I used to be a Glee fan. I will always be a musical theatre fan. And I am a fan of a decent rom com.
Basically give me singing, dancing, and a small amount of romance with a lot of comedy and I'll be a happy bunny no matter how trite the plot. Like I said, I used to be a Glee fan, I can cope with pretty much anything.
Which is why I wanted to give Pitch Perfect a go. That and I really do enjoy Anna Kendrick and Rebel Wilson's acting abilities.
Though I have strong objections to the way her name is spelt, this film concentrates on Beca (Anna Kendrick), a college freshman whose passion involves mixing music NOT singing. She is in college against her will but at the bequest of her Father, who has a condition that she must try and find a club to belong to and 'make memories', then if she really hates it she can move to LA and try to make it in the music business.
Of course this is where the singing and dancing comes in, as the group she finds is the all female A Capella group The Bellas, led by Brittany Snow (Hairspray, Prom Night) as Chloe and Anna Camp (True Blood) as Aubrey.
Aubrey is the real leader who has something to prove after an embarrassing exit in the finals of last years A Capella competition. Chloe is a confident but submissive co-chair who wants Beca in the group after making her perform an audition in the shower...yeah I was a bit disturbed by the casual nature of the intimidation but there was no malice involved so I think it was okay.
The Bellas main rivals are on-campus all-male A Capella group the Treblemakers, who won last years competition and generally out-do the girls because their music choices do not begin and end with eighties female empowerment records. They are led by Bumper, played by Jack Black wannabe Adam DeVine (you might recognise him from the most recent Sim City ads) and joined by Jesse who is played by Skylar Astin, the Dane Cook of this generation. Don't know who Dane Cook is? Thats probably a good thing as it means you haven't been subjected to his 'stand-up' or movies such as Good Luck Chuck. Though Dan In Real Life is worth a watch.
The rivalry is fun, the singing is pretty good and the sing-off between all the groups on campus is a good watch.
Rebel Wilson is without doubt the star of this film as she brings her no-bullshit style of comedy and is obviously ad-libbing wherever she can. The name of her character is 'Fat Amy' and its the best reason for a name ever, 'So that twigs like you can't call me it behind my back'. Genius. She also gets one of my favourite lines of the movie "I'm gonna finish him like a cheesecake!" There is some really great humour in this film.
The romance between Beca and Jesse is cheesy but fine, its not gonna make you vomit for the sacchirine but also its not so dead you wonder why its even there.
Anna Kendrick's performance is great, she pulls off the loner-type well but also has a decent set of pipes on her. I hope she continues to do well, make the right choices in films etc. So far Pitch Perfect has been the furthest away from Up in the Air (for which she was Oscar nommed) but I enjoyed it a lot.
Director Jason Moore has relatively few TV/movie credits but did get Tony nominated for directing Avenue Q, a funny and dark puppet musical, and I felt he handled this movie particularly well. There are moments of real gross-out humour that I could have done without, but then again it is probably meant to appeal to the American Pie lovers rather than the Glee ones anyway.
This film is meant for an older audience than Glee would normally attract, with it being set in college and having talk of sex, and it benefits from this. There are a wide range of characters, from the girl who no one can hear to the boy whose passion involves close up magic, as well as the stock characters of romantic leads, mouthy girl, and uptight drama queen.
It might have helped I was drinking cider (only one pint) through the film so my expectations were that much lower and my inclination to laugh that much higher. I am pretty sure that a sober viewing would still induce the same amount of enjoyment.
So yeah, give Pitch Perfect a go if you enjoy musicals and rom coms, wouldn't recommend it to anyone who loathes Glee though.
Monday 25 March 2013
Saturday 23 March 2013
Breaking Dawn Part Two ☆☆☆
I am still failing to see why this needed to be in two films.
As with part one I refused to pay good money to travel to and sit in a cinema to watch the final films in this saga. So instead I have waited until renting it on a whim by signing up to Tesco's Blink Box thing (if you put in £1 they give you a fiver, so that's six squid to spend renting movies, basically you can rent one recent one and one from a few years ago). I flat out refuse to pay any money whatsoever to see The Host (Stephanie Meyer's poor excuse for a sci-fi novel) but with Twilight I HAD to get some closure.
Plus there was this thing of people telling me it was really good....uh huh.
It IS worth a watch for those who like Twilight, which is why it gets three stars. I had some positive moments and there is actually some decent acting going on - kudos to the casting director! I AM going to spoil the frick out of this movie though so if you are perhaps waiting for it to come on the TV in order to not pay a penny to see it (apart from the TV subscription and electricity of course) please stop reading now.
