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.