Film Reviews Thread
Scroll to see replies
Name of the Film: The Fountain (Darren Aronofsky, 2007)
It's strange when a movie makes me think about it for more than half an hour; so when I say that The Fountain is a strange film, I want you to fully understand my meaning! Really; I was thinking about this movie for at least three hours afterwards. Plus, in writing this review, I've sparked a whole new wave of thinking about this wonderful, wonderful film. That's how much it's affected me. And that's how much it affected the audience I was watching it with; as the credits rolled...no-one got up; everyone stayed on to the very end.
This movie is modern art colliding with cinema (I suspect). There are probably hundreds of ways of interpreting its lush visuals and compelling story. And each of these interpretations will be as varied as the people who should go see this film. At its simplest, this is a love story; a story of a man (Hugh Jackman) trying to save his beloved (Rachel Weisz) from various dilemmas that span three eras of history. At its most complex...well, that's up to you really. You can read into it at almost any level. Take from it what you will; that's how rewarding this experience is.
Not to say that the film is technically inept; a story this ambiguous could suggest Aronofsky is being self-indulgent, or even that he's lost the plot completely. But no, there's been an enormous amount of thought put into what to tell - and indeed what not to tell - the audience. Plus, the visuals are truly astounding; glorious star-scapes; grim, rain-sodden jungles; palaces decorated with hanging candles; stark, raw images that are perhaps some of the most beautiful ever committed to celluloid. And all are captured beautifully by Matthew Libatique's steady hand, and all enhanced by this strange - yet somehow wonderful - inner glow.
And the two central performances are just as wonderful. Weisz brings a quiet dignity to her role of Queen Isabel, and a truly smile-inducing sense of life to her cancer-ridden Izzy. Jackman is brooding, moving and pensive as his respective roles of Tomas, Tommy and Tom; truly undermiming his box office clout to bring us touching performances of our three protagonists, inexorably linked (or are they?) through time.
Inevitably, this movie is going to split people down the middle; some will love its majesty, others will be confounded to the point of being insulted. But I thoroughly recommend going to see it, regardless of which camp you will eventually fall into. This is a movie that will sit in your mind - and hopefully your heart - for a very long time.
Rating Out of 10: 8
It's strange when a movie makes me think about it for more than half an hour; so when I say that The Fountain is a strange film, I want you to fully understand my meaning! Really; I was thinking about this movie for at least three hours afterwards. Plus, in writing this review, I've sparked a whole new wave of thinking about this wonderful, wonderful film. That's how much it's affected me. And that's how much it affected the audience I was watching it with; as the credits rolled...no-one got up; everyone stayed on to the very end.
This movie is modern art colliding with cinema (I suspect). There are probably hundreds of ways of interpreting its lush visuals and compelling story. And each of these interpretations will be as varied as the people who should go see this film. At its simplest, this is a love story; a story of a man (Hugh Jackman) trying to save his beloved (Rachel Weisz) from various dilemmas that span three eras of history. At its most complex...well, that's up to you really. You can read into it at almost any level. Take from it what you will; that's how rewarding this experience is.
Not to say that the film is technically inept; a story this ambiguous could suggest Aronofsky is being self-indulgent, or even that he's lost the plot completely. But no, there's been an enormous amount of thought put into what to tell - and indeed what not to tell - the audience. Plus, the visuals are truly astounding; glorious star-scapes; grim, rain-sodden jungles; palaces decorated with hanging candles; stark, raw images that are perhaps some of the most beautiful ever committed to celluloid. And all are captured beautifully by Matthew Libatique's steady hand, and all enhanced by this strange - yet somehow wonderful - inner glow.
And the two central performances are just as wonderful. Weisz brings a quiet dignity to her role of Queen Isabel, and a truly smile-inducing sense of life to her cancer-ridden Izzy. Jackman is brooding, moving and pensive as his respective roles of Tomas, Tommy and Tom; truly undermiming his box office clout to bring us touching performances of our three protagonists, inexorably linked (or are they?) through time.
Inevitably, this movie is going to split people down the middle; some will love its majesty, others will be confounded to the point of being insulted. But I thoroughly recommend going to see it, regardless of which camp you will eventually fall into. This is a movie that will sit in your mind - and hopefully your heart - for a very long time.
Rating Out of 10: 8
January Victim
i can't wait to see:
the simpsons movie
shrek 3 (Actually the trailer was funny)
pirates of the caribbean 3
the new chinese action packed movie with lots of swords and the queen fighting (forgot the name)
the new will smith movie - in pursuit of happiness or something...
spider man 3
fantastic 4, the silver surfer or something
oooo soo many new movies,and not out till at least 2 months time
the simpsons movie
shrek 3 (Actually the trailer was funny)
pirates of the caribbean 3
the new chinese action packed movie with lots of swords and the queen fighting (forgot the name)
the new will smith movie - in pursuit of happiness or something...
spider man 3
fantastic 4, the silver surfer or something
oooo soo many new movies,and not out till at least 2 months time
have you watched that? I've watched it and it was fantastic!!! the name is Curse of the Golden Flower.. you people will fall in love with it...
Baby1002
have you watched that? I've watched it and it was fantastic!!! the name is Curse of the Golden Flower.. you people will fall in love with it...
Will I? If Hero and House of Flying Daggers are anything to go by; Curse of the Golden Flower will make me tear my hair out. How can something so pretty be so...damn...awful?!?!?! I mean, the stories are so convoluted and non-sensical that I actually can't bear to watch them any more. It's like the beautiful woman you see in the street, and when you meet her, you find out she's as shallow as a paddling pool. Frustrating!!!!!!
Anyways; hopefully Mr Yimou has come up with a slightly better story; and I'd probably go to see it to finally see Gong Li acting properly; so far the only two performances I've seen of hers are in Memoirs of a Geisha and Miami Vice; both were English language performances, and both were appalling. So hopefully her true skill will be apparent when she's acting in Chinese!
Jayk Bakner
Will I? If Hero and House of Flying Daggers are anything to go by; Curse of the Golden Flower will make me tear my hair out. How can something so pretty be so...damn...awful?!?!?! I mean, the stories are so convoluted and non-sensical that I actually can't bear to watch them any more. It's like the beautiful woman you see in the street, and when you meet her, you find out she's as shallow as a paddling pool. Frustrating!!!!!!
