Annie

It's been a very long time since I have watched or read the story of Annie. I've also never shown much particular interest in it or it's characters. Having said that, tonight I sat down and watched Will Gluck's 2014 adaptation. An updated and culturally diversified version of the classic.

Obviously the biggest change is the replacement of the white, ginger child with a black child instead. Although it's still sometimes misunderstood, a comment on race is appropriate in this case. Although I felt making the protagonist black was a cheap way of modernising the classic and giving it more 'edge', I did love Quvenzhané's interpretation of the spirited child. The change in race of key players in the film was, like I said, an attempt to add diversity to the story's vast history, yet it felt contrived at moments with characters playing into stereotypes and over exaggerating the race change. Having said that, Jamie Foxx is always entertaining to watch and makes a surprisingly appropriate Benjamin Stacks. I'm deliberately ignoring the topic of Miss Hannigan. Diaz was awful. Moving on.

It's difficult these days for musicals. Outside of broadway, spur of the moment singing comes across incredibly contrived and forced. There was very little flow between acting and singing and it seemed like with some numbers they didn't even attempt to hide the fact that the signing is not recorded live. 'I Think I'm Gonna Like It Here' sounded auto-tuned and distant which only added to the uncomfortable separation between audience and film. It's been a while since a musical (out-with the obvious animated Disney hits) has done spectacularly well in the Box Office and perhaps this movie will see that change. And for clarification, there is a clear difference between a musical and a film with music in it. For example, Rent and Pitch Perfect are not and should not both be referred to as musicals. Back to the film in question! One of Annie's most popular songs is of course 'Hard Knock Life' yet it starts in the same way as 90% of the other songs within the film. With characters or objects making noises that slowly combine to create a tune before the actors start singing. And of course, the scene is wonderfully choreographed as the young orphans dance and clean ahead of the orphanage's inspection. The singing in the film is fantastic, I have no doubt that this was considered carefully during the casting process, as it should be! But the film lacked believability and it was difficult to feel affected by the ballads designed to make my heart swell. Coming from someone who can cry at a clever and emotional advert, this is not a good sign. In fact, during the films entirety I sat rather unaffected by the whole affair.

Considering how long it's been since I've seen any adaptation of Annie, I can't contest to how much the story has changed this time around. Aspects of the film that I did enjoy are hard to recall after the fact. Nothing stood out above the rest however I particularly enjoyed scenes involving Annie's friend at the store and moments of Benjamin Stacks phobia of germs. One moment that I remember for all of the wrong reasons was just after Stacks and Annie's first encounter on the street. It's not a huge spoiler so fear not but Stacks saves Annie from an oncoming car. After this scene, an advisor shows Stacks and his PA a video that an eyewitness had captured. It was the footage that we had just seen INCLUDING the camera angle change... This is one of the biggest pet peeves of mine. It seems lazy especially when the video is shown so clearly. All it takes is someone with a phone on set filming two seconds of action. No additional camera needed considering the size of the video being played back on screen. I could rant forever about this aspect as it occurs far too often in films with giant budgets but I'll resist the temptation and continue with my review. There were a few nice moments of social commentary which focused on mobile phones, popular pre-teen movie franchises and twitter.

With a cast full of recognisable names, I'm sure this film will do well. I also have no doubt that the story alone will attract audiences who loved the previous adaptations. However, my honest opinion is that Annie is worth skipping. With songs that everyone's heard before and a rather lacklustre performance from one of the biggest actors in the film, the film is a little underwhelming. The most interesting part of the film was Stack's tech savy penthouse. If you're looking for something to see this Christmas season, do yourself a favour and see the final Hobbit film or better yet... stay at home and watch The Grinch!

The Single Mom's Club

Tyler Perry's Spring 2014 hit The Single Moms Club was a surprisingly good film. I've never been Perry's biggest fan, so I was shocked when I found the film funny and even up-lifting. The film explores the lives of five single mothers brought together because of their children's misbehaviour in school. As a result, they are asked to help with the organisation of a school event. The women, being from several different backgrounds, obviously clash in the beginning.

As the film develops we get a deeper understanding of each woman's situation and the reasons why they might need each other in their lives. I particularly enjoyed Wendi McLendon-Covey as Jan. She was cold and callous in her portrayal providing fodder for some hilarious scenes. The character is sassy and intelligent with the ultimate 'I don't need a man' attitude. Within a movie that focuses on women without a man, it's so important to emphasise that being a single mother doesn't make their lives worse or lower their status in society. The women end up as equals at the end of the film because of this fact and the understanding that no one woman is above another because of their financial situation. The film also explores the importance of new relationships when you have a child and an ex-husband. Zulay Henao as Esperanza Luego is central to this topic. After dating a man for a year, she is still hesitant to introduce him to her daughter. It's wonderful to see an accurate representation of a single mother's dating life. And I mean accurate in comparison to films that reject single mothers from the dating world and reserve them to a world of loneliness.

The theme of girl power is obviously present in heavy doses. A film with five female protagonist's is of course going to explore the female friendship in detail. And thankfully, race didn't play as big a part as I thought it would. With Tyler Perry films and a mixed race cast, it's always likely that there will be a few race jokes thrown back and forth. Thankfully, The Single Mom's Club limited this and focused instead on partnership, motherhood and friendships. There was a slight hint of PSA about the film as if Perry was trying to raise awareness for a cause but the relaxed nature and smart story quickly made me reconsider this analysis. Whilst it does showcase some of the struggles faced by single mothers, it's also entertaining, heartbreaking and up-lifting. A perfect recipe for a great film. Considering the film jumps back and forth from the different women and their lives, it was smooth to watch and easy to follow. Perry surprised me and has converted me to a fan. It might now be interesting to go back and re-watch some of his other popular films.

I'm always interested when a director decides to put themselves into their own movie. Perry is seen as TK in the film, love interest of May Miller (Nia Long). He's a caring character but I'm confused as to why Perry felt compelled to play the character himself. Normally when we see a director in his own film, it's a cameo or a passing glimpse, not a somewhat central role. Having said that, he does the character justice and doesn't take away from the female characters. And considering the film still turned out to be entertaining and purposeful it's clear that taking on a dual role did not hinder his work.

At the end of the day, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It was something different to what I normally watch and did not disappoint. I'll be interested in watching similar titles and work by Perry. Although the story was a little heavy at times, the outcome was up-lifting. If I could have changed anything it would have been the fact that each woman's story was so enveloping. It was sometimes hard to take it all in at once. Perhaps reducing the number of characters with dramatic or depressing storylines could have improved the film.

Interstellar

Christopher Nolan has a cavernous brain of fantastic and intricate ideas. His latest, Interstellar, is no different from his other wonderful work. 

The film opens on Matthew McConaughey, his father, played by John Lithgow, and his two young children. We soon learn of the dust and how it's slowly covering their land. The crops are failing and it seems like planet earth is in a slow demise. McConaughey plays former pilot and now farmer Cooper: A single dad with a love for space and science. The film is just under three hours long, so as you can imagine, we're given a real insight to their family life before venturing out into space. We follow along as Cooper visits his kids school, as he downplays the existence of the supernatural to his ghost visited daughter and as he brings down a military drone whilst driving through a corn field. Just your normal day! But soon, things escalate with the weather and Cooper, with daughter in tow, discovers a secret government run base. I wont go into much more detail about the plot because it's fantastically constructed and my words wont do it justice.

Firstly, the film is available in both 2D and 3D. I saw the film in 2D and still had brief moments of motion sickness. There are several moments within Interstellar that involve constant spinning and wormhole light contortions. As you can imagine, this will be heightened in 3D and could leave audiences feeling nauseous by the closing titles! Even in 2D the film is beautiful with sharp colours, wide angle views and beautiful other-worldly landscapes. Even the scenes that were created using advanced CGI technology looked incredibly realistic and were familiar enough to be understood as real. With so many people choosing to watch films at home on smaller screens and on laptops, this film would be wasted anywhere but the wide screen of a cinema.

