PRISONERS

I was really excited to see Prisoners. The trailer sold it to me, the cast sold it to me, the comparisons to Se7en and The Silence of the Lambs sold it to me -on paper it really is a sure winner.

Prisoners tells the story of Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman). After his six-year-old daughter and her friend go missing, he takes matters into his own hands as the police detective (Jake  Gyllenhaal) appears to be pursuing the wrong leads. How far will a desperate father go to save his child?

The film gets off to a strong start; a cozy, homely, family-orientated opening of the girl and her friend's families spending Thanksgiving together - an environment that instantly connects the viewer to nostalgic festive memories of their own (whether Thanksgiving or Christmas!) and makes the families relatable and accessible. Just an average Thanksgiving with an average family and it is this averageness that makes the girls disappearance all the more poignant as it instills the concept that it could happen to you.

An average family

It gets to the action right away: the girls are taken and the main suspect is identified very early on in the film, which is an interesting albeit welcome technique as it means that the main story begins without any fuss or fluff leading up to it. With the audience finding out information at the same speed as Jackman's Keller, the entire cinema were on the edge of their seat with their heart in their mouth within thirty minutes of the film's beginning.

However, at a needless two and a half hours long, the initial excitement gradually starts to fade as the film goes from a fast-paced, high-tension, emotion-driven thriller to a story so saturated with 'twists' and curveballs that you eventually just get a bit bored of it all. Arguably attempting (and failing) a Christopher Nolan-esque shock-fest, director Denis Villeneuve dedicates far too much time attempting to shock the audience with plot-twists galore and in doing so the film starts to drag and the actual reveal at the end of the film is underwhelming  and feels a bit rushed. As a viewer, you feel a bit cheated that you have dedicated two and a half hours to this film only for the revelation to lack depth and detail; alongside half a dozen other curveballs that had been thrown in without being given a full explanation. Don't get me wrong - you know the basics of what has happened; you know the skeleton of each turn of events and every character that we are introduced to but that is all we get - the bare minimum amount of detail with absolutely none of the fleshing out that makes other such films so great.

I personally found the big reveal a bit silly and any detail that was given was only the repetition of hints and tips that had been scattered throughout the film and I had actually picked up on, so nothing new for the viewer to learn. I feel that I desperately wanted more to be added to the reveal in order for the film to reclaim some credibility - it felt lazy and half-assed and I feel that it was only included in order to shock the audience, not to give maximum impact.

The brilliant cast ultimately carry the film with Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal both giving powerful, believable performances as two totally different characters in roles that I haven't really seen them take on before. The true star of the show though is without a doubt Paul Dano. The mute from Little Miss

Paul Dano has definitely grown up!

Sunshine has well and truly grown up with a performance that was so raw and so disturbing that I actually felt my blood boiling with rage. As the main suspect in the case, Alex, Dano was unrecognizable and the fact that I hated his character with an unsympathetic passion is only a testament to what a convincing performance he gave.

Although Prisoners was much longer than necessary (and to it's detriment), it did maintain my interest. Admittedly by the end of the film I was much less involved than I was in the first hour and a half but the interest was still there; I would not have been able to leave the cinema without learning of the story, no matter how disappointing the story turned out to be, and the strong performances are what made it so watchable whilst the narrative was lagging. I also really enjoyed the final scene, it was an ending that I didn't see coming and although I feel that the ultimate outcome is obvious to the viewer it is always good for a film to end with a collective gasp that fills the cinema as Villeneuve clearly couldn't resist throwing in one final surprise.

To conclude, the film-makers should have known better than to make Prisoners so long; it is common fact that if a film exceeds a certain amount of time it is near-impossible to maintain the same level of quality throughout. Some sections of the film are brilliant with so much attention to detail but others are underwhelming and overlooked and should probably have ended up on the cutting room floor. The film's reveal is trying to be much more intelligent than it is and feels like a bit of a desperate cop-out in order to shock the audience, but the final scene made up for this in a way. Many elements of the actual narrative are highly controversial and can spark many interesting debates; it is interesting and at times shocking but it simply does not come close to the likes of Silence of the Lambs,Se7en, or any other thriller classic that you may have heard it be compared to.

