The Kid with a Bike (ordinal title: Le Gamin au vélo)

The basics   

‘The Kid with a Bike’ is a Belgium film that came out in 2011. It is a realistic drama that is set in Seraing, Belgium. (French spoken part of Belgium) and was written and directed by the Dardenne brothers (Jean-Pierre and Luc). This film is about rejection, parental figures, choices in life and the paths that we take when we make them.

What is this film about?

The film starts with the main character, Cyril a boy of only 11, repeatedly try to call his father’s on the phone from the children’s home where he is only meant to be staying temporary.  Everyone there is trying to explain to him that his father has left but in disbelief of this, he plans on escaping and running back to his father’s old apartment to see him and to get his bike. After a few attempts he manages to escape and get to his father’s old apartment block. As the children’s home workers find Cyril, and try to take him back, in his last attempt to stay there he holds on to a random woman with all he’s got, but eventually they break him free from her. To prove to Cyril the horrible truth they let him take a look around at his father’s apartment, only to find it empty.  

Later on back at the children’s home, Cyril gets a visitor and it’s the lady (Samantha) that he held in the apartments. She has come to drop something off for him, his bike which she brought off somebody who claims he brought it from Cyril’s dad. Still in disbelief that his father is would do something like that he presumes that it must have been stolen. Due to this act of kindness Cyril asks Samantha if he can stay with her on weekends and she says yes.  

My views on it

In all parts of this film (story, characters, editing etc.) there is something I like to call a beautiful roughness to it which makes the experience of this film feel more real and because of this it connects with the audience on a deeper level. For example the reason why Samantha fosters Cyril on the weekends is not explained. In most films this motivation would have been explained because they would want something to justify it, they would want A, to clarify B, so that everything is explained, Luc Dardenne comments on this in an interview ‘We were adamant that the audience would never find out why Samantha is drawn to Cyril. […] We didn’t want the past to explain the present.’.  So there are things in this film that are not explained, the editing is not really seamless, the camera is a bit shaky, but this creates that beautiful roughness. Due to this beautiful roughness it goes against most cinema norms (mainly Hollywood) and it almost stops feeling like you are watching a film and it becomes more of a gate way into these people’s lives. When you start viewing it like that the characters become more real to you and you can really connect with them. Because of this connection you have with the characters and the highs and lows they go through, this makes a film that really pulls at you heartstrings and for a drama that’s a good thing.

The acting in this film I must say is amazing. Cécile De France who plays Samantha is perfect for the roll and pulls it off ‘to the tee’ but the star of the film has to be Thomas Doret who plays Cyril. His acting quality surpasses his years and his portrayal of a kid going through this situation could not have been done better. It almost seems like the Dardenne brothers found a kid going through this and just put a camera in front of him without him noticing.  

I would recommend this film as it is moving, powerful and an emotional roller-coaster where you do not just watch it, you experience it. You can definitely see why this won Grand Prize of the Jury at Cannes.    

Favourite Quote 

Guy Catoul (Cyril’s father): ‘Don’t try to see me again’

Rating 4/5 stars  

Midnight in Paris

The basics   

Midnight in Paris is an American film which came out in 2011. It is a romantic comedy which is set in Paris and was written and directed by Woody Allen. This film is about romance, art, writing, wanting to be born in a different time, Paris, and time travel.

What is this film about?

This film starts off with a wonderful montage of all the iconic places in Paris. In this montage we see Paris in the sun, the rain and at night and this set up one of the main questions of the film to the audience, what setting do you think Paris is at its most beautiful?

We get introduce to are protagonist (Gil) as he proclaims his love for this city and his wish to have been in Paris in the 1920’s with all the famous writers, artist and to be in the rain. Gil is an American who has spent his literature career writing for Hollywood movies but now wants to see if he is good enough to write his first novel. On a trip to Paris with his fiancée (Inez) and her parents, one night after some wine tasting Inez goes dancing with some of her friends and Gil takes a night walk around Paris to clear his head. After getting lost and sitting on some steps a bell chimes that it is midnight and Gil is picked up by an old fashioned car by people dressed from the 1920’s.

