on the brink of marriage to his beautiful fiancé Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), but Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) is in need of accompanying on yet another mission to go after archenemy Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris). During this mission, they come across gypsy fortune teller Simza Heron (Noomi Rapace) who is seeking to find her missing brother Rene. With the assisting help from Sherlock’s older brother Mycroft Holmes (Stephen Fry), together they attempt to take down Moriarty. Having been approximately the 45th film adaptation of Sherlock Holmes up to his top game by unravelling mysteries, the one thing that has always been there with every single one is what you see within the films is what you get. The action sequences are more energetic, more intense and much more explosive in this sequel than in the predecessor. In addition to this there is another newly added style of filming that didn’t jeopardise the film as a whole but perhaps slowed down the pacing (especially when it’s meant to me an action film): there were too many slow-motion shots in too many segments.  Guy Ritchie, the director who wasn’t only behind the first Sherlock Holmes film but some of the most popular British crime films from the likes of Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch and RocknRolla. Already with the experience of more adult-themed films, he added again to this sequel some more mature dark humour and badass tone but something different by adding new kinds of comical characteristics including entertainment for youngsters and alongside intense action. So, after achieving this with both Sherlock Holmes films, Ritchie ought to consider making more films in the future that are related to those certain aspects. Re-born shining star Robert Downey Jr. already charmed us with his fantastic performance in the 2009 predecessor as Sherlock Holmes and to no great surprise; he manages to do just that yet again in the sequel. If there is anything that Downey Jr’s role as Sherlock is somewhat identical to, it’d be Johnny Depp’s role as ‘Captain’ Jack Sparrow in the Pirates Of The Caribbean franchise due to the unorthodox nature, the sense of humour and how he treats his peers, not to mention the similar time settings and styles of filming. Jude Law returns as Dr. John Watson, and what a fantastic one it is! Although Watson is finally due to be married which alters his life, there is a slightly relationship between him and Holmes in the sequel as Watson is almost completely used by Holmes in this one. Watson is almost completely used by Holmes and is almost completely manipulated and patronised to Holmes' pleasure but they are still friends. So, due to the humorous and strong chemistry between Downey Jr. and Jude Law on-screen, that is all the more reason with how well they perform together as such famously told characters. Rachel McAdams doesn’t make as much of a crucial supporting female performance in this one as there is an opening twist that occurs. So, instead we have Noomi Rapace in her first English language film after her memorable performances in the Swedish Millennium trilogy as the eccentric Lisbeth Salander. We now witness her in a very different role this time and she reveals a whole new side to her that could make her become a future Hollywood star in years to come. Seeing an appearance in general from Stephen Fry is a real treat but the fact that he portrays Sherlock’s older brother Mycroft and provides the humour and charm that Fry has been able to achieve many times over the years. Jared Harris was also very good as primary villain Professor Moriarty who is perhaps more of a manipulative villain against Holmes than Mark Strong was in the predecessor.  Overall, Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows is a very fun and entertaining popcorn flick that is more emotional, funnier, more action-packed and perhaps stronger plot-wise than its predecessor. Neither films are anything to take seriously and are both unorthodox but at the same time typical Hollywood hits and just like Mission: Impossible films, what you see is what you get with Sherlock Holmes. This sequel certainly left a cliff-hanger ending and after the events that occurred, the series really must continue with a third instalment. 7/10

[sjmj91-blog]

'Your Highness' review

As we have experienced on several occasions throughout particularly the 1970s and ‘80s, medieval fantasy-adventure stories with lively-related humour have charmed us all with its highly magical, exciting and warm nature and are the particular genres that almost completely define ‘entertainment’ when it comes to watching films. So, due to the theme and the majority of cast members within the film, Your Highness looked like it could be something worthwhile but having received an overwhelmingly negative critical reception, it turned out a very corny, unrealistic, and plain stupid disappointment that wasn’t even funny or entertaining to watch and almost became an agonizingly painful film that is one of the worst films of 2011.

Always the constant second favourite behind his older brother Prince Fabious (James Franco) due to his numerous heroic and charming actions, disgruntled scoundrel Thadeous (Danny McBride) vents his frustrations by blundering simple assignments, indulging in too many spirits, and berating his aide Courtney (Rasmus Hardiker). But when Fabious' new bride Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel) is kidnapped by the evil sorcerer Leezar (Justin Theroux), Thadeous is forced to tag along on his very first quest. Encountering wise wizards, ruthless jungle savages, and the fiercely driven warrior girl Isabel (Natalie Portman), Thadeous must learn to play the role of a valiant knight - and when Fabious is captured by Leezar, the bumbling prince might just become a hero. 

Having experienced the magic and the humour within adventurous fantasy-comedies such as The Princess Bride and the Monty Python series, those particular aspects within Your Highness really went over the top as the humour was needlessly corny with such inappropriately vulgar lines. So, as a result of this, it really is not a comedy seeing as it doesn’t achieve either sides of humour to entertain its target audience and it totally ruined the realistic feeling of embarking on an adventure. As far as the quest is concerned, it really was not anything like that we hadn’t witnessed time and time again as it uses numerous references from historical stories based upon legends such as Robin Hood and King Arthur and attempts to mix the Monty Python like humour but massively fails to do so.

Having already directed 2008 hit Pineapple Express, director David Gordon Green returns to the comedy genre and attempts to make another hit. However, due to the atrocious script from Danny McBride and Ben Best and even the terrible acting and story, it is a huge miss and would perhaps consider calling it almost as bad as the painfully awful “comedies” from Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. In films like this, a cast and a crew either really take the film seriously or just go into making it like it is only a bit of fun. In Your Highness’ case, it is something that is definitely not something to take seriously but if it actually had funnier jokes, it really would have been something really fun to watch.

If you could compare Danny McBride and his humourous ways as an actor, he would have identical characteristics to how British actor James Corden acts in the films that he is part of. Corden’s unnecessarily corny humour is used in comedy-horror Lesbian Vampire Killers and resulted in an un-funny and laughably awful film. However, it is even worse with Your Highness as McBride takes the style of humour and the fun, adventurous journeys and virtually spits on them, so as a whole his performance did not work and felt unrealistic from the get-go. Alongside, Danny McBride were two young actors in their 30s who a few months before the release of Your Highness were Academy Award nominees: Natalie Portman (winner) and James Franco. So, after earning that and now going from that to this, neither of them could sink any lower as both of them give shockingly terrible performances!

James Franco had previously starred in Pineapple Express alongside Danny McBride with David Gordon Green as director, but he really flops here!  He may have become a charming actor in general in most recent years (especially with his underrated role as James Dean in TV-film bio-pic) but his role in Your Highness is almost like McBride’s – incredibly weak with almost completely inappropriate vulgar that simply is not funny. As for Natalie Portman, there are some particular moments that are jaw-dropping and that is literally about it for her. Zooey Deschanel makes an appearance in the film too and again, she delivers a really bad performance too. It’s perhaps with how it’s written and the tone of the story that makes the actors bad in Your Highness, but there is one slight positive about them appearing in this film: they add some slight sophistication to it so due to this and that they are both Hollywood stars, this would become more attracted publicly.

  Overall, Your Highness is unsurprisingly but at the same time shockingly an absolutely terrible film that is just not funny or adventurous to watch in the slightest. Hopefully Franco, Portman and Deschanel have learned their lessons from this one and will never part of anything like this ever again. To be honest, you’ve really got to be someone who actually understands and is entertained by corny humour that is involved in Your Highness to get the full enjoyment from it. So, although it looked good with fabulous costumes and cinematography, that didn’t even same the film from disaster and can now referred as one of the most annoying films that you’ll ever see.

