Lars and the Real Girl (2007) - Film staring Ryan Gosling

* * * *

One thing you can say about Mr. Gosling is that he does some weird and wonderful films, and that he isn't afraid to grow a moustache. Lars is a lonely soul who finds comfort in a doll who becomes his girlfriend. The town he lives in, and all the people in his life, have to adjust to this new member. It's a comedy with some wonderfully awkward and touching moments.

Everything about this film is indie, from what the characters wear to the setting. Everything seems very realistic because nothing and no one is presented as perfect. This is a strength because the plot is very strange and you need the other elements of realism to pull you into the otherwise unbelievable story.

The cast are really great. Released in 2007, Gosling wouldn't be the star he is today, but he gives a very good performance. His supporting cast, including Emily Mortimer who is very well known this side of the pond, they add a warmth to the film. There were moments when I was worried that a love triangle would be created, but luckily the creators of this film never felt as though this was necessary. Instead the overreaching message is of community and non-romantic love.

This possibly isn't the type of film for everyone. Although it is funny, it is less laugh out loud/gags and rather situational. Similarly there are a few slow moments and nothing major happens, even arguments are muted and barely memorable. This film relies on the acting, story and cinematography rather than stars, plot twists and CGI.

A delightful film, good for anyone who can actually sit down to watch a film rather than needing to be constantly shocked and awed to pay attention. Funny and moving with a strong, if bizarre, story.

Frozen (2013) - Newest Disney film

* * * *

Two sisters are emotionally separated when the elder has to keep her snowy powers hidden from the world. When these get unleashed her younger sister, with the help of a reindeer, snowman and dashing gentleman, has to try to sort out the situation. Sadly I think that watching this film after hearing so many positive things about it has dampened my enjoyment of it somewhat.

Firstly, the characters are incredibly good. They are believable and imperfect. With a lot of films now-a-days they are trying to portray an ultra-feminist ideal of women, this is creating one dimensional 'strong female characters'. In this film they don't mind about their female characters showing weakness but instead show them as having positives and negative. Furthermore the two male characters were interesting, and Kristoff was particularly loveable. The most clever thing they did was also have an animal who didn't talk, for the cynics, but a magical creature who did, for everyone else's enjoyment.

It was one of the most beautiful films that I've seen in a while. Generally snow can be used to great effect and they do that here. Furthermore they have created beautiful costumes and character faces. The Anna's freckles and flushed cheeks were adorably wonderful. A particularly lovely scene was during the song Let It Go, when Elsa created her ice palace. Both the scenery and the character looked brilliant during that scene, they obviously really wanted to highlight that sequence.

The songs were great. Let It Go and Do You Want To Build A Snowman were my particular favourites, however there were also some delightful short ones which added humour and wonder to the world. Idina Menzel, of course, gave a flawless vocal performance but I was really impressed with Kristen Bell because I didn't know her as a singer and she sang amazingly well.

There were a few random bits thrown in which seemed to just be padding. There was a Duke character who seemed fairly pointless. Similarly there were trolls who, although adorable and fun, were also just there as filler. When you have a magical snow Queen, I don't think that you need more magical elements, especially such incongruous ones as rock trolls.

It was a incredibly good Disney film, another one to be proud of and enjoy. It was cleverly and carefully made and the strength of the film is testament to that. Unfortunately I do feel as though it was missing something, I believe that that is because I was expecting it to be this perfect film that many critics seem to be presenting it as. It isn't perfect but Disney is getting closer to capturing its old magic.

This is the End (2013) - Film created by Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen

* * * *

For a silly comedy, this is a very good one. If you're going to have such a weird film, you need to go all out and these guys did. There isn't anything serious about this film and that is great because they could have tried to add a preachy message and there really wasn't one, other than possibly not being a bad friend. The cast do well and it's nice to see such an overtly self-aware film.

The 6 main guys are really good. It is interesting that they have a mixture of really famous and praised with three others. This adds a nice dynamic to the group because it doesn't seem as competitive as it could, and often does when a lot of comedians are in the same room. It's interesting that they are meant to be friends in real life, sometimes when people create films with friends it is only funny to them, but these people manage to still create an enjoyable film for many.

The film slowly descends into the ridiculous. It begins as a party, the apocalypse starts and once the six have left James Franco's house, everything becomes very strange. If you are willing to just go alone with it, then the escalation can be enjoyable. If you were hoping for the film to build into something meaningful, then you would become disappointed. 

The celebrity cameos are handled very well. They are used to enhance the film, increase the perceived reality,  but do not dominate. Reading the IMDb Trivia page it seems that there could have been even more people dotted around, but the many they had seemed more than enough. 

If you want to laugh, and you're easily offended, and see loads of famous faces then this is the film for you. Not only is it funny but there are some talented actors and cleverly constructed scenes. The way they react to the apocalypse can also be appreciated because they don't become action-heroes but rather just try to survive.

Monty Python's Meaning of Life (1983) - Film by the Monty Python boys

* * * 1/2

Out of the three Python films that I have seen (Life of Brian and Holy Grail) this is the most random. Although the films often are incredibly self aware but this one seems to take it to a new level with multiple breaks from the main narrative, in fact there is barely a main narrative. It makes sense because there would have been films and a TV series to acclimatise audiences to their style. However, if this was your first introduction to Monty Python, you would be a little bit at a loss.

It is genuinely funny, although, as with all Monty Python things, you just have to accept what you are watching rather than try to find an explanation. There are also some moments that seem slightly excessive, like the vomiting diner. Although still funny, sometimes they seem to be seeing what limits they can push.

For a modern audience the argument that this film is incredibly sexist can definitely be made. The Python boys play almost all the female characters with lines. The actual women in the film are either running around topless or cleaning the vomit off the floor. This doesn't necessarily detract from the film because the comedians make for very hilarious women and they do address the sexism, but it does still seem as though they are just trying to push every button to see how far they can go.

The songs are charming and humorous, although not ultimate classics like Always Look on the Bright Side of Life. How seamlessly these films can incorporate musical numbers shows how talented the Pythons are. Throughout all their work they show this by playing every character they possibly can as well as writing and directing everything.

If you like Monty Python this will be a brilliant film for you, however if you are unfamiliar this could be a little bit too much. There are moments of genius and if you're in the right mood or with the right people, this can have you rolling on the floor with laughter. But you do have to be a bit careful because it could just become a bit annoying and overly disjointed.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) - Film directed by Peter Jackson

* * * *

The sequel to An Unexpected Journey hasn't disappointed many people because it s action packed and packed full of Lord of the Rings references, right down to Peter Jackson's cameo. Finally Bilbo and the dwarves arrive at the Lonely Mountain and confront Smaug with devastating effects. On the way there are elves, orcs and wizards.

