Outlaw King (2018) directed by David Mackenzie, has recreated the real events and characters from Robert the Bruce’s Rebellion in an engaging way instead of just reading a history book.

The narrative is based off the real events of Robert the Bruce’s Rebellion in Scotland, 1304. This film is revolved completely around the famous Robert the Bruce (Chris Pine), from the start of the film where he swears loyalty to the King of England (Stephen Dillane), to the end of the film in the Battle of Loudoun Hill. After William Wallace’s rebellion had ended, Robert the Bruce was forced to marry Elizabeth De Burgh (Florence Pugh), the goddaughter of King Edward the First. However, there was an outrage in the streets when Robert the Bruce was paying taxes to the English, resulting in Robert becoming angry at the English and forming a new army to rebel against the King. The film then looks at Robert striving to claim the title “King of the Scots,” not like a documentary, but as a story.

However, there is a drawback to this film, if you don’t know about the basic Scottish history of William Wallace, then this film is going to be a struggle for you to keep up with. Even if you don’t know anything about Scotland, I still encourage you to give it a chance, as the film does fill you in with a summary of what has already happened.

If you’re a fan of Game of Thrones and medieval history (Norman fourteenth century), then this is the film for you. The settings, props and costumes just made this film very accurate. The use of castles and costumes just gave me the sense that I was in the medieval atmosphere, while the weapons were used, I felt sick from watching so much gore, especially when someone was hung, drawn and quartered. I must admit, I was hoping that the camera would look away from the deaths, but instead, I was met with a Game of Thrones kind of style as blood and guts were spilling out, which made me very squeamish.

Chris Pine managed to present Robert the Bruce in a strong warrior in battle, but his Scottish accent was too weak to me. By Scottish accent, I mean whispering all the time and trying to sound northern. He does give the disappointed expressions as the struggle goes on in the film, but other than that, the accent isn’t Scottish, which is disappointing as I wanted to hear Robert the Bruce’s Scottish accent. On the other hand, Jame Douglas (by Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Angus McDonald (by Tony Curran) are the real Scotsmen here. Whenever they fight, talk and scream, I felt like my Scottish side was cheering them on, they honestly warmed my heart. While the English characters like King Edward the first (Stephen Dillane), Edward the Prince of Wales (Billy Howle) and Aymer the second earl of Pembroke (Sam Spruell) all played their part with presenting the disagreement between the English and Scottish. They all want power and honour but gave no honour to those around them, they only seem to shout orders and do almost nothing as impressive as Robert in my opinion. This makes it clear on who to dislike and support while watching the film.

I must say that Florence Pugh as Elizabeth needs to be mentioned because of how she is presented. Just to clarify, this film is deliberately made to be historically accurate, hence why she was more mothering and being loyal to Robert the Bruce instead of physically fighting in battle. This could be seen in a negative lighting, but in my opinion, the way she stayed loyal to Robert the Bruce when offered to leave him, she is stood strong by his side. Although, Robert the Bruce’s daughter Marjorie didn’t really get presented that much, only to be seen, someone to be protected where I’m left wondering what happened to her as she is later taken away from the camera.

This brings me to the camera work. Where I could see the action clearly without any shaky camera angles, but unfortunately (for me at least) had a good look at a lot of the deaths. There were a lot of established shots, giving bird-eye views of the settings and what was happening. As soon as you get to the mid shots, you feel like you’re right in the middle of the battlefield with no escape, as you see people are running at you with swords and axes or charging at you on a horse. In the battle against the McDougall army, there was use of the low angle in the water, where Robert’s army was forced to retreat into. I felt that this was appropriate to use for the battles, as it wasn’t disorientating and allowed me to keep up with the action.

I just want to look more at the battles, as I didn’t realise how accurate the film is. The disappointment of Robert, the army slowly declining, all of this was very much what it would have been like back in the Scottish rebellion. Of course, the film was sped up from a few years to the two-hour film it is, to get to the final battle. In fact, if you know your history, this battle is key, not just for Robert the Bruce, but for the future prequels to make what is said to be a trilogy for Outlaw King.

I thoroughly enjoyed Outlaw King, although it was a bit gory at points, but Robert the Bruce’s story was recreated in the accurate way it should be. On the other hand, I’m not as impressed with Chris Pine’s acting as the other actors who made a good impression on their characters. If you’re a fan of battles with honour and blood, then this film is for you, so arm yourself with popcorn and charge to watch this film.

Thugs of Hindostan (2018) directed by Vijay Krishna Acharya, is the film that I wanted to see for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) directed by Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg. I feel that Thugs of Hindostan had a more engaging story and characters, however this film is considered to be awful, and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales was successful, even though it’s characters and story was terrible. This is my first Hindi Film, I kept up with the English subtitles while listening to the Hindi language. If you don’t like watching films in subtitles, then I’m sorry but this film isn’t for you.

The narrative starts in 1795, where we see the character Zafira (Fatima Sana Shaikh) as a child and her father (Ronit Roy) preparing to strike the British before they lose their castle. Unfortunately, John Clive (Lloyd Owen) led the British to victory in claiming Zafira’s castle, preventing any attack on The Company. Luckily, Zafira is rescued just in time by Khudabaksh Azaad (Amitabh Bachchan), who then go onto leading the rebellion. Now it’s 1806 and the British are finding it difficult to fight the “thugs” and decide it’s time to use another thug to betray their own in capturing Azaad. Firangi Mallah (Aamir Khan) is hired to bring in Azaad, driving the narrative forward as he searches for this rebel. Will Firangi succeed? Will Zafira get her revenge and reclaim her throne? Why is Firangi’s master a donkey? You should probably go and find out at the cinema.

