It's been a while since I had seen a film with Kevin Costner. He is a good actor. Heck he is a great actor (who has made a few stinkers of a movie as well).
I am a UK based movie lover and I love sports movies, even though I don't always understand them. Draft Day falls well into this one. I know on a basic level what the draft is in the NFL, but actually know more about doing a fantasy draft rather than how new teams get new players.
For those who love the NFL it is a big day. College kids are ranked and rated, analysed, scouted and reviewed to see if they are any good. (Something to do with an NFL combine, I have no idea!)
The teams each year need to fill spots on their team where players retire, leave or are injured. The new college players want to get into a great team to achieve a legendary status within the sport. (There are many famous examples of teams drafting the wrong choice, the year Payton Manning was drafted is an example. Two QB's of similar stature but one has gone on to be great the other disappeared. I could look up his name but it really is unimportant).
Draft Day revolves around just that. The day where the Manager of Cleveland Browns has to make his picks for this years team to help strengthen and improve what he has. Costner plays this role of Manager (but again I am confused as there is the Owner of the team, the manager of the team and then the coach of the team. I'm not sure why you need a manager when the coach could also be the manager as he runs the players and team, much like we have in the UK with football/soccer).
The reason this film works so nicely is the fact it plays on the many aspects of Sony Weavers (Costner) life in one day and how he deals with a high stress season. He trades his 7th round pick for the first pick, meaning he can take the new wonderkid (who is a QB) but is torn by what is expected of him, and what he wants to do with the history and feelings he gets from the player he would have taken in his initial 7th round draft slot. To get his trade he gives away a large portion of the future draft power, as in this process you can trade draft picks. Again here is where I get a little hazy on how these work but he basically gives away there first round picks for three years.
As the film develops we see his family life push and pull him as he deals with the shadow of his father legacy hang over his head. An ex-wife, a pushy mother and his new girlfriend all work into how he is expected to make his decisions.
The crux of his problems is his current QB had a bad season, so with the new prospect an exciting temptation for every one around they can solve the issue they think they have. In the off season, QB has trained hard and claims to better than ever. Sonny like loyalty, but also has pressures from the owner and coach on what they think he should do.
The cast is strong with Jennifer Garner, Chi McBride, Frank Langella and Dennis Leary with other big names making appearances throughout the movie.
It leads you on Sonny Weavers struggles with what to do and doing the old cliche of is it better to do what is right or what is easy.
I don't want to go into the what actually happens as that is the fun part of this film (I mean essentially it is the entire film)!
It is a fun film that you don't need to like sport to enjoy, although it would help to have a certain level of interest in it. I keep re-watching the conclusion to the film as I think it is handled really well and in a very enjoyable way. This film is a good to sit down and turn off too. It's not a mindless action film but there is still very little that needs much processing in the process. It is all laid out for you in arguably very obvious beats that many films like this do follow, but this one does it better. It may be cliched and expected in parts, but it is also charming and interesting and enjoyable. I am not always a fan of sequels but I want to see what happens in the season after this draft has taken place. Does the team go from strength to strength? Are the decisions made ones that change the Browns future forever. Here is the difference in this movie compared to others of its type. It's not based on a real life event outside of the premise of the entire thing. It's not Moneyball where that has actual events that can be followed up for you to see what really happened before and after. This is a work of fiction set around the real world events of a manger and the NFL draft.
This does not hinder the film at all, but it did leave me wanting more from it at the end.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Into the Woods - Film Review
Into the woods is a 2014 take on the classic fairy tale. It has all the stories you know. Jack and the Beanstalk, Rapunzel, Little Red Riding Hood and Cinderella.
It has a varied and well known cast with Johnny Depp making, what I would call an inflated cameo. He plays the big bad wolf, but is not in it for all that long.
This is a film that I was asked to watch by my wife, and if I didn't like it she would watch it later. I stuck it out till the end and didn't hate it but it also didn't win me over completely.
I thought I would write about it here as so far I have covered only things I might recommend, but not done any negative reviews. It's all been positive. I thought that should not be the only reason to write my blog here. This should cover things you may have missed and might like even if I didn't.
This film has charm, appeal and a large cast of names that you are happy to pay to see. Meryl Streep, Anna Kendrick, Emily Blunt and James Cordon all have plenty of screen time to almost call them the main stars of the film with names like Depp and Chris Pine being in it for a shorter part of the films run time.
The premise of the film is a baker and his wife (Cordon and Blunt) are tasked by the witch, (Streep) who has cursed the family to be childless, to complete a set of tasks and retrieve items that she can not. The items are all from the range of fairy tales and allow the stories to mix and intertwine.
The thing I have failed to mention so far is it is a musical.
Should this make a difference? No. Is that why it didn't sit with me? Maybe.