My views on it

American comedy at the moment seems to fall in to only three categories crude humour like ‘The Hangover 1 and 2’ , randomness like ‘Family Guy’ or popular culture references like ‘South Park’. So when I watched this film it was great to see humour that did not have to be crude, random or just a references to be funny. There are references in this film but it’s all to 1920’s artist and writers, not just whatever just happened in the news. So Culture references are used, so you can say that this element of modern American comedy is presented but since they are mainly used when the film is set in 1920’s Paris you are not really able to class this as being popular. The comedy in this film is very witty, subtle and clever and for a film that came out in 2011 this is very refreshing to see.

Two of the main things I like about this film are how clever and charming it is. For example Gil finds himself talking to Salvador Dalí, Man Ray and Luis Buñuel in a bar and he starts to talk about how he is from the future. They just seem to think its normal and Gil reply’s ‘Yes, but you're a surrealist! I'm a normal guy!’. Jokes like that make this film so clever and if you understand them they are really funny but if not, the film is so charming that it can get away with. I must say I know a bit about artist’s and writer’s in the 1920’s so I did get most of it, but there where a good few things that went over my head but I did not mine at all. If you look at the character Paul, he talks about art and history and he get it wrong every now and then. For me this reflects that we are not meant to know about everything we see in this film as it does not punish us for not knowing. Besides as you watch you start to learn more about this time and the artist anyways.

One of the most surprise things I enjoyed about this film is actually Owen Wilson for his acting. For the role of Gil I think that Owen Wilson was the perfect cast, as they needed a charming, classic romantic almost cliché American writer and he is great at this role.

Favourite Quote 

Ernest Hemingway: If it's bad, I'll hate it. If it's good, then I'll be envious and hate it even more. You don't want the opinion of another writer.

Rating 4/5 stars  

Contagion

The basics   

Contagion is an American film that came out in 2011. It was directed by Steven Soderbergh and written by Scott Z. Burns and came with a star studded cast including Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow and more. This film is about outbreaks, fear, people’s lives, journalism and people just not washing their hands.

What is this film about?

The film starts on day two of the outbreak as we see Beth Emhoff, a business woman on a layover at Chicago airport as she has just came from Hong Kong and going to Minnesota. She seems to have flu like symptoms as she talks to her Chicago lover on her Phone as she waits for her flight. Next we get a slightly patronising montage scene with good long close ups of ill people all across the world touching things just so we know as an audience member that ill people still touch things and this is how a disease maybe spread.

After this we go to Minnesota and we see the disease spread as Beth’s son (Clark) gets pull out of school for being a bit ill like his mum. Then the family takes a turn for the worst as Beth start to have seizure and when she gets to the hospital she unfortunately dies, even though you would not be able to tell this by her husband’s (Mitch) reaction. It seems more like he just got told his car had been clamped not that his wife died. After this Mitch’s step son (Clark) dies and yet again Mitch’s reaction seems off, as he is a bit angry, but more like he just dropped his laptop, not that his step son just died. From here the infection spreads.

My views on it

Well at the start, besides some bad acting and being a bit patronising it had a lot of promise. The almost documentary style of filming was interesting and engaging at first as we follow people lives and how the disease spread. Also with the main protagonist (Beth) at the start of the film dying as well as her son it showed that this film was willing to be edgy and taboo. Sadly after this the film stops being good.

Due to the style of which the film was made (editing, cinamtography, ect), it started to grate on me after a while, it seemed like it did not know what it wanted to be. Part of it wanted to be a normal film and the other half wanted to be a documentary and this gets really annoying as the film drags on. As they tried to integrate these styles it did not seem to work. An example of this is when they are looking through some CCTV footage at a casino, they portray that they can see only what the cameras see, but the footage we see is a stylized version; as we see it like we are there in the casino and not the cameras on the celling. They should have just shown us the CCTV footage as it would have been and not make a stylized version of it for us; as that breaks the reality that the documentary style try’s to create.

