Love portrays the personal-psychological effects of isolation and loneliness when an astronaut becomes stranded in space and through this, emphasizes the importance of human connection and love. (Wikipedia)
Angels & Airwaves were always a band with an incredible vision. In 2010 they released their 3rd album entitled 'Love' which then esculated the band to releasing 'Love Part 2' and of course the 'Love' feature film which was met with excellent responses worldwide.
Love Part 1 (2010)
At first hearing this album I wasn't quite sure what to think. My first thought was that the band had taken a different turn from 'We Don't Need to Whisper' and 'I-Empire' , both albums I completely adore, but I couldn't decide if it was a good change. First single 'Hallucinations' was very catchy with some incredible lyrics, however, I didn't want the whole album to be like that and from my first hearing, the album seemed that way. Then came the point when I realised that 'Love' was something much more than that.
There are many themes involved within the album such as God, hope and of course love. Part 1 began to shine more and more with every listen. Tracks such as 'The Flight of Apollo' and 'Soul Survivor (...2012)' are beautifully fantastic and highlights the strength of Angels & Airwaves.
The reception of Love was mostly positive, gaining 4.5/5 from Alternative Addiction and a respectable 77% from AbsolutePunk. Love is certainly an album with great connection to the themes it discusses. The Love project, as a whole, had only just begun...
Love Part 2 (2011)
Love Part 2 follows the themes from Part 1 but also coincides with the Love feature film. The album picks up where the previous album left us. The spacey intro to 'Saturday Love' followed by the typical and incredible drum beat that delivers us to a sense of hope but also the feeling that Angels & Airwaves have progressed even further from previous albums. Part 2 for me is a winner. One of the best records I've ever listened to which leads me to say that in my opinion, Part 2 only works because of what Part 1 provided us. Part 2 and Part 1 are essentially together giving the fans a journey through the minds of Angels & Airwaves. The whole album is incredible and is a great listen. 'Anxiety' and 'Surrender' are triumphant which reflects the rest of the album. However, Part 2 wasn't recieved as well as Part 1 gaining 3.5/5 from Allmusic. I feel that both albums would have been fantastic if they had been assembled together to form what could have been one of the greatest albums of all time. Never the less, 'Love Part 2' is excellent and for Angels & Airwaves fans its a must hear.
Love: Feature Film (2010)
Having been desperate to see the 'Love' film for quite some time, I finally managed to watch the film and was taken back by it. The film follows how an astronaut copes isolated from Earth over a peroid of time without communication.
The story is touching to say the least. Before watching the film I had strong expectations as the film had been recieved so well. Tom Delonge (frontman of Angels & Airwaves) had mentioned that he was looking to do a film years proir to the actual release of 'Love' but not even he himself could predict just how incredible the final picture was;
"I can tell you, honestly, the movie is ten times better than I thought it would be. But it’s not meant to compete with Transformers. This is an art-house film and no band has really done this in a very long time. So we’re hoping that we catch some people off guard"
The concept of 'Love' is perhaps its driving force. Its not your average sci-fi flick. Like the albums, 'Love' has something more than just a guy trapped in space. The audience see interviews discussing the main themes of the film which are what the albums are based upon.
The feature film includes songs from 'Love Part 1' which are elegently placed in moments that are unforgetable. All together, 'Love' ,as a whole, is something that many artists could never dream of producing.
In conclusion, Angels & Airwaves are more than a band, they are Poets.
Monday 27 February 2012
Sunday 26 February 2012
The Woman in Black
A young lawyer travels to a remote village where he discovers the vengeful ghost of a scorned woman is terrorizing the locals. (IMBd)
SPOILERS
In a nutshell, the film centres around Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) who is depressed from the loss of his wife and is left to bring up his son. Kipps is assigned to sell a house on a marsh where he is met by the townspeople who don't give him the warmest of welcomes. When Kipps discovers this 'Woman in Black' he realises that the town are under threat from this 'woman' over the loss of her child.
Having seen this film twice at the cinema, I am pretty sure that the certificate SHOULD be a 12A. There is a lot of talk of how this film 'should be a 15' by viewers and to be honest I can't see why. The film is eery and has its moments where you feel on edge but the scares aren't as 'big' as the Paranormal Activity films or any other ghost/demon related film.
If you go back to when The Others was released in 2001, this film was just the same as The Woman in Black and that recieved a certificate 12. Point made.
On the other hand, the films story line was quite interesting. Not the same as the theatre production but what do you expect when a theatre production is made into a film? Daniel Radcliffe's performance was in my opinion average, I felt that he wasn't the right choice to play the role. Besides, for his first role since the 'Harry Potter' films, it was hard to sit there without making any witty remarks to the 'Harry Potter' films. However, after a few minutes of seeing him playing the character of Arthur Kipps, you start to forget that he was once waving a wand about.
The scares started soft then progressed and got bigger, which for me, made it a little silly and found myself slouching with my hand rested on my head. I found the moments where the audience saw 'The Woman in Black' just standing there without the awful screaming she produces more terrifying than her flying everywhere.
I'm sure many people will disagree with me, but I felt that the film could've been made a lot more darker and scarier had they decided to go for the 15 certificate. Maybe with a different actor playing Kipps this could've happened. Instead, we were left with waht can only be said as a boy in a suit.
The film was average and the scares could have been better. Ghost stories are coming into the cinema more frequently and unfortunately, I think 'The Woman in Black' didn't succeed as well as 'Paranormal Activity' or 'Insidious' did. It's a good adaptation of the theatre production, but I felt they could have done a lot more with the film.