Undoubtably, like most of Nolan's films, Interstellar has more than a few plot twists and turns! Once in space, the team encounter difficulties with gravity, relativity, fuel and with a particularly suspicious astronaut from a previous expedition. However, I think one of the biggest surprises was the emotional depths that the film explores. I found myself on the brink of tears not once or twice but five times. The film is intense and builds as the minutes tick by. Even in the moments of silence in space, there is an uncertainty that haunts each action on screen. Anne Hathaway, as Amelia Brand, and Jessica Chastain, as Murph(ey) Cooper, provide tender but powerful feminine touches to an otherwise entirely masculine cast. They are both strong characters, one more than the other, who are a representation of the smart and strong willed girls in our society who still have typically 'feminine' emotions that sometimes take control.

The film deals with so many fascinating questions, most notably: Is earth the only planet we can live on? This film will likely spark thought provoking conversations amongst audiences world wide. Are we alone? Can we travel through time and space? It's important for films to open this discussion because it's not only interesting but it could potentially spark a light under a passionate individual who could one day answer these questions for us. Nolan's ability to create such captivating characters and dialogue, opens doors for Science Fiction to further infiltrate mainstream cinema more than ever before. 

This film is a must see and will likely win big during award season next year. If the film wasn't three hours long, I'd head back to the cinema now to watch it again!

Prometheus

Genre hybridity is a long running tradition in Hollywood cinema. Directors and writers alike, have been combining different styles and aesthetics in an attempt to make new types of film that would eventually form its own genre. Ridley Scott's 2012 film, Prometheus, is one that adopts this way of thinking and portrays elements of both the Science Fiction and Horror genres.[1] The film had been in development since the early 2000s and had been rewritten and reworked right up until 2010 when the film began production. Prometheus contains themes and plot staples that are seen in both genres and shows characters that develop similarly to those in Horror or Sci-Fi films. This film is a prime example of clever and effective genre hybridity that was successful in the box office and will likely serve as an example of combination work that film makers will draw inspiration from. 

The story follows a group of individuals from selected professions as they travel to and explore a new planet. As the film progresses the audience learns with the characters that the planet is not as safe as they had thought. As alien beings begin to cause havoc and David, the android, begins to act more and more suspicious, our protagonist and heroine Elizabeth Shaw makes life threatening decisions and is ultimately left seeking revenge. The name of the movie is interesting considering that ‘Prometheus is called upon to help us think about what it means to be human.’[2] It seems the film reflects heavily upon the God after which it was named. The title itself suggests that the film is centred on consideration of morality, and as the plot is driven by the search for our makers, it is evident that humanity is also a central theme. Humanity can be seen thriving through the protagonist as she defeats her own mutant foetus. Yet humanity can also be interpreted as flawed, primarily through the character of Peter Weyland, who is searching for any way of staying alive possibly because he fears his own death. Both Horror and Science Fiction genres tend to explore the human mind being pushed to its limits either physically or theoretically.

One of the key reasons why Prometheus was a successful film by itself but also as an example of combination cinema, was because Horror films have often contained Science Fiction elements. This meant that the eventual combination of the two genres was relatively seamless as many of the plot points and themes fit within both categories. Horror films were created and produced with the aim ‘to shock, scare, revolt or otherwise horrify the viewer.’[3] And these films are often subdivided into seven categories. Brigid Cherry explains this in her 2009 book titled Horror.[4] This is similar to Science Fiction films, as they too can be divided into any number of specified categories. One type of Horror film is explained as supernatural and involves interventions of other worldly beings into our reality. The supernatural is key to this film as the premise surrounds other worldly ‘engineers’ that created mankind and is now seeking to destroy it. Naturally, Science Fiction, the supernatural and Horror cinema blend together effortlessly.

One of our biggest social fears is the basis of many Science Fiction films: technology that develops a sinister and superior advancement over humans. This is widely explored within the film and it is clear that the film contains technology far advanced from the types that we are used to today. Science Fiction and Horror are both popular for expressing cultural and social anxieties. Horror garners negative emotions as opposed to more straightforward pleasures of the romantic comedy or western whilst Science Fiction tends to explore technological advancements that would result in our downfall. The largest technological advancement seen in Prometheus is through, Michael Fassbender’s character, David. Throughout the movie it is unclear whether David is morally good or bad, as he both poisoned Elizabeth’s love interest and offered to help her escape the planet in the end. He certainly acts suspiciously throughout, which doesn't help the audience warm to the android. Since the early beginnings of technology there has always been those who worry that eventually robots, like David, that we create will work against us rather than for us. ‘Science fiction films concerning fears of machines or of technology usually negatively affirm such social values as freedom, individualism and the family.’[5]

With space exploration developing dramatically in recent years, humankind is more in fear of the universe than we have ever been. But probably the fear that resonates most is the fear of disease and infection. We see the character Charlie Holloway slowly get infected and turn into a monster himself. We can often judge what our anxieties are by looking at the films that we watch. ‘All popular films reflect social attitudes. How do we know what the social attitudes are? Just look at the films!’[6] Because disease is something that can spread quickly, people often fear epidemics which was evident over the last ten years when the public responded to the Swine Flu. Many nations increased their intake of vitamins and some even began wearing masks in an attempt to avoid the dreaded Flu that resulted in the death of hundreds.[7] As long as audiences have social anxieties, they will go to the cinema to see films that explore that topic out of pure curiosity and, typically, Horror and Science Fiction are genres that investigate these the most.

When two genres combine, so do the fan bases of each. Typically Horror films and Science Fiction films have the same target audiences that the films appeal to most – men aged between 16 and 24. Genre hybridity increases audiences as the film appeals to more people, therefore the film will likely gain more profit. This then allows for more films to be created following its success. Prometheus was a film that appealed to several different audience groups; fans of Ridley Scott and the Alien franchise, Horror movie buffs, Science Fiction ‘nerds’ and lastly, those who were attracted by the advertising campaign and advertisements.[8] The film made roughly $403 million at the box office after being made on a budget of nearly a third of that, $130 million. Whilst it is nearly always the aim of film makers to make as much of a profit as possible, Scott was able to cash in on his pre-existing fans by tying the film to the popular Alien franchise that he had made years before. Fans play a large part in the success of any film and can really help to either make or break a crossover film. By giving Prometheus a ‘horrifying’ edge, Scott was challenging his fans to see his film, a loose prequel for Alien, as being aesthetically different to others that he had done which were more Sci-Fi than Horror.

Horror and Sci-Fi are two genres that maximise the use of prosthetics and special effects. The combination of these two genres can result in a boom of creative designs that will spur artists to create more. The film was a great combination of CGI and prosthetics which was nice to see considering ‘the concern for many people trained in the techniques of makeup and prosthetics, model making and animatronics was that the demand for this type of workmanship would simply disappear altogether should CGI ever prove capable of stimulating the materiality of physical effects effectively enough to meet with audiences’ approval.’[9] The prosthetics were mainly used to show disfigurement and age on characters but the most notable use was on the Engineers themselves. The artist was challenged to make a human-like face that was also completely alien. The characters had squared off jaws and head that made the characters look dominating and superior. Compared to the Alien franchise, the film had a much smoother image with animatronics and CGI working together. Prometheus was an example of how, when technology has been improved the quality of the film will likely improve also. This will result in sophisticated special effects and an improved cinema experience because the on-screen image will be closer to reality than it was before. Prometheus was nominated for several special effects awards because of its achievements visually, creating a world that was believable but still completely new and unknown.

The combination of two genres that already contain many of the same features is likely to be successful. Not only is the film more likely to make a profit because of the widened target audience but it also provides Hollywood with a new interpretation of film and suggests that sticking rigidly to one genre may be outdated. With the advances in technology in the past decade these hybrid movies contain higher quality special effects and are able to utilise the conventions normally associated with each individual genre. Resulting in advancements in special effects artistry and effects, hybrid films are some of the most realistic films visually. The combination of Horror cinema and Science Fiction film is successful as the two fit together well and often aim to reach the same goal through their films. With common themes these two particular genres are the easiest to merge and have the most cohesive end result. There will always be a demand for films that explore our deepest fears and shock us in the process. Prometheus was able to appeal to both Science Fiction and Horror fans alike, whilst also attracting mainstream audiences which shows the far reaching abilities of the hybrid film.

