Doctor Strange (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 115 minutes
Director: Scott Derrickson
Writers: Steve Ditko (comic), Scott Derrickson, Jon Spaihts and C. Robert Cargill (screenplay)
Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch, Rachel McAdams, Tilda Swinton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Mads Mikkelsen, Benedict Wong, Michael Stuhlberg, Benjamin Bratt, Scott Adkins

Doctor Strange is now in Australian cinemas and is distributed by The Walt Disney Company.

Doctor Strange brings a new brand of superhero to the Marvel universe who relies more on the power of the mind, spirituality and inner strength rather the traditional battle of the brawn and super-gadgets. Although visually spectacular with an exceptionally strong cast, Doctor Strange has a recycled plot not unlike other Marvel films and a less than satisfying finale.

Egotistical and arrogant genius neurosurgeon, Dr Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) feels like he has had his life ripped from him when a serious car accident leaves him with seemingly irreversible nerve damage to his hands. In a last desperate move to find a way to restore his body to the way it once was, he travels to Kathmandu where he believes he will receive help spiritually, but finds that he enters into a world of sorcery that is overseen by The Ancient One (Tilda Swinton). As Stephen opens his mind, he finds that this world is not all it seems and that he may be the one to protect it from the Dark Dimension.

Doctor Strange is a rather deceptive film. It is wrapped up very nicely to look as though it is a breath of fresh air to the Marvel Universe with a new type of superhero in a strange new world, when it really is an atypical superhero introduction film. It has rightly drawn comparisons to Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man as the two lead characters in both films have the same initial character traits and embark on the same journey of self-rediscovery after life-changing events. It is, of course, obvious that Dr Stephen Strange is going to become the hero of the story (hence the name of the film), yet the rest of the film is unpredictable, but unfortunately not in a good way. Spending the latter half of the film wondering where it is going is normally perceived as a positive, but not when the finale is met with the exclamation of "Was that it?"

However, the film's downfalls are disguised by it's breathtaking visuals and incredible special effects. Doctor Strange is a film that must be seen in 3D and on as big a screen as possible to be able to grasp how exquisite it truly is. The creation of an alternate dimension is sublime and beauifully original (although some scenes do replicate Christopher Nolan's Inception). The only criticism that can be said for the visual aspects of the film is that the make-up for Mads Mikkelsen as Kaecilius and his cohorts is rather lack lustre with the over-obvious use of glitter.

And while the story falters, the stellar cast do all they can to make the film work. Benedict Cumberbatch as Dr Stephen Strange is a perfect piece of casting. Cumberbatch has an extraordinary screen presence and dominates every scene he is in just like a hero is supposed to do. He brings his dry, but amusing sense of humour which, as always, works well for him and adds to the enjoyment of the film by living up the dialogue. Rachel McAdams also continues to further impress in her role as Strange's love interest, Christine Palmer. Always charming and likable, she actually does bring something new to the Marvel superhero love interest in that she is not the damsel in distress, but the voice of reason who is not as much in awe of Strange's new found powers, but more irritated at the absurdity he has brought to her life and career.

Doctors Strange could well have been just another run of the mill superhero film, yet the filmmakers have dressed it up to be something that seems original with it's extravagant visuals and solid cast who each bring something new to the film.

7/10

Spotlight (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 128 minutes
Director: Tom McCarthy
Writers: Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy
Cast: Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber, Brian d'arcy James, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Gene Amoroso, Jamey Sheridan, Neal Huff

Spotlight is now showing in Australian cinemas and is distributed by eOne.

Absolutely engrossing and the stunning example of story driven tension, Spotlight is a superb film with an incredible screenplay that brings to light terrible issues while not actually telling a story about them.

In 2001, members of The Boston Globe's Spotlight team were given the assignment of looking into allegations of child molestation by Catholic priests within the city and determining whether there was any evidence of a pattern among them. What they discovered over the year that they spent investigating and speaking to the victims was sufficient evidence of a cover up within the church on a much greater scale than they or anybody else could have ever imagined.

Spotlight is ultimately not a film about the actions of the Catholic Church and it's priests, although it will no doubt stimulate thought and conversation about the subject. It is a film about the journalists who were part of the Spotlight team and how they came to expose the cover up. So at it's core, Spotlight is essentially about investigative journalism and how it has the power to increase knowledge and awareness and bring about change.

