A dangerous method

So I've spoke before on my dislike for Keira Knightley, and her general one-dimensional acting qualities. But in the last two films I've seen her in- 'Anna Karenina' and this, she has actually been a really interesting and compelling character.

I dont think her character, Sabina, was an easy one to play, considering the sensitive nature of her illness and the effect it is having on her adult life. At the start of the film, she was sufficiently insane, but grew out of that well and into a likable but still visibly unstable female lead. Maybe Knightley just suits foreign parts? Either way I liked her in this and as the tortured lover Anna.

I found the relationship between Jung and Freud interesting to watch, and well played by both Michael Fassbender and Viggo Mortensen. They seemed to have the appropriate professional relationship at the start of the film and grew into suitable competitiors, both displaying the characters they had been assigned- particularly in Mortensens case with Sigmund Freud. As with the case of Sabina, I think that Freud would be a very hard character to play, given his views on the human psyche and his addiction to cocaine- although the film does not touch upon this aspect of the man I believe it would change the character on a whole. 

Fassbender gives an interesting performance of Jung, showing the professionalism within his character but at the same time the flaw, in falling for the patient. I've only ever seen this actor in 'Shame', where he plays a much different character, but I think it shows  that he is a versatile actor and a bloody high quality one at that.

I'm struggling to find the words to describe this film if I'm honest, mainly because I think it was so character based that they are the only things I can comment on- all in all I thought it was a good watch with an interesting story, but I'm not going to put it  up there in a 'Must Buy DVD' (post to come). It might be worth sticking on Lovefilm, but not worth paying more than £10 on.

Anna Karenina

SPOILER ALERT

So it's fairly common knowledge that I don't like Keira Knightley. In Atonement, Pirates of the Carribean, Never Let Me Go and Pride and Prejudice, I thought she played exactly the same soulless, cold, moaning bitch. I also have a strong suspicion that that is exactly what she's like in real life- similarly to Hugh Grant, he just plays himself in most films- a blithering idiot who is insecure and struggling with his love life. Anyway, Knightley actually gave a very convincing and heartfelt performance in this film. I genuinely felt for her predicament, which is something I often find hard to do as I feel she doesn't connect with the character's herself, making it hard for the viewer to identify with her. As I said though, not the case in this film! (As well as A Dangerous Method... review to come) I genuinely felt the pain she was going through, and understood her point of view, particularly in the embarrassment she was feeling about Vronsky's very public attraction to her.

While I'm on the subject of that awkward situation, I thought it was displayed quite appropriately all the way through the film, both when he was pursuing her and when they were having an affair... even more so when she had ran away with him. The part I did not believe is the sex scene, when she had a go at him for murdering her marriage... who the fuck says murderer when they're having fun. It was unbelievable, a bit weird, and hilarious... which is not what I think the writers/director were aiming for. But no apart from that I thought the relationship between the two was very convincing, particularly on Aaron Taylor-Johnson's part. I've been following him for a while now, since indie Channel 4 show 'Almost Famous', through 'Angus Thong's and Perfect Snogging', and of course, 'Nowhere Boy'. To be honest, when I heard he was playing this part, I wasn't really hopeful for his performance, as all his previous roles had been in younger, student roles. But no I was impressed! He seems to have matured since the last time I saw him, playing John Lennon. I did think he was believable and in tune with his character though... plus I'm a little bit in love with him.

The character I did feel sorry for was Karenin! He seemed really nice and loving towards his wife, and here he was getting treated like shit! I don't blame him in the slightest for fighting for her, but to be honest I'd have given up on her a long time before he did, although fair enough to him for trying to save his marriage! Jude Law was good in this role too, I was shocked when he lashed out at Vromsky, because of his character in the rest of the film being quite quiet and reserved, but I was impressed by him! Go for it Karenin.

The subsidiary characters were also impressive, providing the film with colour and making it not all about the 3 protagonists. I liked Oblonsky and Dolly, I thought they were funny and loving people. I did feel sorry for Oblonsky's wife as well, but you've got to give her credit for the amount of commitment she has to her family really haven't you.

Another aspect of the film I found interesting was the set choice- Karenin and Anna live in a theatre, which I thought really improved the standard of cinematography, as well as making some of the transitions more interesting to watch and improved the film, in terms of characters interacting with each other- as opposed to seeing hours and hours of travelling. 

Towards the end of the film, I thought Anna's death was completely obvious. She just couldn't cope with the strain of it all, being away from her son, living alone with Vronsky, being an outcast in a society where she used to be one of the inner circle. I didn't see the cause of death coming, although my friend Hollie did, so that must just have been me!

The Hunger Games

The focal point for this film is, without a shadow of a doubt, the brutality displayed. It is reinforced throughout like needles going into a pin cushion. I mean, alliances are formed within "the games" (a horrible name for what they are), but what I kept thinking of is eventually, these 'friends' are going to have to kill each other.

The first instance is the "sign in" process, where all the citizens of the districts have to have their blood taken to be processed- even small children! I did not agree with this, nor did I agree with the segregation of families- reminded me too much of Nazi concentration camps, personally. Another huge example of this degrading human trait is the games themselves- all the rule changing, providing contestants with hope and then taking it away, setting killer animals on them, and setting the woods simply to make Katniss (protagonist) turn around! I was completely appalled at what I was watching, but so captured at the same time.

I thought a definite positive was the lead character, Katniss Everdeen. I'm a harsh critic when it comes to female characters, but I really thought she was a good, strong female lead- something I feel a lot of films are lacking. Jennifer Lawrence, the actress, played her with enough finesse for us to believe the withdrawn elements of the character, but enough passion for us to believe the love she has for her family. Lawrence connected with the character with the right amount of precision for us to sympathise- and empathise to a degree- with her.

Letting the side down on the characters front was Josh Hutcherson's character Peeta. I don't particularly blame the actor, I felt he did a good job with what he had, but I thought the character was completely pathetic! Some aspects of his character was also just ridiculously unbelievable- I mean how did he paint himself in camouflage, in the middle of the forest, with no face paint! And all that from icing cakes in the bakery! Completely unrealistic and sensationalist, making him stay alive.

