Happy Hunger Games!

The anticipation for this film was ridiculous, with people making statements that it was the new must-see teen franchise. Already having a wide fanbase due to the popularity of the books, the film had a lot to live up to, and it's safe to say it more than met expectations.

In a futuristic, post-apocalyptic world, the nation of Panem, the remains of North America, is divided up into twelve districts who each offer to the controlling Capitol city one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 to compete in the annual Hunger Games, a reminder of the Capitol's dictatorial control over the nation after a rebellion by the districts. In these Games, the twenty-four "tributes" are placed into an arena to fight to the death, until one victor remains. It's the 74th Games, and Katniss Everdeen of the poverty-stricken District 12 has volunteered to take the place of her sister. Despite being a skilled hunter (that girl is mighty handy with a bow and arrow), she must fight bloodthirsty teenagers and the Capitol, whilst also battling with her feelings for fellow competitor Peeta.

Firstly, I do apologise for the delay in publishing this post; I was busy reading the last book and then I had work to do, so... yeah, anyway. It also gave me time to go and see it for a second time, which I think always helps before properly forming an opinion about a film. Anyway, I commence.

I've openly discussed my disdain at Jennifer Lawrence; although I haven't seen her in her Oscar nominated role in Winter's Bone she did not impress me in X-Men: First Class and I've never understood the hype about her. When I first read the book I was outraged that she had been cast, but I take back every bad thing I've said about her casting in this because really she was brilliant. I overlook the fact that she's really too old to be playing 16 year old Katniss, because I couldn't imagine anyone embodying the character better really.

As for the other of the three young leads, I can't say I was hugely impressed with their casting either, but they both made the most of their roles. Josh Hutcherson, despite looking gormless for the first third of the film because of his gaping mouth, redeems himself with being unbelievably sweet as Peeta. I quite like the fact he's shorter than Lawrence (even if it does make me laugh a little) because it's true that the traditional role of boy-saves-girl is reversed in this, and it's nice to have a strong female lead;  the differences in their stature really only emphasise this. Liam Hemsworth's Gale doesn't play a huge part in this film (though his role is expanded in the future) but his chemistry with Lawrence makes me think he'll have promise for the future.

The supporting cast was also really incredible; all the older cast members were so perfect for their roles: Donald Sutherland as the sinister President Snow was so inspired the character could have been written with him in mind. The same goes for Woody Harrelson's alcoholic mentor, Haymitch (who I would have liked to see more of), Stanley Tucci's Hunger Games host, Caeser Flickerman, and Elizabeth Banks as Katniss and Peeta's escort, Effie Trinket; the latter two in particular should be applauded because they play their characters in such an extreme way that they are very nearly going overboard, but just stopping short of that so they are just perfectly eccentric. I also want Katniss' stylist Cinna, played by Lenny Kravitz, to be my friend and just dress me all the time; he was wonderful, and refreshing as seemingly the only normal person from the Capitol. I have to say though, I don't really understand why Toby Jones' co-commentator Claudius Templesmith was there, considering he had about four words in the entire film; I suppose he was just there to make Stanley Tucci seem as though he's not talking to himself. Harsh, but true.

In terms of being a film adaptation, it's superb. It IS the book, almost exactly as it's written; the parts that are taken out or changed are so miniscule that really it doesn't have any impact whatsoever on the film. It does help, I suppose, that Suzanne Collins (author of the books) wrote the screenplay; it will be a challenge to continue the brilliance if she doesn't write for the sequels. It is one of the best ever book adaptations I've seen, which is really saying something considering how many there are to choose from. It's challenging, both to reality television, corrupt governments and to teenage violence; it is a violent film, but that's the point: the shock of seeing children killing each other is at the heart of the story, and creates the events for the next two films.

Into my technical opinion of the film, I have to say that the production design on this film is beautiful. From poverty-stricken District 12's ramshackle houses and dilapidated Hob (the black market where Katniss gets her iconic Mockingjay pin towards the start of the film), to the weird and wonderful excessive luxury of the Capitol, every set is perfect. The costumes are brilliant, especially those of the Capitol's residents who dress so eccentrically and brightly that it's almost painful to look at; because they are so strange and colourful we share Katniss' feelings of being in a completely different world. The score also fits the film very well; James Newton Howard gets the mood just right in each scene. It's nice as well that not every scene has music in, as this really emphasises certain moments and often creates the tension needed in the arena.

One thing I don't understand is all the comparisons to The Twilight Saga - as Danny Leigh of Film 2012 said, the comparison just doesn't hold. Aside from the fact there's a developing love-triangle and it's aimed at the teen market, there are no other similarities. It doesn't even really have the same audience - everyone knows that Twilight's audience is over 80% female, but the people in my first viewing of this film were very mixed, from elderly ladies to groups of young guys; I was expecting mainly girls there, but it was refreshing to see such a varied audience. Yes, Twilight is a massive franchise with an overly-devout fanbase, and I feel that The Hunger Games is going to go the same way, but really the supposed "rivalry" between them is nonsense; as if either of them cares how the other does? They are both major money spinners, they don't need to ramp up rivalry for publicity. And believe it or not, people can like both! I do! It's one of the biggest irritants to me, when people say that you can only really like one or the other, or that you're "betraying" one by liking the other. There was the same issue with Harry Potter and Twilight, where fans of one were slating fans of the other - it's not illegal to be a fan of both! Please, people, stop this. Let them both stand on their own and be individually successful, as they obviously will be.

Another thing that has confused me is the major backlash about the supposed extreme levels of gore and violence in the film. I don't really understand the big fuss about cutting out seven seconds of footage and digitally removing gore from the film to keep to its 12A rating; it could have been quite a bit worse before it became questionable. The warnings are sufficient enough, and if parents don't look at them properly before allowing younger children to go and see it then that's their fault, not the film's. Lord knows what they're going to do in the future films, which, if they stick well to the book, will only become more violent and gory. But I like that; to take that away would take away the brutality of the situation, which is essentially what the story is about. I really pray that the filmmakers don't make any stupid decisions with how they make the films just to gain a bigger audience.