Tom McCarthy's film is in the same class as All The Presidents Men, the 1976 film about the reporters who uncovered the Watergate scandal. Like All The Presidents Men, Spotlight will become a film for all journalists and journalism students to watch as it is not only an example of extremely good investigative reporting, but it is also what all journalists strive for, which is to put the pieces together and uncover something that nobody else has. Of course All The Presidents Men and Spotlight are extreme and very rare examples of what journalists can achieve, yet they remain inspiring for those who are in the profession.

The power of investigative journalism is at the heart of Spotlight, but again the actions of the Catholic Church are brought to light in the process. It is impossible not to be moved by the revelations that the Spotlight team make over the course of their investigation, but the wonderful thing is that it is not the witnessing of these atrocious acts that bring about emotion. It is all in the dialogue spoken by those who uncover the shocking information and by the victims telling their stories. There are no confronting visuals of the actual acts of molestation in the film. This may be comforting to some, but the truth is that the imagination can conjure up mental images that are just as frightening.

This is what makes Spotlight such a brilliant piece of work. It is not a film with a great deal of action, but it is it's story and dialogue that are so powerful that they create emotion, tension and suspense by themselves. The outcome of the investigation is inevitable, yet there is still a build up with a sense of heightened tension leading towards the conclusion.

While the film's strength lies in it's screenplay, it's visuals help support the story and say the things which aren't being verbalised. The investigation by the Spotlight team takes place over the course of a year and this time period is shown with the cinematography involving the changing of seasons. Visually, the film is very neat and refined. One particularly special moment of the film is at Christmas time, when all the main characters are shown in a montage that expresses how they are feeling accompanied by the sounds of children singing a Christmas carol. It is a rather haunting moment.

Spotlight is essentially about the team of journalists who uncovered something truly incredible and were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for their work. However, the film does not glorify the individuals or make them out to be heroes. They were just people going to work each day and doing their jobs. Despite this, the cast of Spotlight all give strong and memorable performances. Mark Ruffalo gives the most passionate performance as Mike Rezendes. His character's commitment demonstrates how the deeper into the investigation he got, the harder it was to not get emotionally involved. Michael Keaton stars as the head of Spotlight, Walter Robinson and gives a strong performance, but it is not one that requires much emotion or variation.

As Sacha Pfeiffer, Rachel McAdams gives the best performance of her career thus far. Her character develops the most throughout the film as she is the one who had the greatest connection to the church beforehand and her internal struggle while she sympathizes with the victims is rather moving. Stanley Tucci gives a very interesting performance as Mitchell Garabedian and although he is rather hostile, is intriguing to watch and has a great deal of character.

Spotlight demonstrates not only the power of investigative reporting when all the pieces come together, but how suspense and emotion can be achieved by superb storytelling and direction.

9/10

Aloha (2015) film review

Year: 2015

Running Time: 105 minutes

Director/ Writer: Cameron Crowe

Cast: Bradley Cooper, Emma Stone, Rachel McAdams, John Krasinski, Danny McBride, Bill Murray, Alec Baldwin, Jaeden Lieberher, Danielle Rose Russell, Bill Camp

 

Director Cameron Crowe made his latest film Aloha as a love letter to Hawaii and it is just that. A love letter to a beautiful part of the world which silently tells his audience that he was just desperate to make a film there and it didn't matter what sort of film. Aloha is a fine example of how trying too hard and not enough is possible in one film. Military man, Brian Gilcrest (Bradley Cooper) returns to Hawaii after more than a decade away and reconnect almost immediately with his now married ex-girlfriend, Tracy (Rachel McAdams) who he stood up in a most cold way. He is teamed up with Hawaiian born, Allison Ng (Emma Stone) who opens up Brian to a world he had neglected and helps him find happiness. He finds that old ghosts catch up with him quickly here and old acquaintances are not easy to forget.

 



Aloha is a wonderful travel advertisement for Hawaii. Cameron Crowe's love for the 50th state comes across loud and clear in this film so much that it feels as though everything else besides the visual representation is done at a mediocre level. The story is incredibly predictable and although there are some elements of originality in there, there is too much going on to pay attention and appreciate the creativity of one storyline when several unoriginal ones are also taking place at the same time. Likewise, it is hard to feel any connection and emotion in any of the film's sub-plots as they are all happening simultaneously and with little time and effort put into each one. This isn't helped by the characters being badly written so that no one can sympathize with them as they never truly feel as if they know them.

 

 

Everything in Aloha points to the explanation that Crowe was just desperate to make a film in Hawaii and that means any film. It feels as though he was so set on writing a film that is set in Hawaii that he only half developed everything else, including the depth of the characters and screenplay. Visually the film is very pretty, which is a feature that many will find attractive and be drawn to the film because of. It is rather atmospheric, but only in relation to the way white people are living there. The way the natives live on Oahu is not represented in a favourable light when it is seen in the film, which is seldom and although Crowe tries to work them into the film it does not seem like nearly enough.

