It’s Always Fair Weather (1955)

* * * ½

An odd mixture of depressingly realistic story intermingled with upbeat show tunes. The three stars are completely lovable and you follow their story intently, especially as it is quite an original story about friendship between old and very different friends. The always impressive Gene Kelly coupled with Stanley Donen create a good film with spectacular dance routines.

The story is interesting as you follow several narratives, not only the three friends but also two female characters are shown independently of the male leads. This does not make for a confusing film, as it is handled well, however it does make for a confusing concept. We see a floundering friendship, dodgy dealings within sports and behind the scenes of a TV show. It is surprising that all of these fitted together and were even able to be concluded in the same scene.

The dance routines are impressive and innovative, for instance there was a scene which looked like an earlier version of Stomp, using dustbins. The songs are less memorable, which is a shame for a musical, but they are still jaunty enough to entertain. For these reasons I can see why the musical is not necessarily the ultimate classic it could have been; the best musicals are the ones which has songs that reverberate through your head without ever having seen the film.

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

* * * ½

A wonderfully weird horror which takes you down a path you were not expecting. It is not as funny as it tries to be and most of the jokes originate from the same character, which makes everyone else immediately expendable (which is silly for a horror film as you need to care somewhat about the characters to be afraid for them). For a parody it works well though, as it parodies seriously and doesn’t create a caricature.

The nice thing about this film is that is slowly reveals the truth to its audience as it does to its characters. Obviously the audience knows more than the characters do, we are watching a horror so we know that bad stuff will happen, but the intricacies are kept for us to discover with the characters. Unfortunately, as it is quite a complex concept, the truth behind ‘the cabin in the woods’ has to be, almost, narrated to the audience as it cannot be shown simply through dialogue or visuals. This then means the characters do the awkward thing of talking out loud while they are thinking.

It achieves its goals of being both a part of the horror genre and apart from it. However I watched this with no knowledge of what will happen and that made the experience of watching it fun because everything that happened was completely random and out-of-the-blue. If you went to the cinema knowing even a basic summation of the story I think that would detract from the thing that makes this film so good, spontaneity. So although it is good, it is maybe the type of film you only watch once, and love, than watch over and over again.

The Holiday (2006)

* * * ½

An ultimate girly, Christmas classic; the small group of girls I watched it with were crying, laughing and squealing throughout. I am less in awe of this film as, although I love Kate Winslet and Jack Black, and Jude Law is actually likeable in this, Cameron Diaz is simply annoying and not of the same calibre of acting standard as Winslet.

The story is quite cliché, it follows two women having men troubles which seem to be solved after they swap houses and meet new people. The nice thing about this story is that it doesn’t revolve around swapping a man for a better man; instead both female characters meet someone they befriend. Winslet’s friendship with Eli Wallach is particularly heart-warming.

The film is actually very lovely to look at, probably because it is based around two quite spectacular houses, one a picturesque cottage and the other an L.A. mansion. Despite the magnificence of the American house, the Surrey cottage is so beautiful, especially with all the snow. It makes the audience want to do a house swap, and I have a feeling that the market probably increased sales after the release of this film.

As it is a romantic comedy (the most dubious genre title as very few are both romantic and comic) it is incredibly predictable and everything seems to fall into place perfectly. As it is a film weird things happen which wouldn’t in real life and just seem to work, such as a declaration of love after less than two weeks of knowing a person. I would call these flaws as a plot shouldn’t be predictable and unrealistic, despite the fact it kind-of works in this film. One person I watched the film with believed that it ended on a cliff-hanger, I disagree. I believe the writer became lazy and tried to placate the audience while remaining ambiguous so as not to have to work too hard to solve the problems they’ve created.

Leave Her to Heaven (1945)

* * *

An intriguingly dark film with quite interesting characters, if not the best acting. It is shot beautifully and this is supported by the impressive setting. At points it becomes quite predictable and this is not aided as the narrative extends slightly too long which then makes the audience more impatient for its ending.

An incredibly interesting film as it is of the noir genre yet is in colour. Admittedly the decision to film it in colour was probably a mistake as imagining it in black and white seems to improve the film immensely. The creators attempt to use colour to highlight traits within the characters, however they are still naïve to colour filming. The most starkly apparent point where their poor understanding of colour is when they attempt to film night scenes during the day. Not even subtly suggesting it is night during the day but literally changing camera angle and in the split second the light changes from moonlight to sunlight.

The actresses are definitely stronger in performance than the actors and the film seems to know this as everything is geared around Gene Tierney, and her amazing eyes. Sadly, however, Cornel Wilde is the main character and he and his brother (Darryl Hickman) don’t really impress. Especially seeing as they have poignant scenes, this becomes a nuisance in the film. 

The Little Foxes (1941)

* * 

When trying to recall this film (as it has been a few weeks since I saw it) I couldn’t. That does not bode well for this review. Upon investigation I can now recall it somewhat and unfortunately mostly I just remember it was quite a tedious film.

The main issue with this film is that there are a lot of conversations and they are boring and technical; this makes it completely forgettable. The plot seems quite basic as it is the classic struggle between an innocent child and her corrupted family; however the moral of this story seems to be lost somewhere in the anticipation for it to end.

The film is well shot, as we were looking at it from the perspective of deep-focus filming. They use this technique to great effect, and if you are looking then you see how artfully it is controlled. However this does not make a great film.

I can understand the numerous (9) Oscar nominations, especially for acting and the script, as it is the type of script which is Oscar-fodder. I also understand why it didn’t win anything as there is something about this film that is unmemorable and makes it feel unimportant.