---

[1] Prometheus, Dir. by Ridley Scott (20^th Century Fox, 2012)

[2] Carol Dougherty, Prometheus: Gods and Heroes of the Ancient World (Routledge, Oxon, 2006) p. 3

[3] Bigid Cherry, Horror (Routledge, Oxon, 2009) p. 5

[4] Bigid Cherry, Horror (Routledge, Oxon, 2009)

[5] Michael Ryan and Douglas Kellner, ‘Technophobia’ in Alien Zone: Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema, ed. by Anette Kuhn (Verso, New York, 1990) p. 58

[6] David Bordwell, Poetics of Cinema (Routledge, New York, 2008) p. 30

[7] Richard Alleyne, ‘Swine Flu Killed 475 People and Cost £1.24 Billion, Official Figures Show’, The Telegraph, 1 July 2010 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/7865796/Swine-flu-killed-457-people-and-cost-1.24-billion-official-figures-show.html>

[8] Alien, Dir. by Ridley Scott (20^th Century Fox, 1979)

[9] Stephen Prince, Digital Visual Effects in Cinema: The Seduction of Reality (Rutgers University Press, New Jersey, 2012) p. 26

The Big Wedding in Last Vegas

Well, Robert De Niro is certainly keeping his dance card full! In 2013 alone, he has played prime characters in six films - at least that's what his IMDB page is telling me. Anyway, in my spare time last night, I watched The Big Wedding. Despite appearing on my Netflix feed for months and consistently scrolling past it uninterested, I decided to give it a go.

De Niro plays the unlikely head of a household. Within the first ten minutes we learn of his affair, his subsequent divorce from first wife Ellie and his 10 year relationship with his mistress Bebe. With three children, grown and out the house, the family prepares to reunite for, adoptive son, Alejandro's pending nuptials. But, drama unfolds as Alejandro's strictly catholic birth mother arrives from Columbia expecting her son's parents to still be happily married. In an attempt to save face, Ellie and Don (De Niro) pretend to be together which leaves Bebe feeling left out and pretty pissed off! The rest of the film deals primarily with the family's dysfunctional relationships and the modern, religiously diverse, sexually active and inactive family.

The film was a star studded event. Susan Sarandon, Amanda Seyfried, Katherine Heigl, Diane Keaton and even Robin Williams appear as key characters along with, of course, Robert De Niro. The actors seemed to work well together on screen and made a cohesive, and more importantly, realistic family. It was nice seeing Sarandon and Keaton in the same film for the first time. They are both actresses that I admire and was frankly shocked when I discovered this was the first time the two are appearing together. Hopefully I'm wrong and some kind person will tell me of another Keaton/Sarandon film! I'm also surprised that Robin Williams made an appearance in a rather pivotal role considering he has become rather selective with the films he stars in. But when he does appear in roles like this, the world is reminded of his brilliance and his wonderful style of acting. Hollywood loves a film with several blockbuster names, so I'm surprised I hadn't heard much buzz about it. Even on Netflix, I never saw a banner or a suggestion for the movie.

Now, I'm trying to be less critical of films like this. Films specifically designed to make people laugh and not much else, shouldn't be ripped apart by critics and bloggers... but I can't help myself. Everything was great apart from the ending...

**SPOILERS**

Another film, completely ruined by it's ending. Why did the writer suddenly feel the need to create this web of lies and adulatory which was then almost immediately overlooked! It's practically a law that comedy films like this one are supposed to finish on a happy ending. But by glossing over the drama that is included is only complicating the film. The affair reveal at the end was also entirely unwarranted, and could have been left on the cutting room floor. I almost feel like the reveal should have come much earlier in the film to allow the characters time to react realistically instead of shrugging their shoulders and accepting that their loved ones cheated on them.

If you're looking for something to watch on Netflix, then go ahead and watch this. But just remember... everything ends, pretty much the exact same way that it started (with the addition of a wedding ring and one little Katherine Heigl surprise).

The second film on my De Niro list was Last Vegas. A film that follows four men on a trip to Las Vegas for a bachelor party. Of course this sounds very familiar, but these men are all 60+ years old and are not exactly the 'hangover' types. Again, the aspect of the film that garnered my attention was the stellar cast. Michael Douglas, De Niro, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Kiline and Mary Steenburgen are the core cast with amazing support from Romany Malco, Joanna Gleason and Roger Bart! There was also a short but hilarious cameo from Curtis Jackson a.k.a 50 Cent.

The jokes were heavily centred around age and the differences in attitudes. With the closing moral of the story surrounding the importance of friendship and living life to it's fullest at any age. Morgan Freeman's character donned a fanny pack throughout and provided many of the out-loud-chuckles as he experienced gambling and young women. I enjoyed Romany Malco's character and the way his interaction with the men changed over the course of the movie. He's obviously a very talented comedy actor having starred in several box office hits, and I hope to see him shine again in Think Like a Man Too which premières this Autumn.

Last Vegas showed a different side of Vegas than the one we so often see on screen. Instead of focusing on the neon colours and messy, party lifestyle, we saw several beautiful scenes of the characters walking through pool areas and casinos. The image was less overwhelming than those seen in The Hangover (which is simply the first Vegas based film that came to mind). It was bright and beautiful.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this film, its themes and its cast. It would be a great watch for anyone who enjoys a few good laughs from some very talented actors.

Princesses

I've never thought of myself as the princess loving type. But with a little bit of reflection and a marathon of my old favourite films, it has become clear that I am. 

With the end of the festival, I can sometimes find myself unwilling to leave my bed. And sometimes I'm just glad I can use the Fringe as an excuse for doing so! Anyway, during September, I enjoy TV binging and movie marathons. This year, I decided to dive into my past a little and watch some of the films I idolised as a child. There were three main films on my list to watch: Anastasia, The Little Mermaid and The Princess Diaries. Straight away you can tell that my favourite movies growing up all had the same particular theme - royalty! Although it was never something I noticed at the time, princesses dominated my upbringing through films, television and Barbie dolls. Here is what I have learnt from re-watching these films just before I turn 20 and leave my teenage years behind.

Anastasia

This film has always been one of my favourites that I have consistently come back to. And for anyone else who studies film, you know how difficult it is to identify a favourite film! Anastasia was a story that captivated me from a young age. Everything, from the cute puppy, Pooka, to the beautiful dresses of the 1920s, kept me entertained and engaged as a girl. I would try to imitate scenes in my bedroom, dress like Anya as she danced in her yellow gown and sing the songs as loud as my voice would let me. Watching the film as an adult is no different. I regress to my younger self when Once Upon a December begins to play, and it's a state I don't snap out of until the credits roll. However, the film almost seems scarier now. Maybe it's due to my better understanding of the world, relationships and my knowledge of what actually happened to the Romanov family, but for some reason, the film hit deeper than it's ever done before. I felt real pain for Anya and her Grandmother when they were separated and sorrow as the nearly weren't reunited. I felt despair when Anya danced in the Grand Hall with only her faint memories to guide her. I felt anxious when Dimitri swings on the rope to save Anya from drowning. I felt anger when Rasputin wouldn't leave them alone. Every emotion was much stronger than it used to be and it felt like I was unable to help the characters, whom for so long as a child I had considered my friends. 

