The Green Mile

So the other night, my flatmate and I decided to watch a film, and she said she wanted to watch The Green Mile. I, after making a couple of feeble it's-too-long, I'm-too-tired excuses, gave in and stuck it on.

This is the second and a half time I've watched it, the first being with my mum when I was about fifteen (very poor choice for a mother-daughter girl's night, has to be said), the second I don't really count because it was with several friends and nobody was really paying attention (I hate it when people do that). So it's not like I don't know what's going to happen. It's not like any of it comes as a surprise.

And yet, I still felt my heart pumping, toes curling, legs tensing and tear ducts working overtime at all the appropriate moments. Generally speaking, if I watch a tearjerker with other people, it doesn't make me cry. Generally speaking, if I watch a tearjerker that I know is a tearjerker, it doesn't make me cry. Generally speaking, if I watch a tearjerker I've seen before, it doesn't make me cry. 'Generally speaking', doesn't really apply to this film. I cried like a baby.

And I think it takes a very special kind of film to hit you with that level of emotion several times. This is the only film I've known that has left me emotionally exhausted at the end of it - it's so long, and intense, and touching, and horrifying, and generally compelling.

It's not a film you could (or should) watch over and over again - it's going to be another few years, at least, before I go there again. But it is one of the most touching stories ever filmed, and if you've never seen it I have to tell you that you must - it's a film like no other. And take tissues.

Review: The Three Musketeers

I wrote this for my student newspaper, and thought I'd give you (yes, all of y- well, you, Roz) all the benefit of my opinion as well. :)

It’s never good when the guy selling you tickets at the cinema casually says, “It’s rubbish, by the way.”

This was particularly disappointing as I’d been looking forward to seeing the swashbuckling adventure with Logan Lerman, Matthew MacFadyen, Luke Evans, Orlando Bloom, Milla Jovovich etc. for months. With a cast list like that, and a story that’s been retold so many times, I didn’t think you could go far wrong.

But…well, you can. At the end of the day, this is pretty much one of your standard expensive Hollywood movies; OTT effects, far-fetched plot, horrendously predictable script, overly-camp acting (of which Orlando Bloom in particular was very guilty). You can sympathise with the try-too-hard acting though; it must be pretty difficult to deliver a good performance with a script this dodgy. At several points in the film, it almost felt like you were playing a game of ‘finish the dialogue’ – every other line was some schmaltzy, predictable cliché about love, honour or courage.

However, that said, I did actually enjoy it. This film knows exactly what it is, and it’s not pretending to be a thought-provoking, intelligent drama – it’s just a fun adventure movie. Visually, it’s pretty spectacular – the sets and costumes all look great, and when the special effects aren’t being ridiculous (flying ships in the seventeenth century…really?), they’re very impressive. There are plenty of pretty faces to look at, and the stunt co-ordination was excellent – usually in five-minute sword-fighting sequences I tune out completely, but something exciting happened every ten seconds in these fights, so they really kept your attention.

Is it going to win Oscars? Definitely no. Would I watch it again? Most likely, yes. It’s not a work of art, but it’s easy to watch, it doesn’t work your brain too hard, and it’s plain old good fun. Also, I really fancy about four of the actors, so I'm slightly biased.

Basic summary: if you’re a fan of swashbuckling, predictable, fun, exciting, cliché remakes with a great cast and a ridiculously far-fetched storyline (which I pretty much am), then you’ll love it. Otherwise, best avoided.

Rating: * * * (good)

Review: The Full Monty

I warn you, I'm now at University and so a) have limited access to DVDs and b) can no longer afford cinema (HEARTBREAK), hence the massive gap in posts.

Anyway, on the upside, this means I have a whole new plethora of people to force my favourite films on, because I know it's good for them, even if they don't. Last night's conquest (oh...yeah, rephrase), I mean convert, was my flatmate Lizzi, who was sat down, plied with wine and forced to watch one of the absolute best films of all time - The Full Monty.

For the deprived who have never seen this glorious film, it's set in Sheffield - once the biggest UK provider of steel but, at the time the film is set, having just had most of it's factories shut down. A group of ex-steelworkers get sick of playing cards at the jobclub and, after the Chippendales visit the city, realise that there's a fair bob or two to be earned in stripping, even as a one-off. When the main character - Gaz - is told he has to fork out £700 to keep joint custody of his son, the 'thought' becomes a 'plan', and the 'plan' becomes arguably one of the best British comedies of all time.

You have to see the film to realise why it's so funny - a witty script combined with the superb comic timing of Robert Carlyle, Mark Addy and the gang are pure comedy gold. And not only is it funny, but there are moments of real hearwarming...ness.

It's just amazing, I cannot say enough good things about this film. It's easily in my Top Ten Films Of All Time, so if you ever get the opportunity to watch it, do, and if you have never had the opportunity, create the opportunity.

Basic summary: a laugh-out-loud, well-written, touching and generally brilliant British classic.

Rating: * * * * * (excellent)

Review: Jane Eyre

It's been quite a few years since I read Jane Eyre, which I thought would be a good thing - the story isn't that fresh in my mind and I wasn't going to sit there picking minor faults with the adaptation. In all fairness, there's not much leeway with a story like Jane Eyre, and they were very loyal to my memory of the book. Interestingly, the majority of the story was told in flashback, which - whilst being quite an interesting technique - for me, lost some of the tension that reading the book had. The script was pretty good - nothing special but nothing atrocious - and visually the film was quite beautiful; I'm not sure which stately home they used to Thornfield, but it was a cracking choice, and the costumes (minus a straw hat here and a Little Bo Peep bridal gown there) were good. Some very odd choices were made with the hair...I'm assuming they were trying to make Mia Wasikowska less attractive by giving her an appalling wig with an overly-intricate bun and stupidly curtain-ish bangs. It still didn't make her look plain - just slightly odd.

So on most counts, this adaptation of Jane Eyre was fine. My standard groan that Jane Eyre and Mr Rochester are supposed to be unattractive was founded - at one point Rochester asks Jane if he finds her handsome, to which she replies, "No, sir," - at which most women would reply, "WHY?!?!" But, handsomeness aside, Michael Fassbender was a very convincing Rochester - charmingly rude, broody and forceful, he turned in a good - if not a great - performance. Mia Wasikowska, however, less so. Her performance was much better than in Alice In Wonderland, but I think it's fair to say that isn't saying much. She's clearly attended the Kristen Stewart school of acting, where one facial expression is deemed adequate for every possible emotion. When St John Rivers tells her she looks miserable, my friend whispered, "How can he tell?" There was also a combined flaw of slow-script meeting Wasikowska's going for what might have been naivety, that ended up making Jane look just plain stupid on a couple of occasions.

So, all in all, it was just alright. Nothing to offend, nothing to amaze. In my eyes, the BBC's adaptation of Jane Eyre is considerably superior, despite being five years older.

