In the Mood for Love- 5 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

In the Mood for Love has been the first film I have properly enjoyed for a long time. I always say that to properly appreciate a film you must a) be in the right mood for it b) give it your full concentration. Sometimes a) can be a little difficult because it is difficult to exactly pinpoint your own mood and even then you may not pick a film that precisely resembles it. But when a) and b) come together with a great film that is when you can truly enjoy cinema and maybe that is why I so enjoyed In the Mood for Love because (incoming awful pun) I was in precisely the right mood for it.

Anyway, enough of my musings as onto the actual review. What is In the Mood for Love about? Well, it's set in 1960s Hong Kong and details the relationship between Mr Chow (Tony Leung) and Mrs Chan (Maggie Cheung). As you may have guessed from their names- they are both married to different people, i.e. their relationship is an affair. But their partners are actually having an affair with each other anyway (Mrs Chow is having an affair with Mr Chan)- that makes their own affair okay right? Well that is actually the fine point the film is based on. Are Chow and Su (Mrs Chow's first name) actually having an affair in the first place and if so- is it wrong? Put very simplistically the film explores love, loneliness, passion, death and human relationships. Now that may sound pretentious but it's not really- it's simply a love story about two very lonely people but in that there is a sort of tragic quality that elevates it above the arena of good, oscar-bait film making to a level of artistic endeavor that few films achieve.

Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung as Zu and Chow

What do I not like about this film? Very little in fact. Perhaps I felt it dragged on slightly towards the end with there being multiple points at which I thought the film could have ended but didn't. That said, the director, Wong Kar-Wai (who was also the screenwriter), does manage to pull it off and make the ending feel satisfactory despite the numerous cut off points where I, as a viewer, felt that the film probably could have ended. I can't really detail fully what I mean without spoilers so I won't try, suffice to say if you watch the film you probably will know what I mean. Other than that I really have no other complaints. At first I thought the way Chow and Zu acted out how their spouses got together to have their affair was a little cliched but the tenderness of the acting (Leung and Cheung have fantastic chemistry) and the combination of the enchanting score with the beautiful cinematography won me over.

Maggie Cheung as Zu (note the
wonderful mix of colours)

In technical terms the film is a masterpiece, largely thanks to the genius of the cinematographers Wong collaborated with- firstly Christopher Doyle and then Mark Lee Ping Bin. The slow motion walks of Cheung and Leung as they leave their apartment to eat alone at the rice bar outside put to the beautifully haunting 'Yumeji's theme' is so striking that it really puts all the CGI-advanced shots of blockbuster cinema to shame. The long, lingering shots of Chan and Zu's form as they slowly walk, alone or together, gives us a feel of their loneliness. I cannot really put into words how hauntingly beautiful the cinematography of this film is. However, the cinematography is used in other interesting ways. For example, when Chow and Zu are sitting in a restaurant and Chow asks Zu where she got her handbag the camera at first cuts in between the two. When Zu then asks Chow a question we feel the palpable tension in the air as we feel she may ask him something...sexual- I don't really know how to describe it. Perhaps ask him if he has any feelings for her- again it is difficult to describe. But anyway, as she asks him this there is some quick dialogue- 'Chow?' 'Yes' 'Can I ask you a question?' 'What?' As this quick dialogue goes on the camera quickly flits back and forward between the two increasing our anticipation as an audience. However, when she simply asks him where he got his tie the camera goes back to cutting between the two (a basic A camera, B camera). What this does is again emphasise their loneliness (the cuts of the shot only showing one of them at a time) but also the desire for some kind of relationship between the two (when the camera flicks back and forwards between them without cutting showing them together) as well as the increase in tension and anticipation which I mentioned before.

Tony Leung as Chow

I would say the film's most complex theme and that which separates it from the pack is it's idea of the fleetingness of human relationships. The themes of loneliness and love have been explored in any number of films but this idea of the restraint between the couple which eventually leads to nothing really happening is the most tragic aspect of the film. I'm not sure if Zu and Chow would really be happy together- they seem drawn to each other more because of their joint loneliness and the infidelity of their spouses than shared interest- but that they do love each other and yet decide not to act upon those feelings and therefore remain lonely for the rest of their lives is the real tragedy of it. Their relationship is just a blink in their own lives yet one that they will always regret and can never come back to as shown by the subtitles that say 'the era is over.' The idea that actually this person who you have such intense deep feelings for is really just a small section of your life really struck me as something quite original in film making. Of course, it is a well done cliche to have the protagonists part never to see each other again at the ending of the film but to insinuate that they have forgotten each other and the relationship may not have worked in the first place is a more realistic but bitter approach. Of course, one could refute this claim by saying that Chow's act at the end of burying his secret in the stone of Angkor Wat shows he has not forgotten Zu. But to that I say that yes, although he still remembers her, he is trying to bury her deep down and forget about her. Therefore, my original statement still stands- she was just a brief moment in his life. This is reinforced by the fact that they could probably track each other down if they wanted- there's nothing to stop them other than this sense that they don't want to. Their loneliness has changed and their relationship cannot go back to the way it was- Zu has even had a child. It's tragic but a very real picture of life.

I realise that I really have not explained myself well in this review. That is because the film itself is so evocative in its emotion that it would take a great writer to really put these feelings into words. I sadly lack that skill but hopefully, if you have seen the film, you will know what I mean and if you haven't, you will be inspired by my enthusiasm to go and watch it anyway.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 5= 19/20 *****











http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2011/12/19/1324311117793/In-the-Mood-for-Love-007.jpg
http://heracliteanfire.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/tony.jpg
http://mmimageslarge.moviemail-online.co.uk/mood.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/In_the_Mood_for_Love_movie.jpg

The Godfather- 5 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

Though the Godfather is often cited as one of, if not the, greatest films of all time, I wasn't blown away by it like I was when I saw Apocalypse Now or 2001: A Space Odyssey but nevertheless, the Godfather is a great film.

The Godfather follows Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) as he goes from family outsider to a ruthless mafia leader known as the Godfather. His father, Vito (Marlon Brando), is the Don at the beginning of the film but when he barely survives an assassination attempt his eldest son Sonny (James Caan) takes charged advised by Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall), the family consigliere (counselor).

My only criticism of the film is that it isn't really saying anything. The only themes in it seem to be that just because you're a violent mafia boss doesn't mean you can't be a nice family man...okay so I'm being overly dismissive- it is concerned with moral judgement (if all the main characters are essentially murderers and criminals then why do we root for them?), it does have ideas about duty and honour, but these ideas are not really expanded upon. The only reason we sympathise with the mafia is because of the closed world that the film is set in. What do I mean by that? I mean that the only people we really know are in the mafia and all outsiders are shown to be bad (an example would be the corrupt police chief). I suppose when the film was first released it was really cutting edge in the fact that it showed the mafia sympathetically as no other film had really done before. But now the idea of honour and a sympathetic portrayal of the crime bosses is no longer original and instead seems a little cliched. In this way I would claim that The Godfather has aged slightly.

 Now is it really necessary for a film to have themes to be great? I would say the answer is no, but to really reach the heights of excellent film making then I would say that yes, your film has to be saying something. That is when your film becomes art. In the same way that a novel without some kind of message can be good but is not art on the level of Tolstoy or Goethe, a film without themes can be good, great even, but is not art on the level of the best films. Now the Godfather does have themes but a film for intellectuals it is not.