The problem that I had with this film was that there was nothing wrong with the first one. I enjoyed learning more about Hobbits and dwarves, I enjoyed watching Martin Freeman being adorably Bilbo, I didn't miss the lack of action. Therefore the new faster pace of this film didn't improve anything, it just made for a different type of film.

The same problems that I had with the first film were in this film, far too much CGI (and too noticeable CGI), too many moments that could have been cut from the 161 minute film and it still isn't even comparable to Lord of the Rings. Despite the pick-up in story, there are too many problems that could be easily fixed if someone controlled Peter Jackson a little more. Giving him three films to fill with anything in an attempt to pad out the very short and simple story that is The Hobbit, and a big enough budget to buy a planet, has created a bit of a monster.

It is still really fun and, like Lord of the Rings, the characters are developing and becoming more serious throughout the films. The new /old characters introduced in this film are also good. Evangelline Lilly as Tauriel, despite being only created for the films, is a wonderful character. She's interesting and it's always nice when elves are shown as being slightly more human than perfect. Legolas is also well done because he is presented as being immature and different to how he is in the Lord of the Rings, which shows careful character creation. Smaug is wonderfully created, beautiful to look at. It is disappointing that his voice is so heavily edited, it seems as though they could have hired a cheaper actor if they were just going to change his voice so extensively.

Martin Freeman is wonderful as Bilbo, he can be comical and serious and he's very likeable. Luke Evans as Bard is also a good casting, it is also nice that he is Welsh and keeps his accent. The actors playing his children are questionable and the fact that all their lines seem to start with 'Da' is really annoying, but Luke is good. The sets that they have built are beautiful, but there seem to be so few that aren't just 90-100% CGI.

It's definitely worth a watch but if I could talk to Peter Jackson I would definitely have the same complaints for both films, which is annoying because I would have hoped that with a year between their releases there could have been some progression in things such as the use of CGI. Despite the problems that I can find with it, it is still a fun film that can entertain an audience but not sustain when compared to what everyone wants it to be like, Lord of the Rings.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)  - Film directed by Steven Speilberg

* * *

Really, really creepy. There is nothing else to describe this film as, other than creepy. A family decide to create a unique robotic child, to replace their one who is in a coma. The robot child is too human with his emotions but not human enough with his understanding of the world. This causes problems within the family so he must be abandoned. After this, he partners up with a robot prostitute and robot teddy bear to return to his human mother.

The boy is terrifying, obsessed with his mother and doesn't make me think of robots as humans but rather things to be avoided at all costs.I think they were trying to create a character who had very strong emotions, the opposite of what we would expect a human to have, but because they exaggerated the emotions too much it became unappealing and rather than feeling empathetic I just wanted to shut the boy up.

Jude Law, as the robot prostitute, was really interesting. Towards the end of the film, as his character was developed, he became more cheesy and unlikeable, but in the beginning he was very good. The makeup/styling of him was brilliant because he looked perfect for a robot trying to look human. He also moved in a very distinctive way which was well managed to create the idea of a robot but still very humanistic.

The film looked quite good, unfortunately it is 12 years old now so the graffics are not the best in today's standards but they are still impressive. It seems to be trying to emulate Blade Runner in the look of some of the cities, but it just can't compare.

The story was, again, creepy. It followed the obsessed little boy, who became less and less likeable as the film went on. The unhealthy obsession with his mother screamed of Freudian traumas in the writer's past and it made for slightly uncomfortable watching.

It's an interesting film and worth watching because it looks good, but the story could have been made much less disturbing and the main young, robot character could have been shown to be more relatable human, because then you could empathise with his plight more. When watching it you were very aware that he was not human and there were key points when he was meant to appear human but because throughout he had appeared so inhuman an audience would not be affected.

Secret Diary of a Call Girl (2007-2011) - TV series staring Billie Piper

* * * *

Story follows Billie Pipers character, Hannah/Belle, as she goes about her life trying to juggle being a normal 20-something year old and a secret high-class prostitute. It deals with her family, professional and friend relationships and is an interesting look at life with the added element of her being a rather unusual girl.

Firstly, Billie Piper is brilliant. Most of the cast are, but Billie has the difficult task of making a prostitute sympathetic and likeable. The programme, because it's based off a diary, gets Billie to talk to the camera, which is a good idea because it means that she is much more relatable because we see into her mind.

The programme, although there are sex scene, isn't overly sexualised. They deal with the inevitable, you can't have a prostitute as a main character and not show them at their job, but at least 90% of the programme she is fully clothed and not with a client.

The secondary characters are all interesting. Her best friend is a likeable character and their relationship seems genuine. There are a few characters that are simply annoying, like her sister, but they are necessary evils because not every character can be enjoyable to watch. Without the extra cast member this could become gratuitous but they add a normality. 

It's well made and enjoyable. Billie carries the show well and is surrounded by interesting characters. It doesn't alienate the audience or overly glamorise prostitution, as some people claim. It shows a pleasant middle ground where you can respect her job but not necessarily feel as though you want to get involved.

Letters from an Unknown Woman - Film directed by Max Ophuls

* * * *

An interesting film because it can be seen as demeaning towards women. It follows an infatuated girl, who is obsessed with a talent pianist. He doesn't know she exists, except for one night, and finds out more about her infatuation with him through a letter she sends him when she is dying. Sounds like a strange premise for a film but actually works very well.

Joan Fontaine and Louis Jourdan are both really good in this film. I normally find old Hollywood actors oddly stiff, it must have been the style back then, but these two seemed fairly naturalistic and suited their roles really well. It was slightly annoying that the 31-year-old actress was meant to be playing a teenager for most of the film, and highly unbelievable, but she did her best and I understand that they wanted a star, not a child actor.

The plot is quite ridiculous and frustrating. Her obsession is bordering on psychotic, rather than romantic, and his indifference to everything is quite shocking. When he didn't remember who she was I was really confused, I expected a typical Hollywood love-story and instead I got quite a sad story with very much unrequited love. It seems to demonise both genders, women for being fantasists and men for being uncaring.

Not being your typical Hollywood story, it is also not your typical style of film. The couple were never really presented as being alone, there was almost always someone there serving them and it made their relationship seem staged, which was interesting. This also plays on the idea of women being obsessed with an ideal, an ideal which can only be achieved with a lot of help/planning/action rather than just circumstance.

Possibly one of the stand-out films that I've seen from this time period. Great cast, directing and, even though it is quite far-fetched, an interesting and unique plot. I think this film can be watched by most people, whether you like romantic films or not.