RATING: 2/10

[sjmj91-blog]

'The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part I' review

Following a well-deserved 17 month break from Twilight after the release of Eclipse, the time has come with the start to the beginning of the end of this paint-dry, corny and needlessly overhyped franchise. Being the one series of films that you truly either love to bits where you’d get all obsessive about them or you absolutely hate every aspect about and being one who thankfully succumbed to the latter, there wasn't really anything major that was going to change at all. So, for this reason, there was nothing to look forward to and expectations were practically the same as the other films and as a result of this, we’ve been given another dull, incredibly boring and laughably awful film that may have left a cliffhanging conclusion but still provides the audience with the fact that the exciting death of this franchise is almost here. After their long-term relationship throughout the three predecessors, vegetarian vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and female human Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) finally get married and they venture on their honeymoon and whilst arriving there, they consummate their marriage. Gradually after this occurs, Bella realises that she is pregnant and this becomes a huge issue for her and for Edward. Bella seeks the help of her friend and admirer Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) who is determined to protect her and to prevent the unborn baby from causing her any life-threatening harm. The three predecessors have been met as critical failures already but what instantly made Breaking Dawn: Part Ianother one to follow up those is because it clearly steals the ideal decision from the final Harry Potter novelDeathly Hallows being split into two films to bring forth more excitement and so much had occurred in the single novel that would be too much to fit into a single film. However, with Breaking Dawn: Part I, it wasn’t even a huge build-up to the final film as it was really dry and just dull from start to finish. Plus, due to the dialogue and events that occur, Breaking Dawn: Part I renovates a much cornier take-on of classic Roman Polanski horror filmRosemary’s Baby, but there was actually one particular concept of the film that actually was quite freaky to watch. It’s just absolutely ridiculous why it has taken so long to add at least a bit of horror into the franchise. Before Twilight and her role as Bella Swan, Kristen Stewart starred in some fun and interesting films as a child from the likes of Panic Room by David Fincher, Into The Wild by Sean Penn and fun family sci-fi adventure Zathura. However, now she has sunk to the lowest level that she ever will fall down to as she gives an absolutely appalling performance as Bella who doesn’t provide any emotional feeling for the audience and there is simply no connection between neither Bella and Edward Cullen nor Bella and Jacob Black! Stewart may have the pretty characteristics for the character but when it comes to actually playing the character, it just doesn’t work for her at all. The love triangle relationship between Bella, Edward and Jacob is literally like in a closed cage needlessly continues and simply does not go anywhere at all! It is true, Cedric Diggory has died but has been resurrected by vampire Edward Cullen as Robert Pattinson has really gone from playing a rather crucial character in the fourth Harry Potter film to a vegetarian vampire who has fallen in love with a human. There is nothing vampire-like about Edward at all as he provides the exact opposite of the true nature of vampires that we have seen over the years. Pattinson’s performance as Edward has been atrocious from the very beginning but what we see within Breaking Dawn: Part I is Edward at his worst general standard, especially in the scene with the wedding and the laughably pathetic sex scene where he breaks the bed and panics that he harmed Bella during the act! Stewart doesn’t help build the connection between Bella and Edward but Pattinson just doesn’t merge it together at all and for the better, both characters just need to be killed off. Taylor Lautner as Jacob Black is once again a really annoying portrayal of a young teen-wolf. Lautner is perhaps the hunkiest than he’s ever been but that doesn’t make his performance or character any more interesting or stronger. His role perhaps wasn’t as vital or as frequent as in New Moon or Eclipse, so it was more about Edward and Bella in this one. Just like the films based upon the Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling, the films within the Twilight have consisted of a large number of directors chosen to direct the films but have always used the same screenwriter to pen the scripts. Academy Award winner Bill Condon couldn’t even successfully make this into a solid build-up to the end and neither could David Slade whose previous works before directing Eclipse were horror films Hard Candy and 30 Days Of Night. So, this proves that even experienced filmmakers could not bend around making a film that is emotional, occasionally intense or even entertaining to watch about some of the most annoying characters you could ever read about with ridiculous dialogue! In addition to the author Stephenie Meyer, the screenwriter has to be female, doesn’t it, who has transformed the scary-looking, deadly and sinister nature of a “vampire” into a soulless and soft-hearted fairy? The written dialogue is almost completely written from a typical avid female fan of the series with such cliché and gut-retching lines that makes it completely dry throughout every second of it. Overall, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part I is, as predicted, yet another atrocious addition to the Twilightseries that moves us one step closer to when it all ends. This is the Twilight series in a nutshell: just because the characters are needlessly eye-popping and are an ultimate sexual fantasy towards its target audience, that doesn’t make it a good film that has a strong dialogue with intriguing characters. Quite frankly, Breaking Dawndidn’t even need to be split into two parts because there was not a large number of turning events occurring in this one with lots of detail in the story like there was in Deathly Hallows. It was basically just the Twilight series sneaking their way into earning some more money. So, now that Part I has been released with four films down and one to go, we’re almost there to the end of this series!

RATING: 2/10

[sjmj91-blog]

'War Horse' review

After his successful 3D motion-capture animated feature The Adventures Of Tintin, the legendary Steven Spielberg provides us with another treat as he makes his second feature film of 2011. Although, War Horse is perhaps the most different war film that has ever been made seeing as isn’t that much a tale following the perspective of men during the war, but it’s really from the point of view of a horse. So, the fact that Spielberg was chosen for directing War Horse, there must’ve been an alter to the war genre as well as a guarantee that’ll leave the audience feeling emotionally attached and gripped to the film and what it consists of, which is a speciality of Spielberg. Having said this, War Horse provides a deeply personal story with a numerous number of meaningful messages that’ll melt your heart as well as break it.

  Based on the children’s book of the same name by Michael Murpurgo and also loosely based on the 2007 stage play, tells the story in Devon 1914 of a young family on a farm - the alcoholic father, Ted (Peter Mullan), the mother Rose (Emily Watson) and their young son Albert (Jeremy Irvine).  One day, Ted manages to purchase a young stallion by outbidding his obnoxious landlord Lyons (David Thewlis) and takes him back to the farm. Whilst there, Albert and Joey (the name that Albert decided for him) grow this strong bond and live as if there was nothing that stood between them. However, on the brink of World War I, Joey is sold to the armed forces and leaves Albert devastated but leaves his father’s pennant tied to Joey’s bridle should he ever find him again. Albert joins the service in an attempt to find Joey again and return him home safely.

  As you watch it, it is rather easy to identify War Horse as a Spielberg film due to the facts that it mixes the innocence and personal friendships that we observed in E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial and the horror, heartbreak and devastation of war within his hugely successful war film Saving Private Ryan. So, this really is a film that only Steven Spielberg could pull off as it features so many particular aspects that we have seen him do so exquisitely over the years. Most directors nowadays would attempt to re-live what Spielberg has made, but this time Spielberg re-lives what directors before him had previously done. For example, he commemorates the works from directors such as Victor Fleming and John Ford with the farm-like backgrounds that provides peace and innocence, but with the dark and moving story behind it. Plus, it creatively manages to push in the R/15 certificate where war films are usually at this particular rating, but War Horse creatively manages to push in its PG-13/12A rating by being able to merge the deeply personal and intense aspects together that appeal to a wide target audience like it well and truly deserves.

  Including the outstanding direction from Spielberg, the praise must go to breath-taking aspects of the cinematography, art direction and costume design. War Horse presents itself as a film of pure art as well as an emotional war-drama as the cinematography in many ways is very similar to classic Hollywood film Gone With The Wind. Plus, the backgrounds settings provides the “Awww” sense to it that makes it the occasionally sweet and innocent tale featuring the beautiful landscapes and the golden skies but also a sense of disgust and gloom due to the battlefields. John Williams, who has collaborated with Steven Spielberg in almost every single film that he’s done, never ceases to amaze as he once again puts together a very powerful, spine-chilling score that adds even more drama and reality into the film. However, despite the positives, the film did slightly suffer from slow pacing to begin with as it took quite a while to get going.