Verdict: the most perfect adaptation of the book possible. Even if you aren't a fan of the books (why the hell aren't you?!), it would still be an extremely enjoyable film even if there may be some slightly confusing parts. I definitely recommend everyone sees it immediately. The sequel cannot come quick enough, and since the film broke box office records on its opening weekend (it brought in $155 million in America alone - the third biggest opening for a film ever behind The Dark Knight and Deathly Hallows part 2, and biggest opening for a non-sequel film), be assured that a sequel will indeed happen. As Humphrey Bogart said, "this could be the start of a beautiful franchise." Or something like that.

*****

Mon Dieu!

Last night, I went to a preview screening of Bel Ami at the Soho Hotel in London. After waiting two years since the filming for its release, I was quite looking forward to it, though based on the not-so-overwhelming critical response to it my hopes weren't up exceedingly high, and that turned out to be quite a good thing. Also, as readers know, I make no secret of the fact I'm quite the Robert Pattinson fan, but I'm at least trying to be unbiased.

In 1890s Paris, penniless ex-soldier Georges Duroy (Pattinson) has a chance encounter with Charles Forestiere (Philip Glenister), a fellow ex-soldier who sets him up writing articles about his time in Algeria despite him being barely literate. He soon begins a career as a journalist and slowly he begins to climb the social ladder via the seduction of the wives of powerful men (including Uma Thurman, Christina Ricci and Kristen Scott Thomas), and begins his quest for wealth and notoriety, at whatever cost.

I'll start off with my main issue with the film, which is why it wasn't French. It was based on a French book by a French author with French characters and set in Paris, so it didn't really make sense to me why they made it with a British/American cast and crew whilst keeping all the same French elements. The British accents with French pronunciations became quite grating rather quickly which put a dampener on things, and really you just forget the film is meant to be set in Paris.

Saying that, the acting wasn't terrible; most of the cast gave acceptable if not stellar performances. I have to say that I'm disappointed that this wasn't released before Pattinson's previous work, Water for Elephants, which was filmed afterwards, released sooner and showed a much better performance from him. I'm afraid that this makes it seem like his acting talent has gone downhill, whereas in fact if his work is seen in chronological order of filming it is easy to see the improvement in his skills. Still, he was convincing as a ruthless womaniser, and successfully made the character detestable, which I think was the aim at least, and he has proved that he can play a complex character well. Even though this wasn't his best performance, it gives a taste of what he is capable of, even if he did go a bit overboard with the facial expressions at times. I'm looking forward to seeing him in David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis, his next post-Twilight attempt, to see what he can do under the guidance of a well-respected and established director.

The supporting cast were also mostly good. Uma Thurman gave a credible if dismissable performance as Duroy's love interest and later-wife, a woman who is the brains behind her husband, and her British accent is very believable. It's Christina Ricci who is the surprise talent here, giving her best performance for years (as long as you ignore the shrill giggling). Her character Clotilde's relationship with Duroy is one of the best things in the whole film, and she becomes one of the most interesting characters as ultimately she is the only person Duroy actually cares about. Their scenes together are fun and the chemistry is great, and Ricci plays the part stunningly well.

But there were also problems with the cast. Kristen Scott Thomas, usually a reliable actress, was convincing only for the first half in which she didn't really feature heavily, but as soon as Duroy captures the attention of her vulnerable aging socialite Virginie, she turns into a complete mess, and it's not entirely clear if her clingy and pathetic behaviour is supposed to be that ridiculous or whether it just comes across that way. The uncertainty annoyed me more than if it was a straight-up bad performance, but it actually became hysterical, if not for the right reasons. Philip Glenister, though, I can safely say was terrible. I've not seen huge amounts of his other work, but from what I have seen he's given no indication that he has any talent whatsoever, and this performance just cements that opinion. His character was also horrid, and I actually forgave Duroy for his despicable behaviour towards him because of this. Natalia Tena (Harry Potter) was also forgettable, and her prostitute character served merely as a catalyst for an argument between Clotilde and Duroy. (Side note, if anyone saw her on the Sky Movies Oscars coverage this year you'll understand why I struggled to contain laughter every time she popped up on screen.) And Holliday Grainger was beyond irritating. She contributed nothing to the film at all except as a plot device, and really the little she did act was not convincing at all.

I will definitely say that the producers know how to cater for their audience. They clearly knew that this would appeal to the older Twilight fans, and they delivered on the extensive use of Robert Pattinson. He's in every scene and... shall we say, does things we haven't seen from him yet: within the first ten minutes there's a shot of his naked backside and the whole of the first third of the film is basically him whoring around. Still, it's nice to see him diversifying in his acting and taking on a challenge, and it's lovely to hear him acting with his English accent for the first time in a very long time. That being said, this isn't for Twilight fans. He's a villain who Robert Pattinson himself described as "amoral", which really couldn't sum up the character better. He's manipulative, merciless and definitely not a hero in any sense of the word. People who are essentially watching this to see what we didn't see in Breaking Dawn (i.e. any actual sex) will be disappointed if they are expecting any romance, because these are emotionally cold encounters even if they physically smoulder.

