Adam White

The Blind Side (2009)

When I heard that Sandra Bullock was getting critical acclaim for a performance in a movie, I’ll admit that I was surprised. So I went into this film on the back of a lot of hype and not entirely sure what to expect.

What I saw was a little disappointing. It felt like the kind of corny American TV film that you catch at 3am. While the story did grip me and keep me intrigued it never felt like it belonged on the big screen.

But I didn’t go to see this film for any other reason than to check out the Oscar-worthy performance, and while I haven’t seen all of her competitors I can see why she won. This was Sandra Bullock’s Erin Brockovich. She took the role by the horns and rode it all the way to victory. A great performance in a mediocre film.

7/10

Date Night (2010)

I got the opportunity to see a film that would normally pass me by and I’m glad I got to. I have always loved Steve Carell since I saw him steal the show from Jim Carrey in the talking in tongues scene from Bruce Almighty. Every film I have seen him in since I cannot help but find his style hilarious.

And then there is Tina Fey, an actress I rarely see in films but have loved since seeing her in Mean Girls (which she also wrote).

So, Date Night. A film that on paper shouldn’t work. A couple get in trouble in New York when they get caught up in a case of mistaken identity on the eponymous date night. What made the film worth watching though were these two comedic talents going all out. An average film made good by great comedians.

7/10

Kick-Ass (2010)

From the very first time I saw Stardust I was looking forward to the next film from Matthew Vaughn. Then the trailer for Kick-Ass hit the Net and I was officially excited. This was a film that was going to merge comedy and superhero and might actually work.

Well, at times it did work but at others it really didn’t. Sadly it was the central character of Kick-Ass that was the most annoying. He had one scene that stood out but after that I was looking forward to him going away so we could focus on the equally brilliant Chloe Moretz, Nicholas Cage or Mark Strong.

It was a frustrating film because of this. This film would have been better if it had been called Hit-Girl or Big Daddy as they were worth the entrance of admission.

7/10

Whip It (2010)

I love Ellen Page. There is something about her that I find appeals to me. If I see her name in a film it makes me pay attention. For someone so young she has a lot of charisma and screen presence as the excellent Juno proved.

So when I heard that Drew Barrymore had directed a comedy about roller skating starring Ellen Page I was immediately interested. Unfortunately this film showed that Ellen alone cannot carry a film and Drew should stick to acting.

This was mediocre at best. It was clichéd, lacking in laughs and nothing I hadn’t seen 100 times before (although this was the first time on roller skates). Disappointing.

5/10

Posted by Adam under Films | 1 Comment »

I love film. I always have and I think I always will. I watch an awful lot of films and regular readers of this site will know I review a handful of them too (followers of me on Twitter get to see my mini-reviews as well).

I keep up to date with the latest film news through a couple of film websites but I also choose to listen to two film podcasts:

Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo’s Film Review

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lvdrj

This is by far my favourite podcast out of all I listen to. It is the one I regularly look forward to every week and am sad when Dr Kermode or Dr Mayo are on holiday as it is just not the same. The way these two banter between each other is brilliant and the film reviews are always entertaining. I even got the opportunity to go to Leeds and see a live version of the show which was brilliant.

While I may not always agree with the opinions given I don’t primarily listen to find out what to watch, I listen for the pure, unadulterated wittertainment.

Cinemagogue (Mars Hill Church)

http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/cinemagogue

Pastor James Harleman of Mars Hill Church regular shows films and chats about them before and afterwards from the Christian perspective. I find him very entertaining and he highlights things in the films that I would have otherwise missed. If you are a Christian and a film lover I recommend you catch a listen.

View the entire series

Posted by Adam under Faith & Films & Personal & Techy Stuff | No Comments »

I’m always a little dubious about highly anticipated films. There is something in me that looks for the one that nobody knows is coming and takes the world by storm (The Matrix was a great example of this). However, the early buzz surrounding Avatar was universally positive so I went in with high expectations (never a good idea).

I wasn’t too fussed about 3D either. I saw Beowulf in 3D and it gave me a headache and it just seemed like a gimmick that got in the way of the beauty of film. So I decided to see Avatar in good old-fashioned 2D and then see it in 3D later if I liked it enough.

