My Own Personal Cinema
This is where I'll be reviewing films I've seen, both newer and ones from couple of years ago. This is because even though I make time to go to the cinema, I have a stack of DVDs wondering when I'll pick them up. Yep, I'm almost certain my DVD pile judges me as much as my book pile.
I saw this about two weeks ago, but needed time to figure out what to write in this review. I've heard so many things about it, both good and bad, coupled with my own emotions and personal viewing experience, along with hearing facts from the actual event...it all just needed separating in my mind. So here we go-
1. The acting was really good and made me feel the danger and intensity of war. Yes, Harry Styles was also good though I've never been a One Direction fan. *hides from the mob*
2. The costumes were on point for the period and it was really easy to slip into that time.
3. The score and visual/special effects played a massive part. It really helped the tension and made me feel as though I could be on that beach too.
4. It conveyed so much emotion. Everyone in our screening were crying at various parts- and I mean really crying.
1. The landscape was too...clean. My dad showed me real pictures of Dunkirk after we came home from the cinema. In the film, there were no vehicles laid near the beach and the houses nearby didn't look like they were part of a war. Even a CGI house front could have been better.
2. There weren't many soldiers on the beach. There were long lines of soldiers and they were spread out a bit, but I'd expected a lot more. Considering the final number evacuated...it didn't quite seem to add up from the film. I don't think enough extras were employed to make up more numbers. While the focus was on British soldiers, there were also a lack of soldiers from other countries. A few French and Dutch were in and even had lines, but again, the numbers weren't quite realistic.
I've thought a lot about this rating. I really enjoyed it and in my opinion, the good parts do outweigh the bad. It's a great portrayal of resilience and survival, whatever the odds. But as it's based on a proper historical event, there was enough that didn't seem right to make me lower my rating slightly.
But if you haven't already seen Dunkirk, I would still recommend it. To watch it, learn about it if need be, but to also ignore reviews to an extent and make up your mind about the film.
My final overall rating- 3 and a half out of 5 stars.
All the best.
Today’s film review is on the next Marvel film. Now, it doesn’t seem five minutes since I was reviewing Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2, but it’s apparently been three whole months since then.
Anyway. My only rule for watching films at the cinema is: Don’t go and see it during opening weekend. I never break that rule, no matter how excited I am to see it. The reasons for this are as follows:
1. The screenings are always packed. In case you didn’t know already- I’m an introvert. With social anxiety. Me + people doesn’t go well all that often.
2. The queue to buy a ticket is going to be big. I get bored easily in big queues. Being at the cinema is one of the only times I don’t have a book in my hand.
3. There was another reason, but I have forgotten. Everyone goes to midnight screenings. That’s the point of them. No, sorry, but I like my sleep. I don’t get enough if it sometimes (yay, insomnia), but I’d rather be trying to sleep at midnight then watch a film.
Luckily, our holiday came just as the film was released, so I had to wait two weeks to the end of July to see the new version of Spidey. The screen I was in was only half full and of course, I chose the back. Where I didn’t half to worry about people staring at me and could relax. Result.
I wasn’t too sure about this film going in. I obviously was going to watch it since it happens to be part of the whole MCU and I’d miss a ton of stuff otherwise, plus I did like Tom Holland as Spidey in ‘Civil War’.
However. Confession time…I’ve never seen any of the other Spiderman films all the way through. They’ve just never interested me all that much. Whether that’s the age difference thing people talk about or what, but there it is. I also don’t read the comics all that much.
1. I found this version of Peter Parker really relatable. For many reasons. Even though I’m not in school anymore (and we leave at 16 in the UK), this version of him was nerdy, awkward and just trying to do the right thing by people.
2. Iron Man is still relevant, but not central. Tony becomes Peter’s mentor, which was fun to watch being played out.
3. Happy Hogan is back! I didn’t realise how much I’d missed him until he came on screen.
4. The cameos. Stan Lee’s was funny and sweet. It was nice to see Pepper back too. The ones with Captain America were really good.
5. The villain was so relatable too. I mean, Vulture was obviously not the nicest, but he was almost ordinary, in a way that superhero movies don’t usually show. In fact, I personally think there have only ever been about two villains in the MCU that I can’t relate to, so Vulture wasn’t a surprise in that respect.
6. There is so much emphasis on friendships here, both male and female. Even though is a love interest and he’s a teenager, Peter wasn’t going around fancying every girl in his school. I really liked that.
7. A lot of the school scenes show that it’s ok to be smart at school. I wish I’d have had a message like that when I was at school. I was bullied for doing homework and liking certain subjects- a lot of this fully started my anxiety. It’s so important for school-aged people to hear, especially coming from a superhero film. We can all be our own superheroes.