The film is good though with its mix of drama and comedy, even if the intentionally funny moments are overshadowed by the unintentional parts, which become more frequent towards the end of the film. However, I think the problems essentially lie in the actual production side. The screenplay was drab, which is a major issue. This film could have been so relevant to today's issues with the newspapers and journalists, as it's supposed to deal with the backhand dealings of politics and the media, but really it just isn't as hard-hitting as it could be and that means the film lacks any real impact; it basically just chooses to focus instead on the romantic relationships between the characters rather than exploring the impact of these interactions. The direction wasn't great either. It seemed that Nick Ormerod and Declan Donnellan didn't have a lot of control over the performances, and because they don't appear to have reigned any of them in when the majority needed to be, they did descend almost into the ridiculous towards the end. If they perhaps had directed the actors better then the subtlety would have made for a better film. I can probably count on one hand how many films have been well-received that have been directed by two people, it doesn't tend to end well. On the other hand, the costumes by Odile Dicks-Mireaux were beautiful, as were the sets, and they gave the film an authenticity that it perhaps lacked in other aspects. Also to be praised is the score, which reflected the film perfectly and was just right, enough to notice it and its contribution to certain scenes, but not enough to distract from the action. It's one I shall definitely be downloading when it finally gets released.

Now I have to say this, and it's hard for me to do. Robert Pattinson was not attractive in this. I'm not sure if it was deliberately to reflect Duroy's poverty and the way he rose to fame, or to show his ugly personality, but despite his looks, he appears dirty and greasy a lot of the time, even when he's rich and well dressed. The poster is the best he looks as his character, and even that has been doctored. However, his character was interesting enough though that I overlook this. Duroy's complete lack of remorse, his greediness and selfishness, and the fact he gets no comeuppance add to the complexity of his character, and it's refreshing to see a character in film that is so dastardly and doesn't get justice. It's nice to see something other than a predictable storyline where the character has an epiphany and is changed, or is ruined and loses everything so that balance is restored. This is one of the only parts that I feel reflects the book and tells the story of a man who will do anything to get power and gets away with it.

Verdict: All in all, it was a disappointment. A stellar cast is let down by poor direction and a less-than-worthy script, even though most of them do the best with what they have. Considering I am a fan of Rob, and because I've waited for two years for this film to be released, it was an anticlimax. My suggestion is to go into this film with low expectations and it turns out ot be much more enjoyable. I'd recommend seeing it becase it is an interesting storyline, even if it's not as challenging as it has the potential to be, but I don't think any of the aspects of this film were as good as they could be, and if they were then it would have been much better overall. Christina Ricci gives her best performance for years and we do get to a glimpse at what Robert Pattinson can do even if he isn't fulfilling his whole potential here and ends up going a bit overboard in his attempt to showcase his talent.
***

Oscar Nominations Report 2012

Okay, I know this is a ridiculously delayed reaction, for various reasons which I won't go into, and I apologise most profusely on behalf of my hectic life that wouldn't allow me to finish writing this (I've actually been writing bits and pieces of this post since the Oscar nominations were announced three weeks ago) but here, I give you my view on this years Oscar nominations.

Since the Academy Award nominations were announced, the general reaction has been that there were huge injustices throughout many categories. Many people and films were expected to feature in the shortlists which didn't, and other cast, crew and films appeared which were a complete surprise, and, in some cases, perhaps undeserved.

Before I begin my long rambling about the nominations, I should say that I haven't seen the majority of the nominated films and actors this year, unlike last year where I'd seen nine out of ten of the nominated films for best picture by the time the awards came around. Yes, I'm disappointed with myself, and my OCD is screaming at me a little, but my point is, I can't give much of a personal opinion on this matter because I haven't seen all of the performances or films for myself. I will, however, discuss films I have seen that I think deserved a nomination, and of course those who I think are undeserving.

We'll start with the verdict on the Best Actor category.

The two on the left are the most suave men on Earth.

There was no surprise when Jean Dujardin (The Artist) and George Clooney (The Descendants) were announced, and they are both fully deserving of their nominations, as is Gary Oldman, who I was worried was going to get overlooked as he did at the Golden Globes. But, even though he has only a slim chance of winning when he's up against Dujardin and Clooney, it's lovely to see him get his first-time recognition in a role that he really deserves it for. Brad Pitt was always in contention for the Best Actor nod, but really he probably didn't deserve it as much as some other actors who were left off, and only got recognised because he's such a big name and there was a lot of publicity surrounding the film. I haven't seen him in Moneyball but, from what I've read, although he was good, he didn't give the best performance of the year. And finally, we have Demian Bichir, who really came out of nowhere to grab that last Academy acknowledgement. Now I know a lot of people aren't aware of him at all. I'd heard of the film (A Better Life) but that wasn't seen by many people and there was absolutely no hint beforehand that he was even being considered. Though I would say it is nice to see an underdog come and steal some spotlight, I do feel that some performances were completely overlooked, and, though I haven't seen his performance, I think a lot of people are asking what he's doing on the list.

As for the actors that were overlooked, I think we need to start with one of the most surprising.

About 98.542% of people I spoke to, as well as critics I've read, expected Michael Fassbender to be on this list for his role in Shame, which garnered him near-universal acclaim. Now I haven't seen the film myself yet, though I definitely want to get round to that (I shall be watching this alone, in a dark room), but I can't really understand why he was left off the shortlist. My only guesses would be that either it was too risque a subject for the Academy to award the proper attention to, or it wasn't widely publicised enough and therefore didn't get the attention it seemed to deserve. Another guess would be that he's too young for the Academy to really consider, as they do have a terrible track record for acknowledging actors that aren't middle-aged. But whichever way you look at it, this was quite a shock, and personally I think there are at least one or two actors that could have been bumped for him instead.

The other actor that had been surrounded by major Oscar buzz was Leonardo DiCaprio. Before J. Edgar came out, there were talks of this being his year, and finally getting the recognition he deserved. Again, this is a film I haven't yet seen, but it seems the view is that although his performance is very good, it wasn't as amazing as everyone was expecting. This is probably because it was hyped up so much that it was such a tall order to fill everyone's expectations, but still, most people thought he was a shoe-in for a nomination.

