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.