The Girl on the Train (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 112 minutes
Director: Tate Taylor
Writers: Paula Hawkins (based on the novel by), Erin Cressida Wilson (screenplay)
Cast: Emily Blunt, Rebecca Ferguson, Haley Bennett, Justin Theroux, Luke Evans, Edgar Ramirez, Allison Janney, Lisa Kudrow, Laura Prepon

The Girl on the Train is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed by Entertainment One in Australia.

One has to feel sorry for The Girl on the Train.

When the novel by Paula Hawkins was released in early 2015, it instantly drew comparisons to Gillian Flynn's "Gone Girl" with it's similar themes and suspenseful nature. It was only ineviatble that the film directed by Tate Taylor would also be compared to the film version of Gone Girl, which was directed by David Fincher. While this comparison is harsh to have to contend with, The Girl on the Train also faces the comparison that could never have been avoided which is the eternal question of whether the movie is as good as the book.

It feels as though The Girl on the Train was never destined to be it's own film as the filmmakers obviously knew the pressures they were going to be unable to avoid. As a result, it evidently struggles with it's own identity and caves under the pressure in several areas, but excels itself in others.

The girl on the train is Rachel (Emily Blunt), a woman who has turned to alcoholism after several bad turns in her life including having her husband, Tom (Justin Theroux) leave her for another woman, Anna (Rebecca Ferguson) whom he is now married to with a small child. Rachel travels by her old house each day and see's an idyllic couple a few doors up who she likes to believe are living the life she misses so greatly. However, one day she witnesses something in this perfect house that makes her fall apart and plummet into an alcohol-induced black spot which she can only remember fragments of. It is only when she hears that Megan Hipwell (Haley Bennett) has disappeared that she starts to become paranoid that she is the one behind her disappearance.

Although there are several notable differences from the book that impact the film's depth, The Girl on the Train carries with it the same atmosphere and suspense which made the novel so popular. The story is in itself unsettling with characters that are intriguing, but are all quite unlikable. All the people in the film (except Lisa Kudrow's Monica who was invented for the film) are extremely flawed human beings to the point that they all feel dirty to watch. Emily Blunt's Rachel is one that is particularly hard to watch, just as she was to read in the book. This is a woman in so deep that she cannot pull herself, only dig herself in deeper. Of course, this terrible character trait is what moves the story along and is ultimately justified despite being so frustrating. A film does not need to have likable characters in order to work and although all the cast give splendid performances, there is no connection between the viewer and the characters because one does not want to feel connected to people like this.

However, unless you have read the book, Taylor's film does carry a real sense of suspense and unpredictability that make it impossible to look away. The reason The Girl on the Train is so often compared to Gone Girl is because they both have the resounding theme of how well do we really know the ones closest to us. Paula Hawkins book delves into this in greater detail than the film. As the book was written in the first person by all three of the main female characters in rotating order, the film struggles to adapt to this and fit it into it's nearly two hour running time. Rebecca Ferguson's Anna is particularly hard done by as her character is sliced of all her gritty inner thoughts and true character development.

One of the resounding questions posed by anyone who had read the book beforehand is how Emily Blunt could have possibly been cast as Rachel? In the novel, Rachel is referred to numerous times as being unattractive, overweight and repulsive..... a description that does not suit the genetically blessed Blunt. The make-up department certainly tries their hardest to make her less attractive, but the way Blunt disappears into her role makes one forget about her outward appearance. Her performance is of the incredibly unstable Rachel is just superb and shows a great deal of variety within her screen time. The bathroom mirror scene is particularly memorable for how terrifying she suddenly becomes.

Haley Bennet is also wonderful as Megan. Her character and performance seem one-dimensional for the majority of the film until towards the end when she has the opportunity to show how much talent she truly has and rises to the occasion. Rebecca Ferguson does what she can with her role, but again, she is denied the depth Rachel and Megan are given. Luke Evans shines as the grieving husband, Scott and it is unfortunate he didn't have more screen time. Justin Theroux does fine as Tom, but his is the only performance in the film that feels a little too restrained, particularly as it heads into the final quarter.

