Source Code

Source Code

Year: 2011

Director: Duncan Jones

Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga

In My Own Words

Jake Gyllenhaal is in the position that many, many actors would love to be in. How many actors are typecast in a particular role and can’t seem to break that ice? Gyllenhaal doesn’t have that problem at this stage in his career. It must be a great feeling to know that you can do any genre and any role you feel like, while others feel like they cannot venture outside the roles they are known for as it is too much of a risk, and for fear that nobody will want to see them in these roles. Let’s look at his last few roles. There is of course his role in “Source Code”, which is an action thriller and his role before which was in the romantic comedy, “Love And Other Drugs”. The lead role in Disney’s action adventure fantasy, “Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time” and the brother of a troubled American soldier in the drama, “Brothers”. He has been acclaimed for each one of these roles. He has done many other different roles over his 20 year career. He is a lucky man to have so much freedom with his choice of roles, he will never get bored of what he does as long as he is able to do so many different roles. Well, at least we hope not!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

“Source Code” is the breath of fresh air that the action thriller genre has been waiting for. 2011 has not bought anything new and surprising to the table for the action thriller genre until now. “Source Code” resembles a cross between an Alfred Hitchcock film and “Groundhog Day”, a combination which, thanks to the creative choices of Duncan Jones, works and works well. There is suspense from the word go and surprises along the way with impressive special effects, the exact elements which make up a successful action thriller.

Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up on a commuter train heading towards the city of Chicago in a body which isn’t his own and without any recollection of how he got there. He is accompanied by Christina (Michelle Monoghan), who believes he is teacher, Sean Fentress. While Stevens is trying to figure out who he is, the train which he is on unexpectedly blows up, and he then finds that he is part of a project in which he is inserted into Sean Fentress’ body in 8 minute intervals to find out who planted the bomb on the Chicago train. Although the main object of the source code is to find the bomber, Stevens has different objectives in his mind.

If Hitchcock was alive and making films today, there is no doubt that “Source Code” would be a film he would make. The creepy music in the opening scene with a montage of trains is something which would have just been typical of a Hitchcock film, as well as the psychedelic images that link reality and the source code. While the images are reminiscent of Hitchcock and his film making, the story is completely original. Yes, it does have the déjà vu aspect of “Groundhog Day”, but it has a completely different story and is definitely well written. The “who done it” may not be too surprising to some, but there are other psychological twists and turns which keep the audience on the edge of their seats and guessing. The musical score and images all add to the overall intensity and suspense of the film.

Jake Gyllenhaal once again proves that he can do any role he wishes with putting in a great performance as the once helicopter pilot who is confused and frustrated with his situation. As well as there being the moments of intensity in his performance, there is also surprising emotional moments which show his acting versatility. The film revolves around him and he once again shows how he can hold his own as the lead star with perfect characterization and character-audience relationship. Michelle Monaghan is sweet as Christina, but there is no real substance to her role. There is really no risk involved in this role or any character development. Vera Farmiga is more impressive than Monaghan, but it is still not a ground breaking role. The decisions which should be emotional ones do not seem so. It is Gyllenhaal who is the main star and the one who, rightly so, makes the biggest impact in the film.

“Source Code” is a very entertaining and intriguing film. It keeps the audience’s full attention from the beginning to the end and is something new and not in the trend of Hollywood action thrillers.

8/10

Something Borrowed

Something Borrowed

Year: 2011

Director: Luke Greenfield

Cast: Ginnifer Goodwin, Kate Hudson, John Krasinski, Colin Egglesfield

In My Own Words

Hi, my name is Nicki and I am a fan of chick lit. Cue the "Hi Nicki". It's a girl thing, I know I am not the only closet chick lit addict out there. Personally I will read anything which is thrown at me, I love reading. Chick lit is perhaps the easiest type of reading there is next to children’s books. You will always catch me reading a book of this genre after I have read a fairly dramatic book and I need some light reading. Some of the chick lit authors who I happen to be a fan of are Marian Keyes, Sophie Kinsella, Weisberger and the pairing of Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus. There are many, many more great chick lit authors out there who have made a name for themselves and provide a good break from our lives in the form of the written word, but these are just my personal favourites.

