Review: Ted

Star Rating:***

Director: Seth MacFarlane

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth MacFarlane, Giovanni Ribisi, Joel McHale, Patrick Warburton, Aedin Mincks

Plot/Overview: A kid, John Bennet (Wahlberg), wishes that his Teddy Bear 'Ted' (MacFarlane) could talk and so it comes to life, which causes a problem later in life when John is all grown-up and living with his girlfriend Lori (Kunis) and a teddy bear that smokes weed.
To be honest, my expectations for this film were low. I have never been into the crude types of movies but this movie totally surprised me! There was of course, the typical plot that focused around the relationship between John, Lori and Ted ... but there was also a subplot that introduced two new characters,  Donny (Ribisi) and his son Robert (Mincks) who are completely obsessed with the famous talking bear, Ted.


What are the good points?
1. The subplot with Donny and Robert really makes the movie that much better. It adds so much more humour and excitement and I am definitely glad they added this in.

2. Mila Kunis. She's not really funny but let's face it, she's hot and the movie wouldn't be the same without her.

What are the bad points?
 1. I didn't actually think the bear was that funny really, considering he was the main character... I just don't think crude humour is funny (Hey, I'm not a prude). Don't get me wrong, there were some funny parts/lines but on the whole... he wasn't that hilarious. Sorry.

2. The fact that I have nothing else to say about this film says it all...

Should you see this movie?
I would say yes. Don't go out of your way to see it.. I mean, it's not crucial or anything, but if you have a free afternoon, fancy a bit of a giggle and an 'alright' movie then go for it. I would say you will probably find this funnier if you are a teen (15+)... just because it's one of those films (I'm looking at you American Pie 4 and onwards)... but also because it does still have a pretty good sub-plot.

Review: Midnight in Paris

STAR RATING: ***

Probably some **SPOILERS**

I sat down the other night to watch Midnight in Paris, not really knowing what to expect as I had read no reviews or any kind of synopsis that tells you the general storyline of the film. I knew three things:

1. It was starred a few familiar faces, including Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams.
2. It was set in Paris
3. It was directed by Woody Allen.

Yes, that's all I knew.

The storyline actually focuses on a Hollywood screenwriter known as Gil (Wilson), who seems to be somewhat unfulfilled in his current life and attempting to finish his first novel, whilst vacationing in Paris with his finance Inez (McAdams') and her wealthy parents.
Gil and Inez are clearly not the perfect match for each other, and we do see them in constant disagreement with each other from the moment we see them together. Aside from the fact that Inez clearly doesn't understand Gil's ambition and his unhappiness with his career, the couple also disagree strongly about the fact that Gil desperately wants to move to Paris after they marry, and Inez desperately wants to stay in Malibu. Let's not also forget an extra catalyst added to the couple's relationship problems in the form of Paul (Michael Sheen) - a friend of Inez who appears very cultured and knowledgeable about Paris and it's history.
We get all this information in the first fifteen minutes of the movie, and honestly, at this moment I was thinking that it was very... well.... cliche.

One night on their vacation, after dining with Paul (and another woman who I think is pretty irrelevant), a drunk Gil decides he doesn't want to join them to go dancing afterwards and decides to walk back to their hotel, only to get lost in the back streets of Paris. He sits to rest on some steps when a nearby clock strikes midnight and a 1920's car suddenly appears and the people inside beckon him to join them... and so he does.
Gil then finds that he has travelled back in time to 1920's Paris an time that he dubs as a "golden era". He finds this happens every night at the same place, same time, and along way manages to meet great historical figures and people that he idolises such as Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston and Alison Pill), Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll), who offers to have his novel read by Gertude Stein (Kathy Bates), and Pablo Picasso (Marcial Di Fonzo Bo).
He also meets a woman named Adriana (Marion Cottilard) whom he begins to fall in love with and obviously that causes problems, 'cause.. y'know.. she's from the 1920's and stuff.
Back in present time, Gil also meets antiques dealer Gabrielle (Léa Seydoux) who he has shared interests with and a clear connection...

