The Review – The Wolf of Wall Street

The Plot

Jordan Belfort, a.k.a. The Wolf of Wall Street, rises from lowly beginnings to the high, corrupt echelons of Wall Street. Be prepared for drugs, sex, violence, and flying dwarves.

The Main Characters

Jordan Belfort

Addicted to drugs, addicted to sex, addicted to money. The man everyone hates, but everyone secretly wanted to be. Immature and undoubtedly vulnerable, Belfort is very much the subverted tragic hero of this tale.

Donnie Azoff

Working as a waiter, Donnie is picked up by Belfort and soon becomes his right hand man in the business. Definitely the funny character of the film, his argument with Mad Max is a particular highlight. But my God, those f***ing teeth, that’s all I’m going to say…you have been warned…

Naomi Belfort

Sexy and seductive, Naomi is a temptress of the highest order. Initially involved in an affair with Jordan, she marries him for his money and leaves him when Jordan hits rock bottom. She may be sexy, but she’s a cold-hearted bitch.

The Positives (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

DiCaprio as Belfort

Before I start, I will state that DiCaprio is my favourite actor therefore, I’m likely to be a tad bias. However, this was new ground for DiCaprio. He had to fuse comedy with serious acting…and he obviously succeeded. DiCaprio’s performance is so good in this film that he makes you both despise him throughout the film, and yet when Belfort loses everything, and I mean everything, he makes you feel sympathy for Belfort. There are few actors in the world that have the ability to make you feel sympathy for a character who is entirely unlikable. Let me state this: DiCaprio was not the reason why this film did not get the Oscar for best film, I repeat, DiCaprio was not the reason for this film’s failure to get the Oscar.

Hill as Donnie

I don’t usually go for characters who have big fake teeth clearly for the laughs. However, Hill’s character is so much more than this. As previously said, his argument with Mad Max over an inordinately expensive dinner had my sides splitting. That is one of many instances. The duo of DiCaprio and Hill was epicly funny and I really hope they do more film’s together in the near future.

Portrayal of the Ludicrous Extravagance of Wall Street

I’m not saying that Wall Street is definitely like this. That would be far too much of a generalisation. However, I imagine an element of Wall Street must be like this. Obviously I’m not an expert and obviously Scorsese exaggerates the corruption and lavish lifestyles of Belfort and his cohorts for dramatic effect. Nevertheless, the amount of money the top dogs at Wall Street must have means they must lead pretty lavish lifestyle, which, in my personal opinion, comes across very well in the Wolf of Wall Street.

The Negatives (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

Drugs, Alcohol and Sex

Don’t worry, I’m not jumping on the media bandwagon, criticising the film for the inclusion of pretty explicit drug and sex scenes. I am certainly not a prude and have watched many films with extreme amounts of drugs, alcohol and sex. All I want to ask Scorsese was did he really need to include as much of it as he did? Unfortunately, I realised how corrupt and unbelievably wealthy Belfort and his crew became after the first few scenes of ultimate corruption and money wasting, so for me, the film could have chopped off about half an hour and been all the better for it. Sorry Mr. Scorsese, I still love all your films…I promise…

The Best Part (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

For me, the argument between Donny and Mad Max, Belfort’s father. Not only was it unbelievably funny, it was one of the best ways of highlighting Belfort and co’s real vices; they are so wealthy and earning so much from being corrupt that they can spend $20,000-$30,000 on a meal and basically not give an utter shit.

The Worst Part (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

I’m not going to choose a worst part of the film, partly because there isn’t a specific part of the film I can pick out as something I particularly dislike, but also because my memory of the film is a little hazy, considering I watched the film over a month ago! There are elements of the film I dislike, but no individual moment.

Would I recommend it?

I’m not completely sure. Whilst DiCaprio was great, again, as was Jonah Hill, and pretty much the rest of the cast to be honest, I left feeling really disappointed. When you go to see a film directed by Martin Scorsese, you expect the film to be pretty god damn amazing. I suppose the expectation is all part of being an award-winning director. However, when it’s Martin Scorsese, you just expect that little bit more, with films such as Goodfellas, Shutter Island and The Departed. If you’ve never seen a Martin Scorsese film, then I would recommend it; it’s a great first Scorsese film to watch, but there’s definitely better Scorsese films to watch afterwards. If you have seen a Scorsese film, I suppose I would still recommend it, I mean it’s still a good film, but I wouldn’t be saying:

“You haven’t seen The Wolf of Wall Street yet? What are you doing with your life?”

because I wouldn’t want you to feel the disappointment that I felt. I’d be more like:

“You haven’t seen The Wolf of Wall Street yet? Well that’s ok, you should check it out sometime though, it’s pretty good.”

