Dramas
24hr party people is a film based on facts about Tony Wilson, the founder of Factory Records, and his influence in the Manchester music scene.
24hr Party people is a clever and witty film based on the true story of the rise of dance music in Manchester around 1980.
It is told and part narrated through the eyes of Tony Wilson-the founder of Factory records with bands such as Joy Division and Happy Mondays to its name.
Tony, inspired by a sex pistols gig, dedicated himself into making a venue for inspiring musicians to play at. It follows the rise and falls of the bands, the producers, Tony himself, and most importantly the music.
This film gives a great sense of pop culture in 1980s Manchester. The movie revolves around the music, the characters are not single handedly focused on, so it doesn't feel like another boring movie about fame and fortune.
The scenes often vary between Tony talking to the camera, and part imagination, in a comical clever fashion. I thought it gave the movie extra added interest.
The camera captures the underground music scene of Manchester as you follow Tony on his adventure to success.
The music of this film is urban 80s, popular rock, indie and dance. Bands such as Sex Pistols, Buzzcocks, The Clash, and ofcourse Joy Division (New Order) and Happy Mondays. Music for the city, from the city Manchester.
Tonys character was one I liked, you could see he was perfect for the job, even with how arragant and serious he could be, he showed a sassy sense of humour, which engaged the audience in laughing with him.
The rest of the cast, played by well known British actors, were acurate in their performances, from the dealers to the band members to the girlfriends and the producers, and the very tight group of friends that Tony worked with.
This film looked predictable at first, a movie about music and drugs. After watching it I've discovered a deep apriciation for that early music scene and culture in Manchester during the 80s. The movie is still about music and drugs, but it goes to prove that there's more behind it, and when it started it was really something.
A movie about the tormented singer, Ian Curtis
Control is a movie about the ex-Joy Division singer, Ian Curtis, who unfortunately took his life at the tender age of 23 years old. It was a complex and perceptive film, that is vivid in his sensitive nature and the affect that fame and fortune can have on someone, who was quite timid and not prepared for the responsibilities in life.
The film showed that how acting on impulses can be detrimental. He met his girlfriend, who was at the beginning of the movie his mate’s girlfriend, then he made the move, fell in love and proposed to her at the drop of a hat. For someone so young and shy it was a bold move to make. There are other instances in the movie where he makes some bold moves, that come to hurt him in the future. We get a glimpse of the frivolous nature of the music industry, and how it’s ruled by managers and their contracts that are forced upon bands and musicians.
This is evident early in the movie when Ian Curtis is disgusted by the fact that when his band’s cd is plugged on TV it hardly gets a mention. “The only way we are going to get recognised is for us to get on that show and that’s it!” he responds angrily. The next scene is poignant once again in the fact that we see Curtis being “curt” with the tv presenter presenting a card saying that “Joy Division thinks you are c**t,” which eventually sways his decision to put the band on his show.
Then enters the stereotypical “smooth talking” band manager who constantly takes his share of the money from the band, and dwindles it away. The modulating mood of the film aligns well with the strong themes and screenwriting genius. The movie fantastic in its raw and intense nature and the soundtrack is an eclectic mix of tunes to fit the retro musical era.
There are other views and values that follow the fall of Ian Curtis, and these are wonderfully portrayed by the actor. We see that he rushes into marriage, then his work, then the pitfalls of having epilepsy, and then the final blow of adultery affecting his marriage. To think that Ian Curtis is 23 years old when he eventually commits suicide, as he finally doesn’t feel omnipotent anymore, even though everyone idolises him so much.