The characters have a similar style/personality to other characters from Hollywood films, which make them easier to remember by what they wear. For example, Firangi is a Captain Jack Sparrow mix with The Mad Hatter, but Indian. He is funny and wacky, but he betrays too many people, making him too deceitful in my opinion. Aamir did well with acting as this crazy character. On the other hand, Azaad looks like Black Beard but with a grey beard and is a grandfather figure. I feel as though Amitabh acted very well and created this believable character. While Zafira was an ‘overkill’ in my opinion. She is a ‘Mary Sue,’ but at the end she was a too trusting with a character. Fatima played the intimidating Zafira well, with a lot of aggression. The character Clive is that stereotypical villain who wants to crush a rebellion, but at least he is kind enough to speak their language throughout the film. Lloyd played his character incredibly well, and even as an English actor, he spoke Hindi fluently.

One issue I found with the film is that half of it is just Firangi betraying one person or another. The film focuses on him as he goes from betraying criminals who stole from people on the road to finding Azaad to bring him in. I know the use of his deceitful trait makes an interesting twist to the film, but I think it would be best if he chose one side and stick with that. He betrays people for different reasons, whether it’s for his own selfish gain of reward or trying to survive the fights without a care for who he kills.

The cinematics, editing and lighting are brilliant for establishing characters and what’s going on in the scene. The use of extreme long shots to show the battles to the long and mid shots of the sword fighting presents the overall battle going on. In a few fight scenes, there’s the use of slow motion and then the action is sped up, this was incredible to me. I thoroughly enjoyed the action as it was at the right pace, it wasn’t too fast that you couldn’t keep up with the action, but not too slow that you get bored of the fights. The CGI on the other hand is a bit more noticeable, where I noticed what was the green screen and what wasn’t. Like Zafira swinging on a rope to get on the ships, these shots look amazing even when you notice the CGI. The range of extreme close ups and close ups of swords along with the guns were strangely satisfying to look at as the metal reflected the light. The lighting was perfect for me, not too dark but not too bright, we can tell when it’s night and day, but also the change in weather used the lighting to its advantage.

The sound was a pleasure for me to listen to, both the film music and the sounds in the film. Although the gunshots should have been a tiny bit louder, as I felt that they weren’t quite as shocking to hear as gunshots are. The film music was perfect for the action, all composed by Ajay-Atul and John Stewart. Also, when I was watching this film, I didn’t realise that Indie Films have an intermission and songs sung in the film. Not like a musical but part of the film. For example, Suriayya by Vishal Dadlani, the song is catchy and fitted well in the narrative, instead of oddly placing songs in the film. This song was sung while there was a performance on for the soldiers, this allowed the narrative to continue forward while not disrupting it the flow. I do like Vashmalle by Sukhwinder Singh and Manzoor-e-Khuda by Shreya Ghoshal, as they also fit in with the narrative while making me want to dance along to them. This film has educated me on the Hindi culture and its music.

As you can see, I am shocked by how many reviews say this is a terrible film. Although, as you can see, this film is not a Hindi version of Pirates of the Caribbean, as the story is very different with no use of curses or fantasy monsters. In fact, I’d say it’s Thugs of Hindostan is better, and would fit in the Disney franchise. I recommend watching this film, so “good bye, 1, 2, 3, quick march” to the cinema and watch your first Indie Film.

Outlaw King (2018) directed by David Mackenzie is based off the real events of Scotland in 1304, where Chris Pine acts as the spark to a new rebellion against the English. The screenplay by David Mackenzie, Bathsheba Doran, Mark Bomback, David Harrower and James MacInnes has recreated the events and characters in an engaging way, making it extraordinary to me of how the narrative is structured.

The narrative is revolved completely around the famous Robert the Bruce (Chris Pine), from the start of the film where he makes his vows and swears loyalty to the King of England (Stephen Dillane), to the end of the film in the Battle of Loudoun Hill. Before I go on any further, there is some background information that you should know. The lords of Scotland asked King Edward the first for help on deciding who should be their new king. Despite of this, King Edward the first took the Scottish throne, which provoked William Wallace to spark a rebellion with other Scottish Lords. After that rebellion had ended, Robert the Bruce was forced to marry Elizabeth De Burgh (Florence Pugh), the goddaughter of King Edward the first. However, there was an outrage in the streets when Robert the Bruce was paying taxes to the English, resulting in Robert becoming angry at the English and forming a new army to rebel against the King, to claim the title “King of the Scots.” Wait, do you think it’s easy to win this war? You clearly don’t know your history and need to watch this film.

Chris Pine managed to present Robert the Bruce in a strong warrior in battle, but his Scottish accent was too weak to me. By Scottish accent, I mean whispering all the time and trying to sound northern. He does give the disappointed expressions as the struggle goes on in the film, but other than that, the acting isn’t what I would of expected Robert the Bruce to be like. On the other hand, Jame Douglas (by Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Angus McDonald (by Tony Curran) are the real Scotsmen here. Whenever they fight, talk and scream, I felt like my Scottish side was cheering them on, they honestly warmed my heart. While the English characters like King Edward the first (Stephen Dillane), Edward the Prince of Wales (Billy Howle) and Aymer the second earl of Pembroke (Sam Spruell) all have two things in common, their disrespect to the Scottish, and my lack of respect for them. They all want power and honour but gave no honour to those around them, they only seem to shout orders and do almost nothing as impressive as Robert in my opinion. This makes it clear on who to dislike and support while watching the film. Stephen Dillane was close to making another Stannis Baratheon, but didn’t quite make it, almost like Winterfell.