The love story in Anastasia was always different to the ones you would see in Disney movies. Anya and Dimitri are equals who fall in love over time (not a long period of time, but longer than most Disney romances). They started as strangers, grew to become friends and eventually Dimitri suddenly fell in love with his stubborn accomplice. I've never been one to wish for a relationship that emulates one I've seen on screen, but there was something about the match that just felt perfect. Although, having said that, I do enjoy a little more romance than a single dance on the deck of a boat. But I suppose beggars can't be choosers! Finally, as I grow older, I continue to be fascinated by the way that Anya conducts herself. She is a strong, wilful and hopeful character who values family above all else. Certainly traits to admire as I move into the next stage of my life. I could write for days about the many aspects of this film that I adore and how fascinated I am with the history behind the story and the version too grisly for film. But sometimes, when a film is thoroughly dissected and analysed it can ruin the many years of love. I suppose it's easier to touch only the surface and enjoy the film for what it is.

The Little Mermaid

This must be on every girls list of favourite films from their childhood. The Little Mermaid came out before I was born so I'm not entirely sure what age I was when I first saw it but it's stuck since then, that's for sure! Ariel was my spirit animal. She was everything I wanted to be, young, beautiful, talented, kind and wonderful. Just wonderful! Ariel finds a prince who loves her, even when slightly derailed by Ursula. And the way she loves Eric was always something I had dreamed for myself. I grew up searching for that 'prince' who I would sacrifice everything to be with! Now, a little older, I realise that relationships are about compromise not sacrifice and that my role model, Ariel, didn't exactly prepare me for a healthy love life!

The movie was always an overwhelming show of determination. To me, Ariel was the shining light amongst the other Disney princesses because she was fiery and passionate about living the life she wanted to live. I never realised the impact re-watching this film would have on me. I'm in my last year of university and I'll graduate next summer. This is petrifying. I have ideas of how I would like to live my life but I suppose I'm still too scared to make the positive moves towards it. Ariel didn't care. She went for what she wanted and even though it was hard and she had to sacrifice some of the things she loved, she got there in the end. This was strangely inspirational to me. Yes, I sometimes get inspiration from animated mermaids, deal with it. 

This film was always one I related to on a bizarre level. Although I've never felt restricted by my parents to any extremes, I think it's a feeling that every child has. Realising that your life is your own and that you don't need to do everything your parents want you to do can be liberating. Parents obviously want the best for their children but sometimes the lines are blurred and it can feel like they are trying to live through you. Pushing you towards the decisions that they would make rather than helping you towards your own decision. I love my parents and have a great relationship with them now, but every now and again, I do feel a little lost and like my parents only see one direction for me. The Little Mermaid will probably always make me nostalgic for the days when big decisions were only made in movies but it's helped me see that moving towards what you want is important for your own personal well being.

Ariel would have driven herself insane if she had stayed underwater for her entire life.

The Princess Diaries


This film came out a little later in my life. Already seven, going on eight, I was able to understand more of the themes presented. This film, growing up, was a symbol of change. A pillar of hope that my life could change just as easily as Mia's life did. This obviously led to many years of me believing I was a princess and unpopular because my time simply hadn't come yet. I moulded many of my attributes around Mia's. I tried to be kind and humble, I tried to work hard and be honest. I learnt to appreciate myself a little more and grew up ambitious and courageous (at times). Many of these things, I believe I've upheld to the best of my ability but re-watching the film has instilled in me, yet again, the importance of being true and comfortable with yourself. It's interesting to look back and see how important being popular is in high school. Whether you admit it or not, it was important. But it's not. In the long term scale of things, who you know and who knows you in high school doesn't matter. It's so easy to get caught up in the social swing of things but why do so many consider it to be important. Having friends is vital in school and very important in helping develop into an adult, but having the most friends is total bullshit. If I could go back and tell myself anything, I would say 'find yourself a few good friends and hold on tight, they are all you need'.

I think I loved this film so much growing up because it was about an average girl who's entire world changed overnight. That was exciting to me. And even at the young age I was when this film was released, I was already fully immersed in imaginary games with my toys. So there is no surprise that the idea of living a different life was exciting. Now I watch The Princess Diaries and cringe a little. It's all far too reminiscent of first kisses and first betrayals. It makes me think back on my embarrassing high school memories and how many things I would change if I could. But I can't and that's what's funny about it all now. Everything that was the cause of pain, stress and upset, is in the distant past and seems like a joke to me now. Maybe The Princess Diaries taught me more about reflection than I thought. Maybe the film reminds older viewers to look back at their adolescent years with a smile, because they were really funny.
So there we go, three films that I once loved, still love and will continue to love. Even if they are all about princesses.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Back with a bang! 20th Century Fox's second instalment of the ape reboot was stunning in every possible way.

I've always been a huge fan of the story, meaning that I've watched all of the remakes and the original. I've even seen the TV series that aired in the 70s on CBS. I find the concept interesting and imaginative whilst still relative in today's society. There is still a real social anxiety surrounding animal testing and the lengths we go to for science. And with a film like this, that shows a fictional outcome for extreme testing, this particular anxiety isn't going anywhere fast. But, forget everything that has come before because the new reboot, which launched in 2011 with Rise of The Planet of The Apes, is spectacular.

Opening on warning announcements and a small montage of television reports, the audience quickly learns that most of civilisation has been wiped out by the ALZ-112 virus which was first encountered in the first film. Obviously, followed by the obligatory pan shot of a large, normally populated, city shrouded in trees and overgrown plant life. The first real action we see is a hunting scene as the apes find themselves some dinner. A wonderful opener, as we see the apes are humanised and have feelings, emotions and fears like their human counterparts. I'm always a bigger fan of films that make a real effort to open the film with a bang. Straight away, I sympathised with the apes and was almost more attached to them than I was to the humans after they were first introduced. The apes were as scared of the humans as they were of them, they just hid it slightly better. That particular saying is true of so many animals that we disregard and cower from in fear of being attacked.

The film continued to impress throughout with epic battles, tense scenes between Malcolm (the human's leader) and Caesar (the ape's leader) and some touching moments of real humanity from both sides. One particular interaction that stood out was on the lake. The humans were recovering from an accident inside the Dam when Caesar's young son started to play and interact with them. The scene goes from tender and rather reminiscent of the relationship between Caesar and Will Rodman from the first film, to aggressive and upsetting as one of the humans angers the apes by hitting the young monkey. This, of course, causes further strain on the partnership between man and animal.

It would be stupid not to mention the special effects in a movie such as this. The biggest aspect of the film, the apes, were obviously not real - but you'd never be able to tell. Caesar and his followers were created using motion capture technology and this resulted in a real human element to their movements. I've always been a fan of Andy Serkis' work and was very happy when it was announced he would play Caesar in the reboot. He has such a talent for bringing animals and creatures to life. I'm just waiting for the day that he receives an OBE as recognition for his two decades of amazing work in the film industry.

Finally, the ending. Wow. I'm so excited for the next film in the trilogy!

I've tried very hard to write this without any spoilers when all I really want to do is sit down with people who have watched it and dissect it properly for hours! And as a result of this, my review is a little bare. But you shouldn't let me form your opinion, go see the film (and the one before it, obviously) and see for yourself. Definitely one to watch this summer.

How To Train Your Dragon 2

Always a fan of brilliant animation, I was very excited to see the second instalment of How To Train Your Dragon. This film, set 5 years after the first, allows us the chance to revisit some hilarious and well conceived characters. And of course, the return of Toothless and his puppy-like charm!

The film opened and closed with a voice over. Always an interesting decision to make but ultimately it neither hindered nor improved the story telling of the film. Hiccup recaps the last five years of life in Berk and how things have drastically changed to the conditions seen in the first film. Now, dragons and Vikings live in peace and have adopted each other as pets and owners. I do enjoy when a film revisits previous episodes as it helps the audience re-engage with the story and the characters. But the voice over at the end felt a little too 'brave heart' for me. For someone who normally loves a happy ending and a real conclusion, it was just an obvious reminder that the film was for children. It felt immature and very Disney (even though it was Dreamworks Animation who created the film. An animation studio that has, so often in the past, made fun of Disney).

