Daniel's Reviews

→ in
Tools    





Red Riding Hood
(2011, Dir. Catherine Hardwicke)



I ended up sitting down and watching this film with my parents, and I really have no idea why they would have wanted to watch such a film. After recently watching "Snow White and the Huntsman" I was not really expected much from a fairy tale turned dark horror-type film.

My expectations proved correct and the film was ultimately disappointing, whilst I did not think "Snow White and the Huntsman" was particularly good overall, it was certainly more enjoyable and seemed to be more structured and organised than this mess of a film.

First of all there is the plot, which is a combination of two stories that I simply did not care about come the end of the film - one is an attempt at a romantic storyline between the main character Valerie and her lover Peter and the other is a guess-the-villain style murder mystery in which we are trying to find out who is the wolf.

The love story is immediately introduced to us with the film's opening scenes which feel like something straight out of Twilight, not surprising considering the film is directed by Catherine Hardwicke who was also responsible for the first Twilight film. I am not a fan of any of the Twilight films and if you are not then I think it is safe to say it is unlikely you will enjoy the majority of the film.

The film as a whole is all one big mess, with plenty of different plot elements dropped in and removed, most leading no where, constantly giving us a variety of scenes that attempt to make the mystery more intriguing but simply making it more annoying, aside from the cheesy love triangle we have various other clichés and scenes we have seen many times before. There are also a number of absolutely pointless scenes which appear to have been added in with no good purpose at all, including an overdrawn celebration scene and another scene towards the end where we hear grandmothers famous "what big..." lines, these are added in and forced for no good reason as a reference to the initial children's tale which we have by this time long forgotten about.

The acting is pretty much average, no one struck me as particularly bad but aside from the usually stellar Gary Oldman no one was particularly good. Whilst Oldman's performance was good his character was ultimately clichéd and wasted, an insane old man who preaches to the village with his expertise on the task in hand.

The ending is in fitting with everything we've seen before and that is not a good thing. The film tries to be surprising, like a "Scream" film where we are exposed to deliberate attempts to focus on attention on various suspects before our focus changing to the next one, then the next on and so on. Once the truth is revealed the climax is not particularly exciting or interesting and I was more glad it was over than anything else.

RATING:




Chappie doesn't like the real world
Yeah, I recently watched this through no fault of my own as well. It was worse than I expected and my expectations were already pretty low.
It's a shame that so many werewolf movies are such crap because I love the mythology behind them.



There Will Be Blood
(2007, Dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)



Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood is a film with big ambitions. Its length, cinematography and story are grand in every way possible; creating an epic film that I truly believe is a masterpiece of the 21st century.

The film is centred upon the life of an oil man named Daniel Plainview who following a drilling accident adopts a co-workers son, HW. Daniel uses his son as part of the family business, travelling around American and purchasing land where oil is available.

We see the story of Daniel Plainview’s life across a number of decades as the determined and ambitious man becomes one of the wealthiest in the country. The story is ultimately about greed as Daniel gets what he desires often at the expense of others.

Daniel Day-Lewis’ Oscar winning performance as Daniel Plainview is superb in every aspect; he perfects the role as if we are watching a real person and his performance as angry and explosive person can perhaps be compared to Robert De Niro’s portrayal of Jake La Motta in Raging Bull in terms of quality acting, and Orson Welles as Citizen Kane in terms of the character and his ambitions in life. His accent and the way he talks are particularly great, near the beginning of the film we hear him in conversation introducing his son, he says he is not a great speaker but presents in a way that is chilling and memorable.

That is not to give credit to the film’s other main star, Paul Dano as a young preacher Eli Sunday. He is two-faced, manipulative and at times equally as scary as Daniel Day-Lewis, his role in the film is vital to some of the messages involved, mainly greed and power that he seeks.

The other Oscar that this film managed to win was for its cinematography, the opening scenes themselves are somewhat spectacular despite no dialogue being spoken as we are given an introduction to the oil business and Daniel Plainview with fantastic visual images created by the old Western landscape and gritty work areas.

