Letters To Juliet Review

Posted by Should I See It on Thursday, April 29, 2010 , under , , , , , , | comments (2)





Film: Letters to Juliet
Director: Gary Winick
Starring: Amanda Seyfried, Christopher Egan, Vanessa Redgrave and Gael Garcia Bernal.
Plot: A Young American woman, Sophie, on holiday in Verona Italy, finds a letter written 50 years ago from a woman who abandoned her lover. Sophie decides to write back, prompting the woman, Clare, to come to Italy with her grandson Charlie in search of her lost love. Clare, Charlie and Sophie set off together. On the way, Charlie and Sophie fall in love.



I wasn’t sure what to expect from Letters to Juliet.

Correction. I was expecting the same rom-com formula (which I got), what I was uncertain about was how well the film would pull it off.

I knew it would not be an instant classic, but I was pretty sure that it was just another run of the mill, half-baked, let’s-make-a-profit Romantic Comedy.

I can say that it’s definitely more than half-baked. Not a classic. Rather it’s Nice. Warm. While the plot is nothing to write home about, there’s something unpretentious about it that makes it enjoyable.



The film actually rolls along quite nicely until the ‘declaration’ scene. The final scene reaches new levels of cheesiness unmatched by any other in the film. The inevitable ‘I Love You’ that occurs in this scene seems forced and undeserved. Indeed the entire scene descends into hyperbole when Charlie declares that hi is ‘truly, madly, deeply, passionately in love’ with Sophie. (By the way Charlie, Savage Garden called and they want their song back). A much more subtle ending (ie the recognition of each other’s feelings as oppoed to the forced declarations) would have been far more satisfactory and far more suited to the ‘nicety’ of this film

Italy looks beautiful; well at least the bits we see do. I just wish the director Gary Winick had been a little bit more in love with the Italian landscape. It deserved to become a character in the film, rather than just the back drop. But I guess I can’t expect too much imagination from the man that brought us Bride Wars.




Christopher Egan has come a long way since Home and Away. His English accent is very good, especially considering how broad his Aussie accent was in Home and Away. He actually proves himself a very competent actor. He can deliver a funny line. He was enjoyable to watch. The film didn’t really pick up until Egan came on screen.

However, this is one thing about his performance that I have to mention: his walk.

Now you’re probably thinking: “His Walk? Seriously?!” But OMG it is hilarious!

Christopher Egan appears to have massive feet! And it makes him look really awkward when he walks (especially in his little hurried/angry walk that he does at the start of the film!). It’s almost like trying to watch someone walk when they are wearing flippers!

I’m laughing just thinking about it!

Anyway… back to the movie.




Before seeing this film, I hadn’t really made up my mind about Seyfried. After seeing Letters to Juliet I have decided that she is not my type of actress.

Oh, she has beautiful eyes and hair that stays perfectly in place (something I find hard to believe would happen in the stuffy New York City summers) but she lacks the charm that is especially vital for a leading lady in this type of film. Some actors can make so-so dialogue sound great; Seyfried makes so-so dialogue sound so-so. I can’t help but think that a better actress could have lifted the film a little.

Letters to Juliet delivers pretty much what it promises: Light and fluffy. It’s more good natured than The Proposal, less vapid than Valentine’s Day and far more chaste than The Ugly Truth.





Should I See It?



Let’s put it this way: It’s better than you would expect.


 

Letters to Juliet is released on the 13th of May in Australia.

Letters to Juliet Official Site here.

How To Train Your Dragon Review

Posted by Should I See It on Sunday, April 11, 2010 , under , , , , | comments (0)






Film: How to Train Your Dragon
Director: Dean DeBlois & Chris Sanders.
Starring: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, America Ferrera, Jonah Hill and Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
Plot: A hapless young Viking who aspires to hunt dragons becomes the unlikely friend of a young dragon himself, and learns there may be more to the creatures than he assumed.



How To Train Your Dragon is the first film that I have seen in a long time that I actually really enjoyed. From start to finish I was enchanted, captivated by the charm and the general open-heartedness of the film.

The hero, Hiccup [a very strong and manly name, meant to instil fear at the thought of it] (voiced by Jay Baruchel) is suitably endearing. In many ways Hiccup reminded me of Zac Efron, and I’m not just talking about the shaggy hair that always seems to sit perfectly, but some of Baruchel’s inflections, but some of the mannerisms in the animation of the character recall those of Zefron.



The Dragon, Toothless, is adorable. He’s like a puppy, but way cooler. I have decided that I only want a pet if I can have Toothless the Dragon. The developing friendship between Hiccup and Toothless gives the film its warmth.