 

Bradley Cooper has had a stellar run of film roles in recent years thanks to the wonderful scripts that have come his way. It will come as no surprise that Brian Gilcrest in Aloha is not one of these roles. Cooper does all he can, but Brian is such a badly written character who at the end of the day really has no idea who is so how is the audience expected to understand him or connect with him? He swings from being arrogant and obnoxious to being goofy and playful with no warning and although his background he should indicate a significant amount of depth, it is hard to take him seriously. Yet, the final scene is such a fine piece of work by Cooper and is his redemption.

 

Perhaps the biggest talking point of Aloha is the casting of Emma Stone as Allison Ng, the quarter Hawaiian and quarter Chinese love interest of Brian. Stone is a fine actress and has the quirky, but relatable personality which is highly marketable and cherished in Hollywood at this point in time. One cannot blame a film maker for wanting her to be in their film, but was Crowe craving her so much that he had to place her in a role that clearly wasn't meant for her? Performance-wise Stone does cross the line into the territory of over-exaggeration in an attempt to maintain her quirky comedic style so many have come to love. However, even if she was spot on it is incredibly hard to take her seriously when she talks of her heritage and her passion for the land and their customs because of her physical appearance.

 

The stand out among the performances is that of John Krasinski who plays Tracy's husband, Woody. The surprising thing is that Krasinski says only a handful of words throughout the whole film, but he is truly hilarious and proves that actions speak louder than words.

 

It is hard to decipher whether Aloha has the potential to be a better film than what it is. Cameron Crowe certainly has the ability to be a better film maker and the impressive cast have given much better performances in the past. Overall it is a mere disappointment, but the last ten minutes is a gem. It is just a shame you have to wait so long for it.

 

2.5/10

 



10 Years On: Mean Girls (2004)

Year: 2004
Running Time: 97 minutes
Director: Mark Waters
Writers: Rosalind Wiseman (based on the book "Queen Bee's and Wannabes" by) and Tina Fey (screenplay)
Cast: Lindsay Lohan, Rachel McAdams, Lacey Chabert, Amanda Seyfried, Tina Fey, Jonathan Bennett, Lizzy Caplan, Daniel Franzese, Amy Poehler

April 30 this year will mark the 10th anniversary of the release of Mean Girls. The film itself has become somewhat of a cult classic with it's wicked sense of humour, timeless themes and extremely quotable dialogue. The film is as relevant now as it was 10 years ago and although it has all the elements that would make it a teenage film primarily for girls, it reaches far beyond those boundaries. Mean Girls was responsible for making several of it's stars household names, including Lindsay Lohan, Rachel McAdams and Amanda Seyfried. With it's anniversary looming, taking a look back at the film reminds us why it was such a success when it was released and why it still remains a favourite of many.

Cady Heron's (Lindsay Lohan) first day of school is not like most people's. She has been home schooled while living in Africa with her parents her whole life, and her first day of regular school is as a sixteen year old. It's a complete shock to the system for Cady as she tries to learn the protocol of cafeteria dynamics at her new high school. She is quickly taken into the guidance of Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and Damian (Daniel Franzese), two misfits who are the most loyal of friends, and they give her the rundown on who is who as far as the cliques go at North Shore. The warn Cady to stay away from the Plastics, who are the most popular girls in school, but also the most evil. Yet, Cady is drawn into the world of teen queens, Regina (Rachel McAdams), Gretchen (Lacey Chabert) and Karen (Amanda Seyfried) and discovers that being one of them is better than to be in the Plastics hating life than not being with them.

Based on the book, "Queen Bees and Wannabe's" by Rosalind Wiseman, Mean Girls is a thoroughly entertaining look at the female dynamics of high school. The reason the film remains as relevant today as it did in 2004 is because the way females interact in high school is really timeless. There will always be the popular girls known as the Queen Bee's who are like the celebrities in every school that everyone wants to know everything about and want to be liked by. With every popular group of girls, there are always the groups which are "below" them, and Mean Girls doesn't forget about these girls either. The film is completely relatable to girls who are in the same age bracket as the ones in the film, but this doesn't mean it is just for teenage girls.