(Pretty much) The Full Cast of The Godfather

So having got my small complaints out of the way lets move on to just praising this film to heaven and back. Stanley Kubrick said of the cast- 'This could be the best cast in a film ever'. I am inclined to agree. The four main actors (Brando, Pacino, Caan and Duvall) are simply superb. When thinking about an actor and how good their performance is I always try and think of someone who could play the role better than them. No-one could play these roles better than the actors in this film. Although Pacino and Brando are the acting greats among this cast, Duvall and Caan form a brilliant masterclass in contrast when playing their characters. Caan plays the rash eldest son Sonny whilst Duvall plays the cautious and methodical Tom Hagen. These two actors have a lot of screen time together and we constantly feel the difference between them whilst also believing in the characters. The brilliant acting is, of course, only made possible by the screenplay which makes each of these characters completely real and believable- there are no cardboard cut outs in this film. Pacino is also on top form as Michael Corleone brilliantly showing his character arc of nice guy to the ruthless Godfather.

I am going to devote an entire paragraph to Brando's performance because, quite frankly, it deserves it. I have already mentioned the importance of the screenplay in creating real characters which then allow the actors to give such brilliant performances. Now, out of all the characters mentioned, Brando has, in my opinion, the most difficult job yet, indisputably, gives the best performance. Vito Corleone would be, in the hands of a lesser actor, the most one dimensional of the major characters. He's all powerful, he has almost no weaknesses- he's almost like a sort of mafia God. He's moral, respectable, powerful, balances his family and criminal life expertly- in short he's simply just good at everything. Now of course this is a crime boss- a man whose living is made by killing people so that already does make the character slightly more complex. But still I maintain that it is Brando who gives Vito depth and makes him real. Marlon Brando is brilliant at playing strong, powerful men who also have humanity. In On the Waterfront, he plays physically strong boxer Terry Malloy yet for all Terry's hard-man attitude we see his sadness and deeply connect with him because Brando is so good at portraying emotion just through one facial expression or word or something. In The Godfather he does the same. Vito is an all powerful man but Brando gives him an emotional depth whilst staying true to the character.

'I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse'
Marlon Brando as Don Vito Corleone

There are three scenes which I would like to specifically mention. Firstly, the scene where Vito is advising Michael of how to find a traitor in the family. He tells him a method, they then pause and discuss something else and then Vito relays the method again. It is clear Vito is losing his memory but Brando doesn't make a big deal out of it. He speaks softly and with authority but there is a kind of physical weakness about him showing that he is beginning to get old. In this way Brando stays true to the strong nature of the character whilst also letting the audience identify with his weakness. Now the other two points I wish to discuss contain spoilers so skip to the next paragraph if you haven't seen the film. SPOILER ALERT. The next scene I would like to draw your attention to is just after Sonny dies and Vito is comforting Tom. We see the sadness in Brando's face and the tears fall freely. But this is Don Vito Corleone. He still maintains his dignity, his honour. Brando stands upright and strong and comforts the sobbing Tom. Brando just exudes great strength by his mere presence. Again this is about the contrast of weakness and strength. Lastly, I want to discuss Vito's death. Vito is playing in the garden with his grandchild but pushes himself too far and falls dead. Brando plays with his grandchild so touchingly that we feel Vito's great love for his family. Yet, he also is slow and deliberate in his movements- he is still powerful we feel. Then, when he falls down dead, we have a sense of loss- that someone great has just passed on. I can only attribute this to Brando's amazing screen presence. You know when Brando is on screen and as he leaves it for the last time in this death, we feel the loss of that magnetic presence which is reflected in the film. My overall point is that anyone can play the all powerful strong Godfather, perhaps not quite as well as Brando did but good enough. But no-one could play the omnipotent but human Godfather other than Brando.

Al Pacino as Michael Corleone

Another scene I would like to focus on in more detail is the famous baptism scene. In this scene, Michael Corleone becomes Godfather to his sister's child whilst mafia members kill the rest of the crime bosses in the city on Michael's orders. So the obvious comparison here is that whilst Michael is becoming Godfather to this child, he is also becoming Godfather to all his loyal fighters. This begs the contrast of Michael belonging to a religion in which one of the most important commandments is 'Thou shalt not kill' yet he himself is a mafia leader. This scene sums up the whole thematic point of the film really- can a criminal overlord be a good, honourable person? On the basis of this film, the answer is probably yes...probably.

So in conclusion, this is a brilliant film full of superb performances, good direction and a intriguing plot. Despite it being almost three hours long you will be so gripped the time will just fly by. I've gone into a fair amount of detail and I haven't even mentioned my favourite scene in the film so you can tell how good it is just from that.

Ratings: Entertainment: 10 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 4= 19/20 *****














http://ia.mediaimdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjEyMjcyNDI4MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDA5Mzg3OA@@._V1_SX214_AL_.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01452/thegodfather_1452836i.jpg
http://screen.planetivyltd.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/al-pacino.jpg
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8n09kyHQm1qzy1su.jpg

The Hunchback of Notre Dame- 3 Stars

DVD front cover

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is one of Disney's most remarkable films in that it actually has an intelligent social criticism within it. This makes it a particularly bitter disappointment that the standard entertainment that Disney offers in this film is below par.

The film is based (very) loosely on the book 'Notre Dame de Paris' by Victor Hugo. A basic plot summary is that Quasimodo (Tom Hulce), the hunchback bell ringer of Notre Dame, falls in love with a beautiful gypsy girl called Esmeralda (Demi Moore) who sees past his ugly exterior to the gentle heart within. However, Quasimodo's mentor, Judge Claude Frollo, has also fallen for the girl and intends to use whatever sinister means he has available to him in order to make her his own or ensure no-one can 'have' her.

Esmeralda and Frollo, the villain that makes the film
worth watching

Now the film does have a lot of standard-Disney to it- the theme of not judging people by their exterior (like the 'diamond in the rough' thing from Aladdin), talking inanimate objects in the form of Quasimodo's gargoyle friends (like the Candlestick and Clock in Beauty and the Beast) and the classic musical form. However, where the film really surpasses all of the other Disney films is in its villain, Judge Claude Frollo. In the book, Frollo is actually the Archdeacon of Notre Dame (i.e. a priest). He has repressed any sexual urges in order to remain true to the celibacy of the priesthood and has instead become 'married' to learning. However, when he sees Esmeralda, all his uncontrollable passion comes out causing him to pursue her to the point of destruction. Disney executives declared this too controversial and demanded that the directors change the character from a priest to a judge. This was done but, in order to remain true to the book, the directors visually linked the character to the clergy by having him wear crucifixes and other such religious imagery. This reflects the theme of the book that the unnatural repression of men's passions and urges is a bad idea because it leads to that person's feelings spilling out uncontrollably at a later date. Has Disney ever made such a psychologically profound point before? I mean, it's not rocket science, but, when put in the context as a social criticism of the catholic church for its emphasis on repression, this is surely more cutting a theme than the standard 'don't judge a book by its cover' one which runs through every Disney film (including this one).

