The Amazing Spiderman

The Amazing Spiderman 2 was everything I wanted it to be. Not only was the story well developed and a natural progression from the first film, but the acting was fantastic. I've been a long time fan of superhero films and in particular the Spiderman series. Since the first film of the new regeneration, I put a lot of faith in Andrew Garfield to continue the legacy with grace and subtlety. His acting has vastly improved since his early days in films like Social Network. He knows how to command the screen now whilst not over exaggerating his movements and making them seem unrealistic. In my mind, he has already surpassed Toby Maguire in my ranking of actors who have played the insect-human hybrid. Nicholas Hammond is still in last place, CBS really dropped the ball on that one. But back to the film in question, it was long. And long enough that it felt long, even though it was paced nicely, friends should be aware when seeing the film that it will take three hours from your day including pre-film adverts. However, I love a long film so Spidey and I were a great fit. I particularly enjoyed the introduction of Electro. Jamie Foxx managed to create a villain that I empathised with and frankly wanted to help!

My favourite two moments of the film were nearer the end. The first is a huge SPOILER... After defeating Electro, Spiderman and Gwen Stacy are about to celebrate when suddenly the Green Goblin a.k.a Harry Osborne arrives and makes the connection between his childhood friend and the hero he hates. In attempt to acquire his revenge, the Goblin scoops up Gwen and another fight scene commences. Sadly it ends with Gwen hitting the ground hard despite Spiderman's efforts to save her. She dies and what follows is five months without Spiderman's presence in the city. The reason why this scene stuck out was because it was unexpected. The whole film leads us towards a happy ending for the pair, so her death is shocking. I was also a little disappointed that this meant the end of Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. I had grown to love her in the role and was expecting to see more of her in the third film.

My second favourite moment was shortly after the first. As I said, Spiderman had been absent from the city of Manhattan for five months which resulted in Osborne (from his cell in the local mental institute) orchestrating the creation of destructive villains. As one of these take the streets, a young boy, seen earlier in the film befriending Spiderman, runs past barriers and police to stand in front of the villain in his Spiderman costume. The image was so powerful and worked to represent the connection that many young children have with the hero in our society. So many of them look up to the character as a role model and in some cases as a friend. Thankfully, in the film, the real Spidey turns up and saves the day.

Overall, I found the film to be surprisingly uplifting and captivating. It seems like this generation of Spiderman films has found its stride and is really hitting home with audiences around the world through its realistic themes between the love interests and the elaborate fight scenes reminiscent of the original comics. Whilst I am excited for the third film of this series, which was recently announced, I am interested to see if the films continue to impress fans like the last two have.

YSL & Divergent

This past week I have seen two very different films with one thing in common. They were both surprising.

First, I saw Yves Saint Laurent with my good friend from school. I can always rely on Emma whenever I want to go see a film and thankfully she felt the same as she invited me to an early morning showing of the French film. I hadn't looking into the content of the film before hand (sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't) so I wasn't aware that the film was French, subtitled and a biography. Originally, I was under the impression that the YSL film would be an art film - a display of sketches and runways set to jazz and electro punk. In this particular case, I'm very happy I was wrong. The film was actually a stunning retelling of Yves and his turbulent life from the time he started working for Dior to his death. Told from the point of view of Yves long term life partner, Pierre, the story tells of his start in the fashion world and how after Dior's death he was thrust into the spotlight with disastrous effects on his health. He was anxious and panicked and struggled to deal with people outside his immediate group of friends. But as the world changed and the drug culture erupted, Yves life became tumultuous as he fell into a deep well of alcohol, sex and drugs.

I found the film to be beautifully shot and carefully directed. It is always risky dealing with real, idolised people. Yet, even with the way Yves acted during moments of the film, I still left the cinema eager to learn more about his life and his work. Biographies tend to inspire me to go home and research everything about the subject as possible. So it was no surprise that I spent the rest of my day learning about Yves and the way he worked. I found myself to be equally fascinated with his lover Pierre. Through it all he was there for Yves and really only acted the way he did in an attempt to protect his love from danger (which Yves, in the later part of his life, seemed to hunt like it was prey). 