Just to quickly compare, if you haven’t seen The Dark Knight, I would definitely be saying:

“You haven’t seen The Dark Knight? (mouth wide open in disbelief) Have you been in a coma for the past 6 years? Have you actually been dead for the last 6 years? Seriously sort your life out!”

My Rating (out of 10)

7/10 (It would have been 7.5, maybe 8, if the film had been about half an hour shorter)

Damn you degree, damn you!

Well, it’s been a month since I did my last blog post, let alone anything else to do with my blog. Genuine shock I kid you not. Unsurprisingly, university work has taken over my life for the second time since Christmas, although a month since my last blog post is a bit crazy really. What is crazy though is how much work I’m having to put in to get pretty good marks in my degree. It is literally eating up my life, yes, my life. I have had no free time in the past 4 weeks, no time to do my blog, no time to write, no time for Twitter, no time to respond to comments, and for that I apologise.

However, I now have time to spare; more of it than I had anticipated in fact. So I thought I’d do a little post about what you can expect this blog to be and do from this time onwards.

This blog is a blog about writing and will remain a blog about writing, with short stories, chapters, and my views and opinions on writing. I will also continue to review films and books, trying to do one per week in my own and, I’d like to say, unique format.

I’m trying to get a schedule sorted out so that I can organise my blog post and blog more regularly. Not sure exactly what it’s going to be like, but it will include reviews, opinions, short stories and a little bit of fan fiction hopefully as well.

So yes, damn the bloody degree with its stupid amount of research, but that’s over (for now). My focus shall be more on the blog, which I shall be doing regularly, and with a small schedule in place, I should be able to continue blogging when the workload gets heavy again.

Sorry if this has been a bit of a boring read, I just thought I should let you know what’s been happening and what’s going on. Oh, also, I’ve been having a cheeky read of my new Sherlock Holmes book, which is the entire collection, so expect some reviews of those stories in the near future.

Happy blogging!

The Opinion – Katie Hopkins

The Big Benefits Row on Channel 5 this evening will, I’m sure, create masses of debate on the failures of the benefits system, the demonisation of the Working Class, and all other sorts of crazy, messed-up benefits stuff. Later this week, I will probably weigh in with my opinion on the benefits system, a system which I am very much in favour of. However, this post is not about that; this post is about Katie Hopkins, one of the panelists in the first half of the show, who has regularly featured on This Morning, weighing in with her opinions on children’s names to tattoos to the Celebrity Big Brother contestants, and now, to benefits and the Welfare State.

Firstly, let me make it clear that I am not attacking Katie Hopkins point of view. Whilst I disagree with the majority of what she said, in a society that endorses free speech, someone should not be attacked for stating their opinion. I thought it was wrong that she was shouted down, heckled and, in a few instances, verbally abused by members of the audience. Yes, it’s a debate. Yes, benefits is a controversial subject, however, whilst the Middle and Upper Classes hold the majority of political and influential positions, shouting aggressively at members of said classes will cause them to distance further themselves further from the Working Class than they already are. The stereotype of the vile, lazy, scrounging members of the Working Class on benefits that is clearly embedded in Katie Hopkins’ mind, along with a significant proportion of people in influential positions of power, will not have been helped by the aggressiveness of members of the audience in tonight’s show.

Wait a second, Jack. Are you saying Katie Hopkins’ is the victim of an aggressive audience? Almost certainly not. She baited them and baited them. Of course, she’s not a complete fool. She backed up many of her arguments with sound evidence, nevertheless, like all extreme viewpoints, backed by evidence specifically chosen to highlight her point, ignoring evidence that clearly countered her argument, and, at many points on tonight’s show, made her argument obsolete. Once her argument was made obsolete and she was backed into a corner, like a starving lion, she ferociously attacked members of the panel and audience, shouting them down like they had done to her and attacking the person or their situation rather than the argument itself.