But apart from this character flaw, I thought the film on a whole was capturing, in that I couldn't take my eyes off it but I was completely disgusted by what I was watching. It also made me think, IS this the next step for reality television in today's culture? I mean obviously I don't think they'll actually set UK citizens against each other in a fight to the death, but what with the whole watchdog element, and the way reality TV show "Big Brother" is portrayed at the moment, it was an interesting observation for Suzanne Collins (author of the novel) to make. Look at the contestants that are picked for our reality TV shows- characters that have their negative qualities played upon. The Hunger Games flipped this round a bit, making the contestants positive qualities their key to sponsors and therefore survival, but I still do not think that what the film portrayed is a million miles away from reality TV in today's society.

So all in all, I think that film was an interesting watch and gave me a lot to think about, thereby being classed in some ways as excellent, but I can't get away from the sheer brutality, therefore making me think I didn't like it. This brings me to the conclusion that I personally didn't like it, but it is definitely worth watching.

The Amazing Spiderman

SPOILER ALERT!

In my opinion, the name of this film did it justice. It was, quite simply, amazing. It was well directed, expertly shot, the acting was extraordinary, and the script nailed the feel of Spiderman. With specific refernece to the script, the trash talking was funny, but the character did not seem as full of himself as Tobey McGuire did, which I think calls for credit to be given to Andrew Garfield.

Talking of Andrew Garfield, I felt his portrayal of Peter Parker was a lot more believable than that of previous actor Tobey McGuire. I thought McGuire adapted to his new powers far too easily- he just accepted them and started to save the world and be all heroic- whereas Garfield was more freaked out, did more research into the source of his powers, and was just generally cooler about the changing of his life. He was also suitably geeky, but good-looking, therefore making the romance more believable- the character also seems like a nicer person, in my opinion McGuires portrayal of the character was a bit of a dick. 

The next character to catch my eye was the lead female character, Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone. Her character was much more substantial than that of Kirsten Dunst's Mary-Jane. The romance between the two leads was also much more believable because they seemed to have more in common- plus this one actually had some substance, as opposed to Dunst standing round kissing him upside down or crying. The actress also quite clearly pulls in young males to the film that might not have been previously interested, because she is beautiful- I believe that the producers also used this technique in picking Garfield- although I am not down playing the actors abilities, they were excellent and excedingly enigmatic, they just also happen to be very good looking.

I believe credit also needs to be given to the chief cinematographer- as pointed out by a friend of mine, the shots used were very clearly adapted from the comic book and I believe that that was a good technique to use- it pulled in old fans of the comic book and made the film a more enjoyable experience- as opposed to the previous remake. They also showed very engaging shots of the action scenes, which made the film a more enjoyable experience for me personally, a cinema goer that had not read the comic books. Another effective use of shots was the climax scenes, when the oscorp building was lit up and in the centre of the screen- I am aware that this is to fit in with the business' "character", so to speak, but I felt it was really effective, pulling the viewer into the heart of the action with a simple shot.

I believe a flaw of the film is it was incredibly cheesy- which was cute at first but as the film went on I felt it to be a bit too predictable, for instance I liked it when Garfield pulled Stone to him to kiss her, and when he threw her out of the window in the school, but I found myself beginning to predict what was going to happen before it did- with particular reference to the climax scene where Garfield is receiving this speech from the mutant lizard about how he's alone, and the chief police man jumps in with "HE'S NOT ALONE". It was just so obviously going to happen that I found myself annoyed by it. Also the way the same character manages to use his last breath to tell Garfield to stay away from his daughter. I am nit-picking though, I believe that this is a very small flaw and in a way makes the film more endearing to families viewing it, as well as opening it up to a younger audience.

As I have made quite clear, I realy just think that this adaptation is done better than that of Sam Raimi's. This film focused on Parker's character, as opposed to the hero, which helps the viewer to understand the hero more as well as making the film more interesting to watch, instead of what I perceived as basically pure action. It also means that the character development across this series will be more interesting- I believe that there will be a series of films from Marc Webb, as it was hinted at after the credits.

Casablanca

In my review of the film Amelie, I said they had reached perfection in a film medium. Since that, I have watched The Godfather (Parts 1 and 2, haven't got to 3 yet.), and Casablanca. The revelation I had was that I should have listened to my parents years ago and watched these films earlier, because if they do not reach perfection they come incredibly close.

This particular film is one of the best, if not the best, love story I've ever watched. It has literally everything good- phenomenal cast, comedy, expert scripting, a striking wardrobe, engaging performances, a good ending, everything.

First of all, the cast. Humphrey Bogart's character Rick Blaine is just so cool. In my eyes, it takes quite a lot to be considered cool, but he just is. He looks after himself, basks in the glory of the society he lives in without getting too big headed, and he doesn't even aim to be like that- as he continually says, he cares about himself and himself only. Humphrey Bogart, the actor playing Rick, displays each of these qualities with great believability and passion- but he achieves what the character is portraying, by making it all look so effortless.

The other lead role in the film is that of Ilsa Lund, Rick's love interest from years ago and a character with so many dimensions. She displays love for two people, and I do think she really loved both of them, with precision and, similarly to Bogart, passion. She seems very manipulative, the way she convinces Rick that she'll stay with him and she still loves him, in order to save her husband Victor Lazlo. Although I think being a manipulative person is obviously a bad human trait to have, I think this character makes it okay, because she's doing it to benefit other people. I can only imagine the position this character is in, but I when I do I imagine it to be a very difficult situation to be in- therefore I think the achievement of the actress to be an even greater one than it already is, because it would be so hard to relate to a character in a situation like the one she is. I find it astounding and atrocious that she wasn't even nominated for this performance.