With this film, I was inspired to reconnect with the culture in my life. To appreciate the art that I grew up with and the work of those in fashion. Needless to say, I went on to watch September Issue and Coco Chanel later on that evening.

The second film I saw this week was Divergent. Set to be a big hit at the box office and a popular conversation topic for the next few months, I felt that I had to see it. I had also read both Divergent and Insurgent earlier last year, and I am always intrigued to see how popular books translate onto the screen. Having my reservations regarding the casting, I went in with an open mind! And yes, I was surprised! Shailene Woodley would be my last pick to play Tris, but actually she was fantastic. She gave real life to a character, that because of her Divergent nature could be incredibly distant from an audience. And all the other actors were fine. Just fine.
My only issue was the absence of Edward. Although he was listed on IMDB as being featured, readers of the book will have noticed one major thing when seeing the film. His eye. In the book, Peter is jealous that Edward is above him in ranking during training so he gouges his eye out with a knife. None of this happens in the film, in fact, we weren't even introduced to the character at all. Frankly, without Edward and the conflict, it was hard to believe Peter was as bad as the film tried to make him out to be. Another reason I am baffled by his lack of inclusion in the first film is because he becomes a vital character in Insurgent (in the book at least)! Due to the second book being pretty complicated, in terms of the number of new and old characters who come in and out, I'm not surprised that the movies will be split into three. I feel like this might give the director a real opportunity to develop the characters and expand on a good story that with the right tools could be made great.

My favourite part was the end. I really did enjoy the film, I promise! I just really liked how even though the film will be part of a trilogy it didn't end on a painful cliffhanger *cough* The Hobbit *cough*. It felt as though the story could have ended when the credits rolled, with the audience left to fantasise about the Divergent and the rebels living their life escaping the Erudite/Dauntless army.

With my new Cineworld Unlimited card, I imagine I'll be getting back into my old habit of writing film reviews. I enjoy this sometimes more than writing about my personal life. I can relax a little more without worrying about saying the wrong thing. I like movies. I like writing about movies. I like not always writing in the same structured way. I like being relaxed.

The Devil Wears Prada

The Devil Wears Prada, 2006, directed by David Frankel is based on the 2003 novel of the same name by Lauren Weisberger.[2] The story centres on Andrea Sachs, played by Anne Hathaway as she strives to survive and flourish as a writer in the big city. Along her way she lands a job working for the notoriously difficult and powerful Runway editor, Miranda Priestly. After struggling to get to grips with the high flying fashion world Andy soon excels and begins to enjoy her new surroundings. But as her new friendships and her old relationship are tested she ultimately decides that Priestly’s world is simply not for her and leaves the company to pursue her long lasting dream of being a serious journalist. Certain aspects of the film reveal the fashion industry and its warped standards of beauty whilst employing typical dramatic devices of Romantic Comedies to portray these issues.

One of the most noted performances in the film comes from Meryl Streep as head honcho, Miranda Priestly. Streep not surprisingly, received a nomination for an Academy Award for this role along with several other awards. According to Richard Dyer there are three types of role for an actor; the Perfect, the selective and the problematic fit.[3] In this case, the role was selective for Meryl as the character and her own personality are polar opposites. In spite of this the role becomes perfect for Streep as her talent as an actress allows for her to fit any role she takes. In public appearances and award shows she seems to be a very nice and genuinely sweet person whereas her character in The Devil Wears Prada is icy cold and often candidly mean. Our first encounter with Priestly is rather dramatic as suspense is built from before we see her. The employees of Runway are informed of her impending arrival and are seen frantically cleaning and rushing to tidy their areas. The visual fear on everyone’s faces builds anticipation and when we finally see the character in all her glory the audience is not disappointed. Streep pulls of a complete transformation from her normal seemingly bubbly self to the horrible and stern Queen Bee. There is no surprise that this role gained the actress her record breaking 14th Oscar nomination.

The employees seem to over react and the scene seems to be overdramatised at first but as we learn more about the character, their responses seem to be totally appropriate. Many of the female employees are seen making an attempt to improve their physical appearance as one woman changes from flat and comfortable shoes to high heels. This image is brief but not easily forgotten as it sets the tone for what is considered to be beautiful and feminine within this film. The close up is of a strained and uncomfortable foot which shows the pain that women go through in order to achieve this perception of beauty and the standards of beauty within this particular company. The idea that women suffer for fashion and beauty is not wrong but many believe that this is something we must do. Whilst in the films case, I believe that the image of beauty within that industry was incredibly accurate. It’s a world where weight and owning the latest pair of Chanel boots is key to gaining success.

Another especially memorable scene in the film is the montage of Andy’s makeover transformation. The makeover is a reoccurring tool used in Romantic Comedies and teen films. ‘Hollywood has long been enamoured [with] transformation stories’.[4] The Devil Wears Prada is no exception and turns the dowdy writer into a fashionable New Yorker. Most films use this dramatic device as a way of showing the evolution of the female character. Even once Andrea has turned her back on Runway to pursue journalism she is still dressed fashionably but this time with a little more of her own personality intertwined with it. The montage shows Andy on her way to work in several different and varying outfits. Hathaway is no stranger to the makeover in films as one of her foremost roles was as Mia Thermopolis in The Princess Diaries.[5] I found it interesting that this segment was very similar to the opening montage in the film that showed models and other ‘fashionistas’ out on the streets of New York in a similar fashion. This highlights further the vast changes in the protagonist’s appearance and how she now ‘fits in’ with the types of girls she used to make fun of. This further perpetuates the idea that a woman should change her appearance in order to fit in and be successful.

An interesting aspect of this scene was the choice of music, Vogue by Madonna.[6] The magazine, Runway featured in Weisberger’s book and the character of Miranda Priestly are based on American Vogue and its notorious editor Anna Wintour. The music is a subtle nod to the inspiration behind the novel and subsequently the film. Additionally, the song itself is iconic in the fashion industry for its interlude that features the names of many famous and infamous designers. Partly because of this song and her courageous choices in costumes, Madonna has become an icon in ground breaking fashion and glamourising designers. Often considered to be strong and powerful, Madonna took charge of her career in the same way the Andrea is trying to do in the film.

The representation of femininity and female beauty are, I feel, challenged by this film as they are brought to light. In an incredibly shallow and appearance based industry the main character has no choice but to sacrifice parts of what make her unique in order to blend with her new surroundings. The film incorporates aspects of perceived beauty such as body weight and explores them in a light hearted manner that could easily be misconceived by the young impressionable minds that the film is marketed at. There is no doubt that this film appeals to young female audiences but unfortunately it will take year for them to fully understand that this film is not just a light and puffy look at the fashion industry but is instead a social commentary on the idea of beauty and what we must do to achieve it.

---

[1] The Devil Wears Prada, dir. by David Frankel (20^th Century Fox, 2006)

[2] Lauren Weisberger, The Devil Wears Prada (Broadway Books, London, 2003)

[3] Jeremy G. Butler, The Star System and Hollywood (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000) p. 11

[4] Brenda R. Weber, Makeover TV: Selfhood, Citizenship, and Celebrity (Duke University Press, North Carolina, 2009) p. 19

[5] The Princess Diaries, dir. by Garry Marshall (Walt Disney Pictures, 2001)

[6] Vogue, performed by Madonna, written by Madonna and Shep Pettibone (Sire Records and Warner Bros Records, released March 20^th 1990)

Exploring the Sea: The Little Mermaid and Freud

Sigmund Freud had an interesting consideration of the human mind and personality. He wrote abundantly on the importance of a child’s upbringing and its eventual effect on his or her behaviour. He formulated theories that spanned several different aspects of development but that were all related to sexuality. He produced many popular writings which detail his created frameworks and the way they relate to the ‘average’ person. These frameworks can be applied to a wide range of other fictional works to help garner a deeper understanding of characters and the underlying themes within. In particular, in relation to the 1989 Disney film The Little Mermaid, Freudian theories can be applied.[1] The film provides several, varying characters who each incorporate different aspects of Freud’s theories.

