I went to see X-Men Origins: Wolverine on 14^th May 2009 at Ilford Cineworld in Ilford. The film is directed by Gavin Hood who was also involved with Killer Instinct 2. He is a South African director who has studied at a film school in South Africa. X-Men Origins has a 12A rating and it is an action/fantasy/Sci-Fi/Thriller movie. It has been a while since I have seen an action movie so I thought I would go and see one.

The film X-Men Origins is the beginning of the X-Men sequels. It explains how the mutants became who they are and what kind of backgrounds they all come from. We learn that Wolverine became a very angry and aggressive mutant because of his conflict with his brother Victor Creed. When Victor kills Wolverine’s girlfriend this transforms Wolverine into an angry and vicious mutant. They first start of as friendly brothers, but as the film moves on their relationship becomes more divided and uncomfortable. Later on in the film Wolverine seeks to get revenge as he ends up going through the mutant weapon x program. He was in a huge tank of water with needles puncturing his skin and a face mask to breathe. This experiment was made to make him more of a stronger and destructive killing machine. William Stryker, who promised to help Wolverine get his revenge tried to erase his memory during the transformation for his own benefit. This fails however as Wolverine bursts out of the tank with an angry face seeking to destroy. Other problems emerge in the end however that distract Wolverine from getting his revenge. Other mutants get in the way of his goal.

What I liked about X-Men Origins: Wolverine more than anything else was the action. I thought the action scenes were extremely entertaining. The mutants’ individual talent and weapons are really impressive and they are all used to great effect. Near the end for example Victor and Wolverine fight an advanced mutant who is quick and clever. Wolverine has his knives on his knuckles, Victor has his long nails and dog-like run and strength and the mutant has his invisible quality. The fight scene with all three of them was one of the best fight scenes I have ever seen in a movie. I thought the movie was extremely entertaining.

Even though the X-Men films are predictable and similar they are still visually hypnotizing at the cinema. They bring back your imagination that you once had from your childhood. Great entertainment! I would rate this film 5.5/10.




The Rikowski web site, The Flow of Ideas is at:
http://www.flowideas.co.uk

Gregory's myspace profile and his blog is at:

http://www.gregrikowski.blogspot.com

 



I went to see Wonderful Town at the BFI Southbank on 30^th April 2009. The film is directed by Aditya Assarat. This was the director’s debut feature. Wonderful Town was made in 2007 and was produced in Thailand. The entire film was made with subtitles.

The film is concentrated within a small thai town that was destroyed by a tsunami in 2004. More than 8,000 people died in the process. Assarat demonstrates how a disaster can have terrible effects and how hard it is to rebuild not only a town but also a person. The Tsunami destroyed many homes and left the town in pieces. Throughout the film we get to see the destruction of the town and how it had affected the people living there. Na, (Anchalee Saissontorn, actress) one of the main characters had lived in the town her whole life. Ton (Suppasit Kansen, actor) another main character, is an architect but also a volunteer to help supervise the rebuilding of a beach hotel destroyed by the tsunami.

The relationship between Na and Tom starts off gently and slowly. The relationship then starts to become more intense as they start to show affection to each other, without much dialogue. We first start to really understand their love when Tom drives by and talks to Na. He then asks her to go out somewhere with him but she makes an excuse for this. We can see on her expression when he drives past that she wanted to say yes, but for some reason she didn’t. Tragically Na’s brother doesn’t like the fact that she is sleeping with Tom. He ends up killing Tom and getting revenge on him. He said to Tom In the film ‘Once a gangster, always a gangster’. He ends up throwing Tom in the river.

The film ultimately is quite pessimistic and shows that the type of area and situation you are in has a huge effect on your life. In this case, the tsunami, which destroyed much of the Thai people’s, lives. It also shows that love cannot last in a place that has been destroyed and scarred.

The great thing about this film is that it’s not domineering and it has a calming feel to it. Most films have a strong and powerful narrative but this film is more subtle and free flowing. Throughout much of the film you can also see the wonderful and beautiful landscape of Thailand. The town is full of beautiful trees and open landscapes. Overall I find this film fascinating and very calming. Nothing in this film is evasive. Overall I would give this film 8/10.

