10 Years On: Mean Girls (2004)

Year: 2004
Running Time: 97 minutes
Director: Mark Waters
Writers: Rosalind Wiseman (based on the book "Queen Bee's and Wannabes" by) and Tina Fey (screenplay)
Cast: Lindsay Lohan, Rachel McAdams, Lacey Chabert, Amanda Seyfried, Tina Fey, Jonathan Bennett, Lizzy Caplan, Daniel Franzese, Amy Poehler

April 30 this year will mark the 10th anniversary of the release of Mean Girls. The film itself has become somewhat of a cult classic with it's wicked sense of humour, timeless themes and extremely quotable dialogue. The film is as relevant now as it was 10 years ago and although it has all the elements that would make it a teenage film primarily for girls, it reaches far beyond those boundaries. Mean Girls was responsible for making several of it's stars household names, including Lindsay Lohan, Rachel McAdams and Amanda Seyfried. With it's anniversary looming, taking a look back at the film reminds us why it was such a success when it was released and why it still remains a favourite of many.

Cady Heron's (Lindsay Lohan) first day of school is not like most people's. She has been home schooled while living in Africa with her parents her whole life, and her first day of regular school is as a sixteen year old. It's a complete shock to the system for Cady as she tries to learn the protocol of cafeteria dynamics at her new high school. She is quickly taken into the guidance of Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and Damian (Daniel Franzese), two misfits who are the most loyal of friends, and they give her the rundown on who is who as far as the cliques go at North Shore. The warn Cady to stay away from the Plastics, who are the most popular girls in school, but also the most evil. Yet, Cady is drawn into the world of teen queens, Regina (Rachel McAdams), Gretchen (Lacey Chabert) and Karen (Amanda Seyfried) and discovers that being one of them is better than to be in the Plastics hating life than not being with them.

Based on the book, "Queen Bees and Wannabe's" by Rosalind Wiseman, Mean Girls is a thoroughly entertaining look at the female dynamics of high school. The reason the film remains as relevant today as it did in 2004 is because the way females interact in high school is really timeless. There will always be the popular girls known as the Queen Bee's who are like the celebrities in every school that everyone wants to know everything about and want to be liked by. With every popular group of girls, there are always the groups which are "below" them, and Mean Girls doesn't forget about these girls either. The film is completely relatable to girls who are in the same age bracket as the ones in the film, but this doesn't mean it is just for teenage girls.

Mean Girls is a lot of fun for people of any age and not just for girls, also for boys. Boys may not be able to relate to the film as much as girls can, but will still be able to relate to it in that they will remember seeing all this happen around them. This isn't to say that all of the situations in the film are relatable, but it is no secret that girls can be extremely mean to each other and while they may not all actively plot to destroy each other's figures or get them in trouble with the headmaster, they can do some pretty horrendous things to one another. The screenplay written by Tina Fey, who also stars in the film as Mrs Norbury, allows people to see these high school dynamics in an extremely amusing fashion. The screenplay is wonderfully witty and funny. There are so many memorable quotes throughout the film which just seem to resonate in pop culture. The internet age also brought a new life to these quotes as there are various memes online with these sayings and people love to use these quotes in everyday conversation. Even though Regina did not believe "Fetch" was going to happen, it has indeed happened.

Along with the wickedly funny dialogue, the film maintains it's playful style with such scenes as the girls singing and dancing to "Jingle Bell Rock" and other acts at the talent show including Kevin Gnapoor's (Rajiv Surendra) rap and Damian's rendition of Christina Aguilera's "Beautiful". All the characters are so well defined and all individual. They are all very different and are all so in depth (unlike many characters in the typical teenage genre film) and wonderfully developed. The soundtrack is also perfect for the film, as it is playful and every song is used to accentuate the scene which it is used in.