When the credits rolled at the end of the film my mind did not settle on the gorgeous special effects which is what the main attraction seemed to be. I was drawn to what was a very simple but gripping storyline. A master storyteller has returned to the art he left over 10 years ago and has not forgotten what is important in a film.

The plot is hardly original but that doesn’t matter if it is done well. Humans have discovered a mineral on a planet in another solar system (distractingly called unobtainium) which sells for an awful lot of money. So the capitalists are out to dig up as much as they can, as quickly as they can. However, the planet the ore is on (actually it is a moon called Pandora) is a forest planet inhabited by all number of savage creatures as well as the Navi who are a humanoid race very similar to elves in their appearance and respect of the land.

One tribe of Navi have a home in a giant tree (and I mean GIANT) which just happens to be on top of the biggest deposit of unobtainium around. So a band of scientists are tasked with finding a diplomatic solution to getting rid of the Navi so the diggers can come in. To better integrate themselves with the natives (and also be able to breathe the atmosphere) Navi bodies are grown (called avatars) that the scientists transfer their brains to temporarily, Matrix-style.

Into this setup comes the paraplegic Jake Sully. An ex-marine who’s twin brother has died and who now has to step into the shoes of his genetically matched avatar. This is where the fun begins as Jake is accepted in to the tribe where others before him have not and he learns their ways.

What ensues is Dances with Wolves style “seeing things from the other side” and an internal battle between his human self and his Navi self.

I won’t spoil how it turns out (although it is hardly surprising) but I can tell you that it is 160 minutes of sheer brilliance.

But how can I mention the film without speaking about the beautiful effects? James Cameron has created a piece of art when creating Pandora. The planet is intricate and gorgeous from its gravity defying mountains to its leaves that light up when touched. It is a treat for the eyes that is so layered there is always something amazing to look at on screen somewhere.

So having almost applauded it the first time I saw it I knew I had to see it in 3D to tell once and for all if the extra dimension is worth it. I can say that 3D does what you think it would. It adds extra depth to the scenes and really is the future of cinema. However, as a film lover I would still much rather see a film in the comfort of 2D. Until they can develop a technique of producing 3D films without the need for special glasses it will never be all it can be. The glasses are a distraction and I would much rather enjoy a film in 2D.

So, in the end, Avatar is a stunning achievement by Mr Cameron and I look forward to the proposed sequels. District 9 takes the accolade as my favourite film of 2009 but this comes a close second.

[9/10]

Posted by Adam under Films | 1 Comment »

When I first saw the trailer for Where the Wild Things Are I thought that it was going to end up being a huge disappointment for the millions of fans of the source material. Then when the first reviews started trickling in I was amazed that it was getting 5 star reviews everywhere I looked! But something in me still wasn’t convinced.

I had never read the children’s book so did not know what to expect. I knew the director Spike Jonze was not known for run-of-the-mill films so I knew I wasn’t going to get a simple kids film.

The basic story is that young boy Max has a fight with his mum and runs away. But he doesn’t just physically run away he mentally runs away across a vast ocean and into his imagination where the titular wild things are. These giant monsters accept Max as their new king and play games together, build a giant fort amongst other things.

The puppetry is amazing and with only minimal CG to make the facial expression of the monster a little more believable this is a stunning achievement and goes to show that physical special effects still hold an important part of this world. An Oscar nod is certain but whether it can hold off the mighty Avatar awaits to be seen.

So what did I think of it? Sadly I have to report that I just didn’t get it. Either I was too intelligent for it or or not intelligent enough I can’t tell. Either it went way over my head or way under it. I was bored for large chunks of the film and while I could see that the monsters could have been the various parts of Max’s psyche (his rage, his shyness, etc.) I couldn’t settle into it and found myself checking my watch after only 30 minutes.

Now I’m not saying it is a terrible film, I was just not the correct audience for it. I have heard some people say that kids will get its portrayal of the imagination of youth while others have said that it is clearly a film about kids and not a kids film.

I can’t be sure but would but would love to hear what other people thought of it. Especially if they saw it with some youngsters as well.

