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.