The Girl on the Train cannot help but be compared to the novel in which it is based on by those who had read it, which in this case is not a good thing. The film has a dark and grimy atmosphere with a screenplay that evidently struggles to be all it wants to be. Yet, the cast (particularly Emily Blunt and Haley Bennett) breath life into the film and save it from being merely a failed adaptation.

6.5/10

Into The Woods (2014) film review

Year: 2014
Running Time: 125 minutes
Director: Rob Marshall
Writers: Stephen Sondheim (musical), James Lapine (musical and screenplay)
Cast: Emily Blunt, James Corden, Anna Kendrick, Meryl Streep, Daniel Huttlestone, Lilla Crawford, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Tammy Blanchard, Tracy Ullman, Johnny Depp, Chris Pine, Mackenzie Mauzy, Billy Magnussen

Into The Woods is now showing everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures.

Disney's venture Into The Woods may not be the same feel good live action film the world is accustomed to seeing from the studio, but does not fail to entertain audiences, especially those who are fantasy and musical lovers. While Rob Marshall's film is a lot of fun with it's witty and enjoyable screenplay and musical numbers, it is also rather unexpectedly deep and metaphorical. The film does a great deal more than just impressively recreate some of the most loved fairytales and in doing so is pleasantly surprising in numerous ways.

A married couple who live and work in a bakery (Emily Blunt and James Corden) are desperate for children, but are unable to conceive. They are at a loss as to why this is until one day the Witch from next door (Meryl Streep) arrives and tells them that she placed a curse on the household long ago and to break the curse they must bring her all she desires. The baker and his wife set out into the woods to fetch the red cape from Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), the hair as yellow as corn from Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), the glass slipper from Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) and the cow as white as milk from Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) for the Witch. When all is said and done, it looks as though everyone has had their wish fulfilled and will live happily ever after. However, that is not the way things work out for any of them as they all venture into the woods once again together.

Director Rob Marshall and writer of both screenplay and musical (which he co-wrote with Stephen Sondheim) James Lapine have done a fine job of adapting Into The Woods for the screen. This is what audiences must remember when judging Into The Woods. It is adapted from a stage musical and much of what can be said about the story good or bad relates more to the original musical than the adapted screenplay. One of the aspects of the film which reminds you that this is so is the notion that Into The Woods feels like two different films in one. The only reason it feels like that is because there are two acts in the stage musical and they are of completely different atmospheres. Because of this, people not familiar with the musical will feel as though the film is quite lengthy, which at barely over two hours this is hardly the case. The majority of the screenplay remains true to the original Into The Woods, yet several songs were abandoned for the film (while one song was added to the soundtrack) and the dark atmosphere slightly lifted so to make a more family friendly film.

Into The Woods knows it's target audience well. The film is well suited to lovers of fairytales and musicals, as those who do not appreciate musicals will not enjoy the fact that the majority of the storytelling is told through song. However, Into The Woods is saying a lot more to it's audience than is vocalised through the dialogue and lyrics. The overall theme is the universally acknowledged notion that there is realistically no such thing as a happily ever after. There is such thing as perfect for the time being, but no life or love is forever without some sort of complication. Fairytales install in children unrealistic expectations of the world, which is why the film reminds us that children are listening, so be careful what you tell them. The story takes fairytales to a place they are not traditionally taken to by asking the questions no one asks of them. Why did Cinderella really run from the man she loved? Was Rapunzel ever troubled by losing the woman who raised her? Is Prince Charming really the man he makes every one believe he is, or is he really just charming? The title of Into The Woods is literal, but also metaphorical as walking through life can be like walking through the woods in its unpredictability and terror.

The mash-up of the fairytales is very well done, but some stories are given a lot more love and attention than others. In particular the Rapunzel storyline doesn't have a great deal to offer and is almost non-existent in the second half of the film. However, it is understandable that at least one of the stories within the film was going to be limited as the film's running time needed to be kept in mind, especially considering this is a family film. Yet, the screenplay is extremely witty with brilliant dialogue and entertaining and enjoyable musical productions, especially the elegant "On The Steps of The Place" and hilarious "Agony". The production design is absolutely exquisite with very little CGI used and the film is very atmospheric as the woods are designed with an air of mystery and darkness that is felt by the audience.