As a relatively exciting watch I give Prisoners ★★★★☆  but if Villeneuve left his Nolan aspirations at home and followed a more personal style rather than trying to make the film into something that it is not, it would have been miles better.

Prisoners is in cinemas nationwide from tomorrow:  Friday 27th September!

Stay tuned for more reviews and follow me on twitter if you like!

Love,

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY

On Sunday I had the privilege of attending an advanced screening of the Monsters Inc prequel: Monsters University (Or 'Monsters College' depending on what side of the Atlantic you are reading this from). The fact that I willingly woke up at 7.30am on a Sunday morning in order to make the 10am screening is representative enough of how excited I was to be seeing this film. Despite liking Monsters Inc it isn't one of my favourite films from my childhood - i always watched it when it was on TV and thoroughly enjoyed it but to me it is no Toy Story and it is not even a film that i feel compelled to add to my 300+-strong DVD collection. I do enjoy it, i just don't love it - if you know what i mean?

Director Dan Scanlon introducing the film

The prequel really appealed to me because it is set in a University and i thought that they would be going down the Toy Story 3 route of appealing to the original film's audience at the age that they are now. Monsters Inc came out in 2001, a scary thought but that is now 12 years ago, much of the original audience will be either at University or have already experienced it and i thought that just as we said goodbye to our toys and our childhood when Andy did, we would be going to University with Mike and Sully.

Although i think this was, at least in part, the intention of this particular plot I am a bit saddened to say that it does not succeed on the level that Toy Story did. Sure, as a post-grad i could relate to the look of the campus and the experience of going off to find yourself but i didn't feel the same nostalgic connection that i did when Andy said that last goodbye to his childhood. I promise i will now try to keep the Toy Story comparisons to a minimum, i just wanted to get across what i was expecting from this film in the hope that as you read on you can understand why I was a bit disappointed by it.

Mike & Sully introducing the film

I've realised I have not sold this film too well in those last couple of paragraphs and that seems pretty harsh, don't get me wrong it is good. There is plenty going right for it - the way the University references (registration, meeting your new roommate, sororities etc.) were worked into the script were very clever and witty and the friendships and basic storyline of how Mike and Sully became the Mike and Sully we know and love was truly heartwarming. We are introduced to some fantastic new characters, my personal favourites being the band of misfits that Mike and Sully eventually join forces with and there are scenes with these characters that are genuinely laugh-out-loud funny. The personal highlight for me though was the inclusion of other characters from Monsters Inc. The brilliant Steve Buscemi reprises his role as Randall and we actually get an insight into why he is so mean and bitter towards Mike and Sully in the first film and  i thought this was a very welcome nod to the original. Other well-known characters also make cameos and this familiarity gave the film some heart and warmth, even though the children in the audience will not understand the sentiment.

I miss Boo :(

One character who was sorely missed was, of course, little Boo. Obviously as the film is a prequel to Monster's Inc it would be totally implausible to include Boo but as she is mine, and many others, favourite character you really did feel her absence. I feel the inclusion of sweet and innocent Boo in a World where monsters thrive on scaring children is what makes Monsters Inc so great, no children play a central role in Monsters University and although if they did I would probably accuse them of being unoriginal, it did seem like something wasn't quite adding up.

I was also shocked to find out that Monsters University is only 110 minutes as it felt like a lot longer. I think because so many twists and turns are crammed into the basic narrative it makes the film drag - at the end of the day, it is a children's film and it is simply not necessary to include so many sub-plots. There were a lot of instances where i thought the film would be ending yet it somehow managed to carry on and the children in the cinema were becoming restless (which ultimately makes watching the film a much less pleasurable experience for the grown-ups!) As well as the constant changes in the plot being inappropriate for children, there is a sequence towards the end of the film that had near enough every five-and-under child in the audience sobbing and screaming out that 'they don't like it'. With all the wit that the film contains it is sometimes easy to forget that the basic premise of Monsters Inc is pretty much terrifying for children; it's an institution where monsters sneak into children's rooms at night in order to scare them! There was a scene where monsters were scratching along the bedposts and jumping out of shadows to make the children scream as loud as possible as well as other scenes where the monsters are being as creepy as possible because this time they need to scare adults... When you think about it there is no wonder younger children were getting so scared and with the absence of Boo, a child just like the children in the audience who is cared for and safe with Mike and Sully, the monsters lack the compassion seen in the original film.