Now we come to the crux of the issue, of the real problem with Katie Hopkins. Clearly, she has opinions, and whether or not you think they are wrong, she has the freedom of speech to speak those opinions aloud. However, the issue I really have with her is that she attacks people rather than their arguments. If you ever watched The Apprentice when she was in it (don’t worry if you can’t, it was a while ago), she did this time and time again and was one of the main reasons why she stayed on the show. If you watch her debates/arguments/catfights on This Morning, she constantly does it to her opponent. Staying true to form, she did it on The Big Benefits Row, getting unbelievably aggressive with people, becoming rather deluded and ultimately ruining her argument. Once you begin attacking people and not their viewpoint, it becomes infinitely more difficult for people to side with you, which is exactly what happened to Katie. She attacked people and the audience turned on her. And boy did they turn on her.

So Katie Hopkins. Opinionated. Unsympathetic. And a big proponent of the Ad Hominem argument (attacking the person rather than the argument). However, I blame Channel 5 for the debate descending into a chaotic row. I commend Matthew Wright, whom I personally did not like initially, for attempting to control the debate, which he did as well as anyone could have done. However, including arguably one of the most controversial women in the UK at this present moment in time onto the panel was bound to descend into chaos. Of course, I can look back with hindsight and think how stupid Channel 5 were for including her, however, she was disadvantaged from the very beginning. From the reaction of the crowd to almost every single one of her points, it was an audience either made up of those on benefits or strong advocates for benefits, of which I am one (but obviously not in the crowd). She was always going to be attacked, and, owing to Katie Hopkins’ personality, was bound to viciously attack back, causing the debate to turn into an almighty pressure cooker, even after she had left, which blew at every slightly controversial moment. Had the audience been a more even distribution of those for and against benefits, perhaps we would have had a more amicable debate, rather than the trade of insults it turned into.

Ultimately though, when you have as controversial opinions as Katie Hopkins’ has, you’re bound to incite some form of animosity against you. It’s just a shame she prefers attacking people rather than their arguments, otherwise The Big Benefits Row would have been much more pleasant to watch and may have actually gone some way to providing a true insight into the life of people on benefits, and perhaps changed the opinions of those who are staunchly against the benefits system.

Review – The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Here is my almost-short review of the film I have been waiting for sooooooooooooo long. Enjoy reading!!!

Courtesy of http://www.totalfilm.com

Plot

Bilbo and the Dwarves continue their journey to the Lonely Mountain, with man-eating spiders, crazy ninja elves,  and a scary-as-hell Necromancer. Oh, I almost forgot the fudging huge fire-breathing dragon. His name is Smaug. The Magnificent. Sometimes the Terrible. He is pretty terrible.

Main Characters

Bilbo

Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit from the shire, way out of his comfort zone but growing into a hero with every passing moment and every passing spider, orc, warg, and other foul creatures.

Thorin

Thorin Oakenshield, leader of the Company, is a rather grim but serious fellow, who has a love-hate relationship with poor Bilbo. He might not take kindly to you but you’d want him on your side in a fight!

Gandalf

With more problems on his hands than a criminal octopus, Gandalf takes the fight to the Necromancer, entering Dol Guldur with naught but Glamdring, his staff and his rather fetching hat. As Admiral Ackbar would say, “It’s a trap!”

Positives (May contain Spoilers)

The portrayal of the One Ring is, in my own humble opinion, very, very good. In the book, the One Ring seems like Bilbo’s plaything, a little tool for Bilbo to use at his own disposal. Perhaps that is because it is a children’s book, but it never really added up when in the Lord of the Rings, it’s a massively evil, needs-to-be-destroyed-type thing. Anyway, in the film, whenever Bilbo puts on the Ring, you can hear the Black Speech and all the other shizzle that happens. Top notch, Mr. Jackson.

Smaug. I think that’s all I have to say. The design, the voice, the action, just everything. It’s epic.

The time spent in Mirkwood is another huge positive. I was curious with how they would portray Bilbo and the Dwarves coping with the stifling humidity of Mirkwood, and I’m pleased to say I wasn’t let down. Bilbo and the Dwarves go just a little bit crazy. When a say a little, I mean a lot.