The smaller characters in this film are another factor that just make it so good. They add so much to the story, and their smaller lines bring so much comedy and substance to the film- the fact that everyone seems to dote around Rick so much is one of the things that makes the character more interesting. Speaking of the lines used in the film, I think I could write a whole blog post alone filled with quotes that aided this film in reaching such a high standard- I implore everyone to go and read the quotes section of this film on www.imdb.com, because there are so many small lines that don't get quoted massively, that just add to the feel of the film- I don't have time to list them all here. The ones that really caught my attention were the classics though- "Of all the gin joints, in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." "Here's looking at you, kid." and of course "Round up the usual suspects."

To conclude this, absolutely everyone should see this film,as education in... something. Acting, dressing, love, politics, there really is something for everyone. You can't beat the classics, you really can't.

Submarine

The issue I had with this film, really, was that it was trying too hard- in every aspect. Someone did make the point that it could have been doing that deliberately, to reflect the fact that it was about a 15 year old boy and they always try too hard, but it just made the film not my cup of tea.

First of all, they tried to make the lead character- Oliver Tate- too individual and too rebellious, which eventually resulted in him looking a bit like a show off and an idiot. Other flaws in the character are that he looks magnanimous and patronising- when he gives his classmate advice, the analysis and attempted fixing of his parents marriage- plus 15 year olds don't use words like schism. These qualities are displayed most prominently, however, when he was trying to impress Jourdanna, his girlfriend for the most part of the film. I think that the lengths he goes to to keep her are too extreme- the arson (to the extent of burning his leg hair), and the lack of depth in the emotions that they are feeling. To be fair, this could be an accurate portrayal of teenager's relationships in today's society, but I felt that the film over egged it and it made the transformation of the female lead (when her mother goes into hospital and she cares about her relationship all of a sudden) quite unbelievable.

Speaking of Jourdanna, I felt the film depicted her similarly to Oliver really- too individual, too rebellious, and eventually just a bit pretentious and full of herself. Also her character completely flips round when her mother goes into hospital (although that strand of the film did have potential, they should have made more of it). I thought the emotional overturn of this character did make her seem more real, but I still felt they over egged it too much. 

Talking of over egged characters, the next door neighbours were just made a bit too weird. To be honest, the only character I felt they actually got right was that of Jill Tate- played by Sally Hawkins. I thought she was funny, believable and compelling- as she has been in everything I've seen her in.

All in all, I felt everything in this film took it too far. The shots were trying too hard to be arty and clever (the shots of the kids kissing, the montage of their relationship and the singular shots of various characters), the carnival shots are too dramatic- as is the music in this scene. To conclude, I felt the only aspects of the film worth watching for are Alex Turner's music, which is genius and cleverly placed, and Sally Hawkin's character. Everything else was just too overdone.

West Side Story

I think this film is really just beautiful. It's so.... everything. Moving, sad, happy, engrossing and of course it's so full of life! The actors portray each and every one of the characters different emotion with such precision and care that its hard to believe they're fictional.

The first cast member to really catch my eye was Natalie Wood, the lead female. At the start, she seems so innocent, cheerful, optimistic and youthful. She also embraces love like a welcome hug- so much so that when her heart gets broken you just want to give her a cuddle! At the end of the film, when all the big events are coming to a head, she seems to grow up a great deal. 

In relation to this character, I think that the female characters portrayed in the Latin culture are much stronger characters than those in the American- I think the Latin characters are portrayed as characters in their own right whereas the American girls just sort of fade into the background, although this is protested slightly in the film I still feel that the Latin girls have much stronger parts.

Another actor that really caught my eye was Richard Beymer, the lead male. He, again, seemed to embrace all the aspects of his character to a massive standard, which I think would be hard considering he has so many different sides. I think it would be hard to portray a character that will be "forever faithful" to the Jets, which he pulls off well, and then to show the love for someone in a rival culture tied in with the guilt he feels at the death of his arch enemy.

I also think that the music in the film is very expressive, and used to a high standard in scenes of high tension and great importance- which I think is an achievement in itself because in a lot of films scenes of this nature rely a lot on dialogue.

I'm finding this film a bit hard to review, really, because I enjoyed literally every aspect of it. The only fault I can find is it feels a bit like a stage show, but that's to be expected because it's adapted from a stage show which was adapted from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet! It's also not really a fault, because that aspect of it just engrosses me more.

Amelie

I cannot believe I waited 19 years to see this film. I never thought I'd say it, but a flawless film has finally been achieved! Well, it was achieved in 2001. By Jean-Pierre Jeunet, in the form of Amelie! The story is perfectly written, the shots are expertly captured, and the acting is enough to blow your mind.

First of all, the acting. The lead actress, Audrey Tatou, displays a character so cheerful and full of life that she improves the world and the people around her. On watching the character improve the lives of people she didn't even know, it made me want to do the same! She was also so willing to sacrifice her own happiness and love for other people, she's just the perfect character. And the actress really seemed to understand the emotions that the character had and displayed them with finesse and believability. She's also beautiful, but actually beautiful like a real person, not that annoying Hollywood version of the word that no one ever actually looks like.

Another massive contributing factor to the high quality of the film is the writing, obviously. If the writers had not written a plot so intricate and engrossing, I would not have been so intrigued by the film and amazed when all was revealed- nor would I have found the little details so entertaining.

Speaking of the little details, they were what made the story so good! Lucien, the green grocer's assistant, was an expertly written character that I just wanted to mother and hug. The tricks she played on the green grocer were entertaining and funny, the way she helped the blind man cross the street and told him everything they were passing made the character even more endearing, and finally the globe trotting gnome was just hilarious and a genius concept in the story!

The shots were interesting because they really showed, first of all, the main characters emotions when she had done something right, and all the action going on. Like the way the psychotic man in the coffee shop is only interested in Gina, but the other woman is always in his view but never noticed- until Amelie plays her part.

So to conclude, the film is really just flawless. Everyone should watch it!

One Day

This particular mook fits into my theory about them quite well- a book that is aimed at grown ups does not make as good as a movie as children's books. I think that the reason for this is clear- its harder to convey absolutely everything that is contained in a book for adults, in a film. Children's books are a lot simpler! I think it is for this reason that they simply shouldn't have tried to make the film of One Day. They couldn't get across a lot of what the book did in an hour and a half, and in trying to they lost the essence of the book and the endearing qualities of the characters.

