So Who's This Scott Pilgrim Fella?

Posters are plastered about the place, the ads are on TV, even though it only came out at the cinema yesterday, chances are that you've already heard of 'Scott Pilgrim vs The World'. I had when I went to see it, but nothing could have prepared me for the visual onslaught that ensued. I won't give it all away, and it would be an impossibly long post if I did, so fear not.

Directed by Edgar Wright, who brought us the likes of 'Hot Fuzz' and 'Shaun of the Dead', some laughs were definitely expected - especially since I only have to look at main man Michael Cera (the geeky anti-hero of 'Juno' and 'Superbad') to crack a smile. And there are some fantastic comedy moments, but that's not the main basis that makes this film so great. Wright brings something completely new and exciting to cinema that his former movies do not even hint at. This is strongly linked to the fact that the film is based on the 'Scott Pilgrim' comic book series by Bryan Lee O'Malley, like in 'Sin City', Wright has used the comic book medium; every time a phone rings, a brash, stylised 'RING RING' flashes on screen. But there is more. There are video games too, oh yes!

I'm going to be totally honest here - I think I  had a bit of a video game deprived childhood, because I don't know many. I at least managed to get the Super Mario references. But, even without knowing the specific games, the references still work, and allow you to really enjoy leaving reality behind as Scott Pilgrim battles a succession of evil exes in order to get the girl of his dreams, multicoloured quirky beauty, Ramona Flowers.

As geeky chic bassist with an unnatural sensitivity to his haircut, Michael Cera is perfect for the part - he is the quietly determined underdog that everyone loves, and packs some impressive punches despite his skinny limbs. Despite one rather cringey musical moment involving the duel with boyfriend number 1, Matthew Patel, the movie is compulsive viewing from start to finish. At times, the pace is so fast, slickly switching between dream, reality, time and place, with witty captions flashing up every now and again, that I think it would take several viewings to take it all in.

I, for one, am quite eager to go back to the cinema and watch it again.

Double points score!

Up In The Air

It was a series of mishaps that led to me seeing this film, I don't think I would have watched it otherwise. I had originally intended on seeing 'It's Complicated' with my Mum - she will only watch romcoms and feels 'cheated' if the story isn't neatly wrapped up in a happy ending, so a bit of Meryl Streep getting it on with her ex-husband seemed to fit the light-humoured bill. However, we arrived at the cinema a little late to find that a lot of other people had had the same idea and there weren't any seats left! Quickly scanning for any films that were starting soon I noticed 'Up In The Air' and vaguely remembered an advert featuring George Clooney on a plane. There isn't a mother-pleaser on Earth quite like George Clooney, so I figured he was a safe bet.

Expecting a run of the mill romantic comedy I settled comfortably into my seat for a couple of hours of perfectly nice, if predictable, viewing. But I didn't get it. In fact, when the credits finally rolled I actually felt a little sad and confused. Directed by Jason Reitman, who created the much loved 'Juno', there are quite a few quirky touches, as well as some great scenic shots and some comedy moments that ring true to real life. So what is it about? Well, George Clooney plays the part of Ryan Bingham - high flying corporate businessman? Sort of. Sure, he's got a lot of airmiles, not to mention an impressive collection of loyalty and reward cards for hotels and car hire companies, but the job that has fuelled this collection isn't exactly glamorous. Ryan Bingham works for a company that bosses hire to fire their employees, they try to put a positive spin on redundancy and persuade whichever unlucky soul they are talking to that everything they need to carry on can be found in a handy information pack. As everyone knows, Clooney's good looks and velvety smooth voice make him a perfect calming influence, but it is not the job that he loves, Ryan himself says it is when he is in the airport and on the plane that he is 'home'.

While jumping the queues with a loyalty card and flying business class has a certain amount of prestige and comfort, it's true, but even Clooney can't sell recycled air, plane food and living out of a bag as being a great way to live. The real aspect of his lifestyle that Ryan loves is the fact that being on the move means he makes no ties - to people or places. When your closest relationship is to an automated welcome message voice, you are untouchable. What would cause a person to want to live like this? That's a little hazy; the snapshots of disjointed family life show how Ryan has distanced himself from his two sisters (the elder of which is a rather angry, masculine creature) and hints suggest that the family dynamic has gone pear-shaped since the death of their parents. This is a really sad aspect of Ryan's life, which, by the end outweighs the positives of his seemingly carefree, comfortable existence.

