Well done MTV...but are we ready for gender neutral awards?

On April 6, the nominations for the 2017 MTV Movie and TV Awards were announced with one glaring difference from other years and other award shows...the acting categories had gone gender neutral.

Both the Best Actor in a Movie and Best Actor in a Show categories this year contain both male and female nominees, a move that has not been seen before in major award shows (with the exception of the Grammys and Britain's National Television Awards). A split right down the middle occurred with the Film nominations with three male and three female actors in contention, while four females were nominated in the Television show category and two males. Although the MTV Awards do not carry the same prestige as other award shows (Academy Awards, Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild Awards, etc.), it is a move that certainly shows a move forward in gender equality in Hollywood and the entertainment business.

While this move for the MTV Movie & TV Awards is a very positive one, it makes one ponder whether the idea could catch on and other award shows follow suit. It would definitely be a strong stand for women and one many would embrace and celebrate. MTV can be commended for making such a strong statement and as the awards are voted for by the public, it would not be a surprise to see Emma Watson, Hailee Steinfeld or Taraji P. Henson voted for as the winner for this reason.

However, could this move by MTV encourage other award shows to become gender neutral?

The answer isn't no...it is not yet.

This has nothing to do with the quality of male and female actors in the business. Talent wise both genders are without a doubt on par with one another. The problem lies with lack of substantial roles available to women in Hollywood, especially in film. This is not a new argument. Mary Pickford said in 1935 "It’s becoming a woman’s world, year by year, almost day by day". This still rings true, but more than 80 years later we are still fighting for gender equality in Hollywood in regards to the number of strong female roles among other issues. We have come a long way, but there is still a long way to go.

Believing that there should or should not be gender neutral acting categories when awards season rolls around has nothing to do with sexism or feminism, it has to do with fairness. While the quantity of these strong female roles is significantly less than that of males, it would make it a great deal harder for females to compete and win an Oscar or any other award with gender neutral categories.

For example, let's look at this years Oscars in the four acting categories. All four categories had wonderful performances by incredible actors, but the two male categories were seemingly more competitive than the female categories. Both the female categories had clear frontrunners for the majority of the awards season with the other eight nominees giving very good performances, but not strong enough to be competition. On the other hand, the male categories (especially Best Performance by an Actor in A Leading Role) went down to the line on the night as a result of the several incredible performances in strong and intense roles.

So this would have meant that this year Casey Affleck would have been directly competing with Emma Stone and Mahershala Ali with Viola Davis. These would have no doubt been intriguing and unpredictable competitions, but one would fear that the actual nomination fields would have consisted more of males than of females.

The good news is that things are changing in Hollywood as we speak....unfortunately just not as quickly as we would like. There may well be a chance in the future to combine the male and female acting categories at prestigious award shows, but that day is not today. If it was to happen, it would most definitely shorten the length of award shows, which would make many people happy. The other argument here is that many creatives prefer not to label themselves as male or female so eliminating gender specific categories is more politically and socially acceptable.

Without a doubt, it is a great move by MTV to make their awards gender neutral and they deserve praise for initiating a giant step towards gender equality in the film world. It may not be time for the bigger and more prestigious industry awards to do the same, but that day is coming.

Beauty and The Beast (2017) film review

Year: 2017
Running Time: 129 minutes
Director: Bill Condon
Writers: Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos
Cast: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Kevin Kline, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Stanley Tucci, Hattie Morahan

Beauty and The Beast is now showing everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures.

Disney's second time round with Beauty and The Beast breathes spectacular new life into the much adored classic while always remaining lovingly respectful to the original fairy tale and animated original.

For a film that is so enchanting, whimsical and charming, it is incredible how much criticism and backlash Beauty and The Beast has received right through from it's initial announcement in June 2014 to it's recording breaking release in the United States last week and in Australia this week. While a film that has so far made over $460 million worldwide is clearly not being hurt by any criticism it has received, Bill Condon's Beauty and The Best certainly deserves to be defended from the unwarranted, meaningless and clueless backlash it has received.

While it is based on the original story written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve and revised by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont, the film is more so a live-action love letter to it's animated older sibling released by Disney in 1991. In the quaint French village of Villeneuve, Belle (portrayed by Emma Watson) is an outsider as even though she is beautiful, she is considered peculiar as she seems happier with her nose in a book than responding to Gaston's (Luke Evans) romantic advances. Her wishes for adventure are answered when her father (Kevin Kline) is captured by the terrifying Beast (Dan Stevens) in his castle and when Belle ventures to rescue him, she offers herself as prisoner in order for her father to be set free. During her period of stay, Belle finds herself strangely and increasingly drawn towards the Beast and she may be the one to set he and the enchanted members of his household free from their damning spell.