Mean Girls is a lot of fun for people of any age and not just for girls, also for boys. Boys may not be able to relate to the film as much as girls can, but will still be able to relate to it in that they will remember seeing all this happen around them. This isn't to say that all of the situations in the film are relatable, but it is no secret that girls can be extremely mean to each other and while they may not all actively plot to destroy each other's figures or get them in trouble with the headmaster, they can do some pretty horrendous things to one another. The screenplay written by Tina Fey, who also stars in the film as Mrs Norbury, allows people to see these high school dynamics in an extremely amusing fashion. The screenplay is wonderfully witty and funny. There are so many memorable quotes throughout the film which just seem to resonate in pop culture. The internet age also brought a new life to these quotes as there are various memes online with these sayings and people love to use these quotes in everyday conversation. Even though Regina did not believe "Fetch" was going to happen, it has indeed happened.

Along with the wickedly funny dialogue, the film maintains it's playful style with such scenes as the girls singing and dancing to "Jingle Bell Rock" and other acts at the talent show including Kevin Gnapoor's (Rajiv Surendra) rap and Damian's rendition of Christina Aguilera's "Beautiful". All the characters are so well defined and all individual. They are all very different and are all so in depth (unlike many characters in the typical teenage genre film) and wonderfully developed. The soundtrack is also perfect for the film, as it is playful and every song is used to accentuate the scene which it is used in.

Lindsay Lohan snagged a huge amount of fans after she appeared as Cady here. Not only was she perfect for the part, but she was just overwhelmingly likable. Her naivety in the first half of the film is so endearing and beautiful, that although she changes throughout the film, she still remains an audience favourite.  Her character development is purely perfection as it is gradual and not a sudden change in attitude that seems unrealistic. This was, and still is Lohan's best performance to date due to how much the audience empathizes with her and her persona.

Rachel McAdams is so wicked that she is great. Her Regina may seem completely shallow, but she is a complex villain due to her manipulation skills. You want to see her fall from her pedestal, but love watching her at her worst. It's a completely different role to what McAdams has done since then and is still her most believable and interesting. Lacey Chabert is a lot of fun, as is Amanda Seyfried, who like McAdams, has not done anything like this role since. Lizzy Caplan and Daniel Franzese both do well. They are two different characters who almost seem like one entity on screen and they are fantastic to watch together. Tina Fey does well, and Amy Poehler is hilarious as Regina's mother.

While it may be 10 years since we were first introduced to the cliques of North Shore High School, it doesn't feel like it as Mean Girls is as relevant now as it was then. It is hard to imagine that it would ever lose it's relevancy as as long as there is high school, there will be mean girls.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Year: 2011

Director: Guy Ritchie

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, Rachel McAdams, Jared Harris, Stephen Fry

Before I begin my review….

                Personally, I have so much respect for Robert Downey Jr.

My husband will tell you it is because of his looks that I say this. Don’t get me wrong, he is a very good looking man, but this isn’t the main reason I am such a fan. I think he is an amazing actor who brings his quirky streak to his performances and when you go to see a Downey Jr. movie, you know you are never in for a dull and lifeless performance.

                I also have tremendous respect for his marriage to Susan Downey. I love these two as a couple. Any footage of these two tells you that these two are the perfect type of couple, they are best friends who are clearly in love and infatuated with each other. Robert is always complimenting Susan and Susan is continuously glowing every time she looks at her husband.

                As we know, Downey Jr. has not always been the golden boy of Hollywood with several visits to jail and drug addiction in the late 1990’s. Yet, life just seemed to get better and better for him once he met producer, Susan Levin on the set of Gothika in 2003. The couple married in 2005 and Downey Jr.’s career started to take and upward turn not long after. I am not saying that Susan is the sole reason why his career has been so successful in the past few years, but it does no harm being in a happy and supportive relationship, especially when she is also the producer in the majority of his films.

                The happy couple are expecting their first child together this February and we wish them all the best!

Anyway, onto my review of Downey Jr.’s latest film, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows,

Review

                A sequel is a sequel, you can’t expect too much more than what you know a typical sequel is.

                This doesn’t mean that Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is a bad movie, it just puts the words into your mouth that you often hear after most sequels, “It wasn’t as good as the first”. Yet, do we expect it to be? If you normally think like this with a sequel, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. If you go in not expecting it to be as good as the first film and just appreciate it for what it is, you avoid disappointment and just enjoy what has been given to you.

                However, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is better than your typical sequel. Director, Guy Ritchie has bought across to the new film what made the first film work such as amazing cinematography and a killer score by Hans Zimmer, but has enhanced the comedic value of the film.

