ChooseyAMovie Reviews

I Give It a Year (2013)

Unoriginal, formulaic and, unfortunately, unfunny.

[5/10 · 9 February 2013]

I Give It A Year stars Rose Byrne and Rafe Spall as a newlywed couple attempting to survive their first year of marriage.

I wasn't much looking forward to I Give It A Year. The trailer didn't really impress me, and the idea just seemed so much the same as so many other formulaic comedy, with element of romance, films which features predominantly "shock" or dirty gags. But I got a free ticket for it and had nothing else to do so I decided why not? To be honest, the only thing keeping this unfunny, unoriginal, lifeless work afloat was the acting by Rafe Spall. He was great in Prometheus and Life of Pi and also in this film serves his purpose. However inconsistent his character may be. Along with an in-cohesive script, coupled with bad acting and terrible jokes. It just wasn't funny.

Now, I'll admit, a few times I did chuckle, but they weren't loud chuckles just a slight "huh." Similar to a sympathy laugh more or less. And most of those laughs derived from Rafe Spall. There were actually a few, albeit minor, jokes that could have been a lot funnier, but unfortunately Dan Mazer just didn't know how to write them properly and instead focused on overdrawn predictable jokes.

Seeing as this is a comedy film I will not dwell too long, if at all, on the characters and plot as they are all the same every film, exactly like modern horrors. What happened? There used to be a time when nearly every horror film was original and funny, and a time when every comedy film was original and funny. Now, it's just, I don't know.

Not to say this film is horrible or anything. It's just not good. It's alright. No recommendations or advising to attend the cinema immediately, maybe don't even rent it on DVD. However, if you like modern comedies, you'll more than likely like this. No rewatchability, no originality and very little entertainment value. It's OK.

Hitchcock (2012)

Keep the Hitch, drop the Cock.

[7/10 · 8 February 2013]

Hitchcock follows Alfred Hitchcock's strenuous quest to complete a picture to which everyone deemed awful. Also incorporated into the storyline is the love story of Alfred and his wife. And the strain the picture was putting on it.

I had high hopes for Hitchcock. Alfred Hitchcock may not be my favorite director but he was most defiantly light years ahead of his time and undeniably a genius. On top of that Psycho is one of my favorite films ever made. So far this film was shaping up to be fantastic, it appealed to me in all the right ways, trailer was good, Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock and it was about the making of Psycho. To which, aspiring filmmakers as well as the average movie goer can really appreciate. So why only a 7/10?

Well, the film delved too deeply into the love story, I personally think. The film is very enjoyable and to that aspect of the film, I don't mind as much as you may perceive but withholding that aspect and indulging on the actual making of Psycho could have really benefited this film. It's not the film Hitchcock or Psycho fans will love, it will be a film where you walk out and remark, "that was good," but not a very solid good. And normally I would be inclined to agree with you, but for some reason I still did like this film.

It contains fantastic acting including Hopkins, albeit certain scenes he may have overacted a tad bit, it's interesting and is enjoyable. In addition it also contains great references albeit not very subtle, the complete opposite of subtle to Psycho and a few other Hitchcock films which work to its advantage in my opinion. I also rather liked the inclusion of Ed Gein and the conversations that took place between him and Hitchcock.

Basically this film will appeal to everyone. But, unfortunately it isn't the film it could have been or should have been, but ultimately it is enjoyable, funny and above all entertaining. If you're a fan of Hitchcock and Psycho though, don't get your hopes up too high.

Hyde Park on Hudson (2012)

Undeniably, amazingly, historically inaccurate.

[5/10 · 6 February 2013]

Hyde Park on Hudson stars Bill Murray as American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and charts an iconic period in history when the then King and Queen of England arrive in America with intentions to request support from America if another World War broke out. But it is also a romantic comedy, now how does that work? Not very well.

I really had no expectations going into this. None whatsoever. So, the only advantages I can pinpoint are that if it is anyway decent I will be somewhat pleasantly surprised. But I wasn't, which just really depicts how awful this film was. Well maybe not awful, but pretty bad.

The film is extremely boring, slowly paced, choppy and juggles two conflicting story lines and does not succeed in making either work. As well as that it contains pretty bad acting and is undeniably amazingly historically inaccurate. What works? Not much. You forget most everything about the film when the credits hit the screen and you sigh a sigh of relief when they do.

But, as with every film, I try and justify it someway and I will only say that this film will appeal to romantic comedy lovers who really don't care about story, writing, plot, character development or anything in the formula to make a good film. Certain romantic comedies I don't mind but this film was suffused with boring one-dimensional characters and extremely uncomfortable attempts at comedy.

All in all, the film was alright. But a bad alright. The sort of alright that makes this film not worth watching unless you're into that kind of genre. Otherwise, clear a path and avoid catching a glimpse of this one.

Flight (I) (2012)

Very well done with great writing, directing and acting.