The Face of Another (1966) - Japanese Film

* *

A very surreal film with an unsympathetic main character, which is acknowledged by the rest of the characters, and a quite boring plot. A man, whose face is burned off in a chemical accident, seeks the help of a doctor to put a new face, a mask, on top of his scarred one.The new face causes identity problems and affect his life. There is also a sub-plot with a young girl who has a burn scar on half her face and wishes to be found attractive.

The new face is then meant to take over his personality, but to be honest, it doesn't actually seem to. They keep talking about whether he is 'the face or the man' but their personalities aren't distinct enough to distinguish them. As I said before the man was horrible before he got his face and he was horrible after, he was just never happy.

The film had interesting stylistic techniques, which on first watch made it quite bizarre but on reflection can be seen as a positive if that is what you like to see in a film. The oddness of the plot is reflected in the oddness of how the film is made but two odds just make a film more nonsensical rather than interesting.

I can't say that I enjoyed the film because I am more interested in plot and character than technique but I can understand how someone else would enjoy this.

Gravity (2013) - Film directed by Alfonso Cuarón

* * * *

A beautiful and interestingly shot film, however it has one major flaw in my opinion which I find odd that more critics have not picked up on. Be aware that there might be spoilers although I'm going to try to avoid them as much as possible.

Sandra Bullock was surprisingly good, I normally am not a fan, but she carried the film well. There was a token Indian character and I should have realised that the film was going to become very Hollywood cliché after this token character was killed off in the first 20 minutes. Clooney is also good but he plays himself, a likeable and charming character. There is an appearance of his character which made me angry because he basically saved Bullock's character and it was frustrating.

The film was stunningly beautiful, not as good as my favourite Life of Pi, but still incredibly well done. From the stars to the earth I was staring at the beauty of the background and not really aware that it was CGI. The main difference between Life of Pi CGI and Gravity that I noticed was when the two main characters were in water. In Pi, when he fell in during the storm, the water was calming and beautiful. In contrast when water was use in Gravity (desperately trying to not give anything too much away) it was incredibly sinister and threatening.

The friend that I was with said that the plot seemed to be a secondary thought, and I completely agree. I even wonder if they had a different ending and then some idiot came along and asked them to change it. The ending was too Hollywood. 70% of the film was brilliant and innovative but then in the last 30 minutes everything suddenly fit into place and became a typical Hollywood. I was disappointed by the ending and how it came about and I think it seriously affected the film.

It is well worth a watch and worth the attention it has got because it is good and beautiful. It has flaws which mean that I don't think it should be as highly praised as it is but I suppose Hollywood films are the most successful because that is what people want.

The Way Way Back (2013) - Film written by Jim Rash and Nat Faxon

* *

A film for fans of Perks of Being a Wallflower, unfortunately I am not one of those people.It's slow and despite the great cast it's not enjoyable. There are some funny moments and Jim Rash is on good form as normal but it's not worth watching the film for the tiny amount of good in it.

Steve Carell plays a difficult character to his normal self and it's nice to see him acting as someone other than a goofy/nice guy. The rest of the cast, despite being good, all play fairly typical characters for them and it's quite boring. 

I'm sick of seeing films/reading books that like to present the idea that if you're a little bit awkward or introverted all you need to do is find some friends and that'll fix you. The passiveness of the main character is excruciating; he seems so unhappy (which is how many people who are introverted are portrayed and that's not how we are) but he does nothing to change his life. Instead people talk to him, engage him. It's this 'kindness of strangers' rubbish, waiting for a prince or a friend to save you. Films should teach you how to save yourself, not wait for others to do it for you.

Some people may like this film but it's just another in a cannon of films that I hate. I would just like to see a film with someone who is happy being alone.

Love Affair (1939) - A film directed by Leo McCarey

* * *

This is the first in a cannon of films, two remakes and several films clearly influenced by it. The story follows two people who meet briefly  and fall in love so arrange to meet a short time in the future on New York's Empire State Building. Obviously the path to love, or the Empire State Building, does not run smooth and events transpire.

Because it was the original I cannot say that it is an overused plot, but because I've seen some of the later movies it seems to be. It's quite an annoying story because it's typical Hollywood: the couple fall in love in a couple of days, adultery is simply brushed over because this is true love and dramatic events happen within which the characters act irrationally. You're meant to be able to put yourself into a rom-com situation but this dispelled belief too much to be taken too seriously.

The characters were quite good, which is surprising for a rom-com. The male lead was French and quite charming, although he had the normal amount of sexism for that era. The female lead was a fairly rounded character and quite likeable. Often, because you are meant to project yourself into the film, the female character can become annoying because she is seen as a threat, but this one was pretty good. Some things she did made no sense, there was a secret she kept for no reason, but often they were to advance the plot rather than because she was a 'silly woman'.

The film was good but very typically a classic Hollywood film, it didn't feel timeless and that probably explains why so many people felt as though it should/could be remade. There were good and bad moments but on the whole it was just an ok film with a overly simplistic idea of love.

Crazed Fruit (1956) - Japanese film

* *

I would recommend this film because it was extremely entertaining but for the wrong reasons. It is about two brothers who fall in love with the same (married) woman. The woman loves the younger, inexperienced brother but sleeps with the older, experienced one. This relationship drives the brothers mad and desperate.

This film attempts to be dramatic but it just isn't at all. It's silly. There are moments when you literally just want to laugh because they are so awkwardly done or drawn out too long. Maybe drama and suspense is a learned thing so, from a modern western perspective, this style seems odd but to the audiences of the time it worked. You can see on the poster how awkward one of the main characters is and I think that this is down to bad acting, rather than the character.

The story is quite silly. The boys are annoying because it is the typical testosterone, Cain and Abel type stuff which is quite boring. The main female character is also bizarre because she seems to do so many things without motivation. She is 'enticed' by the bad-boy older brother who sees to repeatedly rape her. She is married to an older American man and this relationship is never explained. She also likes the naivety of the younger brother and yet also likes the maturity of the older brother, so she just likes anything.

Normally Japanese films are at least well filmed, they're interesting and beautiful. This film was even awkwardly filmed. There were really odd close shots of some of the characters when they were talking, and not during key scenes or anything, just randomly. There also wasn't a lot of the landscape except the sea, because a lot of things happened within houses or bars. It just seems pointless to make a rubbish film and not even make it pretty.

Over-all it was entertaining and could be watched with a few friends to laugh at, but I would suggest a different film unless you really want to try something different. It is just too different from what we are used to from Western films and from what I would expect from a Japanese one.

Ernest and Celestine (2012) - French animated film

* * * *

Really sweet film about a mouse and bear who live in a world where mice live in the gutters below the bear filled streets. The mice only venture up to the world above to gather teeth to replace their lost ones. Ernest, the bear, befriends Celestine, the mouse, and they both do each other several favours involving food or teeth and end up each being ousted from their worlds and having to live life together in hiding.