The screenwriting and dialogue is fantastic and has an acerbic wit. Some of the most hilarious lines come from the band members themselves. Anniki, the reporter who Curtis eventually has an affair with, asks the band members what they think of the band called the “Buzzcocks”, and one of the members who continual line through the movie has the perfect timing, responds for at least the third time that he thinks it’s offensive because it has the word “cock” in it. This joke carries on throughout the movie, like when before Joy Division are to play on live on TV they are told not to use any swear words, and that “arse” classifies as a swear word. Unreasonable to most of the band members, Curtis negates the fact that it doesn’t really matter as he only cares about getting on the TV. The irony comes when the TV presenter announces the band on live TV as: “Just like The Buzzcocks this is Joy Division…”
I suppose you have to see it to enjoy it, but this actor’s indiscretion throughout the film is one of the highlights. Other members of the band are quite amusing. Like Curtis they are shy and innocent and the lead guitarist is one that is continually shown as a weak character. He gets a cold whilst travelling to a gig in London, grips onto his sleeping bag, and then a fight entails between him and Curtis. It is from this scene that we see Curtis suffer from his first epileptic fit, which worries the band. The lead guitarist by far the closest and most sensitive person towards Curtis, and even when he is quite unwell and has troubles with his marriage, he allows him to stay his house.
It is a tragic story to say the least, yet the powerful images and acting are definitely highlights that music lovers would like to see. A particular scene that sums up the movie, as I think it is a movie about fate, mistakes, and impulsions by Curtis, is when he makes a phone call to his wife confessing that he has had an affair. The narrator then poses to the audience how one misjudgement in life can bring a whole feast of poor events.
We see this throughout with Curtis. His melancholy songs like romantic ballad “Love will Tear us Apart” and “She’s Lost Control” juxtapose his real life experiences, the former being that he is torn between his wife Debbie and his girlfriend Anniki, and the latter relating to Debbie who is confused over her relationship with Curtis.
We see that Curtis himself who seems lost throughout the film. He doesn’t like where he lives, he doesn’t love his wife, and he has demands from the band. No wonder he becomes so self-destructive. On top of this is his acceptance of his terrible condition of epilepsy. He feels a great deal of shame, and feels that people have high expectations of him. He is stuck between many things in his life, in other parts of the film. We see a young Curtis who works at an employment office by day; and by night is a lead singer of a well known band. His supervisor eventually gives him the flick from his work, and we see a Curtis whose mistakes and impulsions take over him.
His words to Anniki that: “I hate where I live, I am not in love with my wife…,” show a Curtis who never feels that he is wanted, and that doesn’t want to hurt those close to him. Towards the end of the movie, we see a sad tale of a talented musician who can’t cope with life’s challenges. The best parts of the film, the music, the parties and the dialogue are intermingled with vivid and intense scenes of relationships, fate, and confusion.
Overall it’s a very gripping film, well worth all its good reviews, that would be perfect for those who are music lovers, those who would like to relive such a fantastic musical era, or those who know nothing about Joy Division, and their front-man Ian Curtis, but are in for earnest and intriguing portrait of wasted talent.
Peter Najjar, Friday, 9 November 2007, 7:33 PM
A boy ventures into the wild to learn more about himself and others
Directed by Sean Penn, this movie captures the true story of a boy who journeys into the wild. Coming from a conservative background and having mixed feelings about his family, the boy decides to donate his college funds to Oxfam, fool his parents that he is going to college, and then ventures into the wide open world.
It is strange movie, as it asks many questions, ranging from good or bad parenting, individuality and taking risks, amongst other things. Yet the true theme that stands out is rebellion. We see a bright boy take his life into dangerous situations, purely because his parents we not good parents. Call it delusional or perhaps just his perspective that drives him to do this, but he does hold a grudge towards his parents.
As we seem him battling rapids, going over borders, and having not anything to drink and eat, the movie shifts backwards and forwards to how his parents are dealing with the fact that their son run away from everything. There is such agony in the images we see of them, and you have to ask yourself why he needed to do this. This issue is not so confusing in the film, as we see him telling his story in a logical manner, yet it seems illogical because every wrong move he seems to make him spiral down, and worse.
