Frank Review

Both in conception, production and even execution, the abbreviated synopsis may tag the movie as the tale of a young musician who joins an eccentric band, but the devil, as ever, is in the detail.
The band's musical taste could be politely described as avant-garde (or a tuneless racket depending on your tastes), while its members are a gaggle of what you could describe as 'eccentrics', all led by the  Frank, a singer and songwriter who hides behind a  papier-mâché head, and who's either a creative genius, severely mentally ill, or possibly even both.

And oh yeah, the actor under said papier-mâché mega-head is none other than Hollywood A-Lister Michael Fassbender.

Bolstered by a feisty and adventurous cast featuring Domhnall Gleeson, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Scoot McNairy, it's an undeniably trippy ride from start to finish.

If the thought of seeing a keyboardist pretend to lay an egg whilst wailing bird noises, or Maggie Gyllenhaal play a theremin in the middle of a field sounds a little too kooky, then brace yourselves, as that's only the tip of the insane iceberg.

Any worries that the real life story of Frank Sidebottom and the punk rocker-turned-teatime TV comedian who created him, Chris Sievey, would be too British to connect with wider audiences is all but  void thanks to the movie's weirder, wider ambitions.

While the inspiration was a troubled and arguably genius Mancunian artist, it's not beholden to his story. Lenny Abrahamson's movie is more concerned with exploring the glamourised mainstream misconception tying mental illness to creative genius, and all the shades in-between.

If that sounds heavy-going, rest easy in the knowledge that the majority of the movie is focused on delivering quirky, off the bat laughs as the audience follows Gleeson's struggle to find his place in the band, as well as his own creative spark.

Indeed, the movie's weightiest issue is the final  shift in tone into more directly messaged, darkly dramatic waters. Thankfully, even if the shift immediately jars. Frank's cast - both with and without giant head - rise to the challenge.

Guaranteed to polarise, Frank is destined to go down in curio history. Bonkers in every conceivable way

5 most underrated movies of 2013

Most people tend to go along with what established critics say, a review can change how well a film is received and the amount of people who go out of their way to watch it. This means a lot of films are overlooked and quite frankly are more harshly reviewed than they deserve. Here is 10 films that were given awful reception but deserved a lot more.

Dead man Down
Although the array of cast is admirable it's a strange concoction of different genres that has given this film such a bad reception. Although it's not the best film ever made it's received a lot of criticism because the theme, tone and story isn't a straightforward template compared to many other films. A lot of reviews complained it was too muddled and confusing but in all honestly, although it's a difficult film to describe it's not a difficult to watch. It deserve to be remembered as a fascinating example of what can happen when a film has too many ideas but it treats the audience to a flurry of concepts. It's funny and strange but thats what makes it refreshing in the mist of Hollywood.

The Family
Its baffling why this film was so badly received. The Family stars Robert De Niro as a former Mafioso in witness protection, trying to fit in for the sake of a family. It never said it was going to be the number 1 comedy of the year but it was a lot more funnier and sweeter than most reviewers gave it credit for. The action and story was pretty standard and crowd pleasing, it's not going to go down in history but it's a lot better than  most comedy's that were released in 2013.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

The problem with this film is critics took it way too seriously. The film itself took a light hearted approach and they even picked fun at them selfs but this seemed lost of reviewers. The 2 leads, Gemma Arteton and Jeremy Renner were charming and brought a good sense lightness to a dark chapter in human history. The CGI was impressive enough and the action sequences were pleasing, the story lacked but it was very harshly received by critics who seemed to miss the point of the film.

Now You See Me
Although the film received an impressive $117 million at box-office the film suffered a lot of criticism for it's disbelief and mostly because of the casts performance. Personally, i found the cast to be quite likable and more than capable to handle the characters they were playing, giving a sense of unique humour particularly Eisenberg's character. The twists and turns made for a good thriller although the last big twist, although surprising, seemed really far fetched and that's possibly why it received bad criticism, although most reviews seemed judgmental and cranky

Last Vegas
Last Vegas is everything a contemporary studio movie is supposed not to be: a bunch of well-past-their-prime actors aimlessly and formulaically drifting around Sin City in a weekend free of call girls, sensational gross-out scenes, or buzzy stunt casting. And for all those reasons, it is a delight. It is impossible not to love just hanging out in the presence of four great stars like Robert De Niro, Michael Douglas, Morgan Freeman, and Kevin Kline. Predictable though the plot may be, its surprise comes in just how much emotional depth comes from these lions of the screen genuinely grappling with aging and facing the sunset of their lives. Not to mention, whatever age he is, Kline's comic timing remains a precision-guided missile

Actor Bob Hoskins dies at the age of 71

British vetran actor Bob Hoskins, 71,  passed away this afternoon after a short stay in hospital suffering from pneumonia.

