Easy Rider

"They'll talk to ya and talk to ya and talk to ya about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em."

Easy Rider follows two hippie type 'dudes' as they go across America to New Orleans for Mardi Gras.

Though I enjoyed this film, I can't help feeling it swung and missed. It goes quite nicely for probably the first hour, maybe a little more, but after that it begins it's decline to a relatively weak ending that doesn't pack the punch it intended. I feel this film will improve upon multiple viewings, it's an easy film to watch, it's short, so I think that's relatively imminent. But I can't help feeling disappointed about what came out. Maybe it's just not what I expected, or wanted?

The main problem this film had from the beginning is the amateur editing. I think it's fair to say it was terrible. I'm not just talking about the annoying 'flash transition' it had several times where instead of cutting to the next scene, it would flicker and flash between the end of the current scene and the beginning of the next. It just seemed like they were trying to being stylistic, but it just felt to me, pointless, annoying and quite amateur. Not only that, just sometimes the cutting was just plain bad, in one particularly scene that is a crucial turning point, it sort is disorientating. I didn't know if it was a dream, or not. It wasn't intended that way, it was just jumping around and not making sense. Another problem I had with the particular scene is just how it doesn't add up, it's sort of just forces itself onto you. The same kind of goes with the ending - weak. There is one cut that also bothered me, which isn't too big, but it's just an example of some of the poor cutting, where it cut to the top of a bridge as well as changing song in the middle of a song. The cut was done poorly, mainly because of how the music transitions.

The film seems to build towards Mardi Gras & freedom of sorts. Once it gets to Mardi Gras it practically does nothing, they're at the Mardi Gras 'celebration' for about a minute, that is all you get of it. The whole American Dream/Freedom aspect is also gone about in a weak way, I don't know how to explain it other than to say, it talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

The first hour is great, no doubt, it's enjoyable and fun, very relaxing and mellow. This is also supposedly one of the first films to use popular music from the time as the soundtrack, all the songs are great 60's music. The characters are all great, the acting is all great. Dennis Hopper & Peter Fonda certainly do a fine job holding their own and whatnot, but I think Jack Nicholson was probably the best in the film, even though he wasn't in the film too long, he was certainly great, had a sort of enigmatic feeling to his presence.

Though I have panned this film, I did enjoy the film, the first hour keeps this film standing tall, and elements of the last half hour, among other things. I've heard this was intended to be double the length at around three hours? If so, I'd be interested in seeing that version as it might bring to the table exactly what I feel it needed. A well worth while film nonetheless.

My opinion on some of Daniel Day-Lewis' films

Daniel Day-Lewis seems to fly under the radar, sure with his latest release, There Will Be Blood he garnered a lot of wide acclaim, but he is easily forgotten, I guess that's because he's an actor, not a star. Since the mid-to-late eighties he has consistently performed extraordinarily. I watched There Will Be Blood in the cinema when it came out, and after being so excited, I felt quite disappointed, it was good, but not the masterpiece I was expecting. Nonetheless, Daniel Day-Lewis' phenomenal performance really stood out. Before then, I had only seen him in Martin Scorsese's, Gangs of New York, like usual, a great performance. Since There Will Be Blood came out on dvd I've really been meaning to check it out again with lower expectations and a better knowledge of what to expect. But I've also decided to check out some of his other films, well, at least most of them seeing as he seems to have an incredible track-record. I wanted to talk solely on his performance in each of the films, but I'll just talk about the films themselves.

For those who don't know Daniel Day-Lewis is a method actor, and method acting has a long history of creating some extremely good performances, (basically any early DeNiro film), but sometimes actors can take it very extremely and it can leave quite an emotional impact on them (RIP Heath Ledger). Daniel Day-Lewis has described finishing up a film as a terrible sadness because he doesn't just 'act' or pretend to be someone, he transforms and really falls into the characters he portrays, so saying goodbye to a part of him is obviously quite difficult.

The great thing about Daniel Day-Lewis is that from the beginning of his career he did the films he wanted to do, not just the ones that would benefit him the most and make him a star. When watching a Day-Lewis film you are guaranteed to see him give a great performance, even if the film itself isn't great or 'not your type'. Despite that, that high quality track record of his probably won't last, a lot of the best actors that stay infront of the screen slowly worsen, not so much their acting ability just acting seems to just become a job, obviously not always, but a lot of the time (e.g. DeNiro & Pacino).