You have to ask yourself, if this wasn’t a true story, but just something fictional, then it wouldn’t really matter. Yet, rather than seeing him as a hero, I saw him as a fool. As a kid, and he is just a kid, because he is so naïve and too sure of himself, that he had so much going for him, and he wastes it by being resentful towards his parents. This is unfortunate, as we see some remorse, and it would have been tough for his parents to deal with.
This is not to say that this film was absolutely terrible and one that I wanted to walk out. Or that it was, more confronting than other films I have seen over the years. Yet, I am a harsh critic, and if the film had been directed by someone else other than Sean Penn, than I would have a different opinion.
Despite admiring Sean Penn for taking risks, and making many slow and painful films, I think this film falls short of a masterpiece, that could have been told another way. If the story was told by French filmmakers and less emphasis was smeared over the “poor parenting” forcing him into the wild, then this film would have been more successful. The French directors spend more time on characterisation, definition, dialogue and have better actors. The cinematography was good, and there are many touching moments in the film, especially when the young boy spends time with the old man. These scenes are poignant and tear-jerking, yet the old man shines more than the young boy.
But, I was upset because I had a “here we go again” and “just another cliché” about being upset about the “Joneses” or white picket fences that so often we have seen in American films over the years, like in American Beauty. I’ve asked other people’s opinions on the movie and they enjoyed it. Some of the people asked had watched David and Margaret, who surprisingly gave the movie five stars, so this must have a huge impact on their liking towards the film. Who knows though? David and Margaret could have had monetary incentives in giving the film five stars, I suppose the only way to find out is to check their bank statements.
How can we though? Given that they liked the film so much, they have probably donated their money to Oxfam, and gone into the wild themselves!!!
An epic beauty let down only by its two fashionable leads.
Joe Wright's second feature film (after 2005's Pride & Prejudice) has its leading lady in common with his first and this, unfortunately, is my main bone of contention with his otherwise superb movie. For me, at least, her clipped English accent is unconvincing and contrived. In interviews she has herself stated that she enjoyed the reversion to a 30's/40's-style of acting and, in particular, the Brief Encounteresque bullet-like speech patterns - but this is so affected that it's borderline parody. I'm not a fan of the wartime posh English accent at the best of times and it has put me off many an adaptation of a classic children's book (stand up Chronicles Of Narnia)- but for a modern lesson in 'how to', Ms Knightly could have done a lot worse (and she did) than to sudy Kristin Scott Thomas' perfomance in The English Patient.
James McAvoy's accent also seems a little confused but, as his character is a social climber, we can let that one slide.
I am not obsessed with accents, by the way, I just think that the casting of these two of-the-moment actors was a mistake. Clearly not as far as the box office and press/public interest were concerned, but just in terms of authenticity. Keira Marmite-of-the-British-film-industry Knightly's appeal has always been a mystery to me but I have long been a fan of James McAvoy's work - which makes it all the more disappointing to see him miscast here. His performance is not without its merits and it utilises two of his best talents as an actor - working with children and crying - but the script, at times, insists on him (and Knightly) spouting the kind of contrived, wannabe-classic dialogue that only ever sounds good on trailers.
What makes these two performances all the more grating is that every other character is played spot on. Saoirse Ronan (pronounced SER-SHA, apparently) is a revelation as the young Briony and I was shocked to discover that she's Ameican/Irish - her accent's better than Keira Knightly's for gawd's sake. A special mention should also go to the criminally overlooked Romola Garai as the 'middle' Briony. Her role is critical in understanding the guilt and torment that leads to the film's title - and all of this she conveys with eyes and expression alone (now THAT'S acting, Keira).
Atonement the movie, though, is bigger than the sum of its acted parts and so a little hammy delivery of melodramatic dialogue can be forgiven - and some might even welcome it from an epic of this stature (Gone With The Wind would have been forgotten by now without it). Joe Wright's direction is confident, authentic, sympathetic and quite beautiful; even the obligatory extended tracking shot (here of soldiers awaiting evacuation on the beach at Dunkirk) is so effective that you almost forget about the artistic contrivance of such a lengthy take.