Lindsay Lohan snagged a huge amount of fans after she appeared as Cady here. Not only was she perfect for the part, but she was just overwhelmingly likable. Her naivety in the first half of the film is so endearing and beautiful, that although she changes throughout the film, she still remains an audience favourite.  Her character development is purely perfection as it is gradual and not a sudden change in attitude that seems unrealistic. This was, and still is Lohan's best performance to date due to how much the audience empathizes with her and her persona.

Rachel McAdams is so wicked that she is great. Her Regina may seem completely shallow, but she is a complex villain due to her manipulation skills. You want to see her fall from her pedestal, but love watching her at her worst. It's a completely different role to what McAdams has done since then and is still her most believable and interesting. Lacey Chabert is a lot of fun, as is Amanda Seyfried, who like McAdams, has not done anything like this role since. Lizzy Caplan and Daniel Franzese both do well. They are two different characters who almost seem like one entity on screen and they are fantastic to watch together. Tina Fey does well, and Amy Poehler is hilarious as Regina's mother.

While it may be 10 years since we were first introduced to the cliques of North Shore High School, it doesn't feel like it as Mean Girls is as relevant now as it was then. It is hard to imagine that it would ever lose it's relevancy as as long as there is high school, there will be mean girls.

Sydney Film Festival: Lovelace (2013)

Year: 2013
Director: Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman
Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Peter Sarsgaard, Juno Temple, Sharon Stone, Robert Patrick, Chris Noth, Hank Azaria, James Franco, Adam Brody
Lovelace will be screening at the Sydney Film Festival on the 10th and 15th of June 2013. Please see here for venues, times and tickets.

Biopic's of pornography stars are completely unlike any other type of biopic...and not just for the obvious reason.

What one notices when watching Lovelace, is that even though the film does have it's moments of drama and heartbreak, there are the moments relating directly to the pornographic industry that are just ridiculously humorous. As was the case with Linda Lovelace's film Deep Throat which had everyone talking back in 1972, you leave this film and you remember it more for the recreation of the filming of this cult/porn classic rather than the terror that Lovelace goes through.

Lovelace follows the first porn superstar, Linda Lovelace (Amanda Seyfried) on her rise to stardom. We first meet Lovelace as a twenty-one year old when she meets her to-be husband, Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard) who is the one who makes her become a pornstar so they can pay back the money they owe. The more successful Lovelace gets, the more abusive and controlling Chuck becomes. Lovelace shows how a young girl became a porn superstar and then ultimately became an anti-porn activist.

This film, which is basically based on Lovelace's 1979 autobiography "Ordeal", is an extraordinary story. It is incredible to find out how this star came to be who she was and what she went through when the cameras weren't rolling. It is amazing that someone who did something completely against her would come to be such a massive star.

However, according to many reviews of "Ordeal", the book was very hard hitting and upsetting. The film on the other hand does have it's sad moments and you do have a fear for Lovelace's safety with her violent husband, but it isn't as heart-breaking. This is perhaps because in the book you don't hear or see any recreation of the film, Deep Throat that made Lovelace a star. The recreation of the porn film in Lovelace doesn't actually show too much, but gives the impression of these acts so you don't remember these scenes for the visuals (which you apparently do in the actual 1972 film). You remember them rather because they are actually really quite funny and silly. You really can't help but giggle like a schoolgirl at some of the things said in the film recreation and on the set. Then there are the ridiculous sex toys you have to laugh at too. It seems so light-hearted and funny in these scenes, that it over rides the seriousness of Lovelace's situation with her husband. It takes away from the dramatic aspect of the film.

Were directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman wanting Lovelace to be a drama, or were they wanting us to have a giggle? Were they wanting us to be inspired by Lovelace's story? It is unclear what Epstein and Friedman are wanting us to take away from this film apart from the obvious being informing us of Lovelace's life.

As this film is about an ex-porn star, there is lots of sexual references. That is a given. You can't go into this film not expecting to see a bit of nudity and a lot of sex talk. It's all justified though so there is no reason to complain.

The time period of the 1970's in which the film is set is recreated in a wonderful way. The costumes are fantastic and fun and the location shots are also great. The motel shots during the filming of Deep Throat are perfect for the time period, as are the roller skating scenes.