In the Name of the Father

"You're very good at the English, aren't you? You see, I don't understand your language. "Justice." "Mercy." "Clemency." I literally don't understand what those words mean"

The film opens with a building being exploded, then cuts to Northern Ireland, narrated by the main character, in a way that he is actually talking to someone. Gerry isn't too popular where he is from, because he steals from people which obviously causes problems. The IRA are really getting fed up with him. In one of the first scenes, Gerry is on top of a building pretending to play the guitar with a stick, paranoid British soldiers below mistake the stick for a sniper rifle, they shoot at him, Gerry & his friends flee, being chased down by several soldiers and even people in military vehincles, all the action & commotion stirs up a problem, and a riot breaks out. The IRA take Gerry and his mate aside to try and scare them to their senses by threatening them. Gerry's father arrives and pleads they be set free. Not long after Gerry gets a ferry to London , his father hoping he will do something with his life. On the ferry Gerry meets a mate (whos name I've forgotten) of his, once they're in London they go to a mate of Gerry's to live. Gerry isn't interested in an honest living, he went to London for "free sex & dope", the people he moves in with are a bunch of Hippies, obviously the perfect place for him to get "free sex & dope". Gerry & his friend from the ferry have a problem at the place they live at and leave, they meet a homeless man, steal from a prostitute and Gerry goes home to Northern Ireland with some money. Little does he know that he is the prime suspect in the bombing of a pub which caused several people to die.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays Gerry, a naive and young man, who's got a poor attitude, and is far from being the perfect person. There are several scenes that really stand out in my mind that showcases Day-Lewis' unbelievable talent, my favourite is the one where he is talking to his father after he is sentenced, a very emotional scene, very unforgettable. The first half of the film is definitely the strongest as a whole, but also performance-wise. Because it seems to become more of a typical film rather than an honest realistic portrayal of what happened once he's in prison. There is not a weak scene with Daniel Day-Lewis, the dude is fantastic. For this film, he stayed in solitary confinement at an empty prison where he got crew members to verbally abuse him for a few days, doing such extreme preparation makes it seem almost impossible to not give a high quality performance.



My Left Foot

"All is nothing, therefore nothing must end."

Daniel Day-Lewis plays as Christy Brown, a man who has cerebral palsy, his left foot is his only fully functional limb. From a young age it was obvious Christy wasn't the "useless cripple" people thought he was. Christy wrote the book in which this film is an adaption of (but also includes the book being released), the film chronicles his life, from a boy to a man. Day-Lewis did an absolute outstanding and perfect performance. Very realistic and you really can see the frustration no doubt the real Christy had to go through in trying to communicated with people as speaking was quite difficult for him. As usual Daniel Day-Lewis completely transforms himself, he no longer really is Daniel Day-Lewis, he is almost unrecognizable. Day-Lewis has everything from subtle facial ticks and twitches to the difficult speech impediment perfected. If any lesser actor played Christy, this film probably would of sunk or at least have been ineffective and weak, as the film itself has its fair share of flaws, nothing that will really hinder any enjoyment, it may just prevent it from being more than "pretty good".



The Last of the Mohicans

"My father's people say that at the birth of the sun and of his brother the moon, their mother died. So the sun gave to the earth her body, from which was to spring all life. And he drew forth from her breast the stars, and the stars he threw into the night sky to remind him of her soul."

The first time I saw this film I didn't fully pay attention, it was in a class, a class that liked to talk and commentate while watching films... So I thought I'd watch it again. Now for what this is it's quite general, it covers enough, it has great action scenes but general characters. The main character, Hawkeye (Daniel Day-Lewis) is your typical hero, he's strong, brave, intelligent, and has a very good moral. Though Day-Lewis' performance wasn't weak, the character was. Daniel Day-Lewis managed to salvage quality and depth from this rather general character. One of the 'baddies', Major Duncan Heyward is very typical beginning to end which I found quite disappointing. The best performance though was by Wes Studi who played the main 'baddie' Magua, his character was very fascinating.

Though I've mostly panned the film, it is actually pretty good, the plot is decent (could be improved, but it is an adaption), the performances are great, the action is intense and the music is perfect. The music in the film was probably the best aspect of the film, alongside it's fantastic cinematography. The last 30 minutes or so of the film certainly won't disappoint also, they were by far the best moments in the entire film, as you are practically on the edge of your seat, and thats when these general characters have a little more colour added and become more interested, though it happens in mostly typical ways..