After the beginning, the level of interest that this film sets up starts to decreases very quickly. This is because nothing interesting really happens and nothing is made to be dramatic. The pace of the film becomes very slow and as nothing is made to look really dramatic and it becomes monotone, just riding along on the same level of just ‘kind of interesting’. And that is what the film just become, just kind of interesting. Because it sticks to this one level for the rest of the film its gets really dull and it drags out. The film is only 1 hour and 46 minutes but it felt about 2 hours and a half. Even my friend John said after the film ‘that film was long, over 2 hours’.

As I am getting over my limit in the review I am just going to list a few over issues that I did not like, quickly for you.

*The film jumped from character to character all the time so you could not make a connection with them really.

*Acting was bad

*The disease itself was dull

*No twist

*The Ending was insulting and not needed

Favourite Quote 

Alan Krumwiede: It's a bad day to be a rhesus monkey.

Rating 1.5/5 stars   

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

The Basics 

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is an American film which came out in 2004. It was directed by Adam McKay and written by Will Ferrell and Adam McKay. It also stars Will Ferrell in the lead role as Ron Burgundy himself. This film is a comedy which is about the local news, a male dominated world, street gangs, feminism, quotes and good looking hair.

What is this film about?

In the 70’s there is one local news team in San Diego that is miles above the rest and this is the KVWN-TV Channel 4 Evening News team and there lead anchor is none other than Ron Burgundy. After being given the status of highest-rated news program in San Diego again, they go back to the same party they do every year to celebrate. This time there is something different. There Ron meets a beautiful, blonde woman who has no idea who he is and does not fall for his charm. The next day we find out that the woman at the party is Veronica Corningstone, the new ambitious newswoman at the station.

Will her ambition change this male dominated world and as the men see her as fair game, will any of them woo her?  

My views on it

Every time I use to think about this film I was able to pull out all the best quotes from it and look back on it with happy memories. If you have watched this film then I bet you have quoted it in your everyday life; from saying to a girl ‘I want to be on you’, when you wanted to descried your feeling towards lighting features ‘I love lamp’ or just when you want to talk about figures ’60 % of the time, it works every time ‘.

When I watched this film again recently I am a little sad to say that it didn’t reach up to the expectations that I had of it in my memory. Yes all the funny quotes where there and I did giggle at them but that was about it. In my recent viewing of this film I was trying to look for something deeper than just the jokes but there isn’t anything really. Yea you can say that there is the theme of the "second-wave" of the Women's Movement that happened between the 1960’s to the 1990’s in this film with Veronica trying to become a success in this man’s world. But in this film it seems like this theme is there more so they can make sexist comments then have a strong insight or opinion on this political movement .so when you look past the clever quotes and funny situations there isn’t much to this film, but is it enough? Mmmmmm……. Yea. I think so. This film isn’t going to leave you thinking or change your view on anything but as a comedy it fulfils its number one objective, it makes you laugh. The comedy in this film is great and after the film you will still be laughing at the quotes that are rolling around your head and you will be singing afternoon delight as well.

As for the characters they are a reflection of the film itself, there isn’t much to them but they are well acted and funny. The film did have a great comedy cast with Will Ferrell, Steve Carell, Paul Rudd and more and this did add a lot to the film.

So if you want to see some great comedy performed by a good cast and that’s about it then this is the film for you but if you wanted to watch something with any kind of depth then best look somewhere else.

Favourite Quote 

Ron Burgundy: Oh Audrey - I look like hell! I got bags under my eyes. What's that? Well if you were a man, I'd punch you. Punch you right in the mouth. That's bush. Bush league. YOU HEAR ME? AUDREY! LOOK AT ME! I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Alright?

Rating 3/5

Watership Down

The basics  

Watership Down is a British film which was made in 1978. It was first a novel by Richard Adams and was published in 1972. It was directed by Martin Rosen and it is about tyranny, freedom, bravery, death and violence.

What is this film about?

At the beginning we get to meet two rabbits, Hazel and Fiver. Fiver starts to have visions of a soon coming doom to their warren and they go to tell their chief. The chief barely pays attention to what they have to say and dismisses their advice to move all the rabbits to somewhere else. Because of this Hazel and Fiver and a few more rabbits run away together to find a new home.      

My views on it

Do you remember when you were about seven and you sat down to watch a cartoon film about rabbits (rated U), then after the film you cried and then you had nightmares for about two weeks? If you do it was this film, Watership Down.

