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)