                In the second of the latest Sherlock Holmes films, Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his ever trusted companion, John Watson (Jude Law) are in pursuit of Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris), who Holmes believes is behind a series of disasters across Europe. Moriarty makes Watson and his new wife, Mary (Kelly Reilly) his target in response thus forcing Holmes to retaliate and set out to overthrow his plans to unleash havoc on all of Europe.

                There is no doubt that Ritchie knows how to direct a film. He proved the perfect choice for the first Sherlock Holmes and he has carried on into the second instalment what works. The film is very entertaining and is visually fantastic to watch. There are several “wow” scenes such as the chase through the woods. The editing and cinematography in such scenes as this are breathtaking.

                However, the story and script are nowhere near as strong as they were in the first film. This Sherlock Holmes doesn’t have the same air of mystery that a Sherlock Holmes story traditionally has, it is more an action film than a mystery. The story isn’t very strong and feels a bit jumpy at times.

                It also feels as though the script by Michele and Kieran Mulroney is trying to be a little too funny. What made the first Sherlock Holmes work was the subtle humour involved and the witty script. A Game of Shadows tries a little too hard and works too much on the comedy side rather than on a tight script and story. Granted, it is funny so it does work in that way and it does make it entertaining, but it would have been nice to have seen the focus shifted to a cleverly written script.

                However, the film’s story does strengthen towards the end and it is actually an ending most people will not see coming.

                Robert Downey Jr. is still perfect as the lead role in this film. He has the right amount of quirkiness, strength and belief in his character to bring Holmes to life and make him likable. Downey Jr. and Jude Law’s best friend/ partner in crime relationship peaks at the right time in the story and in the right ways. They feel distanced and without chemistry at the beginning when Watson is preparing for mystery retirement and marriage, but they work as one again by the end of the film.

                Noomi Rapace still looks a tad lost in the film and there really is no strength in her performance, even in moments where there should be.

                A great holiday movie and an above average sequel.

6.5/10

Sources
The Internet Movie Database
RadarOnline.com

Midnight In Paris

Year: 2011

Director:  Woody Allen

Cast: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen, Kathy Bates, Marion Cotillard, Carla Bruni, Adrien Brody

Before I begin my review…..

You know, there is a difference between thinking a film is a good film and truly liking it. Of course the two can usually come hand in hand with each other, but you can walk away from a film saying “Yes, it was good”, but it is different to walk away and saying “I really loved that film!”

Being a reviewer, I see many films that I know are great films and because I am a fan of great film, I do like them. Yet that doesn’t mean that I am going to put the film on my list of all-time favourite films.

On my list of favourite films, there are many films which I would consider great film, others which I know perfectly well won’t end up on any “Greatest Films Of All Time” lists…except mine. These are the films which you think are great films, but you have that extra emotional attachment to them because they strike an interest with you or you can relate to them.

Why am I talking about this? Because I loved Midnight In Paris! It is a good film, not one of the best films at the year or a contender for the Academy Awards (but I wouldn’t mind seeing it as one!), but it had a lot of me in it. I love the city of Paris, I loved all the literary and art maestro’s in the film and I love films that take you back to the glory days or yesteryear. Yes, I do want to live in Paris in the 1920’s. And if I do, I want to look and dress like Marion Cotillard.

Here is my review…

Review

It’s been a long time since Woody Allen has made a critically acclaimed film and you may have heard that Midnight In Paris is his best film in decades. You may like to know that this is true.

Woody Allen is completely back to form in Midnight In Paris. He has discharged the trends in the films he has made in the past 10 years which were still selling cinema tickets, but clearly not working for him. Midnight In Paris is subtle but charming and very sweet. It is almost like a modern day fairy tale with the all-important moral of the story at the end. New territory for Allen, but it works.

                Hollywood screen writer, Gil (Owen Wilson) and his fiance, Inez (Rachel McAdams) are on a trip to Paris. Gil, who is struggling to write his first novel, falls in love with the city, while Inez is quite the opposite and doesn’t romanticize Paris the way her fiancé does, except if it includes her friends and in particular old flame, Paul (Michael Sheen). Gil decides to take a night walk back to their hotel while Inez goes out dancing, and he finds that Paris comes alive at midnight.

                It is completely obvious within the first five minutes that Allen is in love with Paris the same way he is with New York. His montage of Parisian landmarks and Parisian life is a wonderful way to set the scene and make the audience fall in love with the city.  His cinematography of the city is loving and beautiful.