Ryan's solitary way of life is shaken up, first by meeting Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), a travelling businesswoman who claims to be 'the female version' of him; she's pretty, sexy, and the only person Ryan seems willing to keep in touch with. The biggest bombshell, however, is when Ryan's only constant - his work - decides to save money and keep its employees grounded so they can fire people via webcam. The great thinker behind this move is a young, uptight, business-minded if naive young woman, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), who may as well be Ryan's opposite. She looks for spending cuts, the use of technology, and believes in love, marriage and settling down; everything Ryan is against. Through an ill-matched business pairing, the two manage to learn a lot from each other. That, and the fact that Natalie's dreamy view of love is shattered when she gets dumped via text message. Well, at least it wasn't Facebook!

The film is full of genuine laughs and sentiment, and shows the different ways modern life - technology, putting your job first, lack of family values - has on the traditional idea of romance. All of these make it very different from your average romcom. So too does the bittersweet taste you're left with when you leave the cinema. But, at least my mum didn't feel totally cheated by it.

Up In The Air - 3.5/5

A Belated Happy 2010...

...Or an early Chinese New Year? Luckily blogging more wasn't my resolution or I would've already failed miserably. As for my actual New Year's resolution, well, okay I haven't done that either - my car is still a dusty mess littered with piles of car park tickets, leaves and CDs. Oh well. As I'm not intending to reach for a sponge or hoover any time soon, so here I am at my blog!

Over the Christmas break my dad, brother and I did our usual family bonding trip of sitting in a dark room not talking to each other; we went to the cinema. To see 'Avatar'. With 3D goggles and premier seats! (Dad was paying.) I would have had to have been living under a large rock for the past few months to have not heard about this mysterious film that was already being credited with 'forever changing cinema as we know it', featuring strange blue people with long hair. The trailers didn't give a lot away, and anyone I'd spoken to who had already seen it weren't really selling it to me. The truth is, telling someone about humans going to a different planet and then turning into blue aliens who can jump really high and have weird tentacles coming out of their hair doesn't make the majority of people rush to the cinema. But I do like a bit of sci-fi, and my brother claimed it had taken the number one spot of his all time favourite films, so was curious to give it a try. I took my brother's recommendation with a big pinch of salt though, as 'Borat' had previously been his epitome of cinematic brilliance.

James Cameron, who gave us the epic 'Titanic', which - love it or hate it - is always fun to re-enact whenever there's a cold day - 'Jack, Jack wake up! There's a boat!' Anyway, since making steamy car sex scenes, story has it he's been waiting for technology to catch up enough to do justice to this film. Now, they did the same thing for the first three 'Star Wars' films and I think everyone wished they hadn't bothered, but I don't think Cameron made the same mistake here. The special effects are incredible, the integration between what is real and what is CGI is practically seamless.

I sat in my marginally comfier-than-normal seat sporting the fetching 3D glasses (that I still think were way better when they were cardboard and you got one red eye and one green eye, but there you go!) and I have to agree that this movie gives you an experience quite unlike anything else. Making 3D viewing an option is in vogue right now, but this movie has really been made for that purpose - to immerse the audience in the enchanting world of planet Pandora. Us human scum have decided to invade this planet to mine and extricate precious minerals, waging a war against the indigenous people (Na'vi - they're the blue folks) for inconsiderately getting in the way. Very cleverly, a couple of these Na'vi have somehow been grown, as it were, as avatars for humans to psychologically link with them and live through them. Think along the lines of 'The Matrix' and you're on the right track.

Main man Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a wheelchair bound war veteran unexpectedly finds himself with his very own avatar, and a mission to be accepted by the Na'vi to learn from them and find a way to stop them being a nuisance so the humans can steal all the minerals. Sounds easy enough. That is, until Jake finds being a Na'vi is actually pretty fantastic - and this is where the film comes into it's own. The detail, the beauty, the sheer vivid imagination that has born such a place is impressive - despite a few strange, scary monsters, it makes Earth look like a shit heap. And therefore humans like the parasitic, dirty flies. The Na'vi are gentle, dignified, and at one with their natural environment - they physically bond with their fellow creatures through strands coming out of their hair. Humans stomp through, not bothering to understand the environment, or care about the effects their actions might have. Combine this with the fact that Jake is normally so trapped and frustrated by his ill-working body and military procedures, and a rather hot lady Na'vi might just be interested in him - who would ever choose being human?