The combat, especially Legolas and Tauriel, is truly spectacular to behold. Now, I know what the naysayers and the cynics will say; CGI, CGI, CGI. I admit, a lot of the action is CGI, well most of it is, but it looks so freaking awesome, seriously, who cares? I mean I certainly don’t, especially if Legolas keeps producing those slick orc-killing moves. Someone produce a montage now please?

Negatives (May contain spoilers)

I think the worst thing about this film is the little time dedicated to Beorn. This isn’t just because I really liked his part in the book. He’s meant to be a huge part of the Battle of the Five Armies (***SPOILER ALERT***), so not giving him a longer introduction feels a little wrong to me.

Best Part (May contain spoilers)

It has to be Gandalf’s insane fight with the Necromancer/Sauron. I was actually in awe when I saw it in the cinema, mouth open and everything. I seriously cannot wait for the confrontation with the Necromancer in the final film.

Worst Part (May contain spoilers)

I was quite disappointed with Beorn’s appearance. Like before, it’s probably because I’ve read the book and had an image of him envisioned in my mind, however, I didn’t think he’d have hair on his face or be rather tall and gangly. In his bear form, he looks awesome. I just expected him to be muscular, sort of bear-like in appearance.

What is unique about The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug? (May contain spoilers)

Well I suppose there are loads of easy things to pick out, such as a talking dragon, skin-changers, etc. However, the really unique thing about The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is how personal the film remains in such an epic setting. Bilbo travels across practically the entirety of Middle Earth, fighting all manner of creatures, meeting all manner of people, Gandalf is dealing with the evil Necromancer, and the Mirkwood Elves are preparing for some serious shit to go down. That’s all pretty epic. And yet, when you watch it, it still feels like you’re watching Bilbo’s journey, watching his character grow whilst all this chaos goes on around him, which I think is pretty unique.

Would I recommend The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug? (May contain spoilers)

Probably a silly question but yes, definitely yes. It is easily the best film I have seen in 2013, even better than Catching Fire, which is a big thing to say, as Catching Fire was excellent. It’s dark, very dark, much darker than An Unexpected Journey, which it should be, because a journey through Mirkwood and up to the Lonely Mountain should be anything but a jolly. As for the acting, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, and Sir Ian McKellen all play their parts brilliantly as Bilbo, Thorin, and Gandalf respectively. As for the content, it doesn’t feel drawn out or boring. And all of the material included from The Silmarillion and The Appendices does not feel out-of-place at all. In fact, it feels needed, its feels as though without the new material, the film would have been weak, thin and rubbish. So yes, this film I would definitely recommend.

My rating (out of 10)

9/10 (it would have been a 9.5 if the Beorn section had been longer)

Review: True Grit

Before anyone says ‘You’ve done this before!’, this is the book, not the film. See, I’m not that stupid.

The Plot

Mattie Ross enlists the help of drunk, one-eyed U.S. Marshal, Rooster Cogburn, in order to catch her father’s killer, Tom Chaney. With bandits, guns, and a shit-load of rattlesnakes!

The Main Characters

Mattie

Young, intelligent, incredibly mature, but very stubborn, Mattie Ross won’t let anything stand in the way of her pursuit of Tom Chaney…except falling over whenever she fires a gun, but everyone has their faults, right?

Rooster

Fat, drunk, one-eyed…I’m not being mean, that’s the description in the book. He ain’t much of a looker but by golly does he have balls. He must have at least 10 to do the crazy shit he does at the end of the book!

LaBeouf

LaBeouf, the Texas Ranger. He’s young, fit, handsome, and cares about his work…practically the opposite of Rooster. Watch out for fireworks with Rooster as the trio chase Tom Chaney.

The Positives (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

The relationship between Mattie and Rooster is brilliant reading. Here we have one of the most religious fourteen year-old’s in America teamed up with what is essentially the Antichrist. It’s a match made in heaven….or not!

The decline of Rooster and LaBeouf’s  relationship is really interesting to read. Initially, they were amicable, both knowing they needed the other to survive. Add Mattie into the equation and they’re arguing left, right, and centre. I’m surprised one didn’t shoot the other to be honest!