  In almost every single film that Spielberg has made, he usually goes for an entirely different cast all-round as he works alongside some up-rising, young actors and some other experienced yet underrated actors in War Horse. However, despite the different cast the leading role has to go to Joey, the stallion who is the central figure of the story. Out of the 14 horses that played Joey, the leading one who appeared the most had already portrayed Seabiscuit in the film of the same name; this horse wasn’t just a horse make an appearance to charm the audience. It was literally like Joey, as well as the other horses, was providing an acting performance as we venture along with Joey through war and we can understand it from his perspective. This is exactly what this film is meant to bring out – how horses were truly treated during wars and the fact that their lives are still ones lost in the wars. So, if you’re an animal lover, you will almost immediately fall in love with Joey and will lead you to tears whilst experiencing his journey.

  Jeremy Irvine makes his feature film debut as he portrays handsome and sweet-hearted Albert. Irvine’s performance may be underrated but he provides exactly what was expected from a young, sensitive man as the relationship between him and Joey is a firmly solid bond, especially in the opening segments of the film where they meet. In the war scenes, he renovates the charming and occasionally innocent nature that’s familiar to Lew Ayres’s role as Paul Bäumer in classic World War I film All Quiet On The Western Front. Emily Watson and Peter Mullan deliver grand performances as well as Albert’s parents Ted and Rose, and David Thewlis is very good as the arrogant landlord Lyons. Debuting French actress Celine Buckens and veteran French actor Niels Arestrup make crucial appearances too but they could’ve really done with speaking French with English subtitles as it would’ve perhaps made a bit more realistic. There are also other surprise arrivals into the film from recent breakthrough actors Tom Hiddleston and Benedict Cumberbatch and they make their mark in War Horse with solid performances too.

  Overall, War Horse is truly an absolutely magnificent and epic story that expresses the firm bind and the personal effects that friendship beholds. Plus, it demonstrates war as a whole from an entirely different perspective that hasn’t really been taken into account. War Horse is one of those films that will leave you feeling a wide range of mixed emotions as it is a deeply inspiring, genuinely cute and nail-biting journey that is yet another fine accomplishment from Spielberg and will surely lead you to tears of heartbreak and joy.

[sjmj91-blog]

'Puss In Boots' review

The Shrek franchise began tremendously with its first two instalments receiving worldwide critical acclaim but then came along the disappointing Shrek The Third and to round it off,  the fourth instalment Shrek Forever After fulfilled the warmth and the comedy that provided a very good ending to the series. However, having said that it had concluded, there was something missing as it didn’t seem quite complete just yet. One of the main characters in the series, Puss In Boots, first-appeared mid-way through the Shrek sequel and we needed a glimpse of his past which would name this a spin-off. Films of this particular kind are usually an absolute waste as they go totally out of hand and because this was a prequel as well, expectations were rather mixed. Despite this, Puss In Boots turned out a great surprise that feels like one on its own without almost no connection to the Shrek franchise at all.

Years before the events of Shrek 2 (no precise time setting), the adorable but tricky Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) must clear his name from all charges making him a wanted fugitive. He makes attempts to steal magic beans from the infamous criminals Jack and Jill (Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris), the hero crosses paths with his female match, Kitty Softpaws (Selma Hayek), who leads Puss to his old friend, but now enemy, Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis). Although, Humpty’s trust in Puss was rocked many years ago due to acts of betrayal after a strong friendship, Puss agrees to aid the egg retrieve the magic beans, steal the Golden Goose and to clear Puss’s name.

From the likes of particularly DreamWorks Animation and Pixar Animation Studios, each of the feature films presented embark us all on different adventures and meeting new characters from different backgrounds that provides the enchanting magic, the hilarious comedy and the binding and close bonds between the characters. Within Puss In Boots, it consists of an adventure into the classic fairy tales that we’d have read in our younger lives, which is what the four Shrek films express. So, it is, in that particular way, still linked to the series but as far as dialogue, comedy and action, Puss In Boots is more a less a particular kind of film alone.

Although its animation and only consists of voice-acting, Spanish actor Antonio Banderas gives a performance that he really was destined to portray the title character. He already was brilliant in the Shrek films but more than ever, Banderas adds a more badass and more heroic cat that we hadn’t really seen previously and we witnessed a rather emotionally attached and thought-provoking Puss that we didn’t see all that much within the Shrek series. Plus, he presents a character a lot like Zorro/Alejandro Murrieta who Banderas is well-known for playing. Mexican Academy Award nominee Salma Hayek, who has collaborated with Banderas on more than one occasion in leading roles (e.g. Desperado, Once Upon A Time In Mexico) provides a solid performance who brings forth an unusually sexy nature towards Kitty Softpaws as she expresses a Catwoman-like personality even though she’s actually a cat. So, due to the voice acting performance and how Hayek made us feel about her, she would have made a strong candidate for the Catwoman character.

The Hangover and Due Date funny man Zach Galifianakis goes somewhere a bit different with this one, not only because it’s animation but because the Humpty Dumpty character is occasionally a rather dark character, so that provides a rather new side of acting to him as well as the vintage laugh-out-loud humour that he brings forth here and has done in the past. Humpty is rather different here to the original tales of the character, but it’s still a very nice treat to see him on the big screen. Even more fairy tale classic characters are added to the list – Jack and Jill, who are portrayed by Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris. Having said that these two are the biggest villains in the film and their appearances aren’t frequent, they aren’t the innocent ones like in the nursery rhyme and older tales. So, like Humpty Dumpty, it was a delight to add them into the mix. Pan’s Labyrinth and Hellboy director Guillermo Del Toro amazingly came into the blue and appears in a brief role as the Moustache Man.

Chris Miller, the director who gave us the massive let-down that was Shrek The Third, directs Puss In Boots and reluctantly makes up for the previous disappointment he bought forth. These being the only two feature films that he has ever directed and has provided a balanced point of view about him now, whatever he’ll decide to be part of in the future will go either way. The most important feature that was in Puss In Boots that was a vital miss in Shrek The Third was that it provided a lot more warmth and strong bonds between the characters, and quite honestly if any animated film for kids doesn’t have that, it’s not going to work. It took three screenwriters to write this intriguing spin-off prequel and the hats go off to them as two of the three provide solid experience in writing an animated film and the third has illustrated participation within the comedy genre. So, in the writing category of the film, it turned out a successful triumph.

  Overall, Puss In Boots is a charming and dazzling adventure that has almost no part of the Shrek series at all. Whether you’re a huge admirer of Shrek and its sequels or not, Puss In Boots is a family film that is filled with exciting and enchanting aspects that mixes the innocence of the story for kids with the childhood memories of the tales featuring the characters that’ll no doubt make this appealing for adults to really enjoy too.

[sjmj91-blog]

'The Rite' review

Time and time again, we witness all of these horror exorcism films that are “based on true stories” where they always provide the exact same tone, style of filming and type of suspense in an attempt to terrify its target audience. There has not been one single exorcism film to have been a strong match to sum-up or even surpass the horrifying and realistic execution of the battles between good and evil ever the release of <i>The Exorcist</i> back in 1973 and, quite frankly as predicted, <i>The Rite</i> is another failed exorcism film that is another cheesy and dull addition to the horror/thriller genre that is forgettable, but does have one or two positive aspects.

Being the son of a funeral director, Michael Kovak (Colin O’Donoghue) is a sceptical seminary student and his ambition to complete a degree course has begun. However, one night he accidentally knocks over a young woman on a bicycle who mistakes him for a priest. So, questioning his lack of faith in Christianity, Michael ventures to Rome to attend an exorcism course at the Vatican held by Father Lucas (Anthony Hopkins). Michael learns the ways of possessive demons as demonstrated from one of Father Lucas’s patients but the tables begin to turn as the demon becomes even more dangerous.

Although <i>The Rite</i> occasionally has its rather scary segments that are quite difficult to endure, the biggest problem that the film has is that it is just is depressingly flat throughout the majority of the time. It’s like the film is as dry as a plank of wood as it lacks a specific meaning and doesn’t leave the audience with anything to deeply think about. Plus, even though the background art within Rome, in the churches etc and the costumes and make-up upon the actors are absolutely fantastic, <i>The Rite</i> lacks almost everything that’s supposed to meet the feelings of the audiences as the production aspects were the substitutes over the feelings of terror that the film should have had.