Conflict ensues, and the audience ends up hating their own species even more. For the British and American viewers, it's not really a time to be proud of your heritage, as invading and destruction has so often been the business of the day and it's just not pretty. Colonel Miles Quaritch seems to be a butcher, louder version of George Bush - with one speech, 'fighting terror with terror' sitting uncomfortably close to reality.

There's a lot that is good about this movie - it's different and stretches cinematic boundaries, Sam Worthington gives a great performance and provides some much needed moments of comic relief, and Pandora's luminous flowers and floating mountains are beautiful and breathtaking. But, contrary to what some reviews might say, it's not all good. Sigourney Weaver is basically re-hashing her Ripley role from 'Alien' - being all grumpy and masculine, and the story line itself is a little slow in parts and pretty predictable - just don't tell my brother, he's been to see it another four times since!

I think the good outweighs the bad though, and it's worth a watch even just to see what all the fuss is about.

Avatar - 4/5

Where The Wild Things Are

Even just hearing the title of this film strikes a deep, nostalgic chord with thousands around the globe, who exclaim 'That was my favourite book when I was little!' I'm quite jealous, I never had it read to me, and have never read it myself, but it seems to have such a profound meaning to those that grew up with the story. In this way, I think the deeper childhood link that the film touches was lost on me, as I viewed the whole thing in a completely new light. But, at least I can be fairly detached on viewing the film alone in its own right. Hopefully.

From what I've gathered about the book, 'Where The Wild Things Are' by Maurice Sendack tells the story of Max, a young boy who has been misbehaving at home, running around in his wolf costume, and is sent to bed with no dinner. His imagination transforms his room into the land of the Wild Things; scary creatures that he conquers by becoming their king. Eventually, Max becomes homesick, and returns back to find his supper warm and waiting for him. It's no caterpillar eating stuff, but it sounds like the kind of thing I would've liked. Much deeper than just a book with strange creatures and flights of the imagination, the story won critical acclaim for its view on the physical representations of anger and fear that the Wild Things represent, and the fact that Max leaves them for the comfort of his home and parental love. However, despite the great reception the book received, it was banned from several countries for a while due to the fact it does not exemplify any particular morals or values, like children's books are 'supposed' to do. Max is a naughty child, he does not apologise for his behaviour, and instead of trying to sooth him and teach him the right way to behave, he is simply sent to bed without dinner.

The film carries on in a similar vein, Max is a horror of a boy at times; loud, aggressive, attention-seeking and inconsiderate. But it is an accurate representation of being a child. All children lack the self control and understanding of how to not be all of those things. Director, Spike Jonze, said himself, that his film is one about childhood; the state of flux between fearlessness and fear, where anything seems possible but at the same time everything is a threat.

Jonze has included more of a rounded backstory that triggers Max's trip to the land of the Wild Things, he is a lonely, often bored child - he has no father at home, his sister hangs around with older boys who bully him, and his mum is uptight about work, money, and a new man she is seeing (who came in the form of a slightly random cameo part by Mark Ruffalo!). Max craves attention, and devises a way to get it by dressing up in a wolf costume and climbing on the kitchen counters, much to his mother's horror as her bemused date looks on the chaos. Max's wild actions, particularly biting his mother's shoulder, make him run away, find a boat and sail off to an unknown land of Wild Things. Jonze said this was the one sticking point between he and Sendack, who wanted the film to show Max's room morphing into a jungle like in his book, this way, however, Max's anger and stubborness is physically represented as he actively takes himself away from home and safety.

Once Max has found the Wild Things, the wonders of CGI and elaborate costumes are revealed. Unlike many film makers, who may have made the Wild Things completely computer animated, Jonze wanted them to have a believable physicality, so that Max could touch and interact with them, and so that the element of danger under the surface is very real. You can see how their fur is dirty and matted, how their immense weight and size makes Max so vulnerable. The CGI facial expressions then works to bring the characters to life and exemplifies the various emotions that each Wild Thing represents; anger, rejection, frustration etc.