The designs of the dragons are unique and vivid. Of course these dragons are the kind that could ONLY exist in an animated film, but that is half (well, maybe three-quarters) of their charm!


As in any film, Hiccup also gets a kick-ass love interest, Astrid. Though I will say that America Fererra, who voiced the role, is perhaps a little too one-note in her interpretation.



I also applaud the genius who decided to cast Craig Ferguson as Gobber, the Viking in charge of training the young’uns in killing dragons. Ferguson is a great addition to the cast. It was also nice to hear Gerard Butler, as Hiccup’s father Stoic (what did I tell you about the Viking names?), with his native Scottish accent.

One thing that I didn’t understand about this movie: why did the adults have Scottish accents and the adolescents have American accents? Actually I do know why but I can’t be bothered writing a massive rant on the Americanisation of EVERYTHING!



The scene where Hiccup takes Astrid for a ride on Toothless is magical. Imagine a combination of Harry Potter and the Hippogriff, the ‘I’m the king of the world’ moment from Titanic and ‘A Whole New Wold’ from Aladdin (minus the singing) and you basically have that scene.

The designs of the dragons are wonderful, unique and vivid. Of course these dragons are the kind that could ONLY exist in an animated film, but that is half (well, maybe three-quarters) of their charm!




The score by John Powell is wonderful, never overpowering, but just enough to compliment the film (as any good score should do).

The pacing is tight, there is never a dull moment, and the script is funny. It never becomes preachy or overly sentimental, as so many films of this genre, or at least aimed at this audience, tend to do.

Don’t be put off by the fact that this is a ‘kid’s movie’. Even if you don’t have kids to take to see it, it’s definitely worth seeing. Watching How to Train Your Dragon is a very enjoyable way to spend an hour and a half, and it will leave you feeling all sunny inside.



Should I See It?



Yes! You should DEFINITELY SEE IT!









How to Train Your Dragon Official Site here.

Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang Review

Posted by Should I See It on Monday, April 5, 2010 , under , , , , | comments (0)





Film: Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang
Director: Susanna White
Starring: Emma Thompson, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Rhys Ifans, Maggie Smith, and Ralph Fiennes.
Plot: Nanny McPhee returns to the screen, this time helping a harried mother, Mrs Green, whose husband is away fighting in the war. Nanny McPhee uses her magic to teach Ms Green's three children and their two cousins visiting from the city five very important lessons.


Sheeeeeeeeeee's BA-ACK.


Yes, the world’s fourth favourite nanny, (behind Mary Poppins, Fraulein Maria and Super Nanny’s Jo Frost), is back again to transform terrible children into angels!


Well, not that all of the children in Nanny McPhee are really terrible. The Green children aren’t all that bad, really. They saved their sugar coupons to make their father some jam for when he comes home from the war. In my opinion, the Green children (Norman, Megsie and Vincent) are unfairly punished by Nanny McPhee. It’s the city duo, Celia and Cyril that need ‘whipping into shape.’ Anybody who turned down their nose at my house, made fun of me, and ruined my father’s special jam all within the first five minutes of meeting, would not be welcome. There really is no wonder that the Green children don’t like their cousins. If they weren’t so funny in their snobbishness, the audience wouldn’t like them either.


Performance wise, the kids are actually very good: Eros Vlahos and Rosie Taylor Ritson as city cousins Cyril and Celia fare best, particularly Vlahos who mastered the spoilt brat swagger. Oscar Steer as Mrs. Green's youngest son Vincent is simply too cute! Asa Butterfield (from The Boy in The Striped Pyjamas) is probably the weakest, but even he has his moments.

By the calibre of the guest actors, you know that Emma Thompson is a pretty influential name (or she has really good friends). Ralph Fiennes and Ewan McGregor make cameos as the children’s fathers and Maggie Smith and Rhys Ifans round out the adult cast. Maggie Smith in particular is charming as the slightly dotty Mrs Docherty (who is in some way connected to Nanny McPhee, but I won’t spoil that for you here).
 

But it's Maggie Gyllenhaal who disappoints. Unfortunately she must have caught a major case of the overacting bug. I know Nanny McPhee isn't exactly an exercise in subtlety, but Gyllenhaal's performance is so over the top that it detracts from the film.

I also enjoyed the period detail of the film. In particular, Vincent and Cyril’s trip to the War Office in London was particularly well done. It was interesting to see the film makers approach their presentations of the war office from a child’s perspective.
 
For the most part Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang is fairly entertaining, but the script is incredibly uneven. There are some genuinely funny lines, and it includes one of the best speeches about poo that has ever been written, but when it comes to pigs that not only fly but do synchronised swimming, and an unfortunate sub plot about kidney removal, you know that the ideas were running a little thin.