  <i>The Rite</i> is not the first time that Swedish director and screenwriter Mikael Håfström has brought forth a horror film. He previously worked on <i>1408</i> and on the 2010 thriller <i>Shanghai</i>, but considering that being one who’s not all that familiar with his work, he provides impressively produced aspects (i.e. cinematography, art direction and costumes) but he simply was absolutely no match to bring forth the horror, the reality and the drama in an exorcism film like William Friedkin did in <i>The Exorcist</i> in 1973. In fact, to be able to achieve this is an almost impossibility due to the fact that all these exorcism films nowadays all practically interpret almost exactly the same.

  The great Sir Anthony Perkins already made his mark in the horror/thriller genre after his Academy Award winning performance as Dr. Hannibal Lecter in <i>Silence Of The Lambs</i> and later on portraying said character in the sequel and prequel. However, having said that Anthony Hopkins’ appearance in <i>The Rite</i> is a very crucial aspect that perhaps did save it from disaster, Hopkins still gave a satisfactory performance that is decent enough to endure for 100+ minutes, but he really can do so much better than this! Colin O’Donoghue makes only his third consecutive appearance in a feature film, but first Hollywood film debut, as Michael Kovak. Unfortunately, Kovak provides a performance that was almost like watching paint dry as he provides almost no emotion nor fright to the young man in the slightest, although there have been a few other young actors who’ve given more disappointing performances over the years. The chemistry between O’Donoghue and Hopkins was very one-sided as it felt a lot like it was Hopkins doing all the work and that O’Donoghue gave assumptions that he didn’t want to be part of the film at all. There’s a surprise appearance from veteran Dutch actor Rutger Lauer also best known for the horror/thriller films he has done throughout his career, so he, like Hopkins, provides some kind of sophistication to <i>The Rite</i>.

Overall, <i>The Rite</i> is just another exorcism film making worthless attempts at renovating the particular the theme within the genre, but turns out a plain and rather flat that really doesn’t terrify the audience all that much. As stated, Hopkins and Rauer add a tad bit of spice into the film but having said that, the other aspects within <i>The Rite</i> just don’t provide the horror and intense experience that we should have had.

[sjmj91-blog]

'My Week With Marilyn' review

Having the ability to tackle a biographical film about a Hollywood icon is usually a very difficult task as a particular series of events that occur in one’s life is required for it to work as a solid story in a motion picture. When it comes to a film about somebody like Marilyn Monroe, you really need a strong casting for that person and it needs to be executed solidly that is both a film alone but also brings forth a tribute towards the real-life people the actors are portraying. Monroe’s shocking and unexpected death in 1962 would have perhaps been the biggest key idea for a film, but we are taken somewhere a bit different with My Week With Marilyn as it shows us one of her projects and close relationships and about her overwhelming popularity as an actress and sex symbol in the 1950s.  Based upon a true story and a book and memoir written by Colin Clark is set in the summer of 1956 where Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh is making a film namedThe Prince And The Showgirl in London. Young Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), an eager film student, wants to be involved and he navigates himself a job on the set. When film star Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams) arrives for the start of shooting, all of London is excited to see the blonde bombshell, while Olivier is struggling to meet her many demands and acting ineptness, and Colin is intrigued by her. Colin's intrigue is met when Marilyn invites him into her inner world where she struggles with her fame, her beauty and her desire to be a great actress. My Week With Marilyn provides almost exact similar concepts to what Academy Award winning historical drama The King’s Speech provided in 2010. Mutually they are balanced evenly between a typical historical costume drama and just simply a biographical film. Most people refer to historical dramas as films that are about kings, queens, dukes, duchesses etc, but being a film about Hollywood stars and a small love story, My Week With Marilyn provides colour and beauty which is essential for a film like this. Plus, it proves that both biographical and historical films usually work best when the budget isn’t massively high, and although £6.4 million isn’t all that much for a film of this modern era, thankfully the glistening backgrounds and corny acting doesn’t take over My Week With Marilyn like we have seen in the past. Simon Curtis is another addition to the list of directors that have converted from a few years of television and then going straight into the world of cinema. Due to his lack of experience in the film industry, the odds were perhaps against him to make a rather important film like My Week With Marilyn that turns out a solid and all-round success. Curtis, like Tom Hooper for The King’s Speech goes straight into the blue and goes on to make a solid breakthrough in his career and provides an accurate on-screen vision of great historical figures. Like director Simon Curtis, screenwriter Adrian Hodges makes his film debut as he penned an extraordinary but rather flawed script. Hodges who previously wrote and co-created science-fiction television programmes Survivorsand Primeval, perhaps didn’t get it all right with My Week With Marilyn as it consisted of a few particular scenes of dialogue with inappropriately vulgar lines. That is the only slight weakness of this film that slightly lacked the reality of a film set in 1950s London, but it is all-round a breakthrough for the makers. To be able to not only pull off the precise vocals and talent but the beauty of the almost perfect woman that was Marilyn Monroe is almost impossible to achieve, but Michelle Williams’ portrayal of Monroe is pretty damn close! Williams who has appeared here and there in various films ever since her breakthrough performance in Brokeback Mountain, provides a performance as Marilyn Monroe that proves herself worthy as one of the greatest portrayals of a historical symbol in recent memory. She not only supplies the irresistible sex symbol status of Monroe but also maintained her cute, vulnerable and in-secure nature, just like Colin Firth did of King George VI in The King’s Speech. Plus, Williams acts as two people – Monroe herself but also Monroe in the role of Elsie in The Prince And The Showgirl, so that’s another positive aspect on Williams’ part. Quite frankly, if she does not win the Oscar for Best Leading Actress, the Academy will have made a huge, huge mistake as there could not have been a more explicit portrayal of the iconic Marilyn Monroe as Williams provides here. My Week With Marilyn not only features Marilyn in one of her films but also other legendary actors portrayed by other ones from the likes of Sir Laurence Olivier, his wife at the time Vivien Leigh and Dame Sybil Thorndike. Kenneth Branagh who has appeared and directed in a numerous number of historical dramas, portrays Sir Laurence Olivier in a performance that provides Olivier as a both rather dangerous yet incredibly funny character. The love-hate chemistry between Williams and Branagh on-screen as Monroe and Olivier is absolutely superb as they generate together a re-birth illustration of the production within The Prince And The Showgirl. Eddie Redmayne’s portrayal of author and creator of the story Colin Clark provides a young and innocent character who perfectly demonstrates how easy Monroe really was on the eyes, and Judi Dench was her absolutely wonderful, supporting self once again as Dame Sybil Thorndike. The only weak-spots for casting were Julia Ormond as Vivien Leigh who for starters doesn’t look like Leigh and adds no reality or belief that it’s Vivien Leigh on the screen. We all blatantly know Emma Watson as Hermione Granger in the incredibly popular Harry Potter franchise, and stars in a film that’s totally different to what she’s done before, but the problem is with Emma now is that all we know her as now and always will know her as Hermione Granger. Overall, My Week With Marilyn is a solid and mesmerising motion picture that captures the reality of 1956 London alongside outstanding performances from Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh and makes its mark as another truly great biographical film and historical drama. In order to gain a clear understanding of Monroe’s and Olivier’s nature and fully appreciate the actors performances as the selective characters, it is perhaps essential to watch any one of their films that they’ve each been part of. Plus, if you’re firmly hooked to the emotion and inspiration of The King’s Speech, you are bound to gain a close sensitive attachment to My Week With Marilyn too. 8/10

[sjmj91-blog]

