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.