The Lost Boys Review

Sunshine on the Santa Carla boardwalk, groups of girls walking around in bikinis, groups of boys walking around in board shorts and biker gangs having a rest from breaking the road laws, all seems average in this seaside resort. That is, however, until several shots of missing persons posters are intercut throughout the carefree people roaming the beach. Director Joel Schumacher wants us to know immediately that beneath the smiles and the sunshine there is a much darker secret to this town than might first appear.

The Lost Boys tells of two brothers, Michael and Sam, who move from Arizona to California, and unknown to them at first, to a town haunted by Vampires. After seeing a girl he likes the look of at a concert, Michael follows her and she leads him to a world he could never have dreamed of, one filled with vampires. Sam, the younger brother, gets talking to the Frog brothers, part time comic book store workers and full time vampire investigators, who are initially suspicious, but let their guards down once they realise he is just like them. The film focuses on Sam, Michael, Star and the Frog brothers' journey to find and kill the head vampire, as once he is killed, all other half-vampires will be returned to their normal state.

The Lost Boys is without a doubt the best vampire film I have ever seen. Playing around with classic vampiric lore and integrating it into a part comedy part horror plot works perfectly, with there being just enough tension, action and laughs to keep the audience well invested for the hour and a half running time. The film would have been a shock to the '80s mainstream audience, with the blood, remorseless murder and general recklessness, and Schumacher was aware of this, putting a poster of '80s icon Molly Ringwald in Sam's bedroom, an ironic reminder that this film was made in the same generation as the likes of The Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles, this is the polar opposite to any John Hughes film, and don't we just love it.

The soundtrack to the film is brilliant, the guitar rock emphasises just how badass the vampires are, with Aerosmith's 'Walk This Way' playing over a reckless murder spree taking place being one my favourite moments of the film. The excitement of Michael witnessing his first murder, and the catchy music leaves us tapping our feet in rhythm with Steven Tyler's high notes, making the audience feel like one of the gang simply by enjoying something associated to the vampire lifestyle, and with Kiefer Sutherland playing the lead vampire of the pack, I don't think anyone denies the tiniest feeling of wanting to join in on the activities.

The performances from both of the brothers in the film are notable, also. Jason Patric shows Michael to be a teenager torn between his now natural instincts of wanting to kill and feast on humans, and his love for his brother, with his awareness that he is a role model for the young boy being a stronger motive to become human than his desire to feast. Corey Haim plays the absolutely hilarious Sam, the younger brother who tries to find the head vampire through the films most laugh out loud scene, a dinner with his mother's new date. The constant questioning and probing that takes place to try and catch out Max is brilliant and definitely a highlight of just how classic the comedy is.

This was the most enjoyable film I've watched in a long time, with an awesome ending and buckets full of blood, everything that a vampire film should have is covered in The Lost Boys. The directing and the actors performances combined makes for an energetic thrill ride, and there is no way in Hell that you'll ever be short of ideas for a Halloween costume after this film.

Annie Hall Review

Annie Hall is often considered to be Woodie Allen's best work. It revolves around the rocky relationship between Alvy Hall, played by Allen, and Annie Hall, played by Diane Keaton. We see the couple live their day to day life in New York, take a trip to Los Angeles and... not much else, really.

It appears to me that the film was missing a plot. The film feels like a collection of home videos thrown together in chronological order, and although interesting to watch, there is a sense of emptiness about the whole film, especially once the ending is revealed. This lack of story is almost mimicked in Annie Hall's lack of ability to connect with Alvy on an intellectual level. It appears that as we are watching the film, and realising that a good plot is vital in sustaining an audience's attention, Alvy is realising that intellect in a partner is vital in sustaining a relationship and understanding a pessimist such as himself. Perhaps the intellect is in the script of a film, and if so, Allen chose a beautiful way to get across his message, however, as the film was originally intended to be a murder mystery but the idea got dropped last minute, it seems to me that this is not the case.

Don't get me wrong, the film was enjoyable to watch, perhaps due to the fact that it only runs for an hour and a half, and the quirky character of Alvy is hilariously easy to relate to. His exaggerated misanthropist opinions make for great comedy, and nobody I can think of would fit the role of Alvy more than Woody Allen himself. We listen to him and relate to what he is saying, be it through his bluntly honest opinions on Sylvia Plath, and the 'college generation' readers of her poetry, his opinions of the two states of being, the miserable and the horrible,  or his flashback to his school days.

The most interesting feature of the film is the way it shows its awareness of the differences between the film world and the real world. Alvy actually states "If only this was real life" to the camera, and frequently turns, breaking the fourth wall, and showing us his feelings, he is aware that he is only a character in a film, it appears. We see him visit his school class back in the days when he was a student, with him, a fully grown man, sitting at his desk and arguing with the teacher, and also taking Annie and Rob back to his childhood home, in a time where his parents are arguing and there is a party going on. Allen is aware of the possibilities of the film form and uses them interestingly and engagingly.

The camerawork of the film is remniscent of indie cinema. The use of natural lighting, off-screen space and sometimes handheld camerawork allows us to feel that New York is not the concrete jungle that sits thousands of miles away, but a reachable place that contains people just like those from our own towns and cities. Split screens are used for comparisons and superimposition is used to represent Annie's lack of mental interest in sex, the technicalities of the film are done very straight forwardly, which works, I don't think it was Allen's goal to achieve any groundbreaking technical work on this film, he wanted to create memorable characters, and that he did.

I did really like this film, the performances were brilliant and a definite highlight for me. The film collected awards upon awards at the Oscars and the BAFTAs back in 1977, and for a reason, an extremely quirky romantic comedy with laugh out loud scenes, this film is hilarious and a pleasure to watch.

The Film Tag

There is no witty or original name for this tag, I'm afraid. I think the idea of tags are really fun, and after searching for many film-related ones and coming to no real success, I decided to make my own. Feel free to post your own answers even if I haven't tagged you!

If you could choose one (dead or alive) director & two (dead or alive) actors/actresses to collaborate on a film project who would they be? 

→ Alfred Hitchcock, Alfred Hitchcock, Alfred Hitchcock. There could be no other answer to this question, he is the absolute master of cinema in my eyes, delivering amazingly engaging films from his first in the late 1920s to his last in the late 1970s. I would want him to be in the mindset he was in during the 1950s, however, where most of my favourite Hitchcock films were produced and I feel that creatively he was at his best.
Cillian Murphy would work brilliantly with Hitchcock's style, his acting ability constantly surprises me and I love his work. I would also love to see Jessica Chastain in the leading female role, showing her versatility in her constant changes of characters from The Tree of Life to Zero Dark Thirty, she would fully deserve a role in this production.

A film from your favourite director that you think is underrated.

→ Since Hitchcock directed around 53 feature films in his career span, there are so many gems that get out-shined by the handful of films he made that are projected to a legendary status. While the likes of Psycho and The Birds are brilliant in their own right, smaller films such as Family Plot are often disregarded as mediocre films, when the truth of the matter is Family Plot is a hilarious final film from Hitchcock. The comedy is brilliant, the suspense is mastered and the film boasts one of my favourite scripts to come from Camp Hitchcock. With the film being very, very '70s, the style would be one that people, without knowing, would never think of as being a Hitchcock film, yet is as enjoyable as one of his most recognisable.

