Orange is the New Black - TV programme for Netflix

★★★★★

5 word summary:

Shawshank with women (and better)

5 sentence review:

I started watching this because Netflix wouldn't stop promoting it and I had seen a lot of positive things about it online so I caved, and I'm so glad I did because now I'm re-watching it because it was so good.

It has a lot of obvious positive traits, such as a large female cast  (of different shapes, sizes and races), gay characters, social commentary, transgender character, etc. and this is actually  what made me hesitant to watch it in the first place because I though that was what everyone loved, rather than the programme itself.

I was pleasantly surprised that not only were there diverse female characters, but well written ones; storylines were interesting and heartfelt; the humour is on point; and everything about the programme draws you into their world and the characters' lives so that you care and are interested. 

The plots are slightly extreme to add to the humour and drama, such as the chicken story, however they never go too far into the realms of the unbelievable that you disengage (I now really want to read the book to see how close to the original authors version it is).

I couldn't really recommend this programme enough, because there is a little something for everyone and it's only 26 hour in total (2 seasons with 13 episodes) so if you're really committed you can watch it in just over a day (although it took me 5 I think).

5 good things:

1. The characters (my favourites are Nichols, Morello and Poussey) 

2.  It's funny

3. Hair and costuming is amazing (looking at how the prisoners look outside of the show)

4. Most of the back stories are so good and well integrated within the main storyline (I normally don't like dual narratives but they make this work very well)

5. 'Scatter the nuns!' - my favourite quote

5 bad thing:

1.  Not enough of Nichol's back story (I forgot it had even happened until I re-watched the programme)

2.  Some of the lines are incredibly cheesy and overly metaphorical

3.  Vee was quite cliché, pantomime villain, compared to all the other nuanced character she stood out a bit.

4.  I don't think many people care what is happening outside of the prison, and yet they keep showing us and making big stories happen outside.

5.   This kind of makes me want to go to prison....

22 Jump Street (2014) - Sequel to 21 Jump Street

★★★★☆

5 word summary:

Better than the first one.

5 sentence review:

I wasn't expecting much from the first film but was presently surprised, and the same happened with this one; they really stepped up their game and managed to improve on an already good thing.

The new characters we all really good, especially of Zook and Maya, and they added to the humour of the film without trying to overshadow Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill's characters, and replaced Dave Franco without making me miss him.

The plot was definitely put aside in favour of the comedy, but that is ok because they delivered on the laughs and part of the joke was that the film was a little repetitive, clichéd and excessive, so everything worked really well.

It's difficult to analyse this film because the basics are: if you want to laugh this is a good film for you, it's especially good for people (like me) who want to de-stress after their uni exams.

I hope that there is a third because the films definitely don't disappoint, however I am wondering where they would go next.

5 good things:

1.  It's actually funny.

2.  So self aware and so amazing, 'it's looks just like an ice cube!'


3. Good use of new/old characters.

4. Despite being quite long for a comedy, it didn't feel long.

5. The credits were very clever.

5 bad things:

1. College is just not how it's portrayed in films

2. There seems to be a suggestion that they don't want to do another one (although with all the good reviews about this, I'm sure there will be a third)

3.  Why does Jonah Hill always get the girl? And the incredibly pretty girls at that.

4. The villains/twist wasn't great, although it was quite redundant anyway because the jokes are more important than the plot.

5. Struggling to think of any more...

Maleficent (2014) - Newest Live action Disney retelling

★★★☆☆

 

5 word summary:

Good, goes bad, goes good.

5 sentence review:

I was really excited for this film, especially because I love villains, but I was sadly disappointed when it turned out that they decided to give Maleficent a (rubbish) back-story and reasons behind what she does, and go even further to then try to reverse her bad way.

I was hoping that the bad plot decisions would be compensated for a beautiful film, but really it just looked obviously CGI, you could even clearly see how much make up was on some of the actor's faces (young Maleficent in particular) and that ruined things a little bit for me.

Aside from the bad points this was actually quite well cast, Jolie was perfect and I was really pleased to see Sharlto Copley and Sam Riley, who I've seen in other things and think they're very good; however Aurora and the fairies were not as strong, although I don't think it was the fairies fault,  I think that problem was down to bad scripting and bad CGI (again).

The magical creatures in this were very creative, with tree guards and crow-animals, and that was enjoyable to see someone's creativity coming out while still maintaining the original creatures (like Maleficent's crow and the dragon).