'The Deep Blue Sea' review

Understandably, one can totally confuse this British drama for a film about the underwater world and it’s features due to the description of the title (especially the 1999 film Deep Blue Sea), but the nature of the title definitely serves its definitive meaning within the film. Time and time again, we have witnessed these dramas involving traumatised civilians that take us on an emotional and thought-provoking ride where the occurred events lead to a very tender and important message. The play by dramatist Terrence Ratigan that this is based on has already been adapted once before into a film that starred Vivien Leigh and Kenneth More, but now comes forth a second adaptation of the play. Set “around 1950”, The Deep Blue Sea is the story of Hester (Rachel Weisz) who is the wife of older man, William Collyer (Simon Russell Beale), a local High Court judge, but Hester begins an affair with a man at her normal age, Freddie Page (Tom Hiddleston), a Royal Air Force Pilot. However, fearing that Freddie is tired of her, Hester attempts to commit suicide. When this doesn’t go to plan, her life is totally altered upside down as her relationship with Freddie hits the rocks.  Although it is a 1950s British drama, the extraordinary title The Deep Blue Seaprovides a personal reference to death as it illustrates how one’s life can sink to an incredibly low level that could go as far as to one considering an attempt at suicide. So, as a result of this, the film exposes an explanation informing that we do not know what goes on inside the mind. The Deep Blue Sea is not adapted in chronological order so it consists of just after the suicide attempt and then taken into numerous flashbacks that exposes the motive to do so. It literally opens up the consequences and personal affects that suicide really has, not so much on the individual committing it, but for the loved ones around that person. Out of the six films since 1988 that he has directed, Terence Davies hasn’t received any major recognition and a critical round of applause for his work. Considering that his latest film The Deep Blue Sea stars the dazzling and beautiful Rachel Weisz and uprising actor Tom Hiddleston, his work is yet again extremely underrated. What he provides with The Deep Blue Sea are concepts that are partially linked with the tones from a certain number of films directed by David Lynch, such as rather dark background settings, eerie music score and with some unique and creative camera angles. Including being the director, Davies also took the honourable role of penning the script of The Deep Blue Sea. There is so much dialogue within as it involves a lot of thought-provoking and up-close conversations like a play normally does. So all-round, Terence Davies honours the original play by Terrence Ratigan but makes it a solid drama. To be quite honest, The Deep Blue Sea is one of those rare films where only a certain low number of specific key characters involved. Academy Award winning British actress Rachel Weisz has and we’ve seen her mostly as this simple, young, gorgeous woman in the majority of films that she has been part of. Her performance in The Deep Blue Sea as Hester Collyer is rather different from anything she has done, so she provides a slightly new style of performance in this one. She’s a lot darker in nature and is a deeply distressed and fairly psychologically disturbed young woman who is in her own personal trap and tries to break free! Weisz’s performance perhaps isn’t Oscar bait, but it’s definitely one of her best roles. Tom Hiddleston who got his breakthrough earlier in 2011 after Thor and he gives a distraught and emotional performance as Freddie Page. The chemistry between Freddie and Hester could have been a tad bit stronger, but it was solid enough to get to grips with and to feel the emotional attachment between them. Overall, The Deep Blue Sea is a highly underrated drama that is definitely one of the best British films of 2011 as it provides both emotional drama and a psychological in-sight into the mind. No, this isn’t going to be one of the greatest films that you’ll ever watch, but it is still provides what every film of this particular genre should: a meaningful message to its audience. So, for this reason, it is a recommended drama that is really worth checking out. 8/10

[sjmj91-blog]

'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' review

First of all, before watching Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy it’s important to know that it is not the James Bond-like spy film that features gun fights, car chases and a lot of violent physical contact. Nevertheless, it is unlike many other espionage films that you could possibly see as it takes you on a more theoretical journey into complex investigations and problem solving. Although spy films are not the most favoured sub-genre that everybody will enjoy, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is neither one of the best nor worst spy films that there has been as it provides positive qualities and negative flaws on equal fronts. During the Cold War in the 1970s, an operation led by the head of British Intelligence aka “The Circus” Control (John Hurt) to arrange a meeting with a Hungarian general goes badly wrong that results in the death of agent Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong), but Control alongside his right-hand man George Smiley (Gary Oldman) are fired and therefore forced into retirement. Smiley is called back by Oliver Lacon (Simon McBurney) to investigate a story by Ricky Tarr (Tom Hardy) who says to Smiley that there was a mole for the Soviet intelligence aka “Witchcraft” at Prideaux’s death. However, Smiley doesn’t do it alone as he seeks the help from Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch) to unravel the mystery. Having said that Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is unlike many other espionage films such as the James Bond, Jason Bourne and Mission: Impossible franchises, there are a few certain faults that the film consists of that could make its viewers slightly lose interest. For example, reading the synopsis doesn’t seem too difficult to understand but when you’re actually watching the film and as it goes into specific detail, it becomes rather complex and can occasionally exhaust the audience by gradually making them feel a bit lost by it. So, as a result of this, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy really is a film that needs to be watched more than once to gain a full and clear understanding of the story or to just simply read the novel and watch the 1979 television series. Although finding the complex and rather slow dialogue was the only major problem, the direction and filming side of production was just superb! From the director of Swedish horror film, Let The Right One In, Tomas Alfredson goes somewhere different as it becomes his very first English language film. Time and time again, we see this ‘whodunit’ style thrillers resulting in plot twists and dark background stories but Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy expresses the dark yet rather clean settings of the film demonstrating life in the 1970s and during the Cold War. Despite the style of filming, Alfredson just lacked expressing that realistic feeling you get when trying to feel attached to the characters, so he may be able to do a lot better but he can do a lot worse than this. Let’s all be perfectly honest about this: Gary Oldman is undoubtedly one of the most underrated actors of all time who has delivered some fantastic performances and has appeared in a lot of blockbusters over the years. His performance in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was absolutely brilliant as George Smiley which could result in him finally gaining him a long-awaited Academy Award nomination for Best Leading Actor. One who has watched the TV series would have found it a rather difficult task to be able to surpass what the late Alec Guinness managed to bring forth to the character, but considering that I’ve not watched the series; Gary Oldman is the one who could’ve surpassed Guinness. Recent Academy Award winning actor Colin Firth (The King’s Speech) makes his mark and delivers a good performance as Deputy Chief of the Circus, Bill Haydon. Other strong additions to the cast are uprising young actors Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch who together add a bit of youth alongside the older and more experienced actors. Mark Strong makes a very crucial appearance as Jim Prideaux in the powerful prologue of the film and within the rather sudden flashbacks that constantly kept appearing at the most unexpected times. Overall, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is neither a fantastic film that is one of the greatest of its genre as well as of 2011, not one of the worst either. Gary Oldman deserved the critical acclaim that he received and is accompanied by a strong ensemble cast that saves the film. I wouldn’t go as far as to call the story a ‘mess’ but there are many ways where it could have been a lot easier to understand and could have been better. 6/10

[sjmj91-blog]

'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo' (2011) review

As we should’ve all gathered about now, remakes and second adaptations from another film/novel have proved themselves as massive gambles that have become either a huge success (e.g. <i>The Departed, King Kong, Scarface</i>) or a huge disappointment (<i>Psycho, A Nightmare On Elm Street, Planet Of The Apes</i>). Although the Swedish version of <i>The e.g. Girl With The Dragon Tattoo</i> was released in 2009, the idea of a second film adaptation but in English after only two years was a rather unorthodox and unusual one as it ultimately became quite a shock. However, when it came to our attention that David Fincher was selected as director, the anticipation to watch it began to build and expectations were high. Amazingly, <i>The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo</i> overcame all obstacles and made itself worthy as one of the best films of 2011 and re-lives the brilliance of the 2009 Swedish version.

  Swedish journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) of the <i>Millennium</i> magazine is assigned by Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to investigate the disappearance of his niece Harriet who has been missing for approximately 40 long years. Henrik and his nephew Martin (Stellan Skarsgård) aid Blomkvist in the investigation as they mutually decided to invest in the <i>Millennium</i> magazine. Simultaneously, a tattooed and pierced young woman Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), who is a computer hacker and researcher for Milton Security, visits her new guardian Nils Byurman after her last one suffered from a stroke. Byurman is in control of her finances and Lisbeth is forced to engage in sexual activities in exchange for money from her allowances, but after a horrific event occurs, Salander encounters Blomkvist who is seeking a researcher and assistant. Henrik’s lawyer recommended Salander as an assistant, so together; Blomkvist and Salander collaborate in unravelling this mystery which draws them closer to one another.