Anyways; hopefully Mr Yimou has come up with a slightly better story; and I'd probably go to see it to finally see Gong Li acting properly; so far the only two performances I've seen of hers are in Memoirs of a Geisha and Miami Vice; both were English language performances, and both were appalling. So hopefully her true skill will be apparent when she's acting in Chinese!
Anyways; hopefully Mr Yimou has come up with a slightly better story; and I'd probably go to see it to finally see Gong Li acting properly; so far the only two performances I've seen of hers are in Memoirs of a Geisha and Miami Vice; both were English language performances, and both were appalling. So hopefully her true skill will be apparent when she's acting in Chinese!
I wanna see Memoirs of a Geisha!
So, I began watching Hero......It is the stupidest film I ever tried to watch. People just flying around dodging thousands of arrows and then walking on trees. BLOODY HELL, its not the Matrix!!!
Alan Grant
So, I began watching Hero......It is the stupidest film I ever tried to watch. People just flying around dodging thousands of arrows and then walking on trees. BLOODY HELL, its not the Matrix!!!
Have you never seen any films like that before. That is the kind of Chinese epic that everyone loves.
Name of the Film: Hannibal Rising
What you liked about the film: It was good. Didn't explain,more like showed you how Hannibal came to be what we know him for. It wasn't too gross that anyone was screaming,it had just the right grossness factor without making you feel queasy.The action was good etc. The actors were well chosen too
What you disliked about the film: Like one of my friends commented, the people who played the generals could all speak perfect english...but without an accent,which in a way is wrong,because they should have a slight accent of some sort be it bad or good.
Rating out of 10: I'd give it an 8.5 or 9 i think.i quite enjoyed it
What you liked about the film: It was good. Didn't explain,more like showed you how Hannibal came to be what we know him for. It wasn't too gross that anyone was screaming,it had just the right grossness factor without making you feel queasy.The action was good etc. The actors were well chosen too
What you disliked about the film: Like one of my friends commented, the people who played the generals could all speak perfect english...but without an accent,which in a way is wrong,because they should have a slight accent of some sort be it bad or good.
Rating out of 10: I'd give it an 8.5 or 9 i think.i quite enjoyed it
what happened?! spill!!!Name of the Film: The Holiday
What you liked about the film: Not much,it was cute sometimes.I guess the actors were good too (Jude Law,Cameron Diaz, titanic girl and Jack Black). Your typical boy meets girl, they fall in love,they can't be together,love conquers all.Forbidden love and all that.
What you disliked about the film: Corny!! Sickly cute and entirely predictable,from about 10mins into the film you know exactly what it's all about
something a deluded 15 year old would write.
Rating out of 10: 5
What you liked about the film: Not much,it was cute sometimes.I guess the actors were good too (Jude Law,Cameron Diaz, titanic girl and Jack Black). Your typical boy meets girl, they fall in love,they can't be together,love conquers all.Forbidden love and all that.
What you disliked about the film: Corny!! Sickly cute and entirely predictable,from about 10mins into the film you know exactly what it's all about
something a deluded 15 year old would write.Rating out of 10: 5
Name of Film: Ghost Rider (Mark Steven Johnson, 2007)
If you saw the theatrical cut of Daredevil - which would be the version that most people have seen - then the words 'Mark Steven Johnson' and 'comic book movie' would not sit in the same sentence without some kind of negative connotation. However, that would also mean that you missed out on the significantly improved director's cut, which - whilst not as good as some of the more mainstream Marvel adaptations - was actually a pretty entertaining movie. And it was with that cut of the film in mind that I stepped into the theatre to see Ghost Rider.
And again, this is no Spider-man or X-men; but then again, it's dubious as to whether the Rider ever reached the heights of Spidey or Wolverine's popularity; and thus it's probably fitting that it would produce an inferior movie. Not to say that it's poor! Quite to the contrary; it's a solidly made adaptation - though whether or not it captures the essence of the comics is beyond me - with solid performances, solid scripting...in fact, solid is a word I'll probably use to describe a lot of the aspects of the movie.
The story goes that a young man named Johnny Blaze makes a deal with a demon named Mephisto to save his father from cancer, that deal being that when the time comes, Blaze will become his bounty hunter, bringing back any and everything that escapes from the clutches of hell. It's a cunning reversal of the usual heroic cliche - here the hero fights evil for evil - and it just about makes sense.
Okay...depth. You want depth...I can go into depth. The first thing that comes to mind is the visual effects; being that they are perhaps the highlight of the movie. The Rider is brought to life incredibly convincingly, and quite frankly, he looks ridiculously cool. The villains too are very well done, with effects ranging from the slightly subtler - Wes Bentley's good looks becoming briefly transparent, revealing a quite scary demonic visage - to overtly obvious - fire, water and air elemental demons, anyone? And they're done in such a manner that they don't overwhelm the movie, rather aiding in putting across the story.
The performances are pretty decent; with Nicholas Cage having an enormous amount of fun with the central role of Johnny Blaze - the first transformation into Ghost Rider is possibly the most entertaining scene in the movie; his performance brilliant in it's hammy, over-the-top-ness. Peter Fonda evily smirks his way through Mephistopheles (Marvel's 'incarnation' of the Devil); and Sam Elliot is gruffly compelling as the Rider's vague mentor. And all of them realise that this is a little silly, and it isn't going to turn out to be that great; and they're trying to have as much fun as they can with their roles; and that energy really gives the movie that extra boost!
However, there are a few bum notes; Wes Bentley - whilst doing his very best - is sorely miscast as Mephisto's son Blackheart, the main villain of the piece. It's not that he's poor; it's just that he struggles to do pure evil. Creepy - as in, filming his neighbors from his window kind of creepy - is doable for him; but evil's just a little bit of a stretch. And Eva Mendes - playing love interest Roxanne - is grossly under-used; seemingly content to walk out with wonderbra on and blouse un-buttoned, then pout a bit. It's dissapointing, because she is a quality actress, and there do seem to be sparks between her and Cage; so it could have been fun to address it more (maybe a romantic, hellfire lit motorcycle ride?); but as it stands, it simply feels a little tacked on.
