SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

Blue Valentine tells two timelines of a couple, Dan and Cindy (Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams), as they romance each other and get together, and the dissolution of their marriage several years later. During their relationship, they have a daughter, Frankie, and for fear of raising her in a broken home, Dean tries to reignite his marriage.

The film was absolutely heart-breaking and engrossing in every aspect. It is easy to tell that every look given by the actors and the framing of every shot has been considered and thought over by director Derek Cianfrance, and since the film had been in production since 2003, Cianfrance has had plenty of opportunity. The story is very well-structured and the split storyline, despite being initially confusing, compliments the film increasingly towards the end of the film. For example, Dean plays a song to Cindy as he tries to cheer her up in the present storyline but fails in even making her smile, and a few minutes later, we see the song becoming 'Their Song' in the past storyline, making the significance apparant as well as a tad upsetting.

Even though the story is a large contributor to the film's overall special quality, the impressive main leads help bring the story to life.

Ryan Gosling has got to be one of the finest actors of our generation. Big words I know, but I have yet to see him put in a performance that isn't totally committed. Many females in the audience tonight will mainly remember Gosling for his role as Noah in 2004's The Notebook. However he first grabbed my attention, as well as shot to the forefront of the critical circles, in 2006 when he starred as a drug-addict high school teacher in Half Nelson. He then carried on his impressive resume with Lars and the Real Girl in 2007. His acting style is very muted and realistic and this often-mistaken-for-Ryan Reynolds actor is definitely one to watch when he finally breaks into the mainstream, following the trails of actors such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy.

Michelle Williams on the other hand, I am not so familiar with. I knew of her when I was younger due to my sister's love of Dawson's Creek, but unfortunately recently I knew of her for merely being Heath Ledger's widow. However more recently, she did give an amazingly chilling performance in Scorsese's Shutter Island last year, and she continues on her good form with another impressive Oscar-nominated performance in Valentine. Only a small role, but Faith Wladyka playing the couple's young daughter Frankie was a treat to watch too.

The film may be a tad upsetting and depressing if you choose it as a 'date movie' but the realism is what gives the film such a surprising and refreshing edge. Relationships do break down in real life and anyone who has suffered through a split can identify with one of the main characters, if not both. You live through their lives as they find love and despair, and due to the effective soundtrack, emotive cinematography and brilliant performances by the entire cast, you truly feel for these characters. That is a sign of a carefully-constructed love-story and definitely worth a watch, regardless of your relationship status. Just maybe not on Valentine's Day.

Rating - 9/10

Hmm, I've put off this review for a while, as I wanted to see if my views changed with time, but unfortunately they haven't.

You cannot find a bigger fan of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost than I. I currently have a signed poster of Hot Fuzz on my bedroom wall, signed by the two men themselves as well as the film's director Edgar Wright. I know virtually every line of their Channel 4 sitcom Spaced, their big-screen debut Shaun of the Dead and the aforementioned Hot Fuzz. Shaun of the Dead actually sat in my Top Ten Film list for quite some time too. All of which add to the disappointing fact that I really didn't find Paul funny. Like, at all.

Pegg and Frost play a pair of sci-fi nerds on a tour of America's best-known nerdy and alien hotspots, starting at nerd-travaganza Comic-Con, before travelling through Roswell, New Mexico and past Area 51. Whilst passing Area 51, they encounter the laid-back alien Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen) who has escaped from 51 and is in need of a lift to a rendezvous with his spaceship. However, special agents (Jason Bateman, Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio) are hot on their tales to retrieve Paul.

Hear all that comedic talent? Not only Pegg and Frost, but Rogen, Bateman, Hader, as well as Kristen Wiig, Jeffrey Tambor, David Koechner and Sigourney Weaver (of all people) making an appearance too! This is pretty much my ideal combining of comedic talent from both sides of the pond, as well as all being under the helm of Superbad's director Greg Mottola! What could go wrong?