There Will Be Blood

"One night I'm gonna come to you, inside of your house, wherever you're sleeping, and I'm gonna cut your throat."

Back when this first came out I was extremely excited to see it, having heard all the praise I saw it the weekend it came out. Though I enjoyed it, it didn't hit me as much of a 'masterpiece' as everyone had dubbed it as, I acknowledged Day-Lewis' performance as pretty good (not near the amount of praise he deserves). I also misinterpreted certain things. So, having finally seen it again, I must say it is indeed a masterpiece. Daniel Day-Lewis gives undoubtedly his best performance as Daniel Plainview, 'an oil man'. Plainview is very complicated, certainly not as 2D as other characters Day-Lewis has played, though 2D isn't really a bad thing, it's just that after There Will Be Blood, you won't have exactly worked everything out about Daniel Plainview, though with My Left Foot or In the Name of the Father, you know each of the characters pretty well.

It's not too often the main character in a drama will essentially be the 'baddie'. It doesn't take long for you to know Daniel is a cruel, and heartless man with some very serious problems which probably root back to his father, as they apparently don't get on. With the problems Daniel has and his mental descent into a far darker zone can only be of some early childhood experience, or maybe he was just born the way he is. Despite his macabre and cruel persona, Daniel is also desperate to relate with someone. To have someone in his image or something of the like, and that's why he loves his son wholeheartedly, but also how he gets along with Henry.

Paul-Thomas Anderson is one of the best modern directors having made Punch-Drunk Love, Boogie Nights & Magnolia, three great films. In my eyes he is shaping up to be the 'next' Scorsese, or Coppola, or even Kubrick, that high caliber of talent. In Punch-Drunk he managed to salvage out a good performance from Sandler, who is usually quite a dry actor playing the same role in every film, though there is a level of that going on in Punch-Drunk, he is more deep and interesting. In Boogie Nights he made a film on the 70/80's porn industry, something that is almost always portrayed in a joke of a way. Boogie Nights is quite a serious film, though PTA can't help but put in some humor. In Magnolia he managed to get some high quality performances from some of the actors, particularly Tom Cruise, who has never really hit me as much of a high quality drama actor (though I don't think he is necessarily bad either). Now, obviously he did a lot more in those films, but those are just what I liked about them (among a lot more things). Now finally, with There Will Be Blood, he has managed to make his best film, a modern masterpiece, having an almost flawless film with few faults, most of which weren't his, and can be easily be forgotten in the abyss that is this great film. Daniel Day-Lewis gave his undoubtedly best performance in this film, not only was it the best of his career, or of the year, but it is one of the best performances in film history.

In the Name of the Father: 3.5/5
My Left Foot: 3/5
Last of the Mohicans: 3/5
There Will be Blood: 4.5/5

I planned on also watching and writing something up about Gangs of New York but because I actually watched and wrote these up a couple of weeks ago and I never got round to doing it.

Watchmen

"Rorschach's Journal: October 12th 1985. Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' And I'll whisper 'no'. "

Title: Watchmen
Year of Release: 2009
Director: Zach Snyder
Genre: Crime/Mystery/Action

I read the graphic novel not too long before I heard that a movie was in production, so naturally I was quite excited to see it brought to film. Over the year or so I've been growing more and more excited, as the reviews came out, slowly getting worse and worse I worried, but upon reading a few I'm not all that surprised. The common problem seemed to be that there is plot holes, or confusion, which after seeing the film is very understandable. Zach Snyder made this film primarily for the fans of the GN. Snyder managed to cut this down to three hours, which seems to leave an unfinished yet still satisfying film. So, if you watched the film and found the main problem with it to be that it was confusing or something you could either read the graphic novel or wait until the directors cut which is supposed to be four or so hours long. Some people may be thinking that's nuts, but after seeing the theatrical cut I'm certain it'll be fine. The film is very well paced, it doesn't feel slightly tedious. A longer much needed cut will hopefully make a better film.