Another disappointment is the abruptness of the action. Not to say that it isn't well directed or excited; it's just that the Rider - being the embodiment of a spirit of vengeance and all - is ridiculously powerful; dispatching foes left and right - including some of the more powerful ones - with barely any effort. Okay, so he's meant to be this powerful - and if, like Kurt Wimmer, you like your heroes to kick people's arses in a commanding fashion with compelling punctuation, then you won't see a problem with it - but surely this should have given way to some epic, Kong vs three V-rexes style brawls; not these 10-second bursts of action that honestly feel anti-climatic. Again; it's not that they're not exciting or fun, it just feels like there could have been more. There is one scene, however, that is enormous fun; where Ghost Rider escapes from jail and eludes the police in rather inventive manners, and that will probably stick in your head longer than the battles with the demonic foes!
In the end; this movie isn't spectacular; but it is a solid outing in the Marvel universe, and a sequel's been announced already - so it can't be that bad, right? Anyways; I have to say that I enjoyed it and I honestly can't think of a reason for people to avoid it. Then again, I can't think of a truly good reason for people to actually go see it, either; suffice to say that if you do, you'll probably come out the other end with a grin on your face. I know I did!
Rating Out of 10: 6
If you saw the theatrical cut of Daredevil - which would be the version that most people have seen - then the words 'Mark Steven Johnson' and 'comic book movie' would not sit in the same sentence without some kind of negative connotation. However, that would also mean that you missed out on the significantly improved director's cut, which - whilst not as good as some of the more mainstream Marvel adaptations - was actually a pretty entertaining movie. And it was with that cut of the film in mind that I stepped into the theatre to see Ghost Rider.
And again, this is no Spider-man or X-men; but then again, it's dubious as to whether the Rider ever reached the heights of Spidey or Wolverine's popularity; and thus it's probably fitting that it would produce an inferior movie. Not to say that it's poor! Quite to the contrary; it's a solidly made adaptation - though whether or not it captures the essence of the comics is beyond me - with solid performances, solid scripting...in fact, solid is a word I'll probably use to describe a lot of the aspects of the movie.
The story goes that a young man named Johnny Blaze makes a deal with a demon named Mephisto to save his father from cancer, that deal being that when the time comes, Blaze will become his bounty hunter, bringing back any and everything that escapes from the clutches of hell. It's a cunning reversal of the usual heroic cliche - here the hero fights evil for evil - and it just about makes sense.
Okay...depth. You want depth...I can go into depth. The first thing that comes to mind is the visual effects; being that they are perhaps the highlight of the movie. The Rider is brought to life incredibly convincingly, and quite frankly, he looks ridiculously cool. The villains too are very well done, with effects ranging from the slightly subtler - Wes Bentley's good looks becoming briefly transparent, revealing a quite scary demonic visage - to overtly obvious - fire, water and air elemental demons, anyone? And they're done in such a manner that they don't overwhelm the movie, rather aiding in putting across the story.
The performances are pretty decent; with Nicholas Cage having an enormous amount of fun with the central role of Johnny Blaze - the first transformation into Ghost Rider is possibly the most entertaining scene in the movie; his performance brilliant in it's hammy, over-the-top-ness. Peter Fonda evily smirks his way through Mephistopheles (Marvel's 'incarnation' of the Devil); and Sam Elliot is gruffly compelling as the Rider's vague mentor. And all of them realise that this is a little silly, and it isn't going to turn out to be that great; and they're trying to have as much fun as they can with their roles; and that energy really gives the movie that extra boost!
However, there are a few bum notes; Wes Bentley - whilst doing his very best - is sorely miscast as Mephisto's son Blackheart, the main villain of the piece. It's not that he's poor; it's just that he struggles to do pure evil. Creepy - as in, filming his neighbors from his window kind of creepy - is doable for him; but evil's just a little bit of a stretch. And Eva Mendes - playing love interest Roxanne - is grossly under-used; seemingly content to walk out with wonderbra on and blouse un-buttoned, then pout a bit. It's dissapointing, because she is a quality actress, and there do seem to be sparks between her and Cage; so it could have been fun to address it more (maybe a romantic, hellfire lit motorcycle ride?); but as it stands, it simply feels a little tacked on.
Another disappointment is the abruptness of the action. Not to say that it isn't well directed or excited; it's just that the Rider - being the embodiment of a spirit of vengeance and all - is ridiculously powerful; dispatching foes left and right - including some of the more powerful ones - with barely any effort. Okay, so he's meant to be this powerful - and if, like Kurt Wimmer, you like your heroes to kick people's arses in a commanding fashion with compelling punctuation, then you won't see a problem with it - but surely this should have given way to some epic, Kong vs three V-rexes style brawls; not these 10-second bursts of action that honestly feel anti-climatic. Again; it's not that they're not exciting or fun, it just feels like there could have been more. There is one scene, however, that is enormous fun; where Ghost Rider escapes from jail and eludes the police in rather inventive manners, and that will probably stick in your head longer than the battles with the demonic foes!
In the end; this movie isn't spectacular; but it is a solid outing in the Marvel universe, and a sequel's been announced already - so it can't be that bad, right? Anyways; I have to say that I enjoyed it and I honestly can't think of a reason for people to avoid it. Then again, I can't think of a truly good reason for people to actually go see it, either; suffice to say that if you do, you'll probably come out the other end with a grin on your face. I know I did!
Rating Out of 10: 6
Oooookay! So no-one's seen any films worth reviewing? Maybe this'll help revive interest
Name of the Film: Transformers (2007, Michael Bay)
Okay, I'll admit it - I'm a fan of Michael Bay movies. It's true! I love his style; I love the way he does over the top action; I love how you don't have to have your brain switched on to enjoy his films. So when I heard that he was making a live-action adaptation of Transformers, I was more than a little excited. Then, when I found out Steven Speilberg would be in the producing chair, five words ran through my mind: 'This is going to rock!'. However, I almost immediately reigned in my expectations - knowing full well that if I let them rocket skywards, I'd only come away disappointed. But after seeing it, I could've let them go as high as I liked - they'd've still been at the very least reached, if not surpassed.
The basic premise of the movie is that a life-giving device called the Allspark was chucked into space ages ago, and - suprise, suprise - crashes into earth. Close in its tracks is the leader of the evil Decepticons, Megatron - only he crashes into Antartica and gets frozen before he can start looking for it. Quite by chance, an explorer discovers him in the 1800s, and gets the location of the Allspark imprinted into his glasses (bear with me...). Skip to 2007; the explorers great-great-grandson Sam (Shia LaBeouf) is about to sell the glasses on eBay; only more of the Decepticons find out - thanks to the wonder that is the world wide web - and try to track him down. Turns out, his newly purchased car is in fact an Autobot - basically, the good guys - named Bumblebee, and he heralds the arrival of the rest of his kin. What ensues is a race to find the Allspark, and either destroy it, or use it to turn Earth's machines into an army of robots to wage war on the galaxy.