Freud provides three basic states that differentiate and are distinguished by how conscious and aware a person is of any personal actions or behaviours. The ‘Conscious’ is where all of our current memories are stored along with all of our basic instincts like how to function within society. The ‘Preconscious’ is for memories that are not accessed daily but can be recalled if needed. The ‘Unconscious’ contains unfiltered and unaltered memories that we cannot possibly remember and the things that we encounter and absorb daily that our conscious mind is not aware of.[2] Freud believed that the ‘Unconscious’ was also a place for any of our troubling or disturbing thoughts that we suppress, to further help us conform to the social norms. Repression is often associated with shame, guilt and trauma and a need to hide our differences from others. Freud had the understanding that we cannot control ourselves in our dreams, therefore, anything from our past can manifest itself clearly whilst dreaming, without us trying hard to forget or suppress.

Freud wanted to learn more about the suppressed unconscious by exploring and discussing dreams. In The Little Mermaid, the love interest, Prince Eric, claims to have dreams of Ariel’s beautiful voice but he cannot picture her face. But yet when he meets her he is instinctively drawn to her. Freud would assume that Eric’s subconscious is trying to guide him towards Ariel even though he cannot remember being saved by her. Freud claimed that making unconscious impulses conscious could cure ‘neurotic symptoms’.[3] And in the case of the film, by realising the truth about Ariel, Eric would not only be reunited with his love but would also prevent her kingdom and voice from being permanently seized by the sea witch.

Freud believes that a person’s attitude and personality can be traced back to key stages of their development. Freud splits these stages into the following: Oral, Anal, Phallic, Latency and Genital. The Oral stage is in the early years of a child’s life and many arguments arise from whether the child is breast or bottle fed. Often when problems arise later in life, people fixate on this stage and are convinced that something that occurred within the first 18 months of a child’s life can explain away any habits or addictions they come to have in later life. The Anal stage tends to be from 18 months to 3 years old and centres on toilet training and a child ability to accept and fit with social norms and conventions. The Phallic stage, from 3 to 7/8 years of age, is considered to be the ‘most important’ by Freud.[4] As this is the stage where a boy goes through the Oedipus complex and women go through penis envy. Just before puberty comes the Latency Stage where sexual interests and desires are hidden under the surface and then finally the Genital stage when sexuality becomes apparent..

In The Little Mermaid, we are never told about Ariel’s Mother nor are we informed about the details of her childhood. Much of Freud’s psychosexual theory does not apply because of the lack of a Mother figure in the young girl’s life. A flaw within his theory is that it is dependent on there being both parents present during upbringing and that any child without both will have instability issues. In order to properly analyse a film in relation to the psychosexual stages, it is important to see how a child was raised in order to determine how that has affected their personality and habits. However, when we are introduced to our main character it is established early on that she is still a child and it is easily deduced that she is in her Phallic stage due to her age and interest in scavenging things, an interest that subsides when she becomes interested in men. Freud pays key attention to the early stages of a child’s life and its life altering effects. Ariel is surrounded by male authority figures whether it is her Father or Sebastian, so it is no surprise that when she is finally approached by a female, who is seemingly looking out for her, Ariel trusts and follows the advice of a complete stranger. 

A secondary character, Flounder, plays an interesting role within the film when considered alongside Freud’s theory. Ariel’s cowardly best friend’s age is never revealed but his personality is one of a scared young girl, despite him being a boy. Other personality traits that Flounder is considered to have are kindness, innocence and an anxious disposition. When reflected upon with Freud in mind, it could be assumed that Flounder was over nurtured by his Mother as a child, who perhaps worried that he would be in danger if he ever went too far from her. This bond was likely developed in the oral stage. The first stage is also the most intimate between Mother and child as the connection can be physical, through breast feeding, and the Mother has full control over her young. Although we never hear of Flounder’s mother, Freud would say it is clear that her influence is there as he has a very feminine personality – one that is doting and caring to the stronger character. And even when Flounder tries to be brave his ‘very effort to “be a man” seems to invite the opposite: to bring on his repressed feminine side’.[5]

