Reviews

When I heard about this film I won't lie, I wasn't that enthusiastic. My reasoning for this is mainly that I thought it would be a rehash of other pre-historic animations we've been barraged with in recent years. Now I'm not pointing any fingers *cough* Ice Age *cough* too-many- sequels *cough*…okay, so I am. But anyway I just figured that there was only so many ways you can tell that "its-the-end-of-the-world" story without killing (pardon the pun) the subject. After watching The Croods however, I quickly changed my mind, because the film doesn't just tackle this subject but a whole lot more.

The film tells the story of The Crood family who are living a simple and desperately frustrating life in a cave where there day-to-day routine consists of hunting and sitting in the dark listening to the same stories from family patriarch and all-round fuss-pot father Grub (Nicholas Cage). All of this changes however when an earthquake destroys there cave and they must travel across the new and fantastic planes of a land they have never explored. Along the way the Crood family pick up Ryan Reynolds' character Guy who shows them that there is more to their caveman lifestyle than simply surviving and forms a romance with the adventurer of the family Eep (voiced by Emma Stone).

The characters that make up this family are surreal in their realism…if that makes sense?! We've got the pre-requisite rebellious teen Eep, the understanding Mother (Catherine Keener) trying to keep the family together, the loud and opinionated mother-in-law that you love to hate (Cloris Leachman), the oft-humiliated middle child (ain't that always the way?), the kid sister and the over-protective father. The actors portraying this everyday family bring an hilarity and sincerity to their roles and really play up to the stereotypes attached to each archetype, to the point where you're watching and thinking "oh-my-god. It's like my family. In fact it's so much like my family that it's kinda scary". The fact that these animated characters seem like real people is important in emphasising that heart-warming message of love and family that we are left with at the end, and also makes those funny family frustrations that much more hilarious.

Fancy reading the rest of my unedited thoughts on The Croods? Come see my film blog... (http://www.filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-croods-2013.html)

If you have seen the trailer for this film then you'd probably be expecting some fun-filled story of coming-of-age that also answers some of those big questions about being young. Well, if these are your expectations, (like they were mine), then prepare to leave unsatisfied. This film isn't really about college life and becoming a new person, its more about accepting the person you already are. Which sounds like a big old stonking stereotype, right?! Well, truth be told, this film kind of is. The trailer might give the impression that you're going to see something hugely original and I don't want to mislead you, you won't, but since when is anything truly original these days? Yep, this film is full to the brim of stereotype. But that's okay because while the story is stereotype its direction and its cast are fresh and bring something to this film which makes you want to stay and pay attention.

The story centres around Don (Marshall Allman), a college freshman who comes from a strong Southern Baptist background and is disillusioned by his life and religion. To escape this former life of religious structure and a stifling parent he moves from Texas to a college (that's university to us English folk) in the Pacific Northwest where religion is mocked and his life undergoes a drastic 180 flip. Don decides that the best way of forgetting his affiliation to religion is to join those who mock it and protest its existence, which involves an hilarious scene where himself and the college "Pope" (random guy who dresses like the Pope every single day and is apparently one of the most popular guys at his college…Yep, seemed strange to me too) put a giant condom onto one of the towers of the local church and a banner which reads "Do not let these people reproduce". Tad excessive perhaps? Yep. Harsh? Yep. But of course, that's kind of their point. Which is an aspect of this film that confused me immensely – I constantly questioned why, a: Don could go from the assistant youth pastor in his local church to a willing participant of church defacement and, b: why the people of this college hated religion so much? If you're looking for an answer to this question like I was then you will be disappointed, because one is never really provided. I could only guess that it is borne from the generation in which we live that has built up an intolerance and disillusionment to religion and its politics and hypocrisy.