Firstly it is beautifully animated. I think it's done in water-colours which are amazing and, although it means that the animation was not as detailed as we are used to now it looks good enough to over-look the slight lack of mise-en-scene. Despite the minimal backgrounds and simplistic look of the characters they all move around exceedingly well and they do not appear to be hindered by the fact they are drawn.

The story is really familiar, it reminds me of BFG or Up, and more than being a familiar plot is a very common one amongst children films so it's double the cliché. Despite this it doesn't really suffer hugely because there are some original touches which distinguish it a lot from other versions of this tale. It's just a shame that when the film industry seems to be constantly making remakes or sequels that every corner of the industry is running out of ideas and just recycling the old-faithfuls.

It's a very enjoyable film and great for adults or children. There are light-hearted/funny moments but it isn't happy all the way through so it doesn't become boring. The ending, not to give anything away, is actually quite dramatic and scary but really interesting and well animated. Definitely worth a watch if you are an animation fan.

Mr Smith goes to Washington (1939) - Film directed by Frank Capra, staring James Stewart.

* * * *

An interesting political comedy/drama which deals with corruption within the US senate. Stewart plays a naive, small-town man who is brought into the senate by powerful men who believed they could control him for their corrupt gains. Obviously Stewart's character isn't as manipulatable as they believed and everything some differences of opinions ensue ending in a climatic filibuster. 

For a film that has such a dark view of the US government there are a lot of comical moments and characters, which is pleasant surprise. There were genuinely funny moments that caused laughter but also the characters weren't just there for gags and were quite endearing. Stewart's in particular was delightfully awkward and relatable because he was a little fish in the ocean. There were a diversity of  characters, women and men (although considerably more men) and although it did seem to pit everyone against each other a lot there were also nice relationships formed between characters.

A David vs Goliath plot which is quite a familiar trope in Hollywood but in the 1930s this was quite a controversial film. As a Brit I saw the film as incredibly patriotic towards America, because the hero seemed to stand for everything America likes to project to the world, however at the time there was a lot of back-lash because they showed the senate as a corrupt place. For a modern audience it is an almost daily that we are reminded of the corruption of government and big-business but it is interesting to watch this film and remember that it wasn't simply following normal customs of the day.

Despite the film being made over 70 years ago it doesn't really feel dated. Stewart gives a performance that is matchable to today's style of acting rather than the stiffer style I'm used to seeing in older films. Modern audiences probably watch this and take away very different messages from the film than they did 70 years ago but it is still thoroughly enjoyable. Political dramas are difficult to manage and make interesting but the use of comedy was well worked in and made this a really good film.

Pacific Rim (2013) - Film directed by Guillermo del Toro

* * * * *

Amazing. I was literally sitting in the cinema taking moments every few minutes to think 'This is amazing!'. The CGI is flawless and although many may think that robots vs aliens would be stale it isn't because both are uniquely created; I've never seen robots or aliens created the ways these were. The plot is pretty good and on the way back my friend and I couldn't find the usual plot holes you get in films like this. 


The aliens were awesome because they were really interestingly designed. They weren't typical looking aliens but they also weren't simply dinosaurs, they had their own essence. It was also good how they were all unique to each other because it made the fighting sequences much more interesting because you never really knew what the people were up against. 

The robots are also awesome. They're less original because I'm pretty sure I've seen something somewhere where people are connected mentally and have to work together but it ties in nicely with the story. The sheer scale of the robots is really interesting though and I think anyone watching the film would want to have a go in one. 

The characters are good because you genuinely care about their different stories (which are all very different). Each character has one other who they have a strong bond with, be it parental or love or friendship, and so you want to see them both ride through the adventures together. The main character's acting I sometimes found slightly questionable but it didn't detract from the rest of the film and most of the cast was so strong that the guy probably just looked poor in comparison.

I could go on and on about the film because it was really good. I couldn't recommend to anyone watching it online because part of what makes it good is how it looks. Watch it in a cinema if possible or wait for DVD but watch it and love it!

The Great British Bake-Off (2010-2013)

* * * * *

I have watched this programme from the beginning and I have loved this programme from the beginning. There is much tension in creating the perfect cakes, bakes and oh so many mistakes! It's funny and light-hearted but you can also see how clearly people care about what they are doing and that is nice to see because often shows like this seem to be for people who want fame or money and these contestants just want to bake.

The basic format of the show is good because in every episode there are three challenges so we get to see an array of deliciousness. There is also a historical portion when a baked good's origins is explained and that is actually often fairly interesting (though unnecessary). The challenges also get more and more difficult so anyone believes they could be a contestant at the start and slowly begin to realise that baking is much harder than just making Victoria sponges.

There are two hosts and two judges. The judges are nice but I think they do take it a little too seriously. It's quite good because they are the straight people in the brilliance that is the Bake-Off, so while everything else is crumbling around them they remain obstinately serious. Mel and Sue, the hosts, make a complete mockery of the show in the best way. They make puns and tell awful jokes, they help people with their bakes but also help to destroy some people's work accidentally. The four as a group work well to balance each other out.

Possibly the strongest aspect of the Bake-Off is the integrity of the contestants. TV programmes like Come Dine With Me have slowly descended into a freak show where eccentric people go to display their eccentricities. Bake-Off doesn't do that, instead they get completely normal people who have too much time on their hands to bake ridiculously wonderful things. The contestants all seem to genuinely like each other and enjoy the competition. Although there are a few tears occasionally it is generally due to stress than anything else.

It is one of the best TV shows ever. It's funny, dramatic, riveting, slightly educational and either inspires you to make or eat more cake. It's best to watch it in a group and then you can discuss the bakes and compare your opinions. But even if you are watching it alone it's just amazing and I hope it never ends.

Drums Along the Mohawk (1939) - Film directed by John Ford

* * 1/2

I personally found this film one of those special ones that was a good because it was so bad. It was racist, sexists, inaccurate and repetitive. It is based on the American frontier where some good white Christians are just trying to have a peaceful life when the evil Native Americans come to burn their houses without just cause! (Literally at one point the characters discuss why the Native Americans are attacking them and do not know what they have done wrong to deserve it.)

The blatant racism in the film is actually excusable because it's probably a fair depiction of the time, however the film should have proved the characters' perceptions wrong rather than validating them with seemingly unprovoked violent attacks. It's based on an important time in American history, when they got their independence from Britain, and so it is understandable that they strongly promote American values within the film but it is just too potent for modern audiences.