[8/10 · 1 February 2013]

Flight tells the story of Whip Whitaker, a troubled man with an illegal substance addiction, who is an airline pilot. After a malfunction with the aircraft while in flight, Whip utilizes his piloting skills and saves 96 people of 102 on-board, in an "act of God." But after the crash, when he gets his blood tested, he tests positive for alcohol and cocaine. Whip must fight to avoid life in prison for accused manslaughter.

Denzel Washington stars as Whip Whitaker for which he received an Oscar Nomination and deservedly so in my opinion. I usually like Denzel and the films he is in, and this is no exception. He is fantastic and brilliantly portrays Whip. His ups and downs, his troubled life, he even implements the humor very well into his performance. The perfect pick for this role, in fact, the rest of the supporting actors were picked very well too, albeit their characters were generic and could've been played by most people, but they did well anyway.

Robert Zemeckis directs and is his return to live action after his stint into animated. And I welcome him back, the directing was very well done and depicting a plane crash is a hard thing to do, especially when it is done as well as it is in this, also considering it doesn't really last that long either. The writing, for which John Gatis received an Oscar is also well deserved. The film is filled with a lot of dialog ridden scenes and they are done very well. The jokes hit, the lows hit, everything hit me in the right places. A quick note that John Goodman was very good in his role and should have been in it more.

The plot is very good, very gripping and captivating. The character of Whip Whitaker is well done and I especially like the ending, I like endings like that. The ending was so impactive on me from the lines, directing and the deliverance of it all by Denzel. The film could have benefited a lot from trimming a bit of it off however as there was a point when it became a tiny bit dragged out. But aside from that it was fantastic and one of the very few films to attain my emotional involvement in a protagonist for a long time. Very well done.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Overrated, but still OK.

[6/10 · 27 January 2013]

Zero Dark Thirty follows the extensive 10-year search for Osama Bin Laden by a persuasive CIA agent called Maya played by Jessica Chastain.

I had pre conceived notions that this film was going to be good. I had read reviews before hand and the main complaints were that it was slow and boring at the beginning and it picked up incredibly fast and became great at the end. For me it was the other way around. I loved the first half, however overplayed it was, and didn't enjoy the second half as much. I personally found this film to be very overrated and it's failed attempts at tension just didn't fit. And supposedly everything in this film is more truer to life than any other based on real events films, which is ironic because I didn't like Argo due to it's dramatized ending.

I wasn't the biggest fan of The Hurt Locker, I tend to disapprove of shaky camera-work and just didn't find any the characters intriguing. That wasn't necessarily the case here, as I found Maya to be interesting, and then when it drifted away from her struggle for about 30 minutes the whole film seemed like it went downhill fast. And, to be honest, Jessica Chastain was great and all, but she wasn't as fantastic as everyone claims. Also, in my head, the climactic scene played out a lot better but when I saw it, I felt no climax. The climactic, finishing scene in my opinion was very anti-climactic.

I wanted so much to enjoy this film, but unfortunately I didn't. It was prolonged and lacked any emotion it so desperately attempted to attain. It has it's good points, but the bad outweigh the good ten fold, and that is why I think it deserves a low 6.

Lincoln (2012)

The whole shazam, just needed a bit of work.

[8/10 · 26 January 2013]

Lincoln is the story of President Abraham Lincoln's continuing struggle to get votes to pass the 13th amendment. Which, upon being passed, will abolish slavery.

I think the title was very-aptly conceived. Lincoln. It seems like it may be a biopic, or the life's story of him, and yet, it's only merely about one month in the man's life. However, that one month is so influential and plays such a huge part in history, they can make a 150 minute film on it, and maintain my interest throughout. Job well done.

Steven Spielberg directs and Daniel-Day Lewis stars. An intriguing combination. Normally I disapprove of Spielberg, especially his latest works, but I have to say, I really did enjoy this film. It had a lot of great scenes, great dialog. Fantastic direction and above all, amazing acting from everyone, even the minor characters. It seemed like a lot of work was put into the film, and it really paid off.

Not once throughout the 2 hour and 30 minute movie did I feel it dragging, felt it necessary to check what time it was. It was just a well-rounded film with great acting, directing the whole shazam. I can understand people complaining of boredom or emptiness though, because as I already stated. It picks up with a month of his life, it doesn't really give you much back story or any other dimensions to the character. But to me, it was just fine. Steadily paced. And a great watch. Not the best film ever, but certainly far from the worst.

A great 8. Out of 10.

The Last Stand (2013)

Arnie's back. And faring decently.

[6/10 · 24 January 2013]

The Last Stand is Arnold Schwarzanegger's return. Is he back and booming? Or back and failing? My vote is somewhere in the middle.