The homage to Mary Poppins is perhaps more obviously this time around than in the first.

Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang has its charms, but they aren't quite as sweet the second time around.
If only all parents could have Nanny McPhee’s special powers then the world would be a much better place!

Should I See It?


Only if you have kids to take to see it.




Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang Official Site here.

Remember Me Review

Posted by Should I See It on Friday, April 2, 2010 , under , , | comments (1)





Film: Remember Me
Director: Allen Coulter
Starring: Robert Pattinson, Emilie de Ravin, Chris Cooper and Pierce Brosnan.
Plot: A romantic drama centered on two new lovers: Tyler, whose parents have split in the wake of his brother's suicide, and Ally, who lives each day to the fullest since witnessing her mother's murder.

So, Remember Me is the vehicle that is supposed to propel Robert Pattinson beyond The Twilight Saga. Fortunately for viewers, Remember Me is not nearly as painful as the Twilight films, but unfortunately for Pattinson, this is not a high point in his career.

Remember Me is an incredibly pretentious film: especially the ‘love story,’ which is supposed to lure in all the Twilight fan girls, to get another glimpse at their Edward Cullen.

There is a bit of ridiculousness as to the extremes of the tragedy of Tyler and Ally’s lives:  one's brother committed suicide, and he found the body, and other whose mother was shot in front of her. You would think they would do a lot of living. Unfortunately, all they do is a lot of moaning.



The love story in this film is just as shallow as the one in the aforementioned vampire movie. And it drags this film………. Oh, how the love story drags…..

And while where talking about how the film drags…….it actually manages to come to a grinding halt whenever it moves to the relationship between de Ravin and Cooper’s characters. Chris Cooper (an actor who I really admire) is absolutely wasted in this drivel.

Fortunately for viewers, the film picks up when dealing with Tyler’s relationship with his family. Actually, to be honest the relationship that has the most substance and the most believability is the one between Tyler and his (much) younger sister Caroline. Actually, Caroline’s story is far more engaging than Tyler’s (something wrong with that, don’t you think writers?) Ruby Jerins does well as Caroline, while not quite as polished as other actors of her age, she is warm and inviting, and one of the few characters the audience has sympathy for.

And once Tyler gets over himself, his realtionship with his father (Pierce Brosnan) actually becomes quite touching.



 
Tate Ellington as Tyler’s best friend and housemate, Aidan, is downright embarrassing, and de Ravin seems to be concentrating entirely on her accent, so much so that she forgets to emote.

And don’t even get me started on the ending….

Don’t read any further if you don’t want to be spoiled







So the film ends with Tyler going to his father’s office on September 11, 2001. We all know what happened that day… (it’s an American movie, so there has to be terrorism in there somewhere). Though, to be fair, it was foreshadowed (very badly) in one of the opening scenes.

And it probably didn’t help that there was an obnoxiously loud woman repeating “Omigod! He’s in the Twin Towers! He’s in the Twin Towers!”

Yes, we get that. The whole movie was set in 2001 just so Tyler could be killed in the September 11 attacks. But the question I keep asking myself is: why? Why did the writers feel the need for the story to end that way?

I gather that it was included to encourage us to live and love our lives and the people in it. However, I don’t feel the film portrays this message at all.

The dead brother thing seems only to serve as a reason for Pattinson to (over)act depressed, angsty and mopey (not unlike a certain other character that he plays…).

Similarly, the notion that Ally 'lives each day to the fullest', that is mentioned in the plot summary, is entirely superficial. This passion to ‘live’ only seems to manifest itself in ordering dessert first at a restaurant. It doesn’t seem to translate into any other aspect of her life.

The inclusion of the September 11 attacks were intended, I assume, to give some levity to ending of the film. But what it actually does is highlight the flaws in the rest it. Not to mention the background music that builds up for about five minutes before hand, to make sure we *know* something big is coming! To attach the September 11 attacks to such an unremarkable relationship seems to cheapen the entire tragedy.

Actually, to be quite honest, the end seems to have come from an entirely different movie. It’s almost as if they came up with the ending first and then tried to create a story around it. Problem is, the film makers failed miserably in coming up with a story that deserved that ending, because Remember Me is entirely forgettable.


Should I See It?


No. Trust me, you're not missing out on much.

Please note: My sarcasm relating to the events of September 11, 2001 is related only to the way they were portrayed in the film. The events of September 11, 2001 were catastrophic and have had a huge impact the world over, but I would argue that its inclusion in the film cheapens and trivialises the tragedy of the events.

Please don’t send me hate mail.

Thank you.










Remember Me Official Site here.