Alternative Cinemas.....

I'm always interested by cinemas that are in unusual or exciting settings, rather than your standard multi-plex. Of course there are people like Secret Cinema who put on films in weird places, usually relevant to the film, but there are a lot of permanent cinemas that are in unusual buildings or have something a bit different about them. For example the Filmhuis Cavia in the Netherlands is above a fitness centre in a quiet neighbourhood. This gives it something kind of exclusive about it, as people would most likely find out about it through word of mouth. The Colosseum Kino in Oslo, Norway is inside a building which looks like an observatory for astronomers. Also, the Cinespia in Los Angeles is set within a cemetery, but they don't just screen horror films. But, although all these wonderful, obscure places exist around the world, I think we have one of our own in London. Although the cinema inside the 02 Arena is run by Cineworld (and previously Vue), thus falling into my multiplex category, I think it's an amazing place to watch a film. The venue is so vast and unique, and all the more special for anyone who was lucky enough (as I was) to visit the Arena in its initial incarnation as the Millennium Dome for an all-too fleeting time in 2000. So, although it's usually the independent cinemas and art-house ones that are unique, maybe we shouldn't overlook multiplexes for exciting locations.



(Photo taken by me)

Interview with screenwriter and filmmaker Ray Connolly

Ray Connolly has a long, successful career which has seen him write and produce films, write novels and also work as a freelance journalist over many publications. I spoke to him about film censorship and his thoughts on the BBFC.

Q: In the article you wrote for the Daily Mail about The Dark Knight, you say that the BBFC is failing to do its duty. Do you think censorship in Britain is redundant or just needs improving?

R: I don’t think it’s possible to have a situation where you don’t have censorship for something. If television and film don’t affect people as far as violence is concerned then these people who spend millions on advertising are stupid. It’s got to a point when violence is a joke and not everyone can distinguish completely between a joke and reality. You get copycats all the time. I wouldn’t want to write anything for a film that would affect someone but some people just don’t care. Movies aren’t real life, they’re a polished version. They glamourise death and violence. Movies depersonalise these sort of things. The BBFC have a responsibility more than anyone else. I didn’t think the Dark Knight was suitable for 12 year olds. It’s a very impressionable age from 12 upwards, as they’re developing into adolescence – they’re the people you worry about who are going to see these films with their mates. The film I wrote – Stardust- ended with the star dying of an overdose. I wanted to get the message across that it’s bloody dangerous to do these things. David Puttnam and I were both very keen that young people wouldn’t think that everyone does drugs because they don’t. I believe you should protect the young and impressionable and that’s what censorship should be for. I think it [the BBFC] has a job in society – it hasn’t done its job efficiently. There’s a theory we don’t need censorship and it gets in the way. I’d censor to protect the young, like a parent. The state should protect them. The right wing would use censorship to stop anyone, like China banning Google. No-one wants that but at the same time we don’t want a free-for-all. It needs to be maintained. Are they doing the job or are they getting too free? It’s all a balance so it has to be checked and regulated all the time and it should be stopped from going too far. It’s about protecting the vulnerable, not necessarily just children. A child should have the freedom to grow up without these images in his mind.

Q: Do you think the BBFC panders to film studios and gives lower ratings because of the power of the studios? Particularly the case with the Dark Knight?

A: Probably not consciously, I’m sure there would be a lobby from the studio if they gave it a 15. Maybe they thought ‘It’s Batman, it’s harmless’. With Stardust, the censor wanted to give it a higher grade certificate and David went to him and said show it to teachers and delinquents in Reading, not London because London is different, and see what they think. Overwhelmingly, they said it should be a lower certificate, AA in those days, so kids of 14 could see it now and make an impression on them. And also we wanted people to go and see it. It should be seen by young people. I can’t believe all the studios don’t put pressure on. [The censors] have to think am I doing this for the public and the kids or am I the servant of the film companies?

Q: Do you think films are often cut so they get a lower certificate which will make them more money?

A: It will happen all the time, there’ll be pressure brought by the censor. Then they’ll say what don’t you like and then they go through it to take bits out. You don’t even have to take things out. It should be a healthy debate between censor and filmmaker. The censor should be our servant not the filmmaker’s servant. It’s also not there to take out things the government doesn’t like but to protect us.

Q: In your opinion, does this cutting ruin filmmaking or is it better that more people get to see it?