When Disney officially announced that it would be remaking one of it's own into a live action film, it was met with a great deal of scepticism. Since then, it has been met with the predictable backlash that occurs when a beloved family classic is remade. Much of the criticism has proved to have been unwarranted since the release of this film, but Beauty and The Beast has also attracted controversy for it's romanticising of Stockholm Syndrome (which is also completely predictable) and it's very brief "gay scene" (if you can even call it a scene). However, Disney deserves praise once again for overcoming the obstacles of the remake and also deserves defence against the controversy.

The inevitable question that had to be asked in June 2014 was "Why would Disney want to remake a near-perfect film?"

It's a valid question. When Beauty and The Beast was released in 1991, it became the first animated feature film to be nominated in the Best Picture category at the Academy Awards. It became an instant Disney classic and still remains a favourite Disney film for many, many people. Remakes are absolutely in fashion at the moment and it's not completely crazy to believe that Disney could have just fallen in step with this fad.

However, this is Disney we are talking about. The empire has had tremendous success turning their animations into live action (eg. Cinderella and The Jungle Book) and expanding the universe of their classics (eg. Maleficent and no doubt the upcoming Mary Poppins Returns). If there is one studio that could pull off this mammoth task of bringing Beauty and The Beast to the world of live action and coming away with a success, it is Disney...and they have delivered. That's not just in regards to the incredible box office earnings thus far either.

Beauty and The Beast is truly an exquisite piece of cinema that is absolutely beautiful to behold. Although it is not as grandly emotional, it is certainly touching and very family friendly. Did it need to be remade? Of course it didn't need to. However, Disney saw that the opportunity was there for it's 1991 film to be remade and use live action thanks to the advances in CGI to create something different and special. The CGI does incredible things for the film and helps to make memorable scenes from the original even more memorable and spectacular (including the pivotal dancing "Beauty and The Beast" scene and "Something There" in the snow). The CGI also brings such characters of Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) to life and gives them more refined and intriguing features than what we saw in the animation.

Whilst many will argue that this 2017 film is too much like the original, this is simply not true. One only needs to revisit the original to realise that there are many differences. There are many similarities there too, but with live action comes a whole set of new rules which need to be abided by which don't apply as much to animation. For example, character development is far more important in live action than it is in it's animated counterpart. This is a real treat for those who are fans of the 1991 original, as the characters of Belle, Beast and Gaston (to a lesser extent) are opened up. Although her singing voice may not be as powerful as one would hope for this role, Emma Watson does Belle great justice. She personifies what Belle is about and shows how her character truly is a modern girl in a time where she didn't belong. This does admittedly fit Watson's real life persona, but this character trait and her soft, but strong performance as Belle makes her a perfect Disney princess for these times.

The live action also obviously calls for a different mode of direction and bringing several of the musical numbers to life would have been no simple task. Bill Condon's direction of these Alan Menken, Howard Ashman and Tim Rice musical numbers (several of which were also adapted for this film) is superb and although animation can do a great deal with these songs, what live action gives the viewer is definitely more impressive, especially during "Belle" and "Gaston".

One issue that is always brought to light when Beauty and The Beast is spoken of is the presence of Stockholm Syndrome, which is the concept of the captured coming to feel empathy or developing strong feelings for their capturer through manipulation. It was only inevitable that this was going to arise with the release of this film. Also there is it predictable wrath of those who believe that Beauty and The Beast is dangerously sexist as it depicts a woman being captured and abused by a tyrannical beast. Both of these arguments are redundant here. Belle was never actually captured in this film nor in the original, as her father was captured and she demanded a switch. If there are similarities to Stockholm Syndrome (which there are very little when you look at the actual definition), that is the fault of the original story and not of the filmmakers. However, the condition wasn't even acknowledged until the 1970's so it is highly unlikely this was a theme on the intent in the original story. Beauty and The Beast has always been a romantic fairy tale about not judging a book by it's cover and this is the way it should be read.

Finally, the biggest and most controversial talking point in the past week has been the very brief acknowledgement of Gaston's sidekick, LeFou (played by Josh Gad) as homosexual. Several cinemas around the world have banned the film from being shown because of this inclusion. One can only imagine that the large majority of the outraged haven't actually seen the film, as what they are so up in arms about takes up only a matter of seconds in over two hours. There is absolutely nothing in these few seconds of screen time which is damaging, graphic or crude and all you would have to do is blink to miss it. This controversy is a massive overreaction and there are far more important things to be outraged about in this world rather than whether a Disney film has maybe 20 seconds where a man looks lovingly at another man.

Beauty and The Beast has overcome a great deal of scepticism to become a beautiful film that is an enjoyable and stunning companion piece to it's animated original. It's controversy is completely unfounded and should be enjoyed and praised for exactly what it is.