My main gripe about this film, and its predecessor, was the accents. Vikings are typically Scandinavian but were portrayed in this film as being Celtic, either Scottish or Irish. And then their is Hiccup, our protagonist and hero! His accent is obviously that of Jay Baruchel, a Canadian actor who clearly was either told not to change his voice or simply didn't bother. His character supposedly from a Scottish father and a Scottish/Irish mixed Mother has an accent better suited in the 21st Century. I haven't delved much into the creation of either film, so I don't know if there was thought behind this decision. I, as a Scot, found it distracting and annoying. If you're not going to make your Viking's Scandinavian, then at least make the accents consistent!

The animation was superb in this film. With hundreds of new species of dragons on screen in all shapes, sizes and colours, there were moments of real artistic beauty. My only regret was seeing the film in 2D instead of 3D. I think 3D could have enhanced the experience but it was still wonderful in 2D. I watched the first film at home on my computer months ago, so I missed many of the subtle markings on the dragons and on the faces of characters. It was nice to see the sequel on a big screen and to see all of the things I had missed before. If anything, this proves that watching a movie at home is nowhere near as good as watching one in a cinema.

Without spoiling the film, there was one particular moment that hit me hard. It involves Hiccup's father and for some reason I couldn't stop a small tear and squeeze of my dates hand. Whenever films explore the relationship between father and child, I become a blubbering mess. I suppose it's a sign of my love for my Dad and how much I value him in my life. Blah blah blah emotions. The film was good - go see it in 3D!

#ChicagoGirl: A revolution for social media

This week I took some well deserved time out to join my flatmate for a screening of #ChicagoGirl - The Social Network Takes on a Dictator at the Edinburgh International Film Festival. Nathan works as a volunteer for the festival and was able to secure us two free tickets. The film was being shown in the Filmhouse cinema on Lothian Road, which is one of the main venues hosting this years festival. The rooms were packed and quickly heating up but none of this hindered my experience.

The documentary takes place primarily in two cities - Chicago, USA and Damascus, Syria. Nineteen-year-old, Ala'a Basatneh is the focus of the film along with her friends Omar, Bassel and Aous. From the comfort of her home in Chicago, Ala'a communicates with the boys and with several other revolutionaries on the ground in Syria over social networks. Having moved from Syria to the states in an attempt to avoid Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship, Ala'a works close to 24/7 to help those still trapped in the harshly governed country. The film highlights the development of the revolution and how it was heavily influenced by similar protests in Egypt and Tunisia. Both of these protests successfully de-reigned their dictators in less than 30 days, however, the Syrian conflict continues to this day with the death toll rising.

Normally, documentaries like this do not appeal to me but I'm so grateful I saw it. To see the influence that a young girl can have and the impact of our actions online. It's an incredibly eye-opening experience to watch a girl, my age, change lives on Facebook when all I do is post photographs of drunken adventures and comparatively minimal achievements. Ala'a is a positive influence on everyone she talks to, helping to save lives from both Chicago and from the ground in Syria. As the film closed, the audience learnt that Ala'a had a successful first trip to Syria and was set to return a second time to provide medical supplies.

One aspect I found interesting was when Ala'a described what the police would ask the protesters when they got arrested. For their Facebook username and password. The government, obviously learning as they go, caught on to protesters using Facebook as their main form of communication and their way of organising events. Ala'a takes her friends account information before they attend a protest and once she hears that they have been captured she logs in and deactivates their account.The police use the information online to find other protesters and at one point they even found Ala'a. A few weeks after this, she was sent a death threat that explained that she would be made an example of. Clearly stressing the importance of deactivating the accounts once someone has been arrested.

A huge part of the documentary was the citizen journalists that documented the revolution with hidden cameras for the world to see. One of the Syrian government's ploys was to hide their actions from the rest of the world with the intentions of dealing with this problem 'in house'. Al-Assad has even appeared on American television blatantly lying about the state of the country and the horrific amounts of police brutality. So to counteract this, young, educated, men are filming the protests, and in some cases first hand accounts of government ordered killings, and uploading the content online. Basically a cry for help that the world wasn't hearing. The featured citizen journalist in this documentary was Bassel, obviously a representation of thousands of others just like him. He was educated in the USA before deciding to return to Syria to help in the fight against dictatorship.

Unfortunately, documentaries about such a conflict don't often end on a high. Both Omar and Bassel die during the course of this film with both funerals briefly shown. Their stories memorialised and used in an attempt to further highlight the problems within the country and the importance of support for the people on the ground who are only fighting for the freedom they deserve. The film contains graphic images of many injured men, women and children and shouldn't be taken lightly.

Something I never thought would capture my attention has fascinated me in a way I couldn't imagine. It makes me wonder about the way our world and our government bodies work and whether or not we are making the right steps forward towards a more peaceful world.

The Fault in our X-Men

Another week of movie madness! Starting this time, with X-Men: Days of Future Past and ending with The Fault in our Stars.

Well, X-Men was certainly something new for me. I enjoy action films and I like science fiction but the X-Men franchise was never something that excited me. I've seen all of the originals but never rushed to the cinema and stood in line to watch them. And I haven't seen any of the films past the trilogy that ended in 2006. It's very rare that I go see a film, like the new X-men one, without first watching all of the films leading up to it. I love knowing everything there is to know about a character before watching their next steps. But with this film, I didn't bother. It was just something to do on a Wednesday night that was enjoyable and didn't require much thinking after a long day at work. The cinema was packed, which was shocking considering this wasn't the first week of the film being in cinemas. But I suppose, it was a Wednesday night so tickets were cheap and the film works well for date nights! I didn't go with a date, instead I went with one of my best friends and sometimes that's much better. We can have a proper giggle before the film and a proper analytical discussion after it.

For someone who knew relatively little about the film going in, I enjoyed it. The premise was good, the acting was solid and the special effects varied from believable to... 'Come on, as if that would ever happen!' One of my favourite aspects of science fiction films that explore mutations or special powers, is finding out what everyone has. It always provided me with new answers to the age old question - 'What superhero power would you choose?' In this film, I really loved Blink! The mutant who could create portals. I could see that coming in handy if I suddenly needed to be elsewhere! There was also the appearance of fire, ice and speed which could be considered basic powers in that universe but are still highlighted within the main group of characters. Jennifer Laurence seems to be hit or miss for me. Sometimes, like in American Hustle, I find her captivating and frankly genius but then other times she falls short. Although her body and her fighting skills were on point, she was rather unbelievable as young Mystique. She lacked reason (something she supposedly still had before her 'first kill') and her movements were forced. When she's shot in the leg she limps away no better than a first year pupil in drama class - overworked and over thought is my opinion.
**SPOILERS**

Now... What the hell was with that ending? I have to ask what the writers were thinking when they ended it the way the did! Does this mean all of the films prior to this one are now redundant? The last five films, six if you include Wolverine's origin story, now no longer matter because the writers decided that the characters didn't have to be tortured and that a happy ending was best for everyone. I understand that sometimes these endings work. Sometimes an audience really needs a conclusion they are happy with. But honestly, in my eyes, X-Men didn't need that. The characters had more depth because of their troubled past and now so much of that is gone. In the final scene, when Logan is walking through the school and seeing all of his old friends again, I felt that none of the characters had purpose being there any more. Now that only the audience, Logan and technically Dr Xavier know of the real past and how it came about, I can't help but feel like the movie was a waste of time. We don't really witness any real progress with the characters. Yes, it's entertaining and at it's core that is what film is supposed to be but I can't help but feel annoyed and disappointed. It's like when a film transpires to be a huge dream sequence. The audience feels cheated.

With both of us in the movie watching spirit we decided to go to the unlimited screening of The Fault in our Stars. Unlimited screenings are for anyone at cineworld with an unlimited movie card and allows you to see films in advance of it's national release. Obviously the buzz surrounding this film has been crazy and with the American release only last week, the internet had all sorts of things to say about John Green's book in comparison to Josh Boone's film.