Before watching this film, my favourite film of the 21st century was No Country for Old Men which was also released in the same year, now I am not so sure. No Country for Old Men went on to pick up more Oscars than this film and I definitely now hold the belief that There Will Be Blood was deserving of much more. Both films are similar in a number of ways, both have fantastic cinematography that make greatly efficient use of Western landscapes and both have perhaps ‘psychopathic villains’, and whilst both villains won Oscars for their performances both were two contrasting type of villains portrayed in completely different ways.

One Oscar that this film probably would have won had it not been for a technicality (reusing a small amount of old work for one scene I believe) would have been for Best Original Score, the music in this film goes fantastically well with the film and really does build up a dark and uncomfortable feeling for a lot of scenes. The way the music is used finds the perfect balance so it can be used in such a way that it is not overpowering but really helps build up tension as some great scenes come to a boil.

I really feel that no complaints can be made towards the film’s pacing and length either, something I was surprised to see some people saw as in issue. Although two and a half hours in length, it has the great quality of keeping the viewer engaged with a fantastic blend of visually stunning and powerful emotional scenes with more quick paced dialogue filled scenes. In this sense it reminded me of Boogie Nights, Anderson’s film that is almost equal in length and it too seems so full of energy, never losing my attention. Comparing the film to No Country for Old Men once again, both films were adapted from novels, and whilst I have no idea what either of them are like when compared with the two films I really do feel that Paul Thomas Anderson’s screenplay is superior to the Coen Brothers despite losing to it in that Oscar category, the dialogue for some of the scenes are masterful, particularly those of Daniel Plainview. The final scene where we see him launch a torrent of insults towards Eli Sunday before screaming the film’s famous ‘Milkshake’ lines is a mini masterpiece in itself, certainly one of the most enjoyable, exhilarating and memorable endings I have can recall.

RATING:




There Will Be Blood is a great film.I can only agree with your review and as for the length, the film is about oil business which I believe many people don't know about so I believe that this also should keep the viewers interested.

As for review itself,I like that it's simple and clear,you said the most important things yet you didn't spoil anything and you gave your exact opinion.Little more work in style and it would be perfect.I will definitely read others.



Mulholland Drive
(2001, Dir. David Lynch
)





Following on from my viewing of There Will Be Blood I decided to watch another one of the highest rated films of the 21st century, David Lynch's Mulholland Drive.

This film was actually my first ever viewing of David Lynch, a director who has received a lot of praise for his controversial films that have become famous over the years, garnering great 'cult status'. I had also heard a lot specifically about Mulholland Drive, a film that is constantly referred to whenever someone brings up a discussion surrounding mysterious and confusing films. Unlike There Will Be Blood which gives us a linear story in an epic way, this film is almost the opposite with the narrative structure and rules that come with a film torn apart to create a dreamlike product that although at times is confusing, is fascinating and rewarding.

The great thing about a film like this is that it is almost impossible to give someone an idea of what the film is about without really spoiling it, and even then you’re not spoiling the films dreamlike style leaves any type of interpretation completely up to the individual viewer.

The film focuses on the lives of two young women named Betty and Rita, following a car crash in which Rita loses her memory and forgets her own identity, the two forge a bond as the pair attempt to get to the bottom of an incredibly strange mystery involving a blue box and key, a mysterious cowboy, a film director and a night club called Silencio.

So if the meaning of the film require such great thought and discussion after watching the film, how can I rate such a viewing so high considering it is my first ever viewing from the director? The film works on a number of levels that work together to give such an enjoyable experience. The film works as a suspenseful thriller, because of the surreal dreamlike world we never know what is around the corner, with characters like the monster behind Twinkie’s and a cowboy that appears out of nowhere it is difficult not be at least slightly spooked out by the eerie and unpredictable atmosphere created. Lynch’s attention to detail makes the mystery even more enthralling, constantly engaging the viewer and forcing you to keep your eyes attached to the screen in the fear of missing something that might be of significance to solving the mystery.