Okay, so it's not exactly the most cranial or brilliant of stories - but it works well enough to remain interesting throughout. It's just clever enough to not be instantly dismissed, and just dumb enough not to get in the way of the action.
The question that was on all our minds was, in fact, how cool do the robots look? And to answer - very cool. The special effects are, quite literally in my case, jaw-dropping; every Transformer has an enormous amount of detail put into them, and the transformations from vehicle to giant man-bot are incredibly convincing. Unlike the cartoons - where the Transformers seemed to be able to change size at will - here the smaller cars produce smaller robots, whereas a ruddy great tanks and such turn into enormous robots. It's this attention to detail - along with the seamless integration with both the actors and the environments - that makes the effects so ground-breaking.
There's also a real sense of fun that's threaded throughout the movie - from the way the Autobots have to hide from Sam's parents, to Sam himself; with Shia LaBeouf injecting him with a fantastically dry sense of humour. Then there's the wise-cracking squad of marines - headed by Josh Duhamel's Captain Lennox; providing the counter-Transformer infantry, and plenty of one-liners that ar almost trademark Michael Bay. The action sequences themselves are also well choreographed, from a shape-shifting dogfight over LA, to a subterranean Decipticon stalking our marines.
If there's one relatively poor thing about the movie, it's that it's clear this is a franchise spawner. It's Michael Bay's second shortest work to date - clocking in at around two hours and ten minutes - which suggests that he was told to 'save something for the sequels', in direct contrast to his 'everything but the kitchen sink' style of film-making. That and the closing speech from Optimus Prime, which all but screams 'there's gonna be a sequel, people!'. So be prepared to walk out a tiny bit unsatisfied!
So! If you're looking for a film that's light on brains and heavy on the entertainment, with kick-ass robots that turn into cars (though that may put you in a niche group...), this is more than certainly your cup'o'tea. Bring on the sequel!
Rating Out of 10: 8
Name of the Film: Transformers (2007, Michael Bay)
Okay, I'll admit it - I'm a fan of Michael Bay movies. It's true! I love his style; I love the way he does over the top action; I love how you don't have to have your brain switched on to enjoy his films. So when I heard that he was making a live-action adaptation of Transformers, I was more than a little excited. Then, when I found out Steven Speilberg would be in the producing chair, five words ran through my mind: 'This is going to rock!'. However, I almost immediately reigned in my expectations - knowing full well that if I let them rocket skywards, I'd only come away disappointed. But after seeing it, I could've let them go as high as I liked - they'd've still been at the very least reached, if not surpassed.
The basic premise of the movie is that a life-giving device called the Allspark was chucked into space ages ago, and - suprise, suprise - crashes into earth. Close in its tracks is the leader of the evil Decepticons, Megatron - only he crashes into Antartica and gets frozen before he can start looking for it. Quite by chance, an explorer discovers him in the 1800s, and gets the location of the Allspark imprinted into his glasses (bear with me...). Skip to 2007; the explorers great-great-grandson Sam (Shia LaBeouf) is about to sell the glasses on eBay; only more of the Decepticons find out - thanks to the wonder that is the world wide web - and try to track him down. Turns out, his newly purchased car is in fact an Autobot - basically, the good guys - named Bumblebee, and he heralds the arrival of the rest of his kin. What ensues is a race to find the Allspark, and either destroy it, or use it to turn Earth's machines into an army of robots to wage war on the galaxy.
Okay, so it's not exactly the most cranial or brilliant of stories - but it works well enough to remain interesting throughout. It's just clever enough to not be instantly dismissed, and just dumb enough not to get in the way of the action.
The question that was on all our minds was, in fact, how cool do the robots look? And to answer - very cool. The special effects are, quite literally in my case, jaw-dropping; every Transformer has an enormous amount of detail put into them, and the transformations from vehicle to giant man-bot are incredibly convincing. Unlike the cartoons - where the Transformers seemed to be able to change size at will - here the smaller cars produce smaller robots, whereas a ruddy great tanks and such turn into enormous robots. It's this attention to detail - along with the seamless integration with both the actors and the environments - that makes the effects so ground-breaking.
There's also a real sense of fun that's threaded throughout the movie - from the way the Autobots have to hide from Sam's parents, to Sam himself; with Shia LaBeouf injecting him with a fantastically dry sense of humour. Then there's the wise-cracking squad of marines - headed by Josh Duhamel's Captain Lennox; providing the counter-Transformer infantry, and plenty of one-liners that ar almost trademark Michael Bay. The action sequences themselves are also well choreographed, from a shape-shifting dogfight over LA, to a subterranean Decipticon stalking our marines.
If there's one relatively poor thing about the movie, it's that it's clear this is a franchise spawner. It's Michael Bay's second shortest work to date - clocking in at around two hours and ten minutes - which suggests that he was told to 'save something for the sequels', in direct contrast to his 'everything but the kitchen sink' style of film-making. That and the closing speech from Optimus Prime, which all but screams 'there's gonna be a sequel, people!'. So be prepared to walk out a tiny bit unsatisfied!
So! If you're looking for a film that's light on brains and heavy on the entertainment, with kick-ass robots that turn into cars (though that may put you in a niche group...), this is more than certainly your cup'o'tea. Bring on the sequel!
Rating Out of 10: 8
Here's another one. Though apparently I'm the only one who likes writing these 
Name of Film: Die Hard 4.0 (Len Wiseman, 2007)
Die Hard 4.0 was always going to be an exercise in mistake management. For every one they made, they had to create a memorable 'Die Hard moment' to counter it. Unfortunately, they seemed to have forgotten exactly what Die Hard moment meant. Either that, or they completely misinterpreted it. Because Die Hard 4.0 goes on to make most of the mistakes that Die Hard 2 did - it loses the simplicity, and gains a whole lot of silliness.
This isn't to say that it's inherently bad. It's an entertaining summer blockbuster, and yes; Bruce Willis playing the role he was more or less born to play once again is fun, especially when he's bouncing off Justin Long's introverted-yet-fast-talking hacker. The conflict of personalities works rather well, and both seem to be having a great time. The villians are suitably menacing - Timothy Olyphant channelling his monotony into the slighted government official intent on bringing down the USA; and Maggie Q - whist hideously underused - is still silently malicious as the femme fatale. The supporting cast are a bit wishy-washy; neither awful nor particularly good - though of some note is Kevin Smith's brief stint as an uber-geek/hacker living in his mother's basement...sorry, 'command center'.