Firstly, I want to say that Ansel Elgort grew on me much like his character did in the book. At first I found him annoying and entirely wrong for the role. Gus was a powerful character who grew and then quickly shrunk as he became a shadow of himself by the end of the book. But by the time the young couple were in Amsterdam, I appreciated everything about Elgort's creative choices with the role. He ultimately was perfect for the final scenes because he was able to make the transition that the character demanded. Not forgetting of course that what made him really shine came straight from the book and John Green's captivating writing. I feel like Ansel will enjoy all of the perks that come with being the male lead in a romantic comedy aimed at teenage girls. No doubt we'll be hearing of romps and scandals within the year.

Secondly, I hate Shailene Woodley. I'm pretty sure I've written before about how I feel about her and her acting. I will say however, I did enjoy her performance in Divergent. Sadly, the same can not be said for this film. It seems like Hollywood producers have seen the success that (average actress) Jennifer Laurence has received and have decided to produce another in the shape of Woodley. For some reason she is dominating the movie theatres this year with White Bird in a Blizzard, Divergent and TFIOS. There will always be some who are unhappy with casting and that just so happens to be me this time! But back to the film in question... Clearly, she read the book and made notes as many of her movements and reactions were subtle but similar enough to the way they were described in the book. I was a little disappointed that they chose not to explore her slight health improvement after Amsterdam. I think it was a lost opportunity to explore the characters positive yet realist approach to life.

My third and final point - having already read the book didn't make me cry any less. Somehow, even knowing the ending, I still shed more than one tear. But that's why I love seeing book adaptations. You get the opportunity to see a great book realised on screen and appreciate someone else's interpretation of the story. Obviously this film was incredibly faithful to the book, which in the end will likely prove to be the best decision. Still, I love when a director changes things up and emphasises different aspects of the story or the relationships within it. Even with the comments I've made about this film sounding more negative than positive, I actually really enjoyed the film. Sometimes when we judge a film, a book or a play too critically we forget to acknowledge our pleasure. So, to clarify, I liked the film and I would recommend it.

Twenty-Two Jump Street

The 21 Jump Street sequel is just like it's predecessor: forced. The film is hyper aware of itself, which makes for an extended joke regarding the film's popularity, stupidity and the possibility of a 23 Jump Street. The film's jokes are basic and, at times, too cringeworthy to even laugh at. The actors themselves are better than this production so why do they do it? Easy answer, cash. The film will easily pull in large audiences of young teenager and adult chaperones whether or not the content deserves it. Ultimately, 22 Jump Street is a prime example of a bad sequel. 

Let's focus first on the two main characters themselves, because honestly I see potential. Imagine a Dumb and Dumber inspired film featuring two incompetent cops. The characters have the believability and back story needed to make a movie like that work but combining this with a Never Been Kissed theme takes all of that away. No one cares about older people going back to college anymore, and they really don't care about undercover cops who get caught up in college life themselves. Also, the audience watches as, within the first few lectures, the pair are clearly recognised as cops by other students. Surely that news would move fast around a drug infested campus? Tatum and Hill are moderate actors, still trying to prove themselves in Hollywood, but this film does them no favours. Especially for Jonah Hill, who, with his work in recent Oscar nominated films, is stooping to an unnecessary level. The portrayals of their roles are adequate but wont be winning any awards. 

The representation of college and university is an interesting one. The film focused mainly on old stereotypes of students. Painting them all as either jocks or creative alternatives who enjoy slam poetry evenings. Not to say I don't enjoy spoken word poetry but this is hardly the be all and end all of a creative student's life at college. However, I will concede that I know very little about American schools and college systems so I could be incredibly wrong about the way things are run over there. At the end of the day, this film is following the same format as the first one. One of the characters take an intellectual route and the other takes the 'cool kids' route, or in the case of this film the jock route. As if the only way to survive the college experience is to chose one or the other.

The story line was entirely predictable. From the identity of the dealer to the outcome of the kidnap scene and the troubles in Schmidt and Jenko's relationship. A movie, even a Hollywood fluff film, should not be this predictable. The inclusion of homoerotic undertones in the relationship between the two men was also expected. It's a play on the traditional bromance that many films have been exploring to some degree. It's popular in Hollywood cinema and as a result it was pretty obvious that it would feature somewhere within 22 Jump Street. And the final, most obvious element of the film was the ending. With the two men reuniting and working together, it could have easily been any other film with two leads with differing opinions. This is what really ruined the film for me. I can forgive a predictable film and predictable characters for a wonderful ending, but sadly that's not what was given. 

I wouldn't waste your time or money by seeing this film.

Lego Maleficent

Finally! The release of Maleficent. Since the pre-production announcement back in 2012, I've been eagerly awaiting the release. Not only has Sleeping Beauty remained one of Disney's highest rating films, but it also remains very dear to my heart. I first received the original film in the form of a limited edition DVD nearly ten years ago when I was nine. I immediately grew an attachment to the story and the magic within it - the fairies being my favourite characters to this day! So as you can imagine, I was pretty excited to book my tickets for the new Angelina Jolie interpretation.

I went to see the 2D 18:45 screening, and although I probably would have preferred 3D, that was the only showing both me and my date could make it to. But regardless, the film was stunning. The special effects, in their truck load, effectively created a new world of mystical beings. I particularly enjoyed the subtle nod to Tolkien and the Ents through the warrior-like tree creatures. Maleficent's character was suddenly given more depth and was portrayed as a misunderstood villain much like Elphaba in Wicked. It seems like these days we are heart set on discovering the deeper meaning behind our baddies! Why MUST the actions of our antagonist be explained? Why are we no longer satisfied with evil just being evil? Although I love seeing how writers and producers interpret a story and a character, sometimes I'm happy just leaving the plot alone.
The film wasn't what I expected. From day one, I thought that it would act as a prequel, again much like Wicked was, but instead it turned out to be a total retelling of the classic with little hints of the original. Cleverly changing the outcome worked in the films favour, as it is now one of the few Disney creations that challenge the idea of a male hero. However, I will add that I felt like the voice over (particularly at the end) cheapened the movie slightly. Whilst I understand the basic idea behind it, old fashioned fairy tales being narrated, I felt that the segment at the end was too cheesy and left the film on a sour note. Having said that, Maleficent was wonderful. With its epic fight scenes, interesting special effects and elaborate theatre style acting, this wont be a film I forget anytime soon.

One last thing. As it's a Disney film, there is an increased chance of younger viewers in the audience. Don't make the mistake I did by sitting next to a young girl and her mother. The child asked questions throughout and was relentless with her 'oohs' and 'aahs'. It very nearly ruined the experience for me!

This weeks date night consisted of movies and snacks, perfect for me because I love films and I love food! Since both of us had missed it during its run at the cinema, we decided on The Lego Movie, for a light hearted night of laughs. I enjoyed the basic premise of the movie and 90% of the jokes had us both laughing aloud. The humour seemed to surround and acknowledge the fact that the characters are made of Lego blocks which helped to distance the film from other animated flicks. Some of the jokes had us pausing the video so that we could laugh louder and longer, for example, the mispronunciation of Nail Polish Remover had us in stitches. No doubt this will be a film that leaves a lasting impression on those who see it. Whether that be in the form of a particularly hilarious joke or in the form of a song... The 'Everything is Awesome' song will be stuck in my head forever along with comedian Rob Deering's 'Coffee' song which I had the pleasure of hearing twice this May thanks to Gilded Balloon's third annual Happyness Comedy Festival in Inverness (Yes, that was a plug for where I work).

It's easy to forget how successful a family friendly film can be these days. I recently wrote a report for university that detailed the rise in violent animation in an attempt to attract a disappearing audience. But The Lego Movie proves that as long as the idea is solid and the animation is well executed, the audiences will be there. Emmett, our lovable protagonist, is the typical hero. The film follows basic hero/villain guidelines in a very obvious way without the story feeling familiar. Showing how writers these days do not need to rewrite the laws of story telling to create film history. And with the arrival and parody of classic film characters like Batman, Gandalf and Han Solo the film appeals to several demographics at once.

However, the whole idea of the film got me thinking. Since when was being a toy not enough? Why has the Lego franchise grown so unnecessarily over the last decade? First come the blocks representing a popular film, then a video game of said blocks, and then a cartoon based on the game which was based on the blocks which was based on a film. And now, even that is not enough. Now the company has produced its very own film with new and semi original characters that it will no doubt be selling by the truck load this year.