The first aspect that bothered me a great deal was Anne Hathaway. She was not right for the part at all- she was too pretty, too organised and too soulless. She did not the display the love that the character in the book shows for Dexter, but to be fair i think the film would have to be about five hours long to show the relationship in as much detail as the book. She also had a really bad "northern" accent. In fairness to the actress, she is very good at what she does- a light character with no substance breezing through a film where everything is fine and dandy in her life, then there's a problem, then she gets the guy. Where this particular film went wrong, in my opinion, is it tried to make it into one of these films whereas the book is so much more than that.

Hathaway's co-star, Jim Sturgess, did a better job than her but the character is still a lot less substantial than that of the books character. I don;t think that the actor displayed the despair that the actor felt at being alone with the child, nor the alcoholic womanising section, nor the redemption he went through on meeting Sylvie. He also had a much more substantial relationship with his parents than the film displays.

I am being harsh though, in the films defence, it would have been hard to convey everything the book did without being about 5 hours long. I just don't think they should have tried to make this particular mook, as it downplays the high standard that David Nicholls gets across in the book.

The Artist

So I said in my post about the Oscars that I might have been completely wrong about The Artist after I saw it. My conclusion is, I pretty much was. I wouldn't have gone to quite the extent that the awards did go to- for instance I don't think its a better film than Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. I think that the characters in The Artist were very clichéd and predictable, which is a drastic contrast to Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

Talking of cliché's, this film did not sell itself short in terms of them. A silent film, with a dog, about a couple struggling to come together that has a massive climax, that live happily ever after? Please, give me a surprise in there somewhere. I am being harsh though, it was a cute story and a good insight for me into what silent films were like when they were made, and the characters in it were very entertaining in each of their own rights.

The first character to really catch my eye was the leading role- George Valentin, played by Jean Dujardin. I thought he really captured the essence of the character- the miserable home life (I'll get back to the wife shortly.), the doting fans and co-stars (and the flirting with said co-stars) and the general confidence and self awareness (masses of it) that I have been led to believe is detrimental to being an actor.

I was not very hopeful for Peppy Miller, played by Bérénice Bejo, at the start of the film but she did redeem herself... but then took another step backwards by buying all his possessions. I thought that was a bit creepy. But no, I expected her to be a pathetic young woman that doted on Valentin for the whole film, which she did do a little bit but she also became a massively successful star all on her own and she relaunched his career for him. So to conclude this character, I'm fairly unsure about her now.

I think it was the little characters that made this film so enjoyable. I thought the character of Valetin's wife was hilarious, although that was a negative portrayal of women (gold-digger!). I also thought Clifton was quite a cute and faithful character, I liked him. 

The music in the film is very good- considering the film is silent it has to be really- but it really does convey the action of whats going on to a massively high standard. Another high bar the film really hits is the parallelism between the stars in past cultures and those today- in relation to how quickly the film industry and how some stars can become completely obsolete.

All in all, I thought the film was endearing, interesting, cute and funny. Well done to Michel Hazanavicious, he certainly seemed to have reminded the academy of how good films used to be and he's most definitely given me an interest in silent films.

The 84th Annual Academy Awards

I've written before about my bizarre love for award shows. I can't describe why I love them really, I generally just enjoy everything about them. I think it's partly because I aspire to be there... not this time. I didn't enjoy the show in the slightest. I might be being a bit patriotic here, but the BAFTAs were so much better! There wasn't as much messing around, the clothes the stars wore were nicer (no offence), there was more awards presenting, and the presenter was a hell of a lot funnier!

Also, the results of the Oscars were far too predictable. It would have been nice if the academy had surprised us and picked high quality performances, as opposed to a popular, mainstream performances that promote the films more. Now I haven't seen "The Artist" so I might be being a little bit harsh here, and I'm sure the actors did a good job and I'm sure the film is a lot better than I'm giving it credit for- I might change my mind completely after I see it tomorrow- but it seems like a gimicky film made purely to make money (a bit like 3D) that everyone has jumped on the bandwagon for.

So yeah, The Artist was a big winner at the Oscars. It pulled in:

• Best picture- up against "The Descendants"; "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"; "The Help"; "Hugo"; "Midnight in Paris"; "Moneyball"; "The Tree of Life" and "War Horse". I've only seen War Horse of this selection, and I didn't think it was the most well deserving film of an Oscar, but some of the films- in my opinion- look better than The Artist! For instance The Help, Moneyball and The Tree of life. 
• Best Actor in a leading role- Jean Dujardin. Up against: Demián Bichir (A Better Life); George Clooney (The Descendants); Gary Oldman (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy); Brad Pitt (Moneyball). Again, I haven't seen The Artist so I'm in no position to comment on the actors performance, but Gary Oldman deserved this Oscar more than anyone. His performance, was so believable, and heartfelt and just fantastic. I'm devastated he got overlooked!
• Costume design- up against "Anonymous"; "Hugo"; "Jane Eyre" and "W.E". From what I've seen of the costumes, this was deserved.
• Best director- Michel Hazanavicious. Up against Alexander Payne (The Descendants); Martin Scorsese (Hugo); Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris) and Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life). I haven't seen any of these films, but I thought The Descendants looked like a wannabe Nicholas Sparks film, Hugo didn't look too bad, Midnight in Paris looked far too clichéd for today's film industry, and I liked the look of The Tree of Life.
• Music (Original Score). Up against: "The Adventures of TinTin"; "Hugo"; "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"; "War Horse". I would have been pleased with either Tinker Tailor or War Horse winning this category. They both had fantastic music that enhanced my opinion of the film and made me feel emotions I wouldn't have felt otherwise.