Unfortunately, Smith's role is part of the result of a grossly misjudged plot-line. Yes, it's modern. Yes, it's vaguely relevant. Yes, it's all very post-9/11. But it just doesn't feel like Die Hard - the threat isn't as palatable, as real as it should be. John McClane is supposed to be the everyman who's just having a very bad day. This just smacks more of a season of 24 compacted into 150 minutes. And this is yet another mistake made - John has once again turned into ye stereo-typical action hero - a Jack Bauer without CTU, if you will. It's not that his attitude has changed - he's still as reluctant and grouchy as ever; it's the things that he pulls off. In Die Hard 1 and 3, he was the every-man who got heroism thrust upon him - he did what we all might've done, given his training and situation; his methods were cack-handed, and whilst he is trying to save the hostages, he's got to survive the process! But in 4.0, as with 2, he's the tough guy destined for heroism - his ideas smack of rather careful planning, flukey set-ups and an almost willful disregard for his own safety. Again, it just doesn't feel like Die Hard.
Another mistake made is that the narrative sprawls just a little bit too much. The first three movies were rather tightly focused - there were scenes involving McClane, maybe a couple of scenes of background exposition and then those involving the terrorists, and McClane 'interacting' with them. Here we get those three, plus some bizarre, seemingly unrelated ones involving the Ministry of Defence - with Cliff Curtis and Zeljko Ivanek spouting off about homeland defence and some such. It's just far broader and less-focused than it should be - and this is probably no thanks to Mr. Bauer and his precious CTU. The final knife in the heart of part 4's Die Hard-ness is the fact that it's edited for a PG-13 audience - that means very little swearing (part of, I feel, John's trademark) and a cut-off catch-phrase that was particularly disappointing.
But don't get me wrong - there are many, many good things about the movie. Wiseman has a superb eye for action; and whilst not feeling very Die Hard, they are still entertaining and well thought out - a fist-fight in a freezing fan-room stands out to me as the most intense. The story is actually genuinely interesting, even if it is misplaced, and as I said earlier, the acting from the core ensemble is on the whole pretty decent. Plus, there're plenty of great one-liners that just about make up for the lack of any other real throwback to the first three movies. In fact, put John McClane on the list of great things about the movie - when he's not pulling of mind-boggling, eye popping feats of gunplay and general heroism, Willis does a fantastic job of bringing him back to the big screen.
So basically, if you're looking for an experience that maybe will stimulate the grey mushy thing in your skull, and definitely get your adrenaline glands a-pumping, whilst vaguely resembling some action flicks released 12-19 years ago, then this is definitely your bag. Just don't expect an 80's action throw-back of Rocky Balboa proportions - expect a competent modern action/thriller that'll just about keep you from nodding off.
Rating Out of 10: 7
Name of Film: Die Hard 4.0 (Len Wiseman, 2007)
Die Hard 4.0 was always going to be an exercise in mistake management. For every one they made, they had to create a memorable 'Die Hard moment' to counter it. Unfortunately, they seemed to have forgotten exactly what Die Hard moment meant. Either that, or they completely misinterpreted it. Because Die Hard 4.0 goes on to make most of the mistakes that Die Hard 2 did - it loses the simplicity, and gains a whole lot of silliness.
This isn't to say that it's inherently bad. It's an entertaining summer blockbuster, and yes; Bruce Willis playing the role he was more or less born to play once again is fun, especially when he's bouncing off Justin Long's introverted-yet-fast-talking hacker. The conflict of personalities works rather well, and both seem to be having a great time. The villians are suitably menacing - Timothy Olyphant channelling his monotony into the slighted government official intent on bringing down the USA; and Maggie Q - whist hideously underused - is still silently malicious as the femme fatale. The supporting cast are a bit wishy-washy; neither awful nor particularly good - though of some note is Kevin Smith's brief stint as an uber-geek/hacker living in his mother's basement...sorry, 'command center'.
Unfortunately, Smith's role is part of the result of a grossly misjudged plot-line. Yes, it's modern. Yes, it's vaguely relevant. Yes, it's all very post-9/11. But it just doesn't feel like Die Hard - the threat isn't as palatable, as real as it should be. John McClane is supposed to be the everyman who's just having a very bad day. This just smacks more of a season of 24 compacted into 150 minutes. And this is yet another mistake made - John has once again turned into ye stereo-typical action hero - a Jack Bauer without CTU, if you will. It's not that his attitude has changed - he's still as reluctant and grouchy as ever; it's the things that he pulls off. In Die Hard 1 and 3, he was the every-man who got heroism thrust upon him - he did what we all might've done, given his training and situation; his methods were cack-handed, and whilst he is trying to save the hostages, he's got to survive the process! But in 4.0, as with 2, he's the tough guy destined for heroism - his ideas smack of rather careful planning, flukey set-ups and an almost willful disregard for his own safety. Again, it just doesn't feel like Die Hard.
Another mistake made is that the narrative sprawls just a little bit too much. The first three movies were rather tightly focused - there were scenes involving McClane, maybe a couple of scenes of background exposition and then those involving the terrorists, and McClane 'interacting' with them. Here we get those three, plus some bizarre, seemingly unrelated ones involving the Ministry of Defence - with Cliff Curtis and Zeljko Ivanek spouting off about homeland defence and some such. It's just far broader and less-focused than it should be - and this is probably no thanks to Mr. Bauer and his precious CTU. The final knife in the heart of part 4's Die Hard-ness is the fact that it's edited for a PG-13 audience - that means very little swearing (part of, I feel, John's trademark) and a cut-off catch-phrase that was particularly disappointing.
But don't get me wrong - there are many, many good things about the movie. Wiseman has a superb eye for action; and whilst not feeling very Die Hard, they are still entertaining and well thought out - a fist-fight in a freezing fan-room stands out to me as the most intense. The story is actually genuinely interesting, even if it is misplaced, and as I said earlier, the acting from the core ensemble is on the whole pretty decent. Plus, there're plenty of great one-liners that just about make up for the lack of any other real throwback to the first three movies. In fact, put John McClane on the list of great things about the movie - when he's not pulling of mind-boggling, eye popping feats of gunplay and general heroism, Willis does a fantastic job of bringing him back to the big screen.