On top of this the film makers added another aspect to Frollo which isn't even in the book. Frollo has a real hatred of gypsies comparing them to 'vermin'. This causes him great confusion when he falls for Esmeralda, exposing his hypocrisy and the idiocy of judging someone purely by their race. In this way Frollo can be compared to Goeth from Schindler's List or Epps from 12 Years a Slave- both fall in love with someone who they consider sub-human (the Jews in Schindler's List and the slaves in 12 Years a Slave). However, I would argue that Frollo is a more complex character than either of Goeth or Epps because whilst Epps and Goeth purely fall for 'their' woman out of lust or another such thing, Frollo's desire is born out of his sexual repression due to the restrictions of the church. In this way, the film not only criticises emotional repression in religion but also racism in a similar tone to that of serious, Academy Award winning films.

Quasimodo- the Hunchback of Notre Dame

However, this darker and more complex villain sacrifices the traditional Disney fun for intelligence. This darkness also seeps through into the rest of the film resulting in a film that is still trying to retain a sense of light-heartedness and entertainment (as seen through the traditional Disney sidekicks and musical numbers) whilst people are being tortured and Frollo sets about burning people's houses down. Also, this choice of a darker villain means we don't have the traditional sassy and entertaining Disney villain like Gaston from Beauty and the Beast or Ursula from The Little Mermaid.

Separately from this, I would also say that some of the voice acting in The Hunchback of Notre Dame is worse than in other Disney films with some character's not always sounding convincing. The plot also suffers from a lack of coherent structure and good pacing resulting in an uneven film with a less compelling climax. The songs in the film are also less memorable than in its predecessors and there is very little actually funny comic relief. The result is a misshapen film- which is ironic really considering that the protagonist, Quasimodo, is named after his own mishapenness.

So, in conclusion, The Hunchback of Notre is too dark to be for kids and the intelligence of the film will mostly go straight over their heads. An intriguing but ultimately not very successful Disney musical.

Ratings: Entertainment: 5 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 5= 14/20 ***










imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjE1MDk2MzUxM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNzc1NTE5._V1_SY317_CR5,0,214,317_AL_.jpg
http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6500000/Quasimodo-the-hunchback-of-notre-dame-6584706-350-181.jpg
http://abitofsterevisited.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/frollo-esmera.jpg

The Seven Samurai- 5 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

Akira 'Asian of the Century' Kurosawa's epic film The Seven Samurai is fully deserving of its legendary status. The fact that this is considered one of the greatest films of all time yet isn't, at least in my opinion, Kurosawa's best film, tells you of the the high standards held by the master of Japanese cinema.

The Seven Samurai is about a village who, when threatened by bandits, hire samurai to defend them. You may be able to guess the number of the samurai yourself... The leader of this group is Kambei, an experienced Ronin (a samurai without a lord). He is accompanied by the young Katsushiro, the experienced archer Gorobei, his former lieutenant Shichiroji, a friendly but unskilled samurai called Heihachi and an expert sword master named Kyuzo. Accompanying them is Kikuchiyo, a former farmer turned warrior, who is unpredictable but also a valuable fighter.

The film is slow by modern definitions (it is three hours long). However, this makes it easier to separate the film into three acts. The first act involves the banding together of the samurai, the second the preparations for the defense of the village and the third the climatic battle. This basic structure has influenced innumerable films from westerns to superheroes. The recent Marvel film The Avengers Assemble shows many parallels with it- the getting together of the heroes, the squabbling in the middle and then the final battle at the end. Basically, The Seven Samurai has influenced every kind of hero-grouping film ever.

Akira Kurosawa- writer and director of The Seven Samurai

But a film's worth isn't just measured by influence. So how good actually is The Seven Samurai? The answer is brilliant. Despite the slow start I was thoroughly engaged throughout by the interaction between the characters and Kurosawa's astonishing direction. This film may be in black and white but it is beautiful with its lovely shots of feudal Japan. Kurosawa also uses camera trickery on the level of Kubrick to film scenes. By using multiple cameras he managed to capture several different perspectives of just one scene. Although this is now common practise, back in 1954 this was pretty rare.

Toshiro Mifune as Kikuchiyo

 However, what makes this film great is the way the characters interact and respond to each other. The clash between the samurai and the villagers is fascinating in its exploration of social hierarchy and what we westerners would recognise as something similar to the feudal system. We see the inexorable links with which social classes are joined. The villagers need the samurai to protect them from the bandits and the samurai need the villagers to provide them with food so they don't starve. Therefore, the film seems to ask why are the samurai more valued and higher in the class system than the farmers? The argument for this would be that anyone can be a farmer and only a select few can be great warriors. However, this argument has two flaws as exposed by the film. On the samurai side, not all of them are in fact great warriors. For example, Heihachi is brought along purely to keep morale up and his lack of any skill is often a joke amongst the samurai. Conversely, Kikuchiyo is a great warrior but was born a farmer's son. He often acts as the bridge between social classes reprimanding both of them for their ignorance of the other. This is shown on two occasions. Firstly, when the samurai arrive at the village they receive a cold welcome as the villagers are afraid that they will take their daughters. Kikuchiyo then raises the alarm, warning everyone that the bandits are coming. This is a trick but it makes the villagers realise that they need the samurai. Contrastingly, when the samurai find out that the villagers have previously killed other samurai, Kikuchiyo shouts them down for ignoring the hardships of the villagers (one of which is harassment by samurai). In this way he acts as a guide towards the fusion of the two classes into a stronger community capable of fighting off the bandits.

Takashi Shimura as Kambei

Despite this positive message however- that we all need each other and it is only when we come together that we can overcome conflict- the film finishes on a less hopeful note. After the bandits have been beaten off, the remaining samurai stand by the graves of their comrades. The villagers begin to shun them again. This is seen when the girl that the young samurai, Katsushiro, has been courting, blanks him and he is left alone, bewildered. In the end, the age of the samurai went and pretty much all of Kurosawa's films have some kind of concern with that theme. In this film, it is that after the bandits are defeated there is no longer any need for the samurai yet the samurai still need the peasants to provide them with food. The system is inherently flawed. Kambei recognises this, reflecting that it is in fact the farmers who are the true victors.

The acting in this film is very good, most notably Takashi Shimura as Kambei (he was a Kurosawa regular, starring in 21 of his 30 films) and Toshiro Mifune as Kikuchiyo (another Kurosawa regular and one of the greatest Japanese actors ever). The contrast with which the actors play these two main characters is one of the brilliant aspects of the film of the film- the ever passionate Kikuchiyo against the passive, stoic Kambei.

So in conclusion, this film is perhaps the most influential action film of all time. It is a must for any people interested in either film or Japanese culture. Action fans may also enjoy although, as I have warned, it is very long (and possibly slow).

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 5= 19/20 *****










http://jdmcpherson.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/shimada-for-upload.jpg
http://www.albany.edu/writers-inst/graphics/7samurai2.jpg
http://www.shibuiswords.com/sevensamurai_files/09.jpg
http://www.film4.com/media/images/Channel4/Film4/_five%20minute%20guide%20and%20interview%20portraits/akira-kurosawa-main-image.jpg

Frozen- 4 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

There are various different verdicts on Frozen. Some people think it is 'the bestest film ever' (mostly 6 year old girls), some people think it's good but by no means brilliant and others think it is the most overrated film of 2013.This post is going to be a little different than the others as instead of doing a straightforward review I will instead analyse how a fairly good but by no means outstanding film has managed to become the highest grossing animated film ever and the fifth highest grossing film of all time. I will compare it to other Disney films in attempt to explore why Frozen has proved so much more popular than other similar Disney films such as Tangled or Beauty and the Beast.