Into The Woods boasts an impressive cast with performances that may surprise. Emily Blunt and James Corden work very well together on screen and their relationship is comedic in the most realistic of ways. Blunt appears in her first musical role and stuns with her beautiful singing voice. Anna Kendrick is certainly no stranger to musicals with her Broadway background and past roles in Camp and Pitch Perfect (as well as the upcoming sequel to the latter and The Last 5 Years), but truly shows her vocal range and is exquisite as Cinderella. She is incredibly likable and the most naturalistic Cinderella to grace the screen.

Meryl Streep does not disappoint as the Witch. She is full of character and shows another side to the Witch who lives in these fairytales, which is that of a Witch with a past that has shaped her. Chris Pine is a real surprise packet as Cinderella's Prince Charming. It is a completely different role for Pine and hearing him sing is surprising, but not a terrible experience at all. His performance is formed around a parody of fairytale princes and is really quite amusing. Young Daniel Huttlestone, who plays Jack, is also a standout with incredible acting ability and a lovely voice.

While there is a moral to most stories we tell our children, what Into The Woods has to say about life through the way the fairytales are told is a great deal more helpful and insightful. The film is surprising, but pleasing for many reasons, but won't delight those who don't enjoy musicals as much as those who do.

7.5/10

Looper (2012)

Looper

Year: 2012

Director: Rian Johnson

Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Paul Dano, Jeff Daniels, Piper Perabo

Before I begin my review….

                For those of you who don’t know me personally, I recently became a mum for the first time.

My baby boy was born nearly five months ago and just as everyone warned me, many things have changed. I have completely changed in the way which I see a lot of things in life and I actually believe for the better. One thing I was not prepared for was that the way I watch certain films has also changed.

                Not all films, but those films that have anything to do with children strike a chord with me now. I guess that is to be expected when you are a mother, but it wasn’t one of the things I contemplated in the nine months leading up to my little man’s birth when I was more concerned with picking out nursery furniture and trying to store sleep (as so many people love to tell you how little sleep you will receive when the baby comes….true fact, but you don’t need complete strangers telling you that all the time).

                In particular, Looper is one movie that probably wouldn’t have affected me on an emotional level as much if I wasn’t a mother. I found the relationship between mother, Sara and son, Cid completely heartbreaking at times. Looper can be categorized as an action/ thriller, and I never thought a film in one of these genres would make me feel when leaving as though I had just watched a drama. I am pretty sure that director, Rian Johnson was trying to evoke an emotional response from his audience, but I think as a perhaps it would make the parents more emotional. If I am anything to go by anyway.

                I think I should be getting ready for a lot more of these unprecedented responses in the future from the films I will be watching and reviewing.

Review

                Looper is one of the most original films you will see this year. Not a perfect film, but very clever, entertaining and original nevertheless.

                Rian Johnson has tackled a completely new genre in Looper and has approached this action/thriller film with the same originality he approached his earlier films such as Brick and The Brothers Bloom with. This combination has created something we haven’t seen before and is a well-made and entertaining original.

                The year is 2044 and time travel is made possible in 30 years time. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) works as a looper, which are hit-men who are hired to take care of those sent back to the current year. The worst part about being a looper is when your future self is sent back for you to kill which is known as closing the loop. When Joe’s future self (Bruce Willis) is sent back, he is sent on a chase to save his life, but meet the death of his self in 30 years time.

                   The story and screenplay of Looper is extremely interesting. The script is effective as although the concept may seem like a complex one, it makes it easy for the audience to grasp early on in the film what everything and everyone is so no one is left confused. It is an entrancing concept which draws everyone in and the visuals on the screen compliment the screenplay to make the film very slick and presentable.

          Johnson’s direction is very good in the way in which the film is shown visually. The editing provides a clever way of linking both Joe’s present and future self, which can come across as confusing at first, but all lose ends are sewn up by the end of the film.

           There is no doubt that Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a very good actor, he does a very good Bruce Willis. He has obviously studied the way that Willis holds himself and his facial expressions. However, although he sat in the make-up chair for at least two and a half hours each day before filming began, it can be a little distracting. It can sometimes look as though Gordon-Levitt is struggling to move his face under the make-up. The make-up artists did give it a good go considering Gordon-Levitt and Willis don’t really look a thing alike.