A: Not necessarily, I don’t think it would have damaged the Dark Knight to remove that shot [of the Joker pushing a pencil through someone’s eye]. I would disagree in the case of violence. A director might say ‘they ruined my film’, people get very precious about their films. It’s different for a 38-year-old director who’s seen it all but it could be shocking for a 13-year-old. There’s a general trend for increasingly violent episodes. I think it’s due to a self-perpetuating cycle. Some won’t be desensitised. 

The Kid With A Bike

Winner of the Grand Prix at Cannes 2011, The Kid With A Bike marks another success for Belgian filmmakers Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne. Telling the story of a boy abandoned by his father, the film really touches a nerve with the audience.

 Thomas Douret plays 11-year-old Cyril, who is being forced to realise that his father, Guy, has abandoned him in a children’s home and left town. Guy also sold Cyril’s beloved bike to make some money for his getaway. While trying to find his father, Cyril meets Samantha, who offers to let him live with her at weekends. Samantha also tracks down Cyril’s bike and buys it back for him, although the bike leads to several confrontations for Cyril. As a result of one such confrontation, Cyril meets Wes, who attempts to alter Cyril’s innocence and kind nature…

 The Kid With A Bike is Thomas Douret’s first film performance, but it would be hard to tell if you did not know. He packs emotion and anger into the role and delivers an excellently convincing portrayal of Cyril, radiating hurt and vulnerability as he is let down and exploited by adults and peers. In Douret, the Dardennes have found a true talent – even without any film experience, Douret carries the film and is on screen for almost the entire duration without becoming irritating. Despite being one of the Dardenne brothers’ more cheerful films, The Kid With A Bike is full of anger and resentment, and Douret, along with the excellent direction of each scene, embraces and embodies Cyril’s hurt.

 Read the rest at subtitledonline.com

The Skin I Live In

As a big Pedro Almodovar fan, I was looking forward to watching this film since I heard it was being made but only just got round to watching it.

Antonio Banderas plays a surgeon suffering from a series of personal tragedies who is trying to develop a synthetic skin for burns victims. But his experiments take an unexpected turn when something sinister happens to a member of his family.

It's hard to write about this film without giving too much away but it's a very quirky and original film. There's a lot of scenes you don't see coming and the timeline of this film is quite unusual. It jumps around between the past and present day so there's a few points during the film in which the viewer has to take a few minutes to piece it together to make sense of it. It's well worth the effort though.

As usual, Antonio Banderas is excellent. Although he's a well-known actor, he makes it very easy to see past that and believe he really is the character and his emotions are portrayed very effectively. This isn't a typical Almodovar film, other than it's completely mad, but his talent is obvious and this film is an excellent edition to his impressive catalogue so far. There's less of Almodovar's signature bright colours here- the rooms are more grey and clinical with sharp edges and shadowy corners, but it works for the film.

Altogether very well acted and expertly directed, after watching The Skin I Live In, revenge will never look the same again.

Is controversy a gift or a curse for Lars von Trier?

Before the casting or script for Lars von Trier’s new film The Nymphomaniac have even been hinted at, several distributors have pre-bought it. The controversy von Trier so frequently courts has got him into a lot of trouble, but also seems to be making him money.

At Cannes in 2011, promoting his film Melancholia (2011), von Trier (now infamously) said he sympathised with Hitler. Of course, a massive uproar ensued and the Danish director declared he would never do another interview again. But, how many people that caught wind of the drama can honestly say it didn’t make them want to see the film more than they did before? Surely there are countless people who had never even heard of the film that sought it out after Cannes.

Von Trier isn’t afraid to challenge perceptions or of leaving an audience speechless.
Not that von Trier is unfamiliar with trouble. In 1998, he drew gasps from hundreds with his film The Idiots (Idioterne, 1998), in which a group of young people challenge society’s prejudices by going on outings pretending to be mentally disabled. Depicting real, unsimulated sex alongside the obviously provocative subject matter, Idioterne offended and shocked, but still remains an important and intriguing piece of film making, fourteen years on.

Melancholia itself is not particularly shocking – probably the most daring scene involves Kirsten Dunst bathing in the light of the apocalyptic planet with no clothes on. This was probably disappointing for fans that have come to expect shocks and offense, as only Lars von Trier can deliver. But the point is it still brought in the audiences. To date, Melancholia has grossed almost $3 million worldwide in the box office, and it seems that a certain Nazi-related outburst has done Mr von Trier no harm in economic terms.


