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 Jennifer Lawrence, the actress, played her with enough finesse for us to believe the withdrawn elements of the character, but enough passion for us to believe the love she has for her family.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.