For those who aren't familiar with Watchmen you must know that it is one of the most respected, popular and influential comic books of the 80's, so don't go saying it stole ideas from shows like Heroes or from The Incredibles (I use those two because I've read people go on about it). Watchmen starts with the death of a masked hero/vigilante called "The Comedian". The circumstances are quite mysterious, his identity was a secret among most. Rorschach, another masked vigilante begins investigating, his theory on the matter is someone is trying to pick off masked vigilante's. Now unlike most "super hero" movies, there is only one actual "super" hero and his name is Dr Manhattan/Jon. Jon was a normal physicist until one day he is locked in some machine (not sure exactly what) which destroys him, slowly though he regenerates cell by cell. Once he is fully back his view of the world is completely different and he can do practically anything. Silk Spectre [II] is in love with Dr Manhattan but there is problems there as Manhattan's view on life interfeers with their relationship. Nite Owl [II] is a growing old and unfit man who used to put on a costume, mask and fight crime, he is also interested in Silk Spectre/Laurie. Ozymandias, supposedly the smarted person in the world is one of two people to have shown his true identity (Adrian Veidt). There is more to be said, but I'll stop there.

Those who are worrying about how faithful the adaption is, don't worry! This film is very faithful, other than the ending. But the meaning is still there, it's still the same, it's just taken a different road. With the original ending it probably wouldn't play out in film half as good as it does in comic form.

The acting was pretty good from most of the cast. Billy Crudup did a perfect job with Dr Manhattan, I can not think of anyone else who could of done a better job, with this performance you really feel and get a great understanding of Dr Manhattan. Dare I say that I enjoyed the film character more than the original? That doesn't mean it's handled better, or really any different, it's just I'm more of a movie guy than a book guy. So being able to see how expressionless he is at times and hear how emotionless his voice is is very effective. Some scenes with him, particularly the Mars one is quite strong, and I was mesmerized by how fantastic he was. Jackie Earle Haley plays Rorschach, everyone's favourite character from the GN, especially mine. Again, he was perfect, he had everything going for him, providing the exact voice I imagined for Rorschach, and he had the look down, he was very intimidating character in the book and he is no less intimidating in the film. Jeffrey Dean Morgan plays The Comedian, and once again.. perfect. I can tell there will be a lot of fan-hate I'll get for what I said about Manhattan, but also, I thought the Comedian was far more effective in the film. He's more dark, and disgusting in the film, in a way that makes certain aspects of his character feel more deep. I can't stress more, that I'm more of a film guy, so it's imminent I'd provide the film characters of the book ones if they're done as they are in the book. Everyone else in the film were decent enough, but not as great as JE Haley, B Crudup or JD Morgan.

Now there are a few problems I had with the film, one being a common problem, and it was the music. I'm not sure exactly who chose the soundtrack but by god they need to be slapped! In one scene in particular with Dan & Laurie a song called "Hallelujah"? (I'm not sure if that's the name, but it's repeated heaps in the song), I was cringing at the poor choice. With the four hour directors cut, that is one thing I would love to see changed, though I'm sure it won't. The soundtrack at a lot of point was distracting, trying too hard to force a mood onto you, or it was just plain wrong, like what I just mentioned. The score was fine; the soundtrack was horrible. Despite that, there was at least one good choice of song, Bob Dylan's "The Times Are-A Changin" which featured in the opening credits, perfect choice.

This film also seems to be a bit graphic, not just in terms of blood and violence but also in the sex scene I really thought it was pushed on a little long to an excessive, pointless and killed the "romantic" mood of the situation. Now Snyder sure does seem to like his violence, so does the graphic novel but in the film, I think at times it was a bit much, not for my personal taste but because it just didn't fit in. One fight scene involved a bone being snapped and the bone goes through the skin and there is quite a bit of blood, there is a lot more bloody situations, and some are much more ineffectively graphic. Another problem regarding the fight scenes is how unrealistic they were, it could be misleading and make people think thats these people are actually much stronger than your average person. Some scenes people were thrown quite a distance punched and went a distance, though it was stylistic and looked nice, it doesn't fit in with this film.

Now I could put those aside quite easily and push them to the back of my mind if it wasn't for the biggest problem of them all. At the beginning of the third act it just seems to make a giant leap with the plot, leaving you dazed and confused and doesn't really seem to make sense. Another five or so minutes alone could of helped smooth it out a lot more so it made more sense instead of leaving you to assume and the like. It wraps up though very nicely killing the bitter taste that could of remained ruining the film for me. The ending was quite effective, not quite as climatic at aspects, an improved score could of helped make it more dramatic I think.

