(Movie) The Penis Game....a look at a Knight's Tale

This movie, while not in my top 5 movies of all time, is a top contender.

Blokes playing with lances, winning the hearts of ladies. STRONG FEMALE CHARACTERS!!! Plus the greatest sidekicks known to man. Plus a bunch of random rock tracks thrown in.

That's it. That's the review.



Just kidding.


Seriously though, in this review I will explain why this movie sits as a top contender in my top 5 movies of all time.

Story/Dialogue: William Thatcher uses the armour of the knight he squired for in order to compete in tournaments. With the help of his friend Wot and Roland, he enters under the guise as Sir Ulrich Von Lichtenstein. On the way he gains both a rival and a lover. Count Adamar and Jocelyn, respectively. Can he win the World Championships and maintain his secret identity?

The story is simple and easy to follow. The characters, OH THE CHARACTERS! They're so likeable and memorable. To Wot's crazy hair and threatening of 'Fonging' to Roland's advice and dry sense of humour. Later characters like Kate and Chaucer are even moreso. A kickass blacksmith who can dance and has fire and a writer with a razor wit and a gambling problem also doubles as herald and forger for the group.

Then enter the leading lady. Jocelyn has a face that could cut glass and a tongue that could reduce you to ribbons.
She is the embodiment of, "Do no harm, but take no shit."
This woman will come to love William, but she will not stand for his tantrums.

It makes me love her so much more.

The dialogue can be flowery without being gratuitous and it's refreshing to see dialogue like that. Watching banter that makes you laugh is so very important.


Cinematography: The scenes in A Knight's Tale are well set out, with excellent framing. The one thing I would take issue with is the notable green screen near the end. Also, watching the characters fade in and out of focus during the dance scene added something a bit extra that appealed to me.
Lastly, watching the cuts/fades between the letter reading and writing and the flashback transitions are wonderful. Major props to the editor for that.

Audio: Knighthood and Rock music struck me as an odd combination the first time I watched this film. It worked, though. By George it worked!
Aside from this, the movie had an original score which made the movie more epic in a subtle sense. It added to the atmosphere of scenes like the pub where they bet on William, Adamar finding out about Ulrich's winnings while on the front lines and the lancing in general. It's a lot of brass and lutes that make it feel like a piece of history rather than a renaissance fair.

Overall: This movie is fun. I don't mean fun in the sense of Bad Boys fun where there's a crapload of explosions and breasts out everywhere.
This fun is a tasteful and classy night on the town (Minus Paul Bettany's bare arse,) and leaves you feeling emotionally satisfied at the end.

It's action without the unnecessary explosions and it's a good laugh.

Everyone performs excellently and you find yourself getting attached to all the characters.

*Wistful sigh* they just don't make 'em like they used to.

5 stars.

(Movie) Get ganked! A look at Seventh Son

When I started watching this, I was expecting something along the lines of Eragon or a live action Tales of Earthsea.

Instead, I got a medieval Supernatural movie.

While I did like the show at one point, I don't feel as though this movie lived up to its hype.

I shall explain why herein.

*Equips Hammer of Smiting*

Story/Dialogue: To summarise this story, it's about a young man who is the seventh son of a seventh son. He takes on the apprenticeship of a Falcon Knight; a legendary hunter of monsters. The Seventh son, Tom, then ends up falling for a monster.
I had high hopes for this movie.
The dialogue was extremely dry and knowing that Jeff Bridges is in it kind of takes you out of the world. He's not a character wearing Jeff Bridges' face. He's just Jeff Bridges with a speech impediment. Mr. Bridges basically played his character from R.I.P.D.
This movie felt like a fantasy novel written by someone who binge watched Supernatural in a week and stopped at the episode where they got to be knights.

The writers of this film had all the answers, but didn't spend enough time building the world, or bothering to create characters worth caring about.

I do not pity Tom, nor do I hope that he gets the girl. I do not care if his master dies. I don't care.

As Andrew Stanton (Pixar) once said: "Make me care"

https://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_stanton_the_clues_to_a_great_story?language=en


Cinematography: The best thing about this movie by far was the CGI. Watching Julianne Moore turn from dreadlocked dragon to devilish dame flawlessly was a wonderful sight to behold. There were moments where the movie felt poorly cut, (i.e the Boggart scene. I had no idea what was going on.) but the framing kept everyone out of the boring zone. (Centre frame is considered boring by most.)
Other than that, there isn't that much more to add.

Audio: Frankly, the audio stayed in the background, like a thief at night. It felt more like a space filler rather than something that could have been epic and stood out. While not every movie needs songs that make you want to purchase the soundtrack, I love finding songs like that. Musical scores always add that little bit extra for me and I just didn't find that in this movie.


Overall: Say something for this story, it tried. It did something a little different. But this is what you get when you try and stuff a clown car with an elephant. It just doesn't work. There's so much going on and you can't keep track of it all, much less care about the characters. There's no explanation as to why seventh sons of seventh sons are so important and even if this was an adaptation, I do not believe in, "read the book," as an excuse.