[5/10]

Posted by Adam under Films | 3 Comments »

I can’t help it. I like Roland Emmerich films: Stargate, Independence Day, Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow (I haven’t seen 10,000 BC on purpose).

So I had been looking forward to 2012, his latest end of the world flick, all year. I had heard various reports, some saying it was awful, some saying it was fun. I went in knowing that it had a 2.5 hour running time and ready for what I hoped would be a mindless disaster film similar to The Day After Tomorrow.

What I saw was a total surprise; I haven’t laughed so much through a “serious” film before. It was hilarious! The acting was really bad and they all seemed to be taking it so seriously (except Woody Harrelson appearing to be the only person who realised how bad the film was and played a very entertaining wacko).

The story running through it involved by far the luckiest family ever to have graced the big screen. They always seemed to be in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. Be it to hear all they need to now to predict and escape the impending disaster or to catch the one and only plane out of Vegas (with a capable pilot tagging along for good measure). With all the luck they were experiencing I would have just stood still as the whole world would have fallen apart around them but they would have managed to stand on the one piece of Earth that didn’t collapse!

The special effects were good but far too over the top. The sequence of California being destroyed as a limo manages to escape being the pinnacle.

What worried me though was that the cinema I was in was full of people that were staring intently at the film and taking it all so seriously. Could they not tell how comically bad it was?!

So if watched as a dead-serious action film it is beyond rubbish. There are clichés piled on clichés and some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard. However, if watched as an unintentional comedy it is actually very very funny!

For me it is a one watch only film as I don’t think I can bring myself to watch it again. Unless time wipes my memory of how bad it was.

[4/10]

Posted by Adam under Films | No Comments »

The 80’s was the decade of action. Schwarzenegger and Stallone were kings of the roost and had successfully dominated the genre. Then, near the end of the 80’s someone else cropped up that nobody expected. An actor had had only previously played romantic roles. And he hit the screen with such force it turned everybody’s head.

The man was Bruce Willis.

The film was Die Hard (1988).

He was not a super strong action hero who could throw his enemies through walls, instead he seemed to be just a normal cop “in the wrong place at the wrong time” and caused havoc for bad guys.

The original Die Hard film is superb. It still stands out as one of the best action films ever made. I remember being up with friends on New Years Day at 2am really wanting to go to sleep but at the same time wanting to watch a film. Die Hard was the film of choice and it kept us all gripped and wide awake. Not many films can do that!

The acting is great, the characters are entertaining and the plot is excellent. As solid an action film that you can hope for – 9/10

But with any successful action film there is always the threat that someone is going to come along and try and make a sequel to cash in on it. Most of the time this is a bad mistake but occasionally it pays off.

So, upping the stakes from a skyscraper to an entire airport came Die Hard 2 (1990). While it was never going to be as good as the original it still managed to keep some of the things that made the first one so good (great characters and explosive action) – 7/10

And of course, where there is a successful sequel the logical next step is to make it into a trilogy, which they did by moving from an airport to an entire city with Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995).

With most trilogies, the third film is the worst. It’s just how trilogies work. Most of the good plot and action ideas have been used up and while it may be fun it is essentially a waste of time.

The third Die Hard film is not entirely that bad but it is the worst Die Hard film. Bringing in Samuel L Jackson to partner up with Bruce Willis was a nice touch but it couldn’t help the film from feeling a little by-the-numbers.

Action was good, characters were still fun but it was lacking that something the original two had – 6/10

And that was where John McClane rested. For over ten years the character was put to bed, never to be brought back again. That was until in the late part of the 2000’s Hollywood started bringing back old characters for new adventures: Indiana Jones, The Terminator and a rather aged John McClane.

So we were given Live Free or Die Hard (2007), nearly 20 years after Nakatomi Plaza Hotel when BANG! Bruce is sporting a new bald haircut but he is still as action packed and unstoppable as ever. Last time is was a city so of course the next logical step is for terrorists to take hold of an entire country!