There was one really interesting character, played by Edna May Oliver, who was an empowered widow. She was very likeable, funny but also strong willed. She's almost the definition of a good 'strong female character' because she is her own person and happy with that. Most of the other women in the film are rather flimsy. The main star faints too often and only seems to find strength when she is looking for her husband, which demonstrates a dependence on men as a source for strength. Most war films depict women badly because the men go off to fight and the women wait at home but this one did a particularly bad job because the women literally sat by the window at home rather than doing anything productive.

There are some funny moments in the film, although the funniest are unintentionally so, and humour can make any film slightly more endearing. Watching a remastered version makes the film appear so much more beautiful (there is a purple sky at one point which I particularly liked) however this is not a film to watch online because it's cinematography was probably the main thing going for it.
It's a very American film depicting very archaic American ideas and to most modern audiences that can cause offence. It's entertaining because it seems so unaware of how bad it is but you find yourself laughing at the film, not with it.

Tokyo Story (1953) - Film directed by Yasujirô Ozu

* * *

Considered one of the greatest films made by one of the greatest directors, however I didn't really understand why. Watching this film slowly lulled me to sleep but I was determined to stay awake hoping that there would be a point which would make me realise why people love it so much. The plot follows an elderly couple as they visit Tokyo and their grown-up children only to realise that their children have grown up and left them behind.

The plot is actually quite sweet because it is very relatable to many people, there is family and love and I think depending on the age that you watch it will change your perception. If you are a parent it would be very different than watching it as a child/teenager but also being married/in a long term relationship would also alter your view of the message. Personally I took the message to be one of treasuring your parents and those you love in life while they are alive. 

The film, I think, is meant to be shot carefully and with Ozu's particular style however I found the style stilted and awkward. He used angles that were interesting but seemingly pointless other than to add dimension to a fairly dimensionless piece. The dialogue was repetitive and I'm sure it had some hidden meanings but I did not notice them and therefore they were hidden too well and became redundant. 

Overall I think that this film had a nice plot but it was a plot for a short film, not a film that stretched over 2 hours. The director's style didn't interest me and the film wasn't interesting looking enough for the hype that I had heard about how good the cinematography/camera work is. Possibly with explanations hidden depths can be revealed to improve the film but on first viewing it just seemed quite slow and pointless.

The Graham Norton Show (2007 - ) - Chat show created for the BBC

* * * * *

This is the only chat show I watch because it is the only one, from the British and American ones that I have watched, that seem to be more about the guests than the hosts. A lot of times the host asks a loaded question to the guest and then waits for a short answer before delivering a punchline, the best thing about Graham Norton is he has comedians who make some of the jokes for him and relaxes the guests so that they can also be humorous. The dynamic of having huge Hollywood celebrities with British comedians and often musicians is amazing because often the Americans have no idea what is going on.

It's difficult to review a show that is so changeable because a lot of the time it depends on the guests and how interested in them you are. Generally the guests are really good, to be honest I prefer the lesser known acts rather than the big stars because the bigger ones can sometimes take themselves too seriously. The atmosphere is so relaxed because all the guests are close together and there isn't a table between them and the host. The dynamic can make for some really awkward situations but also some lovely crossing of different people.

Some of the additional elements of the Graham Norton Show are the best and the worst. I personally dislike his monologue at the beginning, but pretty much all the TV hosts do them and they're rarely interesting. The musical acts can also be hit or miss because sometimes they're really good (Will Smith comes to mind) and other times they're just filler. The best element of the show is the Red Chair which flips people over who don't tell an interesting enough story. This is enjoyable for the guests and audience and can produce some really hilarious stories.

In summation the show is really good because it has a little bit of everything. The guests are almost always good and the host brings out the best in them. I prefer it to the other British shows such as Jonathan Ross or Alan Carr so if I had to recommend a British chat show it would be this one.

Scarface (1932) - Film directed by Howard Hawks

* * * 1/2

Having never seen the more famous Al Pacino version I went into this film with an open mind and little knowledge other than it is a film about a gangster with a scar on his face. This film follows a gangster's, Tony, rise with the help of brute force and gun power through the ranks of a mob gang in New York.

The acting was quite awful. The scene where our protagonist is introduced is awfully directed, written and acted. Everything is stilted and seems awkward. I think this style of acting is somewhat common in the time because realism was less important 80 years ago because the cinema was about escapism. It's difficult to take the dramatic events that happen too seriously when you don't believe anything is happening because the acting isn't good enough.

The characters are interesting, there is a variety of men and women and that is always interesting because it makes a film ore psychologically engaging. There was a despairing mother, chastised sister and a shrewd gangster girlfriend. The three women either cope and adapt to what the men in their lives do or flounder and suffer. It is an interesting dynamic. The men, on the other hand, show a variety of male gangsters because there are calm characters and excitable ones. It's rare to see a variety of men and even rarer to get multiple differing female characters although I still don't think it will pass the Bechdel test.

It's a typical old-style gangster film which is quite good. The acting is disastrous but the basic plot and characters are quite interesting. Not being able to compare it to the 80s version I do not know any differences and possibly in comparison this version is poorer but I think this one is worth a try.

Stray Dog (1949) - Japanese film directed and written by Akira Kurosawa

* *

This is one of the first Japanese films that I've seen that isn't an animation and I can't say that I was impressed. I think that its age also works against it because I find older films slower and have become accustomed to the fast paced style of most modern films. The film follows a police officer who gets his gun stolen and then goes on a desperate search throughout Tokyo to try to find it.

The film was two hours long and my seminar tutor said that the director purposely made every scene too long but it felt pointless. When I was watching the film I could pick out so many scenes that could be shortened or cut completely. I understand that sometimes people make certain decisions for artistic purposes but I think that it is a bad thing to make a film that the audience is waiting to end and mentally cutting moments out of it.

The merits of the film are that it is quite interesting and different compared to a lot of other films that I've seen but I do not know how different it is from a typical Japanese film of that era. Because of this I cannot say whether or not it was at least innovative. My lack of knowledge of the genre and countries cinema hinders my appreciation of the film.

I really couldn't recommend this film to anyone unless they were the type of person who likes to watch films for other reasons than plot, etc. it's an academics type of film which are the types I don't like but I am well aware that plenty of people do.

Castle (2009 - ) - TV series starring Nathan Fillion

* * * * 1/2

After Criminal Minds this is the second American crime series I have watched avidly however they are very different shows. Castle is comedic, as anyone who knows Nathan Fillion's acting would have been able to guess, and Castle deals with more than the police cases. Castle is a crime novel writer who tails a police officer, Beckett, as she inspires a new character for him.