I was also disappointed that the scene i remembered most vividly from the film's trailer, where Mike is turned into a disco ball, was cut from the final edit. That scene intensified my presumption that the film was going to be about Uni pranks and parties and all the fun and mayhem that comes with it, although there were glimpses of some parties the Uni essence was nowhere near as prominent throughout the film as it's trailer made it out to be.

This band of misfits make the film

All in all, I do think it is worth watching as i did enjoy it there just seemed to be something really off-point for me and I can't exactly figure out what it was. There were definitely some really great, funny moments but i think all of the subplots that are squeezed in means that the great moments get mixed in with the not-so-great moments, eventually making the whole film underwhelming. The script is reasonably strong and the characters are well rounded, i think introducing the misfit monsters a little earlier on would have benefited the film greatly as they carry most of the humour and when they are not onscreen you can feel their absence. Definitely be prepared for some fidgety children towards the end of the film and be wary about taking under five's or sensitive children as the last thing you want is your kids having nightmares about the scary monsters hiding under their bed!

 Monsters University is a watchable film, definitely miles away from the rubbish side of Pixar sequels (Cars 2, i'm looking at you) but not even close to the realm of Toy Story 3. Maybe someplace in the middle alongside Toy Story 2... I wouldn't watch it again but i'm glad i did watch it, and if they make a third Monsters Inc I will give it a go, but only on the condition that they include Boo!!

All in all I award Monsters University: ★★★✯ ☆
                                                                                 (three and a half)

Monsters University is out nationwide from July 12th!

Stay tuned for more reviews and follow me on twitter if you fancy it :)

Love,

Amazing Randall balloon

WORLD WAR Z

 

World War Z is one of those films that i kind of wanted to see but knew i would never actually get around to, so you can imagine my delight yesterday afternoon when i was invited along to a screening of it after work!

The film started with a whole lot of promise; you are introduced to the central family in the midst of their morning routine and the audience is immediately able to get a sense of what a normal, happy and loving family they are. Another pro point was that within fifteen minutes of starting the film, the action and the main storyline (mystery virus is turning civilians into zombies) is well and truly underway.

When the zombies start attacking and the film becomes a fight for Jerry's (played by Brad Pitt) family to survive I really did think that it was a great film - the family dynamics added that extra layer of  emotion to what would have otherwise been just another action sequence and I felt true tension and panic as I helplessly sat and watched, praying they would all get to a safe place unharmed.

Yep, in that first half hour or so I was well and truly invested in the film. Then it all kind of goes wrong...

You see, (and this is by no means a spoiler - it is mentioned within minutes of the film's opening) Jerry happens to be some kind of ex-member of the United Nations. He has contacts and after one night of he and his family running away from zombies he is collected by the UN and his family are dropped off on a safe boat whilst Jerry is faced with no choice but to go back into the scary, zombie-ridden World to try and get to the bottom of this mystery virus and ultimately save the day. This is the true plot of the film and one that I feel was actually a lot weaker  than your basic 'zombie-survival' story... After all, you now know that his family literally face no danger and this seems like a bit of a cop-out. When the terror first began I was convinced that civilians uniting together to survive a zombie attack and a father's struggle to reassure his two young daughters whilst protecting them would have me in tears at some stage (I have this weird thing with unity - a bunch of strangers joining forces for the greater good is always a cue for me to start weeping), I was genuinely preparing to at least shed a tiny tear or get a lump in my throat but the fact is that this film very quickly turns from a drama/ action to a full on action and if you are looking for the level of emotional connection that similar films such as 28 Days Later or Independence Day give you then you will be horribly disappointed.