What should have been a cringeworthy to watch OAP action film (Indy 4 anyone?) turned out to be surprisingly good. Yes it was a little far fetched in places and it had one action sequence too many but it was incredibly entertaining. Bruce Willis still has the charisma and charm to captivate an audience. It was a return to form and a welcome addition to the franchise – 7/10

So what next for John McClane? Well, to keep with tradition the terrorists would have to take over the whole world. So the logical option would have to be an alien invasion! Only I hope for their sake that they have done their research and make sure John McClane is retired before they start. But even then he’ll kick their butts from his wheelchair!

Posted by Adam under Films | No Comments »

Spoiler Alert: While there is no surprise twist in this film, in order to review this film I will be talking about how it ends.

Firstly, a brief plot synopsis. (500) Days of Summer tells the tale of the 500 days that greeting card creator Tom Hansen (played brilliantly by the ever watchable Joseph Gordon-Levitt) spends in and out of a relationship with quirky Summer Finn (played wide eyed and perfectly wacky by Zooey Deschanel).

However, rather than play out from day 1 to day 500 this film jumps and skips around through the relationship. One minute Tom is skipping around madly in love on day (53) and then we zoom forward to day (234) and he is trying to understand why the relationship is over and then we are taken right back to the first time he ever sees her on day (1).

It took a little while to get used to this jumping around but soon it became normal and gave the film that “something different” to help it stand out from the crowd.

But this is also no normal rom-com. At the start Tom believes in “the one” and thinks he has found her in Summer. Summer on the other hand doesn’t believe in relationships. So for a while they seem to be getting on so well and Tom is starting to tear down some of Summer’s walls but then, seemingly out of the blue, Summer decides to end it. This tears Tom apart and he just can’t understand why.

This causes Tom to re-evaluate love and he comes to the conclusion that Summer is right: Love doesn’t really exist and actually life is painful and we just have to enjoy it while we can. Summer however ends up falling in love herself and getting married to a man she meets in a coffee shop! Suddenly she starts to believe in love and fate. A complete reversal in roles!

I really wanted to love this film when I walked into the cinema but when I left I felt incredibly sad. I pondered this emotion for a while and then it occurred to me why I felt like I didn’t like the film.

(I’m going to get fairly personal now so be warned!)

The reason this film left me feeling so down was because it actually reminded me a little too much of a relationship I had been in myself a number of years ago. Now this is not to say it was exactly the same but there were definite themes that came a little too close for comfort.

Once upon a time I met a woman who immediately captured my heart. I fell madly in love. The fact that I am now single says that this relationship didn’t last though. I came out of the relationship experiencing every emotion I knew existed (and some I didn’t). And then less than a year (I think) after we parted she got married to someone else.

I need to state clearly though that I am still great friends with this person and I love them to bits. I see clearly that we were not meant to be together but that didn’t stop the relationship from having a huge impact on me. For one it was a result of this relationship that my eyes were opened to the possibility that God and Jesus might exist (read my testimony if you want to know more). God knew exactly what He was doing and I really believe that I am a much better and stronger man today because of it. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t really hurt at the time.

So watching this film was like a sub-conscious reminder of that time in my life. I was feeling the emotions of Tom as he was feeling them on screen and I was hoping that he and Summer would stay together even though I knew in my heart that they wouldn’t.

As soon as I realised why I felt like this I could appreciate the film for what it was which is a very intelligent, funny and different romantic comedy.

I just hope God brings me an Autumn of my own one day! (A reference that you won’t get until you see the film).

[7/10]

Posted by Adam under Films & Personal | 1 Comment »

I’ll admit it, I went into this film with preconceived expectations of what I thought it was going to be about. I had viewed the teenage girl fan-base and decided that it was going to be a soppy take on vampire film and was going to miss me completely.

I don’t think I was that wrong!

I haven’t read any of the books (and I don’t think I ever will either) and I get the impression from this film that they are probably a very good series. However, this doesn’t translate well to the big screen. It would have suited at best a TV series or two. It felt more like an over-extended episode of Dawson’s Creek for most of it (or probably One Tree Hill or Orange County for those younger and more hip readers)

The special effects were embarrassing at times. Not because they were bad (I have seen much worse) but more because they were used in such a pointless and distracting way for most of it. Moving at speed and climbing up trees shouldn’t look so lame! And whoever did their makeup needs to find a better job. People don’t look like these people, did no-one ever ask them why they looked so incredibly pale? This was very distracting every time they were on screen until nearer the end where they stopped being pale (?) and started to look normal. Consistency please!!