So basically, if you're looking for an experience that maybe will stimulate the grey mushy thing in your skull, and definitely get your adrenaline glands a-pumping, whilst vaguely resembling some action flicks released 12-19 years ago, then this is definitely your bag. Just don't expect an 80's action throw-back of Rocky Balboa proportions - expect a competent modern action/thriller that'll just about keep you from nodding off.
Rating Out of 10: 7
Name of the Film: Shrek 3
What you liked about the film: There were a couple of instances where I laughed - a few good jokes in there.
What you disliked about the film: Cheesy. Of course, everything is perfect at the end and little 10 year old children come out with huge grins plastered across their faces. But with Shrek, you don't exactly go for the tragedy aspect, I guess - unless you support the villain. You'd think the villain (Prince Charming) would've given up by now - conquored by the ogres twice already (- now that's determination.
)
No but seriously - the plot was unimpressive, the movie was predictable, the jokes pretty similar to those in the first two films. Came out thinking, "well that was £8 and 90 minutes well spent."
Verdict - sequels? No thanks.
Rating out of 10: 2
What you liked about the film: There were a couple of instances where I laughed - a few good jokes in there.
What you disliked about the film: Cheesy. Of course, everything is perfect at the end and little 10 year old children come out with huge grins plastered across their faces. But with Shrek, you don't exactly go for the tragedy aspect, I guess - unless you support the villain. You'd think the villain (Prince Charming) would've given up by now - conquored by the ogres twice already (- now that's determination.
)No but seriously - the plot was unimpressive, the movie was predictable, the jokes pretty similar to those in the first two films. Came out thinking, "well that was £8 and 90 minutes well spent."
Verdict - sequels? No thanks.
Rating out of 10: 2
Atonement
(caught an advanced screening yesterday.)
13-year-old Briony Tallis is a girl with a huge imagination who loves to write. The film starts at her completion of a play, “The Trials of Arabella”, a morality tale on love and the dangers of being too hasty with one’s emotions. From her opening line in the prologue, various multisyllabic words that I didn’t understand were employed, and the audience giggles at her pretension: evidently, this is a girl whose world is shaped with words, regardless of whether or not she understands them. Witnessing her sister Cecilia dive into a pool as their housekeeper’s son Robbie watches after her, Briony pictures as scene she has no understanding of, and, by the end of the day, she will have changed lives for the worse, and she will spend the rest of her life regretting and trying to atone this mistake.
The first act of the film, set in the picturesque country house, effectively conveys the sweltering heat of the British Summer and the mental unrest that comes with it. The camera never stays still, and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey even used Christian Dior stockings over the lenses to portray the heat and its effects on the residents. As Briony starts thinking about what she doesn’t understand, trying to write a play of it, Dario Marianelli’s haunting score, which features the rhythmic tapping of typewriter keys, reverberates in the background, to continually remind the audience that something bad is about to happen.
And so it does. Without giving too much about the plot away, suffice to say it involves a note and a very dirty word. As anyone who has read the book will tell you, the line in which Robbie types out his innermost desires, is a very shocking jolt to the reader, not least because previously, the book had been so proper, so contained.. Even knowing that this moment would occur in the movie, I was still surprised by it. The word is glorified in the film, and each letter of that sentence is typed out, frame by frame, for the audience to read and work out for themselves. The word is then played back several times, to a point where it almost gets farcical.
That Atonement is not afraid to use humour in its deepest, most dramatic moments works to its advantage. There are several scenes with the young Briony (mainly involving her snooping) that made the audience laugh ironically, one scene in particular involving Cecelia at the dinner table. However, this is essentially a drama, and the pace and tone of the film are appropriate to its genre. To add to the genre, different events are replayed from different perspectives to show what something has the appearance of being, and what it really is. This device, though not new, works excellently for Atonement.
The second act of the film, set 4 years later, is much grittier and less pretty to watch. Robbie is now a soldier in France, and pines to get back to Cecelia. The horrors of war are not underplayed, and in one excellently-filmed tracking shot, the camera meanders through a chaotic mess of soldiers. Robbie, who had turned out so well before, has not lost practically all of his beauty, and retains only his accent. Similarly, back at home, soldiers with all sorts of disturbing injuries are shown. It is refreshing to see a film that, rather than portraying the war as some sort of patriotic honour, instead shows the horror and suffering that it causes.
In what could only be a nod to David Lean with his country houses, upper middle classes and epic romances, Joe Wright chose for his actors to give performances of the pre-Lee Strasburg era. And the cast rise up to the challenge admirably. As the young Briony, Saoirse Ronan is pitch-perfect, conveying her youthful innocence as well as whiny nosiness. Her sense of knowing about things she clearly doesn’t is infuriating, but Ronan prevents us from denouncing her entirely, reminding us that she is, after all, just a child. Keira Knightley, who will be keen to forget her “performance” in her other 2007 venture, Pirates of the Caribbean III, doesn’t do anything majorly wrong here, and at times even earns the audience’s respect and sympathies as the loyal lover. Romola Garai plays the older, more wise Briony with conviction and a touch of sadness (though one of her deliveries in a confrontation scene went a bit wrong and sounded wooden). However, she more than makes up for this, shining in one scene in particular where she converses with a French soldier.
But the star of the show is the one, the only, James McAvoy. In the Q&A that followed the screening of the film, director Joe Wright described Robbie as the highest form of a human being, and he is. Raised by a single mother, Robbie worked hard for everything in his life, but with success he is still a brilliantly warm and humble person. Even after he is put in the war to avoid staying in prison for longer, he does not whinge about it, but instead, gets through the day with the hope of seeing Cecelia guiding him through. James McAvoy plays this special individual with compassion and understanding. He has the accent and physicality of Robbie down to a T, but, more importantly, conveys his goodness, without ever having to resort to histrionics. McAvoy’s performance is a masterclass in subtle acting. In some pivotal scenes, it is actually his beautiful blue eyes that do the acting more than anything, and they speak more words than Briony’s ostentatious prose ever could.