                People who are not fans of Allen’s past work will still enjoy Midnight In Paris, as it is completely different from the majority of his films. It hasn’t got the same “weird” vibe as most people describe his films as having. It is a load of fun, and helps if you know a bit about great writers and artists of the early twentieth century to make it all the more fun. Some people may find it all just a bit silly and the concept completely ludicrous, but there is no doubt it is entertaining.

                The script is very clever for a subject which is actually quite simple when it comes down to it. The concept of going back in time is not a new one, but it seems completely fresh in this film and Allen does a wonderful job of recreating both turn of the century Paris and 1920’s Paris.

                What the best thing about Owen Wilson’s role in this film as opposed to his past roles, is that he comes across a lot more natural than usual. He is often criticised for giving forced roles where she seems like he is trying too hard to be funny, but here he is just completely at ease. He gives one of his best performances in years.

                Wilson and Rachel McAdams are completely mismatched on screen, which means that they have achieved their objective. Unfortunately, she is not quite as believable as the hard to handle fiancé. She seems like she still really wants to be nice so her performance does feel forced.

                Alison Pill and Tom Hiddleston are a real treat as Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald and Adrien Brody is hilarious as Salvador Dali. Marion Cotillard is charming as usual and completely at home in her city of Paris.

                A wonderful treat, especially for those who love Paris.

8.5/10

Morning Glory

Morning Glory
Year: 2010
Director: Roger Michell
Cast: Rachel McAdams,Diane Keaton, Harrison Ford, Jeff Goldblum, Patrick Wilson

In My Own Words
I was starting to get worried about Rachel McAdams. I became a fan of her's when I watched "Mean Girls" for the first time. She was perfect as the perfect mean girl Regina. Then she did a 360 degree turn and appeared as the soft, beautiful, loving Allie in "The Notebook". It was like she had completely exploded onto the scene and eeveryone knew who this new girl was. She could play the good girl and the bad girl and do both well. Since her new found stardom back in 2004, she has only done 9 films in 6 years, which is unusual for a young, bright star as they try to strike while the iron is hot. However, in the last two films she went downhill. She tried her hand as Sherlock Holme's flame in 2009 in "Sherlock Holmes" as Irene Adler, but it wasn't her best choice of role. However, in her defense, she didn't get as much screen time as what she normally recieves so it wasn't as easy to make an impact. In 2009's "The Time Traveller's Wife", she once again played the young girl in love as Claire. Again, it was far from her best and there was nowhere near as much emotion in her performance as Ally. Was it the downfall of McAdams?

Thankfully, with the release of "Morning Glory", the answer is no. "Morning Glory" is McAdams first venture where she is the lead actor and is supported by Diane Keaton and Harrison Ford. She shines in the role as Becky. It is her most natural role to date and she can definately carry a film herself. With a smile like her's which light's up the screen, how can you not be happy for the Canadian born actress? Her next film is the Woody Allen directed film, "Midnight In Paris" with a talented cast of Martin Sheen (her rumoured new boyfriend), Adrien Brody, Kathy Bates and Marion Cotillard.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
It's been a long time coming, but in "Morning Glory", Rachel McAdams finaly gets her chance at being the first billed and lead star of a film. And she shines in her best and most relatable role in years. "Morning Glory" is a fun, light piece of entertainment which is refreshing and funny. It is not and not going to be included in the whitewash of Oscar buzz related films being released at this time, but this can be a good thing as you can watch the film and just relax. Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams) has donated all her adulthood to her career in television production, specifically morning television. Her life comes to a halt when she is sacked from her job in New Jersey. Becky scores a job at New York televison station, IBS on their morning show, Daybreak. On her first day, she sacks the lead male anchor and decides she would like to hire long time news reporter, Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford) to co-host Daybreak with Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton). Working on Daybreak is a nightmare for Becky because of Mike's notorious bad attitude and failing ratings. When Becky is informed by boss, Jerry Barnes (Jeff Goldblum) that her show is in danger of being axed, she takes matters into her own hands and makes some changes.

"Morning Glory" starts off very blandly and for awhile doesn't look like it will amount to anything.The script is dull and lifeless and there are really no giggles. Yet, with the point in the film when Becky makes a change, the film also makes a change. Suddenly from that point in the film, it becomes a lot funnier and the script actually improves dramatically. When Becky starts to get weatherman Ernie Appleby ( Matt Malloy) and Colleen to do segments out of the ordinary, the movie becomes a lot more fun and the script becomes a lot wittier. Yet, there really is no suspense throughout the film and no feeling of real hope that Becky and her crew succeed. There is a real feeling of disconnection between the film and the audience and at no time do you forget that you are watching a film. This isn't completely unusual, but you don't become emotionally invested in the film at all. It is just a piece of enjoyable fluff entertainment.