He retired from acting in 2012 and he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, to the disappointed from many film fans in the UK and worldwide.

He was Born in 1942 in Suffolk, England and started with numerous TV roles in the mostly in an episode or two supporting the main cast. It wasn't until his breakthrough role in The Long Good Friday as Harold Shand, which is probably his most praised performance, that Hoskin's became well known. In 1986 his turn as a call girl's confidant in Neil Jordan's Mona Lisa earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Actor, and praise from many film critics.

After that, he took parts in films as diverse as Brazil, Nixon, Neverland and Spice World demonstrating versatility and openness as an actor.. His take on Smee was arguably the most refreshing thing in Spielbergs Hook. 

However, it was his role as Eddie Valiant in Who Framed Roger Rabbit in 1988 that is his most well known role in his 40 year career. the live action/ animated hybrid wasn't at the time the most groundbreaking film, but over the years it has gained a cult following. After the films release " Hoskins began to believe that his co-stars were real. “I had learnt how to hallucinate," he remembered. "If you do that for eight months it becomes hard to get rid of.”

With his English appeal and talented acting Hoskins was a much wanted actor across Hollywood and in demand with directors such as Oliver stone, Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis  (as well as Roger Rabbit, he appeared in Zemeckis’s A Christmas Carol in 2012)

Following the announcement, his family released the following statement: “Bob died peacefully at hospital last night surrounded by family, following a bout of pneumonia. We ask that you respect our privacy during this time and thank-you for your messages of love and support.”
He is survived by his wife Linda, and his children Alex, Sarah, Rosa and Jack.

Great Gatsby Soundtrack review

The remake of this classic tale by Scott Fitwilliam Gerald is a very stylised version, well accompanied by a strong supporting soundtrack that features throughout the film. Similar to remaking the film and bringing new to the old the soundtrack consists of remastering old songs with 1920's vibe.

Baz Luhrmann’s Fitzgerald adaptation neatly blends jazz with its modern equivalent, hip-hop. Jay Z’s 100$ Bill sets a striking tone and is complimented with tracks from the liked of Wil.i.am and Beyonce. the use of these tracks in the film capture the essence of the scenes such as being in a bootleg illegal club with the likes of Jay Z playing over the top. It's a clever use of communicating to the audience the context of some 1920's culture.

But its the beguiling dark tracks of Lana Del Rey, The xx, Gotye, Nero, Sia and Florence + The Machine that accompany the stories doomed love story and the slightly creepy edge to the film's tale satire. It's rare an album contains so many tones, for example after a very slow drawn out track from The xx up next is a remake of Beyonce's "crazy in love" by Emilie Sande with a flapper girl vibe.

Still however the quick transition in tracks isn't as off putting as it sounds and the although the well established artists and their tracks are what's going to sell this accompanying album, there are some beautiful and equally haunting orchestra pieces from Craig Armstrong. The strings and orchestra pieces with monologues over the top are delightful arty pieces that go well alongside all the modern tracks.

Overall, this is a very good soundtrack that compliments the film well and carries the themes right through 13 tracks. Potentially better than the film itself, this soundtrack will be successful on it's own and bought by people who haven't even seen the film.

Skyfall Review

Skyfall has had a lot of trouble getting of the ground as a project, funding has been a real issue with this film however,  the film didn't seem to lack anything because of the limited budget. You can see Sony wanted to make a more character based film with more depth in the Bond franchise.

Credit to Stidjn Vogels for the pic!

The person who really stole this film though was Javier Bardem the new villain. Definitely a creepy performance but he was the right amount of crazy to unnerve the audience, something previous bond villains have been missing.

He becomes a big part of the film and he drives it from the moment he comes on screen but then he's missing again for a large part of it and he falls way to easily into Bond's plan, which could leave the audience a little dissapointed.

Besides the villain though, this film hasn't really got anything stand out about it. It's supposed to revolve around Judy Dench's character 'M' yet i don't think anyone can really sympathise with her at all, even if the deirector tried to make you. If anything it could make an audience kind of resent her more as the film goes on, but how her character ended the film gave her some bit of disirability in the film, it seemed fitting for the dame and the writers Puvas and Wade made a brave decision and it paid off.
Although Sam Mendes demonstrated he's more than capable in directing an action film, how they portrayed fan favourite James Bond in this sequel could leave a little to be desired. It starts off well, Alcoholic and drug reliant and basically a bit unfit which suits his troubled character yet halfway through theres nothing wrong with him all of a sudden?! His wit and interaction redeemed his likeability factor, however 'M' plot ruined his character development.

One thing that was impressive was the Bond girls..