Now defending myself a little here, I have nothing against musicals, two of my favourite films are musicals (Blues Brothers and South Park:The Movie) however it felt forced into being this. This is why I tend not to like this style of musical. I must confess to never having watched Les Mis but from the trailers and clips I have seen, this film is trying to recreate that vibe. The singing the story instead of having songs as part of the overall performance. I have seen a few stage shows that are critically acclaimed (We Will Rock You and Rock of Ages) that use famous songs as part of the story, and it feels like the same thing. I didn't enjoy those stage shows because I love the music and it was performed amazingly well, but it is shoe horned into a very loose and tenuous story. I would rather just watch the performers taking turns to perform great songs that I love and appreciate their talent rather than trying to string it together loosely based on song titles.
While "Into the Woods" does not use famous songs in this way, it feels like I enjoyed the story and the premise of the movie, but had trouble with how they tried to string scenes together and keep the music going where it didn't benefit from it or enhance the experience. Both Blues Brothers and South Park place songs into a scene that lifts the whole experience and makes you appreciate the actors/musicians talents just that little bit more.
There are a few dark moments in this film that are in keeping with the original Grimm fairy tales (the ugly sisters fate being a notable example) but nothing that makes it inappropriate for a young(ish) audience.
While watching I came to the conclusion that I don't like Chris Pine. I think he is quite a one note actor (granted it's more notes than me as an actor) and I enjoyed the Star Trek films with him as Kirk, partly due to the fact I think Kirk is quite a wooden character thanks to the history of William Shatner also playing the character. He was not the Prince I would like to see in this sort of film.
This is a good film with some good performances, however I am not going to say I enjoyed it. I can say it is not terrible it is well put together, but there are parts of it that just don't sit quite right for me in what it is trying to do and achieve. It's worth trying to be able to form your own opinion of it but I think some people may turn it off quite quickly while others revel in the attempt to retell the classic of our childhood. It's nice to get other visions of these but for me there are films that do it better. Tangled, Hoodwinked and Once Upon a Time to name a few.
It has a varied and well known cast with Johnny Depp making, what I would call an inflated cameo. He plays the big bad wolf, but is not in it for all that long.
This is a film that I was asked to watch by my wife, and if I didn't like it she would watch it later. I stuck it out till the end and didn't hate it but it also didn't win me over completely.
I thought I would write about it here as so far I have covered only things I might recommend, but not done any negative reviews. It's all been positive. I thought that should not be the only reason to write my blog here. This should cover things you may have missed and might like even if I didn't.
This film has charm, appeal and a large cast of names that you are happy to pay to see. Meryl Streep, Anna Kendrick, Emily Blunt and James Cordon all have plenty of screen time to almost call them the main stars of the film with names like Depp and Chris Pine being in it for a shorter part of the films run time.
The premise of the film is a baker and his wife (Cordon and Blunt) are tasked by the witch, (Streep) who has cursed the family to be childless, to complete a set of tasks and retrieve items that she can not. The items are all from the range of fairy tales and allow the stories to mix and intertwine.
The thing I have failed to mention so far is it is a musical.
Should this make a difference? No. Is that why it didn't sit with me? Maybe.
Now defending myself a little here, I have nothing against musicals, two of my favourite films are musicals (Blues Brothers and South Park:The Movie) however it felt forced into being this. This is why I tend not to like this style of musical. I must confess to never having watched Les Mis but from the trailers and clips I have seen, this film is trying to recreate that vibe. The singing the story instead of having songs as part of the overall performance. I have seen a few stage shows that are critically acclaimed (We Will Rock You and Rock of Ages) that use famous songs as part of the story, and it feels like the same thing. I didn't enjoy those stage shows because I love the music and it was performed amazingly well, but it is shoe horned into a very loose and tenuous story. I would rather just watch the performers taking turns to perform great songs that I love and appreciate their talent rather than trying to string it together loosely based on song titles.
While "Into the Woods" does not use famous songs in this way, it feels like I enjoyed the story and the premise of the movie, but had trouble with how they tried to string scenes together and keep the music going where it didn't benefit from it or enhance the experience. Both Blues Brothers and South Park place songs into a scene that lifts the whole experience and makes you appreciate the actors/musicians talents just that little bit more.
There are a few dark moments in this film that are in keeping with the original Grimm fairy tales (the ugly sisters fate being a notable example) but nothing that makes it inappropriate for a young(ish) audience.
While watching I came to the conclusion that I don't like Chris Pine. I think he is quite a one note actor (granted it's more notes than me as an actor) and I enjoyed the Star Trek films with him as Kirk, partly due to the fact I think Kirk is quite a wooden character thanks to the history of William Shatner also playing the character. He was not the Prince I would like to see in this sort of film.
This is a good film with some good performances, however I am not going to say I enjoyed it. I can say it is not terrible it is well put together, but there are parts of it that just don't sit quite right for me in what it is trying to do and achieve. It's worth trying to be able to form your own opinion of it but I think some people may turn it off quite quickly while others revel in the attempt to retell the classic of our childhood. It's nice to get other visions of these but for me there are films that do it better. Tangled, Hoodwinked and Once Upon a Time to name a few.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Warrior - Film Review
For some reason I had always avoided Warrior, with no reason or thought behind it. It's not like I have a thing against screen violence. It's not like I have anything against any of the main or supporting actors. I just never thought about watching it.