For those few of you who haven't seen Frozen the basic plot is that the princess/queen of Arendelle, Elsa (Idina Menzel), has magic ice powers which she can't control which results in her accidentally causing an eternal winter on the kingdom. Her sister Anna (Kristen Bell) then sets out to go and find her joined by a nutcase mountain man, Kristoff (Jonathon Groff) who talks to his reindeer Sven and a talking snowman called Olaf (Josh Gad).

First of all- what makes a film successful? Well the main factors are plot, character and whether it looks good or not. To back this up I invite you to take a look at the list of highest grossing films of all time- 1st is Avatar, 2nd Titanic, 3rd the Avengers and 4th the final Harry Potter. What are the major reasons for the success of these films? Well let's go through the list again-
 1) Avatar- people got caught up in the wonderful looking world and all the amazing images, they wanted to revisit the world of Pandora time after time- special effects
 2) Titanic- the love story was the major reason for success here, with millions (not sure if that's an exaggeration or not) of teenage girls going to see the tragic young lovers again, and again...and again- characters
 3) The Avengers- characters. That's got to be obvious right? People went to go and see their favourite comic book heroes form an epic team. The plot was nothing special and neither were the effects but people went to see it because of the characters and the interaction between them- characters
 4) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2- as the climax and resolution of the Harry Potter franchise I would argue that it was the plot that brought people to see this film as they wanted to know the ending to the saga. There is an argument for characters but then why did the other films in the series make less money despite having the same characters- especially as the final film was more action than character orientated as compared to, say, the Half Blood Prince- plot

Elsa performing Let it Go- the award winning music
 is another reason for the film's success

Frozen was made on a budget of $150 million budget by a major, specialist-animation studio so of course it is going to pass the technical aspect with flying colours and truly, it does look amazing (just look at the snow). But as so many films now look amazing there must be something else in Frozen other than its look that makes it so popular. A film must have truly special special effects to make it successful based solely upon that (*cough* Avatar and Gravity *cough*) In fact the secret to making a successful film is by getting people to want to see it over and over again. You hear stories about people who fell so in love with the world in Avatar that they went to see about 100 different times. A survey of several different viewings of Frozen found that over 50% of viewers had already seen Frozen once and that about a third had already seen it twice. So what is it about Frozen that makes people want to see it over and over again? To my mind there are two reasons- the characters and the story.

 In my opinion it is the characters that have made Frozen as successful as it is. The winning combination that they have found is actually a fairly standard Disney formula with a slight twist. Let's break it down into individual characters shall we:

Anna- quirky, pretty standard female hero. Feels trapped in the palace and wants to escape/'open up the gates'. There is nothing very original about her and she can be compared to several other classic Disney movie feminine heroes- Belle from Beauty and the Beast (wants to escape her boring provincial life), Jasmine from Aladdin (wants to escape her palace) and Ariel from the Little Mermaid (wants to leave the sea to explore the land/find her handsome prince) to name a few famous ones. However, despite her lack of originality she is likable and appeals to a wide audience from little girls to parents watching with their kids.

Elsa- Elsa is the more intriguing character here and certainly the most original. Whilst Anna, Kristoff and Olaf have all been done before Elsa is the first majorly conflicted and possibly depressed Disney princess. She appeals not only to a teenage audience who can relate to her struggle of being misunderstood but also to adults who may enjoy the increased complexity of the character. Oh and to little kids because of her cool ice powers (get the joke? 'cool ice powers' yeah okay I won't become a comedian any time soon).

Kristoff- typical male hunk. Relationship with Anna is almost a cut and paste job of Rapunzel and Flynn from Tangled. Does anyone like really love this character? I don't think so... Basically he isn't the reason this film was so loved.

'I'm Olaf and I like warm hugs'
- Olaf the talking Snowman

Olaf- Okay I have a bit of a confession to make- I like Olaf and I find him funny. Right now I've got that out of the way I can say how completely unoriginal he is and how his presence is basically there to sell cuddly Olaf toys (apparently they're very good for warm hugs). That said, in Josh Gad Disney have found a star. Without his voice acting I think Olaf would be unbearably annoying and that seriously could have tipped the film into the category of bad and irritating quite quickly. Seriously, Olaf was a big risk because if he had become annoying rather than cute the whole film could have been ruined (a little like Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars). So Olaf's cuteness is certainly a major factor in this film and, although the talking sidekick has been done before, Olaf is funny and puts a nice spin on it.

Prince Hans- Okay so to write about this character I'm going to have to spoil the ending so if you're one of the few people left on the planet who haven't seen Frozen and may possibly want to, skip to the next paragraph. SPOILER ALERT. So Hans turns out to be the movie's bad guy. I love this twist because it really satirises the whole 'love at first sight' crap which Disney have been churning out since the dawn of time. But is it a popular decision? I think it is for two reasons. Firstly, the shock of the twist makes the audience go 'dayum, I did not see that coming' That reaction should usually draw the audience more into the film- unpredictability is a good thing. Secondly, I think most people would agree with me about the love at first sight thing. When I first watched I was like 'no that's so stupid' when they both agreed to get married after like a day. The fact that Anna develops a convincing relationship with Kristoff is ultimately a more realistic and satisfying than a love at first sight thing. People can relate to it more. I don't know- maybe I'm just being an old cynic but I liked the way they rubbished the whole 'love at first sight' thing.

Elsa and Anna- is sisterhood the key
to this film's success?

So I've gone through the characters one by one but I still haven't touched what I believe is the biggest factor in the film's success. Pretty much every Disney film ever has two core relationships within the film, one major and one minor. Usually the major one is a romance between the lead and a love interest. The other is usually a friend or family member. A good example of this is Aladdin. The main relationship is the one between Aladdin and Jasmine and the minor one Aladdin and the Genie. Other examples include Beauty and the Beast (Belle/Beast, Belle/her father), The Little Mermaid (Ariel/Prince Eric, Ariel/her father) and The Hunchback of Notre Damme (Esmerelda/Quasimodo, Esmerelda/Phoebus). Tangled already broke this pattern slightly by having the minor relationship, that of Rapunzel and her mother, a negative one (Rapunzel's 'mother' is actually the film's antagonist). In Frozen the formula is switched round. Instead of the romantic interest being the major relationship in the film it becomes the relationship between the two sisters. Not only does this break the usual Disney formula but it also is quite unique in that there are very few major sibling relationships in Disney films. This sibling relationship is also appealing to a whole range of people, from angsty teens to excited toddlers. I would say, therefore, that the way the relationships are presented, as well as the characters, are a major factor in the film's success.

Moving onto the plot- I feel this part of the film is probably its weakest. It feels a little contrived, especially the conclusion. I cringed unbearably at the end when Elsa says 'Love thaws, of course love!'. Really? Now when I pointed this out to my mum, her response was 'Well it's a Disney movie- of course it's going to be cheesey'. Well to that dear mother I have 2 responses (as always): firstly, as we've already seen throughout the film, the Disney formula has been twisted and manipulated in so many different ways that saying it's a Disney film is a fairly void expression now. Secondly, there are actually Disney films out there which don't have cringe inducing endings, like Tangled or Beauty and the Beast (on that note can I just point out the fantastic screen writing in Tangled: in the scene where she is reunited with her parents there is no dialogue. That is brilliant. We don't need her parents to say 'I've missed you' or whatever to understand that they've missed her. It treats the audience with respect and doesn't come out with any cringe inducing dialogue. Well done Tangled).