Just in case you skim read my reviews...
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
We shall start on a positive note. Lee Pace (aka Garrett, sexy loner vampire) was AMAZING. He, along with Billy Burke who plays Charlie, totally got the character and didn't seem the slightest bit uncomfortable. This has always been the problem with the Twilight movies, no one has ever seemed secure in their role except Charlie, and now Garrett. Oh and Benjamin and Aro too.
Aro is played with a vicariousness only present in a secure actor, who is of course respected Tony Blair impersonator Michael Sheen...OK so that's unfair as he is a very good actor when not being our former PM.
He also gets to kick some butt in this film which I really enjoyed despite it NOT HAPPENING IN THE BOOK.
Now okay so I rag on Meyer for being a terrible writer but seriously, when there is no fight scene in a book and all your going to do is this 'clever twist' which I guessed when people told me 'oh its really clever how they fitted in the fight that we have all seen in the trailers' because seriously, how else was it going to happen except for it being a vision that Alice has seen? you DON'T have to spend the extra money making the fight scene. That is, and I would have been happy with this, unless you are gonna change the ending and have the fight be real and actually introduce some tragedy into the sugary vampire drama.
Do I sound harsher than usual? I think I must be in a bad place or something.
So yes, because I knew they wouldn't possibly change the ending I spent the fight sequence thinking 'this is cool and all, vampire heads being ripped off left right and chelsea, few dead wolves too, but it means nothing really'. Fine, so the vision is the reason Aro doesn't start a battle but honestly, I felt real bad for Marcus.
That vampire wanted to die so bad, you could almost see the (excuse my language here) 'Oh for fucks sake' that was running through his mind as Aro shooed everyone away from starting a fight.
Visually the film was stunning. Fantastic snowy mountains, the grown up vamps looked cool and newcomer Benjamin with his fancy element manipulation was also fun.
However, and this was a gripe from the end of the last movie, when the child is described as being beautiful and with big brown eyes like her Mother's used to be, WHY THE HELL DOES CGI HAVE TO GET INVOLVED?
Seriously? Can someone explain why it was a good decision to manipulate a child's face with special effects? If you want a serious looking child get one that is half asleep, and once Renesmee got to about five kids are pretty good at acting, no need to make her face look a certain way. And it was so badly done, so awful and obvious it just put me off looking at the child when you are meant to be captivated by her.
Just a side note regarding the stupid name of the child, my respect levels for Kristen Stewart's acting abilities went up about a million points as she growled at Taylor Lautner (bless the boy his acting skills will never be as good as his abs) for nick naming her after the Loch Ness Monster.
Actually lets return to the positives once more because as annoying as I find Ms Stewart's acting method she must have let loose in this movie. Perhaps it was the restraint of the characterisation of Bella that made her seem to be the same in every other movie she did, but here she got to be proactive and when she yelled I believed her.
I think Pattinson was just coasting by this point in the films, he knew he could do Edward Cullen easily and just went with it. Can't blame him really, there are amazing gif sets that come up on Tumblr about how no-one was happier than Mr Pattinson for the Twilight nightmare to end. And when he smiles he is pretty so I was happy with his performance.
The rest of the actors were fine, its all a bit over dramatic for my taste anyway. I liked the Denali sisters and the showing off of each others powers. It was a shame they couldn't have scripted it better, there were some awful and painful cheesy lines in there.
But like I said, positives were in there too. Stewart acted. Pace was a fantastic Garrett. Sheen was Sheen. And though I was disappointed all the death and violence didn't actually take place the battle sequence was pretty cool to watch.
Overall the Twilights have been worth the watch. The first was undoubtedly the best because of the mood and tone that Katherine Hardwicke brought to the table. It was also the film where you can tell that everyone cared, no one had been tainted by the overwhelming nature of fandoms or been given nick names yet, no ones love life had been scrutinised constantly by the gossip machines of E! and the magazines, it was a brand new thing - not the vampire love story, but the idea that a teenage audience could connect to it.
I have become more disillusioned over the years and splitting Breaking Dawn into two films was the icing on the cake. Only good literature should be shown such devotion, and unfortunately I cannot bring myself to say that any of the Twilight books are remotely worth recommending based on the skill of the writer.
As with part one I refused to pay good money to travel to and sit in a cinema to watch the final films in this saga. So instead I have waited until renting it on a whim by signing up to Tesco's Blink Box thing (if you put in £1 they give you a fiver, so that's six squid to spend renting movies, basically you can rent one recent one and one from a few years ago). I flat out refuse to pay any money whatsoever to see The Host (Stephanie Meyer's poor excuse for a sci-fi novel) but with Twilight I HAD to get some closure.