It came to Netflix and I just thought why not. So put it on.
Firstly I was surprised that this was Tom Hardy after Inception. I had presumed it was an older film and when he was starting out, but this is not the case. It is pretty much (at the moment) in the middle of his filmography.
Hardy plays Tommy Conlon, quiet and brooding ex marine and junior wrestler that is after money to help support his fallen brother-in-arms' family. Not out for money himself but to try to right a wrong that he feels responsible for.
The dynamic between him and his father (Nick Nolte) is fantastic. Nolte, plays the ex-drunk perfectly and you feel for his attempts at retribution with his sons, but also understand their position in keeping their distance and general distrust of a man who caused so many problems in their lives.
Joel Edgerton (a face of someone that you never remember what they have done, but know you know them from somewhere! For me I think it will have been the Star Wars prequels but even then I am not sure) is the other brother that stayed in the area because of a woman (Jennifer Morrison) and the film builds on his family dynamic between both his wife and kids and the relationship between him and his brother and father.
Each actor is perfect for the role and the film is a lot more heart warming than I had expected from what I thought would just be a film about fighting. The the thing with most preconceived ideas is that you are usually well off base. (Prime example is how good Billy Elliot is, but many people avoided it because it is about dancing!)
While there is the journey of each character and why they fight, it looks mostly at relationships and how they can effect you deeply. Joel Edgertons character Brendan has been through his years of fighting to get to the family life we would all expect to see from a traditional sense. Stable job, family home, typical wife and kids ideas. The breaking point is money within the family but not because of a personal vice, but medical bills of your child. While the UK may not have the best health service in the world, I would always advocate for the NHS and the service that it provides. My main fear is what this family go through, which is the ability to provide for your kids as best you can. This may be a very specific problem to me and the stage of life I am in, but it gave me a very relatable character to empathise with where Tom Hardy's character was interesting and intriguing but I had no connection to him with any shared life experience.
I understand you don't need a shared life experience with any character in a film to enjoy it, but some films it can add to your experience of the journey that they are taking to get to the film act of the film.
The basic story is that both brothers are about to compete in a MMA tournament for money that will benefit their situation. Not wanting to spoil too much more of the film if you have missed it, I would suggest you make this a film to watch. While it contains violence, I would argue the title of Warrior is more to do with each struggle the character goes on to get to the film tournament and not just about the beating another person to win a fight.
This is a very good film, with some very good performances. If you have 2 hours 20 mins spare to watch the film you really should make the time. It is much more interesting than I had given it credit for.
It came to Netflix and I just thought why not. So put it on.
Firstly I was surprised that this was Tom Hardy after Inception. I had presumed it was an older film and when he was starting out, but this is not the case. It is pretty much (at the moment) in the middle of his filmography.
Hardy plays Tommy Conlon, quiet and brooding ex marine and junior wrestler that is after money to help support his fallen brother-in-arms' family. Not out for money himself but to try to right a wrong that he feels responsible for.
The dynamic between him and his father (Nick Nolte) is fantastic. Nolte, plays the ex-drunk perfectly and you feel for his attempts at retribution with his sons, but also understand their position in keeping their distance and general distrust of a man who caused so many problems in their lives.
Joel Edgerton (a face of someone that you never remember what they have done, but know you know them from somewhere! For me I think it will have been the Star Wars prequels but even then I am not sure) is the other brother that stayed in the area because of a woman (Jennifer Morrison) and the film builds on his family dynamic between both his wife and kids and the relationship between him and his brother and father.
Each actor is perfect for the role and the film is a lot more heart warming than I had expected from what I thought would just be a film about fighting. The the thing with most preconceived ideas is that you are usually well off base. (Prime example is how good Billy Elliot is, but many people avoided it because it is about dancing!)
While there is the journey of each character and why they fight, it looks mostly at relationships and how they can effect you deeply. Joel Edgertons character Brendan has been through his years of fighting to get to the family life we would all expect to see from a traditional sense. Stable job, family home, typical wife and kids ideas. The breaking point is money within the family but not because of a personal vice, but medical bills of your child. While the UK may not have the best health service in the world, I would always advocate for the NHS and the service that it provides. My main fear is what this family go through, which is the ability to provide for your kids as best you can. This may be a very specific problem to me and the stage of life I am in, but it gave me a very relatable character to empathise with where Tom Hardy's character was interesting and intriguing but I had no connection to him with any shared life experience.
I understand you don't need a shared life experience with any character in a film to enjoy it, but some films it can add to your experience of the journey that they are taking to get to the film act of the film.
The basic story is that both brothers are about to compete in a MMA tournament for money that will benefit their situation. Not wanting to spoil too much more of the film if you have missed it, I would suggest you make this a film to watch. While it contains violence, I would argue the title of Warrior is more to do with each struggle the character goes on to get to the film tournament and not just about the beating another person to win a fight.
This is a very good film, with some very good performances. If you have 2 hours 20 mins spare to watch the film you really should make the time. It is much more interesting than I had given it credit for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)