Why was Frozen more successful than Tangled?

Anyway back to Frozen (sorry I got sidetracked). My other problem with the ending of the film is that it's so predictable. Like everyone could guess Anna was going to save Elsa and that would be the act of true love. This makes for unsatisfying viewing, or does for me anyway. Disney has a mixed track record with this. On the one hand, at the end of Beauty and the Beast, it's so completely predictable that Beast will survive (spoilers soz). But in Aladdin, who could predict the way that Jafar would be defeated until it was happening? So with that in mind I think that nulls the 'but it's a Disney thing to be predictable' argument because as we can see that is not always the case. Besides, this movie has already shown that it wants to be a little outside the box with its antagonist (don't want to spoil anything but those who have watched it will know what I mean).

So, in conclusion, it is the relatable nature of the characters, combined with the shift in focus from romance to sisterhood that has made Frozen so successful. Oh yeah and a certain cute snowman might have something to do with it as well...

I will rate the film despite not really analysing how good it is in a critical sense-

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 3= 17/20 ****

Note: I have given it intelligence 3 relative to a Disney film. I just think that it does reuse some similar themes from other Disney films (feeling trapped, love etc) it does put its own spin on them and Elsa's character is one of the most unique and complex characters Disney has created in a long time.







http://www.hdwallpapers.in/walls/tangled_movie-wide.jpg
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140307132052/disney/images/a/ac/Disney-Frozen-Elsa-Let-it-Go.jpg
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/a9/60/28/a96028505647be9e88bbcd9358e1d222.jpg
http://www.comingsoon.net/nextraimages/frozen-poster-small.jpg
http://www.drawingforkids.org/images/159853-frozen-frozen-elsa-and-anna-poster.jpg

2001: A Space Odyssey- 5 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

2001: A Space Odyssey is a film like no other. It has no readily discernible plot, the characters keep changing and it deals with a period of time stretching from the dawn of man to a futuristic sci-fi world. However, it not only succeeds in its aim to transcend normal film making but does in the process become one of the greatest films of all time. For 2001: A Space Odyssey is not a story but more of a visual journey centered on humanity and our progression from apes to humans capable of going into space to 'Ubermensch' as the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche put it in his book 'Thus Spoke Zarathrustra' (interestingly, the famous theme from the film is a piece of music named after Nietzsche's book- this is not a coincidence)

On the most basic narrative level 2001: A Space Odyssey can be broke down into 3 acts. The first is the Dawn of Man and details the early humans 'discovering' tools. The second contains the 'present' day humans discovery of a strange monolith and subsequent mission to Jupiter to try and unearth more about this mysterious object. The final act, and perhaps the strangest, shows the final stage of human evolution and the birthing of a 'starchild'.

The Godlike Starchild hovering above earth

However, even this apparently narrative structure portrays the theme of human evolution from ape to human to Ubermensch or Starchild. So what is director and co writer Stanley Kubrick actually trying to say here about evolution or is he just being completely pretentious? Well the linking theme between these acts is always the mysterious monolith. It appears at the beginning of the film during the dawn of man and appears to trigger the apes usage of tools. Then, in the second act it appears twice- firstly on the moon and secondly orbiting Jupiter. The second time it appears it opens a sort of portal to another world to which astronaut David Bowman is transported. The final time it appears is beside the death bed of Bowman as he dies and is replaced by a superior being. Each time the monolith is present a significant change happens in the course of human evolution. I would go further than this and say that in fact it is the cause of human evolution. In this way the monolith represents God, in Kubrick's own words, 'in his (God's) most purely scientific form'. i.e. God is but the agent for human development and evolution. When we take into consideration the Nietzsche-an philosophy that runs through the film this idea becomes even more interesting. Obviously Nietzsche's philosophy all revolves around the lack of existence of a God. Therefore what the monolith represents instead is mankind's idea of God. God is no longer his own existential being- he becomes an idea in the human mind, a way of explaining change. This idea is continued at the ending of the film when the Starchild is shown looking down on earth. It's superiority and air of transcendence mirrors that of God. I believe the message here is that God exists in the human mind and he is the next stage of our evolution. It is a scientific view of him drawing upon philosophical ideas from both Nietzsche and Feuerbach.

Hal 9000- man or machine?

Human evolution is also explored through the computer called Hal 9000. Hal is an AI unit that has reached the capacity of emotion that makes him seem human. The question now is to whether he is actually a real being or not- a question to which Dr Bowman responds that he 'doesn't know'. Hal certainly behaves like a human, more so in fact than the actual humans on the ship. He makes a mistake, is paranoid and is scared. The scene at the end where Hal begs Bowman not to unplug him and sings him the song 'Daisy' is the saddest and most emotional moment in the whole film. The juxtaposition of the humour of the monotone voice saying 'take a stress pill' with the genuine emotion in the lines 'Dave I'm scared' and 'I'm afraid. Stop Dave.' makes the scene even sadder. In the end though, Hal's existence is necessary for the next stage of human evolution to happen. The humans are completely apathetic throughout the film e.g. Bowman viewing a birthday message from his family with no discernable emotion. It is only when the results of Hal's mistake (the mistake caused by Hal's own worry about the mission) that the humans actually take any action and fight for their survival. This fight, or survival of the fittest, results in the appearance of the monolith allowing human evolution to be taken to the next stage. Hal also represents the theme discussed in the previous paragraph of mankind becoming a Godlike being- just as God create humans, the humans have created their own sentient being.

The Dawn of Man: one of the most famous scenes in movie history

Technically speaking, this film is utterly majestic. It's a Kubrick so of course there are countless numbers of clever shots (with the aging scene being the most obvious of them) but the simple breathtaking space visuals are spectacularly beautiful, especially when combined with the classical music which compromises the score. The satellites almost do a dance to the music, spinning and turning in time. It truly is absolutely stunning. The performances are also all solid although there it must have been difficult for the actors because the film rarely focuses on any one character for a sustained period of time with the exception of Bowman. The fact that this film looks better than the original Star Wars yet was made a little less than a decade before shows how little this film has aged. Seriously, these are some great effects. Better than most of the CGI crap nowadays at least...

Well I think it's fair to say I loved this film. It is now tying with Apocalypse Now for my best film but I am going to watch it again because it certainly seems like the kind of film that needs to be watched more than once. I would recommend this film to any sci-fi or film lovers because of the spectacular space visuals, influence on pretty much every subsequent sci-fi film ever and just the fact that it is so influential a film. Also anyone philosophically inclined or who likes a film that makes them think hard will enjoy this film. Do not expect a light hearted space adventure or anything like that though.

Ratings: Entertainment: 10 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 5= 20/20 *****

Note: this film is not perhaps what most people would class as entertainment. However, it does have a certain gripping quality to it and I certainly found it difficult to look away hence the 10.









http://www.amovieaweek.com/images/starchild.jpg
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef0128757dcd4d970c-pi
imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNDYyMDgxNDQ5Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjc1ODg3OA@@._V1_SY500_SX375_AL_.jpg
http://www.shardcore.org/shardpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/the-dawn-of-man.jpg

Criminal Minds Seasons 1 and 2- 3 Stars

I was recommended Criminal Minds by a friend and intrigued by the premise I decided that I would watch it. Criminal Minds is a crime show focusing on the psychology of the criminal, using this profile to catch them. It is an episodic series with each episode focusing on each case.