SPOILERS
In a nutshell, the film centres around Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) who is depressed from the loss of his wife and is left to bring up his son. Kipps is assigned to sell a house on a marsh where he is met by the townspeople who don't give him the warmest of welcomes. When Kipps discovers this 'Woman in Black' he realises that the town are under threat from this 'woman' over the loss of her child.
Having seen this film twice at the cinema, I am pretty sure that the certificate SHOULD be a 12A. There is a lot of talk of how this film 'should be a 15' by viewers and to be honest I can't see why. The film is eery and has its moments where you feel on edge but the scares aren't as 'big' as the Paranormal Activity films or any other ghost/demon related film.
If you go back to when The Others was released in 2001, this film was just the same as The Woman in Black and that recieved a certificate 12. Point made.
On the other hand, the films story line was quite interesting. Not the same as the theatre production but what do you expect when a theatre production is made into a film? Daniel Radcliffe's performance was in my opinion average, I felt that he wasn't the right choice to play the role. Besides, for his first role since the 'Harry Potter' films, it was hard to sit there without making any witty remarks to the 'Harry Potter' films. However, after a few minutes of seeing him playing the character of Arthur Kipps, you start to forget that he was once waving a wand about.
The scares started soft then progressed and got bigger, which for me, made it a little silly and found myself slouching with my hand rested on my head. I found the moments where the audience saw 'The Woman in Black' just standing there without the awful screaming she produces more terrifying than her flying everywhere.
I'm sure many people will disagree with me, but I felt that the film could've been made a lot more darker and scarier had they decided to go for the 15 certificate. Maybe with a different actor playing Kipps this could've happened. Instead, we were left with waht can only be said as a boy in a suit.
The film was average and the scares could have been better. Ghost stories are coming into the cinema more frequently and unfortunately, I think 'The Woman in Black' didn't succeed as well as 'Paranormal Activity' or 'Insidious' did. It's a good adaptation of the theatre production, but I felt they could have done a lot more with the film.
Saturday 25 February 2012
Safe House
A young CIA agent is tasked with looking after a fugitive in a safe house. But when the safe house is attacked, he finds himself on the run with his charge. (IMBd)
Safe House proved to be a film that was a big surprise to me. When seeing the trailer for the film I was more impressed by the catchy song played in the background over the scenes provided. Nevertheless, Denzil Washington and Ryan Reynolds provide a great partnership which makes the film a great success.
I wasn't sure what to expect when I went to see the film as the trailer seemed to provide all the best scenes, however, I did come out of the cinema very impressed with the film and actors involved and the fact that the film was filmed in South African locations rather than typical New York. The story took a while to fully come full circle (why was Washington been hunted etc etc) but when the penny dropped it all came in to place.
It's hard to say who was better in the film; Reynolds or Washington as both were incredibly strong, it was good seeing Reynolds playing a character the audience weren't mocking or laughing at and he pulled his character off brilliantly (nice to see him not typecasted). Having seen a fair few action films, Safe House is one of the better ones. Washington's character, Tobin Frost, was a character you were undecided about throughout, should you like him or hate him? This was a good starting point for the film, by making him this clever and violent character, the audience is unaware who's side he's on. This was continued over the course of the film, with violent acts on Reynolds and of course the people who are after him, it made Frost a very dangerous character who wasn't afriad of death (this shown at the start of the film where an interigation gets messy). I think this rage and violence from Frost manipulates Reynolds character Matt Weston and therefore his character is dragged into the same boat as Frost.
With 2012 being a big year for film fans, I can't think why Safe House won't be a film that will be forgotten about. Action packed, suspense throughout and cleverly written provides a film that packed audiences will be impressed with.
Safe House proved to be a film that was a big surprise to me. When seeing the trailer for the film I was more impressed by the catchy song played in the background over the scenes provided. Nevertheless, Denzil Washington and Ryan Reynolds provide a great partnership which makes the film a great success.
I wasn't sure what to expect when I went to see the film as the trailer seemed to provide all the best scenes, however, I did come out of the cinema very impressed with the film and actors involved and the fact that the film was filmed in South African locations rather than typical New York. The story took a while to fully come full circle (why was Washington been hunted etc etc) but when the penny dropped it all came in to place.
It's hard to say who was better in the film; Reynolds or Washington as both were incredibly strong, it was good seeing Reynolds playing a character the audience weren't mocking or laughing at and he pulled his character off brilliantly (nice to see him not typecasted). Having seen a fair few action films, Safe House is one of the better ones. Washington's character, Tobin Frost, was a character you were undecided about throughout, should you like him or hate him? This was a good starting point for the film, by making him this clever and violent character, the audience is unaware who's side he's on. This was continued over the course of the film, with violent acts on Reynolds and of course the people who are after him, it made Frost a very dangerous character who wasn't afriad of death (this shown at the start of the film where an interigation gets messy). I think this rage and violence from Frost manipulates Reynolds character Matt Weston and therefore his character is dragged into the same boat as Frost.
With 2012 being a big year for film fans, I can't think why Safe House won't be a film that will be forgotten about. Action packed, suspense throughout and cleverly written provides a film that packed audiences will be impressed with.
I'm new..
well, thought i'd create a blog for no apperent reason, gives me something to do when I'm bored or something other than that.
quick not about me; I love films, music, tv milarky etc etc.
hope this doesnt become my life now...
quick not about me; I love films, music, tv milarky etc etc.
hope this doesnt become my life now...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)