8/10

Noah (2014)

Year: 2014
Running Time: 138 minutes
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Writers: Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel
Cast: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Ray Winstone, Emma Watson, Logan Lerman, Douglas Booth, Leo McHugh Carroll, Nick Nolte

If there is one thing that can be said about Darren Aronofsky's Noah, it is that it's most definitely ambitious. It is a huge story to tell, controversial and visually demanding to bring to the big screen. You have to give Aronofsky huge credit for taking on the task to make this story into a film and with all factors considered, he has done a good job. It is most certainly interesting to see how Aronofsky has put his spin on the biblical figure. Although far from a perfect film, there are many good things and is a film that is just asking for you to have a heated discussion about it with others.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had three sons, Cain, Abel and Seth. The descendants of Cain and Seth walk the Earth, with the descendants of Cain building civilisation and coming to represent the wickedness in men. Direct descendant of Seth, Noah (Russell Crowe) receives a message from the Creator that he is going to send a great flood to end the world of man. Noah, his wife Naameh (Jennifer Connelly) and three sons, Shem (Douglas Booth), Ham (Logan Lerman) and Japheth (Leo McHugh Carroll), as well as an orphaned girl they take in, Ila (Emma Watson), start building an ark which will save the innocent animals of the Earth when the flood comes. Noah's quest does not come without great responsibility and sacrifice, and he tests the loyalty of all those close to him.

This film was always going to cause a huge amount of controversy. Noah has been banned in several countries including Qatar and United Arab Emirates as it is seen to contradict Islamic teachings. It has also been controversial among both Christians and Atheists. While the name God is never uttered in the film, several biblical figures including Adam and Eve and their children are mentioned as are angels, which are all products of Christianity. The whole film itself, whether it mentions it or not, is still based on the Bible and Christian ideas, so there is still no escaping the religion itself. However, several pieces of Noah's story from Genesis have been tweaked so it can be said that it is inspired by the Bible, but not a biblical film. This is one way which this film was always going to be a big ask for Aronofsky, as there was never any doubt that it was going to be a huge challenge to keep the majority of people happy. Of course you can never please everyone, but having more people like it than dislike it was always going to be the goal.

So all controversy and conversations of who believes in who and what aside, does Aronofsky's translation of Noah work well on the screen? It depends on which way you look at it. If you do want a retelling of the version of Noah which we have all come to know, it is adequate. The first hour of the film is very slow moving and not overly interesting. It is when the flood comes that the film becomes it's most intriguing. The first half of the film also see's the inclusion of the Watchers, which are a very strange inclusion in the film. The Watchers, although meant to be a version of angels trapped on Earth in stone like bodies, look more like a cross between Transformers and the Ents from The Lord of The Rings. Their physical appearance seem incredibly out of place in the film. On the other hand, if you see the film as being about Noah the man, it is quite intriguing. Again, the psychological state of Noah doesn't really become main theme until the second half of the film and that is when things become really interesting as we start to see that Noah is just a man with strong emotions. The only suspense (because let's face it, we know what happens to the world as a result of the flood), is seeing what becomes of Noah and if he is strong enough mentally to cope with the challenge he is presented with.

Noah was always going to be a visually challenging film. Not challenging for the viewers, but challenging for the film makers to do what needs to be done to make it realistic and spectacular. The flood scenes are the ones which were going to have the most emphasis put on them by the public as that is the event everybody associates with the name Noah. These scenes are quite spectacular, as you would hope they would be. They are powerful and all that you would hope these scenes would be. Some of the panoramic landscape shots of before the ark is built as quite beautiful, but some of the techniques employed and editing for presenting them are off-putting. Fade to black is overused and can become irritating while the family are travelling across the land, and the cinematography of the stream as it winds throughout the land feels very out of place. What is amazing is that no animals were used in the filming of Noah, which is truly incredible. There are some animals which are obviously computer generated, but some others which look so lifelike that it is a shock to think they are not as they seem.

Russell Crowe does do very well as Noah. Although this is not really a huge stretch from many of his past roles, he still plays the role very well. His best moments are towards the end when Noah really starts to first become more aggressive and then collapses under his guilt. When Noah starts to show his emotions, that is when Crowe really starts to give a great as opposed to a good performance. Jennifer Connolly is also very good, but just like Crowe, has her best moments towards the end of the film. Ray Winstone, who plays Tubal-Cain is terrifying. He is a truly great villain as you feel real hatred towards him, but he just is so good at what he does.

While Crowe may be the lead man, it is Emma Watson who is the star of the film. She is absolutely wonderful in Noah as the girl who is in love with Shem and is loved as a daughter by Noah and Naameh, but feels she is a burden on the family and Shem, especially considering she is infertile. Watson's performance is so emotionally charged and she makes a huge connection with the audience as they feel her pain and cry when she cries. This is Watson's best performance to date and she is the one in the film people will remember when they talk about this film. Logan Lerman also does well, but he really only has one scene which is considered powerful.

Noah is a memorable film, but not because it is a wonderful film. It is a great conversation starter for it's background, rather than for it's content and this isn't what makes a great film.

6/10

This Is The End (2013)

Year: 2013
Director: Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogan
Cast: Jay Baruchel, Seth Rogan, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson, Danny McBride, Emma Watson, Michael Cera
This Is The End is currently screening in the USA and the UK
To be released in Australia on the 18th July 2013

Rated MA15+ for strong crude humour, coarse language, sexual references, comedic violence, nudity and drug use.