There is more than a little similarity between Atonement and The Go-Between. Both tell of love between different classes, and an intruding message carrier between the two. Furthermore, Sarah Greenwood’s sensuous set design (in the first act) and accurate war holes (in the second), along with the sound design, which features buzzing bees, works cleverly on a subconscious level to add to the tension. Indeed, Atonement is a technically and visually stunning film. The hues in the first act are almost overly saturated with richness, and this contrasts starkly to the second act, where cold hospital wards and mucky brown war dugouts fill the screen. The costumes are all realistic and accurate, though I personally favour the glamorous designs of the first half, which include a mesmerizing green dress that Cecelia wears. The cinematography, which encompasses long takes, tracking shots, lingering pans all attribute to the visual flair of the movie. But the key stylistic element that stood out for me, was the score. The piano theme is elegiac and melancholy, and the cello and violins also add to the sadness of the romance. Also, the use of a typewriter as an instrument, though started oddly, soon becomes infectious and it even forces its way into viewer’s minds, making Robbie’s note (and the consequences) unforgettable.
Joe Wright and Working Title have made a film to be proud of. Amidst some incredible scenes (an extremely erotic library non-reading session between Robbie and Cecelia) as well as the fountain scene are amongst the many that will remain with viewers long after the credits have rolled. The quality and calibre of films that Working Title have turned out recently have been brilliant (Pride & Prejudice, Hot Fuzz, etc) and Atonement ranks up there along with my personal favourites Dead Man Walking and The Hudsucker Proxy. It is a wonderfully crafted, beautifully lush and immensely moving film that shows, above all, how storytelling can both destroy and heal. By the time the final surprise occurs (keep your eyes peeled for a cameo by a smug movie director), you may or may not have decided whether or not Briony has truly atoned for her mistake. But the film takes no sides, gives no easy answers. Perhaps the book was right, and, “the attempt was all.”
(caught an advanced screening yesterday.)
13-year-old Briony Tallis is a girl with a huge imagination who loves to write. The film starts at her completion of a play, “The Trials of Arabella”, a morality tale on love and the dangers of being too hasty with one’s emotions. From her opening line in the prologue, various multisyllabic words that I didn’t understand were employed, and the audience giggles at her pretension: evidently, this is a girl whose world is shaped with words, regardless of whether or not she understands them. Witnessing her sister Cecilia dive into a pool as their housekeeper’s son Robbie watches after her, Briony pictures as scene she has no understanding of, and, by the end of the day, she will have changed lives for the worse, and she will spend the rest of her life regretting and trying to atone this mistake.
The first act of the film, set in the picturesque country house, effectively conveys the sweltering heat of the British Summer and the mental unrest that comes with it. The camera never stays still, and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey even used Christian Dior stockings over the lenses to portray the heat and its effects on the residents. As Briony starts thinking about what she doesn’t understand, trying to write a play of it, Dario Marianelli’s haunting score, which features the rhythmic tapping of typewriter keys, reverberates in the background, to continually remind the audience that something bad is about to happen.
And so it does. Without giving too much about the plot away, suffice to say it involves a note and a very dirty word. As anyone who has read the book will tell you, the line in which Robbie types out his innermost desires, is a very shocking jolt to the reader, not least because previously, the book had been so proper, so contained.. Even knowing that this moment would occur in the movie, I was still surprised by it. The word is glorified in the film, and each letter of that sentence is typed out, frame by frame, for the audience to read and work out for themselves. The word is then played back several times, to a point where it almost gets farcical.
That Atonement is not afraid to use humour in its deepest, most dramatic moments works to its advantage. There are several scenes with the young Briony (mainly involving her snooping) that made the audience laugh ironically, one scene in particular involving Cecelia at the dinner table. However, this is essentially a drama, and the pace and tone of the film are appropriate to its genre. To add to the genre, different events are replayed from different perspectives to show what something has the appearance of being, and what it really is. This device, though not new, works excellently for Atonement.
The second act of the film, set 4 years later, is much grittier and less pretty to watch. Robbie is now a soldier in France, and pines to get back to Cecelia. The horrors of war are not underplayed, and in one excellently-filmed tracking shot, the camera meanders through a chaotic mess of soldiers. Robbie, who had turned out so well before, has not lost practically all of his beauty, and retains only his accent. Similarly, back at home, soldiers with all sorts of disturbing injuries are shown. It is refreshing to see a film that, rather than portraying the war as some sort of patriotic honour, instead shows the horror and suffering that it causes.
In what could only be a nod to David Lean with his country houses, upper middle classes and epic romances, Joe Wright chose for his actors to give performances of the pre-Lee Strasburg era. And the cast rise up to the challenge admirably. As the young Briony, Saoirse Ronan is pitch-perfect, conveying her youthful innocence as well as whiny nosiness. Her sense of knowing about things she clearly doesn’t is infuriating, but Ronan prevents us from denouncing her entirely, reminding us that she is, after all, just a child. Keira Knightley, who will be keen to forget her “performance” in her other 2007 venture, Pirates of the Caribbean III, doesn’t do anything majorly wrong here, and at times even earns the audience’s respect and sympathies as the loyal lover. Romola Garai plays the older, more wise Briony with conviction and a touch of sadness (though one of her deliveries in a confrontation scene went a bit wrong and sounded wooden). However, she more than makes up for this, shining in one scene in particular where she converses with a French soldier.
But the star of the show is the one, the only, James McAvoy. In the Q&A that followed the screening of the film, director Joe Wright described Robbie as the highest form of a human being, and he is. Raised by a single mother, Robbie worked hard for everything in his life, but with success he is still a brilliantly warm and humble person. Even after he is put in the war to avoid staying in prison for longer, he does not whinge about it, but instead, gets through the day with the hope of seeing Cecelia guiding him through. James McAvoy plays this special individual with compassion and understanding. He has the accent and physicality of Robbie down to a T, but, more importantly, conveys his goodness, without ever having to resort to histrionics. McAvoy’s performance is a masterclass in subtle acting. In some pivotal scenes, it is actually his beautiful blue eyes that do the acting more than anything, and they speak more words than Briony’s ostentatious prose ever could.
There is more than a little similarity between Atonement and The Go-Between. Both tell of love between different classes, and an intruding message carrier between the two. Furthermore, Sarah Greenwood’s sensuous set design (in the first act) and accurate war holes (in the second), along with the sound design, which features buzzing bees, works cleverly on a subconscious level to add to the tension. Indeed, Atonement is a technically and visually stunning film. The hues in the first act are almost overly saturated with richness, and this contrasts starkly to the second act, where cold hospital wards and mucky brown war dugouts fill the screen. The costumes are all realistic and accurate, though I personally favour the glamorous designs of the first half, which include a mesmerizing green dress that Cecelia wears. The cinematography, which encompasses long takes, tracking shots, lingering pans all attribute to the visual flair of the movie. But the key stylistic element that stood out for me, was the score. The piano theme is elegiac and melancholy, and the cello and violins also add to the sadness of the romance. Also, the use of a typewriter as an instrument, though started oddly, soon becomes infectious and it even forces its way into viewer’s minds, making Robbie’s note (and the consequences) unforgettable.
