Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (2001) Review

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is directed by Chris Columbus and is based on the first Harry Potter book written by JK Rowling. The film is about a young wizard called Harry Potter, who was spared his life by the one who shall not be named and is sent to the wizard school Hogwarts. From there he learns more about himself and wizardry.

Before watching this film I had previously thought the first Harry Potter film was boring, maybe because I had not seen for a long time, but I was wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it was a funny and mystical world that I was instantly sucked into. I had never realised how funny the film was, every joke hit and made me laugh, which just gave the film a great quality to it, because if the jokes had missed (and with a film like this, it can be easy to make the joke miss) the film would have become slow, and boring but the funny moments made the film better and adding to the child friendly film. Which this film was. The film was aimed at the younger audience, rarely is there any scary or dark scenes, which can mean more of the adult audiences won’t enjoy the film as much but this is a film that is for the family, everyone can enjoy it because of the humour which engages the audience. The film can be watched by children to grandparents because of the light hearted feel to the film.

The casting of the film was perfect, I cannot think of anyone else who can replace the actors, they all fit the role they were given, maybe because they are embedded with me, even the tiny roles I cannot think of a replacement. Daniel Radcliff as Harry Potter did a good job for his age, of course his performance was not going to be perfect with some occasions his acting wasn't the greatest and I can let that go because of the magical, mysterious world being created took me away from the bad moments and only in the good moments. Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, who instantly makes you laugh because of his appearance, he brings most of the comedy in the film, and sometimes by the way he just looks. He’s a character that everyone simply enjoys watching. Emma Watson as Hermione Granger was another great choice, another actress that captured the character so well. All of the casting was perfect and made the film more entertaining.

The story was simple, with Harry needing the stone, with a bit in the middle to beef up the film. I was okay with that because they had to first bring these character’s to life and they did, meaning all the character’s that I was supposed to like, I liked, which allowed the only plot point not bore me as i was rooting for them. However I can see why this film can bore people because of the simplistic story telling.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone is a fun, family, and magical film, which started the Harry Potter franchise in a light hearted way. The film gave me a good time and has that re watchable factor that some films in the fantasy genre lack. I was entertained throughout, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s stone achieves 7/10

Gladiator (2000) Review

Gladiator is directed by Ridley Scott, stars Russell Crowe and won five Oscars. Of course I’m going to review this film.

Gladiator stars Russell Crowe as Maximus, a leader of the Roman army and all he wants to do is go back to his family, but instead he has to fight in arenas as a gladiators, hence the title Gladiator. That’s not all that goes in the film.

Now, Russell Crowe as Maximus was a perfect cast because Maximus is a strong leader, a man with respect with his people, which made Russell Crowe at that point a perfect choice because Russell Crowe at that point of his career released The Insider and from that he gained respect from the fans, and the industry was taking notice so he fitted that role effortlessly. He got the personality right for Maximus, the way he strode around, it was humble but yet I knew he was the top dog. He had presented himself as man who could actually take down armies and lead an army himself. Russell Crowe was fantastic in the film but a man who topped him in my opinion was Joaquin Phoenix, who played Commodus, a jealous and paranoid son of the Roman leader. Joaquin Phoenix performance made every scene more interesting than it should have been, he was another character that embodied his character to the point that I forgot it was Joaquin Phoenix playing a character. Commodus for me was more interesting than Maximus (Russell Crowe) because Commodus was paranoid and the way he acted makes you feel uncomfortable when he was on screen, he became unpredictable at some points which made him a character that you could not take your eyes away.

Obviously the fighting scenes were fantastic to watch, it was choreographed so well that I didn't feel like it was fake, I felt every punch and every stab. The scale of the fights was great to watch because they take place in the Coliseum (Colosseum) and when watching I got the atmosphere because you got the feel how small they were in this big stadium. It was great to watch.

I did have some problems, there was a romance going on (sort of) with Commodus sister played by Connie Nielson that I felt was forced because they needed her to help Maximus. Also the last third was underwhelming, I was expecting an epic battle between two armies but I sadly did not receive that. Also I thought the first 30 minutes dragged, but the film did pick up the pace once Maximus became a gladiator.

The film Gladiator is a great film to watch especially when watching the fight scenes, the last act was underwhelming and the first 30 minutes did drag but for a good two hour I was entertained and Gladiator does deserve an 8/10 

Zodiac (2007) Review

Zodiac is directed by David Fincher and features Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr, Mark Ruffalo, and Anthony Edwards. It is based on the true story of the Zodiac killer who spent years tormenting the police and the journalists about his identity. And this was one frightening film, not jump out your seat frightening, it was tense frightening, David Fincher really plays on the unknowing in the film.

