The new FilmDebate website has been launched. This unfortunately means that this blog is now inactive, it has been a brilliant three and a half years!
Click To Go To The FilmDebate Website
Monday, 9 December 2013
Thursday, 14 November 2013
The FilmDebate Website
These
three and a half years on Blogger have been a brilliant starting point,
but FilmDebate's time as a blog has come to an end - Soon, I will be making the switch to a website.
The FilmDebate website will have two main areas of focus; film writing & film networking. The aim is to provide all that my blog has, and much more, in the hope of building an active film network of promotion, journalism and debate.
Consequently, while maintaining a blog single-handed has been a reasonable task, the new website would be a much harder objective. This therefore means, that I am looking for contributors! - If you are interesting in writing for the new FilmDebate website, please email me on filmdebate@hotmail.com.
Thank you for your continued support of this blog, I hope you continue to read my work on the new website!
Many thanks,
Adam Snowden
FilmDebate
The FilmDebate website will have two main areas of focus; film writing & film networking. The aim is to provide all that my blog has, and much more, in the hope of building an active film network of promotion, journalism and debate.
Consequently, while maintaining a blog single-handed has been a reasonable task, the new website would be a much harder objective. This therefore means, that I am looking for contributors! - If you are interesting in writing for the new FilmDebate website, please email me on filmdebate@hotmail.com.
Thank you for your continued support of this blog, I hope you continue to read my work on the new website!
Many thanks,
Adam Snowden
FilmDebate
Monday, 11 November 2013
Promotions!
It is time I made a post promoting some of the work people have sent me, either via Twitter or email. Soon, FilmDebate will be making the switch from a blog to a website, and promotions like these will become common. Our aim is to build a network of film makers and film enthusiasts, promoting and reviewing projects of all genre and platforms. The following is a list of various projects from other like-minded people, along with the ability to contact them.
A film by Louis Turner, filmed over five days on a budget of £1700, using a Canon 5D and four crew members. Quite an achievement.
The Trailer: https://vimeo.com/78009775
The Film: https://vimeo.com/78867548
Twitter: @mrlouistea
Additional Production Photos:
Dark Corners: Web Series
A Web Series run over YouTube by The LondonComedyWriters.
Web Series: Dark Corners
Twitter: @DarkCorners3
One of the Dark Corners Reviews:
Adam Pritchard - Quick Reviews
An quick way of reviewing TV & Cinema from young media enthusiast Adam Pritchard.
YouTube Channel: AdamPritchard
Twitter: @AdamPritchard_
All The Wild Horses
A Film by Ivo Marloh, Kevin Augello & Michael Sanderson.
Film Website: All The Wild Horses
Twitter: @ivo_marloh
Trailer:
The Edge Of The Lawn
A film by Louis Turner, filmed over five days on a budget of £1700, using a Canon 5D and four crew members. Quite an achievement.
The Trailer: https://vimeo.com/78009775
The Film: https://vimeo.com/78867548
Twitter: @mrlouistea
Additional Production Photos:
Dark Corners: Web Series
A Web Series run over YouTube by The LondonComedyWriters.
Web Series: Dark Corners
Twitter: @DarkCorners3
One of the Dark Corners Reviews:
Adam Pritchard - Quick Reviews
An quick way of reviewing TV & Cinema from young media enthusiast Adam Pritchard.
YouTube Channel: AdamPritchard
Twitter: @AdamPritchard_
All The Wild Horses
A Film by Ivo Marloh, Kevin Augello & Michael Sanderson.
Film Website: All The Wild Horses
Twitter: @ivo_marloh
Trailer:
Monday, 14 October 2013
[Famous Film Scene] - A Few Good Men
The famous 'You can't handle the truth' line. Although an extremely famous quote, you would be surprised how many people don't know what film it is actually from. 'A Few Good Men' is a well made courtroom drama, containing yet another excellent performance from Jack Nicholson. This is his famous speech, containing that memorable line - Enjoy!
IMDB - A Few Good Men
IMDB - A Few Good Men
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
Promotions!
Afternoon Everyone!
My network on Twitter, YouTube & Blogger is starting to slowly expand! Recently I have been receiving promotion requests from various people's films and similar projects on a regular basis. As such, I have decided to start making promotions for up and coming films & media! If you have anything you want promoting, send me a link, either via email (filmdebate@hotmail.com) or as a Direct Message on twitter and I will review & promote!
I will always credit the owners of the promoted item, and will happily add links to their subsequent networking profiles etc.