So my main beefs were the music, unrealism/graphicness (?) and plot jump, but with such a complex film those don't seem to be enough to bring the movie completely down. It still is a very good adaption, handled by anyone else, and I can almost guarantee you they would of ruined it. Believe me there is a lot more I can say, but I feel I'll just be rambling on. Zach made this for the fans, and I cannot thank him enough for at least trying his best, this film obviously did a number on him after watching an interview with him he looked like he had aged some years.

EDIT: After seeing Watchmen for a second time, I picked up on what I missed regarding the plot. So for those who haven't seen the film, pay close attention I missed it, and two other people I saw the film missed it too.

Rating:

Sunshine - How about a remake?

Recently I've been watching some clips of this film on Youtube as well listen to some of the score. So I thought I'd write something up while my mind is on the subject.

A while ago I did a "review" of sorts on Sunshine. To me Sunshine is a film that with more thought put into it, it could really be something great. It's underrated, no doubt in my mind about it. Now, with a film that has one of the best scores and such potential, I think this is one of the few films I would love to see remade. There is obvious confusion with director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland in exactly what they want this film to be. Is this film a drama thriller? Or is this film a thriller horror? They can't make up their mind. If a remake was to ever occur Pinbacker should be 100% cut out, for me, that half ruined this film, as I'm sure many will agree. That is the biggest edit, there are numerous others edits, like the odd obsession with the sun, but also just cut out the general cliches that are evident in this film.

A remake would absolutely have to contain the original score, or at the very least the same theme. To be honest if the music wasn't half as good as it is I wouldn't like this film. The music so incredibly enhances this film, particularly in the jump scene, you feel the desperation and frustration in that scene, and it is intense. There are some other pretty intense scenes in this film, made that way simply because of the music. The acting is decent enough, probably strongest from Cillian Murphy and surprisingly Chris Evans, the rest were good enough. The visuals in this film are outstounding, the CGI is close to perfect. All you need to do is watch the film and you will surely agree with that.

I've got a general interest for space, so maybe that's why I like this film, and why I love Solyaris & 2001: A Space Odyssey. With a remake I think they should try focus more on that space side, and more on the relationships between the people on board Icarus. Try build up the desperation that this really is, the last hope for human survival. Those elements are present, and Sunshine touches on those aspects, but it does it quite weakly.

I also hear of people complaining that the sun dying is a few billion years too early, here is an explanation I read from Roger Ebert's review in which he quotes the Science Advisor for the film "The sun is not "dying in the normal sense," IMDb.com reports, but in the Cox scenario "has instead been 'infected' with a 'Q-ball' -- a supersymetric nucleus, left over from the Big Bang...that is disrupting the normal matter. This is a theoretical particle that scientists at CERN are currently trying to confirm -- the film's bomb is meant to blast the Q-ball to its constituent parts, which will then naturally decay, allowing the sun to return to normal.""

There is some seriously illogical moments in this film, and it almost seems like the writer just wrote everything that came to mind, without really researching anything or making sense of certain aspects. It's almost as if he wrote in one night, and there was not a single edit later, just a pile of ideas made into a script. BUT despite that, the music, the visuals and the acting from Murphy & Evans really hold this film up. The ending is a bit iffy and lame. As I've said, this isn't a perfect film, not even close, it's a bag of good and bad ideas. Now I'm sure there will be a lot of people who don't like this film for what it is, but I find myself liking it more for what it could have been. Just so it's clear, I don't expect, or even want a remake to happen next year or the year after, obviously give it some time to settle, but in time, a remake of this could very well be very good.

The Burmese Harp

"The soil of Burma is red, and so are it's rocks."

Title: The Burmese Harp
Year of Release: 1956
Director: Kon Ichikawa
Genre: Drama/Music/War
Rating: 8.5/10

Don't hold it against yourself if you don't know this film, it's relatively unknown. It's about a Japanese platoon that use music to keep their morales high, they soon surrender to the British after hearing that Japan has surrendered. One of the soldiers plays the harp, naturally gifted he taught himself how to play and play well. Before moving to a prison camp the Captain gets the okay to send a messenger to tell a group of Japanese soldiers to surrender also as resistance is literally futile. The other soldiers are reluctant to give up, and the inevitable happens. The Japanese platoon that sent Mizushima on the mission suspect him to be dead.

I had my doubts that there would be many films from the fifties based around WWII that were so unbiased. With scars and wounds still left in Japanese hearts it's incredibly such an honest film was created. I heard it was very praised during it's original release for simply being created. There is no way anyone can doubt this is an anti-war film, it shows decaying bodies in the mass, scattered around Burma. The pointless mindset some of the Japanese soldiers had during WWII that you must die for your country, that is the best and only way during war is shattered, if anyone thought dying with honor serves your country better than returning to rebuild a country in ruin they surely would of realised after this. As I was saying, it's quite an unbias film, not just because it was made only ten years after the war ended but because well... war films have a tendency to be bias. It shows the British as good people. There are two good examples, at the beginning when the Japanese platoon prepare for battle trying to fool the British by singing, laughing and clapping into thinking they weren't ready the British react in a way I did not expect. Also, though, subtle and quite insignificant a British soldier wishes Mizushima a safe return with complete sincerity. Those types of things just don't seem to be present in a lot of war based films, sure there are numerous examples of films that aren't bias but this is one that really earns my respect.

The music is absolutely perfect in this film. The harp that is played throughout and the singing bring the mood of the soldiers to life, but also, the score is perfect. One scene that is great half of the reason being the music is when Mizushima comes across a whole lot of Japanese corpses and he is obviously bewildered by the sight. The score used in this I haven't seen present in many films from the fifties, particularly Japanese films. Maybe I just need to see more, and they generally seem to be the type of music that is in war films, so again, maybe I just need to see more war films from the time. Regardless, the music is perfect.

The way this film is shot is also incredible. With simple long shots, and numerous pans, particularly across the corpses. I don't know how to explain it without being really general and saying "This looks great, that looks great" but there is no doubt in my mind the cinematography done in this film is one of it's strongest points.

This is quite a general film I think, though it's message is strong. The acting is good, the cinematography is great and the music is even better. There isn't much that goes wrong with this film. But as I said, it feels quite general, that's why I guess I can't really find the words to properly describe this film other than it's really good. The only thing I need a little more push in is understanding Mizushima. I read on IMDb that another of Ichikawa's films is quite good and will help you understand Mizushima better, but as one critic said "The Burmese Harp, just as the titular instrument suggests songs without filling them out, is a slight film that suggests the heavy human toll of war without actually presenting it.". Nonetheless a hugely great film.

Friday Night Lights: Season One

"Clear eyes, full heart, cant lose"

Title: Friday Night Lights
Year of Release: 2006
Creator: Peter Berg
Genre: Drama/Sport
Rating: 8.5/10

Friday Night Lights is set in Dillon, Texas. In this town football is almost all that matters. Everyone seems to go to watch the matches and everyone is passionate. This show focuses on a group of high school students, most involved with the high school team. It deals with the pressures of high school, football and life.

In the spur of the moment I decided I'd check this show out, because from an advertisement I saw on tv it looked like a pretty decent show. Now the first episode isn't the best episode of the season, maybe it's just because this show is so very American it didn't quite appeal to me. The way the episode was going I didn't really plan on continuing watching it, the final.. ten or so minutes were fantastic. When the actual game begun, it was extremely exciting, and was only the beginning as something terrible happens at that game when one of the players is terribly injured. Not only does it greatly affect the himself, his family and the team. It changes the whole town, and because of that one tackle a lot of things changed, some for the better, some for the worse. But inevitably, would make for some damn good television.

The one thing I think about this show is that there are some simple cliche's or predictablities and whatnot, but it works so damn well, always. Some of the characters begin very simply and don't really show any importance, some, just seem pointless and annoying. But in time they did progress, a lot. This season covers a lot of ground in it's twenty-two episodes. Each of the characters in the show, the reoccurring ones, each of them at some point in time have their own little story, and drama to deal with, which I think really helps the characters grow and show the actor or actress's talent.

My biggest problem is that this is set with a bunch of fifteen to seventeen year olds in high school. To me, some of them just don't look their supposed age, but that's easy to get past, but some of things that happens, and what they have to deal with just seems a bit too extreme. Maybe New Zealand and American culture are more different than I thought? I don't know if American's are as serious about football as presented in this show, well, maybe that's too generalised seeing as this is set in a town, but a big one it seems at least. It's certainly a much different case when it comes to Rugby in High School. No games are televised and hell it's unlikely anyone will even video a single game. But like I said I guess American culture is more different than I thought. No one watches local television here, maybe they do in the States (or at least for football)? But back onto my point, I understand the pressure some of the players are put under, but the way they cope with it, in particular, a subplot with Smash, that just felt to me, unlikely and a bit extreme, but I guess one could argue that's the point?