Basic summary: an averagely intriguing gothic tale of romance and secrets, with nothing to blow you away but perhaps worth a quiet, mindless evening in.

Rating: * * (average)

Review: One Day

I love Anne Hathaway, I really do. I thought it was her performance (amongst others) that lifted The Devil Wears Prada from being very average to a good film, I thought she was hysterical in The Princess Diaries and cannot wait to see her as Catwoman in the new Batman film. The problem is, in One Day she was just completely miscast. As a Northern girl, I was really looking forward to seeing who would be cast as the Leeds-born heroine, Emma Morley, and was surprised and a little miffed to hear it would be Miss Hathaway - reading the book I felt a real affinity for the podgy, Yorkshire, bespectacled, opinionated Emma, and have never felt anything of the kind for the stunningly beautiful, stick-thin, American Anne Hathaway.

I know that when Renee Zellweger was cast as Bridget Jones a similar fuss was made - what about the accent? What about being a bit overweight? What about looking like a NORMAL PERSON, not a Hollywood siren? The difference is that Renee Zellweger not only perfected the accent, she gained a lot of weight and somehow made herself look normal, winning round everyone that criticised her casting. Anne Hathaway, on the other hand, certainly cannot hide her beauty behind a pair of glasses and a bad wig - and nor can she do the accent. Admittedly, a regional Yorkshire accent must be much harder than the standard RP English voice, but she absolutely murders it; occasionally she nails the flattened vowels and glottal stops, but more often than not then slips into posh, clipped pronunciations, and once or twice wandered dangerously close to what seemed to be Welsh.

In her defence, Anne Hathaway does have a way with the one-liners, and certainly makes Emma a likeable - though not as ballsy as her literature counterpart - character. However, it is Jim Sturgess in the part of Dexter who really shines. Sturgess has the arrogant, public-school layabout absolutely nailed, and he somehow manages to make you feel sympathy for a son who loses his mother, irritation with an annoying TV presenter, affection for a lost boy who needs his friend, exasperation with a repeatedly daft lush and attraction to a very charming ladies-man. There are so many layers to the character of Dexter that I actually felt Sturgess portrayed better than the book described. He evoked all the right emotions in all the right places, and had me in absolute floods of tears for the entire final fifteen minutes of the film. It would have been so easy to hate Dexter - and you do, for a while - and so hard to make the audience feel the sympathy and affection that (in the end) he deserves.

The plot itself follows these two characters from their first meeting on 15th July 1988, through the next twenty years, always finding them again on the anniversary of their first fumbled night - St Swithin's Day. I initially thought this meant the characters themselves meet up every July 15th but it doesn't - the viewer is simply shown every July 15th, whether Emma and Dex are together, apart, friends, in dramatic circumstances or living through everyday tedium. It's actually much more interesting that way, and it's a real experiment in characterisation to see what happens to these two friends over twenty years.

The chemistry between Sturgess and Hathaway, I thought, was actually very good. More important than the staggered, eventual romance of the two (for me) was their friendship, and they played it beautifully. I liked the way the book had been adapted (often risky when the author writes the screenplay), staying true to the story but cutting out one or two of the more unappealing sub-plots.

Basic summary: A touching, funny depiction of romance, growing up and - most importantly - friendship. It falls down here and there, but One Day essentially a sweet and endearing rom-com, with a little more to it than the churned-out American chick flicks.

Rating: * * * * (very good)

Review: Captain America

When I heard about Chris Evans being cast as Captain America, I'll admit I was somewhat put-out. Not only did I find it hard to think of him as anything other than a cocky, womanising man-child, but I also felt there should be a one-superhero-only clause in every Marvel actor's contract. It's not exactly a secret that Evans played Johnny Storm in both Fantastic Four films, and my attitude was kind of: "Come on, mate, give someone else a turn."

That said, I think Evans did a great job in the role and take back all my cynical comments. I always thought that Hugo Weaving was an excellent choice to play the Red Skull (or really...any baddie would do), and I was pleasantly surprised at Hayley Atwell's being cast as Peggy Carter -- it's pretty rare that an American film company and American writers decide to turn an American character British. It has to be said that her hourglass figure and chiselled bone structure fits remarkably well in the 1940s background. Tommy Lee Jones also did an excellent job as the grumpy, no-nonsense army leader, Stanley Tucci is invariably brilliant at everything he turns his hand to (be it gay fashionista, shiver-inducing paedophile or kindly doctor. THAT is talent) and Toby Jones is always good value as the bad guy's snivelling sidekick.

Anyway, enough about the actors. The story, it has to be said, followed the Spiderman/Daredevil formula of an Average-Joe guy from a somewhat difficult background being transformed into an impressive superhunk, facing a similarly genetically screwed-up baddie, getting the girl and saving the world. Interestingly, though, Captain America: The First Avenger does have a few differences. Most impressively was the CGI effect of having Chris Evans face superimposed over some short, skinny guy's body - the effect was surprisingly convincing, apart from a few moments of noticing that his head looked too big for his body. Another difference is that he is deliberately turned into a superhuman, for the purpose of the USAs fight against the Nazis (another staple of recent superhero movies). However, then the plot goes back to being a bit formulaic; his abilities are questioned and he is cast aside until proving himself in some massively unlikely but very heroic one-man assault on a top-security Nazi facility. Then he's made the boss, engages in some noble hijinks before a massive confrontation with the uber-bad-guy at the end. The bittersweet ending, though not surprising (clues are dropped from the very first scene), was a bit different, and though it was inevitable and unavoidable, it still depressed me.

Overall, though, I did enjoy the film. One of the things I've consistently loved about the Marvel films - largely the ones gearing up to be Avenger films - are the many references to other in-universe characters and concepts. Howard Stark is one such character, as is the brief appearance of Nick Fury in Captain America: First Avenger, along with the standard Stan Lee cameo that always gets Marvel fans excited.

Basic summary: a pacey, action-packed and exciting superhero movie; not much to surprise you, but plenty to enjoy. Generally good fun.

Rating: * * * (good)

Review: The Remains Of The Day

Two and a quarter hours long, this film. Two and a quarter hours.

Now I'm not the type to balk at a film purely because it's long - I've done both Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter marathons quite happily. What I do object to, however, is a two and a half hour film in which nothing happens.

This film, based on a book I will no longer be reading by Kazuo Ishiguro, follows the character of Stevens (Anthony Hopkins), a butler at a stately home in the 1930s, and has two main threads. One is that of his master, Lord Darlington, who - despite being a sympathetic and honourable man - finds his sympathy for the Germans beginning the descent of a slippery Nazi slope. The other storyline follows Stevens crush on the younger, bossy and proud housekeeper, Miss Kenton (Emma Thompson). That's pretty much it. For TWO AND A QUARTER HOURS.