Lets try and take FilmDebate to the next level!
My network on Twitter, YouTube & Blogger is starting to slowly expand! Recently I have been receiving promotion requests from various people's films and similar projects on a regular basis. As such, I have decided to start making promotions for up and coming films & media! If you have anything you want promoting, send me a link, either via email (filmdebate@hotmail.com) or as a Direct Message on twitter and I will review & promote!
I will always credit the owners of the promoted item, and will happily add links to their subsequent networking profiles etc.
Lets try and take FilmDebate to the next level!
Saturday, 5 October 2013
[Review] Prisoners - 5th October 2013
★★★★★★★ Good [For rating system, see information tab at the top of the blog]
-
Release Date: 20th September 2013
-
Director: Denis Villeneuve
-
Writer: Aaron Guzikowski
-
Cast: Hugh Jackman - Jake Gyllenhaal - Viola Davis - Melissa Leo - Maria Bello - Paul Dano - Terrence Howard
Review
So here we have the awaited 'Prisoners', the first international mainstream release from director Denis Villeneuve, who achieved success with acclaimed films such as 'Incendies' in 2010, and 'Polytechnique' in 2009. 'Prisoners' collaborates the work of both Jake Gyllenhaal and Hugh Jackman, two household names that, in my opinion, still have a lot to prove.
Having said this, I was always going to see 'Prisoners'. Its premise is dark and engaging, and gives the two leading male actors a chance to shine. The plot centres around the kidnapping of two young girls, and when police leads begin to weaken, one of the fathers of the girls takes matters into his own hands in his desperation to protect his family.
So...the fundamental question: Is 'Prisoners' a good film?...the answer is yes. While it is not without its flaws, 'Prisoners' is fundamentally well made, engaging, and enjoyable.
To begin with, the direction, setting and camera construction throughout the film are excellent. Denis Villeneuve created a film that was shot clinically and effectively, with subtle traces of an obvious artistic style. The setting of the film, the weather, the mise-en-scene all reflected the dark narrative, while certain interesting, and at times strange camera work gave the film an enjoyable edge I was not expecting.
In addition to this performances were fundamentally good. The cast as a whole produced a film that was emotionally engaging and relatable. Secondary performances from Melissa Leo, Terrance Howard, Maria Bello, Paul Dano and Viola Davis greatly helped to build the audience-to-character empathy required for this type of thriller. The two leading roles from Hugh Jackman and Jack Gyllenhaal both exceeded expectations, particularly Gyllenhaal, who created an interesting, mysterious character different from other types of role I have seen him play.
The quality of the writing does not, however, impress as much. While the narrative is effective, it is a little predictable, and moves in a linear pattern. Yes...the film does employ narrative twists, but the slight predictability here detracts from the level of surprise desired. Having said this, it could be argued that the narrative needed to be routed in a more basic plot, as it draws attention to the emotions of the characters, which appears to be one of the writers key concerns.
A further criticism I have about the film relates to its pace and duration. The film is two and a half hours long (give or take a minute or two), and moves at a steady pace. At times I thought certain scenes were unnecessarily prolonged and could perhaps have benefited from an injection of excitement in an attempt to remove the predictability.
Another interesting ascetic worth mentioning is the absence of music as background support. Thrillers of this type would normally use music to generate suspense, mood and emotion. However the film is completely devoid of musical presence. Instead, these ascetics are generated through the powerful emotions of the characters, the dialogue and the narrative itself. This lack of music increases the emotion portrayed by the characters, as it make their acting and reactions the focus for the audience .This construction is not unique to 'Prisoners', but it is utilized effectively throughout the film.
My worry for 'Prisoners' is its memorability. While the film engages with an audience on an emotional level, it contains nothing that makes it stand out from other thrillers based on a similar premise. The modern film industry is so vast and versatile that producing a film which could be considered as conservative in its own genre will always run the risk of being forgotten.
'Prisoners' - Definitely a film I recommend. Not without its flaws, but full of engaging emotion. An enjoyable watch.
-
Release Date: 20th September 2013
-
Director: Denis Villeneuve
-
Writer: Aaron Guzikowski
-
Cast: Hugh Jackman - Jake Gyllenhaal - Viola Davis - Melissa Leo - Maria Bello - Paul Dano - Terrence Howard
Review
So here we have the awaited 'Prisoners', the first international mainstream release from director Denis Villeneuve, who achieved success with acclaimed films such as 'Incendies' in 2010, and 'Polytechnique' in 2009. 'Prisoners' collaborates the work of both Jake Gyllenhaal and Hugh Jackman, two household names that, in my opinion, still have a lot to prove.