Now, obviously Brad Pitt is going to be the protagonist. He is. after all, our big bucks Hollywood stud; the guy who the film is about; the reluctant soldier who is convinced to get back out there and fight for the World one last time - of course i expected him to be a huge hero. However, though he might be a hero Jerry is definitely still human (unless the tiny matter of him being invincible was accidentally left out by director Marc Forster) and as time creeps on he survives outrageous, horrific, dangerous event after outrageous, horrific, dangerous event and to be honest, you just start to get a bit tired of it all.

 I know that it is fiction but it still seems a little insulting to the audience when you can pretty much do everything possible to kill a character with him not actually dying and hardly ever losing his momentum. There is also an awful lot of convenience that strikes throughout the film - a complete, unavoidable and unaccounted for disaster can happen and Jerry will conveniently end up being walking distance away from the exact destination that he was planning to go to. Literally, Forster could have dropped Pitt's character from a space shuttle a million miles above Earth and have him land on his own front doorstep completely unscathed and it would not have seemed out of place in this film. The smallest things kill any other character but put Jerry through every trauma possible and he will still come bouncing back, ready to save the day!

As well as that, the zombies were generally quite comical in both appearance and behaviour and there were times the zombies would be shown and the entire cinema just burst out laughing and i don't think this was the intended impact of the film. I also found the 3D to be unnecessary for much of the film - only really serving a purpose when a zombie suddenly appears on the screen, which admittedly did cause me to jump out of my skin, but i actually found for the rest of the time the 3D hindered my experience as the scenes tended to be so fast paced with so much happening onscreen that the gratuitous 3D just made it all seem a bit too over the top and actually made me feel a little nauseous at time.

After a strong start World War Z definitely found itself on a steady decline but the real plummet came with the ending. You have no idea how difficult it is to explain this let down of an ending without spoiling it but it really is just so inconclusive - and inconclusive in a bad and offensive way. I am all for film endings being open to interpretation - a lot of the time i actually prefer it to a concrete ending being forced upon me - but this was beyond a simple case of leaving it to the audience's imagination, this was literally Forster coming up with a vague idea for the ending but being too lazy to iron out all of the new issues that it raises and thus completely failing to execute the idea properly. After investing two hours into this film the ending is less than satisfactory and it genuinely felt as though they ran out of time or money to make the rest of the film so had to end it about fifteen minutes earlier than the script had planned; and this is purely because so much needless time is invested in showing how awesome and great and heroic Brad Pitt is. Which, let's face it, most of us already know.

In all honesty, the 'twist' ending creates more problems than it solves and Forster just could not be bothered to address these problems or come up with a new idea, so just kind of stuck it out hoping the audience will be too blown away by the rest of the film to notice... And judging by the bewildered silence that encased the cinema when the credits came up and everybody realised that we weren't going to be getting any more of a solution than that, i don't think that i was the only one to notice!

All negatives aside, the acting was great, the opening half an hour was incredibly strong and if you are willing to leave all logic and disbelief at home for the night then who knows - i am sure you could enjoy it! I just know that I definitely would have enjoyed it more if there was more focus on family and unity and less focus on how fantastic, resourceful and invincible regular human Jerry is.

All in all I award World War Z: ★★✯☆ ☆
                                                                                 (two and a half)

World War Z is out nationwide from June 21st!

Stay tuned for more reviews and follow me on twitter if you fancy it :)

Love,

THE GREAT GATSBY

I am going to start this review of by saying something controversial: I read the book The Great Gatsby and if i am being totally honest... I didn't love it.

No, wait, come back! I promise I have stuff to say that you might agree with and won't strike your literary soul with horror the way my opening statement did. I just didn't realise when i first picked up the book that ultimately, The Great Gatsby is a love story. The tale of unrequited love and, well, a pretty great man who throws some pretty great parties whilst being in love. Other than love and parties not a lot really happens and even though it is a pretty short book, it dragged.

Now, onto the film. Despite not loving the book i was super excited to see the film... The excitement came around the time the words Baz Luhrmann were uttered in the same sentence as it and was even more intensified when Leonardo Dicaprio and Carey Mulligan were announced to play Gatsby and Daisy. An element of doubt set in when Tobey Maguire (seriously, what?) was cast as Nick but all in all, despite the bad reviews i was hearing, i was excited. 