Sometimes when watching a film you can tell by your initial reaction and immediate thoughts that follow the viewing that you have seen a great film, which is exactly how I felt. Although I was confused and wanted answers I was mesmerised by what I had seen and really could not stop thinking about it.

I won’t discuss my personal interpretation of the film in my review; I’d rather discuss that elsewhere without spoiling the viewer who will benefit from watching without any ideas heading into it. However I will say that my interpretation I think follows the general theory behind what actually happens during Mulholland Drive, however like many critics have said I think it is important not to focus to much on analysing the meaning, although you will no doubt want to gather some type of meaning for what you have seen, Lynch has deliberately left the film ambiguous with no official or confirmed meaning, you should appreciate the film for what it is and I believe that is quite possibly a masterpiece in filmmaking.

RATING:




Blue Velvet
(1986, David Lynch)



My second viewing of a David Lynch film following the extremely impressive Mulholland Drive, if there is one word I would choose to describe the two films I would simply choose ‘weird’. That is not meant as an insult though and although both films are strange and unusual; they are entirely different in style and unique in their own ways. Mulholland Drive was weird in a fascinating, mysterious and intriguing way that made us question the dreamlike world we were watching and attempt to get to the bottom of it. Whilst Blue Velvet is also a mysterious film where the characters dig deeper in to a world filled with a dark sinister side where everything is not what is seems, I would use the word ‘weird’ best to describe the bizarre characters that inhabit the world and fill it with their violent and sick actions.

This film is a crime film like no other, with the sinister underworld discovered leaving a lasting impact on the viewer due to its disturbing and psychopathic violence. It is impossible to talk about the film’s darkness without specifically talking about the film’s main villain, Frank, a man in charge of a criminal organisation that share their violent fantasies with each other. Dennis Hopper’s character is one of the scariest and most disturbing characters that I can remember, constantly inhaling drugs from a canister attached to a face mask that only further enhances his appearance as a character who we truly despise. The first scene that we see him in is particularly disturbing but brilliant as we see the young and innocent character Jeffrey Beaumont face the harsh realisation that the town in which he lives in is not as pleasant as it seems.

The opening scenes themselves are brilliant as we see a lovely little garden with a nice picket fence and red roses, the ‘Blue Velvet’ song that is heard throughout itself is soft and calming and when we see Dorothy Vallens (Frank’s victim) sing it we see her through the eyes of young Jeffrey who becomes sexually involved with the woman who he sees as a beautiful and unfortunate victim that he wants to protect.

Kyle MacLachlan is very good in his role as Jeffrey; he is young and naïve and genuinely looks lost and innocent. He finds himself sickened that such people as Frank exist in the world and wants to become the hero for an older woman who he shares a secret relationship with after initially only going to her apartment to further his investigation in to a cut off ear he comes across at the start of the film.

The film is often labelled as ‘noir’ due to its dark themes and visual style. The use of little light in scenes adds to the mystery and suspense and in other scenes we see tints of more vibrant colours such as blue to give a great contrasting edge to the look of the film. The use of music as mentioned before is brilliant; we know we are viewing a dark world so the soft and calming sound of songs such as ‘Blue Velvet’ seem even more disturbing and eerie. Stanley Kubrick famously used songs to give an ironic touch to dark scenes in films such as Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange and I was reminded of his work when Frank is sent into a psychopathic rage, kisses and beats up Jeffrey to the tune of ‘In Dreams’ as a woman dances to the tune in the background of the violent attack.

After watching both Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet I can definitely say that the two films have been two of the strangest yet greatest viewing experiences I can recall in recent times, both will certainly not be easily forgotten and I would definitely label them must watch films as I would now label David Lynch a must watch director, a man whose films that I have never seen anything like before.

RATING:




First time I saw Blue Velvet was when I was about 11 at a mate's house during a sleepover... it was on telly and we watched it after everyone had gone to bed and we had a midnight feast thing like kids do.