First and foremost I think that the strength of Castle lies in the characters. In the first 3 series that I've seen there are 3 women and 3 male who are central. The 3 women are great because they vary immensely and are all friends, which is a rarity in a lot of police TV series. You have a batty mother, sensible daughter and then a typical strong female character who actually has more layers the longer you watch the show. The male characters are Castle, who is of course charming and funny, and then the other two become more prominent through the seasons.

The crime elements are interesting because they cover a large range of victims, attackers and motives. Sometimes the situation is quite tame and you only see a little bit of blood, whereas other times I find some things quite disturbing. The writers also deal with love ties, family issues and teenager relationships. The combination of a lot of topics portrayed in the show mean that there is something for everyone.

It's very funny with characters that you care about and want to see their relationships development. I can't really imagine someone not liking this because there is crime, drama and comedy so you'll always find something worth watching for in every episode.

Prisoners (2013) - Film directed by Denis Villeneuve

* * * 1/2

Not my normal type of film, I'm not overly interested in films that show the worst of humanity in a terrifyingly realistic way but if you are this is the film for you. It's the only film that I can honestly say haunted me a little bit when I left the cinema. It's difficult to watch because it deals with issues of child abuse, torture, loss of a child, and everything in between but if you stick with the film it is very good but not one to watch over and over again.

Firstly I would like to talk about the cast because this is probably a huge selling point as it stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Hugh Jackman but there are also brilliant actors such as Viola Davis and Paul Dano. The cast is immensely talented and despite the big names, which I find often means that they are going for famous rather than good actors, the acting is a strong point. I am interested to see if people get nominated for Oscars after this film because it is quite early in the season. I doubt anyone will win but there will be mentions of them.

I said that there was child abuse and torture but actual the director handled this very delicately. You do not see much actually happening but, especially for the torture, you can see the results and often there are sound effects. If you do not like gore or difficult topics then the film might be quite harrowing but if you're just a bit squeamish then you don't need to worry too much about lots of awful things being shown. 

The plot was fairly standard, a police officer works very hard to uncover two kidnapped girls while the families of the girls go into a negative spiral. There was a message about a war against God, because taking children away from their parents makes them lose their faith. I disliked this religious element and thought that the events did not need an explanation, in fact they would have been scarier if there was none because then it would seem as though anyone could have committed them. A wonderful element was the fact that you really weren't sure who was the culprit of the kidnap although by the end I thought I had worked it out I was never sure. 

In summation this is a really good film and I would recommend people who aren't overly sensitive to watch it but it isn't a lasting film because I can't imagine anyone wanting to watch it many times.

Farm Story (also Bakery Story and Fashion Story) - App created by TeamLavaGames

* * * *

The most addictive game ever. Just like Farmville on Facebook this is another basic farm set out where you have to plant different plants and they grow over a period of a few hours then you repeat the process.

Unlike Farmville as you progress through the levels the actual farming doesn't get easier, I remember that on Farmville you could get machines that would harvest lots of crops at once, this does not happen. Instead you get a larger variety of foods, animals or decorative items. This means that the game isn't as good as Farmville because the lazy ones among us (me being one) will get annoyed with having to press on hundreds of squares of land several times to harvest, plough and plant.

The true evil genius behind this game is the use of offering extras. You can get gems or coins if you play some of their other (free) games and as you progress through them. Because of this tactic I now have 3 of their games and am constantly checking them with no valid reason.

I would recommend these apps to anyone who likes to waste their lives on their phones. They use clever tactics to pull you into their apps and everything so far has been free so I don't begrudge them clever marketing. They have a large variety, Farm Story was just the first that I came across and therefore the one I know the best, because of this a lot of people can have at least one of the apps and enjoy it while others can have a collection of them.

Meet the Robinsons (2007) - Film directed by Stephen J. Anderson

* * *

A very light and fluffy animation which is lovely because now-a-days everything is becoming grittier however this is slightly too sweet for anyone over the age of about 5. Lewis is an orphan inventor who is looking for his real family but when a mysterious time-traveller called Wilbur adventures happens.

It is very heart-warming because Lewis finds what he is looking for in an unexpected way. I always welcome a happy ending and this one definitely fits the bill. To juxtapose a happy ending however it is fairly necessary for there to be periods of unhappiness and there wasn't really any of that. Moments of sadness, such as a failed adoption interview, were punctuated with humour, in one case a malfunctioning peanut butter and jam sandwich filling machine. Taking a leaf out of Pixar's book the creators could have brought the film into much darker territory and still make it happy in the end.

There is a quirky cast of characters as with essentially every animated film or comedy ever. Most are fairly boring despite their eccentricity and there are far too many so the audience cannot focus on someone long enough to really care about them. My personal favourite characters were Goob, who is Lewis's fellow orphan room-mate, and a dinosaur who acts very much like a dog.

The film is good and definitely made for children. It is colourful and loud and showy and doesn't have a huge amount of substance other than the strong concept of family love. I wouldn't recommend it over other films but if someone wanted to watch it I wouldn't say that they shouldn't either.

A Midsummer Night's Dream (2013) - Play by William Shakespeare performed at the Noel Coward Theatre

* * * * 1/2

A stunning take on the Shakespearean comedy which allows a modern audience to easily grasp the language and enjoy the story fully. The setting had been modernised slightly, with hippy fairies and some cast members suited, this made the characters more recognisable than corseted and tight-wearing performers. The play is a disaster for love with four people all in love with the wrong person, with a little help from mischievous magic, and several bumbling actors who are terrorised by more fairy magic.

The cast were magnificent. David Walliams played Bottom and was ridiculously funny but also incredibly adept with the Shakespearean language because every line of his was completely understandable either through a well considered gesture or clever inclination. Sheridan Smith played Titania and she was amazing as a free-love hippy fairy queen. The supporting cast, less well known because they are not TV stars, were also very good, not a single person stuck out as a weak link. Shakespearean acting and London obviously go hand-in-hand and this show and cast did not disappoint.

The costumes and set design were really creative and suited the show. A lot of members in the audience would be very pleased because there are an awful lot of male torsos on show as well as women with cleavage out. Aside from the lack of clothing, the clothing that was there enhanced the characters. Titania had an eye-catching dress to set her apart from the ramshackle fairies, while the actors were dressed in shirts and waistcoats to promote a sense of dignity among them. The set was quite gothic and beautiful and caught my attention instantly. It was minimal and there was only one change but the space was decorated and used well.

The tiniest of gripes that I have with the production is the random moments of modern music and dance routines. I do not mind modern touches in old plays but these seemed quite forced and instead of moving along the plot were used as time fillers or distractions while cast members were changing. Obviously I understand the necessity for moments like these but I found them slightly too numerous and I think a better was of filling time could have been found.

Overall it was spectacular and strong in all areas. The crowd were laughing and applauding throughout and it was a great interpretation of Shakespeare. Not only did they modernise the setting but they brought the acting into the 21st century and made everything completely compatible with modern characters and ideas.

Pitch Perfect (2012) - Film directed by Jason Moore

* * 

After the Glee craze it was only a matter of time before glee club inspired films would start cropping up. The problem with Glee and with this film is that often the comedy is based off of bizarre characters and the audience often ends up laughing at them.The film follows a generic bored-by-the-world character who is coerced into joining a dysfunctional glee club and 'hilarity' ensues. 

One of the most important things about anything with music is the music and unfortunately only some of the songs are good. They had an odd mixture of music of the moment songs, which were the type of songs that will be forgotten in a few years so it makes the film seem forgettable too, and classic songs which are not very popular even now. Surprisingly the stand-out song is The Cup Song which was the original one.

The humour was limited despite the cast which was actually very promising. They went for very easy laughs, even Rebel Wilson which was disappointing. The cast of kooky characters with one normal person is such an overdone method of creating comedy that it wasn't interesting. It's annoying that a lot of people are promoting these heavily female dominated films as being just like male dominated comedies when they could actually  be cleverer and funnier by being different. 

An disappointing film, especially after it being promoted so highly by people on tumblr. It was too cliqued and over the top and seemed to have very little effort put into it.

The Fault in Our Stars (2012) - Book by John Green

* * * *

After hearing so much about this book I have finally managed to read it. I wasn't expecting it to be as good as everyone has been saying because, although I love the Vlogbrothers channel, I am not a fan of John Green's writing. I was very pleasantly surprised because not only was the book enjoyable but I was quickly drawn in and had a strong desire to keep reading even at 3am. In case you have only just acquired the internet, it is a story about a young girl, Hazel Grace, who is dying from cancer and her encounter with the metaphor loving Augustus Walters.

The story is very hard-hitting because it is about such a terrible topic and anyone would well-up during reading. Sadly I was not overly interesting in Augustus, I dislike pretension and he was quite self-admittedly a pretentious character. The moments that affected me the most were the points where the parents were speaking to Hazel and dealing with losing their daughter. These sections were written very well, possibly because John is a father, and made me feel very emotional. The reader can sympathise with all those affected by the cancer, those physically suffering and the others who are close to them.

The characters were good. Teenage girls written by men are normally awful but Hazel Grace was quite normal, believable and likeable. The adults were quite perfect and very parent-like, familiar to all who were reading. The friends, however, were slightly mixed. Isaac, a fellow cancer patient was funny and likeable whereas Kaitlyn, a school friend of Hazel's, is quite clichéd as an over-dramatic secondary friend.

After finishing the book didn't resonate with me the way it has seemed to with so many other people but it really isn't the genre that I enjoy. It was well written and enjoyable and I hope that the film does it justice. I'm glad that John Green has written a book that I enjoy because I feel like a better Nerd Fighter but I worry that the other Nerd Fighters promoting it so strongly has diminished my enjoyment of the book because nothing was a surprise.

Phineas and Ferb (2007 - ) - TV series on the Disney Channel

* * * *

I was introduced to this series by a friend who knows that I also like programmes such as Adventure Time. I've only watched a few episodes but I adore the show. Phineas and Ferb are step brothers and best friends who are incredibly adept at and building anything from an observatory to giant spinning tops. This is another of the TV programmes for children that has also been adopted by many young adults because of its humour but also the effort that has been put into it.

Firstly the characters are wonderful. They are mostly friends or family and despite the sister having a vendetta against her brothers, who always avoid any trouble, all the characters work together and love each other. Ferb doesn't talk a lot, in fact in several episodes he has no lines at all, but everyone just accepts this in him and Phineas treats him with such respect. It is difficult to explain fully because they are cartoon characters but they all work so well together and I like anything where there is no major conflict.

Having only watched a few of the episodes I was worried that it would be a repetitive but it isn't. They involve various characters, locations and storylines. There is a basic formula that it adheres to but after watching a few episodes it doesn't stagnate but rather the viewer becomes more aware of inside jokes. There is also a lot of referential humour, for instance the latest episode I watched was about a Lake Nose Monster and there were a few Citizen Kane references which shows that the programme isn't entirely created for children.

The very minor problem that I have with the programme is Perry the Platypus. He is Phineas and Ferb's pet who is also an agent that stops Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz 'evil' plans. I find Perry slightly obsolete as a character because he doesn't do a lot and instead Dr. Doofenshmirtz is there for comedy and Perry's presence is just for him to have someone to talk to and be funny with.

Overall the programme is really good and I suppose it inspires children to do a little more with their friends and family, even if it's not inventing giant ant farms and enlargement rays. It's enjoyable for a range of ages and I have heard parents in their 40s saying that they actually enjoy watching it with their children which is really important. I would recommend it to anyone who likes Adventure Time, Spongebob Squarepants, etc.

Amadeus (1984) - Film directed by Milo Forman

* * *

A funny period film about Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and his rival Antonio Salieri. I have a major problem with films of this kind because I have no idea how to separate the fact from the fiction. I don't know if the people were real, the circumstances, the events, the story. I don't know and that is irksome because in the back of my mind a lot of the stuff that happens in the film will be associated with Mozart and a lot of it may have nothing to do with him.

I knew nothing about this film because I had never heard of it before and the day I watched it it came highly recommended. It very quickly turned into a humorous look at an interesting man in an interesting time period. The humour is light and it doesn't take over the film but adds to the story and the characters who are often very over-the-top.

There is a lot of music, obviously, in this film and if you are a fan of Mozart or classical music then this will be very good. It seems a lot like musicals or the like which take moments out of the film to play music to the audience. While this is nice, because you hear some of Mozart's work, it makes the film ridiculously long. Horribly long. By the end I was bored and this is not the way anything should end (always leave them wanting more). I don't think that the musical sequences should be cut out but I think there is a lot of superfluous footage that could just go away and make the whole film more manageable and enjoyable to watch.

If you love the opulence and style of the late 18th century then you will enjoy looking at the film and the odd touches of humour are much appreciated. There are quite major flaws in the film which can be so easily rectified and that is frustrating. If you can watch a biographical film and not constantly question the accuracy then maybe you will enjoy the film more than I did.

Big Fish (2003) - Film directed by Tim Burton

* * * * 1/2

This film is basically unrecognisable as a Tim Burton film because it doesn't have the usual blue filter and the characters aren't oddly gothic and because of this it has been called the Tim Burton film for people who don't like Tim Burton. I don't think that this is justified because there are so many of his normal traits in Big Fish. The quirky characters, humour, magical realism and the presence of Helena Bonham Carter all feature in this and are reminiscent of others Burton films. The plot is about an old man who is dying remembering his youth and his discovery of the world and himself through fairly magical circumstances.