Onto Best Actress now, and, like its male equivalent, there was a mix of "well obviously!" nominations and "why her?" nods. There was absolutely no surprises at Meryl Streep collecting her record 17th nomination for The Iron Lady, which she's widely expected to win. Also, Michelle Williams was an unsurprising nomination for My Week With Marilyn. Viola Davis' performance in The Help seems to have gained her very good reviews, and she's been recognised by other organisations and academies for her role, even picking up a SAG award (don't get me started...) so it wasn't unexpected. The two surprises were Rooney Mara for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo which, although she was brilliant in, was a bit surprising because although there were a few murmurings about a nomination, there weren't any big indications that she was actually going to get one. And lastly, Glenn Close, who is indeed a fantastic actress, snagged a nomination for Albert Nobbs. Now I know I'm not the only one who hasn't heard of this film before, but since it's Glenn Close I'm putting money on the fact it's probably a deserved nomination. Still, that doesn't really make up for the fact other actresses were consequently overlooked.

Charlize Theron's role in Young Adult has gained her some spectacular reviews, and I honestly cannot wait to see this film. A few critics have said she's better in this than she was in Monster, in the role that gained her an Academy Award in 2003. There has been quite a bit of outcry about her exclusion not just from this shortlist, but from many others this year too. So, although the Academy are just following in the footsteps of the other awards this year, it seems like Charlize has been done a great disservice.

Another actress who has been overlooked is Tilda Swinton for her role in We Need to Talk About Kevin (a film which itself was overlooked, but we'll come to that later). We know that the Academy is very aware of her, considering they gave her an award back in 2007. Again, her snub is probably due to lack of promotion and awareness in America. No, she probably wouldn't have won if she had been nominated, considering who she would have been up against, but it would have been nice to see her acknowledged.

And lastly, there has been a ridiculous amount of backlash at the fact Olivia Colman was left off the list for Tyrannosaur (still unsure whether she's a Best Actress or Best Supporting Actress contender - she's been nominated for both in other awards). Her performance has been named as outstanding by basically every critic I've heard talk about her, and even from the little clips I've seen she does seem quite deserving of a nomination. Still, again it's probably due to lack of awareness on the Acadamy's part (though that doesn't excuse BAFTA, who should be aware of such homegrown talent).

I'll move onto films now. For those who don't know, the rules changed this year regarding Best Picture nominations, where there could be a shortlist of between five and ten films, as opposed to the ten it has been in previous years. I don't really know why this is - surely just stick to ten and give more films the recognition? But anyway, nine films were announced, some deserving, some really, really not, and again, others completely overlooked.

The Artist, The Descendants, The Help, Hugo, and War Horse were all pretty much expected, with The Artist being the early favourite to win, and War Horse, in my opinion, not really deserving to be there but not unexpected. Other nominees Midnight in Paris and The Tree of Life were also not hugely surprising considering the favourable reviews they've been given, especially the latter. Moneyball and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close were the most surprising, having been given less acclaim than the other nominees; as for the last one, as far as I can tell it's about some irritating boy obsessing over a key, even if it does contain 9/11 themes and stars Oscar winners Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock. But this only adds up to nine. Why would they not only exclude extremely worthy nominees, but not even fill the potential ten spaces? My theory is that they wanted to leave at least one space free to prove that the new rules aren't completely redundant - after all, if ten films were nominated everyone would have been questioning why the new rules needed to be put in place. Yet at the same time it feels like some were nominated for the sake of it - I'm almost certain that Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close was nominated based on it's summary, because I haven't heard great things about the film itself. But this doesn't excuse the fact that other more deserving films were left off the list in favour of some of these which actually made me quite angry when they were announced.

We'll start with Super 8, which anyone who has read this blog knows I'm a huge fan of. It's genuinely one of the best films of last year, and received critical acclaim. There's not a fault in the entire film, and in my opinion this is the biggest crime the Academy have carried out this year. It just proves that they are complete snobs when it comes to sci-fi films, prefering them to the challenging dramas, some of which are on the list undeservingly. I am disgusted. But again, the Academy are not the only ones who've done this, so actually I take back what I said; sci-fis are overlooked and unappreciated in the film industry full stop, and that is a major issue that needs to be sorted out. After the success of Lord of the Rings, I thought we would see a change in this, but apparently not.

Shame is another film that most people thought would get the nod, but, like it's star Michael Fassbender, it has been cast aside for less worthy films, probably for the same reasons that Fassbender was snubbed. There's not really a lot else to say about this one except the Academy really need to widen their range of consideration and look beyond the obvious.

The same goes for Drive, Ryan Gosling's most acclaimed offering this year (for the record, he should probably have been nominated too either for this or The Ides of March). Other films include We Need To Talk About Kevin and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but my theory is that they just weren't as embraced in America like they were over here, and that's a real shame because they are both fully deserving films.
And what's with The Adventures of Tin Tin being left off the animated film shortlist? As much as I like Rango and am now rooting for it to win, surely Tin Tin was the most heralded animation of last year? Maybe it's more American snobbery over including the British, who this year have been so strong that perhaps they merely feel intimidated and overwhelmed by our brilliance. Or maybe I'm making excuses that make us look good. But still.

Okay, other nominations for some of the more random categories: Where was Alan Menkel's Best Song nomination for 'Star-Spangled Man' from Captain America? I know I personally didn't hear a better song in film this year - it's on my iPod. It's probably the fact that the film itself would never have been taken seriously for awards consideration, and therefore one of the most deserving aspects got overlooked in the process. Such a shame.

Another one is for Diablo Cody for Best Original Screenplay for Young Adult. I've already spoken about Charlize Theron's oversight, but I've heard that Cody's script is better than her Juno one, for which she picked up her first Oscar. It's another one I'm not really understanding and am struggling to explain. Also for that category is J.J. Abrams for Super 8. It would fit right into the apparent theme of nostalgia the Academy seem to have this year, since it's basically a tribute to the 70s and Abrams' own childhood. And it's so brilliantly witty, heartwarming, and tragic all at the same time, it literally has everything. Why, Academy, why?!