8. The Avengers tower features again. That was nice. And there is some throwbacks to the first Avengers film- which remains one of my favourites to this day.
9. The special effects were great. The script was typically Marvel- filled humour.
1. This is a slight spoiler, but it could be a trigger warning, so I thought I’d include it. In the final battle, there is the use of the reflection panels (like the ones on the helicarrier in ‘The Avengers’). These malfunction during the fight and they flash quite a bit, which could be a problem for some people. Not saying it will be, but it’s possible.
Despite my initial doubts, I needn’t have worried. Being pleasantly surprised made me really enjoy this film and I think Tom Holland was definitely well cast to take on Spiderman. I’m looking forward to seeing him in future Marvel films.
My rating: 4½ out of 5 stars.
Thanks for reading. Let me know what you thought about the film if you’ve seen it- and if I should watch the other versions of Spiderman for myself. All the best.
I missed this film at cinemas when it came out last year thanks to the crazy assignment schedule of my second year of university which I still remember with mostly dread. It meant I had to wait for the DVD, which I got at Christmas and have finally watched it. (I’ve been terrible with trying to watch films over the last year and a half.)
I was curious, had heard mostly god things, and of course this was the film which finally won Leonardo DiCaprio that Oscar. Even if I was sceptical at the running time of approximately two and a half hours.
However, I’m glad I missed this one at cinemas. My usual lists are below. The times I’ve come out disappointed with a film I can count in one hand. ‘The Revenant’ would have been one of those, even if it wasn’t a bad film. it did have potential; I just felt it wasted a lot of it.
1. The locations. Not entirely sure where these all were, but they all were absolutely beautiful and I wanted to visit to experience that for myself. The cast were so lucky to have filmed surrounded by that much amazing nature. The horses were all lovely too.
2. The performances were all great. I can understand that Oscar win a bit more since he carried- and was the only person in- half the film.
3. I really liked some of the camera angles, which caught a lot more of the fights and reactions, especially the really close-up shots.
4. What drama there was, was done well.
1. Somewhere about an hour in, I was watching the film solely for the scenery and nature, as I mentioned above.
2. I think the film could have been made more concise.
3. The middle really dragged. I understand what it was trying to show, but there were so many filler scenes, like, “Oh, it’s night now. Look, a fire is being built.” As an audience member, it felt as though I was being told a lot. I mean, if in one scene it’s getting dark and in the next, there’s bright light, I can infer for myself that a night has passed.
4. Even the apparent open ending seemed a bit random. I don’t understand it happened there, of all places, after the audience has just been told everything else. #confused
5. I don’t mind slow films at all, but this was too slow. All the tension seemed to go out of the film after Glass managed to get to land, avoid imminent death in the waterfall and the wintery conditions, to begin healing/survive for himself. It only seemed to going again when the team realised something bad had happened and that perhaps Ferdinand wasn’t as good and clean as he made out to be.
That moment was well past the halfway mark.
So overall, I was really disappointed with this film, because I really wanted to like it and I tried. A friend had told me (near enough) that without the bear attack, it would have been two hours of showing someone trekking through the snow. I decided to watch it for myself, but now I wonder if I shouldn’t have listened to him.
After all, during the parts where I completely zoned out, I was reading ‘The Night Circus’. That has never happened before. There were good parts and I enjoyed those, but overall, it was just too long a film with not enough tension to keep me interested.
My rating: 2½ stars.
Let me know if you agree with this rating or if you actually enjoyed the film. All the best.
This is my review for the film ‘My Cousin Rachel’, which was adapted from the book by Daphne du Maurier and came out in UK cinemas on 9th June. I hadn’t read the book beforehand, though I’ve previously read ‘Jamaica Inn’ and ‘Rebecca’.
I’m writing this on the same day I saw it- 14th June- a few hours later, so I’m still processing it. But don’t worry, the review will still make sense! :)
1. The settings and locations. The houses were massive and looked great. There was also some very beautiful countryside I didn’t know we possessed in England. Kinda makes me want to go on a trip and find it for myself.
2. The cast. All of them were brilliant. It was especially nice to see one or two cast members playing minor characters who I haven’t seen in film for a good few years.
3. It was so subtle. Everything between Rachel and Philip was mind games and trying to figure each other out, especially in the beginning. Then wondering if Rachel was guilty of murder and if Philip was genuinely going mad.
4. Mind games with the audience. Just when I thought I knew what was going on, things changed. This ties in with the subtleties, tension and suspense, but it was so well done. I still don’t know what to think about what really happened with the ending.