Naomie Harris's character 'Eve' is a credit to the club of bond girls, she had real chemistry with Daniel Craig and everyone loves a bit of banter fuelled by sexual tension. But the actress that stole the film Bérénice Marlohe's acting. To say this is her first film on the big screen she has bags full of talent which made up with her lack of chemistry with Craig, so perhaps they could have used her character for longer. It seemed a bit confusing to hype her up so much and create someone with such a rich background to use her for as long as they did, i wish she was in it more.

The story is pretty decent though you don't expect the twists and turns and it definitely is well action packed, especially the part where they took a leaf out of Home Alone's book (you'll get it if you see it).

It's a hundred times better than the last Bond film but it's not as good as Casino Royal. Personally i think it's because they've tried to make 'M' up as a better character than what she is. Sam Mendes did a good job with the directing, expected from a man with a good resume as him.

3.7/5 <<< (.7 because of Bardem's performance)






Dark Knight Rises (spoiler free)

This is THE most anticipated film of 2012 and it seems like it took forever to get to our big screens. Theres been speculation, criticism but mostly excitement.

Firstly, the choice if casting in Anne Hathaway was excellent. She stole the show as Cat-woman despite being so criticised when she was announced for the role, but Hathaway made the character the most believable yet. Although we may not steal as much as she does everyone who isn't rich understands where she's coming from and in this day and age most people agree with her views, but her wit is brilliant and it's a pleasure to watch a female character that is just as good as the males in this film.

The second thing that jumped out at me was the brutality of the film. The battles between Bane and Batman are very physical and resembles the brutality to the extent of bare knuckle boxing. It was nice to see a villain in Nolan's film that could challenge Batman physically but it's a demonstration of Nolan's creativity of great characters by making him a mastermind. The the mask wasa a clever touch giving  him  this anamalistic edge and his accent didn't suffer for it, you could understand him all the way through the film in contrast to earlire complaints. But it was Hardy's acting that bought a very 3 dimensional character to the screen, the way he could act just through his eyes was very impressive and on learning his back story it doesn't make him any less of a monster but just someone you understand as to why he's a monster, he definitely deserved a more fitting end.

Even though this film is a sequel to the dark knight it's more of a stand alone film and Bale and Caine bring the emotion to the screen which was a lovely contrast to the agression in the movie. Do not be comparing it to the dark knight, its a very different film with very different villains but non the less just as good, athough there are a few niggling bits about it. Regardless, Bane is a very scary villain and the Bat Cat banter is more than enough reason to give a watch.

The Amazing Spider-man Review

When Sony announced they were going to reboot the whole spider franchise rather than carry on with Raimi’s Spider-man it was received with alot of criticism, worrying that it was way too soon to be remaking these films, 5 years is way too soon.

Well, it is a far cry from anything people thought it was going to be. It had something that Raimi’s spider-man lacked in the form of Andrew Garfield. Toby Maguire was great as spider-man and they were great films but Garfield IS spider-man, the wise cracking spider-man that was missed in the first trilogy. He seemed perfect physically as well to be Peter Parker and he played the part well, the geeky kid in school and the nervous teenager.

The Re-boot was more to the origin story from the comic books and delved into his back story alot more focusing on his time in high school. The story is driven by Parker’s search into why his parents left him and especially into what his dad was researching before he left. It was good to see how effected he was by the loss of his parents it wasn’t really touched upon in the original but it needed to be explored and they did it well.

However, it did feel like it was lacking something. The villain which in this case would be Kurt Conner’s, Peters dads old research partner aka the lizard. He takes a formula thinking it will regrow his arm and turns into a huge lizard but he’s never really that crazy. He should scare us when he’s human, the whole evil genius should be what pushes him into embracing the lizard but here he’s always conflicted one minute he’s nice then he’s saying its better to be lizard than human?!?!

He’s never a serious threat, although the lizard is well done for example how he was part human not just a senseless animal was a valid factor to add for a decent villain. Another questionable part were when the citizens raised together to help him. It seemed a  tad forced in my opinion, it almost seemed quite patronising and cliche for a film thats trying to achieve the opposite

HOWEVER! the characters a much better in this film, whoever said Mary Jane should be in this film hasn’t seen Emma Stone’s ‘Gwen Stacy. She brings alot to the character, which is shown in an awkward scene with her dad about periods, that you completely forget about the bad attempt at this character in the 3rd installment. And the relationship between her and Peter is so well done. The chemistry is great and the awkward conversations are done so well because of the humour the actors bring to the role.

What this spider-man does really well though is the relationship between the characters. When Uncle Ben died in the first adaptation of spideman audiences wern’t that bothered, it was skipped over really fast but in this one Martin Sheen’s death is very emotive and Sally Field is a lot less annoying as Aunt May.

Overall, it is a great film and the relationships especially the core one with Garfield and Stone is really palpable, the Lizard is a half decent villain and its great to get back to the original story of the comic books, definetly recommend but its just missing something for it to be perfect.