Frankly, that's disgraceful.

The CGI, however impressive, could not carry the weight of terrible storytelling. You cannot polish a turd.
There is little to no suspension of disbelief, which any good story possesses. Jeff Bridges sees to that with his atrocious acting.
It's even more important when you have an epic fantasy tale on your hands. You have a world to build, characters to fill out and you need to SHOW it rather than tell it.

I don't give a shit if the guy is a seventh son of a seventh son. TELL ME WHY.

MAKE ME CARE, DAMN IT!

TWO STARS!

(Classic) (Movie) A-maze-ing…a look at the Shining

For the final review of classic movie month, my sights have been set on one of the most iconic horror films ever made.

An adaptation of Stephen King’s novel, the Shining is one of those movies that humanity both treasures and fears.

Not only that, but its trivia is something worth reading about. Shelley Duvall, who played Wendy Torrance, ended up incredibly sick due to Director Stanley Kubrick’s need to retake a lot of shots. One scene in particular is the one in which her character hits Jack Torrance with a baseball bat. Allegedly the takes totaled 127 times. While I commend Kubrick’s thoroughness, it also seems excessive.

While King has also stated that he did not like the adaptation, I would like to review it not as an adaptation, but as a movie on its own.

Story/Dialogue: Story goes that Jack, Wendy and Danny Torrance are staying in the Outlook Hotel while Jack is trying to write a play.

The head chef notices a shared psychic ability in Danny which he calls, ‘The Shining.’

This ability allows Danny to see the past and future, see ghosts and talk to people telepathically.

The Outlook Hotel is known for being haunted, with its ghosts possessing the weak willed.

They proceed to possess Jack and try to convince him to murder his family.

A film of the horror genre, the Shining’s themes revolve around the darkness of the human heart.

In terms of story, it feels solid enough that you could watch it and be entertained. However I also feel as though it’s lacking in backstory, like a body without a soul. Most of the exposition is told through dialogue and it’s rather dry.

Cinematography: Pardon the pun, but this is where the movie truly shines. The camera work is impeccable. Watching the dolly shots move in such an organic fashion really gave it a fly on the wall feel. One of the key shots I focused on is when the Torrances are in the car and the camera shakes to indicate they’re driving. It’s these little details that one appreciates.

The framing was a little off which only added to the atmosphere. There’s a lot of symmetry, with characters occupying the centre of frame. It’s interesting to see this in a film, as most will tell you that keeping your characters centre of frame usually leaves it ‘boring’.

The colours were rich, yet subdued (See the bathroom and the carpet of the hotel,) which contrasted the dark nature of the characters that occupied it.

Audio: The other key part I found fascinating about this movie was the audio.  The high frequency noises in the background sets you on edge from the moment you first hear it. It contrasts well with the bright colours and enhances the intensity of the scenes.

Unlike most horror films, which use gore and jump scares to scare the audience, the Shining takes an atmospheric approach. Subtle heartbeats, high whining and the sharp, abrupt chords create this overwhelming sense of helplessness and unease.

Another thing to note is the clarity of the recording. Hearing Danny’s tricycle wheels roll over the floor and the carpet makes you feel more connected to the place, somehow.

Overall: King has stated that this film did not stay true to the book, which was a supernatural horror with psychological elements.

As this is a review of the film as a stand alone, it can be said that the movie on its own is excellent and well worth the watch.  Unlike the book, it’s a psychological horror with supernatural elements.

I feel that the reasons for this are twofold.

One is the fact the supernatural element wouldn’t have been cost effective. Each of the spirits involved in the film are shown through careful juxtaposition and special effects. To make them look anything more than human would destroy the suspension of disbelief. Furthermore, it would make the spirits comical instead of terrifying. I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I can assure you I wasn’t afraid of Ghostbusters in the slightest.

The second is the fact that books are introspective. Most of the feelings and internal interactions that may have been in the book could not be shown accurately through the medium of film. The telepathy, possession, etc. would be tricky to convey.

This movie really messed with my head. My advice to you is to watch this with someone and not watch it at some ungodly hour of the morning.

Stanley Kubrick really brought his keen eye and steady hand to the table. He creates an air of tension that slowly builds throughout the movie and though the dialogue is often dry, the audience is distracted by the symmetry and colour of the set. Nothing feels out of place and you feel this sense of dread throughout the entire film.

Not only does it make you feel something, but it also compels you to keep watching.

I give this film 5 stars.

(Classic) (Movie) Rise and Fall...a look at Citizen Kane

Considered to be one of the greatest films ever made, Citizen Kane was the grandest design of Orson Welles. His...magnum opus, if you will.

Unfortunately, like Van Gogh and many other artists before him, Welles' visionary attitude has been received better long after its initial release.

Did it stand the test of time, though?