To start with, as i expected, the film is visually stunning. The luxury, picturesque buildings, the extravagant parties and the beautiful 1920s fashion... Aesthetically i was in love. The beauty of the scenes combined with Luhrmann's trademark directing technique made it a joy to look at and i think even if i hated everything else about it, the pure beauty of the film would have been enough to make me enjoy it at least a little bit. Luhrmann is one of my favourite directors and this is because i love the fast-paced, carnivalesque nature of his films. I think any other director even thinking about making Gatsby into a film is, quite frankly, unacceptable. If anybody was going to bring those fantastical parties to life it was Baz and he delivered 110%.

Carey Mulligan is beautiful as Daisy

Onto the casting. Carey Mulligan has been a firm favourite of mine since i saw her in An Education four years ago. She is simply beautiful and such an elegant, graceful woman in every role i have seen her in and she floated into Daisy's shoes in a similarly elegant manner and with such amazing beauty that shone through the screen. However, in the book i found Daisy to be quite a one-dimensional character. I had absolutely no feeling or emotion towards her and i am sad to say that this translates into the film as well. I don't think it is by any means a reflection of Mulligan or Luhrmann; they did everything right but, for me, Daisy just isn't a character i can bring myself to care about. There just isn't enough there for me to relate to as she doesn't really have a lot of dialogue and we are told very little about her life, aside from her relationship with Gatsby. I think Daisy's transparant character is more a reflection of the expecations of women at the time of Fitzgerald's writing above anything else. Saying this, the scene where Daisy is preparing to marry and the string of pearls breaks as she is screaming did bring a lump to my throat when watching. Carey Mulligan might not have been able to breathe life into a lifeless character but everything that she did do was beautifully acted and for that, i can not fault her.

Tobey Maguire's comical facial expressions introduced us all to a new Nick Carraway

Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway... Where to start? I can't even begin to tell you how shocked i was when Maguire was announced to play the character who ultimately carries the novel. The story may be about Gatsby but in every sense of the word it is Nick who is the protagonist so casting somebody who had pretty much disappeared since his last big film almost a decade ago did not seem a wise choice for me. Tobey Maguire is Spiderman. To me and to many other people this is all he is known as... Could he really carry the film adaptation of one of the biggest literary classics to exist? As soon as the film started, i was wary. He was definitely not how i imagined Nick to be when reading the book, he was just too awkward - too much of a wallflower, i know Nick is the one who observes the whole story but he doesn't just blend into the background the way that Maguire did. As well as this new awkward personality that Maguire introduced to Nick, it was distracting that he seems to only be able to do facial expressions that border on comical, it is difficult to take him seriously. His facial reactions and the way he responds to other characters almost seemed like a caricature but i have to say, after about half an hour this grew on me. The small essence of slapstick comedy that Tobey Maguire embossed into every facial expression eventually worked for me and i will be completely honest and say that they only worked because of Baz Luhrmann's directing technique. The whole film was very bizarre, very carnivalesque, very caricature and once the parties and the fast-paced nature of these scenes got into the swing of it Maguire's silly face blended in naturally with the rest of the carry-on around him after initally sticking out like a sore thumb. Similarly to Luhrmann's other great films like Moulin Rouge and Romeo + Juliet, a lot of the shots were sudden close-ups of the character's faces and although Maguire definitely does not portray the Nick Carraway in the book, which i can see would annoy fans, he does portray an acceptable and watchable Nick Carraway. I did need time to get used to him but in hindsight i think he was a good, not great, choice.