Kristen Stewart is a star in the making. She has the look of a future Rachel McAdams, Rachel Bilson or Amy Adams. However Robert Pattison never showed the charisma or presence that his character should possess. While I’m sure there are a lot of screaming young girls who would disagree with me, I can’t see him becoming a big star in Hollywood.

On the positive side, it did keep my attention for some of it, especially when the whole family was involved. The bad guys were also quite entertaining although they were far too infrequent.

I’m amazed that they are planning on getting the next one out within a year of this one. I can understand why though: These films will not have the longevity of the Harry Potter series so it is best to milk it for all it is worth before the target audience all have their 15th birthdays!

[6/10]

Posted by Adam under Films | 1 Comment »

Where critics in the past have lambasted M. Night Shyamalan films I have stood against him and liked his films: The Village may have had a predictable twist but I still found it gripping and entertaining. Lady in the Water might have been a very strange and silly film but I remained gripped and terrified at times.

Now comes The Happening and the critics have been at him again. However, for the first time I have to agree with them. This was awful!

The basic plot is that people in North East America start killing themselves and a small band of survivors (centered around Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel) try and escape what is happening. At first it is thought to be a terrorist attack or maybe a government experiment gone wrong but the truth is far less scary!

There are a number of problems with this film:

1) I have never witnessed such wooden acting in a mainstream film before. Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel can act because I have seen them in other things however you wouldn’t believe that if you saw this film. The delivery of some of the lines is laughable. I found myself cringing in some of the more “emotional” moments.

2) The “enemy” of the film had no threat whatsoever. Whenever people were attacked there was no sense of threat or danger. It just happened. The only real threat in the film was a crazy lady we meet nearer the end of the movie but that threat was over and finished with in no time at all.

3) You weren’t given time to care for the characters. Apparently there is some marriage problems between Mark and Zooey (I can’t remember their character names as I didn’t care enough about them to notice) however it is handled so badly by the director that I was never sure what was going on. An illicit dessert between Zooey and a man called Joey which happened before the film starts is the cause of some marital issues I think but it was all so unbelievable I didn’t care.

4) The director has forgotten how to direct! M. Night Shymalan films are normally full of fantastic camera shots however they are noteably absent from this. The closest he gets to his normal style is a couple of close up shots of faces where some incredibly bad acting is going on (Zooey, you are guilty of this on a numbeer of tearful occasions).

The only thing that stops this film from getting a lower score was that while it failed to engage with me it was very short and didn’t annoy me while I was watching it. Come on M. Night Shyamalan. You can do better than this!

[3/10]

Posted by Adam under Films | No Comments »

 I really love this film. I remember walking out of the cinema with a buzzing feeling after viewing it for the first time, wanting to buy another ticket and watch it all over again.

This is not just another romantic comedy, this has smarts, realistically flawed characters and a relationship that takes time and is so believable (at least to me it was).

In Zach Braff’s only film as a director (before this he was best known for the TV comedy Scrubs) he also stars as the main character, Andrew Largeman, who has had physicological issues since he was young and returns home for the first time in years after his mother dies. On this return trip he meets up with all of his old friends along with some new ones and over the course of 100 minutes gets his life back.

The soundtrack is one of the first thing you notice. Kicking off with Don’t Panic by Coldplay and throwing in everything from Zero 7 to Simon and Garfunkel it grabs you and launches the film to a higher level. Some soundtracks do just stand out from the rest and this one is one of my favourites.

The real winner of this film though is the relationship that forms between “Large” and the incredibly quirky Sam played by Natalie Portman. You can see the sparks straight away but instead of jumping straight to it this is a realistic relationship that slowly builds from friendship. This results is an ending that grabs you and leaves you feeling great.

If I was to have one complaint it would be that since this Zach Braff has not directed anything else. However, that might be a good thing as I can’t see how he could possibly top this!

[9/10]

Posted by Adam under Films | No Comments »