Coming across this film again (now in my twenties) I was interested to see my adult view on one of the most horrifying films in any kids childhood. In three simple words ……….. I loved it. Now I am able to appreciate this film on so many levels but I can still see why this film would be terrifying to a young audience.  In most cartoons there is this feeling of hyperreality, for example in Roadrunner you can watch Wile E. Coyote blow himself up or fall of a cliff numerous amounts of times and still laugh because it funny and you know he will be fine in the next clip. Watership Down does not really have this feeling of hyperreality, it all feels very realistic and when two of its main themes are death and violence it’s not hard to see why this film could be scary for a child. As an adult the sense of reality in this film is great, knowing that the consequences for the characters are real it makes you care for them more and it makes it more dramatic when it happens. Also because the theme of death is about as subtle as a brick to the face, it gives most of the film a wonderfully haunting feel as you watch.

Also there is underlying meanings that you can pick up.  One that most people seem to talk about is its view on totalitarian regime, mainly looking at Nazism (looking at the Efrafa warren and General Woundwort). This meaning wasn’t put in by the writer ‘Well, I don't think there's any pro or anti-society in Watership Down, it's simply a tale. […] It's only a made-up story, it's in no sense an allegory or parable or any kind of political myth.’ (Adams. R, 2008). He just wanted to write a story about bunnies, with knowing that it just makes me like it more.  But art is up for interpretation and if you wish to read into the political themes then go for it.

The animation in this film itself is another thing I really enjoyed about it. It is a bit too old to have had CGI and it didn’t have the budget of Disney but what they have done I think is great. The artwork in this film seems hand draw and painted and you can tell a lot of effort went into it. It is almost like watching a painting and there is something charming about that.

I would really recommend this film, especially to the people who seen it when they were young so they can watch it again and this time enjoy it. Just don’t show it to your kids.  

Favourite Quote 

Narrator: All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and when they catch you, they will kill you... but first they must catch you.

Rating 4/5

300

The basics   

300 is an American film that was made in 2006. 300 was originally a five issue series of comic books which was written in 1998 by Frank miller. The film was directed by Zack Snyder and is about war, glory, honour, betrayal and military tactics.

What is this film about?

In 480 BC the Persians have raised the biggest army the world has ever seen and they are on their way to take over Greece. In rejecting submission the King of Sparta Leonidas visits the Ephors (priests) to obtain their favour before sending the Spartan army in battle. After Ephors consults the oracle he claims that Sparta’s army should not go to war as it would interrupt the sacred Carneian festival. Because of this Leonidas goes for a loop hole and he claims that he is not going to war he is just going for a walk up to the hot gates (where the Persians are) with 300 bodyguards at this side. Bring on the legendary battle of Thermopylae.

My views on it

I remember being sat in the cinema watching this film and I was thinking ‘these battle scenes are awesome’. Now thats was a few good years ago and since then I have gone through college and I have gone through university. I have become more intelligent, my knowledge on cinema has grown dramatically, my views on films has changed a lot and when I watch this film recently I was thinking ‘these battle scenes are awesome’. In the last few years I have changed a lot but my opinion on the fights in this film have not, it’s just the rest of the film I don’t like.

Back when I first watched this film I didn’t care for the Spartan Queen’s side of the story. You know, the side of the story that has her in, with the traitor and the council and all that stuff. All I care about was the action. Nowadays my view on the action is the same but now instead of just not caring about the queen’s side of the story, I am annoyed by it. Because the Queen’s story in this film is nowhere near as visually pleasing as the Kings story, also it is not on the same level of intensity, excitement or interest as the King’s story, it flops. Due to this it make the film feel very unbalanced and this is what really annoys me. It almost feels like the queens story in this film was only there to fill up time and I would say after watching this film once if you wanted to watch it again you could get the same level of entertainment from it by just watching the Kings side of the story and fast-forwarding through the Queen’s side and save yourself a few minutes.