Leonardo Dicaprio: A truly great Gatsby

Oh Gatsby... As with most people my age i have been a huge fan of Leonardo Dicaprio for as long as i can remember, he was one of my first 'favourite actors' having watched The Basketball Diaries at a young age and even then i remember thinking how astounding he was at acting - my love of him is not just down to his sexy good looks. Therefore i could not have chosen anybody else to play the iconic literary character of Jay Gatsby. He did say 'Old Sport' a hell of a lot but all in all he made a pretty great Gatsby (i didn't even mean to make that lame little pun there but i am leaving it in because it's true) He has the charisma, the depth, the look of Gatsby. He was so close to how i pictured him to be when reading the book and i actually connected with film Gatsby a LOT more than i did with book Gatsby. Something about the sad, painful look in his eyes and the hidden anguish he portrayed so well. In the book i was somewhat unaffected by the ending but in the film i was edging towards tears. It just broke my heart to see Gatsby fall apart the way that he does and personally i truly believe that Dicaprio brought Gatsby to life in ways that the book could not. My ultimate favourite scene in the film is when Gatsby is throwing all of his shirts over the stairs; he just looks so happy, so carefree - Dicaprio's entire face transforms, he had the youthful, fresh, innocent look that he did in his early days. It looked like a genuine transition of emotion, not just your bog-standard actor putting across that emotion, you can see that Dicaprio really did feel it and it is little things like that that make the film and fully engross you into the storyline and lives of the characters.

On top of this, there are many other pro-points to the film: The on-screen chemistry between Leonardo Dicaprio and Carey Mulligan was out of this world. They really looked like they were in love with eachother and the relationship between Daisy and Gatsby was enchanting, even if Daisy as a character was not. The supporting cast was amazing and i couldn't fault anything about any of them and very little of the main narrative was changed in the transition from book to film, which is a rare feat nowadays and must have made fans of the book pretty happy. There genuinely were a whole lot of plus points to this movie but the biggest negative was that i found it around about half an hour too long. There was a section in the middle where it all just seemed to drag and the audience had already understood the pain and anguish at unrequited love but Luhrmann seemed keen to reinforce that as much as possible... And this was too many times for my liking. As i said, the book is pretty short and i had already wondered how they would make it into a feature length film at all, let alone a two and a half hour one. However, similarly to Les Miserables, the prolonged middle section of the film was more than made up for by the incredible ending. The last fifteen minutes had me hooked and the very, very last scene - though really predictable - sent shivers down my spine.

As i wasn't a huge fan of the book i will actually congratulate The Great Gatsby for, in my opinion, being a film that is actually slightly better than the book. Other than cutting down some of that middle section i couldn't think of anything more they could have done in order to improve it. And my love for Baz Luhrmann may be slightly responsible for this but i like to think it is a film that will be enjoyed by most!

All in all i award The Great Gatsby with ★★★★☆

Stay tuned for more reviews and follow me on twitter if you fancy it :)

Love,

EPIC

 

Thanks to MSN Entertainment  I had the utter privilige to see the newest Blue Sky animation EPIC this evening.

As a huge fan of all things magical and all things tiny, a film about the magical adventure of a girl, MK (Amanda Seyfried), who is shrunk so that she can enter (and help to save) an enchanting World of the miniature society that inhabits a forest was definitely right up my street!

Beautiful Aesthetics

The setting is absolutely stunning and the 3D is simply breathtaking - from the moment the opening scene appeared onscreen a resounding 'wow' echoed around the cinema and the audience were noticeably taken in by the utter beauty of the film throughout.

Although animated films are always technically 'children's films' i found that Epic was a true delight for children and grown ups alike! The characters are diverse and well-rounded, not the simplified kiddy characters that you might find in some children's films, and the humour was clever and at times laugh-out-loud funny. It has one of the best voiceover casts that i have ever seen; Josh Hutcherson, Colin Farrell and Christoph Waltz gave stellar, meaningful performances alongside Amanda Seyfried as the lead cast whereas Chris O'Dowd and Aziz Ansari provided great comic relief as the snail/slug duo Mub and Grub. Music artists Beyonce, Pitbull and Steven Tyler of Aerosmith shined as the supporting cast and the whole team seemed to fit together flawlessly.

Obviously as a children's film it is not without its flaws, but in this case the flaws are mostly down to plotholes i.e. the distorted notion of time in order to convenience the plot, but this is a magical world that we are talking about and my suspension of disbelief can be extended to something as mundane as a time scale. Other than that i have no complaints - it moved at exactly the right pace to keep you interested and the bright, colourful, beautiful scenes were perfectly juxtaposed with the drab, decaying scenes that showed us where the bad guys inhabited. Before the three World's (the real world, the 'good' magical world and the 'bad' magical world) are linked together i found that the narrative flowed effortlessly between them; making the audience familiar with each aspect of the film before the time came for the Worlds to merge. This was not what i expected - from viewing the trailer i thought that we would be following MK and our first introduction to the magical Worlds would be once she has shrunk and been forced to enter them; seeing all three from the get-go was definitely the better option! There wasn't one moment of the film where i was bored or clock-watching or waiting for a scene to end, and i think that is all down to the charming cast, fast-paced narrative and, of course, the breathtaking aesthetics.