The Rikowski web site, The Flow of Ideas is at:
http://www.flowideas.co.uk



Gregory's myspace profile and his blog is at:
http://www.gregrikowski.blogspot.com/

I went to see Traitor on 2^nd April 2009 at the Odeon Picketts Lock. The film is directed by Jeffrey Nachmanoff who also did the screenplay for The Day After Tomorrow. The film is a crime/thriller which has a 12A rating.

The plot throughout the film is being focused on an individual named Samir Horn (Actor known as Don Cheadle). He is a terrorist who seeks to destroy American life which he believes is apart of his faith. The film starts off quite slowly but then the plot becomes clearer and faster as you watch it. Samir Horn joins with a group of terrorists who all come together after he and his friends escape from prison. They were in prison for being a danger to civilisation. The American FBI agent named Roy Clayton (Actor known as Guy Pearce) realises the danger of the terrorists and tries to track them down. The terrorists succeeded with many bombings as they bombed places in France and the U.S. Towards the end however Samir had told all the terrorists to commit suicide in a single coach when they were meant to disperse into different coaches. He started to change as he becomes more hateful of terrorism. He ends up killing his terrorist friends as he realises that what they are doing is clearly immoral and he puts a stop to it. Samir ends up walking away a free man because of the lives he had potentially saved. He realised that the other terrorists were using him and his faith to extreme and unjust levels.    

The film not only represents actions of terrorists but it also gives you an insight of the lives of Muslims and people from the East. Throughout the film there are elements of a culture clash. In the prison for example a man mocks Samir for his Muslim beliefs and tries to pick fights with him. Additionally a clash between Americans and people of the Eastern part of the world is clear. The Americans see terrorists as barbaric and as a threat without realising their motives and reasons for committing these crimes. The Eastern people indicate that the Americans and the Europeans do not understand their circumstances of being treated as inferiors, which is one of the reasons for why they carry out these actions. The film shows a clear distinction to those who are powerful and rich and those that are poor. Despite the clashes in the film, the FBI agent has some similarities to Samir. They both believe in god and they both have a good idea of life in the East. Roy Clayton had studied and learned Arabic. 

Watching Traitor made me realise how complicated and extremely dangerous it is when dealing with terrorism. No mistakes are allowed and it is done on a very strict schedule. Any contact with friends or family is forbidden. Samir had got in trouble because he was talking to his girlfriend in a park. He got in trouble because of this and was lucky not to be murdered. She was working with the FBI. Samir was a moral person but was misusing his morals into something dangerous. He is almost like a kind and honest criminal which is strange. He speaks good English and is polite and his girlfriend seems very nice as well. Because of this the audience have mixed feelings and perceptions of Samir. We feel connected to him but for lots of different reasons.

Overall I thought Traitor was a very clever film as it establishes aspects such as culture clashes, cruelty, stereotypes and divisions. I found it very alerting and made me realise what it would be like to carry out a terrorist attack. I would rate this film 7.5/10.  

The Rikowski web site, The Flow of Ideas is at:
http://www.flowideas.co.uk




Gregory's blog is at:
http://www.gregrikowski.blogspot.com/

I went to see Eyes Without a Face at the BFI Southbank on Monday 9th February 2009. The film was made in France in 1960 and was directed by Georges Franju. Eyes Without a Face was made with French subtitles.

Eyes Without a Face was made at a time where film was really developing and changing. It was made in the same year as Psycho and Peeping Tom who had disturbed the audience in a shocking and discomforting way. Eyes Without a Face was also extremely shocking. It was a film that was years ahead of its time and audiences struggled to absorb and accept the themes and messages in the film. This was because the movie is a horror film which was quite explicitly damaging. The film captures elements of the surrealist movements by French artists back in the 1930s. Some argue that this film created surrealist paintings of Max Ernst and Paul Delvaux.