Seen it a number of times since though, great movie. Hopper's Frank Booth made my list of top villains too. Nice review.



First time I saw Blue Velvet was when I was about 11 at a mate's house during a sleepover... it was on telly and we watched it after everyone had gone to bed and we had a midnight feast thing like kids do.

Seen it a number of times since though, great movie. Hopper's Frank Booth made my list of top villains too. Nice review.
Haha, sounds great But yeh this really is Hopper's film, he's a complete monster and personifies everything that is evil and sick inside people, the whole mask thing just adds another element to his creepiness.
__________________



Nice review I saw this at the theatre when it came out love it and is "Weird"
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



There Will Be Blood
[center][b](2007, Dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118760/



You should watch this.



Thanks, I've seen In the Name of the Father which I thought was very good but it was quite a while ago now and I can not remember much of it apart from it was good, will probably get round to watch this and some other DDL films eventually.



The Killing
(1956, Stanley Kubrick)



I have always been fascinated by film-noir yet I have seen very little of them, so when MGM decided to show one each day in a 'film-noir week' I looked forward to finally increase my noir viewings, the first film for this was the great Stanley Kubrick's The Killing.

Because this was one of Kubrick's first ever films I was all the more excited to finally watch this as a big fan of his more well known works such as 2001: A Space Odyssey and Dr. Strangelove. The thing I love about Kubrick is the fact the his films are almost indistinguishable in terms of plot and had I seen this 50s' crime thriller without knowing the director I would of been surprised to find out that it was Kubrick.

The film follows the plan of Johnny Clay who comes up with a seemingly flawless set of actions that would allow him and his friends to pull off a major heist at a racetrack. Quentin Tarantino has cited this film as an inspiration for Reservoir Dogs which is similar in the fact is is centred around a heist and shares a similar ending, you can also see the influence on his most famous film Pulp Fiction in terms of the intelligent and fluid narrative structure.

In terms of the film's style it has everything you could want from a crime thriller and its structure allows it to run smoothly and keep your interest as the plan carefully unfolds, the camera techniques used are great as well as the dark shadows and colours that we now associate with dark and mysterious crime films.

What keeps the crime aspect most interesting though is the characters who each have their own individual roles in the plan. Sterling Hayden as Johnny Clay, the man behind the heist gives a great performance in his role and would later become the memorable star of Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. The film has a number of interesting characters though that keep the film constantly interesting, one of my favourite performances was Elisha Cook Jr. as George Peatty, a man who is being cheated on by his wife and is looked down by others as an idiot.

When the heist actually takes place Kubrick does a great job of turning up the intensity of the film and ensuring that each shot is done correctly to match the seemingly immaculate plan of Johnny. Without spoiling too much of the ending, I enjoyed Kubrick's choice to end on an ironic note. Given what has gone before with the heist being planned with such extreme precision up to the point that there is even a plan for what to do if any of the members died it is ironic how things eventually turn out.

Kubrick combines memorable characters, great visuals, a structure that sees the film paced greatly at a rather short length of 85 minutes, humour and a little bit of violence to give us a thoroughly enjoyable noir, a fantastic effort for a man only 28 years old, it is not surprising to see that such a director would go on to be remembered as one of the greatest of all time. Next up for me is Kubrick's Killer's Kiss.

RATING:




Of all the Kubrick films, I consider The Killing to be the worst; an average noir at best. I think you would find Killer's Kiss a better film.
Interesting seeing as most people seem to prefer The Killing, I'll post up my review of Killer's Kiss when I see it and tell you what I think. I've also got Sweet Smell of Success and The Night of the Hunter recorded and ready to watch, I've only really heard great stuff about both

edit: Just remembered that The Night of the Hunter is your avatar as well so I'm guessing you like it :P



Glad to see you're enjoying Lynch. For me, Blue Velvet is the ultimate conflict of good vs. evil in cinema; externally between Jeffrey Beaumont and Frank Booth, but also internally as Jeffrey discovers an underworld which opens him up to the dark recesses of his own mind. You've already seen Lynch's best films, but I'd recommend watching Wild at Heart next- there's never a dull moment and it's a brilliant self parody. You can't go wrong with Twin Peaks either.
__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock



True Romance
(1993, Tony Scott)



The first thing I did after my ‘Tarantino XX’ Blu-Ray set arrived was watch True Romance, the only film included that I had not previously seen, along with Death Proof which I shall be watching soon.