  There are certain arguments debating about whether this English language version is even a remake at all due to opposing languages with different actors and crew members despite being a second adaptation. Nevertheless, from a personal perspective, this version is not a remake of the 2009 Swedish film but it is re-living the source of both films and it takes you to yet another different level. In addition, this version has perhaps enhanced its viewers to watch the other adaptation to gain an understanding and an outlook of what to expect in this one, although it’s not really essential which one you select to watch first because they mutually provide the exact same emotional feelings from one another.

  During the early stages of his career, David Fincher has provided us with many dark thrillers that include <i>Alien 3, Seven, The Game, Fight Club, Panic Room</i> and <i>Zodiac</i>, but has provided us with other fantastic dramas <i>The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button</i> and <i>The Social Network</i>. However, as far as this is concerned, it is the exact film that only Fincher could pull off (in English language, at least) due to the fact that he simply ventured back to the drama and thriller genres that he has been famously recognised for and has merged them together, which is what we have with <i>The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo</i>. Actually, his attention to detail is a very similar style to what the late Stanley Kubrick did in the past. Fincher provides us with a film that somehow manages to not take all of the credit from Niels Arden Oplev, director of the Swedish version, and all the other crew members as the English language version pulls off the exact concepts that we saw previously. Screenwriter Steve Zaillian has worked alongside directors from the likes of Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorsese where he has written some of the most creative and extremely powerful scripts of the past 20 years. After already co-writing 2011 film <i>Moneyball</i>, he works alongside David Fincher as he somehow improvises and, like Fincher, doesn’t necessarily steal any of the aspects in the previous version. In fact, it wasn’t Fincher and Zaillian adjusting the story and its concepts to fit in with its target audience, it was altering the actors and crew members into the Scandinavian neighbourhood and feeling like a re-birth of the book. 

  Quite honestly, to be able to come close or to even surpass Noomi Rapace’s outstanding performance as Lisbeth Salander would be a very difficult task for any actress to be able to pull off, especially in a different language. Out of the numerous number of candidates for the role, Rooney Mara (who had previously worked with Fincher in <i>The Social Network</i>) gives a performance that fits almost every specific aspect of Rapace’s Salander that literally makes Mara’s role neither worse nor better than Rapace’s. Mara adds one very slight adjustment to Lisbeth Salander’s character that Rapace didn’t: a sense of innocence. Noomi Rapace was a <b>slightly</b> darker Salander but they were both equally as fantastic as each other. Mara rightfully deserves an Academy Award nomination for Best Leading Actress and if she does receive one, it will perhaps justify Noomi Rapace not receiving one seeing as she was robbed. 

  Alongside Daniel Craig, fellow actors Viggo Mortensen, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp were battling it out for the leading role of Mikael Blomkvist, and as good as the other actors would have been in the role, Craig provides a role that is only for him (in the English language, of course) but isn’t quite an Oscar worthy performance. We all recognise him as James Bond now and personal thoughts about him being in this film were mixed to begin with and he actually became a surprise as he provides an equally sensational performance as Michael Nyqvist in the role of Blomkvist. Although Max Von Sydow, a famous Swedish Hollywood actor, was the favourite to star in the film as Henrik Vanger, veteran actor Christopher Plummer replaced him and provides another brilliant performance! Plummer illustrates perfectly the lonely, depressed and rather desperate grandfather that Henrik really is. Stellan Skarsgård, who has portrayed good supporting heroes and villains over the years, makes his mark and gives a performance to remember as well. There are other brief appearances from other actors Steven Berkoff, Robin Wright, Joely Richardson and Embeth Davidtz also.

Overall, <i>The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo</i> became both a huge surprise yet at the same time became something that was rather expected from Fincher as this English language version is neither better nor worse than the Swedish version. Also, there are a few twists and turns that we didn’t see before, so there are a few minor surprises in store. After how this turned out despite the rather crazy idea to begin with and they could not get any better than this one, the other two sequels in the trilogy don’t necessarily have to be made. <i>The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo</i> has become yet another triumph for David Fincher featuring filmmaking at its finest, fantastic performances (especially from Mara) and an innovative script that would make the late author Stieg Larsson proud.

[sjmj91-blog]

'Let Me In' review

Until recent years, there have been English language remakes of foreign language films and like remakes in general, they flopped or became great successes. However, regarding Let Me In, expectations weren't very high because I was at first against the idea of an American remake having loved the original Swedish version Let The Right One In and I ended up surprised at how good this film really was although I still prefer the original version. There were many positive signs about this film seeing as it almost spits in the face of those atrocious American fantasy horror films we see nowadays, the filming of it was just splendid and the acting was so good. However, what were the negative key points and weaknesses within Let Me In? First of all, it felt like a typical Hollywood film and didn't quite bring anything new to the screen whether part of the original version or not, secondly it didn't bring anything new that we hadn't already seen before and thirdly, it wasn't as scary or as emotional as the Swedish version was. Then again, the third point could be because I (as well as those who have seen the Swedish version) perhaps knew what was coming so this perhaps is a film that is more for fun entertainment than anything else. No, the film isn't terrifyingly scary where nightmares could be along the way but it does have its moments where you will get a lot of fun out of. Also, because the title of the film is so similar to the original film, it didn't completely feel like an individual American film despite being a remake. The sensitive target of vicious bullying at school, 12-year-old Owen (Smit-McPhee) is a social misfit from a broken home. By day Owen dreams about laying waste to his classroom tormentors; by night his attentions turn to his reclusive neighbors in their austere apartment complex. One evening, as Owen takes out his pent-up aggressions on a tree, his new neighbor Abby (Moretz) appears over his shoulder. A young girl wise beyond her years, Abby just moved in next door to Owen with her stoic caretaker (Jenkins), who seems to harbor a sinister secret. Compelled by Abby's apparent imperviousness to the harsh winter elements, her frail disposition, and the fact that she's nowhere to be found before the sun falls, Owen senses a kindred soul, and strikes up a friendship with the girl, despite her repeated attempts to maintain an emotional distance. Simultaneously, their community grows vigilant following a series of vicious murders, and Abby's caretaker vanishes without a trace. Later, as Abby begins to grow vulnerable, her bond with Owen strengthens. By the time Owen begins to suspect that his evasive new friend is something other than human, it starts to seem as if Abby could use a good friend after all. Given that his bullies are growing more emboldened by the day, so too could Owen. Two leading child stars who are becoming worldwide recognition for their fantastic roles in films in recent years (Chloe Moretz in Kick-Ass and Kodi Smit-McPhee in The Road) and now it is only fitting that if they are going to make a remake of a film that was released only a short time ago, they would need two child stars to portray the leading roles and what a fantastic choice it was to select Smit-McPhee and Moretz! Kodi Smit-McPhee - an admittedly underrated child star who gave a great performance inThe Road alongside Viggo Mortensen but this time he stars in something different than anything he has been involved in. At first, there were uncertainties that McPhee would give the leading boy (Owen in Let Me In and Oskar in Let The Right One In) an innocent touch and make us feel sorry for him but he surprised me and he pulled it off really well. No, he wasn't as good as Kåre Hedebrant in Let The Right One In but Kodi Smit-McPhee was definitely the best child actor to choose for a remake. 2010 has been the breakthrough year in Chloe Moretz's childhood as well as acting career by first portraying Mindy Macready/Hit-Girl in Kick-Ass and now playing Abby in this one. If there is anything that Moretz has proved thus far in her career is that she seems to lean closer towards playing darker characters in adult themed films. Another strong reason why Smit-McPhee and Moretz portrayed the two leading roles together is because both show the innocence of children at the same time especially Abby seeing as she wants to be a normal girl but she is almost like in the complete control of her vampire self and she becomes a whole different person when that happens. In many ways, her performance was like Linda Blair as Regan MacNeil in The Exorcist but in a few others, its totally different. I can't choose who was better out of Chloe Moretz as Abby or Lina Leandersson as Eli in Let The Right One In. Matt Reeves, who was previously known as the guy who directed Cloverfield goes somewhere slightly different where he hadn't been before not only from a film that involves romance but the style of filmmaking as well. I wasn't keen on Cloverfield but now after making a successful remake and filming it well, he has made up forCloverfield and now has become in my good books and hope he goes on to make some more decent films in the future. However, I will say that it will take some beating to top this one. Overall, Let Me In is an absolutely brilliant (but rarely successful) remake that was a true honor to its original film. However, Let The Right One In was better because it was scarier and more emotional and together (perhaps more the remake seeing as it is American), they both show exactly what the Twilight film franchise should have been like as apparently shown in the books. It perfectly manages to slide away from vintage Hollywood crap that we see nowadays and it felt very surreal and rather unorthodox like the original Swedish version and the original novel does. Fair enough if one decides to see the remake first but still need to see both American and Swedish versions. In a word; bravo! 8/10