Read the rest of the article on subtitledonline.com

A Buyer's Guide to Pedro Almodovar

Pedro Almodovar is often said to be one of the masters of Spanish cinema and has a vast cinematic catalogue spanning almost four decades. His films have been critically acclaimed, and Talk To Her (2003) even won Almodovar an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay and he received a Best Director nomination for the same film.
His work isn’t particularly controversial, but is gradually becoming more recognised in England. Almodovar has identified Penelope Cruz and, more recently, Elena Anaya as his muses, and his films are usually colourful, while dealing with powerful and varied subjects, but which are his best and which should be avoided?

MUST SEES
One of Almodovar’s best films, All About My Mother (1999), tells the story of a woman whose son has died trying to find the boy’s father, who is now a transvestite. The woman’s life becomes intertwined with many others during the course of the story, including a pregnant nun and her son’s favourite actress. The film is touching and emotional, but, at the same time, hectic and comical. This film really draws you in and has you eagerly anticipating the ending, in the way that you want to find out how it all ties up, rather than you want it to end.

Almodovar has said that it took him ten years to write Bad Education (2004), which is based on his time in a Catholic school as a child. This film is quite self-reflexive – it is about a man who has written a semi-autobiographical film about his experiences in a religious school and hopes that his old school friend will produce it. The film deals with the unpalatable theme of child abuse by priests, so, at times, it is difficult to watch. However, as with many of Almodovar’s films, the story is not all it seems and the twists in the tale, along with a great cast, including Gael Garcia Bernal and Fele Martinez, make this film a must see.

Another film which follows the production of a film is Broken Embraces (2009). It follows director Mateo Blanco as he makes a film but falls in love with the lead actress, played by Penelope Cruz. The audience is transported to the present day, where Blanco, now known as Harry Caine, is blind and reflecting on how he got to this point. This film is filled with emotion and drama – and has several shocks. It showcases the very best elements of Almodovar’s work and is an excellent example of how Spanish cinema can really make an impact on an English audience.


Read the rest of the article on Subtitledonline.com

14 Days of Free Film Challenge: Day Eleven, We Need to Talk About Kevin

If you've ever met a weird child or had a kid who was difficult, you need to watch this film because they will seem like angels compared to Kevin. He's an insolent child and progresses through the ranks of evil as he gets older, with an unimaginable culmination.

The film mainly focuses on Kevin's mum, played brilliantly by Tilda Swinton, and how she has dealt with what he has done. The film moves around a lot in time, going through Kevin's various life stages but in a disjointed way. However, it's easy to keep up with this as the scenes set in the present day are more reflective with less going on in them so it is easier to piece it all together.

This film is quite scary, mainly because of things Kevin does, but also the implication that humans can really be that evil. The signs are there from the beginning that there is something not right with him and it develops as he grows up.

A disturbing but thought-provoking film, We Need to Talk About Kevin is effective and powerful from the very start.

14 Days of Free Film Challenge: Day Ten, Beginners

Watching this the day after Christopher Plummer won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar, I was expecting a lot. I wasn't disappointed, but it wasn't what I expected at all.

This film is really quirky. There's a Jack Russell who speaks through subtitles, an old man that comes out as gay in his 80s and a hotel roller skating incident.

But it's also very cute. It's a story of love, various forms of love. There's love between a man and a woman, love between two men and love between a father and son. The tag line
of this film is 'this is what love looks like', and I definitely hope so. Although it doesn't always run smooth, love here is fun, beautiful and free and that's what makes this film good.

Based on the director's experience with his father, this film is very honest and open and the performances from the three main actors, Plummer, Ewan McGregor and Melenie Laurent, are superb. They are each perfect for their roles and make the characters real and relatable.

As I took this film back to Blockbuster, I also brought it on Blu-Ray so I can enjoy it again.

14 Days of Free Film Challenge: Day Nine, Devil's Double

Well, what a shocker for day nine! But in a good way. I'm hardly ever shocked by films so it made a nice change.

Basically, this is based on the autobiography of Latif Yahiah, who was pretty much forced to be the body double of Sadam Hussein's son. He lives a life of luxury, but is at the same time subjected to the horror and sadism of Uday's behaviour.

I think the reason I was so shocked by this film was the fact that it was based on a true story. It's so hard to believe that that sort of person (Uday) ever existed in humanity. It also points out with shocking clarity how much we take for granted.