This is Amanda Seyfried like you have never seen her before. She proves here that she is not the same actress we saw in Mean Girls and has matured in the industry. She is very good as Linda Lovelace. You see a lot of fragility in her performance, but the one vital thing that is missing from her performance is absolute fear, which should definitely be there.

Peter Sarsgaard also does well as Chuck. He's great when he is showing true emotion and is being pulled down by the realisation that he is hurting those around him. Again, he is missing one major thing and that is that he isn't quite as scary to the audience as he could be, which is a great shame.

Sharon Stone is a complete surprise as Lovelace's mother. Not only does she look incredibly different than she did in her most famous films such as Basic Instinct, but she is actually a harder and scarier character than that of Chuck Traynor. Hopefully we get to see much more of Stone if this is what she can serve. Robert Patrick, who plays Lovelace's father also gives a beautiful performance.

There are also cameo's galore throughout the film which are fun to discover.

Whether it knows what it is or not, Lovelace is entertaining and interesting at least...if you are not a complete prude.

6.5/10







You may have also see Amanda Seyfried in.....
Letters To Juliet as Sophie
Red Riding Hood as Valerie
Les Miserables as Cosette

You may have also seen Peter Sarsgaard in.....
An Education as David

The 60th Sydney Film Festival will be running from the 5th - 16th June. For more information, please see their official website

Les Miserables (2012)

 

 

Year: 2012

Director: Tom Hooper

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen

Before I begin my review….

With the exception of some films which definitely don’t stand a chance, this section of my reviews should be renamed, “ Let’s Talk About Nominations” for the next few months.

And this is one of those films that should.

The big question on everyone’s lips when it comes to Les Miserables and the Oscars or Golden Globes is whether this is Anne Hathaway’s year. One might argue that it has been already with her recent marriage to Adam Shulman and two career milestones playing Selina Kyle in The Dark Knight Rises and Fantine in Les Miserables, but a golden statue or two might just top this off for her.

In all honesty, just from seeing the trailer to Les Miserables I was already in belief that she was going to win the Oscar. I’d tear up every time I heard her sing “I Dreamed A Dream” and I thought that if she was able to do that to me in the trailer, what could she do in the film?

And yes, I was in tears when she sang the whole song in the film. Hathaway has come a long way since we first saw her in The Princess Diaries eleven years ago. She is brilliant every second she is on screen in Les Miserables, but it is in that 4 minutes and 40 seconds of “I Dreamed A Dream” that she has given one of the best performances of a female actress of the year.

Well, I have actually yet to see better if there is going to be.

Team Hathaway for Best Supporting Actress In A Motion Picture.

And Team Jackman for Best Actor In A Musical/Comedy at the Golden Globes. He’s not to be forgotten in the Hathaway hype. If all goes his way, there may well be an Oscar nomination there for him too.

Review

Les Miserables will have its lovers and haters and people will love it for the reasons people will hate it.

If you are familiar with the stage production, then you will love it for how true the film stays to it. However, if you are not and are not prepared for two and a half hours of song with barely any spoken dialogue, then you are probably going to be wishing you were outside the cinema doing something else for that period of time.

Yet, there is no denying that Les Miserables is a beautiful film with amazing cinematography, music and some of the best acting performances of the year. Not to mention you can tell how much hard work has gone into this epic production by director, Tom Hooper.

Based on one of the world’s most popular musical’s and the novel by Victor Hugo, Les Miserables is set in 19^th century France.  Newly released prisoner, Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) violates his parole and Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe) is in constant pursuit of him. Valjean turns his life around after being shown kindness by a priest. He encounters a young woman, Fantine (Anne Hathaway) who has turned to prostitution in order to care for her young daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen and Amanda Seyfried) and his life is forever changed. He raises Cosette as his own and together they travel to Paris where their journey eventually takes them to the June Rebellion.

Tom Hooper has certainly put his heart and soul into this film, there is no doubting that. Gone are the days when singing is dubbed into the film, as Les Miserables contains all live performances by each of the actors. The musical numbers are wonderfully choreographed and the editing splendid. When you look at how much power is behind the majority of these voices and the brilliant acting that goes along with that, doing that over and over would be an extremely gruelling and exhausting process.

Although the cinematography is breath-taking the majority of the time, there are some moments where it is completely obvious that this is a green screen moment for the stars. Some of the CGI which is supposed to make you believe that characters are actually in a location such as the shipping yard and the night sky of Paris, seem more like live actors set against an animated backdrops.

The highlights of the film are the musical spectacles and the acting involved in them. As these are the focus point, some of the relationships between the characters get lost and the story slows down. This is what can be frustrating about the film. It is a long film and although Hooper tries to make the most of every scene (which he nearly does), the story slows down and you are sometimes so caught up in the main songs that you almost forget what is going on and why they are actually singing the song. However, this is what the musical is all about on stage so it is Hooper staying true to its basis.

Hooper has once again proved that he can direct movie stars to some of their best work. Hugh Jackman  gives his first musical big screen performance (not counting Happy Feet). While no stranger to working in stage musicals, on screen this is new territory for him and he is brilliant. He is captivating from the opening scene of the film and gives an emotionally charged performance. Not to mention his absolutely exquisite singing voice he makes the most of.

Anne Hathaway gives the performance of her career as Fantine. She completely personifies the character and is heartbreaking from her first moment on film to her last. “I Dreamed A Dream” is one of the most amazing musical moments on film in years, where you almost forget that she is singing this beautiful song as you are so captivated by the way her character’s heart is breaking at the realization that all the happiness and freedom to dream happy dreams has been sucked out of her by life.

Russell Crowe is quite lack lustre compared to Jackman and Hathaway. Although he is not bad by any means, he doesn’t give off as cruel a vibe as one would hope in the “villain” of the film. He is serious and there is no problem believing that he is law abiding, but you don’t see in him any of the feelings he is professing to feel when he sings. Therefore his climax in the film does not really seem justified.

Amanda Seyfried, though sweet, is over-shadowed by her fellow actors. She is a lovely Cosette, but Isabelle Allen, who plays the younger Cosette, is even lovelier.

Eddie Redmayne also gives his career best performance so far. It’s actually a lovely shock as to how good he really is in Les Miserables , as he gives a completely different performance to anything he has ever done on screen. “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables” is his moment in the film where he shines and shows how much talent he really has.

Samantha Barks makes her film debut as Epinone, a role she has played previously on London’s West End. What a film debut. ”On My Own” is one of the best known Les Miserables songs and Barks performs it with such ease and natural beauty, although it is again one of the most heart breaking moments on screen. During “A Heart Full Of Love” in which Seyfried, Redmayne and Barks all sing, you just want to hear more of Barks.

And Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter are a fantastic team as the comical inn-keepers. Daniel Huttlestone, who plays young Gavroche also gives a wonderful breakthrough performance.

Les Miserables is a must see for any musical fans and especially fans of the original stage musical. Those who aren’t won’t understand the hype, but still won’t be able to deny some of the best acting of the year.

8/10

References
The Official Les Miserables Site
USA Today
Justjared.com
The Internet Movie Database

Red Riding Hood

Red Riding Hood
Year: 2011
Director: Catherine Hardwicke
Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Gary Oldman, Billy Burke, Shiloh Fernandez, Max Irons

In My Own Words
Oh boy, I really wanted to like this movie. I love the idea of a dark take on a fairytale. There hasn't really been that many since "The Brothers Grimm" starring Matt Damon and Heath Ledger back in 2005. To tell you the truth, I don't know if there is any other way to do make a fairy tale into a movie these days than to do a dark take on it. Of course, to make a fairytale worth watching these days it needs to be somewhat different to the version we have heard hundreds of times since we were children. There are two such dark fairytale adaptations coming up in the future. "Sleeping Beauty" has been redone once again with Emily Browning in the lead and is set for release this year. However, this film won't be one you'll be wanting to take your children to see. In this remake, a university student find herself caught up in prostitution and other naughty activities. The other dark fairytale which is currently in pre-production is "The Brothers Grimm" Snow White", which is already gaining a tremendous amount of interest with it's recent casting news. Julia Roberts is to play the Evil Queen, Saoirse Ronan  is cast as Snow White and Armie Hammer of "The Social Network" fame is to play the Prince.