The Main Cast of Seasons 1 and 2

Well this series is far from perfect. Let's start with the basic lack of any kind of character development throughout the first two seasons. So we are introduced to the simplistic, stereotypical characters in the first epsiode and by the end of the second season, after 40 hours or 2400 minutes of watching, the characters have barely changed or developed. Reid (MGG or Mathew Gray Gubler for those of you who are unacquainted with this screenlegend) is still a stereotypical asocial genius, Gideon (Mandy Patinkin aka, the guy who was much better in Homeland) still a weary but wise middle aged man and Garcia (Kirsten Vansgness, an actress so obscure she wasn't even on the opening titles) is still unbearably annoying. Nothing changes. Each episode might contain its own character arc (e.g. the one where Reid fails to pass his weapons test and then shoots the bad guy at the end) but these character arcs rarely impact the rest of the season. This leads to frustration because if the characters aren't really affected by the events of an episode then it makes that episodes happenings feel irrelevant.

The other problem with characters is the stereotypical characterisation. Every single one of the characters in seasons one and two, bar Hotch, Elle, and JJ, are stereotypes. Morgan is the stereotypical black cop, Garcia the stereotypical computer whizz, Reid the stereotypical asocial genius...do I really need to go on? I'll set it out in a list to make it clear:

Gideon: middle aged man, obligatory murky past, misses his wife and kids (who we never see and are only mentioned every fifth episode), some stupid reason he quit the FBI in the first episode which isn't really followed up convincingly- conclusion: basic characterisation, middle aged man stereotype, fail

Hotch: authoritative but cares for his wife and kid, careerist but still works well in a team, best character in the series- conclusion: good realistic character, pass

Elle: action woman-ish, outwardly confident but inwardly more nervous about her position as a woman in the FBI, completely stupid (she reads a secret FBI file on a public train in full view, I mean seriously)- conclusion: realistic, well done character, pass

Morgan: womanising, shouty, confident and rather incompetent black stereotype. To be fair to the writers be does move away from this stereotype a little but that is with no explanation or development it just happens to stop him being stereotypical- conclusion: gets better but still stereotypical, fail

Reid: boy genius but socially awkward, knows everything but is about as physically capable as someone in a coma, yes he is completely stereotypical. Tried to be made slightly more complex with the introduction of his mother but didn't really make up for the fact that his entire character is one overused stereotype- conclusion: no, just no, fail (that said MGG plays him fairly well and is basically the reason this show has such a larger following of teenage girls)

JJ: okay does she actually have a character? I mean she's hot and everything but what is her character? So Gideon is wise, Morgan confident and Reid super intelligent but what is JJ's character? Organised I guess...when the only description of a character you can come up with is organised then you know that character is basic. I also question what her purpose is in the team. So she holds press meetings but then is sometimes sent to crime scenes to investigate stuff and helps them solve cases despite showing no talent for profiling in most episodes- conclusion: she just doesn't have a character, fail

Garcia: annoying, stereotypical computer geek who makes not very funny wise cracks, I dislike this character so much I can't even bring up the energy to write more about her- conclusion: fail

Emily: haven't really seen enough of her to judge so she escapes the axe for now

A J Cook as JJ, does she actually have a character?

There have been occasions where the characters have felt more real and we feel invested in them- most notably in the last episodes of each season. However, these are one offs and don't reflect the seasons as a whole. Now a lot of people tell me that the characters improve as you go through the seasons. In response, I would compare Criminal Minds with House. Both are similar shows- episodic with a different mystery each episode to be solved by a team (obviously House is a medical drama and Criminal Minds is a crime drama but the way both shows are handled plot wise they are very similar). However, House is a superior show because it gives more time to its characters. The first season gives us some time to get to know the characters and then starts some subplots involving these characters. Basically what a TV show needs to have to be successful is good characters and plots revolving around those characters or we might as well just have a different set of characters each episode. I mean seriously if you had a different team for each episode of Criminal Minds seasons 1 and 2 it would not make much difference. In House however, as many of the subplots revolve around these characters and their varying personalities replacing them would render those episodes nonsensical. What Criminal Minds needs is an extra 10 or 20 minutes at the end of each episode so there can be more room for character subplots. I can't emphasise this enough- it is not the repetition of the mysteries that make a series successful but the characters. Criminal Minds, without this, basically becomes a far inferior version of Silence of the Lambs.

MGG as Spencer Reid-

Is there anything I do like about Criminal Minds? Yes there is actually quite a bit. I really enjoy the cases each episodes and although some episodes are naturally better than other most are exciting and tense if occasionally predictable. On a purely episode basis each character gets a good spread amount of episodes- i.e. episodes focused on that character (for example the season 2 finale when Gideon's girlfriend is murdered, oops spoilers sorry). The acting is also good especially as they have to put up with such blank characters, although perhaps that actually makes it easier. The writing is also fairly good on a line to line basis with relatively little cringe inducing dialouge which could easily be inserted. The series also tries to tackle some issues of why criminals commit crimes and the nature police work, although these are fairly low key and not in most episodes.

As I have said I think this is a series with potential and maybe it will get better (as promised). I do feel however, that by the end of season 2 there should have been more character development. This could be a series worth watching if you are into crime dramas or are into psychology.

Ratings: Entertainment: 8 Technical: 3 Intelligence: 3= 14/20 ***







http://www.femail.com.au/image.php?imagename=criminal_minds.jpg&imagetype=b
http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/files/2012/01/aj-cook-criminal-minds.jpg
http://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/upload/yuiupload/1511956292.jpg

Pan's Labyrinth- 5 Stars

Wow. This is the first film to really have blown me away with how good it is since Apocalypse Now. Pan's Labyrinth is such an intricate and fascinatingly beautiful tale but it also one that is tense, horrific and deeply sad. The film is a blend of a fairy-tale like fantasy with a faun, fairies and various monsters but it is also a realistic and dark portrayal of fascism in Spain. The film explores the themes of imagination, control and death.

Theatrical Release Poster

The year is 1944. The Spanish Civil war has ended but small guerrilla groups are still resisting Franco's new regime (sounds like the opening of Star Wars). The film begins with a girl, Ofelia (Ivana Baquero), travelling with her pregnant mother, Carmen (Ariadna Gil), to live with her mother's new husband, Captain Vidal (Sergei Lopez), who is the father of Carmen's unborn son and has been tasked with destroying leftist fighters hiding in the nearby mountains and woodland. In Ofelia's fairy-tale book there is the story of princess Moanna who came from another realm to the mortal world and died. However, it is predicted that her soul will return in another body. In the farm which Captain Vidal has made his headquarters there is a labyrinth into which Ofelia goes and meets a faun who tells her she has the soul of princess Moanna and must complete 3 tasks to return to her fathers realm.

So what did I not like about this film? Very little. In fact I can only think of one criticism which is that there are numerous small plot holes or parts in the film that didn't quite make sense. For example, when Mercedes, the house keeper who is spying for the guerrillas, manages to make a deep cut through Vidal's mouth with her knife why did she not kill him? Especially as she could have got away more easily because Vidal's body wouldn't have been discovered for some time giving her a chance to escape rather than him telling the guards to get after her immediately. However, these points are always small and don't ruin it too badly although they can occasionally take you out of the film which can ruin the enjoyment somewhat.