Your favourite adaptation of a book on screen. 

→ I am absolutely in love with Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet, with the film being one of my most watched. There is always issues and arguments whenever a director chooses to adapt any of Shakespeare's works, however  I think that Luhrmann is a truly visionary director, and the combination of his love for challenging the canon, incorporating music so effortlessly into his films and his unique style makes his films extremely enoyable.

The last film you watched & the next film you plan on watching.

→ The last film I watched was Coraline, yesterday, and the next film I plan on watching is Annie Hall, this afternoon.

Do you own any interesting film memorabilia? Stories behind them?

→ 'Interesting' is subjective, however in my bedroom at my childhood home I have posters of Pulp Fiction and Taxi Driver, two of my favourite films growing up. In my room in London I have a picture of Alfred Hitchcock, and in my attic somewhere I have a huge, and I mean HUGE, poster that I got when I went to the Oz the Great and Powerful premiere a few months back. It's really big.

Favourite past (dead), present (living) and future (upcoming) directors.

→ Past: Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick.
Present: David Lynch, Wes Anderson, Baz Luhrmann, Nicolas Winding Refn.
Upcoming: Adam Leon, Jonathon Levine.

Someone you would like to see a film made about. Who would direct it? Who would star in it?

→ I'm extremely interested in the Royal Family, so I feel like films about them are always fun to watch. I would love to watch a film portraying a fictional dramatisation of the rumours surrounding Prince Charles having an affair with Camilla. I'm not sure that would be allowed, but I think it would be an interesting film. The reason I mention it being a fictional dramatisation is that I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to claim it was based on a real life story. I think Spielberg would be a solid choice to direct the film, with him showing he can make heavy dialogue in films interesting and moving, which I feel that a film of this type would need. Another good choice to direct the film would be Tom Hooper.

So that is the end of the questions on this tag, I enjoyed thinking about the questions and writing my answers, and if you think you will, too, don't hesitate to copy the questions and answer them yourself.

Coraline Review

If there is any film that cements one of my older posts about animation being not only for children (found here), it is Henry Selick's Coraline, a dark, stop-motion 3D animated film released in 2009. In the film, Coraline is a young girl who moves to a new, secluded house, bring her loneliness and through that, boredom. When she finds a door in her house that leads to an alternate version of her world, including improved versions of her parents and neighbours, everything seems perfect. That is, however, until she discovers the dark secrets that this alternate world holds and has to fight to get back what she realises she really loves.

Selick has proved that he is a master of animation, presenting us with wonderful The Nightmare before Christmas back in 1993, and his experience in the field is shown, with the dark and mysterious world in which Coraline lives being eerily intriguing to the viewer. The film is extremely self aware, also, playing around with the possibilities of animation in terms of creating and erasing the world in which the characters are exploring. The numerous shots of characters against blank white backgrounds shows us as an audience just how much work goes in to creating every little detail, and allows us to appreciate the art and the artists involved as we return to the stylised backgrounds of the 'other' world.

Through the films focus on Coraline as a lead character, we get to know her extremely well. Constantly misinterpreted, from her blue hair, her unique sense of style and her being frequently called Caroline by almost everyone, we feel sympathy towards the character, almost finding happiness in the way she is treated in the other world. With Coraline entering the other world and discovering that everything she could ever want is there, as an audience, we are instantly suspicious of this new world and suspect almost instantly that it holds danger, and we aren't wrong.

The villain is awesome, the story is awesome and the art is even more awesome. Derived from a graphic novel of the same name, Coraline, is a beautifully haunting portrayal of what can happen when the dark side of our imaginations are let loose.

With the dark themes and the even darker characters, Coraline would have scared the life out of me as a child. As an adult, I was able to appreciate the visionary genius of Henry Selick's directing and uniqueness of this animated feature compared to almost any other film I've seen. Selick is definitely a director to watch, with his latest feature The Shadow King in pre-production, it could be several years before a new film is released, however, I am confident it will be worth the wait.

Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt

A young woman from a small-town family in Santa Rosa is ecstatic at the news that her Uncle Charlie is coming to stay with them for a while. Everything goes swimmingly until a pair of detectives come over posing as government workers taking a survey and the suggestion that her uncle is an infamous serial killer is placed upon young Charlie. Relationships are tested and secrets are revealed in this brilliant piece of cinema from Alfred Hitchcock.

In Shadow of a Doubt, we can see that Hitchcock was beginning to discover his love for the trope of the 'wrong man'. Hitch showed extremely early on in his career that he had an interest in the scenario of a man being wrongly accused of his crime with The Lodger (1927), however what we get with Shadow of a Doubt, which was produced 16 years later, is a film so much more engaging and an example of the amount of progress that Hitchcock had made due to the experience of directing 27 feature films in that time period. The 'wrong man' trope is used off-screen in this film, which is interesting as Hitchcock has mirrored the characters in focus in his films such as The 39 Steps, where we follow a man who is wrongly accused, in Shadow of a Doubt, we follow the right man who is being pursued for the murder just as the wrong man is, somewhere else in the off-screen world of the diegesis.

Experimentation can be seen in all of Hitchcock's work and the key features of Shadow of a Doubt include canted shots, suggesting the character in frame to have an unstable mindset as he is pacing up and down the room, along with causing a feeling of uneasiness in the audience. This is where Hitchcock's brilliance lies, he knows how to experiment with film without screaming it in his audience's faces and therefore taking away from the meaning behind the experimentation. His innovational use of the camera in presenting a certain mood are used infrequently and it is there that the magic lies.
We can see that Hitchcock really grasped the knowledge that music is the perfect form of art to collaborate with film in order to create certain moods in this feature. With blaring orchestral music playing during the build-up of, and throughout, the dramatic moments of the film, we associate this music with danger in our subconscious, so when it is played quietly during the less dramatic moments of the film, we are still clinging on to our seats in fear that something is going to happen. Hitchcock would go on in his career to realise that music can make or break a film, with the screeching string soundtrack of his 1960 masterpiece, Psycho, being embedded into any viewers ears for a long time after leaving the cinema or turning the television off.

There is a certain brilliance to Alfred Hitchcock's films which one rarely finds in thrillers anymore. Hitch's understanding of the ins and outs of cinema, due to his involvement since the beginning of the mass production of films, is something that has been attempted to be replicated by other director's but has not ever been as brilliant, think Psycho II, Psycho III, or even the Gus van Sant remake of Psycho. Watching a Hitchcock film is truly a delight, even in the modern day, where technology can simulate tigers out of absolutely nothing and destroy the city of New York in post-production, there is nothing, for me, like sitting back and watching a director master the art with as much ease as it appears Hitchcock did.

Salt Review

When a mysterious Russian man comes into the offices of the CIA claiming to have information on a future assassination attempt of the Russian president, Evelyn Salt, who is pre-occupied with the thought of her anniversary dinner with her husband, dismisses the claims as false. That is, however, until she is accused of being the assassin. When the CIA's computer shows that the Russian man is not lying, Salt is forced to run, escaping from the CIA and proving her innocence.