Protip: Dates that consist of laughing for two hours, whether they lead to anything serious or not, will always be worth the time.

The Other Woman and her Neighbours

Although we are now a full five months into the new year, there have been very few highly anticipated comedy films of 2014. That was until the promo trailers for The Other Woman and Bad Neighbours started. Suddenly film critics and film lovers were a buzz about both films, saying that they were to be among two of the most hilarious films of the year. Despite my hatred of the typical Hollywood rom-com's (and most comedy films in general), I decided to see both The Other Woman and Bad Neighbours in an attempt to understand the hype.

First was The Other Woman. I was particularly impressed by the trailer, the first comedy trailer in a while that has grabbed my attention and made me laugh. Thankfully, unlike most films these days, the jokes were not limited to the promos. The entire film was littered with clever jokes and even the occasional slap stick scene. Cameron Diaz was able to prove why she was considered to be the Queen of Comedy for so long. She definitely has a strength in playing the strong and occasionally abrasive woman. Still sexy at 41, she makes women of all ages laugh and envy her at the same time. Leslie Mann annoys me and has annoyed me for most of my life. I've never known why, I just cannot seem to separate the actress from the character - and all of her characters have been painfully annoying in one way or another. Nevertheless, she was incredibly funny as the neurotic wife of scumbag Mark King a.k.a Nikolaj Coster-Waldau.
Finally Kate Upton/the boobs. I am a fan of Kate, I think she's made a name for herself in the model world in a completely new way. She's the social media model and that's pretty cool but she's not an actress. It's obvious that the producers were aware of this as she had very few lines considering she played a pretty important part. The relationship between the three women is central to the story, yet it felt like the focus was on Cameron and Leslie and Kate was the awkward third wheel. Scenes involving Upton seemed forced and often had to be rescued by Mann and her moments of neurotic craziness. However, the biggest thing I noticed about Upton's involvement was that she was hired to be 'the body' of the film. But personally, the body most worthy of a trophy in the film belonged to Nicki Minaj. Although I've never been a die hard fan of the rapper turned actress, there is no denying that her body is fantastic. I felt very guilty eating an entire bag of chocolate buttons whilst watching her tiny waist on screen!

As I mentioned at the beginning, the film was hilarious and mixed several traditional forms of comedy. In particular, the concluding scene involving glass panes and buckets of blood had me in stitches. My stomach hurt from laughing and my cheeks were red from smiling. I loved the film in its entirety even with my opinions on the lead actresses.

Secondly, loaded with pizza and wine, I went to see Bad Neighbours! And I'm sorry to say that if I hadn't had wine, the film would have been far less interesting. Following the typical blockbuster comedy formula, it was loaded with weed jokes, sex jokes and unnecessary cameos from comedians like Blake Anderson and Hannibal Buress and actors like Jake Johnson and Lisa Kudrow - who are all frankly too good for a film like this! These films, generated to bring in big numbers at the box office, end up disappointing me the most because they care less about the jokes or a plausible story and care more about bringing in as many demographics as possible. Like seriously, as if Rogen and Byrne were the only family on the street who had had enough - even with the frat boys 'helping out' around the neighbourhood, those parties just got louder and louder! Having said that, thanks largely to the wine, I chuckled a couple of times. There were some moments that were heavily fuelled by references that could potentially be overlooked by some younger audiences, but everyone 18 and up at my cinema seemed to understand most of the film references made.

I'm well aware that most young women were flocking to this particular film to see one thing - Zac Efron's body. I've never really fully understood the hype surrounding Efron and always thought of him as just another good looking actor. His body is spectacular but throughout the entire film his veins are protruding and his face seems strained. It honestly looks like he'd been using steroids to build himself up! But still, there is no denying he's incredibly attractive and will continue to do well in the industry because of it.

The film was fine. I won't see it again but if someone asks about it I'd probably say something like 'meh, might as well go see it'. There were some cool party scenes and some interestingly shot moments. The soundtrack was awesome and featured some classic, cool hits from Missy Elliot and Fergie remixed for a new generation. Rogen and Byrne had fantastic chemistry with the young twins playing little Stella and made a surprisingly cute family. But at the end of the day, films like Bad Neighbours and even The Other Woman, are ultimately forgettable. They haven't broke boundaries or left us with iconic sayings or scenes. They were just films that in a few years time will be playing at 5 o'clock on Sunday on a mediocre TV channel.


I've never really like comedy films... sorry.

The Amazing Spiderman

The Amazing Spiderman 2 was everything I wanted it to be. Not only was the story well developed and a natural progression from the first film, but the acting was fantastic. I've been a long time fan of superhero films and in particular the Spiderman series. Since the first film of the new regeneration, I put a lot of faith in Andrew Garfield to continue the legacy with grace and subtlety. His acting has vastly improved since his early days in films like Social Network. He knows how to command the screen now whilst not over exaggerating his movements and making them seem unrealistic. In my mind, he has already surpassed Toby Maguire in my ranking of actors who have played the insect-human hybrid. Nicholas Hammond is still in last place, CBS really dropped the ball on that one. But back to the film in question, it was long. And long enough that it felt long, even though it was paced nicely, friends should be aware when seeing the film that it will take three hours from your day including pre-film adverts. However, I love a long film so Spidey and I were a great fit. I particularly enjoyed the introduction of Electro. Jamie Foxx managed to create a villain that I empathised with and frankly wanted to help!

My favourite two moments of the film were nearer the end. The first is a huge SPOILER... After defeating Electro, Spiderman and Gwen Stacy are about to celebrate when suddenly the Green Goblin a.k.a Harry Osborne arrives and makes the connection between his childhood friend and the hero he hates. In attempt to acquire his revenge, the Goblin scoops up Gwen and another fight scene commences. Sadly it ends with Gwen hitting the ground hard despite Spiderman's efforts to save her. She dies and what follows is five months without Spiderman's presence in the city. The reason why this scene stuck out was because it was unexpected. The whole film leads us towards a happy ending for the pair, so her death is shocking. I was also a little disappointed that this meant the end of Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. I had grown to love her in the role and was expecting to see more of her in the third film.

My second favourite moment was shortly after the first. As I said, Spiderman had been absent from the city of Manhattan for five months which resulted in Osborne (from his cell in the local mental institute) orchestrating the creation of destructive villains. As one of these take the streets, a young boy, seen earlier in the film befriending Spiderman, runs past barriers and police to stand in front of the villain in his Spiderman costume. The image was so powerful and worked to represent the connection that many young children have with the hero in our society. So many of them look up to the character as a role model and in some cases as a friend. Thankfully, in the film, the real Spidey turns up and saves the day.

Overall, I found the film to be surprisingly uplifting and captivating. It seems like this generation of Spiderman films has found its stride and is really hitting home with audiences around the world through its realistic themes between the love interests and the elaborate fight scenes reminiscent of the original comics. Whilst I am excited for the third film of this series, which was recently announced, I am interested to see if the films continue to impress fans like the last two have.

YSL & Divergent

This past week I have seen two very different films with one thing in common. They were both surprising.

First, I saw Yves Saint Laurent with my good friend from school. I can always rely on Emma whenever I want to go see a film and thankfully she felt the same as she invited me to an early morning showing of the French film. I hadn't looking into the content of the film before hand (sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't) so I wasn't aware that the film was French, subtitled and a biography. Originally, I was under the impression that the YSL film would be an art film - a display of sketches and runways set to jazz and electro punk. In this particular case, I'm very happy I was wrong. The film was actually a stunning retelling of Yves and his turbulent life from the time he started working for Dior to his death. Told from the point of view of Yves long term life partner, Pierre, the story tells of his start in the fashion world and how after Dior's death he was thrust into the spotlight with disastrous effects on his health. He was anxious and panicked and struggled to deal with people outside his immediate group of friends. But as the world changed and the drug culture erupted, Yves life became tumultuous as he fell into a deep well of alcohol, sex and drugs.