Epic Pug

AND if that wasn't enough, there is an adorable chubby three-legged pug. A misfit animated pug in 3D - What more can you ask for than that?!

One thing that i will say is that i found certain scenes with the 'baddies' a little bit creepy when thinking of it in the eyes of a younger child; there are parts where they appear from the bark in the trees and jump out to the camera and this might be a little bit scary for more sensitive children.

All in all i award Epic ★★★★★ and thoroughly recommend it to both adults and children; a cinema trip for all of the family!

Stay tuned for more reviews and follow me on twitter if you fancy it :)

Love,

LITTLE CHILDREN

My favourite kind of film tends to be those 'slice of life' films. I know in my last post i said that i love horror films but trust me, if i love horror films i am pretty much married to 'slice of life'. You know the ones - a little two hour snippet of what appears to be the completely plausible, normal, everyday lives and the darkness that consequently lies behind those perfect suburban doors. Think Revolutionary Road or Closer or Magnolia or Lost in Translation (Which, ironically, i hate). My all time favourite 'slice of life' film is Another Happy Day, which is also one of my all time favourite films and stars one of the greatest young actors of this generation (Ezra Miller).

Little Children is exactly one of those kind of films, it's an insight into the four seemingly normal lives of your average, every day people; a married man and a married woman, a disgraced police officer and a man who has recently been released from prison after exposing himself to a minor. Four lives that are interconnected in ways that will become clear and four lives that are actually a lot more sinister once you scratch the surface.

Now let me get something clear - this isn't a very dramatic film. Not too much happens and compared to a film like American Beauty it might just fall a bit flat but the concept behind it is very relatable and fascinating to watch; but as these kinds of films are my favourite there is a chance that i am being a little biased. But what does happen to a perfect neighbourhood when, well, a paedophile is back on the streets? What does happen when you fall for somebody who isn't your spouse? How do you deal with the gossip surrounding your affair? It is a simple film but it is so beautifully acted and beautifully composed that i think the simpleness of the narrative  adds to the overall essence rather than have any kind of negative impact.

I have to warn you that i you are the kind of person that needs action, explosions, guns and shouting to make it through a film then it may not be for you but if you prefer exploring the complexities of life and relationships then sit back and enjoy, you are in for a treat!

Also bare in mind that as this is a Kate Winslet film there is, needless to say, a lot of nudity. Alongside some pretty graphic sex scenes so maybe don't watch this one with the 'rents.

All in all, i award Little Children ★★★☆☆

Stay tuned for more things film and follow me on Twitter if you fancy it :) 

Love,

MAMA

Okay, before I start can i just get this out of my system: Am i the only person who's inner fourteen-year-old is unleashed at the sight of the word 'Mama'?! Literally, i can't read the word without hearing this gem in my head:

Right, now that is out of the way let's get back to the topic at hand!

One thing you should know about me is that i love a good horror film - i love to jump and be scared and then hide under the covers at bedtime because i don't want the scary monster to get me. However, these days finding a good horror film is pretty much impossible. They are a rare breed and this is because a good horror film has to be more than just scary. There needs to be the right amount of scares, quality acting and, most importantly, have a really great plot.

Y'know, a plot?! One of those coherent things that drive films? Something that has a clear beginning, middle and an end? No massive, gaping plot holes? No amazing twists but with no explanation? Okay, good - you guys know what that is and that already puts you one step above most horror film makers! Just last year i saw the film 'The Pact' in the cinema, which was pretty good - it was kind of creepy and the story was sort of making sense as well as scaring me but then it committed that great horror film offence of an amazing plot twist making the audience gasp but then...... The credits rolled. Seriously, they had this amazing turn of events that ended so suddenly there was pretty much no explanation, no detail given, nothing! It was very disappointing to say the least and it made all the positives of the film - like the fact it made me jump and was scary in places - just disappear. Horror film scares are nothing without a plot!