When I think action film with a female lead, my mind immediately pictures Angelina Jolie. Jolie's roles in Mr & Mrs Smith and the iconic Tomb Raider make her almost synonymous with the phrase female action star. Her past experience in playing the heroine, or anti-heroine in this case, means that she handled the role of Salt with ease, making incredibly complex action scenes look like a walk in the park and handling a gun with as much confidence as any competitor on screen. If there was going to be a gender-swapped remake of James Bond, Angelina Jolie would be the only valid choice to play the role, and it is with her natural talent of playing the female action hero that makes her journey in this film so enjoyable to watch.

With tension being built in the typical action-film way, quick cuts and fast cars, the film does not break any boundaries cinematically, it ticks every box it needs to in order to be a thrilling spectacle but who says it needs to go the extra mile? Every box that needs to be ticked is ticked, and through the lack of focus on being innovative and uniquely stylised, the focus is put on the extremely strong script, the constant plot twists and the fun chase scenes.
With the most exciting chase scene happening relatively close to the beginning of the film, however, a bit of the excitement is lost. We see Jolie hopping from truck to truck on a speeding motorway, the CIA are on the upcoming bridge, aiming their guns and getting ready to fire, but deep down we know that realistically the female lead who is glorified in all of the film's marketing campaigns is not going to die ten minutes in. Aside from the fact that the outcome of the chase is known as soon as the first step is taken, the chase scene is wonderfully shot, with pauses for the audience to catch their breaths before being thrown back into the chase quite unexpectedly sometimes.

Salt is an extremely easy watch, one of the things I found most enjoyable about it was the length. With most action films, there seems to be ten or twenty minutes at the end of useless footage, almost distinguishing our flame of excitement with quite dull scenes giving closure for the sake of giving closure. In this film (spoiler alert) we are left with Jolie jumping out of a helicopter and running through a forest of sorts, out for vengeance on the group who killed her husband and took everything away from her. This leaves the possibility for the audience to consider the character and her actions, make a judgement on her future and also for the filmmakers to make a sequel, which has been announced, by the way, and will most probably be awesome, like it's prequel.

Roman Holiday Review

A princess living the 'dream' life, travelling Europe, living in luxury and mingling with the highest aristocracy gets bored of the monotonous days of her life and decides to run away. With sleep-inducing drugs in her system, she runs away into the city of Rome. Finding a fast asleep Princess Ann on the side of a street, Joe Bradley, a journalist, mistakes her for a drunk and being the ever so kind gentleman that only Gregory Peck could play, decides to take her to his apartment for her own safety.
The morning after, Bradley finds out that the 'drunk' he took home was in fact the Princess, and makes a deal with the editor of his newspaper to secretly photograph and write about the Princess, unknown to her, and expose the side of her that the public never see. What follows is 24 hours in Rome, a holiday for the Princess and a working day out for Bradley, however when both the Princess and Bradley fall for each other, the lines between work and pleasure are blurred.

For me, the most interesting feature of this film is the character of Princess Ann, played beautifully by Audrey Hepburn. In the 1950s, a Princess' personal life was strictly off limits to members of the public, they were presented as representatives of their family and only that. Opening up the character of a wealthy princess who is usually secluded and showing her to have human emotions and characteristics is an interesting thing to watch, with her lack of perspective of the 'real' world being both comical and saddening to watch. We feel strongly connected to Hepburn's character, from the beginning, her not knowing the value of money and walking awkwardly through a street market, to the end, allowing herself to loosen up and kiss the man she loves, we watch her grow from an almost parental perspective and the development is satisfying to the viewer.

In between the beginning and the end of the film, our attachment towards the character's grows and the dramatic tension builds up at a steady pace as the cuts back to the Embassy are shown and we realise that people are looking for the Princess. With the natural chemistry between Peck and Hepburn, the romance is entirely believable to the point of over investment by the likes of myself, with the question of whether of not Bradley is going to submit the story being right at the front of my mind for the majority of the film, however, as with all good romantic comedies, everything runs smoothly in the end.

The film's ending of both of the characters going back to reality is what completes it, in my opinion. The impression is given that after the two character's whirlwind romance, everything goes back to how it was, allowing the audience to extend their disbelief and perhaps transfer it into the world outside of the diegesis, fantasising about perhaps their country's Royal family and the lives in which they lead outside of the public eye. The comparisons that can be made to Princess Ann and princesses outside of the film are many, and is one of the factors that makes the character of Ann so well remembered in the history of cinema.

The film is simple, well-structured and not too lengthy, with many iconic moments taking place, Roman Holiday is a truly wonderful piece of cinema that can and should be enjoyed by everyone.

Drive Review

In anticipation of Nicolas Winding Refn's Only God Forgives which hits screens in the UK on the 2nd of August, I thought a re-watch of Refn & Ryan Gosling's first collaboration, Drive, was due in order to get excited for their latest feature.

Set in the city of Angels, Los Angeles, Drive sees Ryan Gosling's character, a getaway driver, stuntman and mechanic, fall for his neighbour, Irene, who is a mother taking care of her child alone while her husband is in prison. After Irene's husband gets out of jail, he owes protection money to some people and his family are threatened in order to make him pay up. Seeing that Standard, Irene's husband, is not willing to hold up a store alone, Gosling's character offers to help in a gesture of love towards Irene and her son, Benicio. When things don't go quite as planned at the pawn shop hold-up, the Driver's world is turned upside down when he is the only one who escapes with his life, with some of Hollywood's biggest gangsters looking for him and the million dollars he is now holding.

From the opening scene alone the audience is immediately introduced into Refn's dark portrayal of Los Angeles, with all the glitz and glamour of the city pushed aside, we begin in the Driver's car, with the clock ticking and the police radio blaring whilst we wait for the criminals to commit their crime and get back in the car. After a tense couple of minutes, we are speeding through the streets of LA, stopping and starting after being pursued by police cars and helicopters. The introduction of Gosling's character is perfected in this opening scene, we see his confidence in giving the rules of his service, his calmness in times of danger and most of all his ability to drive. These characteristics are vital in understanding the Driver's actions throughout the rest of the film and they are all introduced so effortlessly before we reach the ten minute mark of the film.

With the brutal violence and bloodshed throughout the film, Refn shows that he is not afraid to shock and get a reaction from his audience, which is entirely what he does. These contrasts in scenes give us time to evaluate the decisions in which the Driver is making, and what would just be mindless violence when seen standing alone is seen as an act of passion, love and beauty. It would be lying to say that the violence is not dramatised and perhaps isn't for viewers with a weak disposition, however most other emotions in the film are too emphasised, giving the audience the feeling that they know these characters and feel the emotions that they are feeling. Through the lack of sugar-coating of violence in the film, we feel that we are respected as viewers and the images that we see are raw and gritty, adding to the intimacy we feel we have with the characters.

There is a heavy connection between the audience and the character of the Driver, and even though the film is not heavy on dialogue, feelings and emotions are conveyed through the camera techniques, music and by the beautiful performance given by Ryan Gosling. This performance is matched by that of Carey Mulligan who plays a torn mother trying to choose between what she knows is right for her child and her true feelings for the Driver. The characterisation is thorough and where the might be more dialogue in other films, Refn chooses to trust in the actor's abilities to communicate through their eyes, which is what most of the interactions between the Driver and Irene seem to be dependent on.