Plus there was this thing of people telling me it was really good....uh huh.
It IS worth a watch for those who like Twilight, which is why it gets three stars. I had some positive moments and there is actually some decent acting going on - kudos to the casting director! I AM going to spoil the frick out of this movie though so if you are perhaps waiting for it to come on the TV in order to not pay a penny to see it (apart from the TV subscription and electricity of course) please stop reading now.
Just in case you skim read my reviews...
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
We shall start on a positive note. Lee Pace (aka Garrett, sexy loner vampire) was AMAZING. He, along with Billy Burke who plays Charlie, totally got the character and didn't seem the slightest bit uncomfortable. This has always been the problem with the Twilight movies, no one has ever seemed secure in their role except Charlie, and now Garrett. Oh and Benjamin and Aro too.
Aro is played with a vicariousness only present in a secure actor, who is of course respected Tony Blair impersonator Michael Sheen...OK so that's unfair as he is a very good actor when not being our former PM.
He also gets to kick some butt in this film which I really enjoyed despite it NOT HAPPENING IN THE BOOK.
Now okay so I rag on Meyer for being a terrible writer but seriously, when there is no fight scene in a book and all your going to do is this 'clever twist' which I guessed when people told me 'oh its really clever how they fitted in the fight that we have all seen in the trailers' because seriously, how else was it going to happen except for it being a vision that Alice has seen? you DON'T have to spend the extra money making the fight scene. That is, and I would have been happy with this, unless you are gonna change the ending and have the fight be real and actually introduce some tragedy into the sugary vampire drama.
Do I sound harsher than usual? I think I must be in a bad place or something.
So yes, because I knew they wouldn't possibly change the ending I spent the fight sequence thinking 'this is cool and all, vampire heads being ripped off left right and chelsea, few dead wolves too, but it means nothing really'. Fine, so the vision is the reason Aro doesn't start a battle but honestly, I felt real bad for Marcus.
That vampire wanted to die so bad, you could almost see the (excuse my language here) 'Oh for fucks sake' that was running through his mind as Aro shooed everyone away from starting a fight.
Visually the film was stunning. Fantastic snowy mountains, the grown up vamps looked cool and newcomer Benjamin with his fancy element manipulation was also fun.
However, and this was a gripe from the end of the last movie, when the child is described as being beautiful and with big brown eyes like her Mother's used to be, WHY THE HELL DOES CGI HAVE TO GET INVOLVED?
Seriously? Can someone explain why it was a good decision to manipulate a child's face with special effects? If you want a serious looking child get one that is half asleep, and once Renesmee got to about five kids are pretty good at acting, no need to make her face look a certain way. And it was so badly done, so awful and obvious it just put me off looking at the child when you are meant to be captivated by her.
Just a side note regarding the stupid name of the child, my respect levels for Kristen Stewart's acting abilities went up about a million points as she growled at Taylor Lautner (bless the boy his acting skills will never be as good as his abs) for nick naming her after the Loch Ness Monster.
Actually lets return to the positives once more because as annoying as I find Ms Stewart's acting method she must have let loose in this movie. Perhaps it was the restraint of the characterisation of Bella that made her seem to be the same in every other movie she did, but here she got to be proactive and when she yelled I believed her.
I think Pattinson was just coasting by this point in the films, he knew he could do Edward Cullen easily and just went with it. Can't blame him really, there are amazing gif sets that come up on Tumblr about how no-one was happier than Mr Pattinson for the Twilight nightmare to end. And when he smiles he is pretty so I was happy with his performance.
The rest of the actors were fine, its all a bit over dramatic for my taste anyway. I liked the Denali sisters and the showing off of each others powers. It was a shame they couldn't have scripted it better, there were some awful and painful cheesy lines in there.
But like I said, positives were in there too. Stewart acted. Pace was a fantastic Garrett. Sheen was Sheen. And though I was disappointed all the death and violence didn't actually take place the battle sequence was pretty cool to watch.
Overall the Twilights have been worth the watch. The first was undoubtedly the best because of the mood and tone that Katherine Hardwicke brought to the table. It was also the film where you can tell that everyone cared, no one had been tainted by the overwhelming nature of fandoms or been given nick names yet, no ones love life had been scrutinised constantly by the gossip machines of E! and the magazines, it was a brand new thing - not the vampire love story, but the idea that a teenage audience could connect to it.