             Bruce Willis is just Bruce Willis. There is nothing in this film that he does that hasn’t been done before. It is just another action role with some anger moments.  Unlike Gordon-Levitt, he doesn’t meet in the middle to compliment Gordon-Levitt.

            Emily Blunt is splendid. She is completely believable as Sara, the doting mother of Cid (Pierce Gagnon). Gagnon is also wonderful. You immediately feel sorry for the little boy and the chemistry between him and Blunt is perfect.  For the brief moment there is supposed to be chemistry between Gordon-Levitt and Blunt, it falls flat.

             Pure originality is not something that is popular in film today so Looper is completely refreshing. Rian Johnson must be congratulated and doing such a good job with a brand new and entertaining concept.

8/10

 

References
 The Internet Movie Database
MTV
BC Blog Critics

The Adjustment Bureau

The Adjustment Bureau
Year: 2011
Director: George Nolfi
Cast: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Terence Stamp

In My Own Words
When we were walking out of the cinema tonight, my husband and I had a discussion about Matt Damon, which turned into a heated discussion about the Oscars. Firstly, we were discussing whether Matt Damon will ever win an Oscar. Of course, he has already won one with his lifelong friend, Ben Affleck for Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly For The Screen for "Good Will Hunting" in 1998, but it is the elusive acting Oscar which he has become a chaser of. Damon has now been nominated for this award twice and still hasn't been able to catch up to it. Damon is an interesting actor. He is well known for his action roles such as Jason Bourne in the Bourne films, he likes the roles which are anything but ordinary such as in "The Informant!" and he can pull off the dramatic roles as well, as he showed in "Invictus". Whether he catches it will have to do with his choice of roles.

Which brought me to my second point of discussion, I don't believe any actor enters the acting profession purely to win an Oscar. I doubt if you asked Meryl Streep or Jack Nicholson "Why did you start acting?", they wouldn't say "To win an Oscar". An Oscar is the ultimate prize, but it is not the be all and end all of an actor's career.The very large majority of actors out there will never win an Oscar or even be nominated. I'm not entirely sure that when an actor who hasn't been nominated for an Oscar or any other award before performs a role which they believe they have put a great deal of effort into, do they hope an award will come to them, whether it be an Oscar or something of smaller value? How about the ones who have been nominated for an Oscar before, do they keep another nomination in the back of their mind when they perform a role which they think may have a chance? I'm not saying this is something every actor will think about or that Oscars are a means to an end or even that every actor cares about being awarded. I strongly believe that actors are artists who act because they love it and it's their means of expressing themselves and they are fortunate enough to make a living out of something they love. I can't help but wonder though, if you are nominated for an Oscar and do not win, do you have a thirst to be nominated again for chance of winning? I'm sure there would be part of them that would want this. It is only humour nature to chase what was so close yet so far away.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
"The Adjustment Bureau" is an interesting film. Yet like many other science fiction films which cross over with action films, it is very far fetched and as a result it can just seem quite silly. The idea for the film is clever and really quite intriguing, but it could have gone so much further than what it did. There were so many points in this film that could have been delved into more and quite a few gaps in the story as a result of some complex subjects addressed. Matt Damon is David Norris, a young congressman who is running for the US Senate for the state of New York. When he loses his campaign first time round, he meets an intriguing and beautiful woman, Elise (Emily Blunt) who makes him feel a way he never has before. He meets her by chance again, only to be informed afterwards that Elise is not part of the plan. The plan is the way the world and the people in it are supposed to go according to The Adjustment Bureau, the people who make sure everything goes the way it is supposed to. David tries to defy the plan and do everything he can to be with Elise, even if it means risking his life and his sanity.