The scene in which Uday drives along and picks a school girl he wants to take home with him really drives it home. People under that regime had no choice but to submit to Uday's crazy whims and could not argue or
complain. The amount of moaning we do about our government, really, we have no idea.

Anyway, in terms of the film. Dominic Cooper plays both Uday and Latif and gives a stunning performance. It's very believable that these are two separate men and at times you do have to stop and remind yourself it's the same actor.

It's an amazing film, but not for the easily shocked. Not sure how historically accurate it is, but also a good piece of education. One of the best I've seen as part of my challenge so far!

14 Days of Free Film Challenge: Day Eight, Super 8

Super 8 was a film which I really wanted to see at the cinema but unfortunately didn't get the chance. It's about some children who are making a film for a Super 8 competition when they witness a devastating but unusual train crash.

This film is quite scary in terms of real-world implications, because it questions how far we can trust the Government and people who are employed to protect us. In this case, the US forces start a wildfire to force evacuation of the town so the disastrous consequences of the train crash can be concealed.

It's got obvious resemblances to the Goonies, but only really because it's about children trying to save the day. The Goonies is much more fun, but I'm not sure Super 8 is trying to be fun. It takes itself a bit too seriously which is a shame because it could have been better.

But the children are good actors and make the film enjoyable. It's the adults that slightly bring it down- there's a lot of adult over-acting here.

The films enjoyable enough and it's worth a watch but it's not as good as I'd hoped. As with Cloverfield, the monster reveal ruins it and JJ Abrams would have been better off leaving the monster to the audience's imagination.

14 Days of Free Film Challenge - Day Seven, Troll Hunter

My experience with Troll Hunter started with some frustration. The Blockbuster employee said to me "I have to draw your attention to the fact that this film is subtitled". As you can see in my previous blog post, this sort of thing really irritates me. Employees (or facilitators of film!!!) should not have to make people aware.

Anyway, back to the film. The best way to describe this film is as the Blair Witch Project, but about trolls instead of witches, and good instead of awful. Some students join a Troll Hunter as he, well, hunts trolls.

The film is pretty much self-explanatory and consists of 'found footage' which was apparently posted to the film company. This film is exciting and also slightly scary. The characters which doubt the existence of trolls ultimately suffer for their believes, and it is slightly disturbing that trolls can specifically identify and prey on Christians or believers of God.

The trolls themselves are not too convincing, although they appear to be models rather than CG which is good. However, obviously I have never seen a troll and, until then, I don't suppose I can judge whether a troll is convincing or not!

The main things I have learnt from this film are: trolls DO live under bridges and eat goats, they either turn to stone or explode, and Norwegian for troll urine is 'troll piss'. So, as you can see, it is a very educational and entertaining film. Well worth watching for an hour and a half's entertainment. It doesn't take itself too seriously, which ultimately works in its favour.

14 Days of Free Film Challenge - Day Six, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Despite being ridiculously tired and having the concentration span of a flea, I decided to watch Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy last night. I'm sure if I put my mind to it I would have enjoyed it more but, as it was, I was just very confused by it all. Reading the synopsis on IMDB has helped, but surely you should be able to understand a film without having to have it summarised for you.

Basically, a top British spy hears a rumour that there's a mole in the security agency and he sets out to find out which of his colleagues is guilty. But you get that much from the trailer. The film involves a lot of jumping around within different times and locations, so you really do have to make an effort to link it all together and keep on top of the story.

This film has an amazing cast, including Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch and John Hurt. As you'd expect, the acting is top class, which is the highlight of the film. The actors are recognisable enough that you can follow their characters across scenes, but the jumps in time make it difficult - especially when one character dies near the start of the film but features frequently in flashbacks throughout the rest of the film.

Basically, I'm sure this film is very good for someone who has a longer concentration span and an interest in spy films but it wasn't really for me. I think it's probably my problem rather than the film's however, as it's been well acclaimed by the various awards this season.

14 Days of Free Film Challenge - Day Five, The Debt

Following yesterday's disaster that was the Tree of Life, when I saw Jessica Chastain was in The Debt (which I'd been recommended), I seriously considered the sanity of my choice. However, she did redeem herself.

I'm pleased to say the Debt was about ten times better than the Tree of Life - for a start there was a coherent narrative! It's the story of three Israeli special agents who are tasked with finding and capturing a Nazi concentration camp surgeon. The story moves between the younger group (Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas) when they are on their mission and the older group in 1997 (Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson and Ciaran Hinds), when they hear the surgeon has resurfaced. It's set to the backdrop of Mirren's daughter releasing a book about the group's mission, which adds to the tension when it turns out the surgeon might not be as dead as everyone thought.