I have another suggestion which I know I will probably result in me accused of being biased and showing favouritism towards, but Water for Elephants deserved some awards in the technical categories. I said in my very first review that it would no way win awards for screenplay, directing or acting, but the sets and costumes were stunning, and so realistic. It does deserve recognition for it's art design and costume design (maybe even make up as well, though The Iron Lady will most certainly win that anyway). Also it perhaps should have been recognised for its cinematography, which is really visually stunning. It makes the film look so good without the use of special effects or cheap tricks, just amazing camera work. I think it's an underrated category anyway, but this film really should have been included in the shortlist.

I could go on for days about the many injustices, but I'm going to wrap it up now. I just have one last point to make, that really needs to be said and that I've been getting mildly irritated by for weeks now.

Why are people getting upset and angry about the fact that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 wasn't nominated for Best Film? It wasn't even the best film in the franchise (controversial!), and none of the others were nominated, so why would this one be? It was nominated for Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects, and it's unlikely to win either of those anyway (Art Direction will go to The Artist if there's any justice, and Visual Effects will should go to Rise of the Planet of the Apes, because that was truly incredible). So, ridiculously obsessive and oversensitive fans, just enjoy the films and revel in the knowledge that it's the most successful film franchise of all time, and stop getting all shirty about the little things like undeserved Oscar nominations.

Okay, I'm stopping now. I may post my predictions up here in a couple of days, but I've pretty much said here who I think will win so it all depends on whether I can find the time. And if you're planning to watch on Sunday, let me know! Kathryn and I will be watching it live all night, so feel free to get in touch.

Everyone's Talking About It

I've made it quite public that I had my reservations about The Artist. I wasn't a huge fan of silent films, and I had an irrational dislike of the fact that it's won big at every awards show so far (except the SAG Awards... but I'll come to that in a different post because that's a whole different issue). But I thought since there was so much hype about it that it probably needed to be watched, so off Kathryn and I went to the cinema this weekend to see it. And I am so glad we did.

The plot is one of those ones which is mostly lighthearted when played out on screen, but has some quite serious undertones to it. In Hollywood, 1927, silent film star George Valentin (Jean Dujarin) is the most sought-after and successful actor out there, until the birth of the talkies puts a stop to his career. Meanwhile, upcoming actress Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo, wife of director Michel Hazanavicius) becomes a household name whilst riding the wave of this new generation of film, but still finds time to provide support for Valentin, who has become financially ruined trying to make his own silent films to compete with the talkies, and consequently sinking into a deep depression.

It's so wonderfully done. Not having lots of experience with silent films, I was unsure as to whether maybe I'd be bored or perhaps unable to follow it with the lack of dialogue (and indeed, colour), but the intertitles are frequent enough to help the audience without appearing so often that it feels like a subtitled film. The two scenes which aren't silent - Valentin's dream scene where everything around him is making noise, yet he cannot speak, and the very last 20 seconds or so of the film - only highlight how wonderful the silent film is. The musical accompaniment is a delight to listen to, reflecting, like a good score should, the emotion and action of the scenes.

The acting is superb. With a silent film, I imagine most actors would tend to exaggerate their physical performances to compensate for the lack of dialogue, but then overdo it and make it look ridiculous. Obviously it's slightly melodramatic because it's all physical performance and facial expressions, but Dujardin and Bejo, as well as the other big-name stars such as James Cromwell, John Goodman and Missi Pyle, don't make it look contrived at all. There's still subtlety about their acting, which from an audience's perspective is a positive because it still seems realistic and therefore still hooks you, whereas if you were constantly looking at someone making grand gestures throughout the film I know I personally would not be able to either take it seriously or even focus on what was actually going on. I also think it's a testament to Dujardin and Bejo for being nominated for a lot of acting awards, considering he only says two words in the whole film and she doesn't speak at all. I think maybe all actors should make a silent film to hone their own acting skills and learn not to rely on a good, wordy script to get them through a film.

If you've read anything about this film, you'll know that the performance of the dog steals the show. I didn't really understand how this could be before I saw it, and kept wondering how an animal could overshadow the human actors - did the other actors lack that much presence or skill that they were outdone by a dog? Well, no, as I've said the actors all give outstanding performances in their own right and should be proud of what they brought to the film, no matter how big their role. But seriously, Uggie the dog is excellent. He got some of the biggest laughs from the audience, and is so talented it makes me feel like I've achieved nothing in my life. I think maybe animals are better suited to silent films since they can't talk anyway, and therefore none of their performance is really lost with the lack of dialogue. That's not to say I'm taking anything away from Uggie, he is splendid and an absolute joy to watch - he's truly one of the most talented actors I've seen in a long time, and the fact he isn't Academy Awards eligable is a crime. It's just nice to know that I'm not the only one who feels this way, as there has been general outcry from the public about his lack of Oscar recognition, but this brings all the more appreciation to his talent, which is a good thing anyway.

I thought before I saw this that Hollywood were getting all dewy-eyed over this because it's nostalgic, much like they did with My Week With Marilyn, I think. I still think this, but I now understand how incredibly charming it is too. Every aspect of the film is exceptional. It's refreshing to see a film that doesn't need to resort to violence, graphic scenes, swearing or any other lower-level techniques to get people's attention and adoration. It's a PG, and it's a real feel-good film, which the Academy don't have a great track record of properly acknowedging, preferring grittier and more challenging material. But really, this is a film that the whole family can see - which usually makes me avoid films, but in this case is a good thing because it can get as wide an audience as possible - and is pretty much flawless.

The one thing I would say, and it's not a criticism of the film really, is don't watch it with other people. Not because it's awkward or embarassing, but because other people can put you off. With a silent film, even with the music, you hear a lot of what's going on around you that you wouldn't necessarily hear otherwise. When people in front of you are rustling a food wrapper loudly, or the old biddies behind you are clucking every two minutes about how glorious it is (which I agree with, but don't voice it during the film!), it can get quite distracting, especially in the scenes where there is no sound at all. One or two other people is fine, as long as you have an agreement not to make noise unless you're laughing/crying/other general reactions to the film.