The Negatives (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

Whilst I get that Mattie is a devout, and I mean a zealously devout Christian, sometimes it does get a bit overwhelming with religious references popping up all over the place.

No fourteen year-old, no matter how stubborn, mature, or persuasive they are should be able to get grown men to do their bidding. It just gets a little ridiculous when Rooster, the man with true grit, is being ordered around by Mattie, that’s all I’m saying.

The Best Part (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

Personally, the description of the snakes inside the skeleton’s chest was not only awesome but also incredibly vivid.

The Worst Part (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

Definitely the court case where Rooster is being cross-examined. It’s a great way of introducing us to Rooster’s character and personality, but it seriously dragged! 14 pages!!!!!!!! Some chapters aren’t even 14 pages long!!!!!!!

What is unique about True Grit?

I don’t know how well I can answer this as it’s the first Western I have ever read. However, I think what is unique is the characters. I don’t think I’ve ever read a book where 3 different, and I mean entirely different, characters work so well together. Considering not a huge amount actually happens, the characters are sooo brilliantly written that you want to read on.

Would I recommend it?

I definitely would. It’s one of those books where you don’t have to like the genre to find it a great read. I honestly didn’t know what to expect when I started read this book. I kept thinking ‘Westerns; great films but how can that translate into a book’. I am so glad I have read it though because it is fantastic.

My Rating (out of 10)

8/10

Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The Plot

Arrayed against bastard monkeys, a shit-load of water and a mad government, Katniss must survive the 75^th Hunger Games for the sake of Panem.

The Main Characters

Katniss

Katniss Everdeen, the Girl on Fire, is stubborn, untrusting and a bit of a slut (prepares for influx of hate mail). However, she’s incredibly loyal to her friends and family, prepared to die for them if necessary.

Peeta

Peeta Mallark, madly in love with Katniss, has transformed from a pathetic competitor whose only skill was throwing things, into a lethal, bloodthirsty killing machine who fucks up anyone who gets in his way…ok, maybe I went a little over the top. He is a worthwhile ally, and that is an improvement.

Gale

Gale Hawthorn, also in love with Katniss, is a cold-hearted revolutionary with a sweet tooth for the dangerous side of life. Be warned though, his hatred for the Capitol can make him a tad reckless.

The Positives (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

The actual arena for the 75^th Hunger Games is ingenious, with different disasters at every hour, such as tidal waves, poison glass clouds, crazy thunder storms, you know pretty nasty stuff.

In my opinion, the first film didn’t really do a lot to further the storyline, it just introduced the concept of the Hunger Games. The second film, on the other hand, moves the overall plot of the trilogy forward massively.

The Negatives (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

Compared to The Hunger Games, the dangers Katniss faces in the Hunger Games in Catching Fire can feel a little ridiculous at times. I mean, if it’s not the tributes from Districts 1 and 2 trying to kill her, it’s poison gas clouds, it’s crazy monkeys, it’s a spinning centre thing. It can get pretty overwhelming at times.

Like with the first film, some of what I would class as pivotal or, at the very least, incredibly important moments aren’t explained amazingly well. The two main examples are the evacuation of District 12 and the reason for Cinna’s death. I’m sure they’re explained much better in the books, I just felt the films skim over them a little too much.

The Best Part (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

For me, it was the ending where Katniss destroys the arena, firstly, because its seriously cool and, secondly, because she destroys the most symbolic part of the government’s regime, which kick-starts the whole revolution, also cool.

The Worst Part

The love triangle. It annoys me sooo much. Katniss just wants to have her cake and eat it. Outside of the Hunger Games, she loves Gale, inside she loves Peeta. C’mon, just pick one, stop being greedy!

What is unique about Catching Fire?

Well the concept of the Hunger Games is fairly unique in itself. It’s also one of the only dystopia films out currently (dystopias are insanely awesome, INSANELY AWESOME!!!). However, the most unique thing about Catching Fire, in fact the entire Hunger Games franchise, is the strong female lead character in a fantasy/action type film. In a genre filled with the likes of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, who both have strong male leads, Katniss being a strong female lead is like a breath of fresh air.

Would I recommend it?

In a word, yes! Even though it does have a few problems (to me at least), it is exciting, it is engrossing and it is an excellent piece of film-making. I wish I could tell you how close it matches the book, but currently I can’t (sorry!!). The acting in it is superb, especially Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen, and is easily an improvement on the excellent first film, The Hunger Games.

My Rating (out of 10)

8/10

New and Hopefully Improved Review Template!

This is more of a sort of admin call really, people.

As you guys and girls know, whenever I read a book or watch a film/T.V. Series, I like to do a review of it. Looking back through my reviews, they seem to read like a bit of a mess of all my ideas on said book/film/T.V. series. Thus, I have gone to the trouble of creating a set of ten questions/sub-headings which will hopefully make my reviews a little easier to follow. To be honest, it wasn’t a lot of trouble, I was just telling porkies so I could receive a little bit of sympathy. They will still be quite short as I plan to stick to 140 character entries for the plot and each main character. Anyway, the nine questions/sub-headings:

The Plot

The Main Characters

The Positives (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

The Negatives (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

The Best Part (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

The Worst Part (***SPOILER ALERTS***)

What is unique about (title of book/film/T.V. series)?

Would I recommend it?

My Rating (out of 10)

Hopefully, I’ve got down the main areas of what people are interested in when they read a book or watch a film. If you guys have any suggestions of additional points or changes, please comment below and I’ll take whatever you guys say into consideration.

Film Review: The Hunger Games (2012)

I thought I should do a little review of The Hunger Games considering The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is coming out next week.

The Hunger Games. What can I say about it? I like this film. I really, really like it. When I first saw this last year in the cinema, I came into it as a complete novice having not read the books or having seen any of the trailers. I was kind of a sceptic, having been persuaded by my girlfriend to accompany her to see it. To my complete surprise, it was really, really good and I was pretty happy I’d seen it. Here’s a few reasons why:

Firstly, I like the main character, Katniss Everdeen. She’s completely different to any main character from a successful fantasy movie. To start, Katniss is a girl, which makes a nice change from the norm of a group of macho males dominating the movie. Seriously, can anyone actually remember the last time a successful fantasy film had a female lead character? I can’t. Jennifer Lawrence provides a great performance as Katniss Everdeen, making Katniss feel very believable as an angry upstart from one of the least well thought of districts who mainly cares about revolution from a personal standpoint: protecting her family, mainly her sister. This allows us to have a connection with her, which is always needed if you want to have a really good film. When Katniss feels upset after Rue dies, we feel pretty gutted for her. When she has to leave her sister behind, we feel pity for Katniss. She’s a really good, strong female lead that we haven’t seen in a long time and is a breath of fresh air.

Other good things about The Hunger Games. Hmmmmmm…..let me think. Well, as a big fan of dystopias, I really like how the film portrays Panem, the nation in which The Hunger Games is set. It seems like a cross between Nazi Germany, with the outright subjugation of the nation using the Peacekeepers, and Communist Russia, with the constant surveillance of all the districts. My favourite element of the dystopia, though, is the complete disparity between the Capitol and the outlying districts. It is a little obvious I admit, I mean the make-up and the outfits just completely show off the excess of the Capitol, especially when compared with the plain clothes and starvation of the outlying districts. However, it is effective and it is realistic. It’s like the people of the Capitol are laughing at the poor districts and rubbing it in that they control all the wealth, much like the controlling centres of totalitarian regimes.

Alas, I hate to do this, but I do have a few bones to pick. And I’m afraid to say they aren’t minor ones, not major mines, but not minor ones either. First of all, the film contains very little narrative. I’m sure the book is different, but I just felt the film driven more by the action than the narrative, and considering it’s the first in a trilogy, it’s a quite a problem. Watching the film again tonight, the film kind of glides along, jumping from bit to bit without any character pushing it forward. If I were to give a little advice (which they don’t have to take, I’m not really qualified to provide advice), I would have used Caesar Flickerman, the main commentator, to push the narrative forward in the film a little more. It isn’t a huge criticism, I personally felt the film was a little disjointed at times.

The second criticism is one of some poor explanation in the film. Like before, I have been told on good authority that it is explained well in the book, however, the film falls down a little here. Example 1: we aren’t really told how Katniss and the rest of District 12 came to be in such poor circumstances, except by a revolution, even though other districts aren’t as poor as the outlying districts. Example 2: we aren’t really told why the government favours Districts 1 and 2 during the Hunger Games, we’re just sort of meant to assume they do. Example 3: we aren’t really told why Haymitch is their mentor, we aren’t really told he was a victor of the Hunger Games. I may be wrong, but these are pretty significant parts of the movie and could have done with more explanation, even if they were a little constrained by time.

Hopefully, I have given a pretty fair review to a very decent movie. Even with the criticisms, this is still a very good film and very easy to watch. In fact, I’m glad the movie had some bad points because I’m hoping the series can only get better and end on a real high, which many trilogies fail to do nowadays. This film is a great watch and I cannot wait for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, coming out on 22^nd of November to a cinema near you!!!!!!!!!

As a little add on, here is the trailer for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire:

Stay tuned for more posts.

If you like what you read, follow my blog or follow me on twitter: @jcwriter678

Film Review: True Grit (2010)

First and foremost, True Grit is a Western. Yes, that’s right, you heard me, a Western. “A Western in the 2000s?”, I hear you say with a bemused look on your face. Yes, it is  a Western. Now, whilst some of you may not be shocked at the idea of a Western in the 21^st Century, others of you may be puzzled as to why I’m making a rather large point about there being a Western in the 21^st Century. You see, the problem is there is a common consensus that whilst Western’s are great, they’ve kind of had their day. Truly great Western’s that spring to mind are the Clint Eastwood trilogy, The Magnificent Seven, Once Upon a Time in the West and the original True Grit. The 2010 version of True Grit is the first exception to this rule.

When you watch the Clint Eastwood Western’s from the late 60s/early 70s, one of the main features is there is very little action until you get to the final few pivotal scenes. For the Clint Eastwood films to work, Eastwood’s The Man With No Name character had to have such an immense presence that you would want to watch on. True Grit has this in abundance with Rooster Cogburn. Rooster Cogburn is the kind of character I really like. He’s an Antihero. He kills people. He drinks. He’s rude, obnoxious, basically everything you wouldn’t expect in the hero of the film. And yet, he’s clearly a good guy, trying to help Mattie Ross, his “employer”, find Tom Chaney. The other hero of the film, LaBoeuf, is the complete opposite of Rooster Cogburn. He doesn’t drink, he doesn’t kill every villain he meets and he wants to track Tom Chaney down by the book. These two characters play off of each other so well and provide some of the most entertaining parts of the film, with their arguments, bickering and their need to prove they are better than the other.

While both Jeff Bridges’ and Matt Damon’s performances are excellent, Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn just beats Matt Damon as LaBoeuf. Whatever scene Rooster Cogburn is in, you’re hanging off of his every word, even when he’s in a drunken state and is just mumbling. Whilst they are tracking Tom Chaney, you hear his life story as he grumbles on and on to Mattie about how his wife left him along with his son and how he really blames himself, and you actually feel sympathetic for this drunkard with an itchy trigger finger. The real point, for me, when you realise how much of a good guy Rooster Cogburn is, is when in the final scenes of the film where he travels miles and miles to get Mattie to a doctor about she is bitten by a rattlesnake, eventually saving her life.

Like with LaBoeuf, Cogburn’s character would not work as well without Mattie Ross, played by Hailee Steinfeld. Where LaBoeuf opposes Cogburn with his work ethic, Mattie opposes Cogburn with her desire to see justice done to the man who killed her father. She wields both the carrot, the money she is still to pay Cogburn, and the stick, her sharp tongue and restless desire to see Tom Chaney hang. She is religious, which Cogburn, judging by his lifestyle, probably is not, she is caring and she isn’t lazy, forming a trio of character with great screen presence and chemistry.

The best scene of the film has to be the final fight between Ned Pepper’s gang and Rooster Cogburn. The great thing about this scene is it’s like a mini rollercoaster ride. Initially, you think Rooster, the good guy is obviously going to win, even though the odds are stacked against him. Then, when his horse gets shot and Ned Pepper prepares to shoot him, LaBoeuf makes an incredible shot and kills Ned Pepper, although it takes a while for him to fall from his horse, which just raises your anticipation. Then, the scene ends with Mattie shooting Tom Chaney after he regains consciousness and knocks out LaBoeuf. Alas, my description is pretty average at best and cannot truly convey how great this scene is, so here’s a video of it:

Reading through the reviews on IMDB, the reason it’s probably not rated as highly as it should be is because people continuously compare it to the original. Luckily for me, I have not seen the original, or read the book, so I was coming at this film from a completely new viewpoint. Obviously, it will be different, it’s made over 40 years after its predecessor, with a different cast, different directors and a different approach. If you are looking for a feel-good film, this probably isn’t for you. If you are looking for romance or comedy, this isn’t for you. However, if you are looking for a great Western full of everything that a Western should contain, I would definitely recommend this film. For me, this film is a definite 8/10.