The casting may seem a bit random, but it worked. Chastain, thank goodness, is brave and agile, if slightly naive and Worthington's vulnerability is touching. Mirren is convincing as the older Rachel and shows she's still got what it takes to make a film thrilling.

There's quite a lot of action and fighting in this film, but the story and the history behind it is really interesting and engrossing, so it's good for fans of action films but also films that require more thought. There's a romantic sub-plot too, so it pretty much has all bases covered.

The Debt was a relief after the ordeal of Tree of Life and really held my interest. The acting was convincing and the film was absorbing, if slightly disturbing in a couple of scenes. It's definitely something I would like to see again, but the first time will always be the best with this film because of the tension created by wanting to know how the story will unfold.

14 Days of Free Film Challenge: Day Four, Tree of Life

I'd heard mixed things about Tree of Life - either it was a masterpiece or unwatchable. "Unwatchable?" I thought, "That seems like a good challenge." Well, it was a challenge. But not an enjoyable one.

The film has a very vague storyline, based around Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain and their three sons, but it's hard to piece the rest together. Scenes involving the family are interspersed with sometimes ten minute long sequences of images of God, resurrection, nature etc. In this way, the film feels more like an art installation than a film and it is hard to struggle through. I would love to read the screenplay for this film, or to get an insight into Terence Malik's head, I'm sure it's a very interesting place.

I could probably put up with this film for 30 minutes at a push, but at nearly two and a half hours, it really stretches anyone's tolerance. I'm a bit disappointed, because I'm always up for a challenge and like watching different types of films. I love weird films, and this is certainly the weirdest film I've ever seen, just not in a good way. I suppose it's worth watching just so you never have to watch it again and it will be hard to find a stranger film, but I'd definitely recommend renting it or getting it from somewhere like Lovefilm....just don't spend too much money on it because you'll probably feel it was a waste.

Having said that, the film is extremely beautiful, there are stunning images of nature and the film is well shot, but that's not really enough to make up for the extreme lack of narrative or cohesion in the film.

14 Days of Free Film Challenge - Day Three, Tyrannosaur

I'd heard a lot of good things about Tyrannosaur and, to be honest, I wasn't disappointed. Eddie Marsan scares me in every film I've seen him in and this was no exception. He plays the abusive husband of Olivia Colman's Hannah and is terrifying. It is Peter Mullan's character Joseph, however, that is the focus of the film. He leads a self-destructive life; he even admits that he killed his dog because he lost at the bookies. He finds Hannah and they both change each other's lives.

This film is intense and brutal - definitely not for people who are easily shocked or offended. I think the main reason for this is the film's realism. It's a film similar to these 'gritty English dramas' that seem to popular at the moment, like This is England, Football Factory etc. This means the violence and extreme situations depicted are more effective as they seem more real.

The best part of this film for me is Olivia Colman. I was never a fan of her in Peep Show, but she really excels here. Her performance is so intense and emotional that the viewer can really connect with her and care about what she's going through.

This film is so intense, it's a good thing it's only around 90 minutes long! It's also an excellent example of why David Cameron shouldn't ruin British film by only making commercial hits. We need films like Tyrannosaur.

14 Days of Free Film Challenge - Day Two, The Ides of March

So, Day Two of my Blockbuster challenge. Just a quick one today because I'm off out soon to see Star Wars 3D.

The Ides of March has an excellent cast - George Clooney, Ryan Gosling, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Evan Rachel Wood..... and they all did well. But, I was a bit disappointed as the story seemed very thin. The major plot points of the film were rushed over and not really developed properly. The film was only 90 or so minutes long, so they had plenty of time to fill it out.

I think maybe I don't understand politics enough, but having said that there was a lot of good drama going on, and I think this is probably a fairly accurate depiction of the dirty scene of American (or any) politics.

Basically, Ryan Gosling works on George Clooney's presidential campaign and is very good at his job. So, Paul Giamatti wants to poach him to the opposing team. As with all good scandals, the press finds out and everything goes downhill. Add one or two other hitches and surprises and the film is fairly interesting and exciting, if at times a bit vague.

For me, the highlight was the excellent performances given by the actors and the downside was the lack of depth and detail in the story. The film was well directed by Clooney and the cinematography is good. The moment that stands out for me is a simple one, