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.