(Maybe that’s enough to make the audience go mad too. (Dun, dun, dun…!))
5. I loved the Gothic-ness in this. I know that’s the style of the books, but it was still fun. I was reminded in so many ways of the film ‘Crimson Peak’- which I also love- and as a fan of Gothic things, it was nice to see again.
6. It was nice to have a bit of a slower film for once. Everything in life is hectic and constant rushing around. It felt good to sit back and not have a film follow the same pattern.
7. How everything comes full circle to how it begins, in a way. There are still unanswered questions, but as an open ending, it’s left to the viewer’s interpretation and imagination. It makes you think for yourself instead of giving everything handed out, which I enjoyed. It’s nice to be appreciated as an audience.
1. The amount of darkness. Literal blackness. I love the atmosphere of candlelight and the way it makes me feel, especially in films like this. However, there seemed to be a lot of scenes at night- just following the book, I’m sure- but it seemed a little over the top. Maybe that’s just me being a bit picky.
2. This one really is me being a little picky, but as a personal preference, I’d have liked to have heard the OST more*. What I did pick out was brilliant, but the score of a film is always very important to me. It just at times seemed to fade into the background, rather than complement different scenes.
(*After having searched afterwards, I’ve found the complete score and am enjoying it. Perhaps it was a case of being so engrossed in what was happening, I didn’t notice.)
This is a great film and now I’ll have to seek the book out. At least, when I do, the ending won’t be a complete shock because…wow. It really was.
These main questions spoken in the film- which I shall be thinking about for a while yet- are left open to interpretation:
Did she? Didn’t she?
My rating: 4 out of 5 stars.
Thanks for reading and see you next time. All the best..
Today’s film review is going to be of Guy Ritchie’s ‘King Arthur: Legend of the Sword’. I’d been watching for this one for a while. I love Arthurian legend (nothing to do with me being British) and have seen so many different forms in film, TV and books, which is the great thing that there is so much to the legends. Before this, I have also seen three of Guy Ritchie’s previous films (Both Sherlock Holmes and The Man from UNCLE) and really enjoyed them.
Yet when it was released, critics really slammed the film and said it would never have its’ planned series. On the other hand, plenty of people went and said they loved it. I saw it twice at cinemas, and from my own viewings, I have to disagree with the critics too.
Here’s my summary-:
1. Charlie Hunnam playing Arthur. And several other cast members who I’m also fans of, both in main and in supporting/minor roles.
2. Some of the scenes (mainly backstory type-stuff) were done in the style that you know you’re watching a Guy Ritchie film and they were really good.
3. The CGI was incredible.
4. As were the battle scenes. And the score. Daniel Pemberton did something amazing with the music and it fits the film brilliantly. I keep listening to it on repeat.
5. Jude Law as Vortigern was an amazing and scary villain. You know how sometimes in books and films you get the ‘villain’ who everyone says is evil, yet doesn’t have a lot to really show for it in the end? Vortigern isn’t like that. At all.
6. The scenery was beautiful. The kind you see and immediately want to visit for yourself.
7. The little hints here and there for the originally planned series. But they work just as well on their own in the space of this film.
1. Sometimes, the action/battle scenes may have been a little too often. But against the plot of the film, it was to be expected. So, not too much of a negative, but did feel a bit exhausting to watch once or twice.
2. It may or may not now get to the second film in what was originally going to be a planned six-film series. That is a shame.
I do not know why critics hated this latest re-telling of the King Arthur story. It is different from most things done before with Arthurian Legend, and from anything I’ve seen before, but I found it a good different. As a film in itself, it was strong piece of story-telling, fantasy and escapism.
I also don’t know why there was a gap between what the critics saw and what the majority of movie-goers saw, and the contrast in opinions. Reading critic reviews had me debating going to see ‘Legend of the Sword’, but in the end, many factors pulled me to that cinema seat.
I’m very glad I went. Twice, in fact.
As I mentioned, the variations in what I’ve seen of King Arthur before revolve around a general type. You know what you’re getting and know how the legends end. But even while ‘Legend of the Sword’ does somewhat follow that, it’s allowed to do it in a more unique and clever way. Something I put down to Guy Ritchie’s unique way of story-telling in film.
Hopefully, ‘King Arthur: Legend of the Sword’ will have made (and keep making, with DVD sales, ect) enough money to venture it worth making a second film in the series. I really hope they do, because the story deserves it, and the characters deserve it.
But even if not- and it does look very unlikely- the film is still strong enough to stand alone and for people to be entertained.
My rating: 4 ½ out of 5 stars.
Thanks for reading this. All the best.