You're probably thinking at this point that the film is a huge middle finger to religion and religious faith but this is where our protagonists love interest and biggest "all-things-religious-and- morally-just" contender turns things up a gear and offers us a different perspective. This character's name is Penny (played by Claire Holt whom some may recognise from The Vampire Diaries) and she is a formidable presence in Don's life who constantly questions his motives and in turn makes him consider these motives and his own beliefs throughout the film. Though this character is necessary within the plot she sometimes comes off as high-and-mighty and frankly I find it hard to believe that a character like her could possibly exist in real life. At least not a 19 year old version embarking on the first (maybe second) year of their college life. I mean this character protests the social injustices of bottled water and its effects on the Indian economy, volunteers in foreign countries during Christmas break and has a freaking statue of Jesus in her college dorm room! Doesn't exactly scream realism now does it? But I digress… My point is that this character adds a depth to the film which stops it from becoming a one-sided debate against the relevance of religion in modern society and instead offers a perspective wherein we get too see the positive effects of religion (shitty politics aside) in modern society.

If you're interested in reading the rest of my thoughts on this film then you can visit my blog... (http://www.filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/blue-like-jazz.html)

Dark Shadows sees the return of working-duo Depp and Burton in their 8th feature film together and like their previous cinematic jaunts we are given a weird and sometimes-wonderful slice of Gothic pie. For those unaware this is based on the long-running TV show of the same name which aired from 1966-1971. In its time the show was a popular staple and its fans include Depp, Burton and Pfeiffer themselves, which perhaps explains why this adaptation was made. I certainly don't think its Burton adhering to the vampire-fad that's been seeping into cinema and TV since Twilight graced our screens. Indeed this film bears no similarity to the teen-fad that is Twilight, with Burton lending a dash of his trademark dark humour to the vampy proceedings.

Of course when it comes to Gothic Burton is the unofficial King of the genre, with each film in his directorial past reminiscent of the stereotypes of the genre. In this film that Gothic edge is brought to the forefront with hanging buttresses, hidden passageways and foggy settings contributing to the dark and gloomy atmosphere of the film, not to mention the pre-requisite crazy witch-bitch (It's not really Gothic without that last one now is it?). Said crazy witch-bitch is played by the talented Eva Green who brings a quirky-hilarity to the role of scorned and vengeful Angelique who has some serious issues when it comes to Depp's Barnabus Collins. Angelique embodies that one ex you have who just can't seem to forgive and forget and this is shown to the extreme when she kills Barnabus' family and fiancé and curses him to eternal damnation by making him a bloodsucking vampire. To add salt to the wounds she sets the village locals on him on your stereotypical dark- and-stormy-night who chain him in a coffin where he stays put for 196 years (the devils in the details) until he is accidentally set free.

In terms of this films enjoyability I think that might be somewhat hindered by its 'all-over-the-place' quality, with too many sub-plots confusing the films main purpose and too many characters vying for attention in this ambitious production. For example the film begins by introducing us to the Collins' new governess "Victoria Winters" (played by Bella Heathcote) and so I assumed she would take centre-stage (alongside Depp of course) throughout the film, which was apparently a foolish assumption to make. Though this character does have a romantic link to Depp's their relationship is never given enough screen time to feel authentic, nor is Heathcote's character throughout the film in general, though as it turns out her genesis is vital to the plots cohesion. This lack of screen time was not only irritating but seemed clumsy on Burton's part (she's the romantic lead after all. It would be like a 2-hour Harry Potter film with only 30 minutes of said character being shown!).

If you would like to continue reading my thoughts on this film then go here... (http://filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/dark-shadows-2012.html)

The actual story is a simple one in the plain light of day, yet it is told in such a fabulous and complex way that you get caught up in the many narratives that evolve from Amélie's tale. Amélie is a quiet girl living a life of seclusion in her one bedroom flat with a bunch of neighbours whose lives she finds herself entangled in rather unwittingly. It is because of this that many of our charming subplots are borne and as Amélie endeavours to improve these lives and the lives of her co-workers she finds herself caught up in a romantic journey which will have you believing in true love. I would defy even the biggest cynic to come away from this movie without that fluttery little feeling making itself known in your stomach. Don't get me wrong though, this film doesn't portray love as something utterly perfect. There is no naiveté in the narrative, though there might be some in its main character played by the almost-too-perfect-to-be-real Audrey Tatou.

As the story plays out we learn about our characters through an uninvolved thirty-party narrator, who introduces each character with personal details along with their likes and dislikes. This narrative construct is not only hugely distinctive but also helps to endear us to each character and is an apt way of knitting together various subplots which each add an element to this story that leads to its charming conclusion and feels like a necessary lesson in life. What these lessons might be is up to the individual, though I think taking advantage of life is a theme inherent in this quirky film.

Aside from its unique narrative form Amélie also boasts quite a distinctive visual quality, which is perhaps a product of the narrative. Warm colours and vibrant backgrounds adorn this films setting and elevate the atmosphere to parallel its charming protagonist. The films aesthetic style has a timelessness about it reminiscent of the old- black-and-white-classics that remind you of grandparents who bemoan modern cinema and talk about the good ol' days "back when movies were good and proper!". I can't quite explain why I would make that analogy but it seems to fit with what I thought of the films visual quality from that gorgeous bob that Tatou sports to the understated glamour of her simple apartment and belongings. Something about this film just screams "classic", and I'm not just saying that due to hindsight. I swear!

If you would like to read the rest of my thoughts on this delightful film then pop on over to this website... (http://filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/amelie.html)

Man of Steel is undoubtedly the movie every person has been waiting for since we learned of its conception from producer Christopher Nolan (director of the Christian Bale starring Batman series) and director Zack Snyder (the guy behind Watchmen, 300 and Sucker Punch). If you know anything of these two it's that they know how to make an excellent and action-packed feature, which is what we have in Man of Steel. Man of Steel has been highly anticipated by a plethora of individuals, all with a varying degree of insight into the importance of this feature and the DC universe. A lot of hopes have been hinging on the success of this feature so that Marvel doesn't hold the crown for superhero awesomeness in film. The main reason being that every successful enterprise needs a little bit of good-natured rivalry so that it can stay on top of its game and here DC have accomplished this task. Competition is healthy, especially in the film business, because it prevents either from becoming stale and means that we viewers get the best of what both Marvel and DC have to offer. But enough with the logistics behind why this Superman franchise had to succeed (if you would like a more in- depth explanation then click this link HERE), let's get on to why it did.

The story in Man of Steel is a cohesive one with very little plot-holes for the less DC-crazed of its viewership to get stuck in. The film starts with Kal-El's (Superman's Kryptonian name) genesis on the dying planet of Krypton where we learn the story behind his journey to Earth. Jor-El (played by a wizened Russell Crowe) realises that his planets only hope for survival lies within his new-born son and so he sends him (along with a funky gadget that holds all of his planets genetic coding) to Earth and into the caring and diligent hands of Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha (Diane Lane) Kent. As we watch the newly-christened Clark Kent grow into an awkward teenager struggling with his superior abilities we learn more about his reasons for remaining anonymous on the planet Earth. However this anonymity cannot last when Kent meets Lois Lane (played by plucky and head-strong Amy Adams) and reveals his superior abilities to her, along with the aircraft that once belonged to his now-deceased father Jor-El. Now that Lois knows that life exists beyond the human race she is determined to reveal this secret and tracks Clark down until finally she turns up at the farm where he was raised. As you can guess, however, Clark manages to convince Lois that revealing his existence is not something Earth is ready for, and the two form a quick alliance that develops as the film progresses.

If you'd like to check out the rest of my thoughts on this kick-ass film then check out this site (http://filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/man-of-steel.html)

If there is one event in human history which can draw fear and tears it is the events of 9/11, which witnessed the death of over 3000 people and the destruction of a sense of safety in western civilisation. With that event came an age of war and terror that is associated with the man who orchestrated the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Given that the age of terror in which we live began on this date it seems appropriate that Zero Dark Thirty begins our tale for the manhunt of Osama Bin Laden at this point. Director Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break, The Hurt Locker) takes us back to this day with a simple yet hauntingly effective montage of real-life phone calls from the twin towers from people desperately yet fruitlessly calling for help. Bigelow begins the film in this way perhaps to set the tone for the rest of the movie, which is a sobering and mind-boggling dramatization of the 10 year effort to capture Bin Laden.

When we think back to the day that our TV's were barraged with the news that Bin Laden was captured we remember the images of smiling faces celebrating his death and we especially remember the moment that Barack Obama was broadcast across the world to confirm this death. On every newspaper we read that Obama had captured Bin Laden. Zero Dark Thirty, however, offers us the true story which is of special CIA operative Maya (Jessica Chastain) and her on-going and arduous battle to overcome the many obstacles in the way of such an operation. Given that this manhunt lasted for 10 years and that many attacks and terrorist operations happened in between this period it would be easy for ZDT to be bogged down by the facts and seem more like a documentary than a gripping yet faithful-to-the-events film. Bigelow and the writer behind this film, Mark Boal, manage to avoid this trap however and offer a gripping narrative which is separated by specific events that not only show the personal efforts of Maya, but also emphasise the network of people that helped bring down Bin Laden.

The film is a searing and at points uncomfortable biopic of the effort that went into gathering information and building up a profile of key people within al-Qaeda. Bigelow does not shy away from offering the audience the hard truth and this is intensely evident when at the beginning of ZDT we witness the torture of an al-Qaeda member who may or may not have vital information of terrorist activity. This makes for rather uncomfortable viewing and the fact that it was done in the effort of gaining information is a hard fact to bear, reminding the viewer that Bin Laden was not merely a man but rather an institution of fear and terror from which many drew inspiration, and whom many died to protect. The fact that torture was an oft-used instrument in gaining the necessary information speaks volumes of the personal character of Maya, who at the beginning of the film seems too vulnerable and feminine to be able to withstand such acts. But as the film progresses this vulnerability turns to hardness and her humanity and character all become fixed on one goal – to capture Bin Laden at any cost.

If you would like to read the rest of my thoughts concerning this film then you can visit this site... (http://www.filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/zero-dark-thirty.html)

If you've seen the trailer for Flight then you might be under the impression that this film is a thrilling all-speed-ahead drama, and while this is, in part, true, the film is more a searing character-study which explores important moral issues than anything else. Given its director, the acclaimed Robert Zemeckis (the brilliant mind behind Forest Gump, Back to the Future and Cast Away to name a few) this might not come as a surprise, because based on his repertoire of films he seems to relish a thoroughly thought-out character. Yet one defining difference behind this character Whip Whittaker (Denzel Washington) is that he is unlikeable, filled with hubris and infuriating to watch in his self-destruction.

To some this would be a justifiable reason to dislike the film, because without a character we can like or even empathise with how can we enjoy or begin to understand the film or its character? Despite the heroism and bravery of Whittaker in the first act of this film in which he manages to save 96 of the 102 passengers aboard his crumbling aircraft his actions and behaviour afterwards are despicable and colour the audience's perception of him. His aggressiveness to those that try and save him from his inexcusable downward-spiral makes for irritating viewing. You might question why I call it "inexcusable". You might think that this "downward-spiral" is the consequence of the traumatic events of the plane crash. It is not. His alcoholism and substance abuse, which is portrayed by Washington with astonishing reality, is a long-standing and widely known characteristic amongst his work colleagues, which is a shocking thought really. It makes you question not only your own safety, but also how such a character could exist that would put innocent lives at risk.

If you would like to continue reading my thoughts on this film then go here... (www.filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/flight.html)

This indie time-travel flick is as outrageously funny as it is sincere and heartfelt. While the premise might have some movie-goers titillated by its sci-fi roots this isn't where the strength of the film lies. Or at least not where its emphasis is placed. It is the reason behind the characters motivation to time-travel into the past which really drags this film into brilliance. I know, I know – we don't need another film that leads to romance to add to our already heaving shelves, but I assure you, this one is worth it. But hang on, I've jumped the gun and given quite a bit away in a short period. Let's backtrack…

The film takes centre stage around an ad placed by Kenneth (played by Mark Duplass) seeking out a partner to time-travel back into the past with. The ad goes like this:

WANTED: Somebody to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. P.O. Box 91 Ocean View, WA 99393. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before.

As ads go its short, to-the-point and bloody well intriguing. As well as, of course, completely crazy. So if you're a journalist looking for another story to earn that monthly pay-check then this seems like a pretty good way to do it. Hey, you might even get a few laughs from it. This is what Jeff (Jake Johnson) thinks anyway – though he has ulterior motives for wanting to visit the town in which the crackpot 'time- traveller' lives. But we'll get to that a little later.