Other big wins were Meryl Streep for her portrayal of Maggie Thatcher in "The Iron Lady". I was not surprised by this, nor did I begrudge Ms Streep the award as she is a phenomenal actress, adaptable into almost any role, and massively hated woman can not be an easy role to portray. I didn't see the performance, I felt the film a bit too sympathetic towards Thatcher for my liking, but I from the clips I have seen I think Streep shows great depth and quality and an understanding of the character (a massively important quality in a performance), and I think it would be very hard to understand this particular character so I commend her for it. Octavia Spencer won Best Actress in a Supporting Role, and though I have not seen the film I would have loved Melissa McArthy to have won this award for her character in "Bridesmaids", as I felt she stole the show. I had seen none of the films in the Best Actor in a Supporting Role, so I don't feel qualified to comment on it, but I commend Mr Plummer as he has always been a good actor, and deserves the title of the oldest actor ever to win an Oscar.

Rabbitproof Fence

In my opinion, Rabbitproof Fence was an unappreciated but elegant film. It wasn't nominated for any Oscars or BAFTA's, and only one Golden Globe, for Best Original Score. The film was lacking in special effects, or big action scenes, or epic speeches. It was essentially just a documentary following the story of three very brave little girls in Australia- which I think is why the film struck such a chord in me.

The story followed the girls as they got taken away from their family and to a camp for half cast children, but they promptly escaped and spent 19 weeks walking across Australia just to get home. The reason it got into my heart so much was the three girls were just so believable- I felt that they were vulnerable, strong-willed and heroic. I wanted to give them water and food and shelter!

The first performance that really got to my heart was that of Everlyn Sampi- she played Molly Craig, the eldest of the three girls and the leader of the group. She was so determined to get home, and make sure the others were okay, and that they would not get caught. I thought she carried all these qualities with skill and finesse- which for a girl of just 14!

Another performance (well two, really) which moved me were not featured in the film a massive amount. This is the performances of Ningali Lawford and Myarn Lawford. They played Molly's mother and grandmother, and when the children got taken away from the small town of Jigalong, I felt their pain like I was out there with them.

The two other young girls, Tianna Sansbury and Laura Monaghan, were also incredibly impressive. They were, like Molly, very brave to walk for so long and so far, and I can understand Gracie's (Monaghan) temptation when she see's a shortcut to her mother. I also felt her pain when she gets taken back to the camp.

I was massively relieved when the two remaining girls are reunited with their families, and yet more moved when I discovered it was a true story. I think that the story of Molly Craig is greatly inspirational and gives a lesson that everyone should take to the grave- family are the most important thing you've got.

War Horse

Well there's no doubt in who directed this film. War Horse was a very "Spielberg'd" film. I thought that he did quite a good job with it, and it fitted in with my theory that children's books are very accurately adapted into films. I thought the performance of the primary actor (although the word primary is debatable given that the film is based around a horse.) was engaging and believable. I get very engrossed in films as it is, and I really felt for the character- particularly in his struggle to convince his father and the villagers that Joey is a good farmhorse and not just a pretty face.

I thought the story was endearing, heartwarming and sweet. The different elements of the story- the home life, the struggle Joey goes through, the battle scenes and the conclusion- were all handled very well in their own right and seemed to flow together smoothly and well done. A particular part of the story I enjoyed a great deal was when Joey and a companion he had gained in the war were living with a little french girl, Emilie, and her grandfather. I liked this part because it was beautiful and showed the love owners often have for their pets. I also thought the girl was a very good actress- she got into my heart and I felt her pain a great deal when she lost the horse.

Talking of feeling character's pain- I said this film was very "Spielberg'd"- by that I mean he is using the techniques he always uses and pulling at the audience's heartstrings a great deal. He did it with E.T too- and it worked just as well then. I sobbed wholeheartedly at both E.T and War Horse.

I'm struggling to review this film really, because I do not have any massively strong opinions on it. I can't find any problems with it, and I thought it was cute and endearing and nice. But it didn't really blow me off my feet- I wouldn't buy the DVD.

Books VS Films.

This is an ongoing debate in my mind that I have yet to come to a conclusion on. So I put together all my best points and decided to ask your opinions. The mooks (movies + books. trying to find a word that encompasses both was impossible, and I didn't know which one to say out of the two words, so I combined them. Therefore, mooks.) I have chosen to pick on are- "The Twilight Saga", "Harry Potter", three Nicholas Sparks mooks, "The Last Song", "The Notebook" and "Dear John". The final mook I have chosen to talk about is a modern film, War Horse.

I fully understand everyone's bad conceptions of Twilight- it can be construed as being slightly creepy, a bit too cautious with all the blood sucking and it might make girls look subservient to their boyfriends. I, however, see it a different way. I think it's a cute love story, giving young teenage girls (who the story is very clearly aimed at, look at the age of the heartthrobs.) hope and more faith in boys that other stories might not promote as much. *cough* Jackie Wilson Girls in Love. The transition from the written form to the big screen is a very smooth one- the films have remained immensely faithful to the original storyline, which is often a fault I find with adaptations, and the actors have portrayed their characters very accurately to the book. I think the faithfulness to the story is to do with the audience it is aimed at- I have already said the story is aimed at young teenage girls, therefore I think it has been made simpler, therefore leaving less room for misinterpretation, as is the case with some films aimed at more mature audiences (e.g. PS I Love You.). I think because of the similarities between the book and the film, I enjoyed them about the same, probably favouring the book slightly because the female actress annoyed me slightly... however that might just be because I imagined her different in my head, and I can't really blame that on her. She still annoyed me though.