Back in the 1920's with Adriana, the paid travel back in time together to Paris in 1890, which is the time that Adriana most idolises, and when she decides she that wants to stay, Gil finally realises that whilst it's nice to be nostalgic... it's a much better idea to accept his present time.
That being said... he then goes back to sort stuff out with his bride-to-be...

(I won't say anymore about the plot.. even though I have already told you most of the story.)

If I'm honest, I didn't think Owen Wilson was particularly great... he played the typical character he always plays, which is always the likable character of any story that we all want to see do well... but I think it can sometimes get tiring. The only depth to this character was created by Woody Allen through the writing and directing of this movie, so I must admit that it would have been nice to see Wilson add something a little extra to this character... perhaps a quirky mannerism or habit? since we are talking about a man who is, on paper, so wrapped up in his own little world and frustrated with his current life.

Similarly I was also disappointed with Rachel McAdams, whom I usually absolutely adore! Though I do have a massive girl-crush on her, I have to say I was really disappointed with her character. I'm not entirely sure it was her portrayal of the character that I disliked (though perhaps I am being a little biased), It was more the character that had been created for her. I think this "spoilt-brat-fiancee who doesn't understand or support her husband's dreams and ambitions" has been done so many times before, and I think the story would have worked just as well if she had been the complete opposite. I definitely think that if the story had focused more on Gil and his acceptance of his current life in present time and less on his relationship with Inez and Adriana, then the entire movie would have been improved greatly.

Aside from this, I actually think Woody Allen did an excellent job writing and directing this movie. For a movie that seems to have such a mediocre storyline, I think it actually provoked some complex and abstract ideas such as the concept of time and nostalgia, but without making the story completely incomprehensible or "artsy" (which isn't a word, but seems to describe a category of movies of which I think everyone is familiar with...).

So all in all, I would say... watch this movie if you have a free evening and fancy watching something slightly bizarre. Don't focus too much on the character's, but turn your attention to the "message" or ideas presented by the story.. it might turn out that you actually quite like it...

...and besides, the scenery is gorgeous! So if you're watching it for anything... watch it for the sights!

My Love for Cast Away

***SPOILERS!***

I haven't seen this movie in a long time, so immediately hit the record button when I saw it was going to appear on BBC 1 the other night!
I find it so hard to believe that this movie was slammed by so many critics when I think it is arguably one of the best movies ever made ... probably in the top 500 (which, when you think about how many movies actually exist, is actually a pretty decent place for a movie to be).

For those who don't know the movie (and if you don't then I think you should watch it), it focuses around Chuck Noland (played by Tom Hanks), who is a FedEx executive who finds himself stranded on a Desert Island for four years (ish) after enduring a plane crash.

So basically, it's all about how he copes physically and emotionally with his isolation and new lifestyle (and I might add that the fact he doesn't die in the plane crash isn't a spoiler as it is about his life on the island...).

What I find very interesting about this movie is the fact that Hanks has very little dialogue throughout the movie, despite being the main character... I mean, there is some dialogue.. but not very much, and considering his conversations are mostly with himself and inanimate objects, I think it is fantastic that he somehow manages to keep an audience captivated and almost emotionally attached to Chuck Noland's character.

What I definitely see, (that most critics did not apparently...) is the change in Noland's character throughout his stay on the island. I think most people where looking to see him break down or go insane or whatever they think would usually happen if you found yourself alone on a desert island for four years.. but I really disagree! Here are my reasons:

• Firstly, we don't see every year that he is on the island. For all we know, and I'm assuming it probably happened nearer the beginning of his time there, he could have had so many breakdowns and emotional moments, as well as suicide attempts (which we do actually see that he considers).
• Okay, secondly, Just like every other human/animal/living organism he learns to adapt to his new environment over FOUR YEARS!
• Thirdly, if talking to and becoming emotionally attached to a ball that you have named "Wilson" is not what you would call "going insane" then I don't know what is.