Seamus McGarvey's cinematography too is excellent - from the muggy sunlight of the film's first chapter (you can almost feel Keira Knightly's dress sticking to her as she tries to cool off on the damp grass) to the incessant fog of war in the second.
The score by Dario Marianelli brings to mind Philip Glass' work on The Hours with its economical yet memorable melody lines, sparse piano/string arrangement and evocation of melancholy (interesting that Joe Wright chose to use that film's cinematographer here) but is given a sense of urgency by the use of a typewriter as a driving rhythm section. At first this grated and felt a bit like "okay, we get it - this whole story pivots on the use of the written (typed) word" but I grew to appreciate its effectiveness and even enjoy it's punchy punctuation.
Christopher Hampton (perhaps best known for his excellent English-language adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses for stage and screen) has written a decent script - those trailer-friendly lines aside - that works particularly well both in establishing the characters and their motivations at the beginning of the film and at the end, where Vanessa Redgrave delivers (in the guise of a TV interview) an effective speech-cum-summation which, in the hands of a lesser writer, might have felt clunky and overstated.
This film is something of a modern classic - certainly more English Patient than Pearl Harbour - and Mr Wright has every right to feel proud of his achievement. I eagerly anticipate the release of his next film The Soloist - not least because it doesn't feature any Marmite. I hate Marmite.
Based on A True Story
The Bank Job tells the story of a group of friends who take the opportunity to rob the vaults of a bank in London. Terry (Statham) is approached by an old friend (Burrows) who claims to know someone in security who has told her that due to a problem with the trains setting the alarms on they wont be on for awhile. He soon persuades his friends to join in with the robbery. What they don’t know though is that Martine’s friends does not work in security. He actually works for the Government and he wants them to retrieve damning photos of a member of the Royal family from Michael X, a troublesome Jamaican revolutionary.
The robbery goes ahead but not without its problems but they manage to get away. However, things soon turn nasty when it emerges that a Soho porn king/gangster also has incriminating evidence in the vault and things turn violent as he tries to get it back.
The Good
The script is based on a true story with always makes interesting viewing. It briefly made headlines and then quickly disappeared due to a Government D notice, gagging the press for 30 years. This gives the film an air of mystery about it as we know we are watching things that the Government and police would prefer us not know about and a bit of scandal concerning the Royal family is always a winner and this (apart from Statham) is what I think will mainly appeal to the American audience who always seem interested in things to do with our Monarchy.
The characters are fun and well liked. Statham is in a role he seems very comfortable with. It is rather similar to his parts in Lock Stock and Snatch which have a down to earth realism about them. There are also some heart warming scenes between him and his little girls including one where he is dancing with one at a friend’s wedding However we also get to see him in action near the end of the film and although is character is very likeable he still has that manly quality that makes him appealing to both male and female audiences.
The other characters are also good. I’ve read reviews that say Saffron Burrows is wooden but I felt she played her part well and is well cast as a former model who gets caught up in a scandal.
The film has a fun retro feel taking us back to 1970s London and its T-Rex theme tune will instantly catch you.
There are some pretty tense moments mixed in with some pretty good one liners that make the film what it is. It isn’t overly violent or over the top nor is it a comedy but what we do get is well balanced.
The Bad
As much as we love to see Statham’s fight scenes the one is this seemed a little silly as he was fighting someone a lot bigger than him and it as if it was written into the film just because of who he is. There will be those on the other hand who don’t really care who he was fighting, again because of who he is.
There was sex scene between Statham and Burrows cut from the film. This wouldn’t have been a problem if it hadn’t been for a scene later on in the film when them having sex is referred to and the audience is meant to assume that it happened after a kiss which we do see.