Zach Gilford (Matt Saracen) and Kyle Chandler (Coach Taylor) are definitely the best in the show. From the very beginning it's obvious they had their character down. Gilford does a great job playing the nervous yet brave Matt Saracen, from only the first episode you really get a good feel for the character, not only understanding him, but care about him. Hell, he is a good reason why I continue watching this show, his character has definitely gone a long way and I can't wait to see where else he goes. Now onto Chandler's performance of Coach Taylor. Now his character is probably the most important character because if he was acted weakly the whole show would fall apart. He is what keeps the show standing as his character is right in the center of everything, he connects each character together and the like. It's great because, time and time again you see these same Coach like characters come into play in films like We Are Marshall or even Remember the Titans. The type of coach that is smart at the sport he coaches, but a wise guy, one who can help. Now, that same type of coach is here, but this time it's... different. I honestly can't think of much of a way to explain it other than the performance is not so robotic and typical, it's more fluid and real. Seriously, Chandler just has it down, he knows what he is doing, it's as if he was born to play this character, or is this character. Because there are some moments when something dramatic happens, one in particular when he get's served (lawsuit, not challenged to a dance off or something) he is told who is the one who filed the lawsuit and the expression on his face is the thing that really hits ya, really makes you understand how suprised he is, but also puts you right there.

There are some entertaining shows like Prison Break, 24, or Heroes which are good in short bursts but a lot of them are like trilogies. The first is always the best, but then slowly they just have the same stuff, but at more extreme measures, and then they over complicate and change the shows formula, that is why those shows don't last an entirely great run, because of a lack of emotional drive, they just have action. Friday Night Lights is one of those shows that has that emotional drive. I haven't seen the second or third season, haven't even begun to, for all I know this might do the very same thing I stated before (become more extreme and more complicated) but, unless the writers aren't as talented as I thought it should be fine. Constantly through this show you really feel for the characters. Even characters like Tyra. Tyra isn't my favourite character, she is the shows "bitch". No she isn't pushed around and whatnot, she is just a pain in the ass. Adrianne Palicki does a decent job as Tyra, but it's relatively general when uninvolved in a subplot. But as I was saying, even a character like Tyra gets your attention and has you care about her to some extent.

Now onto two "technical" aspects - Music and Cinematography. The music is fantastic with this show and really really helps just get better and better. It helps set the mood perfectly and feel the extremity of drama that is presented. I'm terrible at remember the instruments used, but it mainly consists of guitars. No, thank god it's not full of loud guitar solo's or popular songs of the current time. The music is soft and smooth, with simple strums at certain key moments. Seriously, the music is perfect. That is one of the very first things I noticed about this show, and it really stood out. Now, the cinematography, the camera is obviously actually held by a cameraman and not just operated by one. Now you may go the entire season/seasons without noticing it but the camera shakes, not a little, but not a lot, and also zooms in when necessary to see peoples expressions. This reminds me of another show called The Shield, but with this, it's far more effective. When I mentioned it zooms to show you characters emotions, or reactions, etc, it's not like you see in a martial arts movie and they've got that cheesy look on their face because unlike that, it actually works here. The shaky camera (not Blair Witch/Cloverfield shaky) is quite effective too. It just gives the show an atmosphere and feeling to it, I guess it just makes it feel more real. This show has some real beauty in some of the shots, it makes great use of lighting, mostly because it doesn't really use much. It doesn't brighten up the shots. It always seems to be natural lighting, but obviously it's not always that way. But I tell ya, when the football players begin their Friday night games it always looks great.

This is a really good show that does a good job showing how much pressure can be put on people involved with football, especially in a small town obsessed with the sport. There isn't much that brings this season down. The acting is pretty solid, though weaker in the first few episodes, it improves, regardless is still pretty good. It does have a bit of a weird feeling that the characters high school students, but it's easy to get past that. And another problem I found with the season is the random tug in the flow of the show, around episode eleven, I think. It seems there may have been a break when it was actually televised because it seemed to rely a bit on simple or small things being forgotten, which when combined can become a problem. It's briefly a bit rocky, but that's seriously about one or two episodes, easy to get past. Those are the things that I think brought this down from perfection. Regardless, a hugely great show, worth checking out.