With warnings like this, you may be a little concerned and cautious about the viewing of This Is the End you are planning. The poster doesn't lie, they are all there, but the movie doesn't lose it's hilarity in it's warned content. This Is the End is one of the funniest films of the year and is one of those rare comedy films that come along every so often that have longevity and staying power.

This Is The End isn't your typical film for any of the A-list celebrities involved. Instead of pretending to be someone else, they are all playing themselves. Jay Baruchel and Seth Rogan decide to go to a party at James Franco's house where everyone who is anyone is. During the wild party, chaos erupts outside in a fashion which indicates that this may well be the end of the world. Together, Jay, Seth, James, Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson and Danny McBride must find a way to survive and work together.

This is one funny film. It is able to conquer the audiences who love comedy, but are not fans of crude and gruesome comedy. This Is The End has these things, but has so much comedic power that it makes you almost believe that it needs to have it's crude moments and that they are completely relevant. The script, written by directors Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogan, is just wonderful and contains many great ad-libbed one liners.Although there are so many films in recent history regarding the end of the world, this one is completely unlike any other. It's not a common thing to be able to laugh at the concept of the end of the world.

There is nothing really serious about this film, it is a comedy in every way possible. There are some biblical references regarding Revelations and the apocalypse, but that is as far as it will get. The "dramatic" moments of the film are just so overdone that you know that the film makers are trying to achieve laughs rather than critical success. There is also some dodgy and a little B-grade CGI, but you can only assume that the CGI was never meant to be world class and a little B-gradeness just makes it a bit funnier.

The brilliance of this film is that everyone is making fun of themselves. All the male actors are poking fun at themselves throughout the film in several different ways, including Franco's movie memorabilia collection and his art collection and Hill overplaying the sensitive role which he has often been cast in. There are cameos throughout the film, especially in Franco's house party, but stay until the end of the film for one of the most hilarious endings you will see in a film. Completely overdone, but completely fitting and hysterically funny.

All the actors in the film do so well. Baruchel, Rogan, Franco, Hill and Robinson all do well and remain likable throughout the film. Perhaps Hill stops being actually likable at one point, but is still hilarious. Danny McBride can become annoying at times, but that is his role in the film. It is hilarious seeing Emma Watson drop the F-bomb for the first time in her film career. She is a great touch to a predominantly male movie. You can't help watching This Is The End thinking how much fun this film would really have been to make.

It is incredible what Goldberg and Rogan have achieved with This Is The End. A concept that could just sound silly has given birth to comedic brilliance.

8/10

Warning: This YouTube clip contains some coarse language

On a side note.....

Check out this Cast Featurette as supplied by Sony Pictures to get a bit more insight into the making of This Is The End

Sydney Film Festival: The Bling Ring (2013)

Year: 2013
Director: Sofia Coppola
Cast: Katie Chang, Israel Broussard, Emma Watson, Taissa Farmiga, Claire Julien, Leslie Mann, Gavin Rossdale
The Bling Ring will be screening at the Sydney Film Festival on the 13th and 15th June, For more information on times, venues and tickets, please see here
Now showing in cinemas in the USA
Opening in the UK on the 5th of July and Australia on the 8th of August 2013

One thing that can be said for The Bling Ring is that it is very busy.

Sofia Coppola's highly anticipated new film has so much going on that you're not really quite sure what type of film you are watching. Interesting and intriguing enough, The Bling Ring is memorable enough for it's content and proves that we really are obsessed with celebrity and not just because of the content on the screen, but because it is the celebrity representations that draw us in.

When Marc (Israel Broussard) starts at Indian Hills High School, he once again feels like he is the odd one out. That is until Rebecca (Katie Chang) and her gal pals take him under their wing. It isn't long before Marc is exposed to Rebecca's rebellious ways and they soon become almost addicted to breaking into celebrities homes while they are out of town and taking what they can in order to make themselves feel like they are experiencing the same lifestyle as their "victims".

On the surface, The Bling Ring looks like it could be your typical teen flick. In part, this is what it is, but it is also an in depth study of society's obsession with celebrity culture, a piece of work that invigorates your senses and also a little creepy. It is a whole lot of things that make the film a little too much to take in and when you leave the cinema, you are a bit confused what to make of everything.

Director and writer, Sofia Coppola was quoted as describing The Bling Ring as a movie about society's obsession with celebrity. In this way, the film is an absolute winner. It will be a great study tool in years to come to anybody who is studying celebrity and it's place in culture. The characters are obsessed with celebrity as are us, the audience. The characters in the film love going into celebrity houses and we love to see what is inside them.

The Bling Ring will also appeal to the teenage audience because of the age of the characters. It has got all the features that a teenage film would have and is like one of the reality television show's set in Los Angeles projected onto the big screen. There are no lack of selfie's being uploaded onto Facebook in the film which many young adults will be able to relate to.