The Last Stand follows a leader of a drug cartel who escapes from custody in a convoluted plan which tricks the FBI. They then manage to track him down, and uncover his plan, which is to travel from Las Vegas to Mexico in a super-speed death-defying car. They alert the town on the border, and the town which is the last stop before Mexico, about him. Which sends Sheriff Ray Owens back into action.

Let's begin with the acting. Because there is only one of two reasons why anyone will see this. 1. Because Arnold Schwarzanegger is in it and 2. Because Jee-woon Kim is directing. And the majority will go to the former. So, Arnie, how did he fare? He was decent. I believe he was a bit of an improvement from his recent ventures, which I'm not sure is saying much, but, there ya go. However, the rest of the cast played their roles fine. Luiz Guzman - good as always. The same can be said for Forest Whitaker. Johnny Knoxville was good too. I suppose, Eduardo Noreiga wasn't the best, he's a good actor I just don't think he suited the role very well. I also thought Christiana Leucas was very poor. But aside from a few weak links, everyone else was, as I said, fine.

I'm not entirely sure as to whether this film deserves a 6/10 because I'm not sure if, behind it all, Jee-Woon Kim knew what kind of film he was making - a big, blockbuster, riddled with explosions and testosterone. Or - an action film taking itself seriously. I'm pretty sure from the dialog and certain other things that the former is the one. Which is why I am giving it a 6. Although, if it is the latter, then I think the film deserves to get a 4 or something small. I mean the only good things are the acting and the directing. And both aren't fantastic or anything.

It either strives to be much more than it is and doesn't reach it, or is just plain, unadulterated stupidity. You decide. My guess is the former.

A solid 6/10.

Les Misérables (2012)

First half - 8/10. Second half - 6/10.

[7/10 · 11 January 2013]

Les Misérables is a screen adaption of a famous play of the same name. Set in France during the 19th Century, the film is the story of Prisoner 24601 or Jean Valjean played by Hugh Jackman, a man imprisoned for stealing bread, who escapes and goes on the run. After meeting a woman, Fantine, played by Anne Hathaway, she tells him she has a daughter just before she dies. He retreats the daughter, and decides to become a father figure to her. All the while being chased by Javert, played by Russell Crowe.

Tom Hooper, the director, has only really directed one feature film - The King's Speech - with a relatively small budget and mostly unknown cast members (except for Helena Bonham Carter). In this second feature, he goes bigger but unfortunately not better. I quite enjoyed the first hour and a half or so of Les Miz, but when it reached a certain point in the storyline, introduced a new character, and completely changed direction. The singing became tiresome, the ending prolonged and the character's became less and less interesting. Everything went downhill. Could have done with shaving about 20 minutes maybe more.

But aside from the last hour or so, the first and second act were fantastic. I was really enjoying it and you could tell so were the directors and actors. Everything was unique and I've never seen a film quite like it before. The acting was still great from everyone also, and the directing continued to be great throughout. A few problems with the CGI and the sets (and Russell Crowe singing. It was good, but didn't suit him.)

I'd give it 8/10 for the first half, 6/10 for the second. 14/20. 7/10 in total. Enjoyable, but needed a bit of work to become better. First half is still pretty amazing though.

Gangster Squad (2013)

Go get an ice cream....

[8/10 · 10 January 2013]

Gangster Squad is Ruben Fleischer's third feature film, after Zombieland(2009) and 30 Minutes or Less (2011), and follows Mickey Cohen(Sean Penn) a ruthless mobster who wishes to rule the whole of LA and will stop at nothing to get what he wants. Then Chief Parker(Nick Nolte) assigns Sgt. John 'O Mara(Josh Brolin) an off-the-books mission where he must recruit members to tackle and take down Cohen's plan.

When I first heard about Gangster Sqaud, I was excited. Aside from its fantastic cast - Josh Brolin, Sean Penn, Ryan Gosling, Nick Nolte, Anthony Mackie, Michael Pena, Giovanni Ribisi and Robert Patrick - it had a great director and a good story. I went into the theater expecting to be satisfied, not blown away, but just about on the line. But this exceeded my expectations.

It has it's flaws, and wouldn't rank highly on my all time favorites list, but it has great comedy, unbelievable performances, and Fleischer's directing was so unique to a gangster film. It's a great time at the cinema and is thoroughly enjoyable. It is most defiantly the director's most complete film and is the start of something wonderful. If, maybe, they had to have worked on the script for a tad bit longer, tightened up the screws and made more of a character out of the gangster squad, I would've enjoyed it so much more.

My main complaint would defiantly be the ending. It didn't satisfy me, like a good ending should. It didn't seem rushed or anything bad, it just didn't make much sense. Which is exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to tightening the screws. A tad bit more work, and it could have been on track for one of the best gangster films of all time.

A great gangster film, well directed, well written, incredibly acted and a vastly enjoyable film. I give a B+. In other words an 8. (To be accurate about a 7.6, which rounds up to 8.)