As a whole, the film definitely runs in peaks and troughs. This may be competely intentional to show how things are when you are a child - like the peak of Max's snowball fight and the trough of getting trapped in his igloo. The high points are wonderful, Max's unabashed happiness and freedom, especially when reinforced with the crazy soundtrack by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, makes you want to get up from your seat and run along with him. There are some cinematically brilliant shots, too. But there are also some moments that are just sort of static and slow. And, while he is with the Wild Things, not a lot actually happens. Max does begin to appreciate the monsters and develop a level of empathy for those other than himself, which leads you to believe he may utilize this once he is back home and perhaps stop giving his mother such a hard time, but who knows.

This is certainly an impressive film, and despite my lack of childhood connection with the original story, I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. As for the new generation of children who may encounter the film before the book, I'm not really sure who it is aimed at - it is rather violent and menacing at times for small children, but then would older kids really want to watch big fluffy creatures? If it is in fact just a film about childhood, one would say it is then perhaps a bit of an indulgent film for adults to fuel their nostalgia. Either way, I'm sure the buzz surrounding this movie will continue now that it has been released.

Where The Wild Things Are - 3.5/5

Twilight - New Moon

It's the film that's sent ripples across the globe, causing hysterical excitement in teenage girls at the prospect of seeing Robert Pattinson (or 'RPat' as he's now being called. Not the most inspiring nickname...) on the big screen again, and sarcastic guffaws from everyone who deems themselves far too sophisticated to be interested in the same things as teenage girls. I think I fit somewhere between the two. After the first 'Twilight' film, which I thought was okay but wasn't blown away by, I had been intrigued by the release of the sequel but not necessarily psyched for it. A number of my friends were very much looking forward to it, however, having read all of Stephanie Meyer's books, and so I found myself in a pre-booked cinema seat in a very very full screening.

So, for those who don't know, the 'Twilight Saga', as the series of books and films are officially called, follows the story of Bella (Kristen Stewart) - a 'normal' girl who falls in love with Edward (Robert Pattinson), a pale boy at school. Except he's not just 'a pale boy at school', he's a hundred-and-something-year-old vampire, who comes from a family of 'vegetarian' vampires that only eat animals. But they still really really want human blood, and think Bella is ever so tasty, which gets her into all kinds of scrapes.

'New Moon' begins at one of these scrapes - Edward's brother goes for Bella after she suffers a pretty severe paper cut. This is one scare too far for Edward's conscience, so he decides to leave her in order to protect her. Although his reasoning is blazingly obvious, Bella thinks he doesn't love her any more and spends (literally) months moping, not speaking to anyone, and having screaming nightmares. She sounds fun, huh? She also repeatedly sends emails to Edward's sister, Alice, even though they never get delivered. It's all a little bit bunny-boiler. To take her mind off of all this pining, Bella tries to distract herself from Edward with newly-buffed-up friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner), the other reason for the teenage girl frenzy (and I can't blame them, phwoar!) But he isn't all he seems either...

So is this a quality film? Well...I'm not sure it'll be winning any Oscars. The script is pretty wooden at times, and the 'intense' looks between Bella and Edward sometimes just end up suggesting that they could do with a bit more fibre in their diets, if you catch my drift. Bella is also incredibly irritating, this isn't down to the acting particularly, just the fact that she's an adrenaline-seeking idiot, as dangerous situations seem to trigger a vision of Edward. This is something that is never explained, which is rather annoying. But, despite a few problems, it is damn entertaining. You've got action, a bit of gore and horror, action, romance, and some rather hot people to look at. In the full cinema, every time a shirt was removed, a kiss nearly happened, and especially at a certain cliffhanger at the end, the whole audience screamed, clapped and cheered. They were loving it. Although it may not have had quite the same effect on me, this film is a big deal to a lot of young people, and as it promotes a lot of good values - accepting those who are 'different' etc - maybe some of the critics should give it a break.

Twilight New Moon - 3.5/5

Up

Often I try to pretend to be a bit of a film geek, and so I first I heard about this latest release from Disney and Pixar some months ago when it was shown at Cannes Film Festival. Ever since the Cannes screening I have read review after review about how spectacular and moving this film was, 'the best Disney film in years' yada yada yada. Reviews like this are great for generating a positive buzz, and definitely persuaded me to (eventually) spend my fairly hard earned cash to go and see it - especially since there wasn't a huge amount in the way of advertising. Anyway, while the reviews are great for getting people into the cinema, they're not always so good once you're there. I had such high expectations - that I was going to be crying with sadness one minute and with laughter the next. I wanted big, unexpected, amazing things. I'm not sure what Disney could have done to fulfil this, but they just didn't quite reach the mark.