I have become more disillusioned over the years and splitting Breaking Dawn into two films was the icing on the cake. Only good literature should be shown such devotion, and unfortunately I cannot bring myself to say that any of the Twilight books are remotely worth recommending based on the skill of the writer.
Saturday 16 March 2013
Somewhere ☆☆☆☆
I am a huge huge fan of Sofia Coppola. Not because I've seen everything she's ever made, I've consciously avoided Marie Antoinette, but because she made Lost in Translation and I think that is perhaps one my most favourite films ever.
Somewhere is very similar to LiT in that it uses long scenes of quiet, minimal dialogue (no wasted words with Copolla), great actors and a pretty fabulous soundtrack.
Stephen Dorff plays an actor, Johnny, who lives in a hotel (but not in a sad way), and generally does what he pleases. He is visited on occasion by his bright and bubbly 11 year old Cleo, played by the lovely Elle Fanning. When she visits it brings him out of his selfish bubble and he notices what she does and takes care of her needs (mostly) above his own. Then during one visit the mother of Cleo calls to say she is 'going away' as is wont to happen in films of father-daughter bonding.
The subsequent journey of the two of them, not getting used to each other because they already had a pretty great relationship, shows Johnny how fantastic his daughter is, and how much he needs her in his life.
It so frigging CUTE. I loved it.
You have to like Lost In Translation to like this movie, I firmly believe that. Anyone who disagrees please do comment me back and say so, but to me they are so similar in style (unsurprising when it comes to writer/directors) that if you disliked the quiet of Johansson and Murray then Dorff and Fanning are not going to win you over either.
Dorff was really very good. I don't know him from anything except the Britney Spears video for Everytime and so I didn't have any expectations piled on him, but he impressed me. He has an easy charm as Johnny but also this wonderful and caring look in his eye as he interacts with Fanning.
Fanning is a sweet actress who hasn't quite gotten the same acting chops as her big sister, but as Cleo she is charming and lovely and you wonder at her ability to be such an adult at only 11. But then kids from broken homes often are.
The two together are brilliant and they light up the screen. Films like this only work if the chemistry is there and it was there in spades, they really could have been father and daughter.
Copolla is a sturdy hand with a film like this, her words are chosen carefully and they are not said with any lack of emotion or believability. She has the corner on the quiet indie film market and I hope there are more Lost in Translations and Somewheres to come our way.
So finally, as I have said before, I loved it. I hope if you haven't tried out a Coppola movie this inspires you to do so, and that you enjoy them and take as much from them as I do.
Somewhere is very similar to LiT in that it uses long scenes of quiet, minimal dialogue (no wasted words with Copolla), great actors and a pretty fabulous soundtrack.
Stephen Dorff plays an actor, Johnny, who lives in a hotel (but not in a sad way), and generally does what he pleases. He is visited on occasion by his bright and bubbly 11 year old Cleo, played by the lovely Elle Fanning. When she visits it brings him out of his selfish bubble and he notices what she does and takes care of her needs (mostly) above his own. Then during one visit the mother of Cleo calls to say she is 'going away' as is wont to happen in films of father-daughter bonding.
The subsequent journey of the two of them, not getting used to each other because they already had a pretty great relationship, shows Johnny how fantastic his daughter is, and how much he needs her in his life.
It so frigging CUTE. I loved it.
You have to like Lost In Translation to like this movie, I firmly believe that. Anyone who disagrees please do comment me back and say so, but to me they are so similar in style (unsurprising when it comes to writer/directors) that if you disliked the quiet of Johansson and Murray then Dorff and Fanning are not going to win you over either.
Dorff was really very good. I don't know him from anything except the Britney Spears video for Everytime and so I didn't have any expectations piled on him, but he impressed me. He has an easy charm as Johnny but also this wonderful and caring look in his eye as he interacts with Fanning.
Fanning is a sweet actress who hasn't quite gotten the same acting chops as her big sister, but as Cleo she is charming and lovely and you wonder at her ability to be such an adult at only 11. But then kids from broken homes often are.
The two together are brilliant and they light up the screen. Films like this only work if the chemistry is there and it was there in spades, they really could have been father and daughter.
Copolla is a sturdy hand with a film like this, her words are chosen carefully and they are not said with any lack of emotion or believability. She has the corner on the quiet indie film market and I hope there are more Lost in Translations and Somewheres to come our way.
So finally, as I have said before, I loved it. I hope if you haven't tried out a Coppola movie this inspires you to do so, and that you enjoy them and take as much from them as I do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)