Freud identifies three main players in the brain that work together to form a person’s personality. Freud first discussed the three agencies of the mind in his 1923 writing entitled, The Ego and the Id.[6] The Id controls all of our wants, needs and desires. The Ego is our sense of self. And the Superego acts as a judge or a censor within our mind. All three of these agencies within our mind work together. The Ego works with the Id to ensure we don’t over indulge (or in some cases, make sure we do) and pleases the Superego. The Superego has a leadership role and has control over the other two. The idea that we are ultimately driven by three sections of our brain, allows for a discussion regarding what is more powerful: desire or reason. The superego is another name for a conscience and often the existence of one can be questioned. Freud may not have accounted for the varying degrees of humanity within the population and the ability to do ‘bad things’ within ‘good people’.

A rather liberal approach to the Id, Ego and Superego would be to assign each to a different character within the film that typifies the basic characteristics of each mental structure. The Id in the case of The Little Mermaid would be the protagonist herself, Ariel. She works by desire and impulse rather than by reason and rationalising. Freud’s Id is the driving force of emotions and instincts and as a result, when someone like Ariel is as instinctive as she is then it is logical to deduce that this mental structure has more control than the others in her brain. Whilst the story wouldn’t have existed if Ariel had thought carefully about her decisions and taken into account the implications of her actions, she would have been a more rounded human/mermaid if she had. She is so emotionally driven that it causes her to encounter possibilities of downfall for both her romantic life and her Father’s leadership.

The Ego in the story is represented by Sebastian. Representing the voice of reason who literally shuttles back and forth in an attempt to please both the Id and the Superego. The Ego is a part of the mind that Freud considered to stem from logic and understanding. The character Sebastian is a loyal servant to King Triton but also serves as a loyal friend to Ariel. This in between structure is important as its presence creates a rational person. Personality ‘is derived from the interplay of these three psychic structures, which differ in terms of power and influence’.[7] It is clear that neither Ariel nor King Triton are able to control the situation, so it is with the assistance of Sebastian the story ends happily. His independence and coping skills are developed as a result of the Ego being a more mentally stable character than the other two structures.

Finally the Superego, King Triton is considered the morality and conscience. From the outset of the film Triton clearly has rules that he likes to have enforced but many of them are strict and hold his daughter back from being the person she wants to be. He is overbearing in this sense, and it is through Sebastian, the Id, that he is able to reconnect with his child. Freud believed that the Superego is the last structure to develop within the mind, which makes sense in relation to the film at King Triton is the eldest character. The Superego strives for perfection in everything, ‘it seeks moralistic rather than realistic solutions’.[8] Triton epitomises this opinion from Barbara Engler in her introductory writing to studying personality. This is because he wants his daughter to fit in with her sisters and follow the moral compass he has set for her instead of venturing out into the world by herself.

The main characters can be dissected alongside Freud’s writing to reveal underlying motivation and reasoning behind their actions. Although, by applying Freud’s ideas to a story we are able to identify the flaws that appear within his work and the little allocation he left for female sexuality and identity out with the constraints of her Father. Ultimately, Freud’s theories are sound, but not necessarily valid, and applicable to many situations, with the understanding that society, location and individual situation can alter how affective the dissection will be. In the case of The Little Mermaid Freud’s theories are applicable because of the vast diversity between each character and the way the film has tried to reflect some real life relationships, like those between Father and Daughter.

---

[1] The Little Mermaid, dir. By Ron Clements and John Musker (Buena Vista Pictures, 1989)

[2] Jacki Watts, ‘Jung’s Analytic Theory of the Development of Personality’ in Developmental Psychology, ed. by Derek Hook, Jacki Watts, Kate Cockcroft (Landsdowne, Cape Town, University of Cape Town, 2002), p. 124

[3] Richard W. Noland, ‘Sigmund Freud’ in Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms, ed. by Irene R. Makaryk (Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, 1993), p. 321

[4] Janell L. Carroll, Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity, 4^th edn (Belmont CA: Wadsworth, 2010), p. 29