Stay tuned for more posts.

If you like what you read, follow my blog via the big Follow button at the top right hand side of the screen, or follow me on Twitter at @jcwriter678.

Book Review: Nineteen Eighty-Four

Firstly, let me just say this: Nineteen Eighty-Four is a great book written by one of my all-time favourite authors, Mr. George Orwell. You wanna know why Nineteen Eighty-Four is such a great book? Well I’ll tell you why if you continue reading (please).

Nineteen Eighty-Four revolves around the main character Winston Smith and his subtle fight against the subjugating dictator like figure of Big Brother and his control over the vast area of Oceania. His fight mainly consists of rule-breaking, such as having sex, which is against the rules, writing stuff down, in normal English, not in Newspeak, also against the rules, and secretly attempting to rebel with the mysterious rebel Emmanuel Goldstein, which is obviously against the rules. On top of this, there’s tonnes of other cool stuff like the Thought Police, Newspeak, Doublethink, which can be a quite hard to get your head around (I had to read them at least twice to completely get what they meant), as well as love, depression, false hope and a shed load of betrayal.

So, a big reason why Nineteen Eighty-Four is such a great book is because it’s had a humongous impact on society today. For all those in Britain, we get treated (well not really treated, more like tortured) to the T.V. show Big Brother, who in Nineteen Eighty-Four, is the mysterious entity which presides over Oceania, the zone in which Winston Smith lives. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, you don’t know whether Big Brother is one person, or a group of people, just like in the T.V. show, where you hear both men and women speaking as Big Brother. You see, lots of connections. Another T.V. show sprouted from Nineteen Eighty-Four is Room 101, a show in which celebrities try to persuade the host to send their pet hates into Room 101. In the book, it is obviously much worse than that, a place everyone fears and basically means if you go there, you’ll die pretty soon after.

Being a history student, one of my favourite things about Nineteen Eighty-Four is the unbelievably obvious references to Stalinist Russia, my favourite area of study as it so happens. The description of Big Brother is an almost identical description of Joseph Stalin, the way they remove they political opponents is exactly the same as the Purges in the late 1930’s and the government controls the nation through fear, lies and oppression, just like, you guessed it, Stalinist Russia.

Personally, the main character Winston Smith, to me, is a little bit of George Orwell’s genius. He is character almost everyone can identify with as he’s sick of the way his life has turned out, he’s got health problems left, right and centre, (the varicose ulcer on his right leg could be another character all by itself), and Winston really isn’t perfect, he is neither right nor wrong, he is ‘morally grey’, my favourite type of characters.

However, above all other things in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the best part has to be all the betrayal that happens. Now, don’t get me wrong, I hat betrayal. It’s not nice to betray someone so don’t do it! But, it’s amazing how there can be so much betrayal in a society where everyone hates the state. They’re practically told to hate the everything in their life including the state in the Two Minutes Hate. And yet, because the state is so callous, cruel and, ultimately, powerful, they are able to make their citizens turn on each other like rabid dogs. Winston betrays Julia, Julia betrays Winston, alas most shockingly of all, to me anyway, was O’Brien’s betrayal, who then turned out to be Winston’s torturer. It’s crazy, but crazy-good, not crazy-bad.

Now you know why I love Nineteen Eighty-Four and I would definitely recommend it. Most people have probably read it because a lot of schools study it, but if you haven’t, READ IT, and if you have, READ IT AGAIN, because it is just so good. And, it’s pretty short so it will only take a couple of days to read. A lovely little added bonus isn’t it.

Stay tuned for more posts.

If you like what you read, follow my blog in the top right hand side of the screen or follow me on Twitter at @jcwriter678