If you would like to read the rest of my thoughts on this film then please go to this site (filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/safety-not- guaranteed.html)

This film was adapted from the cult-smash-novel of the same name and as a reviewer who read and loved the book before the seeing the film I can promise you, this lives up to any expectations and wishes you could have had. This is perhaps, of course, because the writer of the novel is also the writer and director of the film – he saw this beautiful project through to the end and he didn't let anything ruin its vision. As you can tell, I love both the book and the film with an intense and bordering-on over-the-top passion, so I'm sorry, but be warned, I will review this film with absolute bias. In my opinion it deserves no less…

Let's start with its premise. We begin our story with 16-year old introvert Charlie played by the hugely talented upcoming-star Logan Lerman, who writes a letter to a stranger describing his fears and lamenting the torture of high school. He writes this letter in the hope that someone can exist that cares without judgement and fear of his past or his character. It's a hopeful idea and its charming naivete is a theme which is carried throughout the film. For much of the film these letters are shown through a voice-over provided by Lerman, who describes his efforts to live life, with the help and encouragement of his two friends and confidantes Patrick (Ezra Miller, who you may recognize from the critically acclaimed We Need to Talk about Kevin) and Sam (Emma Watson). This is where our story begins and the many rises and falls that can be expected from day-to-day high school life are recorded with a refreshing originality and zest that I haven't seen in a "coming-of- age" film for a very long time. Some of the highlights include an exploration of drugs, alcohol, sexual abuse, the minefield of first- relationships and love at first sight, homophobia, rejection and, above all, the fear that we haven't been noticed. Or, as Chbosky (writer, director and all-round genius) so eloquently and charmingly puts it, a wallflower.

If you would like to read the rest of my thoughts on this film then please go to this site (filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-perks-of- being-wallflower.html)

The Impossible is a film which will invariably cause conflict and backlash among critics and perhaps even victims of the event upon which this film is based. It is virtually impossible to avoid criticism when you are making a film which dramatizes a tragic disaster in human history – that event being the 2004 tsunami which struck Thailand on Boxing Day and claimed the lives of over 200,000 people.

In this film we follow the lives of the Bennett family, a perfectly normal family who were unprepared for the tragedy of the event and its repercussions. This is one stumbling block the film has faced in its critique, with many questioning the narrative approach. Why follow one family (who are English and don't have to live with the long-term repercussions that a local Thai family would have to deal with) when you can look at many with a wider range of perspectives? This is a valid question, however I have to disagree with those who take this stance. I believe that by concentrating on one family we are forced to empathize with the emotional difficulties that they face. The unflinching depth to which the audience is shown this one family's struggle is where the backbone of this film lies and heightens its sense of claustrophobia making the film much more realistic and emotionally resonant.

If you would like to continue reading my thoughts on this film then go here... (filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk)

Fairy-tale stories and the fables that we remember from our childhood are popular subjects for film and television right now, you only need to look at programmes such as Once Upon a Time and the 2011 flop-film Red Riding Hood to see that. Why is that, I wonder to myself? Is it because Twilight opened up the gates for a reinterpretation of traditional stereotypes – the vampire who is good… Or maybe because Hollywood has run out of original ideas? Or is it, just maybe, because everyone enjoys revisiting a familiar tale… The interesting thing about this tale is, though we remember it vaguely, it was never something brought to screen (not to my knowledge, anyway) for our childhood innocence to enjoy, meaning this film right here can do pretty much anything it wants – which is where the fun begins.

Rather than rehash a familiar tale writer and director Tommy Wirkola has transported the audience into the future, taking us on a journey set after the brave Hansel and Gretel defeat the terrible child-eating witch, and puts a unique spin on the story. The fact that Wirkola has made our childhood heroes adult is very important to the plot, because let me tell you right now, this film is NOT for kids. As our protagonists grow and their lifestyles morph into bloodthirsty witch hunters with a passion for slicing and dicing, so do their…language. Innocence and precociousness take a back seat to the "F#!*cks" and "Sh*#s" that come (in a hilarious nature might I add) from our protagonists mouths. Not to mention the odd dash of sex they add from time to time. As I said, not for kids. This places the film in a unique position and could very well have been the one thing that ruined it, though happily it didn't if the plans for a sequel are anything to go by, because it very much isolates the audience and relies on sentimentality for the childhood tale to draw cinema-goers in. If my opinion is anything to go by, then it is very much worth the purchase. Which brings me on to the cast and film portion…