Also before I sat down to write this review I did some research on the film and its context (like I do with all my blogs). Within minutes I had found out more about this battle then I did from the film and I found myself reading up on this battle for a long time and then I started to wonder ‘why isn’t this in the film?’. I know that this film came from a series of comic books so that they could not fit it all in to 117 minutes, but I would have loved to have learnt more about the history of this war in this film.  This is something that this film lacks and instead of getting this we get the boring Queen story line that no one will ever remember this film for.

All in all I would recommend this film. This film has some of the best use of green screen I have ever seen so far, the battle are amazing, you will not even remember the Queen’s side of the story after you have watched it and you will be shouting ‘this is Sparta!’ in no time.

Favourite Quote 

King Leonidas: This is Sparta!

Rating 3/5 (or you could say 300 out of 500. Woo for bad puns)

Akira

The basics

Akira is a Japanese Anime which came out in 1988. The manga was written by Katsuhiro Ohtomo and he also went on to write the screen play with Izô Hashimoto and direct it as well.  This film is, well……… about a lot of things really, too many to write down.  

What is this film about?

In 1988 an unexplained explosion happens and vaporizes Tokyo and world war 3 kicks off and then we jump forward 31 years to 2019. Now in Neo-Tokyo we meet Kaneda and Tetsuo, two teenagers in a motorcycle gang (Kaneda is the leader) off for a night of fighting a rival gang called the clowns. In this Tetsuo gets badly hurt crashing his bike so as not to hit a small blue child that looks old and when the army stops them they take Tetsuo with them for the top secret Akira project and that’s just the start of the film.

My views on it

Before the time where Animes were about children that could summon creatures for battle’s or just for fun (Pokémon, Digimon,  Yo-gi-oh, Beyblade, Cardcaptor Sakura etc.).  Or teenagers feeling uncomfortable near each other and it being almost pornography (Ecchi anima like Love Hina and B Gata H Kei AKA B-Cup Slut), and before Studio Ghibli could really make a name for themselves there was Akira.

Back in 1982 the original manga for Akira was only meant to be 200 pages long but due to popular demand in the end Akira went to more than 2000 pages and was a 6 issue epic manga. It wasn’t too long before this came out on the big screen and became a ground-breaking Anime and a cult classic.  Now I could go and talk about interesting facts about this film, or how awesome it is, or go in depth in to the story or any of the themes that this film has or what effect it had on anime itself or a number of things which makes this film a classic and not just in Anime but in cinema. I could do any of these things but that’s already been done so many times so I going to tell you some of the things I didn’t like about Akira.

Due to the fact that Akira was such a big manga it was impossible fit all the details from the manga in to the film. Now you can say this with any film that has come from a book but some do it better than others. In Akira because they had to try and fit in all the story line in to a two hour film, I feel that the characterization was let down a lot. Most of the characters had no back story to them and they seemed very two-dimensional, the only characters we mainly got to know were Kaneda and Tetsuo and that wasn’t really much. Also the relationships between characters was thin, yet again the only one we go to know a bit was Kaneda and Tetsuo’s relationship. Due to this I didn’t care for a lot of the characters, for example because the film only scratched the surface of Tetsuo and Kaori’s (his girlfriend) relationship, when she died I couldn’t of cared less.

Another thing I didn’t like was when Kaneda and Tetsuo where having one of their fights later on in the film I always was thinking ‘Tetsuo can stop tanks, take out an army and pretty much total Neo-Tokyo but a teenager with a laser gun can give him a hard time, mmmmmm that’s not right’.  I know that Kaneda is a tough character and that it is probably their friendship that holds Tetsuo back but still in the context of Tetsuo’s power, state of mind and the fact he is losing control of himself you would think that Kaneda would not be a threat on any level to Tetsuo.

Also if someone was to ask me ‘would you recommend this film?’ I would say ‘no’. Hear me out for this now, beside what I have said I do really like this film and it is a classic but the people who would love this film have already seen it and the people who wouldn’t, haven’t.  This isn’t the kinda film that people randomly pick up at blockbuster. The people who would watch it are film buffs and anime freaks and they have seen it all ready and this is why it called a cult classic.

Favourite Quote

Kaneda: He's not your friend, he's ours! If somebody's gonna kill him, it should be us!

Rating 4/5