19 minutes. That's how long into the film it was before I laughed. I was so amazed by the first laugh-less 18 minutes that when a joke did make me chuckle, I had to check my watch to note it. Sigh, I truly need to stop expecting so much from films involving actors I admire. It only results in disappointment. It happened with The Invention of Lying, Couples Retreat, Dinner For Schmucks, and now Paul.

The problem with all of these films is that the jokes were a bit too 'safe' (for lack of a better word) and Paul is no exception. An often-repeated line in the film is that 'sometimes, you have to roll the dice'. Pegg and Frost should listen to their own advice. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were incredibly funny because they immersed themselves in the genre they were parodying. The amount of zombie/cop film references in both Shaun and Fuzz are staggering but they add to the feel of the world they are in, which is something Paul misses. Is the film a comedy? A science fiction? Action? Thriller? It doesn't really know, and therefore spreads itself far too thin. It makes sense to try and appeal to the larger audiences since this is Pegg and Frost's first big American-funded film together, but I felt like most of the funniest bits of humour might have been left on the cutting room floor for fear of alienating too much of the American public (no pun intended).

And speaking of alienating the audience, can I have a quick word with liberal comedy writers everywhere?

Hey guys! Can I just say? Please be careful when concerning religion. It's fine when you mock those who take themselves and their religion too seriously, like Chris Morris' Four Lions or Bill Maher's Religulous. When you start enforcing your beliefs on others, then you're rife for parody. But when the message of a large part of your film moves from “Ha, aren't these fundamentalists silly people?” to “No, you are wrong in believing in God, and I, the writer, am right!” it stops being funny and moves to slightly offensive and alienating. Gervais fell into this trap with The Invention of Lying and now Pegg and Frost have done the same. The main diatribe from Lying was that Gervais' character created the first lie, and he ended up inventing the Christian religion: “Har-har! Everyone who believes in religion is believing in a lie!” And that's all the theists in the audience offended and mocked in one fell swoop, bravo! You are perfectly allowed to have your view on the state of religion in the world, but then so are the rest of the world.

Anyway, back to the review! Paul wasn't completely devoid of comedy. Like I said, it might have been 19 minutes into the film, but I did end up laughing and again several times during the film. Bill Hader was the main reason for this, as his delivery and timing had me chuckling for most of the time he was on screen. I was simply hoping for more of them, and therefore, I was left wanting.

I should say that I seem to be in the minority when it comes to this film. Many of my friends have said it's an early candidate for their Film of the Year, so maybe there's just something wrong with me, but all I can give you is my honest tendentious opinion.

Disagree entirely? Agree in parts but not overall? Let me know your thoughts and we can have a nice little discussion.

I've never been a fan of boxing films. Sorry, that's an understatement, let me rephrase. Boxing films bore me. They've just never interested me and I don't know why. It's not a hatred of the sport, even though I've never been that interested in that either, but the idea of a film about two guys punching each other just never grabbed me. And that's from a fan of WWE wrestling. To this day, I haven't seen a single Rocky film, and I gave up watching Raging Bull half an hour in. *cue cries of outrage* I know, this is certainly unacceptable since both are held in high regard and have become the benchmark for boxing films ever since.

Therefore when I saw “the best boxing movie since Rocky!” was being released at my nearest cinema, I wasn't that awe-struck. Then I noticed who was starring in The Fighter: Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale. They had my attention. Checking the film's background, I read how Marky-Mark had put on a lot of weight for the role; as always, Bale had lost a lot of weight for the role; and the film was going to focus on their relationship and not the sport of boxing. With this new knowledge, along with my New Year's Resolution hanging over my shoulder, I made the decision it was worth a watch.