The next series of mooks I have chosen to talk about is the Harry Potter series. My opinion on these mooks vary depending on the individual one- however I think the point I made about Twilight can also be made about the Harry Potter series, that the producers have kept the films fairly faithful to their books- minus some minor details that were left out. I think this, again, has been done because of the target audience. The books are not massively complicated and there is not a lot of room for interpretation. I thought the first film did not do the book justice, largely because the primary three actors were very young in this film and weren't very good- I think the same about the second film really. The third film, in my opinion, was the best of the lot. The performances of Gary Oldman and David Thewlis stole the show- plus the acting skills of the three young children are seriously developing, Emma Watson made a particular impact on me in this film. I finally believed that she was more than just a little girl being told to read these lines. Also the dark moment's that the film incorporates- particularly concerning the dementor's- seemed a lot more successful than the dark moments that the previous films have attempted- these successfully chilled me to the bone whereas the ones in the philosopher's stone and chamber of secrets just entertained me really. Along with the development of the actor's came my connection to the characters- I cared more about them in this film than I had previously because it seemed to me that they were becoming real. With the fourth and fifth films, I preferred the books by a long way- both of the finales in these films didn't really do much for me... I didn't think the setting was as creepy as it had been in the book. The deaths in these books also moved me an awful lot, whereas in the film I either thought they were a bit downplayed or they were just done a bit too cheesily. In the films defence, these films really show the development of the actors well. I preferred the 6th film, as I thought the book was written a little bit simply, although I think this is because when the 6th book was released I was getting older and the books were maybe not aimed at me so much anymore. I also thought the finale of the 6th film was very moving indeed, and I have yet to watch the film without breaking down in tears. The three primary actors are also much older than they were when they started out in this film, and are now becoming good actors. I thought the makers of the films made a good choice in splitting the last book into two films, as I think had they been put together, it might have been a bit much for the younger audience. I thought the first film in the pair was the better of the two, although I still think the book was better- everything just seemed a bit downplayed. I won't use any spoilers in case anyone still hasn't read or seen this mook, but the deaths in these two films didn't have half as much effect on me as the books did.

The next group of mooks I have chosen to talk about is books by Nicholas Sparks, that have been adapted into films. I have chosen these because although they are certainly not children's books- the issues dealt with are far too sensitive for children- their films do not deviate massively from the books either. However, I always prefer the books of this group because I think although the issues dealt with are important and need to be dealt with, so as to raise awareness, I think the films just try too hard to pull at the audience's heartstrings. I mean its a given that some heartstrings are going to be pulled at- "The Notebook" deals with dementia, "The Last Song" deals with injustice and loss of a loved one, "Dear John" deals with the effect of war on young couples. However I think the film's overdo them slightly- with the use of music, the types of shots, the cuts, they just seem to be trying too hard to get into the audiences hearts. The stories and the character's are very well written, they do not needed added extras to make the character's loved- we already love them from the stories. Another fault with the film is the actor's seem a bit disconnected, and I've already made it quite clear how I feel on this issue. I particularly felt it with Rachel McAdams in "The Notebook", her performance just seemed so forced, it ruined the film for me. The actors in "The Last Song" (Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth) also seemed a bit immature, and didn't seem to fully grasp the extent of the heartbreak that the book got across. I thought the actors in "Dear John" were better than the other examples I have given, but they still did not seem to fully grasp everything their character's had gone through, which is understandable really as they had been put through the mill quite a lot, but I think this made them unbelievable as characters.

A more up-to-date film I've seen that has been adapted from a book is "War Horse". This was directed by Steven Spielberg, and the book written by Michael Morpurgo. For me this was a very very close call- they were both good, but not phenomenal. I thought the book was possibly a little bit young for me, which was why i did not enjoy it as much as I might have done- I thought it was a bit simple, a very quick read, and a bit too fairytale-like for me- happy start, massive struggle, everyone lives happily ever after. The story was nice though, it cheered me up. I did not like the film as much as the book for the same reason as the Nicholas Sparks mooks really- it tried too hard to pull at my heartstrings. To be fair, it worked, I sobbed- but all the arty shots and the slow music and the lighting were really not necessary. Neither was the shooting of two German soldiers that had abandoned- that did not happen in the book and wasn't necesary, it was there to evoke sympathhy from the audience. The story sold itself, it did not need all these extra's, I still thought it was relatively good though, however still not phenomenal.

I am aware that I have talked largely about films that are fairly faithful to the books, so I have chosen to end it on a more sour note. "PS I Love You" ruins the book. I know alot of people that have refused to read the book, on the basis that they didn't like the film. This saddens me alot, because the book is really really good, and the film really doesn't do it justice. They change the country (which angers me a great deal because Ireland is a beautiful country and this detail has been changed purely for commercialism), they also change a massive detail within the plot and by doing this really lose the whole feel of the book, which again angers me. The book touches me, moves me, and makes me adore the characters. The film does none of the above. Someone needs to make a film of the actual book.

Other films that have been grossly unfaithful to their books are "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and "Captain Corelli's Mandolin". I myself haven't read these books, but people that have tell me that the ending has been changed completely. As in, the complete opposite. It is believed that this has been done to make the film a more marketable product, but it annoys me that they do not trust the audience enough to put a less happy ending in, therefore they patronise them by making them live happily ever after. It is mooks like this that give adaptation's a bad name. It is for this reason, that I am going to agree with this picture.

British Academy Film and Television Awards

Last year it was a film about talking. This year it was a film without talking. I wasn't really surprised at the amount of awards "The Artist" won, but I would have liked "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" to win a few more. Ah well. 

I've loved award shows all my life, when I was younger it was all the pretty dresses and the fancy setting and everything, and it's still that a little bit now, but now its more the glamour I see go into the night, and it's my dream to be there one day.

I thought Stephen Fry did a wonderful presenting job tonight, keeping me interested and entertained throughout the star spangled evening. His jokes were witty, relevant and at some times just cringe worthy, but I love bad jokes. Tom Jones was also a good choice to  open the show with a James Bond number, Thunderball. He's got a good voice, considering he's 72!

Like I've said, I wasn't surprised at "The Artist" cleaning out so widely- winning Best original screenplay (credit to Michel Hazanavicious), Best director (Michel Hazanavicious again), Best actor (Jean Dujardin), Best film, Original music (Ludovic Bource), Best costume design (Mark Bridges) and Best cinematography (Guillaume Schiffman). I myself haven't seen the film but I am told its very good, and I do like the idea of a modern throwback to the silent film era- after all, they don't make films today like they used to! 