It almost seems almost as though the only people who can get away with making a traditional fairytale into a movie and doing it successfully is Disney, but even they don't do it as much these days as what they used to. They released "The Princess And The Frog" and "Tangled"  in two consecutive years, but upon release of "Tangled" they released a statement saying that they would be making no more princess movie.

Everybody loves a fairytale, whether in traditional style or with a twist. A twist creates a lot more interest these days though and doesn't seem to hurt at the box office as "Red Riding Hood" has shown. As we all know though, box office figures don't always point to a good film.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
Catherine Hardwicke knows she struck gold when she directed the first and best so far of the "Twilight" saga. After a three year break from feature film directing, she returns with "Red Riding Hood". The film's release was greatly anticipated, but the release fails to live up to expectations. "Red Riding Hood" is a classic example of how directors have a success and feel that they have to continue their success by trying to replicate their first success. The result is a film which seems like it is just trying too hard and is overdone in everyway. However, there is still something entertaining and suprising enough in the film to make it bearable. Amanda Seyfried is Valerie (Red Riding Hood), the small medival village girl who is betrothed to Henry (Max Irons) and in love with Peter (Shiloh Fernandez). Her village has a truce with a wolf who live in close proximately to her and her family, until the wolf strikes again after many years and kills Valerie's sister. The whole village is now in danger and the wolf specifically has it's eye on Valerie.

The main reason why "Red Riding Hood" fails is because it is trying so hard to be a dramatic historical horror film. It doesn't qualify as a horror film despite how dark the film tries to be because while being suspenseful, it really isn't that scary. The image of the wolf really isn't as threatening as one would expect it to be. The wolves in "Twilight" were scarier than this one! The film is suspenseful and actually succeeds more in being a thriller or a mystery as the ending is quite surprising. This is the best thing about the film and a film where you don't see the ending coming is more often than not a success. This film is a success in suspense and storyline, but weak in everything surrounding it. The cinematography and the way which the landscape is captured is really quite beautiful, although some scenes in the snowy village are quite clearly inside a set. The script is quite well written, but the way it is carried out on screen and directed is horrible.

The acting and chemistry between the actors is really quite atrocious. Amanda Seyfried isn't bad as Valerie and she was a good choice for the role. The character of Valerie is quite a dark character, never cracking a smile and extremely serious. She doesn't show too much emotion throughout the film, which she probably should have done more of in certain scenes. The chemistry between Seyfried and Shiloh Fernandez is really poor. These two have no connection with each other at all even in the most intense of scenes and physically do not look right together on screen. Fernandez's performance is also not anything to write home about. He was a horrible choice for the role and one might think that he was cast as the role of Peter just because his looks somewhat resemble that of the black wolf. Max Irons is nowhere near as bad as Henry showing the right amount of emotion at the right moments in the film. Gary Oldman probably gives the best performance in the film as Father Soloman, even though it is far from his best role. Again, the chemistry between Seyfried and Virginia Madsen who plays her mother, Billy Burke who plays her father and Julie Christie who plays her grandmother is almost non-existant in each case.