With exceptionally dark themes, Refn shows that portrayals of the underworld and the alternative takes on cities need not always be lengthy and hard to digest. Fitting this brilliant thought provoking adaptation of James Sallis' novel into 90 minutes of exceptional cinema. It is films like this that give me confidence in the future of upcoming film makers, with only 7 films under his belt before making Drive, Refn shows that there are still directors out there that make films for the pure enjoyment of the art, and ones that are bloody well good at it, also.

There Will Be Blood Review

Set during the transition period from the 19th to the 20th century, There Will Be Blood tells of Daniel Plainview, a self-proclaimed 'oil man' looking to expand his business of digging wells and collecting oil. With his child and his knowledge, he is tipped off by a son of the Sunday family that their ranch contains oil. Giving Paul Sunday the benefit of the doubt, Daniel Plainview and his son travel up to the ranch to check out the land, finding oil and buying up nearly all of the surrounding land. What follows is a story of love, hatred and deceit, with morals being questioned and death never being too far away.

Perhaps the most evident point this film is trying to share is the drastic changes that happened with the coming of the 20th century. Pre-20th century, religion was a necessity in every man's life, especially those trying to make a name for themselves in business and the film beautifully shows the tension between these independent businessmen and those still fully committed to religion through the use of two characters, Daniel Plainview and Eli Sunday. What we see in Daniel through most of the film is a man who is in love with his family and his business, things that he knows full well exist and does not have to argue or preach to prove anything. These characteristics are contrasted in Eli, a man wholly committed to God, seeming to resent his family, especially his father, the supposed figure of male authority in his life. Tense moments between the two characters are frequent throughout the film, with Paul Thomas Anderson never giving too much away about the character of Eli, his motives are questionable to the audience, therefore allowing us to feel the same suspicions and judgements of his actions that Daniel feels. With this, we are thrown into the mindset of people living in the 20th century, questioning the motives of both the religious figures in the film and the decisions of those dealing in the oil business.

The performance given by Daniel Day-Lewis is raw and emotional. With an Oscar being awarded to him for his role in this film, his acting gives the film a whole new level of meaning, with the relationship between himself and his on-screen son becoming more important than any of the other plot points surrounding it. The brilliant characterisation of Daniel Plainview is matched in the outstanding performance that Day-Lewis gives, bringing the character to life and allowing the audience to see Plainview as if he were a real person. The perfect combination of Anderson's writing and Day-Lewis' performance can be seen during the scene where Plainview is reunited with his son after sending him away. The camera is chosen to stay at an extreme long shot, giving the characters their privacy and intimacy that we feel they deserve. The development of these characters is so well-done that we do not feel an urge to intrude on this moment, as we would not choose to intrude on that moment were it happening outside of the film world. The relationship was indeed a highlight to watch, and perhaps brought a sense of magic to those scenes that would otherwise seem slow and monotonous.

Cinematographer Robert Elswit, who has worked on several Paul Thomas Anderson films, shows just how much beauty can be captured by a camera in this film. The camera seems to have a fascination with the mechanical structures that are constantly being developed further as the time-frame of the film moves on. These technical machines are featured in a lot of the main shots, with the tall frame of one of the oil wells lighting on fire being one of the most memorable images from the film that sticks in the audience's head. Again, we are put into the mindset of people living in turn of the century America, looking at these large structures with both wonder and contempt, knowing that they cause death and greed among many other things. The framing of the film is often extremely aesthetically pleasing also, with the final shot of Plainview in his bowling alley again being one that audiences remember time and time again.

The film's script is extremely strong, the characterisation is perfect and the camerawork is done expertly. All of the elements of film that need to be perfected in order to make a movie work are perfected and therefore the film is an extremely enjoyable viewing. There Will Be Blood is a film that can be watched again and again, with the viewer gaining something different yet equally enjoyable from each watch.

Pierrot le Fou Review

In this 1965 wonder, Jean-Luc Godard takes two of the most prominent actors of 1960s France, Jean-Paul Belmondo and Anna Karina, and throws them into his crazy diegesis in the heart of France. With the title literally translating to "Pete goes Mad", this film shows Pierrot, or Ferdinand, and Marianne fleeing from Paris after mixings with some Algerian gangsters goes sour.
In typical Godard style, we are led on a whirlwind road trip of violence, craziness and romance, with the relationship between the two being tested throughout and the threat of the gangsters who are after them always on the mind of both the characters and the audience.

One of the most notable features of the film, and the characters themselves, is that they are extremely self aware. With ironic references being made to the fact that they are performing as characters "It's not a film" and direct lines being spoken towards the audience at several points throughout the film, the audiences interests are heightened as this non-conventional characteristic is put to use. Although the aim of these references is not clear, there are features of the film that are more easily analysed, such as the characters whispering to each other inside the car, clearly devising a sort of plan that will get them their petrol free of charge, however this whispering is done out of the camera's 'earsight' and therefore the audience is put in a strange position, not in the position of the two main characters, or in the position of the unaware petrol station attendee, we are hanging in a limbo of knowing that something is going to happen, but not what, and it causes tension for the time that we are stuck in this limbo, showing the genius of Godard's filmmaking and the unique environment that the audience is thrust in to.

It is obvious that the film is aimed at cinema lovers such as Godard himself, with the film presenting a variety of themes and combining them into one extremely interesting narrative. Ranging from romance, to violence, to crime, to drama, this film takes the audience on a journey that is highly enjoyable and provides a range of emotions. The narrative is linear, however there is a voiceover of both Marianne and Pierrot that we hear several times throughout the film, where they seem to both be telling their story as the film progresses, as one would tell a story at a party, or over dinner, possibly relating back to the first scene where Pierrot is unwillingly at a party, having to mingle with socialites and filmmakers. This on-and-off narrative reads like a book, which is reflected in the amount of times quotes from literature are read and discussed, and shows Godard incorporating other arts into his work, with the addition of paintings and the mention of Van Gogh to the cuts to flashing neon signs, representing the coming of modern art, Godard shows that he is a man in love with the arts and that he is proud of it.

This film takes viewers on a gratifying adventure, with constant musings of existential topics, it gives the audience more to think about and discuss that simply the story of two lovers on the run, and the various layers of this film make it an extremely interesting watch. With an explosive ending, cinematography that makes you want to book the next one-way plane ticket to Nice and performances by Karina and Belmondo that drive the emotions deep into the audience's heart, this film is not one to pass up on watching, and for those who perhaps aren't highly aware of French cinema, is a beautiful film to start on.

Pacific Rim Review

Picture a giant robot, easily matching the height of the skyscrapers, walking down a Hong Kong street with a cargo ship in it's hand ready to be used as a weapon, all of this taking place while medium paced rock music is playing in the background. This is Pacific Rim summed up in one description. It's exciting, it's tense, it's the summer blockbuster we've all been waiting for.

In the future, aliens are found to be living under the Pacific Ocean, and with recent attacks on cities around the world, the human race has to do something about it in order to survive. Their means of fighting these giant sea creatures known as Kaiju's is by building giant man-powered robots known as Jaegers. The film follows the story of Stacker Pentecost (played by Idris Elba) and his team's mission to destroy the breach in which the Kaiju's are entering the world.