So why is it that it is not often that a chick lit book adapted into a film is actually a success and an acclaimed film? I can think of more chick lit books which are a good read and successful on the bookshelves that are flops when it comes to a screen version, than are, as we so often hear, as good as the book. I’m not saying that all chick lit novels adapted are ridiculous films because this is not true at all. Just look at “The Devil Wears Prada”. Great book as well as a great film which earned Meryl Streep an Academy Award nomination and catapulted Emily Blunt into stardom. Yet, films such as “Confessions Of A Shopaholic” and today’s reviewed film, “Something Borrowed” are just messy and all over the place. The book versions flow from start to finish and are a load of fun, but the films are the opposite. They are pretty to watch with lots of fun things such as shopping, New York City and weddings thrown in which make every girl happy, but these things aren’t enough to make a good film. You watch the films thinking “If I actually read this, it may have worked”. I can’t understand why so many film makers fail to make a good girls film out of a book. The better “girl films” come from actual screenplays rather than novels.

If I am a girl and talking this way about my dislike for the majority of films adapted from chick lit, I only hate to think what men think about them!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

“Something Borrowed” has everything in it that makes a good girl’s film. It has romance, best girlfriends, the setting of New York City, parties, a wedding….sounds a lot like “Sex And The City” so far, doesn’t it? It has everything that makes a good girl’s film, only it isn’t a good film. It is messy and can be quite boring the way it shuffles along with no real direction or urgency. It is the pretty, girly themes and images which keep this film interesting over the slow 103 minutes, but of course it is only girls who will find this interesting. The majority of men who’s wife or girlfriend will drag them along to see this will be checking their watch every few minutes to count down till the moment they can run back to the world outside. “Something Borrowed” actually really could have been a lot more successful than what it has turned out to be, but director Luke Greenfield just made some really left field creative decisions which haven’t paid off.

Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin) and Darcy (Kate Hudson) have been best friends for as long as they can remember. Rachel has always felt that she has always been in the shadow of centre of attention Darcy, especially now since Darcy is engaged to Rachel’s old law school buddy, Dexter (Colin Egglesfield). One night after her 30^th, Rachel reveals to Dexter that she used to have a crush on him and one thing leads to another. As the wedding gets closer, Rachel and Dexter become closer without Darcy knowing. Rachel battles with her inner demons knowing that she is in love with an engaged man, and that she is in danger of hurting and losing the best friend she has ever had.

Possibly the worst creative decision for this film was the idea to have the film start in present day and then have flash backs to the college days of Rachel and Dexter. The diving into the conflicted situation in the present day doesn’t create any shock or any other emotion for that matter. No character development or any type of relationship between the movie and the audience has been established so how there is supposed to be any feeling associated with what they are seeing on screen? From there, going back and forwards just loses intensity of the situation of hand and leads to the unsteadiness and messiness of the film. Once Rachel and Dexter first kiss so close to the beginning of the film, it feels way too fast for the film. It is funny because it tends to drag in the middle of the film where it should be moving quicker and it moves too quick at the beginning of the film.

The best part about the film is the pretty images of New York City and the Hamptons. The themes are enough to keep the female audience interested and it does have some romantic, cute and fluffy moments. There are also some very funny lines and scenes throughout the film. Yet, these are just a set of moments which don’t really add to the story, they are all just there to make the film seem more attractive.

Ginnifer Goodwin is one of the only things which keeps the film bearable. This is Goodwin’s first lead role since her success playing Margene in “Big Love” and she proves herself by being extremely likable and sweet. After the diving in of her and Dexter’s first kiss, there is a great amount of character development for her Rachel. For the situation which she is in, the audience backs her in a situation in which people would rather back the man’s fiance. Kate Hudson is, on the other hand, not likable at all. Yes, it is planned that as Rachel is the one which the audience is rooting for, Hudson’s Darcy shouldn’t be as likable. Hudson is starting to fall victim of being typecast in the same roles we see her in in romantic comedies, so this role really does not seem like anything special. She comes across as annoying and even laughable in the scenes where she is in anger. Colin Egglesfield is also nothing to write home about. Nobody believes that he is really in love with Rachel and he just comes across as dopey and a silly little boy who has no idea what he wants. John Krasinki’s role as childhood friend Ethan is almost useless and it really is a wonder he was included in the movie at all. Obviously, he had a larger role in the novel and was to be kept in the movie to keep it true to the novel. He is actually a saving grace for the small part he plays and his comedy antics.

Unfortunately, there is not too many good things that can be said about “Something Borrowed”. It is quite a shame really as with a few different decisions in the making of the film, it may not have been a classic, but it would have been better than what it was. Thankfully, the decision to have Ginnifer Goodwin as the lead and have the film set in New York City (even if it was in the book) put some credibility into the film. Just a word of advice to the girls out there, keep the peace in your relationship and don’t take your man to see this. He won’t be happy with you and you will probably have to go and see that action film with him that you have been trying to avoid.