Why I think the film is frightening is because it is based on a true story, and being true means no one is safe from the Zodiac, which plays on your mind throughout the entire film. In fiction films you have that feeling that some characters are going to live and you know some will die, but in this film I was never sure who will live or who will die, and this was intensified by some of the scenes. They could be set on a bright sunny day on a park or in the cold dark basement, and they’ll both keep you in the unknown of what will happen. Several times my mouth was wide open because I could not believe what I was seeing, or even what I was hearing. This was all down to perfect timing, perfect environment and perfect acting. The acting was phenomenal by all of the cast, but the main four were just superb. I really enjoyed that all of them have their screen time, I cannot tell you who the main character is because they all are. Each one of them has their opportunity to shine, first it was Robert Downey Jr as a one of the editors (Paul Avery), who he plays so well because the editor is someone who’s cocky and full of them self, a perfect role for Downey Jr. Then we got Mark Ruffalo (Inspector David Toschi) and Anthony Edwards (Inspector William Armstrong) who have to solve the killings, and with the chemistry of both we got the light hearted side with them, with Mark Ruffalo being the witty one, which was needed as without him then the film becomes too dark. And finally we got Jake Gyllenhaal who plays a cartoonist (Robert Graysmith) for the newspapers and he becomes obsessed with the Zodiac, always trying to break the code, and wanting himself to solve it after it becomes stale for a few years. For me Jake Gyllenhaal is starting to become my favourite actor because he was invested in the role (like all of them) and he really sold his character. He and Mark Ruffalo were just brilliant.

We also get to see how time goes by, because it was a mystery that had the cops on the go for a few years and we got to see how the characters developed over that time, we see the cops giving up and we see the public not even caring after a while, it was a wonderfully crafted film.

David Fincher is the master of what we must see and what can be a miss because there is a scene where the Zodiac picks up this mother and child and the Zodiac says something (which I won’t spoil), which got me out of my seat and I was thinking to myself will he actually show that, and that direction really keeps you on the edge because I did not know what I was going to be shown. There were other scenes like that which just shows us how excellent he as a director with most of films always keeping us to the edge.

Zodiac was a phenomenal film that has to be watched, I can guarantee that you will be invested throughout the whole film and it deserves a big 10/10 

Gangs of New York (2002) Review

Gangs of New York is directed by one of my favourite directors Martin Scorsese and has a stellar cast with Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day Lewis, Cameron Diaz, John C Reilly, and Liam Neeson. The story is about two gangs who fought in the past with one of them defeating the other, and know the son of the father who led the gang many years later comes back to avenge the father.

Now there are good thing about the film, but these good thing are outweighed by the bad (unfortunately). With the film being nearly 3 hours long, the film felt like it was three hours long, and sometimes that is not a good thing. To me the film kept on dragging and dragging, when it just did not have to. With a director of Martin Scorsese’s integrity, three hours, a stellar cast and a film about gangs should have been a walk in the park, but it wasn't. The acting wasn't great, it was really average (except for Daniel Day Lewis but we’ll come to that later), no one blew me away. And when I can say that Leonardo DiCaprio could have been replaced in the film and still would not have made a difference then we know that the film is not going to be great. Other problems with the film was its pace. Martin Scorsese usually gets the pace perfect with everything flowing, but in this film the pacing was off. It felt like too much time was dedicated to Leo’s character (Amsterdam Vallon) building trust to Daniel Day Lewis’ character (Bill Cutting), and the time was wasted. Do not get me wrong, building the relationship is necessary but not when it take a big chunk of the film. I felt only three characters were developed while the rest were there to fill in spaces for the film and those three characters were Leonardo DiCaprio (Amsterdam Vallon), Daniel Day Lewis (Bill Cutting), and Cameron Diaz (Jenny Everdean). Everyone else was left out.

Now let’s talk about the good, Daniel Day Lewis. His performance was outstanding, to me, he was the only one putting in real effort and it paid off. Every single time he was on the screen I could not take my eyes away, the guy stole every scene, even the ones where he’s in there for a few seconds. He just had a presence that just made me respect his acting. I cannot fault his performance as he dragged the film to make it more interesting than it was. My hat goes off to him.    

This review might seem a hate fest towards Gangs of New York, but there were scenes where I enjoyed the film (especially if it had Day Lewis), I liked the concept of the film, not the most original but I liked the concept but this film is not the best Scorsese film compared to his other classics. This will be a film that you will forget once you have watched it, and it unfortunately deserves an average of 6/10