The first point that needs to be made when discussing this film is the absolutely incredible use of computer generated images. The majority of action scenes in this film are created through the use of CGI, and where this can take away the realism in films where it is not pulled off so greatly, Pacific Rim shows just how brilliant the modern technology can be when it is used with caution and great effort is put into it. Both the Jaeger's and Kaiju's are a spectacle to watch, the stern, robotic Jaeger displaying the capability of modern technology whilst the agile and viscious Kaiju showing the power of the animal world. The fight scenes are interesting and have the audience on the edge of their seat, perhaps due to the fact that we care about the pilots inside the Jaeger, controlling its every move.

Although the CGI is brilliant, it does not make the film, with the script, written by both Travis Beacham and Guillermo Del Toro, being strong enough to stand above the computer effects. We are just as invested in the emotions of the characters, sympathising with the conditions they are living in and the sacrifices they have to make as we are with the fun and visually epic fight scenes.
One thing that surprised me regarding the script was how beautifully written the romance between Raliegh and Mako was. I often find in action movies that the romance is usually pushed aside and only given the smallest thought, with producers often believing that the market for big budget action movies is men who want to see fighting and men being.. manly. The fact that the writers of the film chose to dedicate time to the romance, letting the relationship build naturally and not fearing allowing the character's emotions decide the fate of many of the film's vital scenes gives me hope for the future of films in the action genre.

The performances given be Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi & Charlie Hunnam were stellar. This film was perfectly cast, with Elba portraying an authority figure who is torn between keeping someone he loves close to him or risking their safety for the greater good, Kikuchi playing a troubled yet skilled pilot out for vengeance against the Kaiju's who killed her family & Hunnam performing as an emotionally traumatised pilot who saw and felt his own brother's death. The characters are well-written and the acting only adds more depth to some complex and interesting characters.

The film boasts some of the best computer generated effects I have seen on screen and combined with the funny, dramatic and energetic plot, this film is a standout in summer releases for me. With Del Toro once again proving that he is a visual genius, I can assure you that this film will feature on many people's top films of the year list.

Heath Ledger: The Creepiest Joker Performance Ever?

I think, when looking at films that have gained so much worldwide recognition and success, in this case, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, it is interesting to ask ourselves why the film has gained legendary status as far as adaptations go, and aside from the fact that it is an overall kick-ass action film, I believe the film owes it's success to Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker.

When talking about an adapted character, we can not give full credit to the creators of the film for having a brilliantly characterised, evil villain. We have to give a lot of the respect in that sense to DC comics and the creators of the original Batman graphic novels. We can, however, give masses of respect to both Christopher Nolan and Heath Ledger for managing to capture these characteristics and create a cinematic version of the 2D villain absolutely incredibly. This post is going to discuss some of the reasons why I think Nolan and Ledger collectively created one of the most standout villains of all time, one that transcends the graphic novel version of the character and all other adaptations, in this 2008 feature film.

When one first thinks of the Joker, they think of the costume. Nolan gives the Joker a powdered white face, black eyes and the blood red paint over his scars, playing with the idea of the Joker's emotions and constantly giving him a smile, making it harder for the audience to decipher his real emotions. The purple suit and green waistcoat makes the character's roots of being in a graphic novel come to life. These colours which are not often used in formal wear give the Joker a standout image, however he shows in the film that when he wants to be hidden, he can be.

This links in with the fact that the Joker seems to be able to control everything thats happening around him, giving him a God-like status in the film. Even when he is falling to what he thinks is his death, he is violently laughing, almost as if he knows that his evil transcends to more than his physical being, that he has let it be known that true evil does exist, and this is something that haunts the audience for much longer than the two hour running time of the film. His appearance in constant full dress and make-up shows that he is not afraid of being visible when committing his crimes. He is of a higher power than anyone else in Gotham City, arguably even Batman who needs assistance in defeating the Joker. The fact that he can take the makeup off and blend into everyday citizenship, which we see in the attempted assassination of the mayor, is something that also puts fear into the hearts of the audience members, however the Joker prefers to commit his acts of crime against the city in full costume and makeup, flaunting his evil side, showing how proud of it he is.

Regarding how the film, under the direction of Christopher Nolan, managed to help create the aura of mystery and deviousness around the Joker, we can take a look at the perspective that the camera chooses to take. For the most part, we are in the perspective of the 'good' side of the two, Batman and the police, and therefore we see how easily the Joker can evade the Police's tricks and the fact that he is presented as being more intelligent than even the most intelligent police detective leaves us feeling uneasy. His tricks shock and surprise us just as much as they shock and surprise the police force, with the phone in the prisoner's stomach, the hostages disguised as his companions and so on. This lack of knowledge of the Joker's next move prevents us from hearing his motives, if there is any at all, creating a monster trapped inside of a human body.

The final closing point that I think adds dramatically to the legendary status of the Joker is that in the film we see no full closure for the character. The last shot we see of him is dangling from a building, with Batman choosing not to kill him and suggesting that he will be put in a padded cell. We never see a definite ending for the character of the Joker, which is just a small factor that adds to the legacy of his character and the fear of the audience.

Heath Ledger's astonishing performance as the Joker and the uneasiness that creeps its way onto the audience as they watch it is often attributed with his early death just before the release of the film. Although there is no counter argument that this definitely adds a certain eeriness to the role, the performance, in my eyes, is strong enough to stand alone, disregarding that fact. I would love to watch the film with someone who was not aware of Ledger's death after this film and question them on the role, perhaps I will do that some time soon. All in all, this post is just an appreciation of the collaboration between Christopher Nolan and Heath Ledger in this film that is arguably the best superhero adaptation to date.

Hitchcock's 'The Skin Game' Review

Without being told beforehand, I don't think anybody would guess that The Skin Game was directed by Alfred Hitchcock. The film, released in 1931, tells the fairly monotonous story of the war between two families, one being traditional and the other being a modern threat to their way of living. The film and its characters are well-rounded, and there are moments of tension and excitement, however the film in itself seems to present the story at a steady pace, with the ending feeling out of place and abrupt.
Plot points aside, I think the film shows great progress in the career of Hitchcock, who had directed his first feature less than a decade before. With experimentation in camerawork and editing, Hitchcock definitely shows in his direction of this film that he was out to push the boundaries of cinema and create what had not been created before, it just seems that this film was not quite the film that was going to prove that to the public.

One of the biggest forms of experimentation in this film comes from the editing and camera work. With whip pans being used in the exciting auction scene in order to reflect the sudden changes in the bidding war, Hitchcock shows that he was a master of controlling the emotions that a camera could make an audience feel. This fast paced scene, featuring a skilled hand in camera work, was definitely one of the ones that I found most enjoyable. In the same scene, a little before the auctioning has started, Hitchcock shows his editing skills, with the superimposition of a face hauntingly moving towards the camera numerous times, showing the audience how fearful of this man the young girl is.

In context of the time and the extent that cinema had been pushed before, this film stands its ground with other films released at the time. The film has excitement, plotting, deception and death, some of these themes Hitchcock went on to master in his later career, and as expected, these scenes are the ones that stand out in this film. Hitchcock himself has said that he did not make this film by choice, an adaptation of an averagely written stage play, the film is character based and slightly mundane at parts, something that Hitch's later films were rarely ever called. It appears to me, that in the time of advancement from silent films to talkies, Hitchcock wanted to perfect the art of the talkie before he made his big break-through with it. It seems that this film, along with a few others (that will remain unnamed in this post) were merely a practice for Hitchcock to see what worked and what didn't, and what didn't quite work in this film was the sound.