I feel like Florence Pugh as Elizabeth needs to be mentioned because of how she is presented. Just to clarify, this film is deliberately made to be historically accurate, hence why she was more mothering and being loyal to Robert the Bruce instead of physically fighting in battle. This could be seen in a negative lighting, but in my opinion, the way she stayed loyal to Robert the Bruce when offered to leave him, she is stood strong by his side. Although, Robert the Bruce’s daughter called Marjorie didn’t really get presented that much, only to be seen, someone to be protected and then taken away from the camera, where I’m left wondering what happened to her.

If you’re a fan of medieval history (Norman fourteenth century) and Game of Thrones, then this is the film for you, I can tell you now, this film is impressive. The settings, props and costumes just made this film very accurate. The use of castles and costumes just gave me the sense that I was in the medieval atmosphere, while the weapons were used, I felt sick from watching so much gore, especially when someone was hung, drawn and quartered. I have to admit, I was hoping that the camera would look away from the deaths, but instead, I was met with a Game of Thrones kind of style as blood and guts were spilling out, which made me very squeamish.

This brings me to the camera work. Where I could see the action clearly without any shaky camera angles, but unfortunately had a good look at a lot of the deaths. There was a lot of established shots, giving bird-eye views of the settings and what was happening. As soon as you get to the mid shots, you feel like you’re right in the middle of the battlefield with no escape, encouraging you to panic in the heat of battle. In the battle against the McDougall army, there was use of the low angle in the water, where Robert’s army was forced to retreat into. I felt that this was appropriate to use for the battles, as it wasn’t disorientating and allowed me to keep up with the action.

To add to this, I just want to look more at the battles, as I didn’t realise how accurate the film is. The disappointment of Robert, the army slowly declining, all of this was very much what it would have been like back in the Scottish rebellion. Of course, the film was sped up from a few years to the two-hour film it is, to get to the final battle. In fact, if you know your history, you will know how key this battle is, and not just for Robert the Bruce, but for the future prequels to make what is said to be a trilogy for Outlaw King.

I thoroughly enjoy Outlaw King, although it was a bit gory at points, but Robert the Bruce’s story was recreated in the accurate way it should be. On the other hand, I’m not as impressed with Chris Pine’s acting as the other actors who made a good impression on their characters. If you’re a fan of battles with honour and blood, then this film is for you, so arm yourself with popcorn and charge to watch this film.

Thugs of Hindostan (2018) directed by Vijay Krishna Acharya, is the film that I wanted to see for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) directed by Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg. In fact, it’s outrageous that Thugs of Hindostan is a box office flop, and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales was successful in the box office, even though it’s characters and story was horrifyingly terrible.

Firstly, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge that this is my first Indie Film, I kept up with the English subtitles while listening to the Indian language. When watching this film, I didn’t realise that Indie Films have an intermission and songs sung in the film, I know, I’m uneducated with culture, but I do know the history between the British and the Indians. The film is easy to understand for me it was fine to keep up with, but if you don’t like watching films in subtitles, then I’m sorry but this film isn’t for you. Now, time to get on with the film.

The narrative starts in 1795, where we see the character Zafira (Fatima Sana Shaikh) as a child and her father (Ronit Roy) preparing to strike the British before they lose their castle. Unfortunately, John Clive (Lloyd Owen) led the British to victory in claiming the castle, luckily, Zafira is rescued just in time by Khudabaksh Azaad (Amitabh Bachchan). Now it’s 1806 and the British are finding it difficult to fight the “thugs” and decide it’s time to use another thug to betray their own and capture Azaad. Firangi Mallah (Aamir Khan) is hired to bring in Azaad. What will happen? Will Zafira get her revenge and reclaim her throne? Why is Firangi’s master a donkey? Watch the film and find out what will happen…

I understand that there are a lot of names, which are challenging to pronounce, but the characters have a similar style/personality to other characters from Hollywood films, which make them easier to remember by what they wear. For example, Firangi is a Captain Jack Sparrow mix with The Mad Hatter, but Indian. He is funny and wacky, but he betrays too many people and is a bit too deceitful in my opinion, Aamir did well to act out this crazy character, and even speaking in English with a cool Indian accent with a few lines. Azaad was more of a Black Beard like character but with a grey beard, he was more serious and a grandfather figure to Zafira, Amitabh kept his character while cutting down the British with ease, despite of his age. Zafira was a bit of an ‘overkill’ in my opinion, where she had no flaw and didn’t miss at all with the bow and arrows, a bit of a ‘Marry Sue’ but then again, at the end she was a bit too trusting like Azaad, I think Fatima was alright with keeping a character interesting with the pursuit of revenge. Clive was a more sitting down and giving orders kind of guy, that stereotypical villain who wants to crush a rebellion against him, but at least he is kind enough to speak their language throughout the film, except one scene for one line. Although the use of Suraiyya Juan (Katrina Kaif) was only in the film for the singing and as a love interest for Firangi, but she did help towards the end of the film, this is disappointing that the use of the character wasn’t used that much.

The cinematics, editing and lighting are brilliant, establishing characters, settings and what’s going on in the scene. The use of extreme long shots to show the canons firing to the long and mid shots of the sword fighting presents the overall battle going on and the intentions of characters with close ups. In a few fight scenes, there’s the use of slow motion and then the action is sped up, this was incredible to me. The CGI on the other hand is a bit more noticeable, where I noticed what was the green screen and what wasn’t, however, I still thoroughly enjoyed the film as the action was very fast paced for me. I am very much a fan of metal and wood work, so the range of extreme close ups and close ups of swords along with the guns were strangely satisfying to look at as the light bounced off the metal. The lighting was perfect for me, not too dark but not too bright, we can tell when it’s night and day, but also the change in weather was considered with the lighting. In fact, the lighting, cinematics and editing is on point and as good as Pirates of the Caribbean, I believe that this is what the Dead Men Tell No Tales should have been instead, as that has been thrown down the toilet thanks to Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, Disney should have hired Vijay Krishna Acharya instead.