Now I love period dramas, I love subtle romances, and I enjoy a good wartime movie. And I did really enjoy this film for the first hour and a half or so, but then I started to think "Right, come on, it really is time to get going now." And I kept thinking that until the credits rolled. It's tragic really, because there were so many beautiful things about the movie: the dialogue was intelligent and delicate, the acting (particularly of Anthony Hopkins) was simply fantastic, visually it was an absolute treat if you're into old-school English stately homes (which I kinda am...) and the story was told in a very sensitive, quietly touching way. If there had been an ending, this would have easily got * * * *. Alas, there wasn't.

Basic summary: an ending-less, long, not exactly pace-y, but still a sensitive and serene period romance adapted from a critically acclaimed novel.

Rating: * * (average)

Harry Potter

I finished watching Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two less than half an hour ago (at the PACKED midnight screening of my local cinema) and quite literally legged it out the second the credits rolled. My reasoning was partly that I didn't want to catch the post-film rush out of the carpark, partly that I was knackered and wanted to go to bed (you'll learn why in a paragraph or two), but mainly that I didn't want to be involved in the post-film dissection my friends were about to embark on. Usually I love these discussions, but today I did not want to be a part of it.

My reasoning (which hopefully won't sound too pretentious) was that I kind of wanted to let the film digest on it's own in my mind, without the influence of others opinions. Because I am one of the 'Harry Potter Generation' and - pitiful as it sounds - this felt more like the end of an era than anything else that's happened in the past few months. I've passed my driving test, turned eighteen and finished school, but tonight it actually felt like the end of my childhood. The Harry Potter books have been with me since I was six, and the films since I was eight - I have spent more than half my lifetime looking forward to the next book or film release. And now it's over. I can't really describe how that makes me feel, except that it's a bit exciting, and a bit frightening, and very sad.

To commemmorate the ending of our personal Harry Potter phenomenon, my friends and I embarked on a 17-hour recap, going through each of the films one by one in the build up to the midnight release. I won't lie; I was half-asleep, on the loo or just plain not watching for a significant amount of that time, but it still gave me a massive nostalgia hit. I've been watching the young actors grow up as I've grown up myself, watched them deal with problems I've dealt with and escaped with them to somewhere without homework, routine and mundanity. I loved every second of it.

And I'm not going to say the films (or books) are perfect. Far from it. Every one of the young actors in films 1, 2 and - to a more limited extent - 3 was, to put it mildly, a tad wooden. Emma Watson in particular was producing quite vicious urges within me through her mastery of Exhale Acting. That said, it's brilliant to watch all of the actors progress massively, and remarkable to see them change slowly from boys and girls to men and women. That aside, there's some massive chunks they should have cut out (WHAT was the point of Grawp? WHAT?!) and some massive chunks they should have left in (like the entire climactic battle at the end of Half Blood Prince), as well as some outrageously cheesy dialogue (count the number of times anyone says the words 'love' or 'friendship' - should be a drinking game), questionnable continuity (Harry CANNOT use magic outside of school, INCLUDING lighting up his bedroom at the beginning of Prisoner of Azkaban) and very forced plot devices (like the majority of the seventh film). But regardless, they've still captured the imaginations of a generation.

There were plenty of things I complained about during the watching of the films, and several things that irritated me about the eighth film, but that doesn't change the fact thatI absolutely loved every second of it. Film 8 truly did the book justice in the way film 7 kind of failed to do. It was action-packed, it was funny, it was sweet (at the eagerly-anticipated Ron and Hermione kiss, several girls in the audience at my cinema actually screamed. I may have been one of them.), it was touching and it rounded off the franchise in the best way it possibly could. I'm not going to give HP7.2 a proper review because I don't think it needs it - if you like Harry Potter, you will see the film, and if you don't get it then you won't. And nothing I say will persuade anyone otherwise. For me, it was everything I hoped it would be, and finally achieved the thing all previous films failed to do - reduced me to tears. Twice.


So people can say what they like about Harry Potter. Critics can slag the film off to high heaven, hardcore fans can strip away it's differences from the book and cynics can batter it with stupid questions and mockeries, because it makes no difference. For me, this franchise represents the memories of dragging my dad to preview screenings and waiting beside the postbox for the latest DVD to arrive, partial credit to beginning my deep love of cinema and films, and accompanying me throughout my childhood. It really is the end of an era, and nothing, for me, will ever be the same as Harry Potter.

Review: Bridesmaids

Everyone I'd spoken to about this film said one of two things: 1. "It's like a female version of The Hangover" and 2. "It's shit." Needless to say, on entering the cinema I was feeling ever so slightly sceptical.

The plot essentially follows an unlucky girl-next-door type called Annie (Kristen Wiig), who's bakery caved, so-called boyfriend only calls her periodically for sex, two overweight British roommates are weirdos and - to top it all - her best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) just got engaged. So ensues all the stress of planning a wedding that isn't hers, plus the insecurity of Lillian's evidently marrying into money, plus the threat of Helen Harris (Rose Byrne), Lillian's new BFF, apparently. So Annie is constantly fighting with Helen for Lillian's affection, warily approaching a budding new romance with a police officer (Chris O'Dowd) and trying not to buckle under the chaos of her rapidly spiralling life. Comedy ensues.

So when people say it's like a female version of The Hangover, I can see what they're saying. It's a realistic situation taken to exaggerated levels, the characters are largely caricatures of actual people and some of the comedy is - frankly - icky. That said, I'd say the biggest difference between The Hangover and Bridemaids is that the latter focuses more on the story than the comedy, it has more heart and so is more heartwarming. The way Kristen Wiig plays Annie is very easy to relate to, as is the story of feeling a friendship threatened by a newcomer; Maya Rudolph gives a subtly sweet performance as Lillian and the Irish Chris O'Dowd, whilst failing totally to keep up an American accent, is extremely sweet and endearing as copper Nathan Rhodes. It was also a genuinely funny film, with a few cracking one-liners and hilarious slapstick.

But not all of the comedy was to my taste, let's say. The food-poisoning sequence was, to be perfectly honest, hard to watch, as was the scene towards the end when Annie finally cracks at Lillian's bridal shower. Those two parts were overly-cringey, made for uncomfortable viewing and - mainly - drifted away from the honesty and realism that made the rest of the film so endearing. Another problem I had was with the character of Megan, who had been shoved into the traditional Fat Weird One role made an art form by Zach Galifianakis. There could have been a lot more done with Megan, but the characterisation was apparently less important than the fart gags in her case. But these flaws didn't inhibit my overall enjoyment of the film.

Basic summary: a few moments of pure, humourless cringe, but generally speaking a funny, sweet and surprisingly honest portrayal of women in general.