Considering the first feature 'talkie' film was released only four years before The Skin Game, we have to respect that the technology was not brilliant at the time of the film's production. The fact that Hitch manages to seamlessly construct both the sound and picture of the film gives him a lot of respect in my eyes, however there are parts of the film where the audio is not perfect, perhaps some actor's voices were not suited to this new advancement of technology, as there are some character's whose lines are barely audible, and some whose are perfectly clear. The fact of the matter is, the story is told, and Hitchcock, having managed to master silent films in his short space of working in the industry before talkies were introduced, uses a lot of the features common in silents to tell the story, such as the vision of the factories superimposed over the cottage.

The film is not one to watch if you are looking for the most exciting of Hitchcock's work, however it is a really beautiful watch when one enjoys looking at a director's advancement and learning process. The film is just over an hour long, not long enough to become dragged-out and to lose a modern audiences attention span, and the strength of the play that the film is based of has enough intrigue and twists to keep you hanging on for the whole hour.

Badass Women in Film

In the obviously male-dominated industry of film, I think it is often important to pay tribute to the strong and brilliant female characters who are featured in some incredible films. In this post I will be shining a light on some of my favourite female characters from films, ones who are often overlooked in regards to being pretty kick-ass by the shadow that many male leading characters cast.

Thelma & Louise
(Thelma & Louise, 1991. dir. Ridley Scott)

At the start of the film, Thelma and Louise, two best friends whose lives are being controlled by their intrusive and selfish partners, decide to leave behind their unhappy relationships and embark on a care free road trip. With just the two of them, the women show just how liberating females can be without men.
At a pit stop to a bar on their road trip, a rape almost occurs, only being stopped by Louise shooting the man dead. This scene has always haunted me, and looking back on it, I interpret it now as the rapist being almost a figure of patriarchy trying to gain its way back into the film. The perpetrator is shot down immediately however, firmly giving the statement that no man is going to control these women, they are strong, they show that they are independent and their gun skills are pretty kick-ass.
The ending of the film is perhaps one of the grandest moments of the pair's labelling as feminist icons in film, with the two choosing to drive straight off a cliff face rather than be caught by the police (a very male dominated profession, also). These women are seriously unstoppable, only stopping when they themselves have ended their lives in a shock-ending that definitely gives the audience something to talk about after the credits have rolled.

The Bride
(Kill Bill Vol 1. & Kill Bill Vol 2.)

If you're not familiar with the general plot outline of the two Kill Bill films, an ex-assassin, known as The Bride, leaves the assassin squad in order to settle down and start a family. That is, however, until her old assassin squad leader, Bill, orders an attack on her wedding rehearsal that leads to the death of everyone in the room.. a part from her. With a need for revenge on the lives of all of the members of the Deadly Vipers Assassination Squad, The Bride sets out to kill them all one by one.
These two films show The Bride constantly outsmarting and gaining the respect of powerful men. This starts in the form of the not-so smart and not-so powerful Buck, and ends in the extremely clever Bill. The Bride does not let her gender prevent her from fighting off the strongest of men and she does it all wearing the iconic yellow leather suit.
A particular favourite moment of mine of The Brides antics is her incredible fight scene with the Crazy 88s, a seemingly endless group of men who The Bride mows down one by one, without taking a moment for a breather. It is truly my belief that Tarantino has created a feminist icon with The Bride, and the character is part of the reason that these films are my favourites of Tarantino's.

There are only three characters from two films listed here, however, instead of me rambling on about even more characters, I thought I would make a list of some more of my favourites, and if you haven't checked out some of the films underneath the names, then I suggest you do.

'Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb' Review

Watching Stanley Kubrick's 1964 comedy, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, we could easily be led to believe that we were watching a piece of propaganda film trying to express the absolute shambles that the American government were in the 1960s. The film is unapologetically satirical and rips apart the idea of the American government being an organised and reliable group of people when something diverges from the plan of action that they have prepared for. With billboards boasting the phrase "Peace is our profession" in the background of a shot of generals in a gun battle, the hypocrisy of this 'profession' is put into the audience's mind, and the comical "You can't fight here, this is the war room" line shows just how unaware the President is of his words and the effects of his actions.

The film tells the story of an 'insane' general who gives a fighter plane the instructions to bomb Russian missile bases, in effect, launching their 'doomsday weapon' that will destroy all life on the planet. The story is divided into three different perspectives, we have the rogue general who is responsible for the attack, the President of the united states and high ranking generals in the US 'War Room', and the airforce members who are in one of the planes that is heading to bomb the USSR. This division makes the film tense and keeps the plot fresh, brilliantly executing a story that, had it been directed by anyone other than the legendary Kubrick, would have descended into a stagnant and monotonous mess.

Interestingly, Peter Sellers plays three characters in this film, showing a wide range of his acting abilities and proving him to be one of Hollywood's all-time legends. His performances are all entirely different, with accents being perfected and characters becoming real in the minds of the audience, he really shines through as the star of this film, constantly delivering a brilliant performance. The combination of his natural acting talent and his close work with Kubrick leads to the stand-out performance of his career.

The films general mood resembles that of the tension between the USA and USSR at the time of the film. The internalised arguments especially provide tension throughout, with each of them not seeming to trust each other, it seems that egos and selfishness override the importance of a possible nuclear war, again, going back to the satirical comedy that Kubrick masters in this feature.

The film is definitely an interesting one to watch. Perhaps the lack of amazing cinematography and camerawork that we see in Kubrick's later films such as The Shining and A Clockwork Orange means that this film asks for an audience more attentive to the story and the characters than the visual side, however, it is no less enjoyable than either of the two films listed and, if anything, the awesome atomic-bomb montage sequence at the end, played over Dame Vera Lynn's 'We'll Meet Again' makes the film worth the watch, an almost haunting ending, suggesting the constant threat of the Cold War that was still large when the film was released, and for another thirty decades.

'This is The End' Review

Opening with Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel getting high and playing video games and closing with a Backstreet Boys concert live from... Heaven, this film feels like one big trip from the get-go.

The film takes place at James Franco's housewarming party, with a long, long list of celebrity guests that ranges from Rihanna to Michael Cera. Everything is running smoothly until the apocalypse begins, killing off most of the guests of the party through a giant sinkhole on Franco's front lawn. We are left with Franco, Jonah Hill, Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, Craig Robinson and later on Danny McBride as our stars of the film willing to take on the apocalypse readily and intelligently.. sort of.

In a film where the actors are playing themselves, there was a chance that the film could be egotistical and seem false, luckily this was not the case with This is The End, and the performances by the six actors were believable and hilarious, with countless 'inside' jokes being thrown about in regards to the actor's 'real' lives and previous films. It could be a little distracting for those audience members who are not familiar with the actor's personal lives and filmographies, however, with a homemade Pineapple Express 2 being made halfway through the film, and numerous references to James Franco's love of abstract art etc, however I feel the feel is able to stand alone, with plenty of non-related comedy scenes and a fun plot to keep all audience members involved.