The Fighter tells the true story of brothers “Irish” Mickey Ward (Wahlberg) and Dicky Eklund (Bale) and their struggle as they try to achieve glory. For Mickey, it's potential glory in the boxing world, but for Dicky, it's former glory as he wastes his life addicted to crack cocaine, trying to kick-start his failed boxing career. As Mickey trains and fights to become champion, he has to cope with personal troubles, embodied by his girlfriend (Amy Adams), his mother (Melissa Leo) and his numerous sisters as they all think they know what's best for him.

The story might be cliched, but this film is driven and held together by the magnificent performances from the entire cast. Bale, Adams and Leo deliver their characters perfectly and create a chaotic world around the otherwise calm Mickey. When it comes to roles like Dicky Eklund, “Ultimate Method Actor” Christian Bale is a safe bet to fully commit to the role and you can see him almost lose himself in the character. You don't really realise how spot on his performance is until the end credits, and you see the real life Ward brothers; it's as if the real life Dicky is imitating Bale's performance! Bale went on to win Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance, and both Adams and Leo got Oscar and BAFTA nominated, with Leo rightfully winning Best Supporting Actress. They capture the often cliched mother-in-law/girlfriend tension superbly as Leo feels Adams is stealing Mickey away from her.

Despite the supporting characters being pitch-perfect, this did bring a flaw to the film. Due to the extroverted characters around him, the self-titled “Fighter”, Mickey, was the least interesting character. He was the calm eye of the storm going on around him, but that resulted in more of the action and drama coming from Dicky's storyline of his drug addiction and imprisonment. I felt Wahlberg wasn't given enough material to let him shine as he did in The Departed and I (Heart) Huckabees.

At this point, I feel I must return to my original point from the start of this review. It is true that boxing as a sport doesn't interest me greatly. However, the boxing scenes in this film strangely did grab my attention and had me cheering towards the end of Mickey's journey. They were filmed very authentically, as if the audience is watching a gritty television pay-per-view in a downtown bar. I believe that's what let me get through this film in one piece. The boxing action takes backseat to the drama of the Ward family, and as one brother conquers his demons in the ring, the other conquers them outside the ring as well. The Fighter is more about retribution than boxing. I'm sure that's what people say about Rocky or Raging Bull, and I think The Fighter has shown me that I should maybe broaden my viewing horizons. …..Maybe.

Rating - 8/10

A prequel to the 2009 sleeper hit. You can tell that the film has a much bigger budget... more cast members and more cameras but, ultimately, less scares.

I am a huge fan of the first one. So much so that I was already pessimistic about this before I had seen it. Horror films don’t need sequels/prequels. When will Hollywood understand that?

This one isn’t terrible but doesn’t have the impact that the first one had. For starters, it’s extremely slow. The first half of the film is setting up the characters and giving back story yadda yadda yadda.

Boring.

The film starts with a small family and their nanny and time jumps a couple of times from the wife being pregnant to her bringing the baby home to the baby being a 2 year old. Then, it shows the families daily routine. They hear a couple of noises and start to suspect the house is haunted, except for the father as he is a non believer in the paranormal. Eventually, we meet Katie and Micah (from the first one). Katie is the Sister of the Step Mother. I don’t want to give away too many plot details as I’m not a huge fan of giving away spoilers so I’ll leave it there.

Now, for my thoughts on it. Well, honestly, some of the scares were quite good. Most were pants, but not all of them. It’s just a shame that it took nearly 3 quarters of the films running time for the good stuff to happen. I know the first one took its time but this took even longer and the bits in-between weren’t all that entertaining.

The whole “let’s give the demon a Back Story and a Purpose” was a bad move. Trying to justify its motives doesn’t enhance its effectiveness, it diminishes it. On top of that, the reason that they did provide was pathetic. Honestly.

The scares that work are great. It’s just a shame that there are probably 3 in the entire movie. Some of the things that I think were meant to be scary had a tendency to make me laugh (The father jumping in the Hot Tub was one of them). Most of the film is the same as first one just not as good.

This is one of those films where there’s not really a lot to say about it so what I will tell you, is rent it. Don’t buy it (unless it’s in the bargain bucket) as you’ll only watch it once, unless you fall asleep the first time and have to try again.