"The Adjustment Bureau" was an ambitious project to take on for director George Nolfi. There is so much to this film. There is romance, drama, science fiction and action, as well as a subject matter which has to be explained in great detail and emotions which have to be addressed. It really is a huge project and one cannot blame Nolfi for missing out bits and pieces throughout the film. Many questions remain unanswered at the end of the film. For example, why do plans change throughout people's lives? If David had a angel or guardian in Harry, then why didn't Elise have one as well? If it wasn't part of the plan for these two to be together, then wouldn't there be someone on her side to keep her away from him working there as well? However, there was a lot to cover in this film so leaving a few questions unanswered didn't hurt a great deal. Many questions were answered as well which allowed the film to maintain momentum and the audience to remain interested.

A big misconception about this film is that it is just like another Bourne film. Although the film does have suspense and a few car crashes and chases in foot, it can hardly be classified as an action film. If it was classified as an action film, it would fail miserably. The concept of having a God like figure who's disciples work with mechanical means to place ideas in people's minds and scan their brains is slightly ridiculous. The whole concept of a force being behind what happens in everyday life is quite fascinating and does challenge you to think more about fate and chance. The story is well written, but the dialogue can be a little sketchy at times.

Matt Damon and Emily Blunt have quite a lot of on screen chemistry in this film. They respond well to each other and physically look the part fo a couple in love. They both give emotionally charged performances showing how in love the two characters really are with each other. Although the charcaters really don't see each other much during the film and normally a film where they don't see each other too much over the span of the film it seems unrealistic to understand how they feel so strongly about each other, it feels right that they should love each other so much. Both Damon and Blunt are extremely likable in their roles and both have a great amount of character. Because of these two, "The Adjustment Bureau" feels more of a romance than an action film.

George Nolfi gives "The Adjustment Bureau" a fair go. It could have gone a lot further and the ending coould have also been a bit more conclusive and satisfactory, but there are some very good aspects. Damon and Blunt bring the characters to life and the film is actually quite thought provoking. An interesting take on the ways of the world.
6.5/10

Gnomeo And Juliet

Gnomeo And Juliet
Year: 2011
Director: Kelly Ashbury
Cast: James McAvoy, Emily Blunt, Michael Caine, Maggie Smith, Jason Statham

In My Own Words
It's about time someone finally made an animation about garden gnomes. It's been awhile since Noddy was around and everybody loves the gnome from "Amelie". I'm not saying I've been holding my breath waiting for a gnome movie or it's even something which I've thought about at all. When you think about it though, how cool are gnomes? Especially the concept of them coming to life when the sun is down? Having a gnome in the garden is always fun, it's having a little man watch over everything when you aren't there to. It's something you can think about and make up their own stories. They are a fun concept. Keeping this in mind, it's interesting that the first gnome movie in years is based on Shakespeare.

So, I decided the Google gnomes and see what I came up with. Garden gnomes started popping up in peoples gardens in the 1930's as ornaments. Their appearence has a resemblence to the seven dwarves featured in "Snow White And The Seven Dwarves". Disney does it again by showing the effect it has on everyday society! The most shocking discovery was not where they came from or anything in the words. I came across a photo of two gnomes which were doing the naughty deed! And that was on the first display page when I typed in gnomes, I didn't go looking for trouble. It almost makes me a bit worried to look any further as gnomes may not be as clean fun as what I thought they were! What gnomes do when the sun goes down may not be as clean natured and may not be something we all need to know that much.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
Like the first gnome we see in "Gnomeo And Juliet" says when he appears on the screen, "The story you are about to see has been done before. A lot..." Yes, yes it has. The story of "Romeo And Juliet" has been done in many different ways many times. One would think that gnomes playing out this version would be adorable, comical and as original as it could be. It is.... a bit, but not a great deal. "Gnomeo And Juliet" is cute and fun, but otherwise quite flat. It plays out in much the same way as people would expect a film based on Shakespeare's tragic love story would. The houses of Montague( the Blues) and Capulet (the Reds) are adjacent houses in suburban England where the owners don't get along, and neither do the gnomes who live in the garden. By chance, the Blue Gnomeo and Red Juliet meet in the land in between their houses and it is love at first sight despite their differences. Gnomeo and Juliet defy their elders by seeing each other, but things are complicated a great deal when one of the Red's is killed in a duel involving Gnomeo and their lawn mowers.