The film lacks deeper substance that a group of friends fighting the apocalypse, as one can imagine, however this does not take away from the brilliance of the film. Perhaps the main point being made in this film is that comedy is an art form in itself and the fact that the film made you laugh is good enough for the creators. Written and directed by Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen, the creators of the wonderful Pineapple Express and Superbad, the film is created by some of the top guns of comedy at the moment, and the wild adventure the film takes you on is completely out-shined by the smaller moments of comedic interactions between the actors that Goldberg and Rogen have proved they are the brilliant at with their past collaborations. 

All in all, the film was a lot of fun. Seeing actors play 'themselves' in a completely alien situation was refreshingly enjoyable to watch. The film boasts some of the most raw, comedic interactions I have seen for a few years and I, along with the friends I took, thoroughly enjoyed the film.

Regarding Spike Lee's 'Oldboy' Remake

"I'm not gonna call it a remake, I'm gonna say it's a reinterpretation" says Spike Lee in regards to his latest feature, a remake of Park Chan-wook's wonderfully dark Oldboy (source). Now, despite Lee's attempts to make his latest film sound like it's going to be half as amazing as the original by using a six syllable word, I am definitely not sold, and with the trailer coming out yesterday, the film seems to have taken exact shots from the original film (such an original interpretation) and just white-washed the whole film.
The trailer for the film can be found here. My main issue with this film is that Lee is trying to sell it as his own vision, refusing to give substantial comments when the issue of plagiarism is given to him.  It is extremely hard to "reinterpret" a medium of art through the same medium of art, and this is where I think Lee has gone wrong. If he enjoyed the original film so much that he felt his interpretation of it was a thing that the world needed to see, why not give the audience something new, instead of remaking the same story and irritating a lot of fans that the cult film & director has gained over the years. Why not focus on the relationship between the brother and sister, dealing with the anger of the brother being caught and then the planning, the punishment and the post-punishment of Oh Dae-su from a different perspective? The lack of original thought that has gone into the production of this movie is evident and it seems that Lee is simply trying to get a new film out into mainstream cinema as quickly as possible and with as little effort as possible.

I have no problem with remaking of films. The 2005 film remake of King Kong was released 72 years after the original and was breathtaking. The advancement in technology was the main feature being showcased in this film, providing fans of the original with a modern day film version of the 1933 classic. People benefited from the remake of the film, new generations were introduced to the classic story and it was a sort of proof of the advancement that cinema had made in less than a century. With Oldboy, the original was released only ten years ago. Park Chan-wook, being the visionary director that he is, made the film absolutely timeless. People are going to be able to watch the original film in seventy years time and think "Wow", and I feel that the remake is doing sort of an injustice to the work of Park Chan-wook, disregarding him and his vision. With mainstream cinema fans much preferring an English speaking film to a foreign one, I am sure that the remake of the film will do extremely well in cinemas, however I would advise anyone interested in going to see the film to watch the original first. I am not disregarding your interest in seeing Lee's version of the film, I will definitely go to the movies and watch it, perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised and write a brilliant review of it. As always, I will remain open to a film before I have seen the whole thing, I feel I just needed to get my feelings regarding the remake off my chest and perhaps some people share the same opinion. 

'House of Flying Daggers' Review

There are certain films that make you disregard anything that anybody who has slated film as an art or an academic subject has ever said to you. Yimou Zhang's 'House of Flying Daggers' is one of those films. From start to finish, the film is a spectacle, leaving the audience in awe of the beauty that is captured by the camera. With a story that is easily invested in, characters that are beautifully developed and mind-blowing scenery, this film is a masterpiece of modern Chinese cinema.

The film tells the tale of two generals of the government, Jin & Leo, and a young girl named Mei who is a member of the opposing party to the government, the House of Flying Daggers. The film tells a love story, which can be hard to see behind all of the spectacular martial arts and cinematography, however it is undeniably the story of a heartbreaking love triangle. The romance is told between several of the most breathtaking action scenes I have ever seen, with betrayal and plot twists never being far away.

On the back of my DVD copy of the film, it is advertised mainly on the beautiful cinematography throughout. The film prides itself on not being story-driven entirely, taking lots of breaks to remind the audience that film is an art form, with shots looking as close to paintings as possible. With fight-scenes that appear as beautiful as any choreographed dance routine, we are being asked to look at the possibilities and the extent that visual-cinema can now be pushed to in the twenty-first century. Films that make you contemplate the use of the film form are special, and this film does exactly that for me.
The echo dance that Mei performs at the beginning of the film is similar to the Serpentine Dance, a piece of early, non-narrative cinema from the Lumiere Brothers, and this parallel can back my point that the director is trying to take people back to the time where film was an experimental form, as for the past few decades, there seems to have been a halt in the creation of new and exciting explorations of the art (minus 3D technology, which, let's be honest, should have never have even been explored).

The acting by all three main characters is outstanding, the relationship between Jin and Mei being a personal favourite of mine. There is never a moment in the first half of the film where we are entirely sure of either character's motives and the excitement and tension that is given from these performances contributes a lot to the whole film's feel. With an ending that is guaranteed to make even the most macho person in the room cry, the film is a beautiful watch, and one that is well worth taking two hours out of your day for. Every action scene you watch after this film will seem inferior and a lot less poetic.

INTERPRETING 'MULHOLLAND DRIVE'

As with any David Lynch film, 'Mulholland Drive' stays with the audience for much longer than the two hours of screen time. The constant questions being presented with absolutely no answers given, Mulholland Drive can be both beautiful and extremely confusing after the first watch. The confusion is a part of the beauty for me, the endless amounts of questions, dead-end characters and many subplots mean that the film is discussed frequently and often has different interpretations, in this post I will be sharing my thoughts and views on the film.

It seems that the first half/three quarters of the film (up until the discovery of the key that fits the box) is chronological, with a simple plot and characters that make sense. This first half is what I like to call the Hollywood dream. I don't believe that it is a literal dream of the character of Betty/Diane, to me it's more like the dream of any budding star. Moving into a dream apartment, easily making friends, breezing through auditions and falling in love. The dream theory is one that is brought up a lot, with an interesting point being the diner scene near the beginning when a worried man is telling of his dreams, then leaving the diner and encountering a sort of beast, suggesting to the audience that we are actually in his dream. Lynch uses none of the typical editing techniques such as transitions or an inter-title to explain this, he respects his audience's intelligence and allows them to come to their own conclusion.
The film explores all of the 'normal' mainstream elements of film in this first half, and is easy to follow, however everything changes when the key to the mysterious box that Rita finds comes into the picture.

The box, to me, represents awareness and consciousness. During the first half of the film, the two female leads hide the box, pushing their consciousness away and allowing the dreams and hopes to take over their lives, it is only when the box is opened that this fairy-tale of a story is shattered and we are entered into a world completely diverged from the one previously presented to us. This world, in my true side of Los Angeles that Diane/Betty sees. Her failed romance, lack of acting work, and eventual suicide.

When looked at it in these two halves, the film is a lot easier to take in, and after a re-watch with these thoughts in your brain, you perhaps may be able to look at it from the perspective that I view it.
There is, however, parts of the film that I do not understand or cannot put my finger on the meaning behind them.

The odd characters such as the Cowboy, the man controlling the production of the film and the elderly people who drop an excited Betty off at the airport are much harder to decipher the meaning of. Perhaps they are there to spook the audience, as we know Lynch likes to do for his own amusement more than anything else. The elderly people can be viewed as the figures of society whom Betty feels she needs to impress, they are perhaps the reason for the entire first half of the film, is it all representative of a lie Diane told to them?