I found the film to be beautifully shot and carefully directed. It is always risky dealing with real, idolised people. Yet, even with the way Yves acted during moments of the film, I still left the cinema eager to learn more about his life and his work. Biographies tend to inspire me to go home and research everything about the subject as possible. So it was no surprise that I spent the rest of my day learning about Yves and the way he worked. I found myself to be equally fascinated with his lover Pierre. Through it all he was there for Yves and really only acted the way he did in an attempt to protect his love from danger (which Yves, in the later part of his life, seemed to hunt like it was prey). 

With this film, I was inspired to reconnect with the culture in my life. To appreciate the art that I grew up with and the work of those in fashion. Needless to say, I went on to watch September Issue and Coco Chanel later on that evening.

The second film I saw this week was Divergent. Set to be a big hit at the box office and a popular conversation topic for the next few months, I felt that I had to see it. I had also read both Divergent and Insurgent earlier last year, and I am always intrigued to see how popular books translate onto the screen. Having my reservations regarding the casting, I went in with an open mind! And yes, I was surprised! Shailene Woodley would be my last pick to play Tris, but actually she was fantastic. She gave real life to a character, that because of her Divergent nature could be incredibly distant from an audience. And all the other actors were fine. Just fine.
My only issue was the absence of Edward. Although he was listed on IMDB as being featured, readers of the book will have noticed one major thing when seeing the film. His eye. In the book, Peter is jealous that Edward is above him in ranking during training so he gouges his eye out with a knife. None of this happens in the film, in fact, we weren't even introduced to the character at all. Frankly, without Edward and the conflict, it was hard to believe Peter was as bad as the film tried to make him out to be. Another reason I am baffled by his lack of inclusion in the first film is because he becomes a vital character in Insurgent (in the book at least)! Due to the second book being pretty complicated, in terms of the number of new and old characters who come in and out, I'm not surprised that the movies will be split into three. I feel like this might give the director a real opportunity to develop the characters and expand on a good story that with the right tools could be made great.

My favourite part was the end. I really did enjoy the film, I promise! I just really liked how even though the film will be part of a trilogy it didn't end on a painful cliffhanger *cough* The Hobbit *cough*. It felt as though the story could have ended when the credits rolled, with the audience left to fantasise about the Divergent and the rebels living their life escaping the Erudite/Dauntless army.

With my new Cineworld Unlimited card, I imagine I'll be getting back into my old habit of writing film reviews. I enjoy this sometimes more than writing about my personal life. I can relax a little more without worrying about saying the wrong thing. I like movies. I like writing about movies. I like not always writing in the same structured way. I like being relaxed.

The Devil Wears Prada

The Devil Wears Prada, 2006, directed by David Frankel is based on the 2003 novel of the same name by Lauren Weisberger.[2] The story centres on Andrea Sachs, played by Anne Hathaway as she strives to survive and flourish as a writer in the big city. Along her way she lands a job working for the notoriously difficult and powerful Runway editor, Miranda Priestly. After struggling to get to grips with the high flying fashion world Andy soon excels and begins to enjoy her new surroundings. But as her new friendships and her old relationship are tested she ultimately decides that Priestly’s world is simply not for her and leaves the company to pursue her long lasting dream of being a serious journalist. Certain aspects of the film reveal the fashion industry and its warped standards of beauty whilst employing typical dramatic devices of Romantic Comedies to portray these issues.

One of the most noted performances in the film comes from Meryl Streep as head honcho, Miranda Priestly. Streep not surprisingly, received a nomination for an Academy Award for this role along with several other awards. According to Richard Dyer there are three types of role for an actor; the Perfect, the selective and the problematic fit.[3] In this case, the role was selective for Meryl as the character and her own personality are polar opposites. In spite of this the role becomes perfect for Streep as her talent as an actress allows for her to fit any role she takes. In public appearances and award shows she seems to be a very nice and genuinely sweet person whereas her character in The Devil Wears Prada is icy cold and often candidly mean. Our first encounter with Priestly is rather dramatic as suspense is built from before we see her. The employees of Runway are informed of her impending arrival and are seen frantically cleaning and rushing to tidy their areas. The visual fear on everyone’s faces builds anticipation and when we finally see the character in all her glory the audience is not disappointed. Streep pulls of a complete transformation from her normal seemingly bubbly self to the horrible and stern Queen Bee. There is no surprise that this role gained the actress her record breaking 14th Oscar nomination.

The employees seem to over react and the scene seems to be overdramatised at first but as we learn more about the character, their responses seem to be totally appropriate. Many of the female employees are seen making an attempt to improve their physical appearance as one woman changes from flat and comfortable shoes to high heels. This image is brief but not easily forgotten as it sets the tone for what is considered to be beautiful and feminine within this film. The close up is of a strained and uncomfortable foot which shows the pain that women go through in order to achieve this perception of beauty and the standards of beauty within this particular company. The idea that women suffer for fashion and beauty is not wrong but many believe that this is something we must do. Whilst in the films case, I believe that the image of beauty within that industry was incredibly accurate. It’s a world where weight and owning the latest pair of Chanel boots is key to gaining success.

Another especially memorable scene in the film is the montage of Andy’s makeover transformation. The makeover is a reoccurring tool used in Romantic Comedies and teen films. ‘Hollywood has long been enamoured [with] transformation stories’.[4] The Devil Wears Prada is no exception and turns the dowdy writer into a fashionable New Yorker. Most films use this dramatic device as a way of showing the evolution of the female character. Even once Andrea has turned her back on Runway to pursue journalism she is still dressed fashionably but this time with a little more of her own personality intertwined with it. The montage shows Andy on her way to work in several different and varying outfits. Hathaway is no stranger to the makeover in films as one of her foremost roles was as Mia Thermopolis in The Princess Diaries.[5] I found it interesting that this segment was very similar to the opening montage in the film that showed models and other ‘fashionistas’ out on the streets of New York in a similar fashion. This highlights further the vast changes in the protagonist’s appearance and how she now ‘fits in’ with the types of girls she used to make fun of. This further perpetuates the idea that a woman should change her appearance in order to fit in and be successful.

An interesting aspect of this scene was the choice of music, Vogue by Madonna.[6] The magazine, Runway featured in Weisberger’s book and the character of Miranda Priestly are based on American Vogue and its notorious editor Anna Wintour. The music is a subtle nod to the inspiration behind the novel and subsequently the film. Additionally, the song itself is iconic in the fashion industry for its interlude that features the names of many famous and infamous designers. Partly because of this song and her courageous choices in costumes, Madonna has become an icon in ground breaking fashion and glamourising designers. Often considered to be strong and powerful, Madonna took charge of her career in the same way the Andrea is trying to do in the film.

The representation of femininity and female beauty are, I feel, challenged by this film as they are brought to light. In an incredibly shallow and appearance based industry the main character has no choice but to sacrifice parts of what make her unique in order to blend with her new surroundings. The film incorporates aspects of perceived beauty such as body weight and explores them in a light hearted manner that could easily be misconceived by the young impressionable minds that the film is marketed at. There is no doubt that this film appeals to young female audiences but unfortunately it will take year for them to fully understand that this film is not just a light and puffy look at the fashion industry but is instead a social commentary on the idea of beauty and what we must do to achieve it.

---

[1] The Devil Wears Prada, dir. by David Frankel (20^th Century Fox, 2006)

[2] Lauren Weisberger, The Devil Wears Prada (Broadway Books, London, 2003)

[3] Jeremy G. Butler, The Star System and Hollywood (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000) p. 11

[4] Brenda R. Weber, Makeover TV: Selfhood, Citizenship, and Celebrity (Duke University Press, North Carolina, 2009) p. 19

[5] The Princess Diaries, dir. by Garry Marshall (Walt Disney Pictures, 2001)

[6] Vogue, performed by Madonna, written by Madonna and Shep Pettibone (Sire Records and Warner Bros Records, released March 20^th 1990)