[5] Christopher Benfey, ‘From Modern to Postmodern Literatures’ in Men Writing the Feminine Literature, Theory and the Questions of Genders, ed. By Thais E. Morgan (Albany, NY: University of New York, 1994), p. 124

[6] Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id (Eastford, CT: Martino Publishing, 2011)

[7] Robert F Bornstein, ‘The Evolution of Psychoanalysis: Gazing Across Three Centuries’ in Handbook of Pyschology, Personality and Social Psychology, ed. By Theodore Millon, Melvin J Lerner (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2003), p. 121

[8] Barbara Engler, Personality Theories: An Introduction (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2009), p. 48

Rosemary's Baby meets Ben Affleck's Argo

When the buzz initially started to surround Ben Affleck's new film Argo, I was convinced that considering he was once a part of a relationship that was dubbed 'Bennifer', that his movie would be sub standard at best. I didn't want to see this film at all until the Golden Globes where he won for Best Director and Best Motion Picture. I finally sat myself down to watch the flick with a bottle of Ribena and some chocolate in the hopes that I would enjoy the film a little more because I had snacks. It was brilliant. I loved the pace of the movie more than anything. With many films these days (Star Trek being one of them) it can sometimes feel like time is being wasted or that the action is unevenly spaced. Thankfully, Argo was well timed in a way that made me feel like there was never an unused moment. The opening was clever as it combined some of the story board for the film (the film within this film, that is) with archive footage and a calm voice over. The story centres on a feared country during its revolution as six American embassy workers find themselves trapped and unable to escape without the possibility of death by public hanging. The actors were excellent in their portrayals of fear and pressure in particular the acclaimed director. Affleck is a calm and mysterious character who doesn't really reveal much. Occasionally we discover more about his personal life and its troubles but it isn't relevant to the story itself. Based on a true story, the film had me interested in the step by step process of freeing the Americans from their impending doom. The crowd scenes were excellent in there execution as the rage and fear were palpable for some parts of the film. The score for Argo was classic late 70's and never felt intrusive or out of place. Despite my hesitation to watch the film in the beginning, I highly recommend Argo to anyone who is looking for a little bit more out of their films rather than the usual fluff. It was entertaining and at times nail bitingly tense.

Rosemary's Baby first came to my attention earlier this year in my Contemporary Hollywood Film module and then again more recently through Alli Trippy and CTFxC cinema. As it slowly but surely crept into my life from different angles I felt obliged to watch Mia Farrow, under the direction of Roman Polanski, fall deeper and deeper into the traps made by the devil. From the outset we learn that the previous tenant of the apartment was hospitalised and also grew herbs and moved a chest of drawers in front of a closet. All seemingly innocent but of course are given more meaning as the film unfolds. The talk of the 'devil' also starts from the beginning which slowly lures the audience in and intrigues them. I didn't really get the dream/rape sequence but I don't think that you are necessarily supposed to. This film is a classic mysterious thriller that puts those of the 21st Century to shame. Many films made in the last 13 years dream of the sort of slow tension and fear that Rosemary's Baby builds. What I found strange was the 'good luck' necklace because I bought my mother something nearly identical years ago. After seeing how this film turned out, I want to find that necklace and destroy it. Another great aspect of the film is all of the simply yet effective dramatic devices such as foreshadowing and more importantly the horror film favourite, pathetic fallacy. I'm a sucker for an image of a crying woman with rain beating against the window. I also enjoyed hating Guy, Rosemary's husband, more and more as the film went on. He seemed so nice in the beginning but slowly became this figure of evil. Many of the reviews I have read complain about the ending and criticise it as being anti climactic, but I enjoyed the way the story was left open and that the audience were able to contemplate the next stages in Rosemary's life and whether or not she does what the group want her to do. (Spoiler Alert) Obviously it was a little bizarre considering the character is rebellious throughout but perhaps it was mothers love that made her decide to care and love for the child in spite of what it is.

I enjoyed watching an older film this week, it was a nice change from the Hollywood films I've been watching in the run up to the Oscars. Unfortunately by the time the ceremony came around, I still had four films in the Best Picture category to watch. But other than Beast's of the Southern Wild, I saw all the films from that category that I wanted to see. Also, I have been working on a detailed review of Moonrise Kingdom because I absolutely loved it. I will likely watch the film again before I publish that post but it is definitely coming.