The sound was a pleasure for me to listen to, although the gunshots should have been a tiny bit louder, as I felt that they weren’t quite as shocking to hear as gunshots are. The music was perfect for the film, composed by Ajay-Atul and John Stewart, in fact, add in the theme tune from Pirates of the Caribbean as well as Johnny Depp, then you have yourself a better film than the disappointment that is number five in Pirates of the Caribbean series. I also want to talk about Suriayya by Vishal Dadlani, the song is catchy and fitted well in the narrative, instead of oddly placing songs in the film, otherwise you might as well make it into a musical. I do like Vashmalle by Sukhwinder Singh and Manzoor-e-Khuda by Shreya Ghoshal, as they also fit in with the narrative while making me want to dance along to them.

As you can see, I am shocked by how it has done terribly in the box office. Although, this Indie Film has left me wanting Disney to fix their awful Pirates of the Caribbean series and look at Vijay Krishna Acharya’s work. I recommend watching this film, so “good bye, 1, 2, 3, quick march” to the cinema and watch your first Indie Film.

Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind (2004) directed by Michel Gondry was a tremendous battle for memory of a loved one. Jim Carrey as Joel Barish, and Kate Winslet as Clementine Kruczynski were an amazing mix for presenting a relationship that is falling apart, but how they still want to fight for each other while they lose parts of their lives. This may sound strange and confusing, believe me, I felt the same when I started watching this.

When watching this, I found it rather creepy at first with Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) kind of like a stalker to Joel Barish (Jim Carrey), but as the film goes on, I couldn’t help but feel as though her character is sweet. We see Joel start with a bizarre and questionable beginning when he meets Clementine, then this cuts to another time period when they have clearly had some conflict. The next day, we see that Clementine doesn’t recognise Joel then kisses another man, later to find that she has erased her memory of Joel, leaving him heartbroken and following the same footsteps. I found this to be very bizarre, yet strangely interesting, where I found myself wanting to help Joel when he realises that he doesn’t want to go through the procedure while in the middle of forgetting Clementine.

Confused yet? Well, I found this to be mysterious, also this gave me the question of ‘how will Joel keep his memories?’ It seems futile to resist, yet he is desperate to keep Clementine in his life, this reminds me of the game Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days where memories are ‘key’ for keeping people in your life, and the mention of how painful it is to lose those people around you. I know, I know, cringey and maybe cliché, however, I find these sorts of narratives most interesting to me, where the mental battles come into play. Michel Gondry (in my opinion) has done very well with filming, especially in certain questionable memories of Joel’s.

In my opinion, the lighting with cinematics and colours were fine in certain places and then some done not as well. As a few scenes have a stationary shot and some panning, until we see Joel walking in the dark with a spotlight on him with uncomfortable feeling of less personal space. Of course, this could have been done symbolically, but the darkness was contrasting too much with the well-lit faces. We can see the expressions clearly on their faces, as well as the settings all being established in different shots, where I and the characters were trying to recognise what memory/place were they in. Although, one scene, which I adore is the iced lake, where Joel and Clementine are dressed in the stereotypical Christmas winter coats, the blues of the ice with the darkness of the night contrast but in an attractive way, maybe even a fantasy sort of way. There are certain memories with warm colours and cooler colours for settings, which tells me and the audience what the characters might be feeling.

The sound is interesting as there are background noises of streets, with the key sounds of the conversations at the right tones. Also, the music was tense at parts when it was necessary, but not overused, although I found that the beginning should have some sort of introduction music instead of just a voice over of Joel’s thought process, even though this is good, as I could follow his thoughts and who he was. However, his intentions aren’t quite explained fully, as the thoughts were too vague and did not explain why the actions were happening. Of course, this is all brought up to a conclusion at the end, which might have been good to remind Michel Gondry to explain the scene a bit earlier.

Jim Carrey’s acting is usually too wacky and strange for my liking, however, this new character to me was more serious, yet still had it’s comedic side. I found that the acting was appropriate for the nervous style character and yet there’s a desperate side to this character, presented in such a way that I felt sorry for this fictional character, and I shed a tear. You don’t believe me? Well, try and remember to check out this film so you can see why.

Kate Winslet was completely different to the usual films I see her in, like the film Sense and Sensibility (1995), as she has a very high-class style and a ‘posh’ accent, which was a surprise to me to hear a change in her voice. Although, I don’t quite think that the dyed blue hair works for her, something about it makes me feel like she is trying to be a teenager or in a rebellious sort of style, since that’s the stereotype. Ignoring the blue hair, the orange dyed hair works more for a certain look of age in my opinion, making her look younger. I guess you could also say more fun looking to be around? She keeps a constant character of Clementine, which felt very sweet to Joel, where she (as well as Jim Carrey) then presented a relationship falling apart, then moving onto the attempts of fixing the mess that they have of a relationship.

I found that the other characters, Mary Svevo (Kirsten Dunset), Stan (Mark Ruffalo), Patrick Wertz (Elijah Wood) and Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson) were still important to drive the narrative, as they brought the invention of erasing people’s minds, making sure the procedure was successful and seen through. The acting was interesting, although I found Elijah Wood’s acting to be rather wimpy compared to Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003), and Frodo wasn’t hero material either.

Overall, I found this film to be very enjoyable to watch, but remember, you should watch the film and see for yourself, of what a confusing but intriguing narrative this is by Michel Gondry. You can watch it and dislike it, but then you’ve clearly forgotten what you love about it, so watch it again and see more of Jim Carrey’s and Kate Winslet’s characters, and how there is a mental battle going on.