Joe Wright and Working Title have made a film to be proud of. Amidst some incredible scenes (an extremely erotic library non-reading session between Robbie and Cecelia) as well as the fountain scene are amongst the many that will remain with viewers long after the credits have rolled. The quality and calibre of films that Working Title have turned out recently have been brilliant (Pride & Prejudice, Hot Fuzz, etc) and Atonement ranks up there along with my personal favourites Dead Man Walking and The Hudsucker Proxy. It is a wonderfully crafted, beautifully lush and immensely moving film that shows, above all, how storytelling can both destroy and heal. By the time the final surprise occurs (keep your eyes peeled for a cameo by a smug movie director), you may or may not have decided whether or not Briony has truly atoned for her mistake. But the film takes no sides, gives no easy answers. Perhaps the book was right, and, “the attempt was all.”
Jayk Bakner
Name of the Film: The Fountain (Darren Aronofsky, 2007)
It's strange when a movie makes me think about it for more than half an hour; so when I say that The Fountain is a strange film, I want you to fully understand my meaning! Really; I was thinking about this movie for at least three hours afterwards. Plus, in writing this review, I've sparked a whole new wave of thinking about this wonderful, wonderful film. That's how much it's affected me. And that's how much it affected the audience I was watching it with; as the credits rolled...no-one got up; everyone stayed on to the very end.
This movie is modern art colliding with cinema (I suspect). There are probably hundreds of ways of interpreting its lush visuals and compelling story. And each of these interpretations will be as varied as the people who should go see this film. At its simplest, this is a love story; a story of a man (Hugh Jackman) trying to save his beloved (Rachel Weisz) from various dilemmas that span three eras of history. At its most complex...well, that's up to you really. You can read into it at almost any level. Take from it what you will; that's how rewarding this experience is.
Not to say that the film is technically inept; a story this ambiguous could suggest Aronofsky is being self-indulgent, or even that he's lost the plot completely. But no, there's been an enormous amount of thought put into what to tell - and indeed what not to tell - the audience. Plus, the visuals are truly astounding; glorious star-scapes; grim, rain-sodden jungles; palaces decorated with hanging candles; stark, raw images that are perhaps some of the most beautiful ever committed to celluloid. And all are captured beautifully by Matthew Libatique's steady hand, and all enhanced by this strange - yet somehow wonderful - inner glow.
And the two central performances are just as wonderful. Weisz brings a quiet dignity to her role of Queen Isabel, and a truly smile-inducing sense of life to her cancer-ridden Izzy. Jackman is brooding, moving and pensive as his respective roles of Tomas, Tommy and Tom; truly undermiming his box office clout to bring us touching performances of our three protagonists, inexorably linked (or are they?) through time.
Inevitably, this movie is going to split people down the middle; some will love its majesty, others will be confounded to the point of being insulted. But I thoroughly recommend going to see it, regardless of which camp you will eventually fall into. This is a movie that will sit in your mind - and hopefully your heart - for a very long time.
Rating Out of 10: 8
It's strange when a movie makes me think about it for more than half an hour; so when I say that The Fountain is a strange film, I want you to fully understand my meaning! Really; I was thinking about this movie for at least three hours afterwards. Plus, in writing this review, I've sparked a whole new wave of thinking about this wonderful, wonderful film. That's how much it's affected me. And that's how much it affected the audience I was watching it with; as the credits rolled...no-one got up; everyone stayed on to the very end.
This movie is modern art colliding with cinema (I suspect). There are probably hundreds of ways of interpreting its lush visuals and compelling story. And each of these interpretations will be as varied as the people who should go see this film. At its simplest, this is a love story; a story of a man (Hugh Jackman) trying to save his beloved (Rachel Weisz) from various dilemmas that span three eras of history. At its most complex...well, that's up to you really. You can read into it at almost any level. Take from it what you will; that's how rewarding this experience is.
Not to say that the film is technically inept; a story this ambiguous could suggest Aronofsky is being self-indulgent, or even that he's lost the plot completely. But no, there's been an enormous amount of thought put into what to tell - and indeed what not to tell - the audience. Plus, the visuals are truly astounding; glorious star-scapes; grim, rain-sodden jungles; palaces decorated with hanging candles; stark, raw images that are perhaps some of the most beautiful ever committed to celluloid. And all are captured beautifully by Matthew Libatique's steady hand, and all enhanced by this strange - yet somehow wonderful - inner glow.
And the two central performances are just as wonderful. Weisz brings a quiet dignity to her role of Queen Isabel, and a truly smile-inducing sense of life to her cancer-ridden Izzy. Jackman is brooding, moving and pensive as his respective roles of Tomas, Tommy and Tom; truly undermiming his box office clout to bring us touching performances of our three protagonists, inexorably linked (or are they?) through time.
Inevitably, this movie is going to split people down the middle; some will love its majesty, others will be confounded to the point of being insulted. But I thoroughly recommend going to see it, regardless of which camp you will eventually fall into. This is a movie that will sit in your mind - and hopefully your heart - for a very long time.
Rating Out of 10: 8
I went to watch this film at the cinema, without knowing what the film was about. It was so pants. I cried with laughter about 4 times. I'd personally give it a 3/10.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Ask an AUB graduate anything
- Best movies
- Personal Statement help for English at University
- Official Arts University Bournemouth 2023 Applicant Thread
- Higher English - The Cheviot, the Stag, and the Black, Black Oil
- Upcoming Films Trailer thread
- What are your hobbies?
- Hunger Games: Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes film review thread
- Film studies ( hopefully specialising in Screenwriting) degree?
- Should I hide my true taste in film in order to not raise alarms or anything?
- Applying to study Film Production
- Is UEL as bad as everyone says?
- What is your least favourite film?
- TSR Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2023!
- Bournemouth University or MetFilm School (Leeds) for MA Cinematography
- Most accredited Uni for Creative Writing (Film) in Bristol?
- WJEC GCSE English Language 3rd June 2014 Official Thread
- People who study film/tv, what are your plans?
- Looking for a Film Production course?
- Help! MA in Documentary by practice