Needless to say, i am quite cautious when choosing to invest time in a horror film because i know it will probably end up being disappointing. However, when i saw Guillermo Del Toro had a new film, 'Mama', coming out i was super, super excited! I have seen a few of his other films and i know that if there is one thing that i can trust Del Toro with, it is providing the audience with a good, coherent narrative. I was quick to Orange Wednesday'd it and was scared before the film had even started - apprehensive of the terror that would soon be engrossing me and the fact that i was seeing it late at night, meaning that i would be going straight home to bed in the dark afterwards, made it all the more terrifying.

I am so happy to report that the film is captivating from beginning to end. For those who don't know, 'Mama' is the story of two young girls that have been found living feral in the woods five years after they disappeared. They go to live with their Uncle and his girlfriend but are constantly talking to and about 'mama' and ~weird things~ start to happen. Typical to Del Toro's usual style the audience is a lot more emotionally involved with the characters than your usual horror movie. Within ten minutes i was close to tears at the sight of the two young sister huddling together for warmth having been abandoned in the forest and although i didn't cry at the end i know plenty of people who did shed a few tears!

Also executive producer of films like 'Pans Labyrinth', Del Toro is definitely more inclined to go down the more fantastical horror route than traditional, sinister horror. The ending of 'Mama' has been compared by many to something straight out of a Tim Burton movie and there are lots of fantasy elements throughout the film that make me think 'horror' isn't the most accurate genre-label for it. Mama herself is very fantastical looking, she is definitely not your typical horror villain and i have to be completely honest and say that i found her appearance somewhat laughable. Her face was just so big and her hair was so far receeded that she resembled a potato and the sounds that she was making sounded more like a cow moo-ing than anything terrifying. However.... THIS IS NOT A BAD THING!!!!

I was so worried when i went in that i'll be seeing her face in the shadows when i went to bed that night, so her face not being scary at all was definitely something that worked in my favour at least! And, most importantly, just because the villain herself wasn't scary to look at it doesn't mean there aren't any scares in the film! From things lurking in the shadow and the traditional aspect of things suddenly jumping out at you... I was hiding behind my coat for a little bit of it i have to admit.

The storyline was exactly what I had expected from Del Toro – an emotive and well-explained back story that leaves no real questions unanswered; there were downsides though. There was an incredibly obvious deleted scene which disorientated the story arc a little bit and I cant for the life of me work out why it was deleted, the time scale was also a bit messed up – it would be light outside one second then pitch black the next and we would then be shown the exterior of the house in complete darkness but once inside the house you could see daylight shining in through the windows. These are more goofs than plot holes though but they seem like pretty major goofs to have been missed.

One thing that definitely CAN NOT be ignored though is the absolutely outstanding performances from the two young actresses who play such an incredibly central role in the film. Like most, I am always a bit wary of films that are focused on a child playing a main role because, whether we like it or not, a lot of children can not act. One major film from last year, whose title I wont say because I don’t want to be slagging of a kid, was utterly ruined for me because of the distractingly bad performance from the child actor. These girls were extraordinary and their performances aided the emotional connection that I had with the film rather than hinder it, as has happened in the past. Congrats to them!

All in all I did thoroughly enjoy 'Mama' and although it had a few flaws and the CGI wasn’t up to scratch it had a decent storyline and was a captivating watch. I don’t feel it fits comfortably within the horror genre but rather flits somewhere between the horror/ fantasy hybrid that Del Toro is creating. It is definitely more horror and scarier than his previous film, The Orphanage (which is also amazing and you should check it out) but it has a heavier focus on emotion and character development than most horror films. And to those who are wary of watching it because you don’t want to have nightmares and aren't a fan of horror films i'd say… give it a go. You will probably jump a few times but there is so much more to the film than horror so i don't think it will do any lasting damage :)

I award 'Mama': ★★★★☆
Stay tuned for more things film!

Love,