The film is based on a women named (Edith Scob, actress), Christiane Genessier who is ashamed of her face and does anything to make it perfect. Luckily for her she had found a mad scientist (Dr Genessier) who specialises in this area. He decides to use a woman in which he could use her face to give to Christiane. She lives with them in a big house. The Dr makes her fall asleep by giving her a chemical in which he actively forces her asleep. He then gives Christiane a new face. She finds herself reformed and a new person up until the point when she realises that her new face has an infection. Her face starts to deteriorate more and more as she becomes more haunted and worried by her face. Dr Genessier still persists into fixing her and making her perfect. He finds another young woman whom he uses to fix Christaine. Christiane ends up hating the whole operations and as the young women is awoken from the drug, Christiane lets her go as the doctor is busy working. She then lets all the dogs go free. The dogs are used as experiments by the doctor. They end up getting their revenge on him by eating him alive.

The whole idea of a new face in the 1960s was extremely new and shocking. George Franju, the director mixes elements of surrealism and horror. The horror elements are shown mainly through Christiane who moves and behaves in a witch like manner. She is emotionless except when her face is being mentioned. She is constantly afraid when her face is in question. Christiane constantly wears a mask to cover her face which makes her mysterious and scary.

The film is concentrated in a small area which is typical for a horror film. This makes the atmosphere claustrophic and provocative. The film is full of traumas and the images in the film won’t leave you. The film was years, ahead of its time and this was the reason to why people were so against it. Either they hated Eyes Without A Face or just found it weird and over explicit. Personally I found it intriguing and interesting. I would rate this film 7.5/10.

The Rikowski web site, The Flow of Ideas is at:
http://www.flowideas.co.uk




Gregory's blog is at:
http://www.gregrikowski.blogspot.com/          

I saw Valkyrie on 1st February 2009 at the Ilford Cineworld Cinema in. It was directed by Bryan Singer who was also the producer of The Usual Suspects in 1994. Tom Cruise is the main character in this film who surprisingly suffers death. The film also has Eddie Izzard (General Erich Fellgieber) a famous stand up comedian, who helps assassinate Hitler in the film. The film is all based on a true story during the Nazi period.   

The film is set in the Nazi period, which is mainly between the years of 1943-1945. The film is about an assassinator named Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) who rebels against Nazi ideologies and operations. Stauffenberg loses his arm, his left eye and two of his fingers during the War. He soon realises that Germany will suffer destruction if the War continues. He tries to gather officers together to plan the assassination of Hitler. There was an attempt before to assassinate Hitler but it had failed. Stauffenberg had strong hatred for Hitler and is disgusted by him. Stauffenberg continues to persist with his operations despite the risk of him and his family being executed. When the bomb eventually goes off Stauffenberg believes that Hitler is dead even though he is not 100% sure of this. So he tells everyone that he is in fact dead and then tries to bring down and stop the S.S. troops from doing further chaos. He is successful up until the point when everyone finds out the fuhrer is not dead, but has only suffered minor injuries. Hitler soon gets revenge and kills Stauffenberg and his family.

I studied a year of History at College and some at school. This has helped me to have a clear understanding and analysis of events in the film. The actions the Nazis had taken were shocking and chaotic. I think the film reflected how chaotic and corrupt the system was at the time. Valkyrie only shows one event of corruption during the Nazi period. There were more events that were shocking and more depressing. Everyone in Valkyrie are extremely anxious and careful, especially Tom Cruise who is constantly rebelling against someone and is always on the edge. One example was when he was talking with Eddie Izaard in the bathroom and explains that he (Eddie Izaard) needs to join his plans to assassinate Hitler. We get close ups and different kinds of shots in this scene which adds to the atmosphere and feel of the clip. We do sympathise with Stauffenberg because of his state and physical damage which the War has done to him. In the end he suffers greatly and is shot dead. I have to admit that I found this extremely shocking. Not only because of the death of the main character but of Tom Cruise himself. He normally survives ridiculous circumstances and I wouldn’t have been surprised if this was any different, even though it is based on true events. To be honest I was amazed by his death and it shows that he is in fact a mortal.

I found the film gripping and made me feel quite scared of the thought of being in those times. The film captures elements such as corruption, disorder, immorality, fascism, suppression and death. It is not exactly the most cheerful list but it was not cheerful times. So because of this the film did a good job. I would rate this film 4/10.      