Even though the budget was bigger, it feels like a cheap copy of the first one instead of something new. I’ve also heard that they are making a 3^rd one which leaves me with one final thought... can it be worse than this? Surely not!

Rating: 4 out of 10

Typically, Disney CGI doesn’t work without Pixar’s involvement. So, why does Tangled have that ‘Classic’ Disney feel-good vibe that’s been missing from some of their more recent efforts (Bolt, Chicken Little)?

Truthfully, I can’t answer that. What I can tell you is that the film is genuinely heartfelt (if not a little predictable but what Disney film isn’t?). The cast, songs, animation and story all have their plus points so there’s not much for me to really pick at.

The premise, a rather neat way of retelling the Rapunzel fairytale, is about a young girl, trapped in a tower, really long hair... yeah, you know that story. Here though, Rapunzel is a “Lost Princess” whose hair possesses magical qualities. Sounds contrived but it isn’t. It’s actually a very clever way of explaining why she never got a haircut. Long story short? A Drop of sun fell to earth, created a magic flower, old woman used flower to stay young, Queen became ill, King had flower found and used it to cure wife. Because the queen was up the duff at this point, the magic of the flower transferred to her unborn child... you guessed it... Rapunzel.

The old woman wants to stay young forever so she takes Rapunzel and hides her in a secret tower... Whilst there, every year on her birthday, she sees thousands of lights burning brightly in the sky (released by the royal family so that Rapunzel may one day find her way home) and it’s her dream to find out what they are. Then, we meet Flynn Rider... handsome, charming, selfish, greedy... you know, how almost every Disney male is portrayed until he wins the heart of the girl and changes his wicked ways. He is blackmailed into taking Rapunzel to see the lights and their paths are forever enTangled.

Now to the nitty gritty...

As I’ve said, the film is a very solid outing for Disney. It’s charming, well written, funny and has enough to entertain adults as well as kids. The locations are beautiful and the main characters are given decent back stories that make you care... even the old woman that kidnaps Rapunzel. I’m not sure if it’s just me, but I thought, in her own twisted way, she had genuine concern for Rapunzel. Granted, any concern she may have had was thrown to wind in honour of the more traditional bad guy traits like greed and vanity.

Flynn had that Indiana Jones swagger about him... Imagine indie when he was 20 and the world filled him with wonder... and Rapunzel, although she was meant to be almost 18, she was more like a 14 year old. Which I thought was a good thing as she’d been kept in a tower for her whole life and hadn’t had the chance to gain any ‘Life Experience’.

My favourite character in the film was the one with no lines... Maximus otherwise known as Max. The loyal steed of the head guard was downright brilliant. Whoever had the idea to give him the same personality as a police dog deserves major kudos. Max was hilarious... even though he had no lines, he was perfectly understood as every movement and facial expression was so over top, you couldn’t help but fall in love with him... just like an absurdly adorable puppy. I defy anyone to watch this movie and not smile when he’s on screen.

I only have 1 major issue with the film really and it’s about the continuity. Think back to those lights in sky... If they were released EVERY single year and Flynn knew about them, why was unable to connect the dots between the fact that the Lost Princess went missing eighteen years ago and that it is now Rapunzel’s eighteenth birthday? Oh, and the fact the name hasn’t changed should have given him some idea as to who she really was or are we meant to just assume that he really is that stupid?

The music is appropriate and entertaining but none of the songs have the lasting appeal of some of the older classics (The Lion King, The Little Mermaid and The Jungle Book).

The visuals are truly stunning. Every backdrop is inspired and created with a lot of love and detail. There is one moment that could quite possibly be THE most beautiful thing ever created with a computer and that's the 'Lantern' scene... utterly unbelievable. At the age of 25, a love song with pretty images shouldn't bring me to tears but it did. It really is a magical moment.