Note: Just found out the music you mostly hear during the show is a band called Explosions in the Sky, a great instrumental band which mainly consists of electric guitars and drums (also the occasional bass).

In Cold Blood

Note: If you know NOTHING about what this is about, and the murder it is set around, don't read this. But because I think most people already know the general facts, I've included some spoilers that people most probably already know, but not the crucial details, the ones that make this film, truly great.

Title: In Cold Blood
Year of Release: 1967
Director: Richard Brooks
Genre: Crime/Drama
Rating: 10/10

"I'd like to apologize, but who to."

In Cold Blood, an adaption of Truman Capote's well known book which details the brutal slaying of the Clutter family. Perry Smith and Dick Hickock the two who committed the crime went in with the hopes of leaving ten thousand dollars richer because Hickock, while in prison heard that the Clutter family had a safe, with ten thousand dollars in it. Instead they leave forty-three dollars (and a radio) richer.

I think this film builds up and up to show you Smith and Hickock as criminals, but not really as cold blooded murderers, it makes you sympathize with Smith the absolute most because he is complicated. He has fond memories of his mother, and at first all seems well on the front, but you quickly learn little Perry Smith witnessed something truly terrible, which would help lead him to the gallows. Also as emphasis, in the film, you hear two cops talking about some study of serial killers, and it was found they are usually those who had family problems, and Smith fell into that category for sure. He was not a monster as the media most probably portrayed him at the time. Nearing the end especially you really sympathize with Smith because (at least in my opinion) he doesn't really deserve the death penalty, though there is no doubt he deserves punishment, but not death. With Dick, it's a completely different story, but I won't go there, because I think that may spoil some crucial details.

My personal opinion is that not a single soul deserves the death penalty, I just don't think we have the right to kill, not any of us. Just because the government controls everything doesn't give them the right to murder. It's a major contradiction that defeats the purpose of prison. Prison should not be a place for revenge, or a temporary holding ground for the guilty criminals. Rehabilitation should be their only ambition, which a lot of prisons really don't aim to do, they just hold them in time out because they've been a naughty boy (or girl).

But back onto subject, at the end I don't think your supposed to feel and say to yourself "Those cold blooded bastards got what they deserved!" because what's the point in that? This is obviously a good film, anyone can tell that. It's quite complicated, but if it only aims to reenact, really, it's pointless. It certainly isn't one sided though, it's supposed to make you think, do they or do they not deserve being condemned to death, but ultimately, they don't. I think the name "In Cold Blood" is more of an irony, because that's how the media dubbed it, which in a way... it sort of is, but it's just not that simple.

Robert Blake plays Perry Smith and believe me in every sense of the word his performance is perfect. He captures every aspect no matter how big or small they were. The simple shakes of the last mile (I don't know if that's what they actually call it) and his final moments. The intense moments during the scene everyone anticipates. His character is a wide varied character, no doubt. I could probably go on for a while about what makes Perry Smith (be it the man, or the character) so interesting. Take my word Blake was the perfect person to play Smith, not only does he act beyond greatness, he looks very similar to the real Smith. Scott Wilson, who plays Dick Hickock does a great job playing an arrogant and seemingly cold blooded man.

As I've stated, this is quite a complicated film, with little things, though they very well could just a coincidence during the film making progress and the way it was presented, it's far better to think otherwise. The symbolic elements are there. Another thing that I really like is make you wait to see the murder. You see before and after the murder before you actually see the murder itself, which is so incredibly important in keeping your opinion clean and undamaged. Just so you know there is a lot I haven't commented on, most importantly the music and great use of black and white.

I haven't read Capote's "In Cold Blood" and I don't know a lot about the actual crimes themselves and how accurate this film is, but if this is as accurate as it gets, both as an adaption and a true story then this is so very good. It's brutally honest and unbias. As someone on IMDb wrote, this works perfectly with Capote, though I didn't watch it the day before or even remotely close before, Capote is a really good film which helps me base my opinion of the film as a whole. They both focus on different aspects. Obviously, Capote focuses more of the Capote/Smith relationship and you learn a lot about Perry Smith. If you liked Capote, I can almost guarantee you will love this, or vice-versa. A film that succeeds in my eyes on every level.