The Rikowski web site, The Flow of Ideas is at:
http://www.flowideas.co.uk




Gregory's blog is at:
http://www.gregrikowski.blogspot.com/     

I went to see the film Notorious on Sunday 25th January 2009 at the BFI Southbank. The film was originally directed by Alfred Hitchcock in 1946. It stared key actors such as Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant.

Notorious has some very typical film elements and techniques that Hitchcock uses. He uses suspense, point of view shot, cinematic visual style he creates and an individualistic obscure way of filming. Hitchcock tends to use interesting and unique ways of filming which make him a classic auteur.

I thought that Notorious was an extremely subtle and tender piece of filming. It was based on a woman called Alicia Huberman (Ingrid Bergman) who gets emotionally blackmailed by T.R. Devlin (Cary Grant). She seduces a German man (Alexander Sebastian) who has moved abroad and suspects him of working with the Nazis. This man however was her ex-partner whom she knows very well. The relationship between Alicia, Alexander and T.R Devlin becomes very confusing and tense. US agent Devlin ends up falling in love with Bergman as they create an extreme bond and attachment to each other. Their situation however complicates things because Alexander is still in love with Alicia and asks her to marry him. She actually accepts him but only to help the agent with the Nazi situation. The circumstances gets out of control as you become more fearful for the couple. Things in the end work out according to plan and the couple eventually end up together.

I found the romance story in Notorious very gripping and beautiful. The moments that Alicia and Devlin have are very subtle and extremely powerful. There was one particular scene in the film which I found gripping. Alicia gets poisoned by Alexander as Devlin goes to his house and rescues her. He confesses to her that he loves her and doesn’t want to be without her. She is very pleased to here him say it as they kiss and have a very intimate moment. The wonderful thing about the love scenes in this film is that it captures the atmosphere and desires that people have for each other. It does this by having long scenes, lots of sexual and emotional tension, a feel of unspoken love and the respect they have for each other. The couple often have meetings with each other and often on a bench or in a house. When the narrative is focused away from the couple the only thing you think about is what is happening with their relationship. This was the main focus and motivation of the film.

The couple however only end up loving each other later on in the movie because of the complications with Alexander Sebastian and the operations. On one hand they love each other but on the other hand there are a lot of things getting in their way which creates tension and anxiety. The romance gets a bit twisted in a lot of the film. Notorious was made only a year after the Second World War so it must have been extremely powerful at the time considering the circumstances.

I found this film a fascinating piece of art work which is beautiful and gripping. I thought that Ingrid Berman did a brilliant job. She has a fantastic personality with a lot of spirit in the film and a lot of determination. She acted very well and did a great job playing the role of Alicia. Devlin also did a good job with his reluctant behaviour towards Alicia. I thought they both acted well considering the plot and story in the film and adjusted well.

Overall I loved Notorious and is one of Alfred Hitchcock’s best films. It has beauty, creativity, passion, betrayal and everything that makes you feel happy to be human. I would rate this film 8/10.

The Rikowski web site, The Flow of Ideas is at:
http://www.flowideas.co.uk




Gregory's blog is at:
http://www.gregrikowski.blogspot.com/  

I went to see Straw Dogs on January 23rd 2009 at the BFI (British Film Institute) Southbank in London. The director was Sam Peckinpah who made the film back in 1971. What made me want to see this film was when I saw bits of it and studied it at College. We talked about many issues and controversies in the film. I have wanted to see it for about 2-3 years and now I finally have.

I found this film extremely powerful and gripping and one which has similarities to films such as A Clockwork Orange. The film raises controversial issues such as rape, violence, exploitation, greed and the brutal side of the human nature. Similar to Stanley Kubricks A Clockwork Orange this film demonstrates a bunch of men who simply follow their impulses and rebel against formal social control. In other words they represent ways in which parents should not bring up their children. I will explain in further detail throughout the review.