The Faun- a blend of makeup and CGI

This film is technically great with all the monsters and fantastical creatures of Guillermo del Toro (the director and writer of Pan's Labyrinth) imagination brought to life by a combination of makeup, animatronics and CGI. Pan's Labyrinth is also beautifully shot too. What is most noticeable about the cinematography in this film is how it defines the space whether it be the small cramped tunnels of the tree, the high arched room of the fantastical realm's golden throne room or the matching dinner table shots of the Pale Man and Captain Vidal. The acting in this film is also of a very high standard with Ivana Baquero giving a brilliant performance as the young Ofelia. Sergei Lopez is also superb as the cold and psychopathic Vidal. Much of the tension in the film derives from the knowledge that Vidal makes every situation unpredictable. The casualness with which he kills people perfectly encapsulates the captain's character. However, what could just be made into a cliched 'bad guy' becomes much more. He is a convincing real psycho, obsessed with his own death. This is a film about fairy-tale and Vidal is the villain of it. If Ofelia is Red Riding Hood, then Vidal is the Big Bad Wolf.

But what is Pan's Labyrinth actually about? Well it is about the struggle of power between fascism and imagination. Vidal represents fascism (as he would being a staunch supporter of Falangism). It is his struggle to be in control and have everything in order that juxtaposes the imagination of Ofelia. This is shown in the very first scene in which we see Vidal. Vidal is standing upright, in his immaculate uniform awaiting the arrival of Carmen and Ofelia. He looks at his watch and tuts saying '15 minutes late'. By this we see that Vidal is orderly and wants everything in the way it should be. When Ofelia gets out of the car she holds her left hand for the captain to shake. He grabs it and says 'It's the right hand. You use the right hand'. We see here Vidal's obsession with order and his frustration when the correct protocol isn't followed. In contrast we see Ofelia clinging onto her fairy-tale books. This symbolises her hope and imaginative freedom against the oppression and control of Vidal.

Sergei Lopez and Ivana Baquero as Vidal and Ofelia

The film is also about death. The ideas of death in Pan's Labyrinth are closely associated with time. Vidal is constantly checking his watch throughout the film.When Vidal is hosting a dinner party we hear a story about Vidal's father who died and broke his watch. Later in the film, when Vidal is shaving, he draws his blade across his throat. What this all means is that Vidal is waiting to die. He is obsessed with time because he knows that at some point he will die and he is just counting down the seconds until it happens. When fighting the rebels he bravely charges up the hill towards them telling his men 'This is the only decent way to die'. Then at the end, he says the only thing he wishes his son to be told about him is 'The time at which I died'. This shows that all Vidal can think about and all that is important to him is death. This is wound up with the idea of the Pale Man who kills innocents. The Pale Man sits at the head of a rich table (one directly mirroring the table at which Vidal sat). It could be linked that the Pale Man kills without caring just as Vidal kills others without caring for the same reason- that everyone has a time to die.

The Pale Man

Pan's Labyrinth is also making a point about imagination and fairy tales. In the film the tasks respond to Ofelia's fears and own personal life. The toad poisoning the tree is a metaphor for Vidal poisoning her mother for his own gains, namely a son. This is shown through the representation of the crack in the tree as a vagina. We therefore see that the task that Ofelia must complete by overcoming the frog is her own fantasy version of overcoming the fearful Vidal and saving her mother. Similarly, in the scene with the Pale Man, Ofelia is again showing her fear of Vidal. However, her eating of the grapes from his table also shows how she is under his protection- she eats his food and sleeps in his house. What Del Toro is trying to say is that fairy-tales and stories are shaped to our own needs and desires- imagination is our way of creating our own world where we are the heroes and overcome our fears. In this way Ofelia has far more hope than Vidal. Vidal is simply restricted to this life, waiting for his death, with the only way he will survive being through the continuation of his name (hence his obsession with having a son). Ofelia on the other hand, will live forever in the land of her imagination, much like her story about the rose with no-one daring to touch it. The men scared of picking the rose and therefore failing to gain immortality represent Vidal and his fear of anything that is outside of the norm. However, for the imaginative, those who do not 'obey orders for orders own sake' as the doctor puts it, may find eternal happiness in their own imagination. In that way the film, despite its destruction and bleakness, is very uplifting.

I would also like to add that the Pale Man is one the most imaginative and scary creations I have ever seen. He is vile and the scene with him is just perfect. Fantastic film making right there.

I again haven't managed to explore everything that could be said about this film, purely because it is so rich with content. I really loved Pan's Labyrinth. The strange mix of fantasy and harsh reality may put some people off but this is a tense, moving, intelligent but, most of all, beautiful film which is a must watch.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 5= 19/20 *****









http://movierehab.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Pans-Labyrinth-Giveaway-2.jpg
http://randomfilmmusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/panshands.jpg
http://turmsegler.net/img/pans-labyrinth-8.jpg
http://vigilantcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/pans-labyrinth-3.jpg

Being John Malkovich- 4 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

Being John Malkovich is the most surreal film I have ever watched. It is about a down on his luck puppeteer Craig Schwartz (John Cusack) who finds a portal into the mind of John Malkovich. And if that wasn't surreal enough, John Malkovich (John Malkovich) finds out about this and turns up to stop it- hence you get John Malkovich in a film about John Malkovich.

 The film is very entertaining and funny although perhaps it is a special taste. The film's humour is a certain kind of wacky, specialist humour, for example the boss who thinks he has a speech impediment because his secretary is deaf. The main premise of the film, the idea that there is a portal into John Malkovich's brain, is also so bizarre that it is funny. The fact that nothing can be predicted also makes the various abstract twist and turns all the more entertaining. The joke does wear a bit thin in the middle but it picks up again towards the end to create a thoroughly entertaining film.

The film can be isolating however. Its completely strange premise and absurdist humour can easily alienate the viewer. Therefore, whether you enjoy this film is very much up to personal taste. However, I would hope that even if the film is not found enjoyable it is appreciated for its originality and intelligence. The film is of course far from perfect. Apart from the aforementioned drag in the middle it also suffers from fairly basic characterisation with the stereotypical down on his luck Schwartz and his weak wife. However, credit to Kaufman that he develops these characters well and by the end they become more complex. It may be Cameron Diaz's below par performance that makes Lottie (Craig's wife) character seem more simple. That said, Catherine Keener's brilliant performance as Maxine is only aided by her characters fascinating complexity. Her character is both sleazy and likeable at the same time.

John Malkovich as John Malkovich

So what is the film actually about? Well the major theme is identity. Schwartz is a puppeteer, a craft he enjoys because it makes him feel like someone else. Schwartz hates his life and he escapes it by pretending to be others. His wife also finds relief from her unhappy marriage by being someone else (although this time it's Malkovich). Inside this theme of identity is a closely connected desire for control. Craig likes controlling puppets and other people (especially Lottie) because he himself is and has not been empowered his entire life. This goes for Lottie as well. In contrast, Maxine lives her own life to the full and never feels any desire to be someone else. By the end of the film, it is apparent that Kaufman believes that a compromise between these two sorts is the best way forward with Maxine becoming less self absorbed and Lottie becoming more confident in herself. Craig, on the other hand, does not overcome his self-loathing and becomes obsessed with the charismatic Maxine who represents everything he wishes he had. This sets up the rather creepy ending which shall not be spoiled.