Rachel McAdams is a natural in this film. She plays the role of Becky with complete ease and is extremely likable. Granted this isn't a very hard role to play, but she still does it to the best fo her ability and no one could have played the role as well as she did. This isn't Diane Keaton's best role, although she is very funny. It is completely obvious she is acting and isn't very natural this film, which is unusual because that has been one of her strong point in past movies. Harrison Ford is again quote dull in the first half of the film and he becomes a lot more interesting a character after the breakthrough. He is especially likable in the final television piece scene. However, the film makes it out that Mike and Becky have a special bond, which is extremely unbelivable as there certainly seems like there is absolutely no connection watching them. One would expect McAdams and Ford to have a father-daughter relationship, yet they have absolutely no on screen chemistry. Yes McAdams does give him teary eyed looks, but the way they interact is completely disconnected from each other.

"Morning Glory" is Rachel McAdams moment in the spotlight and she is just delightful. The film itself is light and fun and great entertainment for the family.
6.5/10

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes
Year: 2009
Director: Guy Ritchie
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams

In My Own Words
Everyone knows the basics of “Sherlock Holmes”. He is a British detective who has an offsider named Watson. That’s pretty much my extent of my knowledge of Sherlock Holmes. I love reading, but have never read a Sherlock Holmes book. Upon seeing this film, I was expecting a bit of a background about Holmes, or maybe even a beginning point where Holmes becomes a detective. This is not what the film is about. It throws you in the deep end of a Holmes story and expects you to understand everything and everyone in it. This is not always a bad thing, as a little mystery in a film is a good thing. However, too much mystery can be messy.

Upon researching a bit more once I got home, it turns out that Sherlock Holmes’ creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle actually does not disclose much about Holmes’ world outside his detective work. He does not write much about his family, his past education or his love life. So this film can be forgiven for its lack of character development. Yet, I still believe that a director such as Guy Ritchie could find a way of including some type of subtle character development, whether or not it be through words. Perhaps he was just trying to stay true to the books, as many directors who are adapting novels into movies do. One thing is certain, there must be a sequel to this film, as too many questions are unanswered here for there not to be. We can only hope so anyway, or it will be one of those films I will be thinking about for years to come, still trying to figure out why certain things were there in the movie. Such as, does Watson’s betrothed, Mary, really look a bit suspicious, or is it just me? Or was Irene Adler constructed so basically because she is to have an unravelling or character in the future? These are the things I am wondering about anyway.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
The highly anticipated “Sherlock Holmes” will delight many, but disappoint many others. The film ultimately does what it sets out to do, which is entertain the audience. It is nothing short of entertaining with its special effects and action sequences, but it does certainly lack substance in certain areas, in particular, that of character. “Sherlock Holmes” opens with the legendary Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his partner, Dr John Watson (Jude Law) stopping the evil Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) from taking the life of a sixth young woman by using his black magic. Lord Blackwood is sentenced to death and hung, but somehow comes back to life. Holmes is once again called upon to stop Blackwood, who also has a keen interest in Holmes.

First and foremost, this film is thoroughly entertaining. The special effects and the story will keep audiences entertained and capture their attention for the whole time. There are some stunning visuals of London in the 1800’s and the period is perfectly captured by director, Guy Ritchie. It is obvious that this film has been made by Ritchie, as it contains dark humour and has a rough edge to it. It also contains a few fighting scenes which are reminiscent of his earlier films. He does do a good job, but there are quite a few criticisms of this film. Firstly, there is not much character development and many things that do not seem to make sense. As a stand alone film, it does not work quite so well. Ritchie assumes that the audience knows who Holmes, Watson and Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) are, and does not attempt to give the audience a helping hand as to find out where these characters have come from and why they are the way they are, and why they have these relationships with each other. Apparently, the Sherlock Holmes creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, was not a fan of the retelling of each of the characters and their personal stories in his novels, so Ritchie may be forgiven for making this choice in his film, as he stayed true to the novels. However, many audience members will be sure to feel lost, as they would not have heard much about these characters before seeing this movie. The film does also leave room for a sequel, as there are unanswered questions both during the film and at the end of the film.