Please, read on:

Story/Dialogue: I found myself fascinated by the unconventional storytelling style of Citizen Kane. The idea that it's told through flashbacks of other people about a man who was larger than life is an appealing, if unusual way of telling stories. The dialogue was witty, though I also enjoyed that the conversations often felt more natural than rehearsed. This was done through people talking over the top of one another, which also ties in with the theme of power. One of the key things I really enjoyed was the polarity of ice and fire at the beginning of the movie.

Cinematography: THIS section is the part where the movie truly shines. What first strikes people is how everything is in focus, regardless of perspective. It gave this movie a bizarre, otherworldly take on the world of Citizen Kane. Each frame was throughly thought out and the lighting was both extreme and exquisite. People who were evil were shrouded in darkness, focus was shown by lighting the eye area like in those moments between fighting samurai. All of the sets were grand in scale and you felt it as well as saw it.

Audio: One thing I loved about the audio is that when a character was speaking and they were far away, it felt as though they were far away. Especially in places like Xanadu. It was one of those key moments in cinema where the audio was more than simply music. Though, I have to wonder whether or not the lack of a shatter sound for the snowglobe at the beginning was intentional or not. If it was intentional, I'm curious as to why.

Overall: This movie had me sitting on the fence for a long time.
I didn't hate it, I didn't love it, but I struggled to work out why I liked it. Enjoyment is a big factor in reviewing these films.
It was later after a discussion with someone important that I realised I liked it for its rewatchability.
Like 'Chindatown' with Jack Nicholson, this movie can be watched and studied/enjoyed many times over. It's a different experience each time you watch it.
Furthermore, this movie is the pinnacle of cinema. It went out of its way to be different in all its aspects and in terms of innovation is the most ambitious film of all time.

5 stars.

(Classic) (Movie) A girl's best friend....a look at Breakfast at Tiffany's.

If Alice from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland grew up, I'd imagine she'd be something like Ms. Holly Golightly.

A hurricane of class and refinement, Holly breezes through life playing the field and trying to land herself a rich man to settle down with.

She's a mover and shaker and this, Breakfast at Tiffany's, is her story.

Story/Dialogue: One of the things I love about this story is the fact that the theming revolves around survival. Holly survives using her womanly wiles, while Paul uses his dashing good looks to get by. Her strong personality and free spirit make it hard for blokes to pin her down, in both sense of the word. Paul is an observer, who falls for her as she not only inspires him, but her firecracker personality is enthralling.
The dialogue is witty and outrageous. It is a mask with which people talk to each other. Which makes even more sense that Paul, being a writer, would wield words in such a way that reveals the truth of things when events come to a head.

Cinematography: The rich colours of this movie, combined with the soft lighting in certain scenes make it a delight to watch. The visuals are incredibly decadent and the framing, much like our heroine, can often be perceived as fickle. You can see this in that Holly is often framed just out of centre, in line with her way of thinking.

Audio: Be warned of the accursed buzzer in the first scene. It's beyond irritating. However, the music beyond that created an almost dreamy atmosphere. 'Moon River' sung by Audrey Hepburn, is a beautiful track that had me imagining sitting in a dingy half asleep in the sun.

Overall: 5 Stars. There's no way I could give this movie any less than that. It keeps you entertained with its charming characters and its story is subtly woven throughout the movie. The dialogue isn't heavy handed, the cinematography is wonderful and the audio (Aside from that dreadful buzzer,) is pleasant.

5 Stars. No wonder this movie is considered iconic.

(Re)Introductory video.

(Classic) (Movie) Twinkletoes and Switchblades...A look at West Side Story

I feel as though in watching this film, I've finally gone to a musical without leaving my house.

Dance adds grace to the struggle of power between two gangs in New York and the ill-fated love that blossoms from the conflict.

Thus begins the review of the 1961 retelling of Romeo and Juliet.


Story/Dialogue: For those of you who have yet to study Shakespeare in your schooling career or you have lived under a rock, Romeo and Juliet had us bear witness to a couple who fell in love amidst a feud between their two families. West Side Story takes this tale and thrusts it onto the streets of New York.
The dialogue is witty, the musical numbers odd (though entertaining,) and while the swords are smaller, the stakes are no greater than they were in the original story. When well done, a retelling of the story feels less like a reboot and more like a story all its own.

Cinematography: The lighting and the camera effects in this film were excellent. It's excellent to see that the lighting felt natural, even during the night. The framing and placement of the actors felt like a dance in and of itself.

Audio: Musicals. (I need a picture of that guy with the crazy hair from the History channel.) The musical score was tied into the dialogue and the action of the film which would have added to the emotion of the scene back in the day, but it takes the edge off to those of us who are desensitised to such things.  

Overall: This retelling came out in 1961 and was way ahead of its time. The women were strong willed, even as oppressed as they were, the dialogue made you laugh, but I often felt the tone jump or the dancing in the middle of fight scenes a bit out of place and it took me out of the world I was invested in.
With this said, I did love the film.

I give this classic movie 4 and a half stars.