However, it is the age of the characters and their activities that make this film really quite creepy. It is scary to know that the criminals look like any of the well dressed young girls that you see on the street, and that they committed these crimes so easily (it would seem). If getting into the home of a celebrity is that easy, are any of us safe?

In typical Coppola style, this is a parade of attractive images and carefully placed music. All the pretty things society associates with celebrity are on show in this film and like a Kardashian episode, there are no lack of brand names marketed.  The soundtrack is well suited for the film and the great volume of it helps opens the film with a bang.

The big problem with the acting and characters is that there really is no substance behind them, particularly Marc who is meant to be the main character of the film. He opens with a sympathy story, but after that we feel as though we haven't really found out who he really is. Is his sexuality in question with those high heels he is obsessed with? There are no answers. Is Rebecca really cunning, or is she just an obsessive fan?

The best thing about The Bling Ring as far as acting and the characters go is Emma Watson. It is overwhelmingly obvious that it is Watson who has the most acting experience and talent. She is the only one who gives any real emotion and we know exactly who her character, Nicki actually is. In preparation for her role, Watson is said to have watched a large number of reality show episodes, particularly that of "The Hills" and "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" in preparation for her role, and also video footage of the member of the real Bling Ring whom her character is based on, Alexis Neiers. She has perfected the LA "it girl" way of saying "awesome".

The Bling Ring is not a critical success, but it is still very entertaining in a celebrity obsession kind of way.

6.5/10



On a side note....
If you are interested in finding out more about the real Bing Ring gang that terrorised Hollywood celebrities, here is a link to an interesting article about all of them.
http://www.vulture.com/2013/06/real-bling-ring-where-are-they-now.html

Here is a news story released in 2009 on ABC news about the actual gang (to be viewed via YouTube link in bottom right hand corner).



You may have also seen Emma Watson in.....
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part I & Part II as Hermione Granger
My Week With Marilyn as Lucy
The Perks of Being A Wallflower as Sam

Another film of Sofia Coppola's you may have seen is.....
Somewhere

The Perks Of Being A Wallflower (2012)

Year: 2012

Director: Stephen Chbosky

Cast: Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Paul Rudd

Before I begin my review….

 I’ve got to say that I have been extremely impressed with Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson post Harry Potter.

Back in June, I reviewed The Woman In Black, which was Daniel Radcliffe’s first role post- Harry Potter.  It was always a worry of mine how the Harry Potter “kids” would go once the films came to an end, so I was pleasantly surprised with Daniel Radcliffe in The Woman In Black. Not once during the film did Radcliffe do something that was Harry Potter-esque. I didn’t once in my mind link Radcliffe’s performance back to Harry Potter and that is a sign to me that he will really do well away from Harry Potter as he has more in him that just the boy wizard.

 The same can now be said for once Hermione Granger, Emma Watson. I didn’t think her performance in My Week With Marilyn was a clear indication of whether she is going to have a successful career outside Harry Potter. The Perks Of Being A Wallflower does wonders for her in that department. Hermione is gone and Emma Watson has arrived, and she is a very versatile, gorgeous and talented actress. I’m actually very excited now after seeing her in this film to see her in Sofia Coppola’s upcoming film, The Bling Ring.

 It is great knowing that both Radcliffe and Watson are not going to fall into the trap of being typecast because of their previous roles which they will be forever known for, and that there is life after Harry Potter.

 I guess now it is Rupert Grint’s turn to show us that he is now longer Ron Weasley.

Review

  The Perks Of Being A Wallflower is one of those rare films that is heart-breaking and also heart-warming.

 Based on the best-selling book by Stephen Chbosky who also directs the film, it is obvious why the novel is such a success. The characters are ones which so many teenagers can relate to and addresses those deep, dark secrets some of us have that shape who we are. On the big screen, the characters and situations are relatable and it is the must see film of the year for anyone who has ever felt like a misfit or a wallflower.

Charlie (Logan Lerman) is a troubled young man who is just about to enter high school, which he knows is going to be torture for an outcast like himself. He is terrified at the prospect of having no friends and starts counting down the days till he finishes as soon as he starts. He soon befriends step brother and sister, seniors Patrick (Ezra Miller) and Sam (Emma Watson) who take Charlie under their wing and introduce him to their band of misfits. Charlie comes to be one of them and for the first time feels like he belongs, but do your inner demons really disappear if you don’t acknowledge them?

It is a huge advantage for The Perks Of Being A Wallflower that the author of the book is also the director and writer of the film.  Stephen Chbosky has brought to the big screen the true essence of what the book is about. The story doesn’t lose anything when it is told through images and dialogue rather than just words on the paper. There is so much emotion involved in the film and it can really be beautifully depressing at times. A film set in a high school is normally a film that can get caught up in comedy and light fluffiness, but The Perks Of Being A Wallflower is not one of those films.  

The script is really very good. There are some really beautiful quotes in the film such as “We accept the love we think we deserve” and when Charlie says that he didn’t think anybody knew he existed, Patrick replies “That’s because we didn’t think there was anybody cool left to meet”.