Rating: * * * (good)

Review: 4.3.2.1

4 girls. 3 days. 2 cities. 1 chance. Now that's a cheesy tagline if ever I saw one. However, this film turned out to be anything but cheesy. I'll admit it's not your typical girls-night-in movie, but then we're not your typical girls - plus, it was all we had.

Anyway, the plot essentially focuses around these four very different friends, and the three days each of them experiences (or 'endures' might be more accurate) in London (or, briefly, New York). Angsty One's mother is leaving, Rich One is going to meet an internet boyfriend from New York to lose her virginity (obviously going to end well...), 'Ard One is 'borrowing' Rich One's flat and humiliating her even 'arder brother, and American One is working in a supermarket that's about to get robbed. As each of their horrendous weekend's unfold, they are shown to be accidentally getting caught up in a diamond heist orchestrated by chavs (yeah. That's what I thought) and a briefly seen but glamorous woman.

So the plot was interesting. What was even more interesting was the way the story was told; instead of flicking from one girl to another chronologically, each character was dealt with individually, meaning it felt a bit like watching four mini-films as opposed to one big film. I actually found this really interesting; I love those stories that are like jigsaws, slowly slotting in piece after piece, but it's not until the end that you see the big picture. Whenever one of the girls phones another, you only hear their end of the conversation, until you switch to the next POV, when you hear what else was being said. This style was very clever and not something I think I've seen before.

That said, there were several things that annoyed me. First and foremost, every one of those girls was naked or half-naked far more than was necessary (who answers the door starkers?), which served no purpose other than to appeal to horny teenage boys. Since I am not one of those, I didn't particularly appreciate it. Also, I felt the ending didn't pack the same punch as the rest of the film, and could have done with a bit more explaining and a bit less cliche dialogue. There were also many moments of what can only be called 'WTF?' when one of the characters abandoned realism entirely and did something mind-numbingly stupid in the name of plot progression.

But that said, I did enjoy this film considerably more than I was expecting to, and I think you would too (ESPECIALLY if you're a teenage boy...)

Basic summary: interestingly-made crime thriller with plenty of eye candy for boys and a clever plot, despite one or two howler moments.

Rating: * * * (good)

Horror Films

I like to think of myself as a fairly open-minded person, films-wise. I'll watch more or less anything, and the genre won't dictate whether or not I like it. I get really irritated by those people who praise every film made of a certain genre, but either abuse or ignore any other kind of movie. For me, to call yourself a true film-buff, or movie-nerd, or cinema-freak or whatever you want, you have to be able to appreciate - at the very least - a wide range of genres, maybe even all genres.

And I try to stick by that; I'll happily settle down to a romantic comedy, a swashbuckling adventure, a spaghetti western, a disaster movie, a biopic, an indie arthouse film, a psychological thriller, a period drama or more or less anything else. However, there's one particular kind of film I avoid at all costs, and I feel it's only fair to explain that I will never be reviewing them.

Horror films are, with me, pretty touch and go, but I'm not averse to them. My Dad was determined for me to never be one of those girls that wimps out of going to see the latest action-adventure or crime thriller because it 'looks too scary', and as such had me watching the Alien movies (and Predator, and 28 Weeks Later, and Nightmare On Elm Street, and The Sixth Sense, and...you get the picture) when I was about eleven. The only films that ever really scared the bejesus out of me were Jaws (I honestly don't know if I was scared BECAUSE of my fear of sharks, or if I became afraid of sharks by being so scared) and The Ring (which I saw on a plane when I was about twelve, turned off after half an hour and still had to sleep with the lights on for a month). So horror itself isn't a genre I object to - I wouldn't choose it, but I'll watch it, and I have a lot of respect for horror films that rise above the gore and silliness I associate with the genre and make a good story out of it. I mean, I'm not saying I'm un-scareable. Far from it. I actually have a scale of horror films - the more Friends episodes I have to watch to get it out of my head and get some sleep, the worse it was (current record-holder is 28 Weeks Later, which took 8 episodes to stop zombies appearing in the window).

But the films I won't touch with a barge-pole are, basically, hardcore Slasher movies. Films like Saw, which I have never nor will ever watch, or - worse - The Human Centipede and films like it; films which offend me simply by existing. I don't even like talking about them, because I'm just so very not interested. Maybe it makes me snobby, but frankly I just think it makes me normal. There's something deeply wrong about being entertained by that kind of horror movie - it's not like Evil Dead, in which the gore is so OTT and daft the only reasonable reaction is laughter. They're gruesome and traumatising and just not something I want to waste so much as ten seconds of my life watching. I know my reaction to it wouldn't be enjoyment or appreciation; it would be nausea, sleeplessness and probably mental scarring.

So I will never, ever be reviewing movies of that kind. Classic horror and psychological thrillers are fine, but I'm never, ever going to put myself through The Exorcist. Just so's you know.

Review: Outnumbered

As a reward for making it through my history A-Level without having a complete mental breakdown, I bought myself the third series of Outnumbered, to go with the first and second series my dad owns (he's as bad, if not worse, than me when it comes to series box-sets). I then sat down and watched all three in two days. In my defence, each series is only six episodes and each episode only half an hour long, meaning I only wasted...*fast maths*...nine hours of my life. Which is worse than I expected.

But you know what, it wasn't wasted, because I loved every second of those nine hours! There are very few kinds of comedy that won't elicit some kind of amusement from me, but it's very rare for anything to reduce me to genuine, uncontrollable, snorty, belly-laughter, and Outnumbered does it frequently. If you're not already aware, it's a family sitcom about the Brockman clan - Pete (dad) is a history teacher at a distinctly dodgy school with a permanently weary attitude and a tendency to do stupid things, Sue (mum) is a nice but short-fused part-time PA with extraordinary determination and resilience in the face of their three children: Jake, morose and (particularly in recent series) moody with an appreciation for women's legs and unnecessary shouting, Ben, a hyperactive, reckless but good-natured compulsive liar and Karen, a take-no-prisoners, sharp and exceptionally witty little girl. And that's more or less it. The comedy lies entirely in those five characters, but my God is it good.

I have to say, I think it's probably funnier if your personal family situation reflects that of the sitcom, but many people's will, and it's fantastic to see it translated onto screen without any Hollywoodifying or polish. It's just normal, chaotic family life given an extra layer of wit. The scenes of the children - particularly the younger two - are largely improvised, which I think is the root of the charm, realism and genuine hilarity the programme oozes. No adult writer could come up with that kind of brilliance.

The little girl, played by Ramona Marquez, is my particular favourite, though the oldest boy (Tyger Drew-Honey) is an extremely good actor for his age (by which I mean, compared to all the other young teenage actors in the world, many of whom are just absolutely and utterly crap *cough* Dakota Blue Richards *cough*), and the adults have that exhausted, wild-eyed look nailed. I intially gave it four stars but, thinking about it, I realised the only obvious way I could think of improving it was for the episodes to be longer. And wanting more isn't much of a flaw.

Basic summary: a fun, hilarious family sitcom with realistic acting, superb one-liners and proof that children can be a blessing rather than a curse to the television industry.

Rating: * * * * * (excellent)

Review: X-Men - First Class

I'm not going to lie. I love me a good superhero movie. I especially love me a good Marvel superhero movie. And I especially especially love me a good Marvel superhero X-Men movie. Seriously, I've seen all four previous films at the cinema, loved every one and now own them all on DVD (at least I used to...the third one is hiding with Love Actually and War Of The Worlds in a place God has apparently decreed I will never find them). And whilst there have been some serious ups and downs, the X-Men films are right up my street; geeky, adventure-y, romantic, funny, dramatic, exciting and just generally good fun. Not only was X-Men: First Class no exception, it actually surpassed at least the last couple of films, in my opinion.

As a prequel, the story goes back to the 1960s and the Cuban missile crisis, following a young and charming Charles Xavier (James McAvoy), and an angry but still somewhat malleable Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) as they team up with the CIA to begin a new mutant division to American defence. Rounding up the new (or old...depending on your point of view) team shows us the young faces of familiar characters, some new faces entirely and one old and hilarious one (a moment that had me literally shooting out of my seat with excitement). However, it is - of course - not just as simple as the mutants and humans teaming up to fight off the bad guys. Erik is immovable from a desire to avenge his murdered mother by killing the Uber Bad Guy (Kevin Bacon), the young Raven/Mystique is struggling to accept herself, Hank McCoy/Beast is having a similar problem and friendly human Moira McTaggert can't seem to persuade her bosses how trustworthy these mutants are.

The scene is set for one of the best superhero movies of the decade, crammed full of a nostalgia which - to geeks like me - induces 8-year-old-on-Christmas-morning levels of excitement. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender were both cast perfectly; McAvoy brings a lighthearted charm to the young Charles, but can carry off Patrick Stewart's stern teacher with equal aplomb, and Fassbender maintains Ian McKellen's suave-but-troubled-and-misunderstood Erik. The younger cast also do a brilliant job, with Nicholas Hoult surprising me the most, playing the shy, awkward and ludicrously intelligent Hank.

The couple of complaints I would make are these: it took quite a while to get going, and I was drifting dangerously close to boredom for the first ten or fifteen minutes, before the story really got going. My other whine is nobody's fault; the problem with a prequel is that, inevitably, you know how it's going to end. There's that drop in the pit of your stomach when you see Charles running after his students, or Mystique flirting with Hank (a sub-plot which was not, unfortunately, rounded up quite to my satisfaction...). However, because this is a GOOD prequel, even knowing what will happen doesn't really soften the shock when it does happen.

So, basically, I loved it. Well-balanced, superbly acted, massively entertaining (if a touch too long) and absolutely, thoroughly enjoyable.

Basic summary: a gripping and exciting adventure, superbly told and acted with several winks to fans of the franchise but more than enough to entertain anyone new to the X-Men phenomenon. Highly recommended.

Rating: * * * * (very good)

Review: The Hangover 2

I think your expectation of this film and it's predecessor depends entirely on what you expect of it. When The Hangover came out, the reason (I think) that people loved it so much is because everybody expected it to be crap. To be fair, the advert didn't exactly sell it; it looked like the standard, mass-produced Hollywood screwball man-comedy with copious penis-gags, some not-very-funny slapstick and blush-inducing rudeness. And it DID have all those things, but - somehow - it was actually funny. Admittedly, by the time I got round to watching it (I resisted it for months), people had given it so much hype that I was expecting a Full Monty-level of hilarity. I was disppointed. I mean, it WAS funny, it just wasn't as funny as I'd been led to expect it would be. If I'd seen it before all the hype I think I would have loved it, but as it was, I found it pretty funny, but basically just another boys-comedy.

The Hangover 2, on the other hand, I was expecting to be god-awful. Sequels are almost always a lesser version of the original, and comedy sequels are almost always utterly shite. However, I was quite pleasantly surprised. Actually no, 'pleasant' is not - whatever your opinion - a word that can be applied to this film. But I was surprised; my heart sank with the lights as I was sat in the cinema, but it didn't take long for the laughs to start, and they kept coming. It wasn't absolutely hysterical, and it was unnecessarily rude to the point I had to avert my eyes with horror several times, but it was funny.

The plot was exactly the same as the first film - they'd substituted a monkey for the baby, a Thai lady-boy for a Vegas hooker and a tattoo for a missing tooth, but the essential storyline was more or less identical. That said, why change what's apparently a winning formula? So I don't think it was actually any better or worse than the first one, but because I was expecting much less of it, I enjoyed it much more.

Basic summary: a very rude, funny and slightly predictable repetition of The Hangover, of which your enjoyment will be directly proportional to how bad you expect it to be.

Rating: * * * (good)

Top Five Romantic Comedies

For those days when you feel like you're going to die alone and need some absolutely incontrovertible, not at all fictional and deeply realistic proof that this will not happen.

1. Pretty Woman
2. Bridget Jones's Diary
3. 10 Things I Hate About You
4. He's Just Not That Into You
5. When Harry Met Sally

At least, these are the five that I remembered I loved first. Most rom-coms are overly-loaded with cliches, ridiculously predictable, too cheesy to take seriously and generally just cheap, meaningless entertainment to indulge in when your brain can cope with nothing else. These five, on the other hand, I'm not at all ashamed to say I love because they're genuinely romantic, clever and just a bit different. Also, they're actually funny.

Pirates of the Caribbean

This isn't really a review, more of a...whatever the good version of 'rant' is. So...a passionate discussion of something I feel very strongly about, only this time (for a change) it's about something I love, rather than something I hate. Kind of. Oh, just read it...

So, the new Pirates of the Caribbean film, On Stranger Tides, comes out this week, and to commemorate this, my family and I spent the night watching The Curse of the Black Pearl, just to get us in the mood. It's yonks since I've actually watched this film, which is odd really, since I went through a phase when I literally watched it about once a week. Whenever someone asks me what my favourite film is, I often say something ambiguous like "Oh, I can't possibly answer that; I love too many..." or "It depends which genre; I have several favourites because you can't really compare A Knight's Tale with The Shawshank Redemption or Bridget Jones's Diary." But in my head, I'm always thinking 'Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl'. Because it's just brilliant.