If you would like to read the rest of my thoughts on this film then visit this site (filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk)

Les Miserables, or 'Les Mis' as it is known in the theatre-loving world, is a musical production based on the 19th century novel by Victor Hugo which chronicles the life of Jean Valjean, a convicted bread-thief who, after serving 19 years for his "crime", is freed and sets out to create a new life under the guidance of God. This does not go down well with Russell Crowe's character, Jalvert, who makes it his life mission to track Valjean and send him back to prison. This is where our story begins, though certainly not where it ends, for it sets in motion a whole host of events which involve saving tragic-Fantine's orphan child Cossette and raising her in the midst of a French Revolution. Like I said, there's a lot to get your head around…

Director Tom Hooper (The King's Speech) does so though, and with incredible flair and an imagination and determination which ensured that this multiple Oscar-winning production will go down in film history. Here Hooper has assembled an incredibly talented set of actors and brought to life one of the most celebrated novels and theatre- productions in history, for the screen. The typical course of action on a musical production, especially one of this magnitude, is to pre-record the soundtrack and have the stars lip-sync on set. Here, however, Hooper took a different approach and recorded every song live on set, in order to capture the spontaneity and emotional responses of the actors – a move which has been praised by both his cast and critics alike. A feat like this has never been attempted before, making Hooper, ironically enough, somewhat of a revolutionary…

If you would like to read the rest of my thoughts on this film then visit this site (filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk)

The one thing I love about the British film industry is that it's not afraid to take some risks. They fund independent projects which don't always make a lot of money, but they don't care, or at least that isn't there number one priority. They don't reproduce a set of Hollywood- idealized plots, and they don't make sequels or prequels as if they're life depended on it. What they do is even better - they make something original. And originality and quality is what we have with Tonight You're Mine – its quirky, its British and its bloody good.

It tells the story of two feuding rock stars who are handcuffed together for 24 hours at T-in-the-Park where they are both due to perform. Obviously a whole host of random drunken debauchery ensues and we see how, in the midst of the madness of brilliant music and classic British weather, their relationship develops from one of feuding and bickering to friendship and romance. Maybe not love, because come on, we British aren't deluded, you don't fall in love with someone in 24 hours, but you can fall 'in'. Big difference. This is something the film does rather brilliantly – it depicts the 'in'.

If you would like to read the rest of my thoughts on this film then visit this site (filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk)

As mobster movies go, the first five minutes of this one should set this off as one of the best I've seen in my movie-loving years. A stylish monologue is where we meet our main characters, and as Sean Penn beats a punch bag and looks thuggishly into the camera we hear Josh Brolin recount his days in the war and the plight of the good man against the bad. All of this within the first three minutes, but the real action begins as we witness the brutish criminals led by Italian-American- accented Penn tear a guy in half as he's chained between two vehicles. With this he declares 'Mickey Cohen owns Los Angeles now', and boy can you not help but believe him. That is, of course, until John O'Mara (Brolin), the vigilante reluctant-hero of the piece enters the story and we see the damage he can do, when so inclined. This involves beating senseless a couple of scumbag criminals and sticking another's hand between the floor and the elevator shaft – cue horrible scream and a 'this-shit-just-got-real' moment. Suddenly the audience is left wondering if Mickey Cohen does own Los Angeles, or if the real fight has just begun… (which, considering it's a nearly-two-hour-long film, is a fairly good assumption to make)?

As Cohen's influence over Los Angeles grows and seeps into law officials who love their "whores" just a little too much, O'Mara, with the prodding of the chief of the LAPD who tells him rather inspiringly that he "want to talk about the war for the soul of Los Angeles", takes it upon himself to bring together a rag-tag team of vigilantes whose sole aim is to drive Cohen out of LA before he can "own the West" through the central book, which controls all western gambling and puts Cohen in a pretty sweet position both in terms of money, prestige, and position on the law vs. criminals scale. All of this happens against the backdrop of personal relationships, which play a big part in the characters decisions and motivations – namely that of Brolin and his heavily pregnant wife, as well as Gosling and Stone, whose on-screen chemistry just oozes sex-appeal.