So in conclusion, Being John Malkovich is a very wacky and funny film with intelligence. It might not be your particular cup of tea but if you feel in the mood for an unusual comedy with added brains then this film will suit your needs.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 4= 17/20 ****





http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Being_John_Malkovich_poster.jpg
http://img2-3.timeinc.net/ew/i/2012/05/09/being-john-malkovich_320.jpg

American Beauty- 5 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

My first reaction after watching American Beauty was 'Wow, that might just be my one of my favourite films ever'. And indeed, it is a very good film. However, upon reflection I have realised that perhaps the film wasn't as great as I thought.

American Beauty focuses on Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) who hates his job, his wife, Carolyn (Annette Bening), and his life in general. He is going through a midlife crisis. However, he finds his younger, more passionate self when he sees his 16 year old daughter's, Jane (Thora Birch), friend, Angela Hayes (Mena Suvari). He begins to obsess over Angela sparking him to start living life more. Sound creepy? Yes it is meant to be. But such is the performance from Kevin Spacey that despite Lester actually being pretty horrible and weird throughout the film, we are still rooting for him and sympathise with him.

A sweet romance or cliched? Ricky and Jane

So what are the films flaws? Well the first is the various stereotypical characters. Living next door to the Burnhams is a retired soldier and his family. The retired soldier is a very strict dad who beats his son. The whole lighting of the house is set up to show that the family has a troubled relationship caused by the fathers brutishness. It is all very cliched. The relationship between the son of this family, Ricky (Wes Bentley), and Jane is also rather fake, forced and a little bit cliched. It does feel real and is well done in places, but the sanctity of it (it is the relationship the writer obviously thinks is the best and idealises) just makes it feel a bit stupid and out of place in this otherwise rather cutting and satirical film. I suppose it's there as a glimpse of hope but it could have been less in-your-face and still have kept that positive edge to it. Another problem with the film is the rather over the top Carolyn. She does feel real and has a purpose thematically but really she could have been toned down a bit. She is obviously meant to be sympathetic- she is neither a 'good' nor 'bad' person (as people are in real life)- but she just gets so annoying that it is quite difficult to feel for her. The idea of good and bad is another point that I dislike about the relationship between Ricky and Jane. Whilst everyone in the film, from the strict retired soldier, to the strange Lester, to the arrogant Angela, have some bad features but also redeeming ones, the relationship between Jane and Ricky is just good. It feels like a bit of a cop out from the writer to create a story so rich with real characters to then just insert some plain good guys. I personally find that off-putting.

Kevin Spacey as Lester Burnham

Now onto the raving. I really do love this film. The cast are all very good and Sam Mendes is a superb director. Kevin Spacey must be singled out for special praise however, because he is simply amazing at showing the complex character arc of Lester. Lester goes from being a boring middle class man, to a more rebellious young adult (not physically but mentally of course) and then, at the end, becomes a man again. However, this time he is both invigorated and responsible (as opposed to the mature but weak man at the beginning and the sensual but irresponsible man in the middle). Mena Suvari also deserves praise for making her character seem seductive and desirable most of the way through the film, whilst giving Angela the childlike qualities which make the ending of the film so good. Annette Bening also gives a good performance- she is very annoying as Carolyn which I am sure (or at least hope) is the intention. Thora Birch is also good as Jane showing the growth of Jane's confidence from a child with low self esteem to a more mature young woman.

Kevin Spacey and Mena Suvari as Lester and Angela

Thematically American beauty is about the dullness of suburban life, ideas of beauty and about life in general really. Lester is at first shown to be trapped by his life, unable to really live. This is shown expertly by Mendes who puts Lester in several enclosed spaces such as the shower. This shows Lester's imprisonment. There is also a wonderful showing of Lester's computer where the lines of text seem to form bars over the reflection of Lester's face again showing that Lester is trapped in his dull, middle class life. Lester then decides to try and go back to a simpler time when he was young and all he cared about was parties and drink. This is shown through the music choices- Lester starts playing hard rock songs- and his decision to take a job at a fast food joint in the position with 'the least amount of responsibility'. He becomes an irresponsible young man again as shown through his obsessing over Angela. Now my favourite part of the film is the end and I will have to talk about that now so spoilers until the end of the paragraph. SPOILER ALERT. At the end of the film Lester and Angela are in the Burnham's house alone.We have heard Angela previously boasting about all her sexual conquests to Jane and how much she'd like to have sex with Lester. However, when it comes to it she reveals to Lester that she is a virgin. This, coupled with her fragile body and small breasts being exposed make Lester realise that she is in fact a child. Instead they take on more of a father-daughter relationship- the kind that Lester perhaps wishes he had with his daughter Jane. It is just such a beautiful moment in the film- we see Angela's weakness and Lester's fatherly strength. It is uplifting and moving, truly great film-making.

Who is the beauty in American Beauty?

The film also ask the question what is beauty? Is beauty the physical desire for Angela that Lester feels? Is it Carolyn's beautiful roses? Or is it, as Ricky would claim, the simple plastic bag floating in the wind, or the dead bird? Ricky's idea of beauty is that there is some kind of goodness in everything- especially in the freedom and carelessness of the floating plastic bag. In a way the plastic bag represents everything Lester is not at the beginning of the film- free and without a care in the world. Instead every other character is caught up with their own appearance- their own beauty. Carolyn and Lester have to pretend that their marriage is a loving one for appearances sake because that is what is expected by society. Even the gay couple next door, the people who are separated from the social norm by their sexuality, strive to be 'normal' i.e. to fit into the social bounds. In the end Lester realises not only stupidness of this but that actually one can be a good father and man and still not obey the arbitrary social expectations (this in contrast to when he regresses and disobeys the social expectations but is immature and irresponsible). The true beauty is not in Angela's sexual desirability but instead lies in the loving relationships Lester has had with his family. As his desire for Angela and her beauty is fake, so to is the kind of socially accepted etiquette which Carolyn serves.

There is so much more that could be said about American Beauty. It has a lot to say and is a very intelligent film. Again, like Apocalypse Now, I don't really have the energy or space to write about all the things it is trying to say in just this one review. All I will say is that if you are looking for a intelligent but funny, moving but uplifting film American Beauty is perfect. It is well shot, brilliantly acted and a pleasure to watch. Aside from some cliches and one dimensional areas and characters, this film is perfect.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 4= 18/20 *****






http://www.impawards.com/1999/american_beauty_xlg.html
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqY8F7C5VPeegpbUYEt99GIKq0k2TbYoIuu7ofX4viggXeeMNIEUH0ofGCknYdUI2zF1LlqVLXZ-zYUZfkeqh7tomc6AT7mrQvYHYPnNeYD6x7X9jHoPB8fxy3on1WgvwtQu5xq8Q1kGY/s1600/American+Beauty+screen1.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3ec54WsejuShwwj-WpEd-gDwRLyX2rnJclW3myODxpsNz4R_T6W85JYp6kFJaIN2s2AtJ6kTeVvRj7Ns2ZxucjQx2RoHjW4GqTF0Y6jDefqS-1J1Z0OoiL4u52g9dCQxmh0MKANYuIcAM/s640/57.Jane+and+Ricky.png
http://cdn.ilcinemaniaco.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/american-beauty.jpg
http://doublefeatureshow.com/images/covers/american-beauty.jpg