My favourite genre of films are basically swashbuckling, bit-of-everything adventure films; for me, the best movies are ones that have an action-packed story with a few (nice) surprises, plenty of witty one-liners, couple of entertaining rather than confusing action sequences and ending with a kiss. I mean, deep and meaningful dramas with poignant writing and tragic irony is all very well when you're in the mood, but cinema was invented to entertain, and entertainment is, to me, the essence of what makes films wonderful. It's about telling a good story. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what Pirates of the Caribbean is. It's an all-rounder, and it's just brilliant. Johnny Depp created quite possibly the best movie character of all time, the gags are consistently hilarious, the sword-fights (particularly the one between Depp and Orlando Bloom in the blacksmith's) don't get boring, there's eye-candy for every taste, an old-fashioned romance and a happy ending. You can't watch 'Pirates' and not leave with a smile on your face.

I was actually thinking of watching the first one tonight, the second tomorrow, the third on Tuesday and then I'd be all prepared to see the fourth on Wednesday, but I've decided against it. Like many fans of the first film, I was disappointed with the sequels. They were still good, they just weren't a patch on the first one. The plots got too confusing, the gags were more forced, there was a good hour of the third film I couldn't make head nor tail of and the special effects department were given a little (read: lot) too much free reign. I still enjoyed the films, but I couldn't help feeling that the sequels kind of, sort of, pretty much ruined it. It's like eating cheap American chocolate after you've tried proper Dairy Milk; it's fine, it'll do, but all it really does is make you appreciate just how tasty Dairy Milk is.

But I'm still looking forward to On Stranger Tides. It hasn't been as rushed, the new characters will hopefully lend it a freshness that the second and third installments lacked, and it's still got the most important ingredient: Captain Jack Sparrow. And I am one hundred per cent certain that it will not be as good as the first film, but it stands a good chance of being better than the second and third. But however downhill Pirates of the Caribbean went, watching the first film again just helped me remember why I loved it so much in the first place. It really is my favourite film, but there was no point trying to match it. You can't beat perfection.

Review: Something Borrowed

So Sunday night arrives, and there's a decision to be made. Go to the cinema, or revise for forthcoming A-Levels. Not much of a decision, really, is it? Since Water For Elephants was already booked in for Wednesday, my friend Roz and I had no choice but to go and see the exceptionally rubbishy-looking 'Something Borrowed', based on a book I read last year and was massively irritated by.

The trailer led me to hope that they may have changed the plot slightly, which is, in essence, that two women who have been best friends forever fall in love with the same man. Rachel (sensible, generous, kind, lawyer) was in love with him first, but hesitated at the wrong moment and kind of shoved this man into dating her best friend, Darcy (attention-seeking, flirty, inconsiderate). Skip six years. Now Darcy and the man (Dex) are getting married, Rachel is turning thirty and single, and gets very drunk. Result: Dex and Rachel sleep together. Cue lots of angst, silliness, worry and very little common sense.

I won't say I didn't laugh; there were some very funny moments, the majority of which provided by John Krasinski, playing Rachel's other best friend, Ethan. This was one of my many issues with the film; why is she lusting after her best friend's bloke when she has a beautiful, lovely, funny, SINGLE guy right there?

Anyway, I think the fact that I was watching this with MY best friend made me view it in a completely different light, because at one point I turned to look at my best friend and just thought...NO! THIS IS NOT OKAY! Everybody in the film acts as though it's perfectly fine to be sleeping with your best friend's fiance, because you loved him first, you're much better suited to him and your best friend's kind of an irritating show-off. But, as a viewer, I was just sat there thinking: NOT OKAY! And I couldn't help but come to the conclusion that the woman who wrote this either a) had never had a proper best friend, or b) did something horrible to her best friend and tried to justify it through fiction. Either way, she was not qualified to write this film.

So really, the moral of the story was 'Sleeping with your best friend's fiance is allowed, as long as your best friend's a bitch.' *sigh*

Basic summary: an insensible but mildly amusing rom-com with all the best lines from John Krasinski and a lot of irritation for those of you with a best friend and a conscience.

Rating: * (poor)

Review: Arthur

I really tried not to be biased by my dislike of Russell Brand. I really, really tried. And to be honest, I did better than I thought I would. I didn't really want to see this film, but the only other option was Water For Elephants, and considering all the factors (opening night, 2 for 1 Wednesday, Twilight fangirls), that seemed like it would be more trouble than it was worth. So, we went to see Arthur.

A remake of an 80s classic, in which a daft and endearing alcoholic heir to a fortune is given an ultimatum by his exasperated mother; marry this 'suitable' woman and stop behaving like such a schmuck, or be cut off from the millions and earn your way like the rest of us. Unfortunately, this ultimatum comes at a time when Arthur has begun to fall in love for the first time, but not with the woman he now has to marry in order to keep his frivolous, extravagant lifestyle, all under the watchful eye of his sarcastic, stern but caring nanny/butler Hobson.

I've never seen the original all the way through, so I had no point of comparison, which was probably a good thing. I was expecting a childish comedy with poor acting, glorified fart gags and a predictable story. But it was much better than that. It was genuinely very funny; the one-liners were witty, Russell Brand (dare I say it) made me laugh a couple of times and Helen Mirren was hilarious; it really impressed and surprised me with it's semi-sophisticated and clever humour.

And the acting wasn't so bad, either. Admittedly, Russell Brand was (again) merely playing an extension of himself (read: manchild with addictive personality and more money than sense), but he did it reasonably well. Jennifer Garner - for me - couldn't quite act past her face, which looks so friendly, sweet and charming that I just couldn't take her seriously as a gold-digging dominatrix. Helen Mirren was brilliant, but then she usually is, though the writing made her character's personality flick from one extreme to another in terms of strictness and mothering. However, Greta Gerwig's portrayal of the kooky children's writer who steals Arthur's heart was very touching and sweet; Brand's scenes were largely made better because she was in them.

So all of that was fine. The issues I had were with the plot, and the moral. I can't really go into my annoyances here without giving anything away, but the whole point of the film was essentially negated for me by the rushed, blink-and-you'll-miss-it ending (which, in fact, a friend of mine did blink and miss). Aside from that, a very important sequence towards the end of the film was unexplained, too brief, out of the blue and let down by Brand's inability to act emotively. As a comedy actor I admit - though I can't really stand the man - that he's good, but in a more emotional scene his shortcomings as an actor were painfully obvious.

For me, the story was too flawed to really like it, though I did enjoy the wittiness and thought it was made considerably better by Helen Mirren and Greta Gerwig.

Basic summary: lighthearted and endearing comedy with some serious structural flaws, but a good one to watch when you don't want to engage your brain and fancy a good laugh.

Rating: * * (average)

2011 Trailers

I have had a completely, utterly, disappointingly pointless day, and thought I would round it off by spending an hour watching coming-soon movie trailers. Yes, you may take a moment to bask in my awesomeness.

Now let's continue.

YouTube very kindly made a playlist of 2011 movie trailers, and this is my reaction to the interesting ones (now aren't you excited about this post?): -

Friends With Benefits -- I can see literally no way this can be any different to the identically-themed No Strings Attached, which came out earlier this year and was very average, but I have also never found Justin Timberlake attractive until watching the trailer (I also never thought he could act, but am willing to be proved wrong).