It's not that this is a bad film, far from it, as the reviews said, it did have moments that were actually quite harrowing, and parts which really did make me laugh, but it just was not up to the hype. One review, for instance, described the beginning of 'Up' as being sadder than Bambi's mother getting shot, Mufasa dying in the 'Lion King', and Dumbo's mother being locked up...what kind of horrendous carnage can really live up to that?! Nothing that would pass a PG rating, that's for sure. So, yes, it was sad, I felt sorry for the old cartoon man, but my tear ducts stayed dry.

Downfalls aside, there is a lot about 'Up' that is rather good. I only wish I had seen it in 3D, as that would have enhanced the experience even more. For a quick summary, we meet Carl and Ellie Fredrickson, how they meet as children, fall in love, grow up and grow old together. Sadly even a love like theirs cannot last forever, and so Carl is left old, alone, and in danger of losing his house and his independence. What does he do to overcome this? Well, what anyone would do, ties hundreds of helium balloons to his house so that it lifts off and so that he can take it to South America. Yes, you read that right. From a fairly realistic beginning you do have to utilize your imagination as the story takes several sharp fantastical turns; chocoholic birds, talking dogs, death-defying stunts by two OAPs...but it's fun, it's exciting, and gives hope to Carl's once bleak outlook, which would be a comfort to anyone that has lost someone close to them.

Highlights of the movie would have to be the stowaway boyscout, Russell, who is both annoying and adorable, and the talking dogs - any dog I have seen since this movie I can totally see speaking like the ones in the film!

It's a good family film, but don't expect it to be as life-changing as some of the critics might have you believe!

Up - 4/5

(500) Days of Summer

So, I haven't done a review in a little while and thought it was about time for another! For reasons I can't quite explain, I was almost beyond excited to see this film. I suppose for one thing I am yet to see a bad review of it, and those I have read described it as a vibrant, touching little indie movie - my kind of film-nutshell! I was also attracted to the story's twist, when so much of Hollywood tells us that when you meet 'the one' you just know it instantly, you know they are the only person who can make you happy. So what happens when 'the one' doesn't actually feel the same way? What if someone's 'one' was the other person's casual relationship? This is the case with Tom and Summer, the girl who filled 500 of Tom's days.

The witty tone that runs throughout the film is there from the off, before you have even seen any characters or any credits. There is a disclaimer stating that the film's content is purely fictional and any similarity of characters or events is purely coincidental. Well that's fair enough, right? And then, 'Especially you Jenny Beckman. Bitch.' Ouch! With an outlook like that, and a warning from a God-like narrator that 'this is a story of boy meets girl, but it is not a love story', you start to get the idea that this is a bit different from the usual films frequented by Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts. Finally.

Now, after seeing the disclaimer and seeing the brief flashback of Tom and Summer's childhoods I was a little worried that this could be a totally bitter portrayal of one of the writer's failed relationships, changing Jenny Beckman-the-bitch's name to Summer and exorcising his demons. But it is kind of refreshing to see that, even though she breaks Tom's heart, it is not because Summer is a bitch; she was actually very upfront about what she did and did not want from the relationship. Whilst the majority of the film centres on Tom; his feelings, his point of view, his reaction after the break up, you still get to see enough of Summer's side of it so that you don't hate her. As in life, they both have their faults. In terms of gender roles and stereotypes this is a bit of a quirk on the general trend, and it is both refreshing and interesting to notice how 'normal' the film would be if the roles were reversed.

Another aspect setting the film apart from the rest is it's non-linear structure. I loved this. You see the excitement of Tom's first glimpses of Summer directly juxtaposed with the wreck she left him when their relationship ended. The things he loved become the things he hates. I have read that the structure is supposed to show how certain memories are triggered by small things, like a card, or a song, and how Tom constantly re-runs events with Summer to try and see where it all went wrong. The audience and Tom have to piece it all together until it makes sense, and this can only happen once Tom takes his little sister's advice - not to just look at the good memories, the bad ones are just as important.