One of my favourite things about this character is also his belief that he will deliver one of the FedEx packages (he leaves one unopened). I think he sees it as some sort of goal, and sees the opening of the package as admitting defeat. I also love that idea of him having a picture of his love interest/girlfriend (Helen Hunt) to look at.. but I don't think they meant to portray this in a cheesy "someday I will be reunited with my love" kind of way, but I think it is a way of keeping the character emotionally connected to the "real world", and to feeling something "real" to prevent him becoming less "human". (Sorry a lot of quotation marks going on today... )

Anyway, in case you haven't already got the picture, I love this movie. I think it is different and interesting and as always, Tom Hanks is brilliant. I definitely think that even if it is not in everyone else's top 500, it can be argued as one of the most underrated films in history...

.. In my opinion anyway ;)

Review: The Woman in Black

STAR RATING: *****

OK. I was really scared to see this movie.

Just the day before I had been queueing at the cinema waiting to see a different film, when my cousin came out of one of the screens, completely freaked out and shaking, telling me that the film she had just seen was completely terrifying!

The Woman in Black.

To be honest I was fighting two thoughts in my head. The first said 'it's a 12A... how bad could it be?' and the second voice said 'don't go and see it - it's going to be reaaaaally scary'. I mean, seeing my cousin's reaction wasn't the only time I had been forewarned about this movie - my other peers and official reviews also emphasised that it was probably going to give me nightmares for the next few weeks.

.... buuuuuuttt... I went to see it anyway ;)

I have to be honest, I wasn't scared as I thought I would be. I'm not sure if this was because the hype had geared me up so much that I was expecting the worst and it therefore seemed less scary when it didn't match my expectation, ... or if perhaps I was putting on a brave face whilst surrounded by other cinema-goers.
...But I wouldn't deny that it is very very creepy and very haunting. This movie is exactly the type of example that can be used to show the difference between a horror movie and a ghost story. It is definitely a ghost story, and although this label implies a lack of scariness, this is definitely not the case. I may not have been terrified, but I was definitely cowering into my seat for some parts.. and I did jump... a lot.

The story is based around Arthur Kipps, played by Daniel Radcliffe, who is called to a remote mansion called Eel Marsh House to settle the late-owner's estate. He arrives to the nearby oh-so-creepy village where he intends to stay whilst carrying out his business, only to receive very unwelcoming attitudes from the local residents, with the owners of the inn he is supposed to be staying in telling him they have no spaces, and the local solicitor telling him to leave town on the next train and he is not needed.

Yes, yes, very suspicious! We get the immediate feel of eeriness and a 'hidden secret'.

Spooky stuff.

Anyway so, Kipps ignores them and continues to the house the following day. Almost immediately after he walks through the front door of the old mansion, you begin to sense something is wrong. This feeling is probably encouraged by the haunting music and grey colours that seem to scream GHOST!!!!

After a few jumpy moments... the ones that make you think that something big is going to happen, Kipps begins to experience some ghostly happenings, such as noises and seeing things out of the corner of his eyes Once he even sees the Woman in Black herself, though at this point he knows nothing of her....

and then the story really begins...

... and that is where my general plot-overview ends. I really can't give anything away, you see ;)

To generally review the film, Daniel Radcliffe is absolutely brilliant. I was concerned about how young he is and looks... with Arther Kipps being a father and all, but if you think about it, in this Victorian era it was probably common to be a family man at such a young age, when old age was so uncommon. Nonetheless, his mannerisms really accentuate maturity and the way he acts with his on-screen son really makes you believe he is a father. I really did imagine I would be thinking "oh my god, it's Harry Potter" the whole time... but it didn't actually cross my mind once. To me, he was just Arthur Kipps.
Aside from Radcliffe's outstanding performance (in my opinion), I was so impressed with the general direction (James Watkins) and screenplay (Jane Goldman). The particular scene(s) in which Kipps stays in the house for an entire night, were exceptional. It wasn't until after the movie had finished that someone mentioned to me that, in this section of the film, there was about thirty minutes where there was no dialogue at all. I hadn't even noticed, and I think that really is a good sign, don't you think? To be so caught up in a story... it's what you really want out of a film.

Okay, so I know I keep giving movies good reviews... but I guess I have just seen some good movies lately. The Woman in Black is definitely one of the best films I have seen in a long time. It is a fantastic horror(ish) movie that also holds a great storyline, which I think is so hard to find.