However, it really is a very sad film. Some moments are really heart felt and you love watching the friendships move from one stage to the next and how these high school students become like family. However, it does remind you that if you don’t deal with your past and the demons there, they never disappear.

Logan Lerman is just perfection as Charlie. From the word go, you establish a connection with him and feel so sorry for him that it is agonizing. His character is a true wallflower, but on screen he is just magic.

Emma Watson has so much star quality in this film that it is unbelievable. She is just radiant in a role that is so different for her and proves that she really can do anything. Watson has those great moments in scenes where you are actually able to see into her soul and see her pain, even though the character is trying to hide it.

Ezra Miller is also very good and perfect in his role, as an outcast but an extrovert.

The Perks Of Being A Wallflower is a film that every teenager going through the turmoil of high school should watch. It can be very hard hitting at times, but is the perfect way to remind them that they are not alone in the way they feel.

8/10

References
Internet Movie Database
And Pop

My Week With Marilyn (2011)

My Week With Marilyn

Year: 2011

Director: Simon Curtis

Cast: Michelle Williams, Eddie Redmayne, Kenneth Branagh, Julia Ormond, Judi Dench

Before I begin my review….

                Now this is one movie I was really sceptical about.

                This had nothing to do with whether I liked the story, director or actors, it was completely to do with the love that I have for the late movie stars who are being portrayed in My Week With Marilyn. I am a massive fan of Marilyn Monroe, Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh. I have so much Olivier and Leigh love that when my husband and I go to Gloria Jeans or Starbucks and they ask for our names for our order, we will more than likely give our names as Vivien and Larry.

                It is a strange thing watching actors who’s work you are familiar with portray other actors on screen who you are not only familiar with their work, but you have done so much reading into their lives that you feel like you know the person they were. You can either leave the cinema in a rage at the way they have been represented, or you can praise the actors who were portraying them for doing them complete justice.

                Luckily in this case, I am praising the actors. Particularly Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh who do deserve their Academy Award nominations for their portrayals of Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier. Although if I had to be picky, I’m still not 100% convinced that Williams had Monroe’s raspy but sweet voice perfected, but that is being very picky. She had everything else about Monroe that we know perfected.

                So I am happy with the character portrayal of these actors I love so much. It was just like watching my dear friends on the big screen.

Review

                My Week With Marilyn is one of those films where the story line may not be terribly strong, but the performances are.

                Based on the memoirs of the same name by Colin Clark, Clark’s first book entitled “The Prince, The Showgirl and Me” may have been better to make into a movie than “My Week With Marilyn”. The same characters which would mean the same brilliant performances, but the weakest part of the film, which is the romantic relationship between Clark and Marilyn Monroe would be put to the side. Mind you, this is almost what happens in the film anyway.

                The year is 1957 and Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams) is the biggest movie star in the world. Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) scores the dream job of working on the set of Monroe’s latest film project, The Prince and The Showgirl with his hero, Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh). Colin gets the witness the way a film is made, but also gets the witness the dynamics of the cast and crew, in particular Monroe and Olivier’s fiery working relationship. Colin falls under Monroe’s spell, as he becomes the shoulder she leans on throughout the film.

                One of the big faults with My Week With Marilyn is that you really don’t feel like you get that much out of Colin’s week with her. It is true that you get a taste for who Monroe really was behind all the glitz and glamour and realise her fight to be seen as more than just a sex symbol, but it almost feels like it is just a waste of time putting any emphasis at all on the relationship between her and Colin.

                The screenplay and storyline does also lack a considerable amount of depth. There are no really emotional moments in the film and no real longing by the audience to find out as quickly as possible what is going to happen.  However, the film makes up for it in the character development and performances of the main characters. A considerable amount of research has been done on the film as to who all the characters were when they were alive and filming The Prince and The Showgirl.  Of course, research does come easier when the film is based on memoirs, and there is a tremendous amount of literature out there about these actors.

                My Week With Marilyn is, rather than being a script driven film, very much a character driven film, particularly that of Marilyn Monroe.  Michelle Williams does a wonderful job of bringing Monroe back to the big screen. She has the walk perfected, the body language and the facial expressions all down to a tee. Her voice doesn’t quite match Monroe’s, but she is forgiven for this considering she gets so much else right. The best part about her performance is how much emotion she brings to her performance. Towards the end of the film, you almost forget that you are watching Williams and not Monroe. She brings Monroe back to life and we get to see straight into her soul and you don’t just see Monroe, but you also see Norma Jeane.

                Kenneth Branagh is also brilliant as Sir Laurence Olivier. He gives an intense and electronically charged performance. There are moments you know you should dislike him, but his intensity is just so brilliant.

                However, the role of Colin Clark, played by Eddie Redmayne couldn’t possibly be any easier for him. He speaks of how much he loves Monroe, but he is just like a love struck teenager who just grins idiotically at his idol. Those Harry Potter fans who are eager to see Emma Watson in this film as Colin’s initial love interest, Lucy would be disappointed. It is such a bland role and completely useless in the large scope of the film.

                My Week With Marilyn is a not a strong film, but a film with strong performances by Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh. Granted, Marilyn Monroe fans will love it.

7/10

Sources
Imdb.com

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Year: 2011

Director: David Yates

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton

In My Own Words

                Well, here we are. At the end of the Harry Potter film series. It really is the end of an era. I feel the way I did at the end of the Lord Of The Rings series, but perhaps a bit sadder to say goodbye than I was then. With Lord Of The Rings it was a film series of three years, Harry Potter it feels like when you were at school. You meet all these news friends on your first day of high school and on the last day of school it’s like you are saying goodbye forever. Although with leaving school you tend to see everybody again. No more Harry though! It really is a sad feeling for die hard supporters such as myself.

                I would be lying if I said I had always liked the Harry Potter books and movies. I have liked them for a long time now, but not since the first book or movie was released. I remember being in high school (that subject seems to be coming up a bit in this post) when the first book came out and quite a few of my school friends were reading. I was a tad confused as to why as I thought that Harry Potter was for children. A few years went by and when Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban was released, I thought “I may want to see this film” (this was before I was a film reviewer). So I went out and hired the first two movies. I was hooked. This series was so much fun to watch and not to mention completely addictive. So I have been a die hard fan since 2004.

                I guess what a lot of people like about Harry Potter is not just that it has these three misfits who you almost fell like you get to grow up with or it  meddles with the idea of a magical, fun world running parallel with reality, but it is always a great form of discussion. Before the final book was released, theories about how it was going to end were flying around all over the place. Even know, people think there may be something more which J. K. Rowling isn’t telling us. The films and the books will always draw people together in conversation and be and interesting conversation starter.

                I miss the movies already and I have only been out of the cinema for an hour! It is a sad feeling that it is now all over. I really hope the best for Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. They are each wonderful actors in their own right and I really hope we are going to see lots more of them in the future. I recently saw Rupert Grint in Wild Target on DVD which I really enjoyed him in, and I am looking forward to seeing Daniel Radcliffe in The Woman In Black and Emma Watson in My Week With Marilyn.

                These are my own words and here is my Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 review. Enjoy.

Review

                 “It All Ends” shouts the posters for Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2. And so it does. After 10 years and 8 Harry Potter films, the final movie event in J. K. Rowling’s phenomenon finally hits cinemas. It is a bittersweet experience for fans which these films and their almost annual releases have become a part of their lives for a decade. The final film doesn’t disappoint for these die hard fans. It is a fitting farewell to the characters which they love and stays true to the book, with some slight adjustments to aid the excitement on the big screen. However, those who haven’t seen any Harry Potter films before and are thinking about seeing this film, shouldn’t unless you watch at the very least Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 1.

                The final Harry Potter film picks up right where it left off in Part 1. Lord Voldemort’s (Ralph Fiennes) power is at its strongest and Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his ever trusted friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) know they have to find all the horcruxes in order to kill him once and for all. The showdown takes place at Hogwarts, which is now under the rule of assumed Voldemort follower Severus Snape (Alan Rickman). One thing is for certain in the final war between Harry and Voldemort, only one will survive.

                The great things about the final instalment of the Harry Potter series is that it delivers everything it promises to be. There is suspense from the beginning to the end of the film and it does stay true to the book. In some ways, the final scene at Hogwarts is anti-climatic and may be a bit too subtle for some people. However, it is plain to see why director, David Yates chose to make it like this. It isn’t cliché or a scene where people wave their fists in the air in response to the ending of the battle, and it is a feeling of surrealism and calm now that it is finally all over, and a feeling of wondering where to go from there.

                The directing and cinematography is actually the best in this film than any of the other films. There are some great techniques used in filming some scenes in particular, such as at the very beginning when the three friends are standing outside Olivander’s door and are almost silhouettes. The sound affects for the battle scenes are very impressive, as are the visuals and special effects in these scenes.

                The only real downfall of the film is that it is not quite as emotional in certain scenes as it should be. This is not to say that there is no emotion in this film at all, as there definitely is and there are tears to be shed. Yet, some scenes such as when somebody is thought to be dead, there is only a reaction from one person and barely any tears from others who should be showing some type of emotion.

                As for the acting, job well done by all. Radcliffe gives his best performance as Potter in this film. He isn’t over the top and he is a complete natural now, as you would hope he would be as if he didn’t know his character inside and out by now, he never will. Only criticism is that his chemistry with Bonnie Wright, who plays his love interest, Ginny Weasley is almost non-existent.

                Again, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are very good. Neither is over the top and give their characters all they can. It is almost a moment of triumph when these two finally kiss on screen as everybody has been waiting for this for years. You can see that these two are very close as friends in real life, as they just work on screen together and are very sweet.