Frank Darabont has managed to make an adaptation of the book The Shawshank Redemption (1982) by the infamous Steven Kings into a film (1994). It is a successful film, about the struggle of the character, Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins), charged with murdering his wife and her affair. I feel as though the use of characters in the narrative builds a relationship between the audience and the main characters, as well as providing enigmas to the audience.

The narrative of The Shawshank Redemption starts with a scene of Andy, drunk and loading a gun holster with anger in his eyes. Then switches to a court room in present day, where Andy is trying to prove his innocence but the evidence against seems to be presented clearly on the table. From then on, we see him trying to survive the prison, Shawshank. He makes friends and essentially redeems himself in jail. We get the impression that anyone who is new in prison, immediately becomes a target, unfortunately the bets that Red (Morgan Freeman) and other prisoners put on the “fish” present an insecure feeling for the audience. I had mixed feelings with the atmosphere in the film, unsure of whether to sympathise with Andy, or agree that he is getting what he ‘deserves,’ the film does make me wonder whether this started the ‘tradition’ of prison films/series like Prison Break. The audience immediately gets ‘hooked’ as soon as the mystery is set, producing the questions to the audience like, ‘what actually happened on the night of the murder?

My first issue with this film was how certain groups of characters were presented. The presentation of the law-enforcers to be religious seems more like the saying ‘do as I say, not do as I do,’ another way of presenting how religion is corrupted, like The Duchess of Malfi. The second issue is the way that time is supposed to pass by, without the characters saying how many years have gone by since Andy first came in. I could be wrong, as this might be a use of ‘you cannot tell how much time passes when behind walls,’ but in this case, I don’t think it is presented as well as it could of been.

Looking at the characters on the other hand, I found myself getting caught up with them to the point where I physically reacted to whatever happened to the characters. Whenever Andy was threatened by a prisoner, I felt scared, whenever there was a happy atmosphere, I felt myself warming up to the film. I found myself cry and scream in the cinema when I watched what happened, this film goes in depth by creating a relationship between the audience and characters. As the film progresses, I almost forget that the film is set in a prison and they’re all prisoners, as Andy makes the place more welcome and friendly as though it is a community. Andy is more unpredictable than I assumed he would be, which deceived not just Red at the beginning, but also me as an audience. I keep thinking that I would be able to predict what will come next, but every time that I did, it goes in a completely unexpected direction. You could say that these are ‘redeeming’ features to the film.

Tim Robbins acting for Andy at first felt a bit too monotone for me, however, as the film carried on, I felt as though he acted just right for Andy, as though he completely fitted the part, presenting the kind acts and the mystery behind the character. While Morgan Freeman as his character Red, the narration was right to explain what was going on and from his point of view in the first person. In my opinion, the acting was perfect for his character, being a smuggler and explaining how his thought process continues throughout the film. Although, the narration changes to the character, Brooks Hatlen (James Whitmore) for one scene, when reading the letter to the inmates. His acting was incredibly moving, after the letter had finished being read in Brook’s voice. I cried due to the emotions that this character had gone through. Throughout this film, the acting is that impressive that I forgot where I was and got ‘into’ the film.

The cinematography was perfect for capturing the expressions, I could see the objects in focus for the right amount of time and the right speed for panning over objects. We get to see the expressions on the characters, how they react to the alien presence of Andy, as he doesn’t seem to fit as the criminal ‘type,’ which is even indicated by Red in a voice over on the long shot of Andy walking in the courtyard. The voice overs on the shots link up to what the narrator is saying, we get into the thought process of the characters, see what they see and link what the narrator is saying about the scenes.

I found the props to be more welcoming, as the plain prison walls and the bars are completely different to the rocks that are chiselled and polished to impressively crafted ornaments. In fact, I felt more at home in Andy’s cell as he developed and gave it more of a workshop/homey atmosphere as he decorated it. The books for the library just made the prison look more of a study area for the prisoners, which brought them together as though it was a community. These props created more of a personality to not just Andy, but also others like Brooks with his crow, presenting the characters to be people and not dangerous criminals to society. You could say that they managed to ‘redeem’ themselves.

Overall, I found myself enjoying The Shawshank Redemption to the point where I felt present in the film. I am seriously impressed with Frank Darabont for the adaptation of the book by Steven Kings, to what I would consider to be a masterpiece. The choice of actors to create the characters was very well picked, as I felt as though these characters were real, I recommend watching it or go to prison and ‘redeem’ yourself.

Gareth Edwards 2016 Rogue One: A Star Wars Story lives up to its expectations in the Star Wars franchise, with an incredible narrative with character development and editing that allows it to fit into the main narrative of Star Wars. However, I will also be looking at Rogue One: A Star Wars Story by itself and what a non-Star Wars fan would think of it.

Firstly, we will look at Rogue One: A Star Wars Story as an addition to the overall narrative to Star Wars. This film answers a lot of questions as to how the rebels struggle in the fight against the imperial empire, filling in the details before the start of Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope. We meet new characters who join the fight against the empire and see how they pass on the death star plans to the characters in Episode IV. We also have a side story where the character Jyn Erso’s (Felicity Jones) is in search of her freedom and her father, Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen). As the narrative goes on, we see Jyn Erso struggle against the empire and any freedom fighters who want to use her for bargaining against the empire. We see other characters like Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), Chirrut Imwe (Donnie Yen) and Baze Malbus (Jiang Wen) had everything taken from them by the empire. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story presents a darker tone in the franchise, a feeling of hopelessness that characters carry throughout the film, presenting that it is useless to resist the empire, or should I say dark side?