My View
All in all The Bank job is an enjoyable film which works well on many levels. It is pretty much a mans film but isn’t violent enough to put off women who will be attracted
I really liked the movie and recommend people to watch it. It’s about football and someone by the name of Vince Papale trying to play for the Eagles. I liked it because Vince Papale plays street ball then he goes to the pros. I think it is a good family film to watch.
This film tells the real-life story of U.S. fighter pilot Dieter Dengler, a German-American shot down and captured in Laos during the Vietnam War. Dengler organized a death-defying escape for a small band of POWs, including Duane Martin. (IMDB)
When I saw the actors who played in the movie, I wasn’t so convinced over the film. Steve Zahn should be in a drama movie? But it actually he did a very good job. I will go so far that he did one of his best performers of all time. Christian Bale was also good, but I wasn’t so surprised that he did a good job, because I’ve seen him in other movies and thought he played very well. Batman Begins and American Psycho are two good examples.
The story was good. Maybe not so weird since the story is based on a true story. The German-American fighter pilot, Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale), gets captured in Laos after been shoot down. The time is set in the Vietnam War. Here you can see how prisoners got treated by the Vietnamese’s.
As you may figure from my first paragraph, I liked the movie. The dialogue between the actors on the set was good and they didn’t do the movie boring. For the guys I can say that it’s not “pure drama” because it happens a lot and it has a sense of thriller and bit of action in it. This made the movie going on. A movie you definitely got to check out!
Rating: 8/10
- KMoviesK (Youtube)
This movie is about a break dancing crew. They try to win the championship and one of the crew members sells drugs and he gets jumped and beat up real bad. The music in the movie is so awesome; it’s mostly hip hop. I like the movie because it has hip hop and break dancing in it and lots of good music.
Bring It On: In It To Win It is a very modern version of real life rivalries. It is as good as the first movie in the Bring It On series, if not better. Jennifer Tisdale plays one of the main cheerleaders. She is on the Jets cheerleading team. Her role in the movie is to play a ditzy cheerleader. The makeup of the movie is done very well. The camera changes from scene to secene in a n organized way. The music is very modern and it goes along great with the parts of the movie that it is in. Ashley Tisdale's the main music artist featured in the movie. In my opinion the movie is great for teenage audiences. The movie itself revolves around two cheer rivalries. It also takes place at a cheer camp. The two cheer teams, the Sharks and the Jets, have been rivals forever because they are both the best teams at the camp. They are always having cheer-offs and eventually they do something dangerous and get caught. The punishment is to be kicked out of the camp, making them unable to participate. One of the head captains of the cheerleading teams comes up with an idea to bring both teams together. They go to the board, and the board unwillingly accepts because they can't lose their chance at winning the trophy. Whether both teams get rid of the rivalry between then and come together to form the ultimate cheer team, you will have to find out yourself by watching the movie.
Titanic is a love story. It includes the sinking of a real ship, how it sank, when it sank, and all of the other details. It was a really good movie. I think it was better that I thought it would be because they added the love story into it.
My opinion in the movie is that it was a very good, understanding, fun movie. I think it’s my favorite love story though. Everything in the movie seemed very real. They made it look like it wasn’t worked with on the computer.
The movie is about a ship, the Titanic, and the first time they set sail with the new ship. This proper, wealthy girl (Rose) is one of the passengers on the ship. And a not so wealthy farm boy (Jack) wins a bet and goes on the ship. The two meet and get closer. But Rose is engaged. But she doesn’t want to get married. So, Rose and Jack get together. And even when the ship is sinking, they stayed together.
I think the two main characters perfectly fit the characters. I think that if anyone else would have played them, it wouldn’t have been as good.
The makeup and special effects were very good. I think the makeup was just right. On Jack, they made it look like he wasn’t really that wealthy, which was very good. And on Rose, they made her look really fancy. I think the special effects were really good. They made the ship look like it was really sinking. And the inside if the ship must have taken a long time to create
The music was just piano music mostly. But it fit the movie very well, especially the sad scenes.
