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.
Reviewing films and TV (sometimes other things) while doing a degree in Film and Literature. Find me elsewhere on Twitter: @SkruffReviews Blogspot: http://skruffreviews.blogspot.co.uk/ Wordpress: http://skruffreviews.wordpress.com/
Tuesday, 26 November 2013
Wednesday, 20 November 2013
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.
* * * *
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.
Thursday, 14 November 2013
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.
* *
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.
Friday, 8 November 2013
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.
* * * *
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.
Monday, 4 November 2013
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.
* *
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.
Wednesday, 30 October 2013
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.
* * *
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.
Monday, 28 October 2013
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.
* *
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)