Actually, another not-so-positive thing I have to say, and again, I'm not taking anything away from the film (well, maybe slightly) is that the novelty of it has probably helped it be as successful as it has been, not just financially but with it's reception. And this makes me wonder whether there can be more like this. As much as I'd love to spend a whole week watching new-age silent films like this one, will any of them do as well as The Artist? Look at Avatar: that was revolutionary in terms of cinema, and so well received, yet 3D films that have followed haven't fared nearly as well, with critics and audiences already turning against it. If they tried to have a wave of silent films, which now I'm thinking they shouldn't, how long would it be before people were complaining about them and longing for "the good old days" of the talkies? Novelty does win people over, but when that novelty wears off, where does it leave the film? Just something to think about.

Verdict: If you haven't seen this yet, you must. It's the most charming film I've seen in a long time, it's absolutely delightful, and adorable, and, as I've proved, will win over even the most skeptical of audiences. Top marks!

*****

My Top 11 Films of '11

Happy new year to all my wonderful followers and readers!

At this time of year, critics tend to post their lists of their favourite films from the last year, and I thought I'd hop on this bandwagon now that I have an appropriate outlet for this. So without further ado, my top 11 films of 2011 (apparently also known as "films most overlooked in 2011").

11. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

As a Gary 'G-Man' Oldman lover, I was anticipating this film because his performance had been so hyped up in it, with many people calling this the role that will finally give him that long overdue Oscar nomination. Suffice to say, I was very impressed with him. He may not win the Academy Award, and possibly won't even be nominated (he's almost guaranteed to win the BAFTA though, because they are the most biased organisation I've seen in the film industry), but it was good. The cast was amazing, and I think actually Benedict Cumberbatch stole it for me, with his incredibly underrated performance. Overall, it was a little disappointing considering all the hype and anticipation, but definitely still worth a watch for anyone who hasn't already seen it.

10. Source Code

This could quite easily have gone either way in how I reacted to this film. A Groundhog Day-esque narrative with a female lead who I wasn't keen on wasn't getting me overly excited for this before I saw it, but damn was it good. Duncan 'Moon' Jones proves again that he is the sci-fi director of the moment, and Jake Gyllenhaal gives a wonderfully moving turn as a confused army pilot forced to ride the same exploding train over and over again to find the bomber. It's one of the smartest action sci-fi thrillers I've seen in a long time.

9. Thor

Easily the second-best superhero film offered this year (see number 7 for my favourite), Thor gave Chris Hemsworth his first proper leading man role, and he does it perfectly. The film blends comedy, action, family fueds and drama wonderfully, and the special effects are mesmerising. But really, the reason this made my top 11 films of this year is because of Tom Hiddleston's Loki, who steals the entire show, and is the loveliest, most misunderstood supervillain ever. The fact he is returning for The Avengers makes me so excited I could bounce around. And I think I did when I found that out. The odd choice of Kenneth Brannagh as director pays off, and I'm a little disappointed he isn't returning for the sequel. But still, enjoy this one, and watch as a very enjoyable prequel to The Avengers in the spring.

8. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2

Surely everyone's most anticipated film of 2011, there was so much pressure on this film to be good, and it mostly didn't disappoint. I've already written a lengthy blog post containing my thoughts on this, so just refer back to that to see what my verdict was. But still, having grown up with Harry, I couldn't wait for this film, and to use the much-overused-but-very-appropriate-phrase, it was the end of an era. There were tears. There were laughs. There was an unwanted amount of disbelief. But I think it would be doing it a discredit to say it wasn't a great way to say goodbye, and for that reason, it made my list.

7. X-Men: First Class

The number 1 superhero movie of the year goes to X-Men: First Class. Absolutely superb acting from the two leads, James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender (we forgive the accent) made it compelling to watch, and it was lovely to see the return of strength to this franchise which had been diminshed somewhat by the previous two offerings. It earned my first five-star review on my blog, with good reason. The plot is engaging, Kevin Bacon clearly relishes in playing a hideous villain, but really it is the chemistry and bromance between McAvoy and Fassbender that seal the deal.

6. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

I haven't done a blog post on this yet and I don't know whether I'll actually get around to doing it, so I'll put my general thoughts here now. Lots of people, including myself, were a bit skeptical when the Hollywood remake of the cult Swedish thriller was announced to be in production, but as more information came through I began to get a little optimistic that maybe it wouldn't be a remake that completely destroys the foreign original and gets completely slated. David Fincher is one of my favourite directors, so that was the first promising tidbit, and then the cast was announced, it was revealed that it was staying true to the books, and it was being filmed and set in Sweden, as the novels state. It's a very dark film that deals with subject matters that made me feel quite uncomfortable at times, and was clearly given an 18-rating here for a reason. But the whole cast are terrific, Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara in particular, and the plot was very engaging. Yes, anyone who's read the book and/or seen the original film (which I must point out, I haven't yet done either) before knows the outcome of the mystery, and actually it was rather predictable once it got to a certain point within the film, but it was very stylish and I hope they do make the sequels, with the original cast and crew. The titles alone - which were very Bond-esque in the fact that they were put at the start of the film overlaid with a cracking song (Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who actually deserve an Oscar for the soundtrack this time, did a great remix of Led Zeppelin's 'Immigration Song') and weird silhouettes of contortionists - deserve a place on the list.