Having said this, I was always going to see 'Prisoners'. Its premise is dark and engaging, and gives the two leading male actors a chance to shine. The plot centres around the kidnapping of two young girls, and when police leads begin to weaken, one of the fathers of the girls takes matters into his own hands in his desperation to protect his family.
So...the fundamental question: Is 'Prisoners' a good film?...the answer is yes. While it is not without its flaws, 'Prisoners' is fundamentally well made, engaging, and enjoyable.
To begin with, the direction, setting and camera construction throughout the film are excellent. Denis Villeneuve created a film that was shot clinically and effectively, with subtle traces of an obvious artistic style. The setting of the film, the weather, the mise-en-scene all reflected the dark narrative, while certain interesting, and at times strange camera work gave the film an enjoyable edge I was not expecting.
In addition to this performances were fundamentally good. The cast as a whole produced a film that was emotionally engaging and relatable. Secondary performances from Melissa Leo, Terrance Howard, Maria Bello, Paul Dano and Viola Davis greatly helped to build the audience-to-character empathy required for this type of thriller. The two leading roles from Hugh Jackman and Jack Gyllenhaal both exceeded expectations, particularly Gyllenhaal, who created an interesting, mysterious character different from other types of role I have seen him play.
The quality of the writing does not, however, impress as much. While the narrative is effective, it is a little predictable, and moves in a linear pattern. Yes...the film does employ narrative twists, but the slight predictability here detracts from the level of surprise desired. Having said this, it could be argued that the narrative needed to be routed in a more basic plot, as it draws attention to the emotions of the characters, which appears to be one of the writers key concerns.
A further criticism I have about the film relates to its pace and duration. The film is two and a half hours long (give or take a minute or two), and moves at a steady pace. At times I thought certain scenes were unnecessarily prolonged and could perhaps have benefited from an injection of excitement in an attempt to remove the predictability.
Another interesting ascetic worth mentioning is the absence of music as background support. Thrillers of this type would normally use music to generate suspense, mood and emotion. However the film is completely devoid of musical presence. Instead, these ascetics are generated through the powerful emotions of the characters, the dialogue and the narrative itself. This lack of music increases the emotion portrayed by the characters, as it make their acting and reactions the focus for the audience .This construction is not unique to 'Prisoners', but it is utilized effectively throughout the film.
My worry for 'Prisoners' is its memorability. While the film engages with an audience on an emotional level, it contains nothing that makes it stand out from other thrillers based on a similar premise. The modern film industry is so vast and versatile that producing a film which could be considered as conservative in its own genre will always run the risk of being forgotten.
'Prisoners' - Definitely a film I recommend. Not without its flaws, but full of engaging emotion. An enjoyable watch.
Sunday, 22 September 2013
[Review] Insidious: Chapter Two - 20th September 2013
★★★★ Leaves Alot To Be Desired [For rating system, see information tab at the top of the blog]
-
Release Date: 13th September 2013
-
Director: James Wan
-
Writer: Leigh Whannell (Screenplay, Characters & Story) - James Wan (Story)
-
Cast: Patrick Wilson - Rose Byrne - Barbara Hershey -Ty Simpkins - Andrew Astor
Review
When I first saw the trailer for James Wan's second installment of Insidious, I thought it could be interesting. The sequel has retained the same cast and crew that saw the first film achieve relative success, so I thought, why not give the sequel a chance? - What a mistake!... 'Insidious: Chapter Two' was an enormous disappointment.
The narrative of the film is a direct continuation from the first; The Lambert family must continue to fight through their haunting, as they try to uncover the reason why they are so attracted to the spirit realms.
Here lies the first problem; the films narrative and writing. The story is long, drawn out and convoluted. It combines different styles and narrative constructions like flashbacks, memories, found footage and surrealism in an attempt to build an intricate narrative; which unfortunately just looks rushed and amateur. In addition to this, the dialogue throughout the film is also fundamentally poor. Conversations appear wooden and unrealistic, greatly adding to the overall amateur feeling the film sadly portrays.
Having said this, there was one aspect of the writing I did enjoy; the way in which the two films linked. 'Insidious: Chapter Two' used scenes and narrative points from the first film, and put them into a different or a more understanding context. For example, you may remember a scene from the first installment in which a male spirit is standing behind the baby's cot. A scene used as nothing more than a stinger in the first film, that gains more narrative purpose in the second - watch out for it if you do choose to go and see it. It needs to be stated however, that while this is a positive, it in no way makes up for what the films writing lacked.