Another big film this year was Tomas Alfredson's "Tinker Tailor Solider Spy". I have seen this film and thoroughly enjoyed it- I found the performances given engaging and fascinating to watch. It was interesting to see the film with my dad and sister, who have both read the book, because they did not like the casting much, saying they couldn't see the actors in those roles, whereas I thought the parts were played superbly. This film won only two awards, Best adapted screenplay (credit to Bridget O'Connor, deceased, and Peter Straughan. And of course John le Carre for the novel) and Outstanding british film. The writer that gave the winning speech for best adapted screenplay started it off with "I'd like to thank The Artist for not being a book first", which I think was both a funny and good point to make. He went on to talk of his wife, who passed away before the film was made but who helped to write it. I think this showed the audience what a clever man he is, for being able to continue with the film, and it engaged the audience in his speech and made us empathise with him and sympathise for him. 

A surprise for me was the "Harry Potter" finale only winning one award, Best production design. It wasn't nominated for as many as i thought it would be either, but I suppose this is because of the films audience. A very well deserved award I felt was John Hurt winning Outstanding contribution to British Cinema, following his role in "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", all the "Harry Potter" films and so many more, I think he is a phenomenal actor and a credit to British cinema. After Martin Scorsese trying his luck in 3D this year, with "Hugo", I felt his Fellowship was very well deserved. He has made some fantastic films in his years, and is another credit to British cinema. I wasn't surprised at Meryl Streep winning best actress, although I haven't seen her portrayal of Maggie Thatcher in "The Iron Lady", I can understand it being a hard role to play and I think Meryl Streep is a fine actress, in the variety of films I've seen her in. Also, she recovered with great dignity after losing her shoe on the steps up to the stage. Only a woman as fine as her.

Revolutionary road

In theory, I should love everything about Revolutionary Road. I love Leonardo DiCaprio, I love Kate Winslet most of the time, and I thought the story sounded engaging, thought provoking and interesting. I was wrong. The film is far too slow paced, the acting does not make me either root for the characters or engage with them in any way. I thought the story had the potential to be riveting and heart wrenching- i thought it would make me want to shout at the film (the way I normally do.). Again, I was completely wrong. the film seemed cold, disengaged, and the actors do not seem to have any faith in the characters that they are playing.

In my opinion, Kate Winslet has not really engaged with the character she is playing, or understood the feeling of entrapment she is trying to portray, or known the feeling of hope at the prospect of living a life she has always dreamt of, or the heartbreak when that prospect disappeared. As a result of these things (plus the awful American accent), I did not believe her character. I thought the character seemed soulless and fictional. And of course I know the character is fictional, but in the films I enjoy I don't want to remember that they aren't real. I want to feel their pain, I want to want them to be happy. But I just didn't care about April Wheeler, I couldn't stop thinking just go on a cruise with the man and get over it. The only scene in which Winslet redeemed herself was when she lost control and screamed at her husband. After this scene she became much more believable, in the way that her happiness was wooden, and finally the end. The character finally became real for me in these scenes, and I wanted her to find happiness. It was just a shame that these scenes were so near the end.

Leonardo DiCaprio did a better job than his co-star, but I still did not believe the different sides of his character. I could believe his clingy, over-analysing, needing to talk about everything side, but not the part where he had an affair. I could see how a man (hypothetically) could do both of those things, but DiCaprio just looked to me like he was playing two different characters- which of course he wasn't. He disappointed me in this film, mainly because I loved him so much in other films- Catch me if you can, J Edgar, Shutter Island and The Aviator- I loved him in all of these which is what baffled me so much as to why he was not up to his usual standards!

I also think the director made a mistake in the pacing of the film. I felt like for the vast majority of the film nothing really happened and we were just watching a normal suburban family. I think a lot of this is down to the bad acting though. On a more positive note, the cinematography in the film was fantastic. The shots conveyed the emotions that I felt the actors didn't portray to a high standard.

Black Swan

One of the kind of films I enjoy the most is a thought-provoking one. I think if a film manages to get into someones mind, and stay there, and keep them wondering and keep them interested for a long period of time, it is a success. Everyone involved has helped to contribute to this- the writer or writers have written a plot so intricate and evocative that the audience are still thinking about whether what they saw was real or not, the actors have portrayed the writers words with such passion and believability that they make the audience hate them, root for them, sob when they die, and  share their ambitions. The director has brought this out in the actors, and shown the shots that evoke such reactions from the audience, and has put the exact music with the writers words that will intensify the audiences emotions.

The film that has brought out such reactions in me is Black Swan, directed by Darren Aronofsky and starring Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis. The story is of a girl, Nina (Portman), who gets the part as the Swan Queen in a production of Swan Lake, but must get in touch with her dark side to play the part of the black swan. Her coach, the director of the company, starts to take advantage of her to make her engage with this darker and more passionate part of hr personality. This is aided by an exotic dancer, Lily (Kunis) from California who is a bad influence on Nina, and takes her out, gets her drunk and seduces her. The audience is then made to question whether this really happens or not, as it has already been implied that Nina is mentally unstable- with problems with self harm and bulimia- and Lily belittles her and denies anything happen- making Nina look and feel like a little girl with no life experience.

The music played a massive part in this film. Understandable really, considering it is based on a ballet dancer and her struggle to get more in touch with her dark side to play the Black Swan in the given performance, Swan Lake. The music is particularly noticeable in the films final scene, in the build up to the end of the performance and the film, where the volume increases and increases, and the audience cannot take their eyes off the protagonist. Another particularly noticeable scene for music is when Nina is in the bath after visiting her predecessor as star of the company, she hallucinates the former star directly above her in the bath. The music used is very high pitched, and fast, and makes the audience jump out of their skin. In another scene nearing the finale, Nina has completely changed from the girl she used to be and this has been symbolised by a broken music box playing a cracked version of Swan Lake. The music in this scene has been used to effect as it reflects the suffering that Nina is going through, as her character has completely broken from the character the audience knows.