The editing in the film is more defined compared to the other Star Wars films, with the blaster bolts and the space scenes look more realistic. However, as I researched about the production of the film, most of the sets were filmed in different locations instead of relying on the green screen, like the islands of Gan and Baresdhoo, Wadi Rum and London. The explosions on ground battles were real, and the aliens that were in the film were people in masks. Gareth Edwards just shows how you do not always need to use CGI for an action scene, I am seriously impressed with the production of the film, as this is also how George Lucas filmed Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope, Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back and Episode VI – Return of the Jedi, going out to locations to film a real set. However, Guy Henry as the infamous Wilhuff Tarkin was good for the voice acting, but the use of CGI to recreate him just did not work, as the detail on the face was obviously special effects that were not human, this is the only downfall of CGI in the film.

The acting throughout the film in my opinion was just right, nobody seemed to go over-the-top or doing a shabby job. Felicity Jones does an impressive job as she presents a strong woman who develops from just looking out for herself in an aggressive way to a team player, which also goes on to try and save the galaxy where nobody else will. Donnie Yen did a great job as he had to pretend to be blind, while trying to see through the contacts he used was said to be irritating to wear for him. Jiang Wen also had some difficulty acting, as English isn’t his first language and struggled with pronunciation, even then, I think he said his lines well and presented his character the right way for the tough atmosphere. The fight scenes were impressive as well, whether it was shouting in a x-wing or shooting on the beaches, the fights looked intimidating to go up against, where the fear of dying but the need to carry out the mission is presented to be real, where we see how terrifying it would be as a ground troop.

So far, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is an intriguing film with a lot that goes into it, but looking at this as a non-Star Wars fan who may not have even heard of it (I know, there are people who are like this, unbelievable), the film is not good. The film just jumps into the story of Jyn Erso and how she was separated from her father, and then jumps the present day where she is grown up. The film is not structured for an audience of non-Star Wars fans, because there is no proper explanation of why there are rebels or what the empire does to upset the citizens that makes them go rogue. We get some vague explanations of what the empire does, since we never see it from the empires perspective. I hate to say it, but Rogue One: A Star Wars Story cannot stand by itself to an audience that has not seen the rest of the franchise, especially when the big characters like Wilhuff Tarkin and Darth Vader (James Earl Jones, Spencer Wilding and Daniel Naprous) turn up and not really explained of how important they are. Not to mention, the use of CGI to create Wilhuff Tarkin would not be understood by the non-Star Wars fans, unless they know about Peter Cushing as the original actor who passed away on 11th August 1994, obviously not able to make the role in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.

Another small issue to this film is the lack of trailer shots that were used in the final product. The Star Wars fans could not guess fully of how the film would turn out, as most of the trailers were just for advertisements, although this can be good as it does not give the story away and keeps the audience wanting to watch the film. This shocked the fans when they wanted to see the scenes from the trailers in the final product, though the film was still a massive success without the trailer shots.

Overall, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is a good film as Gareth Edwards used character development, more details to fill in the overall Star Wars narrative, use of filming locations and editing of CGI to attract Star Wars fans. However, there is a problem with how the film is structured towards non-Star Wars fans, as the story does not explain itself to them. In my opinion, the film was successful and fits in the Star Wars franchise well.

Wes Craven’s 1996 Scream is an intense horror film with mystery. If you are a fan of horror, this is the film for you. In this review, I will be going over how Scream references other horror films, what it could imply compared to other horror films, the characters roles and my opinion on the film. This will be through the evidence provided in the film as to how it is a scary film and where it stands compared to the other horror films.

Starting off, I found Scream to be rather uncomfortable, due to the creepy murderer and blood shown in the first fifteen minutes of the film, where there was no order to begin. Of course, the villain is supposed to be creepy and stalker-like, but I was not expecting to be thrown straight into the narrative. As Drew Blythe Barrymore’s character (Casey Becker) is presented first, where we presume that she will be the main character, however, as she is killed in the first fifteen minutes, Wes Craven makes it clear that anyone in this film can be killed. The film carries on and Neve Campbell’s character (Sidney Prescott) is more focused on to be the main character, as the film is set one year after her mother’s death, which also produces a sub-story that makes the audience question what happened? Then we find that the murderer is targeting Sidney, where she becomes the victim and centre of the narrative. We as the audience start to try and suspect who the murderer is, I found this enigma to be intriguing and attention keeping, where I could not guess who the murderer was, because of the surprising twist.

Throughout the film, there are references and comparisons to other horror films, which are either mentioned or pointed out by the characters, they reference John Carpenter’s 1978 Halloween, Brian De Palma’s 1976 Carrie, Sean S. Cunningham’s 1980 Friday the 13th and an interesting use of another film by Wes Craven, Nightmare on Elms Street 1984. By referring to these films, Wes Craven is referring to other horror films and how they usually end, even by using Jamie Kennedy’s character (Randy) to point out “the rules” of horror films and how to survive in them. This points out how horror films work with using character, especially with Rose McGowan’s character (Tatum), saying “No, please don’t kill me Mr Ghostface, I want to be in the sequel.” I found this line to be ironic, as no character in films say that, however, films have been expected to have sequels after a successful film, then the audience favours certain characters and want them to survive so they can carry on in the next film. This presents how the audience could think if they were in the characters shoes, wanting to survive and attempting to think of some way to beat the villain. We can see more of what Wes Craven sees as the rules to horror films and he understands how the audience thinks, so presenting black comedy and horror film references confuses the audience as to how the film will possibly end.