Overall, the film is very enjoyable but don’t expect any Inception style thinking to be required. This is about as cheesy as it gets but in the best way possible. It really is good to have a little Disney magic back on the big screen.

Score: 8 out of 10

Please comment and follow me on Twitter... @PortmanReview

Despite being a 22-year old guy, every time the "Cinderella Castle" appears and the music that filled my childhood begins to play, I can't help but be reminded of all the memories Disney have given me over the years. Their casting of Robin Williams as Aladdin's Genie started my interest in acting, their collaborative work with Pixar's Toy Story began my love for film, and they also knew how to frighten the utter piss out of childhood me, be it via pink elephants with no eyes in Dumbo or gigantic and evil whale Monstro in Pinocchio (still to this day, probably one of the most disturbing children's films ever!)

Last year in 2010, when Disney returned to their traditional 'hand-drawn Princess movie' with The Princess and the Frog, I was a little tentative, especially with the possible sloppy stereotypes that Disney could have fallen into. Thankfully the film worked and earned both praise and profit. Now with all the demographics represented, and since there hadn't been a white Princess since Belle in Beauty and the Beast (1994!), Disney have retreated to what they know best; Caucasian princess fairy-tales.

Tangled tells the story of Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) and her incredibly long and magical golden hair. More in-depth explanation? Okay, there's an old woman who steals young baby Rapunzel from her King and Queen parents for her magical hair to keep her ever-youthful. She keeps her hidden in a tower and deprives her of knowing about the outside world. When Rapunzel runs into a dashing thief, Flynn Rider (Chuck's Zachary Levi), they team up to visit the kingdom she came from to realise her dream of seeing some lanterns. (Weak dream right? Don't worry, it works when you watch it.)

Occasionally computer-animated Disney films are themed around some technological advancement. For example, Monsters Inc. was able to look so realistic due to the groundbreaking advancements in creating the fur for Sully's and other monsters' bodies. The same goes for Finding Nemo and their realistic water animation, and now they have mastered the realistic look of a young girl's hair, and there is plenty of it in Tangled.

Tangled is Disney's 50th animated feature film, and they have gone all-out, spending $260 million on the development and promotion, making it the most expensive animated film ever, and second only to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End for Most Expensive Film Ever Made. At the time of writing, it's also the second highest grossing animated film, having earned $537 million. Not too shabby, some would say the price-tag was worth it.
With all that money behind it, you can see the difference it made, as the film looks absolutely beautiful. The backgrounds and settings look like they have been painted and are incredibly detailed. The film also includes a sequence involving flying Chinese lanterns that I count as one of the best things Disney have ever done. It's magical, romantic, and overall, jaw-dropping when you see it.

The plot may be a little thin, but it is supported by well-written characters. An innocent and naive protagonist Rapunzel, the humorous and dashing rogue Flynn and the antagonist Mother Gothel who, despite her over-controlling possessive qualities, still loves and cares for Rapunzel. Rapunzel and Flynn have a realistic chemistry and interact well with each other. As the antagonist, Gothel especially stood out for me, with her evil qualities portrayed subtly and through passive-aggressive techniques (e.g. annoyance shown through sarcasm and snide remarks), and her overbearing being shown to be both selfish and caring.

However the characters don't go through much of an emotional arc, with Rapunzel's main life aspirations not being that unreachable, and the main revelation towards the end of the film is quite flimsy and quickly put-together. Plus with Gothel coming across as both caring and manipulative, and the secondary villains (the Stabbington Brothers) pushed to the side for most of the film, the film suffers with having no real villain and must leave children wondering who to hate.

All-in-all, it's a fantastically made film, with a witty and sharp script, if there are a few plot-holes here and there, but it's a fairytale after all! One of the best animations released in a long time, and very reminiscent of the Renaissance period of Disney's history when The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast were watched by the world's children. With Disney's re-resurgence, I can only hope for more films of this quality to come in the future.