The films synopsis is mainly based on two characters. The very attractive women Susan George, film actress (Amy Summer) and her partner Dustin Hoffman, film actor (David Summer). They decide to live on a farm together whilst employing four men who try to fix and rebuild parts of there new home. Amy Summer however makes the mistake of showing herself to them in a very sexual way. In one scene in particular she walks up to the window topless whilst the other men stare at her. Additionally throughout the film she doesn’t wear a bra. These four characters are rebellious anyway and this leads them onto having twisted thoughts. Eventually one of the men end up raping her in her home as her partner gets distracted by going on a hunting trip with them. So they tell her partner that they will be a while as they all separate. But instead of them going hunting they go back and seduce Amy. I think this was the first time I have ever seen a rape scene in the cinema. The film was banned for one particular reason. In the rape scene Amy first struggles to get away but as it moves on she seems to enjoy it. She starts touching him in a subtle and tender way and even kisses him gently. The reason why it was banned was because it is problematic in regard to what the audience are meant to think. Are we supposed to be aroused? Are we supposed to feel disgusted? It challenges the audience and how twisted they are. If she ends up enjoying it in the end is it even considered as a rape? She actually ends up accepting him. These are the questions and controversies and the reasons why it was banned. An idiot named Henry Niles (David Warner) ends up killing a woman shortly after the scene. The four men start searching for him. Henry soon runs away but David runs him over accidentally on the motorway. David then brings him into his home and phones a doctor. The next thing you know is that his windows are being smashed and much violence takes place. The father of a young woman finds out that Henry was found walking with her. David however refuses to let him inside because he knows he would kill Henry. Many complications arise and in the end many people die and much violence and brutality takes place.

In the end we don’t sympathise with any of the characters due to them all being corrupt and barbaric. Even though David tries to do the moral thing he himself ends up killing at least 5 people in the process. The film indicates the flaws of the human nature and explicitly raises these issues. The four men Tom Hedden, Venner, Cawsey and Scutt have no sense of morals and just do things for fun. They all have neither self control nor a sense of decency. They all try to break into David’s house in the end by smashing his house and throwing rats inside. Even though it was supposed to be to help the man find Henry, they just wanted to rape Amy again. I thought it was interesting that the four men were rat catchers because they seemed like rats themselves.

A lot more happens throughout the film. I won’t give any more of the plot away because I hope not to spoil it too much.

My Film teacher at College said that this film is quite bleak and pessimistic. I would have to agree with him on that. The film is excellently shot and captures the theme of cruelty and bleakness really well. Overall I thought it was a great film and I will probably eventually buy it on DVD. I would rate this film 7/10.  


    

The Rikowski web site, The Flow of Ideas is at:
http://www.flowideas.co.uk




Gregory's blog is at:
http://www.gregrikowski.blogspot.com/

I saw Slumdog Millionaire on 18th January 2009 at the Odeon Marble Arch cinema. I was sitting on seat 12 and row N at the time. The film was at screen number five and the film started at 6.05pm. Additionally the film has a 15 rating and is directed by Danny Boyle. The film was made with subtitles.

The film Slumdog Millionaire is very much focused on a young man called Jemal who goes through many different experiences. The film has two separate narratives. On one hand we have the story of Jemal and his life in the slums. Whereas in the other story we have him talking to someone about how he won a quiz show. He ended up winning 20,000,000 Rupees.

The film has some similarities to the City of God in the way they represent life in the slums. I think the film captures the struggles that people have in the slums very well. It shows how people suffer from poverty, hunger, education and other aspects of life. Jemal and his friend Salim lived in the slums all of their lives until one day they miraculously get rescued by a group of strangers. Throughout the film we sympathise and feel for Jemal because we see his life from his point of view. The slum life is extremely hard and depressing. But what drives Jemal is the love of his life, latika. His affections for her drives him onto wanting to become very successful and later on he wins 20,000,000 rupees on the quiz show who wants to be a millionaire?