Another issue comes from the films performances. While the leading roles by Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne are adequate, the rest of the cast are less than impressive. Particularly the weak, cliche performance from Lin Shaye. These weak performances combined with the clunky dialogue greatly hinders the film as a whole; performances and dialogue are one of the most important things in any film; the basics should never be neglected.
In addition, one of the main aspects I liked about the first 'Insidious' was the visualization. In the first installment, the spirits and setting where very sinister, particularly in the place known as 'The Further'. This dark, disturbing visualization greatly added to overall suspense throughout the film...an aspect unfortunately lost in the second film. While they attempt to keep to this same sinister style, it simply comes across as, for lack of a better word, cheesy. In certain situations some of the protagonists even appeared comical rather than frightening, something that should never occur in a horror film.
The fundamental question is a simple one; is the film frightening? A horror film has to scare an audience, otherwise it has failed to achieve its goal. 'Insidious: Chapter Two' is full of stingers that make you jump, but does not actually frighten you. This lack of lasting fear, combined with the poor ascetics of the film, make 'Insidious: Chapter Two' a waste of time in my opinion. Yet another horror to drop into the sea of failed sequels & prequels.
Insidious: Chapter Two - A poor sequel to a film that was never really worth repeating. It fails in key aspects like writing, dialogue and performances - leaving a finished product that seems rushed and amateur.
-
Release Date: 13th September 2013
-
Director: James Wan
-
Writer: Leigh Whannell (Screenplay, Characters & Story) - James Wan (Story)
-
Cast: Patrick Wilson - Rose Byrne - Barbara Hershey -Ty Simpkins - Andrew Astor
When I first saw the trailer for James Wan's second installment of Insidious, I thought it could be interesting. The sequel has retained the same cast and crew that saw the first film achieve relative success, so I thought, why not give the sequel a chance? - What a mistake!... 'Insidious: Chapter Two' was an enormous disappointment.
The narrative of the film is a direct continuation from the first; The Lambert family must continue to fight through their haunting, as they try to uncover the reason why they are so attracted to the spirit realms.
Here lies the first problem; the films narrative and writing. The story is long, drawn out and convoluted. It combines different styles and narrative constructions like flashbacks, memories, found footage and surrealism in an attempt to build an intricate narrative; which unfortunately just looks rushed and amateur. In addition to this, the dialogue throughout the film is also fundamentally poor. Conversations appear wooden and unrealistic, greatly adding to the overall amateur feeling the film sadly portrays.
Having said this, there was one aspect of the writing I did enjoy; the way in which the two films linked. 'Insidious: Chapter Two' used scenes and narrative points from the first film, and put them into a different or a more understanding context. For example, you may remember a scene from the first installment in which a male spirit is standing behind the baby's cot. A scene used as nothing more than a stinger in the first film, that gains more narrative purpose in the second - watch out for it if you do choose to go and see it. It needs to be stated however, that while this is a positive, it in no way makes up for what the films writing lacked.
Another issue comes from the films performances. While the leading roles by Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne are adequate, the rest of the cast are less than impressive. Particularly the weak, cliche performance from Lin Shaye. These weak performances combined with the clunky dialogue greatly hinders the film as a whole; performances and dialogue are one of the most important things in any film; the basics should never be neglected.
In addition, one of the main aspects I liked about the first 'Insidious' was the visualization. In the first installment, the spirits and setting where very sinister, particularly in the place known as 'The Further'. This dark, disturbing visualization greatly added to overall suspense throughout the film...an aspect unfortunately lost in the second film. While they attempt to keep to this same sinister style, it simply comes across as, for lack of a better word, cheesy. In certain situations some of the protagonists even appeared comical rather than frightening, something that should never occur in a horror film.
The fundamental question is a simple one; is the film frightening? A horror film has to scare an audience, otherwise it has failed to achieve its goal. 'Insidious: Chapter Two' is full of stingers that make you jump, but does not actually frighten you. This lack of lasting fear, combined with the poor ascetics of the film, make 'Insidious: Chapter Two' a waste of time in my opinion. Yet another horror to drop into the sea of failed sequels & prequels.
Insidious: Chapter Two - A poor sequel to a film that was never really worth repeating. It fails in key aspects like writing, dialogue and performances - leaving a finished product that seems rushed and amateur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)