If you would like to read the rest of my thoughts on this movie then go to this site (filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk)

As somewhat of a Marvel connoisseur in recent years I feel it my obligation to give the down-low on Marvels most recent venture. The film could have been somewhat of an anti-climax in light of its most recent venture, The Avengers Assemble, yet bringing back the solo adventure in style is the father of the enterprise, the millionaire philanthropist playboy Tony Stark. Who can't love this guy?

Starting off with your typical trip down memory lane we see a younger looking Stark seducing English-rose and botanist-genius Rebecca Hall while Guy Pearce, playing bad guy Aldrich Killian, comes up all fan- struck-geek and makes a bit of an arse of himself in his desperation to please and impress Stark with his work. Fast forward and we now see Stark comfortably settled with long-term love Pepper Potts and playing about with his many suits; cue hilarious scene where he summons the parts of his suit and they aggressively attach themselves to him while he tries to dodge the lethal objects. Then, of course, we meet our bad guy again, who clearly has a bit of a thing for Pepper Potts as he tries to impress her with his brain. Yep, a super enlargement of his brain. Romantic, huh?! (Pfftt…)

If you would like to read the rest of my thoughts on this movie then go to this site (filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk)

Syrup is quite the enigma, as Max Barry intended, I'm sure. Based on the cult novel, the film explores the power of marketing on the human soul and society's reliance on marketing to harness a sense of reality in what is essentially the circle of money and consumerism. The film relies on sex and image to drive this realisation in, and where better to start than with the beautiful cast. The cast almost amplifies the whole point the film is trying to make, for we have Shiloh Fernandez, an upcoming heartthrob in reality who seems to ooze bad-boy-delinquency and who plays a down-on-his luck creator and business manager – the image certainly fits the package. Then of course, there is Amber Heard, playing Six. Yes, Six. All part of the image, because when you say Six you think of sex and sex almost always leads to a yes – in business, that is. Here the character has been perfectly cast and though we never quite get a grasp on the person behind the image, there is always a hint that Six wants to give more. And we want to see it. Which is, of course, the whole point of the film - it's all a marketing ploy.

The basic premise of the film is that Scat (Fernandez) wants to become the living embodiment of the American Dream, and what better way to do this than through marketing. Everybody lives and breathes marketing, without seeming to realise it. This leads to the creation of first Fukk, and then Kok – yes, all very sexual. Because as this film proves again and again in various ways – sex sells. Yet along the way he faces many marketing and advertising disasters – mainly his campaigns biting him in the arse after someone dies because of the direct influence of his advertising savvy. This just emphasises the point of the film.

If you would like to read the rest of my thoughts concerning this film then you can visit this site (filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk)

You might have a few preconceived notions about this film, which I feel the need to clear up before I can begin with the actual review/opinion portion of this post. Don't worry, I'm not going to spend too long on this, but it is necessary, so bear with me.

First of all, this is a family drama by Disney so right now anyone over the age of 15 is probably thinking 'this isn't a film for me'. You are wrong. This film may be by Disney but that doesn't mean it's just for kids, this packs a punch and a half and I defy any adult not to shed a tear or two over this one. It's reminiscent of Marley & Me in that respect. Not only will it tug at any person who has a heart, but it also raises some interesting ideas about how far a person would go to rescue the ones they love, whether that person is human or canine. Don't dismiss yourself because you don't think this film is for your demographic; personally I'm not sure this film has an age demographic. If you like a good film then here's your ticket.

Second of all, the cast. If, like me, you're not a fan of Paul Walker because he seems like a one-trick-pony who can only do action-hero/bad- guy/heart-throb then please just leave those thoughts at the doorstep for a moment. Walker shines in this production, because for once he's playing a character whose sole purpose isn't to get the girl (though he does) or catch the bad guy and look cool doing it – this character has an emotional connection to the canines he is trying to save and that emotion is etched into every action he takes and every plea he makes. Paul Walker isn't the only casting choice I would like to address however, because while he does make up much of the film, it is also the canine cast whose journey we explore. These guys aren't just there to coo over either, these guys are characters. They have their own characteristics and story lines and they are just as heart-breaking and believable as the human cast. I was genuinely flabbergasted by the talent these beautiful canines display – and flabbergasted isn't a word I use lightly.

If you would like to read the rest of my thoughts concerning this film then you can visit this site (filmrambler.blogspot.co.uk)