Coupled with the non-linear structure are the film's occassional quirky effects and tangents, they all reinforce Tom's feelings and are appropriate to his character, but have been done in ways I had never really seen before. I won't give them all away, but there is a certain dance sequence following a certain event that had me literally crying with laughter! Another scene I think really captures something I imagine most of us are guilty of - having our expectations of a certain situation shattered so completely by what turns out to be the reality. Universal experiences like this are what make the film so relatable, and you just know that genuine feeling and real experiences have been poured into the script to be able to come up with it. In my opinion this is what so many films are lacking at the moment, if people made films because they really believed in them then the quality would be so much higher.

Now, I cannot write about this film any longer without mentioning the soundtrack that it has been widely commended for. Music features in the storyline itself as it is Tom and Summer's mutual liking for The Smiths that gives the first spark to their relationship, so their songs often crop up, as well as a mix of Wolfmother, Regina Spektor, Doves and Feist - to mention a few - and also, my 'song of the moment', The Temper Trap's 'Sweet Disposition', and the fact that it is in the film makes me love the film and the song even more!...But I do realise that's probably just me...

With the heavy influence of The Smiths, along with the characters' vintage indie dress sense, there is an interesting mix of old and new, giving a sense of nostalgia to a modern world. I liked this effect in 'Donnie Darko', and I suppose here it is presumably for the benefit of those who can still vaguely remember their first love, or 'the one that got away', and the clothes and music help to travel back and remember that time.

So, if you hadn't guessed it, I kinda liked this film! Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt fit the roles perfectly, there are great songs and quirks galore, and anyone can relate to it, the perfect film if you are happily in a couple, have just been dumped, or are still optimistically on the lookout for 'the one'. Just remember, it might not be who you think.

500 Days of Summer - 5/5

The Hangover

I have been very neglectful of my blog recently, and for that I must apologise. For reasons that I may write about at some point, my head has not been in a healthy writing place. However, I have still managed to take a trip to that big dark room where you sit transfixed to a big screen, ignore the people you are with, and pay stupid prices for drinks, popcorn and ice cream - the cinema! The unsociable escapist's dream, I love it!

So, as my title suggests, I went to see 'The Hangover'; a state I am unfortunately quite well acquainted with, but, after seeing the trailers on television, none of mine, so far, have included a tiger in my bathroom. I was intrigued.

I went along with my housemates, all of us girls in the 20-21 age range. I mention this because the film follows a group of twenty-something men on a wild stag weekend to Las Vegas - so the characters, setting and circumstance were not something any of us were familiar with. Women in this film, in general, are pretty much exposed as a problem - an irate fiance waiting at home, an evil, controlling girlfriend, and a rather clingy hooker. But, I'm not going to go and get all feminist - it's not my style - because, when you're on a boys' weekend, I imagine women are simply just temptation, or a pain in the...neck. And if they had been any more of a feature, it would have ruined the focus on the strained interaction between the misfitted group of men.

Those that experience this almighty hangover are as follows; Doug the bridegroom (Justin Bartha) with his best friends Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms), and his future brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifianakis) who's amazing warped one-liners steal the show.

The group vow to go have themselves a night they will never forget, only to wake the next morning to discover that they have all forgotten everything and lost Doug along the way. With time running out before the wedding, all Phil, Stu and Alan can do is retrace their steps to try and work out where they could have left him. Their trail takes them all around Vegas with babies, lost teeth, and trapped Chinese men - it is full of surprises, and manages to maintain originality from other 'sick humour' films whilst keeping the audience laughing.

I have to admit, as a huge fan of the film making machine that is Seth Rogan and his chums in the likes of '40 Year Old Virgin', 'Knocked Up' and 'Superbad' to name but a few, I was a little worried that 'The Hangover', being in the same vein, would not be able to live up to them. But now, if I hear that director Todd Phillips is making another movie - I'm watching it! I'll be keeping a lookout for Zach Galifianakis too, for that matter.

The Hangover - 4/5

Knowing (me, knowing you, ah-haaaaaaa. No, not really.)

I ventured out to the cinema last night, parted with my hard-earned, I mean, loaned cash, and settled into the semi-comfy seats with a big bag of Starburst (bought at the Co-op up the road, half the price of cinema Starburst!) I had only seen the odd television commercial for this film, 'Knowing', so gathered that it starred Nicholas Cage, who somehow had a bit of paper that predicted major disasters (funnily enough, emphasis was only put on the American disasters.) It looked quite intriguing. And it was, throughout the majority of the film I was engrossed, the tension in some parts had even me clutching on to my boyfriend's hand (luckily for him there were no nail indents, it would have had to be scarier for that!)