The Three Musketeers -- Orlando Bloom, Logan Lerman, Matthew MacFadyen and Luke Evans, all in a swashbuckling period adventure film. It's like someone in Hollywood raided my mind, found my deepest longing and made it happen. So. Freaking. Excited.

Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides -- I'm a tad dubious (because the second and third films were pretty dodgy and the Orlando Bloom/Keira Knightley romance was one of the best bits), but willing to give it a shot (because the first one was incredible, and Jack Sparrow is still THE best bit).

Hanna -- I don't really understand this trailer at all, but I'll probably end up going to see it, purely because I think Saoirse Ronan (whose name I can spell but not say) is going to be one of the best actresses of my generation.

Beginners -- to begin with this oddball comedy-drama looked funny, but I grew steadily less interested as the trailer proceeded, which is definitely not how it's supposed to work. But we'll see.

Henry's Crime -- I would have been quite interested in this film, which looks like a cross between an angsty romantic drama and a comedic heist film (exactly), but Keanu Reeves is enough to put me off watching more or less anything...

Elektra Luxx -- the trailer was trying to be funny. It wasn't. Doesn't bode well.

Prom -- a bunch of outrageously beautiful American twenty-somethings trying to look like teenagers and getting excited about Prom. Well, we've never seen that before, at least.

Perfect Sense -- another one I didn't really understand. At first I was thinking romantic-drama, but then it started looking more like a dark-and-edgy thriller, then by the end I was just like "Whaaaa...??" so probably not.

The Roommate -- what is it with bad horror films being called 'The *insert mundane object*'? The first half of this trailer was all girly and the second half was all scary, so it's not for me. Also, all of the actresses in it looked identical, which I feel would cause a problem if I did decide to watch it.

The Debt -- this looks like a drama/thriller-typed thing with romantic undertones, and is something I will certainly watch on DVD, but which might be too heavy for the cinema...

Jane Eyre -- one of my favourite stories being adapted for the billionth time with a goodlooking Rochester and stunning Jane. Hollywood just doesn't get it. Anyway, the trailer actually played a lot more on the gothic, dramatic elements of the story than the romance, so I'm intrigued and certainly willing to give it a go. Sadly, the cast list would have made me very excited if they hadn't cast Mia Wasikowska (I hope I spelt that right) as Jane....

Real Steel -- impressively, someone somewhere has managed to write a film in which Hugh Jackman can play a lead role and I still don't fancy seeing it. Looks like Transformers meets Rocky. Hope it's not.

And there you go. I'm sure that's made your evening. :)

Review: Thor

Brief cyber-stalking of Chris Hemsworth reveals that he is 6'3'' (good), married (bad), was in a soap (bad), has a younger brother (good), who is 6'5'' (good) and dating Miley Cyrus (VERY bad). However, it takes no cyber-stalking whatsoever to know that he played the title character in the recently released Marvel superhero movie, Thor.

I've seen most (possibly all) of the previous Marvel films, because I have a little brother and I'm easily entertained, and I've always enjoyed them (with the exception of the 2003 Hulk). But I was particularly excited about this one, because it was directed by Kenneth Branagh. I mean, come on. Acclaimed Shakespearean actor/director making a Hollywood superhero movie? That had to be special.

And it was good. I thoroughly enjoyed it. But it wasn't special.

The performances were all good (especially Tom Hiddleston's Loki), the one-liners were amusing, the visual effects were spectacular (the fictional city of Asgard was absolutely beautiful) and the plot was fine. But I was expecting this superhero movie to be a bit different, and it wasn't. I was disappointed for two reasons.

1. With Kenneth Branagh telling the story, I wanted there to be a bit more storytelling. I wanted less Michael-Bay-esque fight sequences and CGI mash-ups, and more dialogue, more character development, more depth. I was hoping Kenneth Branagh would resist falling into the trap of the big-budget Hollywood movie, but he didn't; he drowned the plot in CGI and forget to tell the story.

2. There wasn't much plot to drown. I wanted something clever. And by that I mean a plot a bit more substantial than a heroic but arrogant prince being exiled to Earth for behaving arrogantly, whereupon all hell breaks loose on his home planet and he becomes a better person by loving a stunningly beautiful physicist (I'm sure they exist. I've never seen one, but I'm sure they exist.), just in time to save the day on both Earth and Asgard. That story is fine. But there are absolutely no surprises. You'll have pegged the bad guy after two seconds of screen time, the ending is decided before it's begun and every single twist and turn comes as no surprise whatsoever. At one point I got very excited, because I THOUGHT something shocking had just happened, but it turned out I'd just misunderstood.

So overall, I enjoyed it. But it didn't deliver, for me, the extra dimensions I was hoping a director like Kenneth Branagh would bring.

Basic summary: an action-packed, visually stunning, fun and engaging movie worth watching with the family, but expect no surprises and you won't be disappointed.

Rating: * * * (good)

Review: Sherlock

Frankly, I think it's disgusting that not one person pointed out to me how wonderful this programme was when it was actually airing last summer. I had to wait several months for my best friend's little sister to buy it, then several weeks for myself and said best friend to get bored enough to raid the DVD drawer and find something we haven't already watched a thousand times before. Because hell, was I missing out.

Sherlock Holmes is, in my opinion, one of the best characters ever written, but I'm always slightly hesitant to watch a film/TV adaptation, because it's very difficult to make a character so arrogant, intelligent, brutally honest and immodest likeable. But Benedict Cumberbatch has it nailed. There are many wonderful things about this man, which I could list all day, but here are my favourites: -
1. His name. Benedict Cumberbatch. You can't make it up.
2. His voice - he has that baritone huskiness that can make a detailed forensic analysis sound like an invitation to bed.
3. His cheekbones.
And that's all aside from his obvious talent as an actor. He plays the modern version of Sherlock with a Doctor-Who esque energy (not surprising when you consider the creators) and creates a character you couldn't stand in real life, but you still desperately want to be just like them.

One of the things I like the most about the character of Sherlock is that - unlike so many popular anti-heroes of modern times - he's not ruined by layers upon layers of angst. The writers haven't desperately thrown in a series of Freudian explanations for his rudeness, genius and sociopathy - he has no dark childhood secrets of abuse, bullying and molestation that account for his complete neglect of social skills. He just doesn't care. He is the way he is because he wants to be. It's shockingly refreshing.