5. True Grit

One of the most overlooked films of this year, especially when awards season approached last January, was this one. Like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I'd never seen the original, but as a big fan of the Coen brothers I was excited to see their latest offering, which was brilliant. Jeff Bridges was outstanding as Marshal Rooster Cogburn, and I actually think Hailee Steinfeld deserved the Best Supporting Actress awards over Melissa Leo, but hey, I seem to be one of the only people giving this film the attention it deserves. Unorthodox casting of Matt Damon was pulled off completely, and he was another one who didn't get the recognition he deserved this year, with The Adjustment Bureau also getting overlooked. It's definitely awarded my "Most Underrated Film of 2011" award (that I just made up. The King's Speech probably gets the most overrated award).

4. Black Swan

Yes, the "lesbian ballet film" earns a space in my top 11 this year. Watching it first time round, I was impressed, especially by Natalie Portman who completely deserved her awards for this, but it didn't strike me as being absolutely amazing. After watching it again (and again and again...) though, it was brilliant. Darren Aronofsky should have won all the best director awards for this. The cinematography and special effects are stunning, but really it's the engaging, original script of a mentally unstable athlete striving for glory, which Aronofsky of course has previous experience with, having directed The Wrestler, that really sells the film. It's dark, disturbing, but beautifully made and with an amazing score that I'm actually listening to as I write this. Just don't watch it with your family. Especially your mother.

3. The Fighter

Another film about an athlete striving to succeed! Except of course, this is completely different to Black Swan, and not just in terms of their athletic fields. This is much more of a drama focusing on the complexity of family life and the conflicts between the family members. Mark Wahlberg was snubbed after not getting nominated for this role, though I think his quiet voice of reason in this gets overshadowed by loud, brash but wonderful performances by the supporing cast of Christian 'Jesus' Bale, Amy Adams (in a career-best, I think) and Melissa Leo, with the former and latter of course walking away with many awards. Truly an amazing film to watch; if you haven't seen it yet, do it.

2. Water for Elephants

No, this was not the best film of the year, on my list or many other people's. But it makes number 2 on my list because it really was very special to me. It was based on one of my all-time favourite books, starring some of my all-time favourite actors, and subsequently containing one of my all-time favourite scores. It was my first ever review on this blog, and if that wasn't enough, I also got tickets to the premiere, to walk the red carpet and see it before anybody else. But aside from that, it's the most visually stylish film I've seen this year, and certainly my favourite period-piece. The acting was superb, with Robert Pattinson in particular shining in his first big role since Twilight began. It's no secret that I'm a fan of his, and I was so pleased that he was able to properly showcase his acting ability in this. Also, I think it has been overlooked in the 2012 awards season in terms of the technical side of it: the cinematography is beautiful and the costumes are splendid. I also think I felt every emotion it's possible to feel during a film during this, and I've never cried so much inexplicably watching a film before. I honestly can't even explain why, but the ending sets me off every time I watch this. Kathryn and I were weeping for about half an hour after it finished, and that isn't even an exaggeration; they were cleaning the theatre around us. So, because it was so personal to me, it's ranks as my number two film of the year.

And number one?

1. Super 8

It was the most flawless film of the year. I cannot fault it at all. The acting is amazing, the special effects are stunning, the banter between the young characters is a highlight, and it's so refreshing to have a truly brilliant original script from Hollywood. And what have they done? OVERLOOKED IT. I cannot comprehend how this isn't sweeping the boards. Everything about it is perfect. This is a prime example of the hatred that academies seem to have for sci-fi films. But you forget it's even catagorised as that, because for the most part it's a mystery, a suspense, and a comedy, with a side of tween love-triangle thrown in there. Writer/director JJ Abrams (Lost, Star Trek) is fast becoming one of my favourite directors, and his creativity and originality is incredible. Filled with fantastic one-liners as well, it's suitable for pretty much everyone over the age of 10, and everyone should see it. The fact that I cannot find a fault in it at all, and that it's one of my absolute favourite films ever now, is why it clinches the top spot on my list.

Do you agree? Drop me a comment below and share your thoughts.

See you in 12 months for this year's summary!

Films We Want To See Christian Bale Do

Kathryn and I had a long phone call a couple of weeks ago where we discussed our favourite actor and insane person, Christian Bale. We decided to help him with his future career since Batman is soon finishing (sob), and came up with some options for films using genres he hasn't yet tackled.



This just made me laugh

Note: you may only find this amusing if you know Christian Bale. If not you will just think we are a bit messed up. Meant for amusement only! (Though obviously it would be amazing if he did actually star in any films like these).

Kathryn wrote up some of of our favourite picks:

1. Rom-com starring Bale, with Jennfier Aniston as the love interest.

2. Teen body swap comedy. Bale and his daughter, or just some random girl he knows, swap bodies Freaky Friday style. Hilarious consequences. Suggested actress to play girl – Miley Cyrus, who can then also do a musical number.

3. Modern day remake of the classic musical Brigadoon, directed by Christopher Nolan. Also starring Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine of course, as is always the case in a Nolan film. Suggested female lead - Marion Cotillard (depending on how good her Scottish accent is).

4. Mannequin 3. Again, produced by Nolan. Bale is the mannequin. Suggested co-stars - Eddie Murphy or Jim Carrey as an updated version of Hollywood.

5. Buddy movie comedy starring Bale and Will Ferrell. Bale is released from a psychiatric institute and taken on a road trip by his best friend (Ferrell). Along the way Bale snaps and thinks he's Batman (basically he seems to be playing himself).

6. Sequel to Elf as Bale plays a baby raised by elves in the same way as Buddy in the first film but is evil. OR when he finally clicks that he's not an elf he attempts to a) kill parents or b) ruin Christmas.

7. Bale as Dr Doolittle but with a sinister edge. Perhaps as a taxidermist who only speaks to the animals he stuffs.

8. As a serious suggestion, any film with Jeff Bridges. We honestly don't know why this pairing hasn't happened yet in this industry.

Come on now, who wouldn't want to see at least half of these films?!