I won't give away what happens, but unfortunately the film's ending very quickly undid everything it had built up to and made it into, quite frankly, a bit of a joke. And what made it even worse was the fact that most of the people I was with could guess the unlikely outcome of the film before it happened...not the gasp-worthy twist I imagine the creator's were going for.

In fairness, there was a lot that was good about the film; the performance of the young Lucinda Embry; a young girl who made the piece of paper containing the dates of the future disasters was eerie, as was the moment the drunken John Koestler (Cage) reveals what the numbers mean. People's memory of the hideous events that are mentioned is enough to send a shiver down one's spine. 

The special effects are excellent; the two disasters that John witnesses - a plane crash and subway disaster - are horrific, there are hysterical screams, people running around aflame, corpses everywhere. It brings home the haunting sadness of simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If this had concluded to some way of John being able to stop the last disaster, or coming to any sort of realistic conclusion that fits with the stark realism the film had adhered until the end, I could say that it was well worth watching. But, as it is, all I can say is that is worth watching...just as long as you leave before the last twenty minutes or so...

Knowing - 3/5

Changeling

This is one of those films I never got round to seeing when it was out at the cinema; I saw the previews, Angelina Jolie screaming 'It's not my son', wearing a hat, etc etc. I thought it looked interesting, but it didn't make me go 'wow', I didn't feel the need to drag along one of my cinema buddies to come and see it with me, there was other stuff on that looked more fun. However, after watching the dvd last night, I really regret missing it - the film was superb and would have been brilliant on the big screen.

What is perhaps the most interesting and most appalling aspect to the film is that it is quite closely based on real events that occurred in 1928 Los Angeles in the 'Wineville Chicken Coop' kidnap and murder case. It follows Christine Collins (Jolie) and her fight to be heard when her son Walter is kidnapped from home, and the police return her the wrong boy. Female inequality, police corruption, and terrifying miscarriages of justice ensue; Collins is only taken seriously when a young boy comes forward to inform the police about the slaughter of several young children, one of which was Walter Collins.

I think what put me off seeing this film when it was released was Angelina Jolie being in the lead role - to this point I had only seen her in boyish, aggressive roles - like in Tomb Raider, Girl Interrupted, Mr and Mrs Smith - not terrible films, but her characters in them were never particularly 'nice'. In short, I judged the film because I had decided I didn't like her. Well, if I had a hat right now, I would have to eat it, because her performance was outstanding. Unlike the boisterous, outspoken roles said to have been close to the actress herself, here Jolie was timid, polite, likeable, with great strength within in her stemming from a mother's determination to find her son. She commanded respect. With the help of an always brilliant yet intimidating John Malkovich, and ray of hope; Michael Kelly, and of course, expert direction from the legendary Clint Eastwood, the film came to an emotionally draining, fascinating, and haunting conclusion.

I was engrossed from start to finish.

Changeling - 5/5

Paul Blart: Mall Flop

At the weekend I had the misfortune of having to not only miss the glorious sunshine and bustle of my local highstreet in favour of sitting in a dark room with my Dad and brother (we tend to argue if our quality family time is spent conversing), but that during my time in this dark room I was exposed to the sloppy cinematic disaster that is 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop'.

Kevin James, the guy who nearly stole the show from Will Smith in 'Hitch' is Paul Blart, and he is by far the only vaguely good thing about the film; his exaggerated action scenes and pretty amazing facial expressions carry it. Other than that, however, it is poorly scripted and revolves around the idea that fat people are funny, so lets make a movie where a fat guy has to run a lot. And that's being generous about it's level of sophistication. Now, I'm not being a movie snob, I like ridiculous films, they please my simple sense of humour; I'm openly a fan of 'Wayne's World', but this film just didn't hit the spot. I don't know if it is just that I'm getting cynical in my old age, but all I could think as I watched was that the only thought and feeling that had been put into this film was how to make some quick, easy money. The writers must have known it was never going to be a classic, neither the director, or Kevin James. This is probably my biggest problem with this film; if someone is going to add to modern culture - be it literature, film, theatre or art - their work should say something, do something for the society it is released into, they are all forms of art, and any film should be as painstakingly crafted as an artist's sculpture would be. But, for now, it is all about the money.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop - 1/5