Doctor John Watson - seemingly the only person who can put up with Sherlock's many, MANY idiosyncracies - is superably played by Martin Freeman as a world-weary, tolerant and intelligent Master of Sarcasm. People often go on about romantic chemistry on screen, but I honestly think that in buddy-films/series, the chemistry between two on-screen friends is equally important. It was particularly significant in this case, since 'Sherlock and Watson' is one of the greatest friendships of all time, and to translate that into a modern setting with a modern audience (whose mantra, with regards to male friendships and literature seems to be 'gay until proven straight') must have been difficult. But it's done fantastically. Freeman and Cumberbatch hit the perfect tone in their on-screen friendship, and the writers blatantly had fun playing around with the assumptions a contemporary audience would make of two men in their 30s living together (as their landlady so blithely points out, "Mrs Turner next door's got married ones.")

Basic Summary: The acting's brilliant, the writing's witty, the mysteries are clever, and the result is a fantastic, refreshingly original version of a story that has been adapted to death.

Rating: * * * * * (excellent)

Review: Source Code

I am insanely tired right now, but writing this is the last thing on my 'Things To Do Today' list, and I NEVER complete those lists, so it's gonna be short, sweet but - at least - existing outside my head.

I'll be honest; I was expecting Source Code to be...well, Jake Gyllenhaal in Inception meets Groundhog Day. I was not complaining. Groundhog Day was good, Inception was excellent and I LOVE me a bit o' Jake Gyllenhaal.

But Source Code had more to it than that. The plot is kind of hard to explain without a) giving anything away and b) giving myself (and you) a headache, but I'll try and simplify it. An American soldier finds himself on a train, in the body of another man, with no idea what is going on, how he got there or who he's supposed to be. Eight minutes later, the train explodes. He then finds himself in the 'Source Code', a new invention which is (eventually) explained to be a machine by which the last eight minutes of a person's life can be relived, as many times as necessary, in slightly altering parallels. Still with me? Right. The soldier's job is to find the man who bombed the train to prevent more innocent people being killed, but he ends up getting attached to a girl on the train and trying to defy reality and drama ensues. Believe it or not, that really was simplified.

Anyway, it would have been easy for the film to get tedious, with the same two settings, the same chronology of events, the same inevitable conclusion, but some clever writing resulted in a very gripping and fast-paced film. My penchant for cheeky smiles means I'd never be anything but approving of Jake Gyllenhaal, but my favourite performance was actually that of Vera Farmiga, whose portrayal of a fellow soldier on the other side of the 'Source Code', trying to explain AND with-hold information from Jake Gyllenhaal was touchingly subtle.

Basic summary: mind-bending, romantic, complicated and unpredictable thriller/drama with eye-candy galore and intelligent writing, which avoided the frequent modern pitfall of killing a film by being just twenty minutes too long.

Rating: * * * * (very good)

Review: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Seeing as this is the first proper post on my new film blog, I realise people will probably assume that every film I review will be of the same calibre as The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and I feel I should immediately warn you that this is not the case. This is perhaps the second foreign-language film I've ever watched and I spent much of last night rockin' out to the soundtrack of The Swan Princess. I am not a film snob nor particularly mature, so you have been warned.

Anyway, moving on to the matter at hand. This film was ace. With films that have been adapted from books I like, I have to admit that I always expect disappointment, and my expectations are usually met. I was particularly dubious this time since I had finished reading the book perhaps four hours before watching the film, so the plot, characters and details of the story were still very fresh in my mind.

The basic story, if you don't know, centres around a recently disgraced journalist named Mikael Blomkvist, who is hired by the CEO of a massive family company - the Vanger Corporation - to discover which member of the family murdered Harriet Vanger, who disappeared nearly forty years ago. The 'girl with the dragon tattoo' is Lisbeth Salander, a personal investigator with deep secrets, a dark past and (to put it mildly) a no-nonsense attitude. Salander and Blomkvist 'team up' to uncover the shocking skeletons in this family's deep and many-layered closet, a task which becomes increasingly dangerous with the discovery of a long-hidden serial killer and the actions of someone determined to keep the family secrets, at any cost.

The film handled the book-to-screen adaptation wonderfully; they stuck to the original story very closely, but with a couple of minor simplifications and modifications that I actually found improvements. They also cut a lot of the - if you'll pardon my Northern attitude - extraneous crap, which was the only thing preventing me from loving the book. The number of times Blomkvist 'puts on coffee', one would assume he has some sort of caffeine problem.

Anyway, the film also tackled some pretty horrifying scenes with a tastefulness and subtlety that made it bearable to watch, whilst being explicit and shocking enough to have the desired effect (namely, me hiding behind a pillow). It also had possibly my favourite post-sex moment ever when Salander, having effectively jumped Blomkvist, casually, er, dismounts, picks up her clothes and breezes out of the room with a cheery 'Goodnight.' The violence was brutal, but I'm not going to say it wasn't needed - I hate blood and gore for the sake of blood and gore, but The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is partly about the mistreatment of women, and to get the message across the violence kind of had to be vicious.

In terms of acting, Michael Nyquist (Blomkvist) was very good, but paled in comparison to Noomi Rapace. Salander was described so vividly in the book I thought it would be impossible for an actress to do her justice (particularly when I saw a picture of a post-makeup Rapace), but - frankly - wow. This film is worth watching purely to bask in awe of Rapace's performance, and it's a crime that she wasn't nominated for more awards. Anyway I think I've gone on for long enough.

Basic summary: fast-paced, clever and shocking thriller that grips you from start to finish, does the book justice and features an extraordinarily good performance from Noomi Rapace.

Rating: * * * * (Very good)

Introduction

So, as well as my love of writing, reading, talking, friendship, complaining, music, sarcasm and time-wasting, I have one other great love, and this second blog of mine is dedicated exclusively to the discussion, review and worship of the Love Of My Life.

Films.

Since being a kid, I have always adored films. My Dad is a big-time movie nerd, and it became obvious pretty early on in my youth that myself (and my brother) would follow in his geeky footsteps. You point to a film and I can probably tell you who starred in it, regardless of whether I've seen it. You ask me how tall an actor/actress is and I can probably answer you. You ask me what else that guy directed, and I'll give you a list. But this ability to memorise cast lists like lyrics isn't all there is to my adoration of films (though if it was a skill I could apply to revision then my life would be considerably easier).

The fact of the matter is that films make me happy. I love stories in any way, shape or form, but film has to be one of the best. Books are amazing in that they allow your own imagination to translate words to images, but films are amazing in that for two hours they allow you to escape your life and live through a character, they show you what that character sees and allow you to go on adventures, the like of which you'll never actually experience.

So this is gonna be it; my blog dedicated to films. Sometimes I'll write a review, sometimes I'll make a pointless list, sometimes I'll go off on a random movie-related tangent, sometimes I'll be on one of my "rare (but fun) rants". So let's see how this goes, shall we?

(As a side note, this blog was inspired by my friend Amy, who has a blog dedicated to her one true love: music. http://music-is-my-refuge.blogspot.com/)