What is interesting about its inclusion in the set is the fact that it is the only film included that is not directed by Quentin Tarantino. It is well known that Tarantino wrote two screenplays based on romantic duos: True Romance and Natural Born Killers. He sold the latter (which I have not seen) to Oliver Stone however that is not included in the set due to his dislike towards Stone’s take on the script which is criticised for removing much of the satirical elements of Tarantino’s original story. With True Romance, Tarantino’s attitude is different with the director approving of Tony Scott’s take on the film with much of the original screenplay intact, something which is clearly evident throughout the film and something that makes it as good as it is.

With the screenplay so good I honestly believe that with Tarantino also behind this camera then this film may now viewed at the same level of his most famous film – Pulp Fiction. The film has all the elements of a typical Tarantino film with the same fast-paced and enjoyable formula that we expect from the director, the film is filled with fantastic and memorable references, pop culture references and references to plenty of other films – the Vietnam and Oscar awards conversation where Tarantino pays homage to some of his personal favourite films such as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Rio Bravo.

The biggest film inspiration evident is Terrence Malick’s classic Badlands, a clear influence on both of Tarantino’s romantic screenplays. This inspiration is portrayed clearly in the film with the same charming yet haunting sounds of Carl Orff that were used in Badlands used in Hans Zimmer’s score, with the voiceover from the film’s female protagonist Alabama sounding almost identical to that of Sissy Spacek’s character Holly in Badlands.

The film has perhaps one of my favourite casts of all time with a fantastic ensemble of great actors including a few that would later go on to appear in the films of Tarantino such as Samuel L. Jackson, Brad Pitt and Christopher Walken. Two of my favourites were Dennis Hopper who portrays a ‘good guy’ in contrast to the last film of his that I saw, Blue Velvet, and James Gandolfini as a member of the criminal gang chasing Clarence and Alabama who have run off with their cocaine, watching his performance it is easy to see how he would later become the star of my all time favourite TV show, The Sopranos.

Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken create perhaps the film’s greatest scene, possibly one of the greatest scenes of all time. Hopper plays the role of Clifford Worley, the father of the on the run Clarence who attempts to protect his son from the ruthless Sicilian mafia member Vincenzo Coccotti with the other members on looking. Then there’s another favourite scene of mine, perhaps the most violent of the entire film where we see James Gandolfini’s character Virgil confront Patricia Arquette’s character Alabama. I actually had to ask my step-dad about an hour in, “have we seen Gary Oldman yet?” wondering whether I had missed him, I was correct in my suspicions as he told me (having previously seen then film and highly recommending it) he was the pimp Drexl.

To put it simply, True Romance is two hours of pure popcorn fun, its explosive, fast-paced, filled with memorable dialogue, unique and brilliantly portrayed characters, pop culture and film references, plenty of violence and of course a romantic centre with two characters who we come to love. True Romance has everything you could want from a film and much more. I would say it is definitely one of Tarantino’s best films despite him not actually directing it, and I would say that it made for one of the most enjoyable viewing experiences that I can remember.

RATING:



True Romance is a wonderful movie and,although I don't find "Sicilian" scene so special,Alabama's and Gandolfini's confrontation was very well made.Love that scene.
Also,I wouldn't agree that it would be better if Tarantino directed it.Maybe it would,maybe it wouldn't,but I love it as it is now and I don't like such speculations.
Natural Born Killers is decent,you should see it only because of the impact it had on young couples.I haven't seen this film in ages but I can remember it being cruel and a bit weird.
I've never seen Badlands (I always thought it's a western,actually ) but I'm adding it to my watchlist now,looks promising.