4/10

Fast Five

Fast Five ( Fast & Furious 5)
Year: 2011
Director: Justin Lin
Cast: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Jordana Brewster, Dwayne Johnson

In My Own Words
This was one of those films I didn't think I would enjoy. I've never been one who is really into cars  and honestly, a lot of the names of cars they spoke about in this movie they might as well have been speaking another language because I had no idea what they were talking about. I know I wouldn't be the only one who felt like this out here. Yet, "The Fast & The Furious" series is funny like that. It's not only people who love cars who see these films. It's got cars and action for the male audience and the "eye candy" for the female audience. How clever are the film makers? They have all bases covered! So if we talked about an action film about cars, and one did not know we were talking about "The Fast & The Furious", we would normally think that this would be primarily a boys film. Yet, they add a pretty male face such as that of Paul Walker and the muscle of Vin Diesel, and voila! We have a film that girls are going to flock to as well! Of course, these decisions were made 10 years ago when the first "Fast & Furious" came out, but actually watching the 5th installment as a critic made me realise that love or hate the films, first movie director Rob Cohen definitely know he was onto something!

And no, I never hated the films. They just happenned to be one of those things that reminded me of a bad stage in my life. Just like songs that you relate to a good or bad stage in your life, movies will do the same for me. For example, the first and second "Fast & Furious" were released at a bad stage in my life and were a favourite of some people who weren't too nice to me at that stage. Therefore, the films left a sour taste in my mouth. Thankfully that stage and those people are long gone now and this film has cured my allergy to them! On the other hand, films can also give you good memories. Take for example, "Disturbia". Not one of my all time favourites, but it always make me happy because I saw it for the first time when I was in Los Angeles for the first time. Also because I was lucky enough to be in Hollywood the night of it's premiere! I'm not saying I critique films purely on my personal and emotional experiences with it's release, as that could not be further from the truth! Yet, the thought of different films will always provoke different feelings for me based on what was going on in my life at the time.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
One would believe that once the 5th installment of a series of films comes along, the franchise should be losing it's intensity. "Fast Five" does everything but prove this theory correct. "Fast Five" is one of those action films that stays true to it's genre, there is no lack of action or special effects. Unlike many other action films, this one doesn't lack in the story. Sure it has it's moments where the script is quite corny and the acting dull, but it is able to carry the storyline through in a straight line from beginning to end with the action being welded into it.

 Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker) and Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) meet up again in Rio de Janeiro to try and win a life of freedom. They assemble a group of players in order to cut one of the countries richest businessmen of his fortune and take it for themselves. Of course, this is no easy task. They have to do so with Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and his hand picked agent, Elena (Elsa Pataky) watching their every move.

It is always a delight going into a film which you suspect will have no substance only to discover that the film in question is more than just impressive explosions and slick-looking cars. "Fast Five" is able to carry the story through from beginning to end and is one of those rare films where if you took all the action away, you will still have a fairly decent movie. Although it wouldn't be anything like what it is now and wouldn't be any near as interesting. However, the film does tend to have some moments where it feels like not much is happenning at all, which does detract from the overall suspense.

The cinematography and special effects are great, as are the sound effects which accompany these visions. Even if you know nothing about cars, they are very impressive and can do some amazing things. Although, there isn't as much of the film focused on the cars as such. The cars are just there as tools for the big mission. This is a good thing really, so those who are not big car fans can enjoy the movie rather than be bombarded with automobile references.The location shots of Rio de Janeiro are extremely impressive. The camera is able to grasp many different aspects of the city. It shows the beauty of the landscape, the brutality and danger of the residence and also the fast paced city life.

The lowest part of the film is the acting, but "The Fast & The Furious" movies were never supposed to put forward contenders for the Academy Awards so it can be forgiven. There really isn't any stand out performances in this film. Perhaps the best performance is from Jordana Brewster who plays O'Conner's partner and Torretto's sister, Mia. One scene in particular she is quite impressive in when she is trying to protect her brother. However, one has to wonder how a pregnant woman can jump through roof's and run through the streets of Rio. Dwayne Johnson's performance is very lame and his part very stereotypical of his acting range. Paul Walker and Vin Diesel may be the stars of the show, but their acting just mediocre.

"Fast Five" is an entertaining 130 minute action spectacular. Although very unrealistic just in the way a good action flick should be, it is suspenseful with extremely impressive visuals and special effects. One for the girls and boys.
7/10