Robert Downey Jr. does definitely shine as Sherlock Holmes. He is quirky and puts a new spin on the traditional Sherlock Holmes, making him more rugged and comical. He is also extremely likable. Jude Law is also perfectly cast as Watson. The two actors compliment each other on screen and play off each other. The characters are both witty and quick, making their relationship interesting and humorous. The screenwriters must be complimented for the way they have written the relationship between Holmes and Watson. However, Rachel McAdams does not shine. She does not seem suited to the role of Irene Adler. One would expect, as she is said to be a criminal, for her to be far more devious in nature and bordering on the femme fatale role, rather than just plain. There does not seem to be much depth to her character and can in fact be quite boring at times. There are moments throughout the film where it is unclear why she is even there. Adler and Holmes were supposedly madly in love with one another once up a time (or, we suspect this, but there is not spark or on screen chemistry between her and Holmes. There is suggestion towards the end of the film that if there is a follow up, she may have a bigger role then, but her role is almost useless in this film. It would seem that Kelly Reilly, who plays Watson’s fiancé Mary, would have been more suited to the role of Irene Adler than McAdams.

Overall, “Sherlock Holmes” does what it sets out to do, entertain. It is witty and clever, and people will be excited to learn of all of Holmes detective methods, but the connection to the characters may not be there as much as one would hope.
6.5/10

The Time Traveler's Wife

The Time Traveler’s Wife
Year: 2009
Director: Robert Shwentke
Cast: Eric Bana, Rachel McAdams

In My Own Words
Another film I had been looking forward to for a long time. I read “The Time Traveler’s Wife” at about this time last year while I was travelling in the USA. I really enjoyed the book written by Audrey Niffenegger. Although, I knew two things going into the movie. One was, the movie is very rarely as good as the book, so my expectations weren’t too high. Two, I knew it would be really hard to carry out a lot of the things in the book on the screen. So before going into the movie, I was guessing a lot of the ways in which director, Robert Shwentke would translate. Oh…and I was also expecting some tears! Especially if Rachel McAdams was able to carry out the same sort of performance she gave in “The Notebook” back in 2004. I was impressed with the casting of her and Eric Bana in the lead roles as the physically resembled the images I had seen of Henry and Clare in my mind whilst I was reading the book.
However, there were no tears. The trailer was a bigger tear-jerker than this movie. I don’t like crying, but crying in a movie is sometimes a good thing as it symbolizes the movie making emotional connection with the audience. In other words, a success! There was also many unanswered questions at the end of the movies for those who had not read the novel. So, you can see in which direction I will be going with this review.
These are my words and this is my review.

Review
Based on the best-selling novel by Audrey Niffenegger, “The Times Traveler’s Wife” is ultimately about the love between the time traveler, Henry and Clare. Henry has a genetic disorder that enables him to involuntarily travel back and forwards in time, which obviously causes strain on his relationship with Clare, who has to cope with his unexpected absences and unwelcome surprises. Fans of the novel would have been eagerly awaiting the release of this movie. However, like many movies based on novels, it does not reach the same heights and emotions that the book does. It was inevitable that “The Time Traveler’s Wife” was going to be turned into a romantic drama on the big screen and it was also inevitable that it would be difficult to be successful, but this interpretation has not done it much justice at all.

The direction of Robert Schwentke is, for one, commendable in this film. The locations in Chicago and the sets used are perfect for the film. Each scene is well edited and the special effects are also well done. There really are some beautiful images in the film, such as those of open meadows and falling snow. However, this is as far as the brilliance goes. The main thing that is missing from the film is the emotion. One would consider a film in which a woman is constantly losing and missing her husband and goes through several other traumatic experiences to be a tear jerker of sorts. However, there are few moments that the audience actually connects with the film and feels and emotional connection with the characters and their situations. Even the end, which should not leave a dry eye in the house, is lack lustre and not as heart warming as it should be. This is the major downfall of the movie. As said before, “The Time Traveler’s Wife” was always going to be a hard novel to convert to a movie, but the movie should pull emotion just with the same subject content.

The acting is also disappointing, which is a shame considering it is Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams in the lead. Bana is not bad as Henry, but he still could have taken the role much further, as is the case with co-star McAdams. The best acting throughout the whole movie from McAdams is right at the very beginning when she see’s Henry for the first time in the library. Her face completely fills with happiness and makes one excited about what is yet to come. The two look perfect on screen as Henry and Clare, yet there is very little character development and they do not succeed in gaining any empathy from the audience.

Overall, “The Time Traveler’s Wife” was a disappointment. Perhaps it will be more of a disappointment to those who have read rather than to those why are flying blind when entering the cinema. So much more could have been done with this film than was. Maybe the movie will be remade in another few years and will be more of a success then.

5/10