There are two stories running at once, one about a dying father reconnecting with his son and then the father's life story. The first arch is slightly boring although crucial to the overall message of the film. As someone who likes fantasy real life appears very mundane and therefore these bits just seem slow and ordinary but that is how they are meant to be because the father's life and imagination is supposed to be the interesting part of this film.

The father's life is fascinating and enjoyable, he is played by two great actors, Ewan McGregor as young and Albert Finney as old. Juxtaposed against the reality of the other story means that the past world appears much brighter and more interesting. The magical moments that occur and help him in his life are carefully chosen and presented in a way that often seems to suggest they could be real. Some things are obviously exaggeration, such as a werewolf and a witch, but then others could be true, such as a hidden town and giant.

The film is difficult to summarise because it is weird and wonderful but also because it has some undefinable qualities. Sometimes you watch a film and you just like it with no definitive reasons but just a certainty that it's good. It is a well made film with a great cast, interesting story and a perfect touch of fantasy to satisfy those, like me, who need it but not overwhelm the people who prefer people driven stories. It is a Burton film for anyone who likes films.

District 9 (2009) - Film directed by Neill Blomkamp

* * * * *

An amazing sci-fi film that offers a much ore interesting look at alien invasion and how humans would interact with them. The story is rife with metaphors and symbolism about how humans treat/have treated each other and this becomes more poignant because it is set in South Africa home of apartheid. The plot follows a bumbling Wikus Van De Merwe (played by the exceptional Sharlto Copley) during a time when the government is trying to relocate the aliens.

This is a fairly unique film because it doesn't focus on invading aliens but rather how they would be treated in earth, and it assumes that they wouldn't be treated very well. Along with the ridiculously good CGI aliens and the documentary style of filming the entire movie is incredibly believable. It is a bleak look at humanity and how we treat those who we consider an 'other'.

I've mentioned the CGI aliens and they are a triumph. They look incredibly realistic and are very detailed creatures. There are a couple of aliens who we see more closely and who interact with Wikus and these are given personality, enough personality to make the audience feel for the aliens and even like them. The minor problem is that the aliens are given their own language, which is subtitled, but they supposedly understand English and the people understand the alien language but neither speak the other's language at any time.

The film is not a happy one, it starts as if it were possibly going to be a comedy because Wikus foolish, however as the film progresses it darkens significantly. There is a fair amount of gruesome moments which can make you squirm and action moments that are quite brilliant, especially because the aliens have their own technology which means there are interesting guns and machines.It has everything you could really want from a sci-fi film.

District 9 combines brilliant CGI and acting with an innovative and thought-provoking narrative to produce an wonderful film. You care about the characters and because of this the ending is quite bitter sweet. I haven't seen Elysium, which has one of the District 9 writers and the same director, but I have high hopes for what this man can achieve. 

Pan's Labyrinth (2006) - Spanish film directed by Guillermo del Toro

* * * *

This is often thought of as a horror film by those who haven't seen it, possibly because of the spooky poster and terrifying creature creations, however it is actually just quite sinister and creepy, the only horrific things are the bloody violent sequences. The film takes place in fascist Spain on a house that is owned by a brutal captain of the Spanish army. After her pregnant and ailing mother marries the captain a fanciful girl moves to this place and discovers magic within the Labyrinth. 

The film is marvellous for anyone who was the type of child who lived in stories and dreamed of magic and fairies. The darkest and most dangerous moments in the film are all to do with humans and reality, even though some of the magical creatures appear dangerous at first. The magic used is very creative because there is a mixture of classic, such as fairies or mandrake root, but there are also new ideas, such as the Pale Man. A balance between known and unknown magic is really useful because sometimes a magical realm can become overwhelming if everything has been created just for this one story. 

The brutality in the film is quite shocking. A lot of violence is shown and countless pints of blood and this can be really off-putting to a lot of viewers. Personally I am not overly squeamish and this made me squirm a fair amount. The violence is justified, however, because it is (apparently) based on real events that occurred during Spain's fascist period. Gore for shock is not always needed in a film, just like some sex scenes, however gore that proves a point, develops a character and marks a period in history is effective and it is the latter type of gore that you find in Pan's Labyrinth.

The film can be confusing because there are a few plots running at once. The girl's magical quest to help her mother through a difficult pregnancy and become a princess of another world, and the captain's fascist vendetta against the opposition. The two topics are obviously distinct and there is little crossover between the two, however sometimes you really get into one of them and then everything switches suddenly and you have to try to remember at which point the other storyline was at. It's not a huge problem but it means that you have to stay fairly alert while watching this film.

Pan's Labyrinth is (I think) the only Spanish film that I have seen and if it is a marker for what wonders Spanish cinema can produce then I will definitely be looking into watching more. A beautifully twisted fairytale for the adult dreamers but also a poignant look at a terrible time in Spanish history.

Blackout (2013) - Film made for Channel 4

* * * *

This film was advertised as a type of documentary about how Britain would react to a week long blackout. Throughout the film there were facts displayed intermittently as inter-titles but other than that it comes across as a drama film. The premise of Blackout is that it looks like real footage caught on phones or video cameras, although is obviously acted and scripted, about several people and how the blackout affects them.

My favourite thing about this film was its guerilla style because it is very common nowadays to see such filming especially during interesting events like an extended blackout. The acting was good enough that you believed that they could be real people although some of the situations seemed slightly excessive, for instance one man and his wife kept arguing about different types of water which is a minor problem at any time.

A majority of the things that happen away from the main characters, such as rioting and thievery, are very realistic and can easily be imagined happening during a troubled time. The film makers obviously used footage from the London Riots in 2011 and also used the Prime Minster's words but kept them vague to make real footage appear to comply with this situation. I thought that this was clever and a good use of archives, rather than hiring an actor to play a Prime Minister or break the budget on sets that need to be destroyed.

The story was quite harrowing because a few of the people really struggle, mostly caused by other people being inconsiderate and selfish. This is the disturbing thing about the film because it reminds you that in when things go wrong there are thousands willing to take advantage. Personally I felt as though the message about how important the Nation Grid is to Britain was lost in a more political message about interpersonal relations within London and the fact that there can be a lack of decency. Some stories show people banding together to help each other while others show destruction caused by antisocial behaviour.

Overall I thought it was very interesting and compellingly put together. It certainly makes you appreciate the fact that we have electricity, running water, etc. and aware of how quickly society can crumble without the luxuries we have become so used to. Obviously some points were over-dramatised but it doesn't detract from the film as a whole.