                Perhaps the best performance in the film is that of Alan Rickman. He is fantastic in this film. He has the most complex character in the series and in this final film, his character is completely broken down and all the raw emotion of this character comes to the screen. Ralph Fiennes is also brilliant as Voldemort. He is as evil as they come and shows no hint of having any good in his soul at all. Helena Bonham Carter is not on screen too much as Bellatrix Lestrange, but she makes an impact when she is. A great moment and a credit to her acting is when Hermione has taken the polyjuice potion to make her Bellatrix and Bonham Carter charges everything about her performance. You completely forget that you are watching Bonham Carter pretend to be Watson and believe that it really is Hermione trying to be Bellatrix.

                It is definitely a sad time to see the Harry Potter series finish up, but Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is a fitting conclusion to the phenomenon. Again, non-fans of the books or movies or people who haven’t had anything to do with either, shouldn’t waste their time as they will have no idea what is going on, but fans will love it. Don’t cry because it’s over, smile because it happened.

7.5/10

            

Harry Potter and The Deathy Hallows: Part 1

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 1
Year: 2010
Director: David Yates
Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter

In My Own Words
I am an unashamed Harry Potter fan, not afraid to say it. I won't say I was always a Harry Potter fan, but I became so with the release of "Harry Potter and The Prisoner Of Azkaban" in cinemas back in 2004. After deciding that I wouldn't mind seeing the film, I went and watched the first 2 movies and was hooked. Since then, I've read every one of the Harry Potter books, seen all the films the day or day after it came out and stood in lines at bookstores on the day the books were released. What do I love the most about Harry Potter? It's a story about growing up and life as a high school student with a difference. Even though it is a fantasy story, people can identify with Harry, Ron and Hermione. They are outcasts in a world of outcasts and struggle with growing up issues, but then they are great fun to watch and by now you know them as well as you would your best friends.

How do I feel about the last chapter of the Harry Potter saga? It didn't feel like it at all. Personally I don't think it was a great idea to split the last book up into two movies, but I can see why they did it. I know I first thought that they split the last book into two to keep the franchise going and keep the money rolling in, but now I see that it would have been a 4 hour movie if they made the last book into one film. I still don't know if it worked though. Of course I have an advantage over the people who haven't read the books, but I don't think it ended in the right place. Yet I don't know if there would've been the right place to finish part one. Hurry up part two! In saying this, I would really be interested in hearing from people who haven't read the books to see whether they think that the ending was sufficient. It is hard for me to say knowing what is coming next.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
So, the last chapter of the Harry Potter saga. But wait....there is still more! Whatever the reason for making "Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows" into two movies, it definately doesn't feel like it ends in the right place. Not intense enough to be a cliff hanger, just needed to end maybe 15 minutes earlier. However, it is definately not the worst of the Harry Potter movies and nowhere near the worst movies of the year if you look at it as a stand alone film. A word of warning though, if you are going to the film to see it as a stand alone film as you haven't seen the first six movies, then you won't have a clue what is going on. After the death of Hogwarts head master,Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) at the end of the last Harry Potter film, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) set off to begin their end battle with Harry's life-long enemy, Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). They take hiding in the woods of England to destroy Voldemort's horcruxes (a term which only those who have been following Harry's journey will know) before Voldemort finds them and destroy's them first.

The second last installment of the Harry Potter series is very close to being, if it isn't, the darkest of the films. There are not many smiles to be had by any of the characters and this is the way it was always going to be in this movie. The movie stays true to the book which it is based on and some things work better on screen than they do in words. There are segments in the book which are extremely tense and the intensity of Harry's situation is transferred to the audience very well. The audience feels the danger and fears for their safety. It does tend to drag on a bit at one point in time, but in these scenes it still manages to show how the journey is taking it's toll on the three friends and again, it is still true to the book in doing so. The cinematography and visuals have definately progressed with the films over time and several scenes are really quite beautiful. The musical score is also perfect for the film and again brings more emotion into the film. The ending is somwhat questionable though, as it is not a cliff hanger by any means. This film didn't need a cliff hanger at the end of it to increase interest and encourage people to go and watch the final film though so it can be forgiven.

"Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows" is the Harry Potter film which shows the true acting ability of Radcliffe, Grint and Watson. They have all matured in their acting so much in the past few years and this film is very well acted. The three of them just bounce of one another in their acting and create such a strong relationship not just between themselves, but also between themselves and the audience. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson all give strong performances and you can really tell that their acting is not as forced as what it felt back in their earlier days. There shouldn't be a doubt in anyone's mind now that these three will all have careers after Harry Potter, and good careers at that. Helena Bonham Carter is also great to watch as the evil and clearly insane Bellatrix Lestrange.

Whether or not "Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 1" was a great film or not or whether it had a cliff hanger ending or not, won't take Harry Potter fans away from enjoying this film or looking forward to the finale. Not the worst Harry Potter film, not the best Harry Potter film. It is no longer a children's tale and it is very dark. Nevertheless, it is still Harry Potter and it definately shows how the film saga has become better production wise over the years. Let's hear it Harry Potter fans....bring on July 2011.
7/10