[sjmj91-blog]

'Thor' review

This is coming from one who had almost no knowledge of theThor comics before seeing the film and when the trailer aired, it looked like a very enjoyable film and would have stunning effects with a lot of good fun coming out of it. However, in many ways the film both really surprised me and expectedly blew me away. As predicted, the cinematography, art direction, visual effects and the action Thor was exactly what was required: magnificent and should pull off a few Academy Award nominations for Best Visual Effects, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and maybe even Best Costume Design. However, what was so surprising about Thor was how emotional it turned out to be, how gripping and epic it felt from the first shot to the last and despite that some may not believe it, Asgard and other worlds show that there could be another world like it and that the Universe is like a tree with planets on the end of the branch. Just like Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk and the upcoming Captain America: The First Avenger, Thor is another MARVEL build-up to The Avengers which is due for release in 2012 and now after seeing this, I am even more excited about it and Thortruly is the dark horse of those films. In fact, the dark horse of all MARVEL films thus far seeing as I underestimated it to start off with and look how great it turned out to be. This does have its similarities with Ancient Greece such as the Gods and monsters within and I do think that some kind of inspiration from that went towards the Thorcomic itself but it still is an absolutely fantastic MARVEL creation with such a solid, imaginative and entertaining story. At the centre of the story is the Mighty Thor, a powerful but arrogant warrior whose reckless actions reignite an ancient war. As punishment by his father King Odin or Asgard, Thor is cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as punishment. Once here, Thor learns what it takes to be a true hero when the most dangerous villain of his world sends the darkest forces of Asgard to invade Earth.  Chris Hemsworth didn't seem entirely convincing as Thor to start off with seeing as in my opinion he looked rather flat for the character and perhaps could have picked a list of actors who looked like a better choice for Thor (my favourite pick was Paul 'Triple H' Levesque). However, he was more or less an unexpected surprise and played Thor absolutely brilliantly. Hemsworth provided everything that is the Thor character in a nutshell: badass, a heartthrob and a bad boy turned to real hero. The Thor film itself as well as the Thor character is, in my mind, MARVEL's own version of the greek mythological hero Hercules and the Gods and humans involved that are alike in so many ways and its funny that neither of them are classed as princes seeing as they are the son of a leader/king of Gods. Chris Hemsworth is one of those actors who not many people had even heard of before Thor was released but now it has been, it has truly become his breakthrough performance and hope to see more great roles in the near future, including The Avengers coming up in 2012. Natalie Portman makes her return in a summer blockbuster for the first time since Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge Of The Sith and guess what? She delivers exactly what you expect of her: brilliant acting by playing such a lovable character which wasn't really a huge surprise although her appearance in Thor made the film even more interesting. Jane Foster had so many similarities with Megara in Hercules (apart from being a scientist) due to the at-first oddness about Hercules and then binding love for him despite being so different. The great Sir Anthony Hopkins makes an appearance as King Odin (father of Thor) and to no surprise, gave a great performance. The character Odin had a lot of similarities with Marcus Aurelius in Gladiator who was portrayed by the late Richard Harris by both looks and personality and how they act towards their younger protégés. Stellen Skarsgard, Tom Hiddleston, Kat Dennings and Idris Elba gave good performances too. Also, keep an eye out for Jeremy Renner in this film. His role may be minor but his appearance of what we saw was pretty awesome. Speaking for perhaps a lot of people who thought Kenneth Branagh as director of Thorwas really surprising but my response to it was ''Uhh.. What?'' especially the fact that his previous works as director have been films based on plays by the great William Shakespeare (Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing, Hamlet) so, yeah films totally different. Anyway, I as well as a lot of people were proven wrong and truly did underestimate Branagh's directorial role in Thor. They perhaps couldn't have found a better director now after watching it and it makes us all think now that if Bryan Singer, Brett Ratner, Jon Favreau or anyone else who has been the director of a MARVEL film before could have made it too soppy and like a lot of Hollywood crap we see nowadays. The action scenes were filmed unbelievably seeing as during throughout every single part, it really looked like real action rather than overloaded CGI effects like in a lot of films we see nowadays. I hope Kenneth Branagh considers making another action film like Thor or maybe even the sequel if planned because he went somewhere really special with this one and is bound to blow the audience away and totally surprise them. Overall, Thor is such an entertaining, epic and highly intense MARVEL film that is perhaps is the dark-horse of summer blockbusters in 2011 (maybe even of the entire year) and was a surprisingly amazing film and the same thing could be said for J.J. Abram's Star Trek in summer 2009. It is definitely the best MARVEL film in years (probably the best one since Spider-Man 2 in 2004). If this doesn't pull off a few Academy Award nominations, they will need a brutal beating! Amazingly, Thormanages to provide both typical Hollywood and something that we haven't seen before or at least something that we haven't seen for a long time: a comic adaptation with a strong soul and was in a word; epic. I didn't see the film in 3D but even after watching it, I wasn't entirely convinced that a 3D release of the film was a good idea but Thor is still a brilliant film nevertheless. Thor will bring even more excitement to The Avengers! Speaking of which, if you are about to see the film at the cinema and are reading this review, make sure you stay until the ending credits for one last exciting build-up scene. 8/10

[sjmj91-blog]