"Gnomeo And Juliet" tries hard to be a blockbuster. It has a stellar cast who have donated their vocal talents for this film and one Elton John who has donated his music and is also executive producer. It tries hard to be original, but that is all it is doing. The film just lacks and doesn't create any lasting impression. It is extremely forgettable and is one of those films in which you leave the cinema after it is finished, and then a few hours later can barely remember that you have seen it. The visuals are great, but they are not spectacular. The screenplay is nothing special, although there are some funny one-liners throughout the film. It's not even entirely clear as to whether "Gnomeo and Juliet" is supposed to be a children's animation or not. It has the simplicity of a children's film, but has many jokes and themes that would not be understood by children.

However, there is a certain amount of creativity to the film. The creation of the gnome garden worlds are certainly clever. Such as their obsessions with lawnmowers on the world wide web, the outside world and their garden friends. The characters are colourful and fun. Gnomeo and Juliet themselves are probably the two most boring characters throughout the film, as they are challenged by Featherstone the flamingo, Nanette the frog, the Red Good Gnomes and Fawn (voiced by Ozzy Osbourne). One of the fun parts of the film is keeping your eye our for Shakespeare references, which pop up along the way and will be easier to find for those who are familiar with Shakespeare's life and his drama.

The problem with "Gnomeo And Juliet" is that it is not quite sure what it is. It is clearly trying to be a gnome version of "Romeo And Juliet", but it lacks the emotion. It is not quite sure who it's target audience is and it is just trying too hard to be successful. There are some good points about the film, but the aspects of a film which make it successful overall are just not there. It is an extremely light and moderately fun watch. A film you would love to remember, but it doesn't help you to do so.
5/10

The Wolfman

The Wolfman
Year: 2010
Director: Joe Johnston
Cast: Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, Hugo Weaving

Can an unoriginal film ever be classified as a great film? That is the question posed with “The Wolfman”. It can definitely be a good film, but nothing that is worthy of the highest praise. Of course, there are always exceptions, but “The Wolfman” does not feel as though it is. However, it is by no means a bad film. Joe Johnston does a great job at making a well made film out of an idea that has been done over and over in the past 100 years of film. In this 2010 version of “The Wolfman” (there have been numerous films relating the werewolves and wolf men over the years, too many to list here), Lawrence Talbot (Benicio del Toro) returns to his childhood town of Blackmoor in England to investigate the death of his brother. He is confronted with his father (Anthony Hopkins), who had a large hand in contributing to his disturbing childhood and also some disturbing revelations about himself and his family. There is no guessing what those revelations are.

On the whole, “The Wolfman” is very well made. The recreation of turn of the century England is extremely impressive and makes for a perfect period piece. The visuals of the film in each scene are captivating and aesthetically pleasing. A horror period piece is not a common breed of movie, as one only comes out every few years, and it is exciting to see the most recent perfect the period visually. The script isn’t bad and also captures the period piece, but the story is a typical werewolf story. It is highly predictable and can be quite silly. But these two criticisms are true to the film’s genre. The criticisms of the film are criticisms that could be applied to any film of its genre and any werewolf film both past and present. However, again, it is a good film for its genre.

The role of Lawrence Talbot for Benicio Del Toro is in some ways a different role to what he is typically seem playing. Del Toro takes on the gentleness of the grieving Talbot to begin with well, which is a change from the usual harsh quality of his roles. In some ways, he feels miscast as Sir John Talbot’s son, until he makes his transformation to the monster of the film. It is then obvious to see why he was cast in this role as physically, he is perfect for the role. “The Wolfman” is by far not Anthony Hopkins best role of his career, and is almost forgettable, if it wasn’t for some unsettling moments. Emily Blunt performs well, as she does in period dramas. Blunt is one of those rare young actresses who can successfully pull off characters from any time in history, although her role as Gwen here is like a non-regal version of the young queen she played in “The Young Victoria”. Hugo Weaving is a standout in the film in the role of Abberline. He is dark and sarcastic, but his wit makes him strangely endearing.

“The Wolfman” is definitely enjoyable to watch and if you take it as a horror film with the classic werewolf character, it is not a bad film at all. However, if you are expecting a suspenseful film with an ending that is surprising, there is a disappointment in store. “The Wolfman” is a highly anticipated film release and lives up to its expectation.
6.5/10