What I found interesting about this film was how strongly it represented the Indian life. We are shown Indian dancing towards the end of the film. This added more of a cultural and traditional feeling of Indian life which we get throughout the film. This film flows very quickly and we get lots of different kinds of close ups, mainly faces. Additionally the film offers deep sociological explanations and how hard it is to break from the slum life. From studying sociology it made me realise that moving up from your class and status is something few people do. Jemal’s life has been extremely hard and suppressive. At first he bonds a relationship with Salim and Lakita but then Salim betrays him and threatens him. Jemal ends up escaping and then ends up alone. This happens a lot later in their lives where Jemal is 18 years old. He has had struggles and barriers that seemed almost impossible to get out of, but he does. During the quiz show the host deliberately tells Jemal the answer in the toilet. He uses his finger to write B on the mirror next to the sink. But because of Jemal’s disappointments in the past he goes with D. even though he didn’t know the answer. He gambled and was correct. So Jemal started his life as a suppressed, poor, hungry, lonely child to becoming a rich, healthy, successful and powerful man. He proved to others and himself that he doesn’t belong in the slums.

The film however is ultimately a romance. Jemal’s relationship with Lakita is very close and we see their relationship develop as the movie progresses. They are determined to be together, but the barriers put in front of them make it difficult. There is much violence throughout the film and we see people being tortured and hurt. Jemal for example gets tortured later on in his life because some men accused him of cheating. In reality however we see in his life in the slums how he got to know the answers. Miraculously he finds the answers in the slums. Jemal and Lakita eventually overcome these difficulties and both end up happy.  

I found this film very powerful and would recommend it to anyone who seeks alternative cinema. The film captured the slum life in India well and the alienation of people in these areas. It was a very moving and gripping film. It was better that I originally thought it was going to be. It’s a good film and one of the better ones I have seen at the cinema. I would rate this film 5/10. 

The Rikowski web site, The Flow of Ideas is at:
http://www.flowideas.co.uk




Gregory's blog is at:
http://www.gregrikowski.blogspot.com/    

I saw the film ‘Yes Man’ on 17th January 2009 at the Odeon South Woodford cinema. Jim Carrey is the main character and focus in the film. The film has a 12A rating.

The plot concentrates on Jim Carrey and his life and how he can make it more enjoyable. Throughout his life he constrains himself and suppresses his opinions. So one day he joins a club which teaches you to say ‘yes’ to everything. This is supposed to make you have good luck. So Jim Carrey follows this principle and does exactly what he is told. He goes onto learning to speak Korean, flying an aeroplane, dating online and having sexual contact with an old woman, which was disturbing. Carrey goes onto doing extreme activities which he did not plan or intend. He starts feeling refreshed and like he has a new life in front of him. He ends up having bad luck however because of how he says ‘yes’ without really meaning it. This causes problems in his relationship as well with his girlfriend whom he meets. But he never would of met her unless he had this attitude and hunger for life. He had a lot of ups and down. His girlfriend ends up hating him because of how he says ‘yes’ without really meaning it. He soon learns however that he does not need to say it unless he means it. This therefore gives him more control of his life. Despite the traumas and bad luck he has, he ends up in a happy relationship.

The film is very humorous and light hearted. The role suits Jim Carrey well as he normally plays a character that is abnormal and odd. There are several clips which reflect humour. An example was the scene where he picks a fight in a club and says ‘yes’ to it. This was because he was flirting with a man’s girlfriend in a bar. Jim Carrey ends up getting punched several times in the face whilst he is drunk. He laughs it off in the end and flees from the fight. Jim Carrey starts off as an ordinary man who feels lost within his life to a man who is fulfilled and looking for endless possibilities. But this creates him to becoming less of an independent human being and becoming brainwashed. He does learn this in the end but up until then he was wayward in his actions. I thought the film was interesting because it tries to show how free people would like to be. It is impossible however because of all the restrictions society creates on individuals.

Even though the film is not academically challenging it is humorous and has some sociological and philosophical elements but from a very simplistic and plain point of view. The film is made more for entertainment value than for creative and artistic value. The good thing about this film though and a lot of Hollywood films is that visually they are attractive. If you are looking for a relaxing film at the cinema then this one is great for that. Personally however I would rate this film 3/10.  


  

The Rikowski web site, The Flow of Ideas is at:
http://www.flowideas.co.uk




Gregory's blog is at:
http://www.gregrikowski.blogspot.com/