Overall, this film is worth seeing, but not necessarily paying for, maybe if it's on TV; just before there was a trailer for the original Sleeping Beauty and frankly it just made me wish I was watching the original rather than this remake.

5 good things:

1. Angelina Jolie looks amazing!

2. Sharlto Copley and Sam Riley were really good and I'm glad they're in such a big film.

3.  The crow wolf/horse/dragon looked awesome and were a good idea.

4. 'Once Upon A Dream' is amazingly redone (although not used in the film other than the end credits).

5.  Adorable cameos from Angelina Jolie's children.

5 bad things:

1. Why can't villains just be villainous? Why do they need reasons for everything?

2.  It seemed as though 90% of the cast were putting on accents, just hire people with the actual accents.

3.  Also, try to hire child actors who can act.

4. There were a lot of awkward close-ups of people staring or smiling.

5. The fairies were annoying and a little pointless, definitely not as good as the original three.

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) - Latest film in the X-Men franchise

★★★★☆

 

5 word summary:

Let's just change everything, ok?


5 sentence review:

This film in currently very highly rated on both IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, so I was expecting a lot, and wasn't disappointed.

It literally can't go wrong with characters because they have new faces, old faces, old old faces; a little something for everyone to keep you interested and happy but hopefully not overly confused (although I had no idea what most of the new characters' names where when I left the cinema).

The story is mildly confusing, especially because they jump between times occasionally, but a lot of the points where I was thinking, 'what?!' were then explained later in the film, so I think as long as you're paying attention and willing to occasionally look over any minor plot holes, then you'll be ok.

I must say the plot became slightly annoying, because it was repetitive, firstly the humans were against the mutants and then Magneto and Mystique were against the humans, and all this caused a whole lot of problems that everyone has seen before (in most of the X-Men films).

Despite some more minor gripes this was a very good film, superhero or otherwise, and it stretched itself beyond blockbuster into more complex social/psychological explorations, which all the best films do.

5 good things:

1. Amazing sentinels

2. Excellent new characters (particularly Quicksilver and Blink)

3.  Old characters/cast members returning.

4. There are moments that are genuinely funny.

5.  Peter Dinklage's hair/make up/costume/moustache/glasses

5 bad things:

1. I think (I'm not 100% sure) that the future part was only meant to be 50 years from the past part, but it looked much more futuristicly different than is possible (in my opinion).

2. Mystique's skin looked painted.

3.  Not enough focus on the amazing future time

4. Mystique and Magneto just being their same old, annoying, 'kill everyone, that'll sort everything out' ways.

5. Was Hugh Jackman too veiny when he first woke up in the past? It was worrying.

Godzilla (2014) - Film remake of various other films

★★★★☆

 

5 word summary:

Godzilla is the good guy!

5 sentence review:

I am judging this film based on the decision that it is very, very self-aware and pointing out that it is a remake/typical blockbuster because there were so many points that were so obvious that I feel they had to be poking fun at themselves.

You have, mad/obsessed scientist because he’s lost his love; children in a bus trapped on a bridge; the main woman is a nurse and the main man is a soldier; the government has been hiding secrets for ‘the greater good’ and it gets messed up; it rained during the final sequences.

These things can’t just be there accidentally, one or two clichés, yes, but almost every aspect must be tongue in cheek.

Mostly, the way Ken Watanabe said ‘Godzilla’ just screams that they knew what they were doing, and I so hope that they were aware of what they were doing.

This hasn’t been a review, but rather me trying to rationalise that this film is good but you need to be aware that it is aware (I’m now sounding as obsessed/odd as Bryan Cranston’s character) but I feel as though you could enjoy this film so much, if you think that every cliché is put there purposefully. 

5 good things:

1.  Despite clichéd points, there were some surprises

2.  Self awareness

3.  Parachuting/skydiving bit looked really amazing

4. The cast was good

5.  Some of the main people actually died

5 bad things:

1. The other monsters were kind of boring

2. The fight sequences seems to yield no wounds at all. One of the things had wings and they weren’t even punctured.

3.  Literally stole the ending from The Dark Knight Rises

4. It doesn’t really pass the Bechdel Test, which shouldn’t be allowed in a film that will undoubtedly be watched by millions.

5. Not enough of the main people died for it to be believable.

Bad Neighbours (2014) – Film starring Seth Rogen and Zac Efron

★★★☆☆

5 word summary:

American universities are very confusing.