The next key element to this film that I noted was the villains. There is one  clear villain, the ballet companies director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassell), who takes advantage of the stars of his company and who pushes Nina to her limit in his quest to make her become a more passionate person and the black swan. He does succeed in his mission, but this also brings out the characters demise, and along with the emotional struggle he is putting our protagonist through as well as the sexual abuse we see him inflict on the girls, the audience sees him as a villain. The other villain is Nina’s mother Erica (Barbara Hershey), who pushes her to work harder to achieve what she is working towards, the Swan Queen. She is also making Nina regress into childhood by keeping her closeted and holding onto things small girls have, like cuddly toys and a musical box that plays the theme of Swan Lake. As Nina gets further over the edge these things either get thrown out or smashed up, symbolising the protagonists demise. There is also a character that the audience is unsure is a villain or not, Lily (Mila Kunis). Lily is a dancer in the same company as Nina, who talks to her and socialises with her, seducing her after a night out (although the film later goes on to say this was in Nina’s head, the audience is unsure). The character is ambiguously good because she seems like a friend to Nina that is helping her to get in touch with the part she is performing, and then makes Nina really get to know herself sexually. The audience then doubts Lily, however, because she makes Nina late for rehearsal very late in the production, and then is caught dancing Nina’s part, followed by being made the understudy, and denying any sexual contact with the protagonist, making Nina doubt whats going on in her mind and possibly leading to her demise.

The next element I explored was that of atmosphere within the film. In the film I am studying here, Black Swan, I discovered a great many examples of this. The most notable one is, without a doubt, the two lead female characters- Nina and Lily. As their relationship opens, there is awkwardness and a little hostility- I believe that Nina feels threatened by Lily. As the relationship progresses, however, this tension between the women gradually dissipates, specifically when they are out socialising and, of course, when they have a sexual encounter. The tension does come back however towards the end of the film, when the audience is doubting Lily’s intentions towards Nina.  

The next aspect I studied was that of the use of shock tactics to scare the audience and make them jump. I noticed this in the film particularly when Nina’s hallucinations were on screen- for instance in the bath, Nina hallucinates Beth (a previous star ballet that Nina looks up to greatly) directly above the water staring down at her. The shock factor is used an awful lot in this scene in particular, as Beth keeps appearing after Nina has visited her, showing herself mutilating her body, which is an issue that Nina herself has to battle.

The final convention of thrillers that I covered was that of mystery. The mystery in Black Swan is very complicated, as it’s not very obvious, but very cleverly portrayed. I believe that the mystery in this particular thriller is that of Nina’s mind. The audience doesn’t really understand what is going on in Nijna’s mind or the struggle that she is going through by battling bulimia as well as self harm issues, as they or not portrayed obviously or very much- they appear to be under control until the very end of the film when she commits suicide. 

The King's Speech

When I saw this film, I was blown away by two things. First of all, the acting was first class. Secondly, why are the characters constantly being shown on the side of the shot rather than the middle? I don't attempt to answer this, but it intrigued me and made the film more interesting to watch.

The three actors that caught my attention were the leading three- Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter. I thought Colin Firth got across every detail of his character with impeccable accuracy and skill. I would imagine being a public speaker in any role- be it a lecturer, an after dinner speaker, or one as compulsory as the monarch of a country- would be a scary job without a speech impediment. But to be in the position that King George VI was in, to be born into a job that he couldn't really leave without possibly bringing the monarchy down, and to be in the public eye as much as he was, would have been a hard job for anyone, let alone someone that struggles with his speech. In my opinion, some of the emotions tied in with this whole situation would be frustration, fear and loneliness. And I think Firth captured all of these emotions whilst still managing to be entertaining and funny.

The next actor that I admired in this film was Geoffrey Rush. I thought that the character itself was written very well- he was completely uninhibited by the fact that he was coaching a king, he did not give the monarch any special treatment and he did not bow down to him- nor did he call him "your majesty" or "sir". I think that Rush displayed this character very well, arguing back with the king and calling him Bertie. He also showed the other side of the character very well, the family man that was messing round and having fun with his children. I think that this made the audience relate to him much better. A similar moment to this was when the king was reading to his daughters, and having fun with them... and also when he broke down and cried to his wife. I think all of these moments were used to engage the audience and remind us that everyone, even the king, is human and has bad moments.

Speaking of Firth's character crying to his wife, I thought the relationship portrayed between King George VI and who would go on to be the Queen Mother, was impeccably played by the actors giving the parts. I could see the love in the couple, and the resignation that she was going to live her life in the public eye, and her dealing with the two male leads when they'd had an argument was both hilarious and realistic. Bonham Carter played the part very believably, which I admired her more for because it is such a different role from all the other films I have seen her in.

To conclude, I think the success of this film is down to the writing, the acting, and the directing. The writing showed the small details of this man's life to people that would not have known it otherwise, the acting portrayed the writers work with accuracy and believability, and the director kept the audience interested with the varying shots and the visual aspects of the characters.

Hello

I'm Catherine, I'm 18 and I live in Liverpool. I'm an aspiring film journalist and this blog is for my rantings about films, whether good or bad, I could rant about films for hours and I started this because my friends and boyfriend were getting bored of me.

When someone asks me my favourite film, I always automatically answer Pulp Fiction because I love Quentin Tarantino and could watch his films for hours. However, I think that my favourite film is actually dependent on the mood I'm in. I've got favourite films within genre's, and I'm generally in the mood for a different genre every day of the week. My favourite romcom is Love Actually (but I only watch that in the build up to Christmas as otherwise it is a sacrilege, the rest of the year I settle for PS I Love You. Even though the book is better. Film is far too Americanised. I digress...). My favourite musical is West Side Story although I've only seen it once and very recently, it is very rare that a musical touches me as much as that one did. I generally just enjoy the lightheartedness of the film and discard it with comedies and Nicholas Sparks films that cheer me up when I'm down. My favourite action film is Kick Ass but I'm only really in the mood for an action film when I think I'm watching too many girly films and want to watch something decent again. My favourite fantasy film is, without a shadow of a doubt, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Askaban- followed by the others in a random order that I will go into in more detail in a post of their own. I'm not sure what genre this fits into, some say romance, some say fantasy, some say teen, but I love all the Twilight films. I am aware that the story has incredibly creepy undertones, I'm aware that the lead female character can appear slightly soulless, but I still love it. I think the story is cute and heartwarming and I think it gives young girls, who it is aimed at, hope about boys. Also the books are far better than the films, as always, but I'm saving a rant about that for my next post.