Scream also criticises horror films about the representation of gender, as Sidney talks to the murderer about horror films on the phone “they’re all the same, some stupid killer stalking some big breasted girl who can’t act is always running up the stairs instead of the front door.” This line is possibly used as a mouth piece for Wes Craven, as Sidney says that “all” horror films use this technique to gain the attention of the male audience. Also, the criticism of the victim in films is presenting again the audiences way of thinking, how can they survive or get away from the killer? This strategy is used to escape the killer is well known but never used in horror films, making the audience feel more powerful as they feel that they know how to survive from the psychos in films.

Another line that is an interesting argument is when Skeet Ulrich’s character (Billy) says “Movies don’t create psychos, movies make psychos more creative.” Horrifying as it sounds, this does add to the argument of the Direct Effect Theory formed by a media theorist, Melvin L. DeFleur. The Direct Effect Theory indicates that texts or media can influence the audience to do horrific actions. Where we see the characters in the films, and they have seen too many films, resulting into them doing the hands-on deed. By the line that Billy says, the murderer is only mimicking the films they have seen, which supports why we have the censorship of films, although this does beg the question of should we censor films more? In my opinion looking at the line and Direct Effect Theory, it is something to do with the psychology of the individual who is watching the film.

As the film goes on, it becomes more terrifying for me to watch, if I had popcorn, it would be thrown in the air, halfway through the film. The suspense and the jump scares become unexpected, with the music enhancing the feeling. I felt that I was more shocked when I saw the start of the film, but when it was towards the end, I could not help but shake in fear from when the murderer would appear. The lighting and setting also encourages the sense of fear, since there is dark lighting whenever the murderer appears and set in the suburbs, where families usually settle down with the peace and quiet. The dark is notorious for the use of fear, due to the inability to see everything clearly and not knowing what might be in the unseen. This threat of not knowing what is hidden from the audience and characters also adds to the tension as they become scared for their safety, not to mention, the villain is stereotypically in the camouflaging colour; black.

Overall, the1996 film Scream by Wes Craven is a good and attention keeping horror film, because of the use of references, characters and the enigma of who is the murderer. It gives an interesting argument to people who criticise horror films, including the rules of the horror film. I recommend watching this film as the mystery keeps the attention of the audience and creates tension as the film goes on.

This review will be looking at Mad Max: Fury Road Black and Chrome by director George Miller, as a standalone film, not referring it to the rest of the series. I will be going over how the characters, the evidence of symbolism, along with the themes; disorders, gender, honour and power has produced this film.

Of course, the title of the film gives away the fact that the film is in black and white, which I personally feel that it allows the audience to imagine the colours, for example; how dusty the desert will be, how run down the cars are and how the characters might look like as they are effected by the weather? The use of no colour creates a darker tone as well, as black and white is usually symbolised with the emotion; sadness, where the world is destroyed and there is ‘no green land’ literally in both narrative and mise-en-scene. The film is set in a desert where the world has been through a disastrous event, leading to people “killing the world” and there is no hope for the future. The colour added on to the desert would not make this film as attractive, as the film looks nostalgic with the explosions and the scenery. An interesting fact to this film is that it is preferred by both audience and director rather than the original colour version. In my opinion, I feel as though there is a bit of a steampunk/mechanical vibe with the monochrome style, which compliments the film with its dusty desert.

The start of the film switches between the non-diegetic sounds of first person narrative and the radio noises of how the world is being killed. Then proceeds with a risk from George Miller by throwing the audience straight into action of a chase scene, confusing the audience as to what is going on. As the film proceeds, it goes into the detail of ‘here and now’ where the audience should decide who the favour out of the characters presented to them. Although, the cinematography and editing is incredible to me, so the audience can keep up with the action and understand what is going on, and the explosions are not too over the top like director Michael Bay with Transformers.

Tom Hardy’s character (Max) is interesting as he is the first character we see with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as there is a child that appears to Max and accusing him of failing to help “us” as her face fades to and from a skull. This is where Max’s quote “running from the living and the dead” is presented to be true, as he is psychologically damaged, giving the audience a glimpse at his past. However, I would have liked to see more his past or something explaining his PTSD. There is no explanation as to why he holds his guilt, although this is unhealthy, this adds to why his name is Mad Max. Throughout the film, we can see how he wants to be free from the scavengers, and then decides that he wants to go to the “green land”.

Charlize Theron’s character (who is not named) looks to “save” the wives of Immortan Joe, by bringing them to the “green land” that could symbolise the dream of a sanctuary for people in the real world, like the American dream. Even though there is a past of Charlize Theron’s character, I feel that we need more background information as well as a name. Her character proceeds with complications and struggles throughout the ride in the desert, with her memories keeping her going towards her goal. We could also assume Charlize Theron supports the queer theory, that there shouldn’t be lines as to what is a woman or a man, so breaking those rules, we see her look strong but battered while having to adapt to her surroundings. This links to how the elderly women towards the end of the film present strength and are not helpless, these women are tough to whoever they come across in the wilderness and show no mercy.

Now Nicholas Hoult’s character (Nux) is rather intriguing, as he presents the pagans wanting to go to Valhalla, then kamikaze attacks switching to the futility of violence, which follows with greed, failure and disappointment. Nux wants to prove himself in battle and gain honour in the eyes of the Immortan Joe and the dead in Valhalla. He does this through the want of attention and fighting to get what he desires, but when he attempts to do kamikaze attacks, he fails and finds himself questioning whether he was being saved for something more important. Later in the film, the last battle has no more kamikaze acts by Nux, but the scavengers still hold that identity. These pagans have been demonised and seen to be barbaric to the audience because of the greed for power. Even in the last battle, Nux and the elderly women do not strive for an honourable death, since they want to live and see this dream come true. As deaths occur, people start dropping off one-by-one, which is futility of fighting, the audience can see how there is no glory in violence, only death and disappointment, in the literal wasteland. I like how George Miller filmed this, although, the enjoyment of the metal music and electric guitars moves away from this, making the deaths of the characters to be in vain. This may also be petty of me, but I do not like the presentation of the pagans, as they are demonised and a lack of voice from them, making them barbaric to both characters and audience.