5 sentence review:

I'm calling this Bad Neighbours because that is what it is called in my country, hopefully no one will get confused (there is a picture).

This film is funny, which is important for a comedy, it isn't laugh after laugh but there are moments when you do just chuckle for a while (I particularly liked the air bags).

The whole cast are pretty strong, and I can understand why Efron is the main frat guy(?) but they have a lot of talented actors in the fraternity and I think they could have utilised them more than for small comical sequences (although I suppose they wouldn't be a comedy).

The story was quite odd because they were worried about the fraternity but it seemed like a simple solution could be resolved by complaining to the head teacher and a compromise being made that the fraternity won't return next year...but again, then there wouldn't be much of a film.

It's enjoyable for a stupid comedy but I was expecting it to be as surprisingly good as 21 Jump Street, and I feel as though it didn't get to that level (although it actually currently is 0.1 higher on IMDb so what do I know?).

5 good things:

1. The couples relationship made me happy.

2. The parties looked interesting...colourful.

3. The other fraternity members (other than Efron) were good).

4. Dave Franco's De Niro impression.

5. Toplessness

5 bad things:

1. Excessive nakedness.

2. The annoying/crazy friends cliché.

3. Only 1 real female character (and she looks perfect while Seth...does not).

4. The fact it is called 'Neighbours' except for the countries where 'Neighbour (the soap) is aired.

5. I feel as though the babies will be traumatised when they see this film.

Animation Week (Day 5): 5 Best Claymation Animated Films

1. The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)
This pair are possibly my favourite duo in films, and it's shocking to think that there are only 4 shorts and one feature film and yet these are such recognisable and well loved characters. Going from 20-something shorts to a nearly 90 minute picture must have been difficult but this film maintains the charm and nuances that make the Wallace and Gromit films so enjoyable. The film is hilarious, with a vegetable eating bunny on the loose, and the secondary characters, voiced by fantastic actors, add to the film and support W & G well. Also, how they make hairless, clay bunnies cute is beyond me but they manage it. Watch this film and then go and check out A Grand Day Out because the difference between the quality is phenomenal.



2. The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)
This is one of the greatest animations ever but my love of Wallace and Gromit triumphed, although I'm sure this film would have topped a, lot of other people's lists. This is such a wonderfully dark animation and the oddity of everything makes it extra beautiful to watch. It's so interesting to think that it follows most of the basic Disney principles, a love story, songs, discovery of magic, and yet it is much a step away from the familiar formula as well. A lot of people have mentioned that they can't decide when toy watch this film, Christmas or Halloween? Personally, I would recommend watching it any time, any day, but if you want to watch it as a holiday film, pick both Christmas and Halloween.



3. Mary and Max (2009)
Similar style to Nightmare Before Christmas because of the use of monochrome colour a and a dark diversion from traditional animation methods, but this film is a lot darker. Mary and Max follows two troubled characters who find each other, however they can't help each other to their fullest extent because Mary is in Australia and Max is in America. It's an odd mixture of cute, endearing but then also sad, heart-breaking. If you're less of a fan of children films but still want to watch an animation (for whatever reason) this is the one for you. The director/writer hasn't done much else, which is a bit sad, but hopefully more will be coming from him.



4. Chicken Run (2004)
Such a weird film, but so good because it is very aware and accepting of its own oddness. It's also similar to Lion King where they take a familiar classic idea (Hamlet/The Great Escape) and apply it to animals....the natural progression where I hope all films will get to in the end. It's another weird one where there are featherless chickens (like the hairless bunnies) but they are still believable and kind of cute. It's genuinely funny but unfortunately there are some moments that are meant to be dramatic and they fall a little flat due to the general tone of the film (I'm thinking especially of a bit where there is dramatic rain but it looks so odd on the smooth chickens). I never thought that I would be rooting so intensely for a chicken, but you do when watching Chicken Run.



5. James and the Giant Peach (1996)
A hybrid of live action and animation which blew my mind when I first saw this. It's my least favourite style of animation, because it's reminiscent of Nightmare but has a more creepy/spikey feel to it. The plot also wanders around, the scene in the sea with pirate skeletons is particularly useless although enjoyable. Joanna Lumley and Miriam Margolyes as the aunts are wonderful and satisfyingly horrible and terrifying. There are a lot of flaws in this film, but it is still incredibly good and worth watching (but if you don't want to then just read the book).