No matter how many times we discuss the film, the hidden meanings and the deeper motives for all of the characters, there will always be different and new questions raised. What is the relevance of the Silencio club? The death of the singer? It's all a tape- huh? That is one of the factors that allows me to enjoy the film more and more every time I watch it. Films needn't always be wrapped up neatly in a little parcel like a present under a Christmas tree. It's not Christmas day in David Lynch's world and you have to do some thinking before you get any sort of gift from him.

BLACKBOXTV'S THE BABYSITTER (SHORT) REVIEW.

In film school, the majority of the first year of studies is dedicated to writing, filming and editing short films, easing students into the independent market first as opposed to throwing them in the deep end with mainstream Hollywood features. During research for writing a script for one of my short films, I came across the YouTube channel BlackBoxTV. The channel is filled with many suspenseful horror shorts directed by Tony E. Valenzuela, and a lot of them are really, really good.

Today saw the release of the latest short film by the channel, The Babysitter, and after watching it my immediate reaction was a wanting to share it with the readers of this blog. As I feel that horror is a completely overlooked genre in independent filmmaking and in the festival circuits (in fact, we were forbidden from writing horror films in our first year of university), when I find one I think is brilliant, I am overwhelmed with excitement at the fact that despite the lack of profit from short films in general, and horror-genre shorts in particular, they are still being made because of a love for cinema and for the act of scaring.

The film's cinematography is brilliant. Typical horror-genre techniques are used professionally in the film, following the character around a house, off-screen noise, off-screen space, and it all adds up into creating an extremely suspenseful atmosphere. The film is shown from the perspective of the babysitter, played by Youtube Megan Camarena, perhaps as a lot of YouTube demographics show young girls making up the majority of views, therefore making the story more real for them, or perhaps just to show how sadistic the actions that take place are from an outsiders viewpoint.

The film shows a child becoming obsessed with a video. Seemingly taking inspiration from the likes of The Ring and Spy Kids (Floop is a mad man, help us, save us), the video deals with the wider theme of technologies impact on the youth. The young boy in this video, six years old, is brainwashed by the video, witnessing the murder of his babysitter and mother without batting an eyelid. The real horror that is being presented is that of the lack of control parents are having on the information and content their children witness on the internet. The combination of a lack of parental guidance and the wrong video being watched by a child is catastrophic in this case.

Acting out the role of the extremely creepy 'host' of this video the child is watching is YouTube sensation Joey Graceffa, showing his talent in a weird yet wonderful role that diverges from his usual music videos and short internet skits.

As with all horror films, even short ones that are simply being uploaded to YouTube, the editing is key. In this film, CGI is used to create a portal that is seemingly sucking the child's mind into the video he is watching. Also used on a demonic teddy to make the eyes larger (possibly referencing the extremely successful The Shining), the combination of the editing and beautiful camerawork makes the film a joy to watch and at only seven minutes long, not a time consuming one.

With sites such as YouTube and Vimeo emerging and having billions of users, film festivals are no longer the only place to look for independent and brilliant new cinema. BlackBoxTV is just one of many growing channels on YouTube that present festival-standard shorts for free, and for that, I respect the people behind it a lot. 

For now, we'll have to just wait and see if internet shorts become as successful as they have the potential to become, and also for BlackBoxTV to announce their debut feature film. I will be first in line for a ticket on that day.

REVIEW: JACKIE BROWN.

I am obsessed with the films of Quentin Tarantino. He is a genius and without a doubt one of the top living filmmakers in the world, his films are full of depth and his camerawork and screenwriting are always top notch. Like all films, there are flaws to be found when looking closely at his films, however the positives always outweigh the negatives easily and I always find myself engrossed in the characters and world he creates.
Tonight I watched Tarantino's third feature film, Jackie Brown.

It is clear from the start that the film is inspired heavily by '70s crime thrillers. The music, the mise en scene, the cinematography, the everything. The film is heavily stylised, which is enjoyable and different to watch from a film that was produced in the late '90s. Introducing a specific genre and taking inspiration from films that perhaps the Tarantino Generation are not comfortable and familiar with was a risk to take, however the film pulls it off beautifully, capturing and adapting the best bits of '70s cinema for a modern audience.

The film sees one of Tarantino's first female leads, with the amazing Pam Grier starring as the title character, Jackie Brown. A sexy, intelligent middle aged woman in a badass crime thriller is such an anti-typecast character that I cannot believe the film hasn't become a cult-sensation like more of Tarantino's earlier films such as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
Always being one to add in complications and characters who are created simply to be killed off, Tarantino throws the audience into a world of deceit, casual drug use and murder that feels like a whirlwind tour of everything your parents tell you not to do as a child.

The film could be a little shorter, with seemingly unnecessarily long scenes at some moments, but with cinematography that is worth the casual dialogue and monotonous actions that the characters take every so often. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it is well-rounded, as are all Tarantino films, and the substance matches the style, a factor that I thought was going to be an issue after watching the first half of the film, thankfully however, the second half is much more action packed, tense and dramatic.

REVIEW: ALFRED HITCHCOCK'S 'TO CATCH A THIEF'

Opening with a shot of a travel agents window advertising France as a tourist destination, Hitchcock's 1955 'To Catch a Thief' could very well be mistaken for a advertisement funded by the French tourist board. That is, however, until a sudden cut to a panic-stricken woman screaming takes over the screen and we are violently thrust back into the world of Alfred Hitchcock, where the pleasant parts of life are overlooked in favour of the sinister.

We see the character of John Robie, played brilliantly by Cary Grant, living a reformed life of peace in the south of France after living the life of a well-known jewel thief, however in the typical Hitchcock trope of 'the wrong man', he is accused of being responsible for a new set of jewel robberies in France and is pursued by the police. The film follows Robie's attempts to catch the real jewel thief and clear his name of the crimes he has not permitted.

The first thing to comment on about this film is the absolutely stunning cinematography  The
picturesque backdrop of the south of France combined with the beautiful camerawork makes for one of Hitchcock's most aesthetically pleasing films. Robert Burks, the cinematographer for this feature, worked on many other Hitchcock films such as North by Northwest and Vertigo, however he seemed to have peaked before either of these two films with the beautiful camerawork featured in To Catch a Thief.

The plot is good, not the best of Hitchcock's, but the performances from Grace Kelly and Cary Grant are as brilliant as ever. The suspense and intrigue caused from the two actors is really quite something, with Kelly looking fantastic and desirable as the infamous 'Hitchcock Blonde' and Grant playing the role of a man wrongly convicted nicely. It seems that Grant's performance in this film was perhaps his warm-up role to the peak-performance of his career, North by Northwest which was produced four years later.

The directing is as good as any other Hitchcock film, with the film being released in the '50s, it is clear that Alfred Hitchcock was in the prime of his career, becoming an auteur and finding both his strengths and weaknesses as a director. The film is definitely worth watching, if it's just for the cinematography itself, however, like all Hitchcock films, the audience is taken on a journey of suspense, with pauses for comedy and a subplot of a love interest with complications, the film boasts perhaps one of Hitchcock's most well-rounded features.