Hugh Keays-Byrne’s character (Immortan Joe) is key to this film as well, he is desperate to keep his power, women and unborn child. He holds power through holding water, where everyone would look to him for salvation for this source of life. As soon as he realised his wives were gone, he became determined to retrieve what was his at all costs, sacrificing lives so he would secure his power. He makes false promises, saying “I will myself carry you to Valhalla” to Nux, as soon as he failed him, Immortan Joe immediately disregarded him. I do like this villain with his need for power, where we can see how there is corruption through power and greed.

Overall, Mad Max: Fury Road Black and Chrome has an interesting setting with a style making it more attractive. The characters have meaning behind them and can investigate them more, but I feel that there is a need for some more background information of certain characters.

Dogville (2003) by the director Lars Von Trier is an interesting mystery, crime and drama hybrid genre, with all sorts of enigmas going on, presented as a story book. It is split up into a prologue and nine chapters, with the narrator John Hurt, telling the audience the story in third person. Trier directed the film in a creative way, allowing the Hurt to describe the scenery to audience, as all they can see are the characters and a stage with a few props, where they must fill in the details of the setting with their imagination. With the street drawn out like a map on the stage, and the characters walking around the drawn-out blocks to present the buildings where they are supposed to be. The setting then leans on Hurt to describe the buildings, countryside and the setting itself, leaving the audience imagine what they think it should look like. I found this interesting, even when the snow was falling and there was destruction of the houses, the boxes drawn on the floor representing houses were not covered of snow while everywhere else was. The houses destroyed also adds more effect, as there is literally nothing of the houses left, no drawings on the stage, no props, no writing to tell the reader whose house is whose, emphasising how they have been destroyed. The use of the room that held the stage and film in was effective in representing time going by, with a white background as day and a black background for night, so the audience can have more of a picture in their mind of the time of when people go to bed or what they would be doing at the time of day.

Although, as the film proceeds, it follows with a lot of handheld shots, which was very noticeable, making the screen shake too much for the shot. I felt as though the camera shots were also poorly shot, as the camera angles did not flow continuously, where there would be a shot of Nicole Kidman (who acted Grace) and Paul Bettany (who acted Tom Edison) sitting together and then cuts to a shot of Bettany standing facing Kidman, excluding the action of him going from sitting to standing. This was not the only time that the shots were not continuous, but throughout the film with different characters.
Speaking of Kidman and Bettany, the relationship of their characters was naive as William Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet. As they carried on through the film, the character Tom, had an idea of ‘love’ when really, there was no attraction or a romantic feeling to it but looked at Tom’s desires. In fact, all the men seemed to turn their eyes towards the character Grace, as she was presented to be a sexual object. As the setting is cultural and historical, accents and costumes suggest this is set in USA, 1900’s, where the patriarchal society was in more control, the men in the town Dogville used Kidman’s character to their advantage. They blackmailed, sexually harassed her and wanted to fulfil their desires with her. Not to mention, Stellan Skarsgård’s character (Chuck) was exposed on the stage in front of everyone while sexually harassing Kidman, where there were no walls for the buildings. Impressively, the cast managed to avoid looking in the direction, which does lean more on the audience’s imagination as to what the other characters would see and be doing in their own houses, where they could not hear the crime being committed.

Forgetting that Bettany’s character was adding nothing but a false sense of romance to Kidman’s, Grace was an interesting character, where she left the questions running through the audience’s minds. How dangerous is she actually compared to what the posters say about her? What happened to her in the past? What did she do to get someone to shoot at her with a gun? We as the audience find a curiosity to Grace and find that we do not associate her as a sexual object but see her as a victim from gangsters and the town. I see her as a runaway, searching for jobs and someone trying to live in a ‘beautiful’ town. While the character Tom, is seen to be a constant reminder of how he attempts to be a provider to Grace as he gazes at her with sexual desire. This makes a binary opposite to the cliché of romance, instead of the woman being associated with belonging, it is Tom seen to be this association of romance.

The plot of Trier’s Dogville follows Kidman’s character with the members of the town, considering the dilemma of whether Grace should leave the town or be turned into the police for money. However, as the chapters go on, Grace sticks around trying to help the town with jobs and encounters a few conflicts with the locals. As the ending closes, the locals of the town find themselves with what they deserve, as they treated the outsider of their society with disrespect. As Kidman acts in the final chapter, it is obvious that Grace is broken from the behaviour of locals. However, when she returns to power, she finds herself judging whether she should give them the punishment they deserve or not. I found this to be an unexpected but satisfying, where there was the reflection of different characters and how they treated her. Like Vera’s children and the sentimental values of Graces figures, McKay and the curtains and Chuck with his view of the town. In fact, this was probably my favourite chapter overall, as you see the members of the town get what they deserve because of their actions and attitudes towards Grace, and no cliché of Tom uniting with Grace.

Overall, Lars Von Trier’s Dogville is intriguing with the narrative, although there are a few issues with the camera shots that were included and the use of Paul Bettany’s character compared to Nicole Kidman’s. The style of the narrative was in a book style but allowing the audience to see and imagine what is in the scene making it interesting for the audience to watch. There was the historical and cultural information within the text to include the desires of men towards women, making them victims. Finally, the text concludes with a judgement on behaviour towards people from outside their own society, which was built up through the chapters of the text.