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.