A Look at Upcoming Films: Jan-Jun 2012

Earlier this year, I published my list of upcoming films of 2011 to look out for. Admittedly, some errors were made (the fact that Green Lantern and The Three Musketeers were awful and that On The Road now won't be released this year), but some, I think, were pretty accurate. I also promised a list of films to watch out for in 2012. Kathryn and I both agree it's going to be pretty amazing in terms of the epic films that are going to be released, but we also say (at this point) that there aren't going to be the same number of amazing films that there have been this year. We shall see. I shall be brief with each one because I have a lot to get through. On with the list!

Firstly, there's The Avengers. If you've seen Thor/Iron Man/Iron Man 2/Captain America and enjoyed them, or are a fan of superhero movies in general, you need to see this. It's going to be incredible (Hulk. Excuse the pun). There is a great cast, one of the best ensembles I've seen for a while, and it has one of my favourite ever film villains in it, because Loki is back! (See Thor if you don't know what I'm talking about.) It's constantly a toss-up between this and Dark Knight Rises (see future blog posts for more information) for my most-anticipated film of next year, and I think it's going to be a really difficult choice as to what my favourite is going to be.

ETA: April 27

Another film I'm incredibly excited for is Snow White and the Huntsman. The trailer alone for this film is one of the most impressive I've seen in a very long time, and I've watched it over and over again just absorbing the brilliance of it. Charlize Theron looks like she's going to be amazing as the Evil Queen (and does a British accent very well!), and the special effects look incredible. Again, the supporting cast are amazing on paper, with the likes of Bob Hoskins, Eddie Marsan, Eddie Izzard and Nick Frost as some of the eight dwarves (Disney apparently own the rights to Seven Dwarves!), and of course Kristen Stewart and Chris Hemsworth (looking very much like a brunette Thor who has replaced his hammer with an axe) as Snow White and the huntsman respectively. Let's put it this way: at the very least, this film looks miles better than the appalling Mirror Mirror. I already hope the rumours of a trilogy are true.

ETA: June 1

In a completely different direction, I'm very much looking forward to The Woman in Black. I absolutely love the play, and if it's faithful to that then the film will be very good. Though saying that, I'm unsure as to how some aspects of the play are going to translate into films and still be as effective. But the trailer looks like the film will still deliver all of the terrifying moments well, and I'm interested to see what Daniel Radcliffe is going to do in his first post-Hogwarts role. And Total Film have already dubbed it as 'The Year's Creepiest Film' so that sounds promising!

ETA: Feb 3

Coming quite soon is J. Edgar, Clint Eastwood's biopic of controversial FBI founder J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio). The screenwriter, Dustin Lance Black, also wrote the screenplay for Milk, a film I watched relatively recently and was impressed by, so I have high hopes for this based on the cast (also including Dame Judi Dench and Naomi Watts) and crew. Admittedly, I don't know much about the subject, but Hollywood do love a good biopic and it's already been nominated for a couple of awards, including Golden Globes. It's had mixed reviews so far, so I'll have to see for myself, but it's one I definitely want to catch at some point.

ETA: January 20

One film which I'm told I should be excited about, and based on the trailer alone, I am a little, is The Hunger Games. I haven't read the books yet, but I've heard they are addictive and very good, so I shall get round to it hopefully some point before the film comes out. I'm not particularly excited about the cast, especially Jennifer Lawrence, who most people know I'm not a fan of, but the actual plot, from what I can tell from the trailer, looks quite gripping and I'm looking forward to something quite new and fresh from Hollywood.

ETA: March 23



In May comes what has been described as "possibly the most Tim Burtonish Tim Burton film ever", Dark Shadows. Containing the usual cast members of Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, this sounds right up my street. It's got vampires. It's got Johnny (my birthday sharer!). It's a Tim Burton film. Just the look of the pictures makes me giggle with how weird and wonderful it is. I don't know what it will be like in terms of quality, of course, but stylistically it's hard to beat Burton, and this looks very much like his signature style.

ETA: May 11

One film which I think will hoard a lot of awards, and has already started actually, is Shame. It sounds very dark, very characterised (which is usually the type of film that the Acadamies love), and from what I've heard has already had high critical praise. Michael Fassbender is definitely an actor on the rise and someone to watch, as is director Steve McQueen, so I'm very much looking forward to seeing this. I think Fassbender sounds like the perfect actor to portray a troubled young man, and we know he does good characters from his previous work. Oscar nomination, anyone?

ETA: January 13

Continuing on the line of sex- and character-orientated films starring Michael Fassbender is A Dangerous Method, one of two David Cronenberg films this year (the other being Cosmopolis, see upcoming blog post for more details). This one tells the story of the relationship between psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung (played by Viggo Mortensen and Fassbender respectively) and the young woman (Keira Knightley) who comes between them. I have every confidence that this film will be interesting and engaging at the very least.

ETA: February 10

I shall end this post on a light note with This Means War. Any reader of this blog and/or person that knows me to any degree will know that I am in love with Reese Witherspoon, and to see her in a film with Tom Hardy and Chris Pine pretty much blows my mind. Three of my favourite actors in one film! Yes, it looks ridiculous, but it also looks very fun and entertaining, and sometimes, once in a while, that's what you want for a film. Although Reese clearly hasn't been listening to my advice (Career advice for Reese), this does look better than the recent films she's been doing (with the exception of Water for Elephants), and I'm looking forward to this offering of light entertainment from Hollywood. Also, 2012 has been dubbed as Tom Hardy's year, with other films including The Dark Knight Rises on the horizon, so let's enjoy him as many times as we can.

ETA: February 17

Other films I haven't mentioned are The Descendants, Bel Ami, The Iron Lady, Martha Macy Mae Marlene, Like Crazy, The Muppets, The Raven, Young Adult, and countless others I've no doubt forgotten and will kick myself later for.

Look out for part 2, July-December, at some point in the future!

(P.S. Can we please please please have some information on On The Road? Please? It's been in post-production for a year and a half now. What are they doing to it?!