'The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest' review

The Millennium trilogy has been on such a great role after two great predecessors and the final film in the trilogy is here and after loving The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and The Girl Who Played With Fire, expectations were very high for The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest but guess what? It was such a disappointment for me but I didn't hate it. Why was it disappointing? Well, first of all the film wasn't really entertaining as a film and I just felt it went a bit flat especially after a huge build-up at the end of The Girl Who Played With Fire, it surprisingly was the most complex film of the trilogy. I mean, I can handle a lot of complex films but mixing a very complex and rather un-entertaining dialogue together just didn't work. Plus, it wasn't tense, emotional or anything. In fact, I can't think of any feeling I felt about the story and pacing of the film apart from the two words ''flat'' and ''boring''. Despite the flaws, there were some good qualities that the film had that were strong persuasions for me not to hate it. The acting once again was splendid from pretty much everybody involved, the technical qualities such as art direction, make-up and especially cinematography was very good as well but even those didn't completely save the film. The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest really was unnecessarily too long and perhaps could have been about 110 minutes long, not 150 minutes! Recovering from her wounds in hospital, Lisbeth Salander is also in police custody. Her attacker, Alexander Zalachenko, is just down the hall from her, also recovering from his wounds. At a minimum, she is to be charged with attempted murder but it is soon evident that the forces that had Lisbeth committed to a mental institution at the age of 12 would like her to again be committed for an indefinite period. Mikael Blomkvist meanwhile is preparing a special issue of his magazine, Millennium, dedicated to demanding justice for Lisbeth. Soon however, his apartment is broken into and his colleague and lover Erika is receiving e-mail threats. He sets out to unmask the conspirators who are clearly prepared to go to great lengths to silence Lisbeth and bury their secret forever. Michael Nyqvist is a good actor don't get me wrong and has delivered three decent performances as Mikael Blomkvist but where I think he really lacked a soul in his role in this film is that he just didn't make Blomkvist act emotional towards and about Lisbeth and just didn't show that much desperation to un-cover the truth. I seriously doubt that Daniel Craig will beat Michael Nyqvist but I'm sure he'll be good nevertheless. Noomi Rapace is officially one of the most underrated living actresses especially after her outstanding performance in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, her second great role in The Girl Who Played With Fire and another good performance inThe Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest (which is in fact the best quality that the film has). In all three films, Lisbeth Salander becomes almost a different person by acting more of a bad girl but looking less of a bad girl as the films progress. Even though her roles in the trilogy are extremely underrated, she needs a breakthrough performance in Hollywood. Daniel Alfredson who directed The Girl Who Played With Fire really looked like he would do such a grand job with the final installment in the Millennium trilogy but I'm sorry, I think he just failed with this one. In a way, like Gore Verbinski with Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End seeing as the second installment had such a teasing end, expectations were very high for the final installment and to be honest, they both felt unusually boring and rushed. Admittedly, the script wasn't too bad but I think if they cut at least 15-20 minutes out, it truly would have been a fantastic film but.. wasn't to be. Overall, The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest became a disappointment for me but it wasn't entirely awful. Yeah, had one or two qualities which is exactly what a lot of disappointing films but is easily forgettable and it could have been a lot better. Now after seeing this, I am beginning to think that a remake is a bad idea but you never know. It was a disappointing finale but the trilogy itself is great that I really enjoyed and would watch regularly (except this one). 5/10

[sjmj91-blog]

'Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides' review

Having loved the Pirates Of The Caribbean series up until the release of At World's End, the announcement of a fourth instalment was perhaps a bad idea in my opinion to start off with. However, it could have been a film to have truly made up for the disappointing third instalment but you know what? It really didn't and it really was a disappointment! In fact, it was worse than the third film (even though more was expected out of third so that is more of a disappointment). Why? Well, first of all, the amount of plot holes and confusions were huge. If you read the plot synopsis, it is actually a basic story but when you watch the film itself, the plot just went almost totally different and took us somewhere different. The fourth instalment had a lot of whatAt World’s End had: quite a lot of unnecessary stops and rather irrelevant scenes. For example, there are action scenes but then like *that*, it stops and there are a couple of lines and then *bang* goes back to action again. In some ways, On Stranger Tides had some of the weaknesses that Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen had was there was too much noise (as in too many action scenes) but not enough story or character development and it just didn't feel like a true magical film from Disney Pictures like we did previously see in the first two instalments. To be honest, it had the plot where it just felt flat very quickly and didn't make it very exciting to watch. It isn't the first time that this has happened in Pirates Of The Caribbean series but unfortunately like At World's End, despite that the fourth instalment is in fact the duration is almost the same as Curse Of The Black Pearl and that the sequels are longer, the story in this one just dragged and got quite boring with some rather unnecessary scenes so they could have cut the film short by at least 15 minutes. However, despite these many flaws that Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, the qualities within the film are obviously the breathtaking effects and the way it was filmed just like the first three films in the series. It certainly is a well-directed film and was handled well but even that didn’t make the film entirely convincing to enjoy. 'Captain' Jack Sparrow (Depp) crosses paths with a woman from his past Angelica (Cruz), and he's not sure if it's love -- or if she's a ruthless con artist who's using him to find the fabled Fountain of Youth. When she forces him aboard the Queen Anne's Revenge, the ship of the formidable pirate Blackbeard (McShane), Jack finds himself on an unexpected adventure in which he doesn't know who to fear more: Blackbeard or the woman from his past. 'Captain' Jack Sparrow was already Johnny Depp's public favourite character and is his favourite character to play but a fourth instalment seeing 'Captain' Jack return again was a really exciting one. However, despite that Johnny once again proves that he ISJack Sparrow, Jack was almost like a different character and wasn't the usual cowardly, humorous and rather dirty character that we saw in the previous three films. As a matter of fact, I wasn't entirely convinced that Jack was even the protagonist of the story. Think it was both him and that priest who falls in love with the mermaid and there are two separate stories going on. I mean, two protagonists simply do not work in a film like this! It is a leading character with a supporting character so, yeah Johnny was good once again but think the character was in a word; muddle. After the announcement of no Orlando Bloom nor Keira Knightley in On Stranger Tides and that Penelope Cruz was going to be in it, that became quite exciting. Penelope starring in it as the sidekick of Jack instead of Orlando Bloom was certainly better but the on-off romantic scenes between Angelica and Jack did get on my nerves. I'll tell you one thing, though: you will probably drool watching Penelope Cruz as Angelica throughout every second she is in the film and that only happened once or twice with Keira Knightley in all three predecessors so yeah, Penelope made up for Keira and Orlando not being in this one so made it slightly better! Also, Johnny and Penelope looked great on-screen together and would make a great real-life couple! Another villain has arrived in the Pirates Of The Caribbean franchise: Blackbeard. First of all, expectations were high on Ian McShane's performance and the involvement of the character after how disappointing and annoying of a villain that Bill Nighy was as Davy Jones was in Dead Man's Chest and At World's End but the Blackbeard character was really, and I mean really weak! Before Blackbeard appeared on-screen, he sounded like a very terrifying and destructive villain but as we got to know the character as the film progressed, he went less evil and villainous and began to have a soft side. In fact, I don't even think there was one character who was the antagonist, so I don't think there has been a powerful and evil villain in the series since Captain Barbossa in Curse Of The Black Pearl despite he appears in all three sequels to that film. Speaking of Barbossa, seriously what has happened to him?! How did he get there after losing the Pearl and knowing that he is deep-down a pirate? He was once an evil pirate captain who could kill, torture and make others suffer (like we saw inCurse Of The Black Pearl) but now he has become a suck-up and is now the King's captain so to speak. Also, the soft heart-to-heart conversations he has with Jack in On Stranger Tides got annoying because they were once enemies who hated each other and tried to kill each other but now they're almost like friends and allies. Seriously, wouldn't you have thought that either of them would've wanted to kill each other again by now after what has happened? I'm sorry but Barbossa appearing in this was a huge mistake! Rob Marshall was a rather unique yet a very good choice to direct On Stranger Tidesafter original director Gore Verbinski. The unique side was that he hasn't really had any experience directing an action fantasy film or even a film for children's eyes but has only really had recognition for directing musicals (director of 2002 Best Picture winner Chicago and 2009 musical Nine which starred Penelope Cruz so he reunites with her again. And he was also the director of Memoirs Of A Geisha). Marshall bought us something slightly different but didn't really make On Stranger Tides a follow-up to the previous trilogy. It felt a lot like it was one on its own, it perhaps looked like it could be called a reboot in the series just featuring 3 of the original characters (Jack, Barbossa and Gibbs), and it seemed like a prequel in some ways (although I would like to see that) or it is simply just totally unnecessary. So I have a mixed opinion about Rob Marshall as director of this one. Overall, Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a huge disappointment that I think is the worst of the series when I really did not expect it to be especially after howAt World's End turned out. There were some good qualities that this had so I wouldn't go as far as to call it awful and that I hated it but it still is a bad film that I might not even watch again. If there is anything that this film has taught us, it is that the more sequels that come out, the worse the series is going to get. In Johnny Depp's words about returning as 'Captain' Jack in a fifth instalment: ''If we can get all the pieces in the puzzle together (as in the story), I would most definitely consider it'' so if they are planning a fifth or maybe even sixth instalment, they seriously need to do that or else the series is going to die very slowly. To revive it, I might even consider wanting Orlando and Keira to return in a fifth instalment (if there will be one) and we need the old 'Captain' Jack Sparrow back! After two weak films in the series, the ship is now very close to sinking completely. 5/10