Forty Year Old Psychotic Zombie

Another week, another selection of films. It's always been a part of my weekly routine to watch as many new films as I possibly can in just 7 days. Sometimes the week is filled with an eclectic mix of intelligent and clever cinema and other times it is pure awful film generated to satisfy the mass population. This week was a mix of both. I started by watching This is 40 and Warm Bodies before ending my week with Hitchcock. So here is my opinion of the current box office smashes.

This is 40 was another pathetic comedy. It's so frustrating to me that producers and directors are spouting out the same generic formula packed with as many clichés and famous actors as they can get. Leslie Mann seems to fill the role of the same mid-life crisis wife and mother who we see in every single mass produced film. But of course everything works out in the end despite her character and her husbands being completely incompatible in my eyes. Paul Rudd introduced another stereotypical moment for Hollywood films, the 'smoke weed, get high' montage. Obviously weed distribution and subsequently its popularity has grown over the last decade alone but is it really necessary to show every 40-something adult smoking it in an attempt to be 'fun again'. I did enjoy their children though. They were blunt and hilarious and reminded me a lot of the children in the popular British TV show Outnumbered. The teenage daughter's obsession with Lost was a fun side plot that felt totally appropriate considering the current obsession with 'shipping' and 'fan-girling' over every show and every singer. I found her breakdown in the closet near the beginning particularly hilarious. Lena Dunham! One of my newest obsessions despite her poor choice in body art, features very briefly in this film. But my final thoughts on the film is that it is another mediocre film produced purely for profit. Are any comedy films made to satisfy more than the producers wallet these days?

Second in my week of new films was the current box office hit, Warm Bodies. You know, that film that takes Twilight a little step further and explores the romance from the 'monsters' point of view. Nicholas Hoult plays a zombie looking for something more. The casting of this film was spectacularly on point. I can think of no one better to play an awkward bumbling zombie than Hoult who happens to be lanky and awkward himself. It was like he was built for the role. I mentioned in a previous post that I'm very particular about the execution of voice overs. I found the one in this film to be very satirical and at some points unnecessary. However, enough of the voice over was funny enough for me to consider it relevant to the development of the story. Overall the film had a cute humour to it opposed to the typical Hollywood humour like in This is 40. The lead actress, Teresa Palmer, does emote more than Kristen Stewart which was a pleasant surprise but unfortunately the idea and expression of 'teenage angst' was never too far from her face. But my favourite part about the film was part of the writing. I LOVE when zombie films, television shows or literature feature different variations of the zombie. The skeletons vs the corpses was a great idea that I feel propelled the story past the same old boring comedy horror.

Thankfully, my week ended on an ultimate high with the Oscar nominated, Hitchcock. With a strange narrated beginning and end which was incredibly unexpected the film had me hooked from the start.The title sequence itself was striking and set the tone for a beautiful film. As a fan of the directorial process I found it really interesting seeing a, slightly fictionalised, version of the famous director work his magic. I found Helen Mirren to be cheeky and fabulous as ever! Wonderfully headstrong and calm even when she is playing a relatively controlling character, it is difficult not to love and praise her. She always chooses the perfect role that showcases just how brilliant she really is. Now, I am the first to admit that Scarlett Johansson's figure is absolutely stunning and possibly the epitome of female perfection. But there is something about her face, her voice and her overall presence that just pisses me off. Am I the only one that was frustrated by her painfully awful Dolce and Gabbana advert? My favourite scene in the film comes just at the end when an audience is watching Psycho for the first time. There is something strangely poetic and sweet about Alfred dancing to the shrieking sounds of the shower scene in the lobby. There was an overall elegance and sweetness to the film that makes me wonder why it was not nominated for best picture. Although I have yet to see it, I don't think Lincoln belongs in that category and should have been replaced by Hitchcock. Before the closing titles there are a few short sentences detailing the rest of Hitchcock's career after Psycho and the fact that Hitchcock never won an Oscar. Now after seeing this film and reading into more of Alfred Hitchcock's work I feel like this should be corrected.