A definite must-see.

Until we blog again,
x

Review: The Vow

STAR RATING: ****

In general, the films I tend to go for are 'the really good ones'. I like a good story line, with strong characters and that special something that makes me leave the cinema thinking 'I definitely just watched a good film'.

I have never been a fan of really, really cheesey films with a predictable storyline, but I do have a few exceptions, and one thing I can't resist is one of those soppy love stories. You know the ones like The Notebook, Dear John and Titanic. Mostly just Nicholas Sparks novels-turned-movies. They don't have a particularly deep plot, and are mostly just boy-meets-girl kind of stories, nothing to serious...

...but perhaps that's why I like them, and probably why I was desperate to see The Vow starring The Notebook's Rachel McAdams, and Dear John's Channing Tatum.

The film is about a married couple, Leo (Tatum) and Paige (McAdams) who are involved in a car accident which results in Paige's memory loss through which she fails to remember the last few years of her life, including the part of her life she shared with her husband.
With his wife not knowing who he is, Leo attempts to reconnect with his wife and make her fall in love with him all over again, at the same time trying to help her remember her life with him.

As far as the storyline goes, I didn't think it was that complex, if anything it was very simple. However, director Michael Sucsy really played on the emotions of the couple and their relationship rather than the cliché 'journey of the couple finally getting back to their old selves and falling in love all over again'.The story definitely played on the idea that one small event, or 'moments of impact' as narrated by Leo, really has the power to change your life completely and unexpectedly.

As much as I was expecting a completely cheesey Rom-Com type movie, and in places it almost reached this point, what I actually got was a movie that was very touching and thought-provoking.
Of course, we were always going to get the oh-so-predictable 'oops-you-walked-in-on-me-naked' type scenes, but I genuinely thought they added a light touch to a movie that is actually, quite depressing.

Channing Tatum, I thought, was fantastic. It wasn't completely different from that character he always seems to play (the tough guy with the cheesey grin and the kind heart), but he somehow managed to put so much more emotion into this role without overplaying it. It must be so difficult to play a guy who's wife has no idea who he is...

Tatum portrays Leo as, not a man suffering from unrequited love, but a man who honestly has no idea what to do with the situation that has been thrown at him. He loves his wife and seems to have such trouble understanding how isn't the same person she was, but also has no idea how to bring her back. You can really see how Leo is trying to stay calm and patient for his wife, but slowly losing hope for her, and it definitely made me feel for him.

Similarly, Rachel McAdams does an amazing job of playing wife Paige. It really can't be easy to play the role of a person whose accident has resulted in such unusual consequences. It would not have been good enough for her to just act like she didn't know her husband and have no connection with him what-so-ever. We have to take into account that, yes she has lost her memory, but she also has this man in her life that tells her that he's her husband and so she must be thinking 'well I must love him if I married him', and I really do think McAdams has taken this into account whilst playing Paige. You can see throughout most of the film that Paige doesn't just look at her husband and think 'who the hell are you?'... instead she sees a man that she is supposed to know and love, but doesn't know how to get that back. She is just as frustrated as Leo and doesn't want to hurt him, and I think that that is what makes her character more relatable in such a rare situation. (I used the word rare since it is noted in the end credits that the movie was based on true events).

OK so, I did go in to the movie expecting something very cheesey, and there was not as much cheesey as i had hoped for, but I wasn't dissatisfied. Without giving anything away, I was extremely please with how to story played out - in a way that i completely didn't expect.

If there a negative I could give this movie it would be that I would have liked a little bit less emphasis on Leo's emotions and a little more on Paige. I guess the story is partly told from Leo's point of view, but I would have like to have seen more of Paige on her own, or even Paige and Leo together, just the tow of them. Perhaps that's the romantic in me talking... who knows.

I wouldn't give this movie five stars, but only because compared to every other movie in the world, it doesn't exceed them all in terms of screenplay or originality, but I will give it four stars because the soppy-romantic in me really enjoyed it and I recommend it to anyone that likes that kind of movie :).


Until we blog again,
x