Looking back at "Red Riding Hood", it is so easy to see why there has been so many comparisons to "Twilight". The wolves, a girl with two boys after her and Billy Burke once again playing the lead character's father. The film isn't bad enough to miss altogether, but it is more worthwhile borrowing it on DVD when it comes out rather than make the trip to cinemas to see it on the big screen.
4.5/10

Letters To Juliet

Letters To Juliet
Year: 2010
Director: Gary Winick
Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Vanessa Redgrave, Christopher Egan

In My Own Words
I’m sure I have mentioned this before, but have you ever noticed how great tourism tools movies are? How many times have you watched a movie and thought about how amazing the location in which it is based is? Some locations are even more impressive than the film itself. Take for example “Couples Retreat” which Movie Critical reviewed last year. Very bland movie with an amazing location. I’m sure I’m not the only one who was dying to visit Bora-Bora after seeing it. “Letters To Juliet” has made me even more excited about going to visit Italy next year. Verona and Siena were never on my itinerary before, but after seeing this film I am dying to see some of the Italian countryside and have gelato in a piazza in Siena. I think many people will find that one of the reasons they love their favourite film is because of where it is set. I’m not saying that this is the only reason you will love your favourite film, but it doesn’t hurt! “Letters To Juliet” is far from my favourite film, but the fact that it was set in Italy is one of the reasons I liked it!

Does anyone else do this? When you are going on a holiday, do you make an effort to watch films or TV shows which are set in that place? I believe it is one of the best ways to get yourself excited for a holiday. Needless to say that because I am planning a trip to Europe in February, “Four Weddings And A Funeral, “Amelie” and “Life Is Beautiful” are definitely going to get a run in the DVD player at least twice before then!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
“Letters To Juliet” is an easy to watch film, yet unlike many other romance films this year, does manage to bring a tear to your eye. It can be argued who the true star of “Letters To Juliet” is. Is it Amanda Seyfried or the Italian countryside? Definitely a girl’s film with a ton of predictability and cliché’s, but still entertaining and sweet all the same. Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is a would-be writer who travels to Verona, Italy for a romantic getaway with her fiancé, Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal). However, the trip soon becomes a working holiday for Victor and Sophie finds herself having to experience Verona on her own. On a visit to Juliet’s balcony, she meets up with a group of women who respond to the letters that women in love leave asking Juliet for her advice. Sophie finds a letter which was written 50 years ago and responds to it, not thinking that the woman in question will take her advice and travel back to Italy from England to search for her once lover. Sophie decides to tag along for the journey with Claire (Vanessa Redgrave) and her grandson, Charlie (Christopher Egan).

As expected, some of this movie can come across as quite silly and farfetched. Yet, as silly and farfetched as the concept may be of girls leaving notes for Juliet, there is actually some truth to this. Many letters are sent each year addressed simply to “Juliet, Verona” and there is a group who responds to these letters, much like the one in the film. A romance film about this concept could only have a predictable ending, a girl finding her one true love while in fair Verona. There is no doubt at all during the film as to what the ending will bring. Some of the dialogue is a little too cheesy and simple and it is not quite as comical as what it would’ve liked itself to be. However, the cinematography and locations used are extraordinary. Italy is on show in this film and does not disappoint. The best thing about this film is that the scenery works with the romance aspect of the film and makes this light film even sweeter.

Amanda Seyfried is an absolute star in this film. She definitely shows her strong acting ability and lights up the screen in every scene. She is absolutely stunning, likable and this could well be her finest film performance thus far (“Mamma Mia” not being far behind). Seyfried exhibits every emotion perfectly and gives and extremely heartfelt performance. Vanessa Redgrave is also a delight to watch and very sweet. Christopher Egan also does well, and shows his talent with mimicking an English accent impressively. However, the character of Victor, as played by Gael Garcia Bernal is extremely irritating. From the first scene you just want to slap him across the face and he and Seyfried have absolutely no on screen chemistry. His dialogue is badly written and Bernal is badly miscast. If the film makers wanted the audience to dislike him right from the word go, they have achieved this.

“Letters To Juliet” is an incredibly sweet film is emotional enough to draw a tear, yet not emotional enough to make it heart-wrenching. It is very unlikely that any male will enjoy this film as it is definitely a chick flick, however many will be dragged to the cinemas by their girlfriends. A fine advertisement for the Italian countryside.
5.5/10