So my week wasn't great, in relation to movies, and I still have 5 films in the best picture category to watch before the 24th of this month. Hopefully, I'll get this done before the ceremony but if I don't I'm sure I will watch them sooner rather than later. But for now I'm going to continue to watch whatever comes my way.

Eight Minutes and Twenty-Three Seconds

I have paused my film 8 minutes and 23 seconds in to mull over what I have seen and heard so far. The film is The Perks of Being a Wallflower and my impression thus far is that it is simply captivating. I am in engrossed and in all honesty, I've only paused the film because the stream needs to buffer and I don't want to watch a movie that stops and starts every minute! So let's talk about what has happened in these 8 minutes and 23 seconds that have inspired me to open a new tab on my computer and write.

I am a sucker for a well executed voice over and POBAF does not disappoint. Logan Lerman's clear yet emotive tone is a pleasant introduction to the film and I can only hope that it continues in such a way that does not feel intrusive or annoying. We discover that our leading man, Charlie, is hiding some sort of secret that happened during his last year of middle school. Of course as I am barely 10 minutes into the film I have no idea what this could have been. He mentions that he doesn't want his parents thinking he will get 'bad' again and the first image that popped into my head was of Charlie dressed as Michael Jackson for Halloween! He's an obviously intelligent young man who is an outcast striving to simply get by which is something that many audiences members will have experienced. The voice over is a clever tool that can be so easily slaughtered so it's nice when it is occasionally done right.

I was surprised that when the opening credits were rolling I recognised several names. I was particularly surprised to see Nina Dobrev and Dylan McDermott were in this film, for two very different reasons. Dylan I love and would praise nearly any role he chooses but Nina... Girl, what are you doing here? You are a vampire in a CW television series not a serious actor in a film about self reflection. Spoiler alert! Emma Watson is not in the first 8 minutes and 23 seconds of this film and I am totally fine with that. She is yet to win me over completely even though I do like her body of work. She's a bit of a weird one for me as I don't have any solid reasons for why I don't like her, I just don't. Logan Lerman, with his afore mentioned lovely clear voice, has a certain beautiful quality about him. I can never tell if it is the character or the actor that I find attractive especially when I haven't seen the actor in any other role. But so far, I am 100% on his side and even his one strange eyebrow will not change that. And to round off the cast, the wonderful Ezra Miller. Afterschool and We Need To Talk About Kevin are two of my favourite movies and both feature him as either a leading or supporting actor. I look forward to seeing what type of character this 'Patrick' is and whether or not it's similar to any of Miller's previous roles. I really hope that his popularity grows further because of this movie and I would love to see him in more and more films in the near future. I think there is something to be said about an actor who can play a raging psychopathic killer and be incredibly sexy doing so. Oh and Paul Rudd is a teacher who wants to be Charlie's friend. It was odd but I enjoyed learning where the term 'Box Office' came from so that's a thing.

So far there has only been one thing I don't like. The kids at the high school are truly awful. I know that directors, writers and everyone else on the planet want to highlight the bullying that goes on in schools but isn't this a little extreme? The whole 'bully every freshman' thing is far too over the top and, in my mind, a little ridiculous. I'm not suggesting that bullying doesn't happen and that it's not a huge issue but I have never in my life seen or heard of anything as ludicrous as a whole senior class resorting to picking on the younger classmen. Even at my school, no one liked the first years because they were annoying and had a strange sense of ownership because they had just been the oldest year group in the junior school. We would always moan about them and laugh at their huge backpacks but ultimately if we ever saw that a first year was lost, I know that I personally, would try to help them. And even when they are screaming and running into you it is never acceptable to grab their book and rip it just to be mean or teach them a lesson. Urgh, so stupid! I've never read the book but considering the author is also the director I feel that he is to blame for such a gross misrepresentation. Despite this, I am enjoying Perks of Being a Wallflower and I'm now going to un-pause and resume watching Nina Dobrev eat all of those green beans. Girl has one hell of an appetite.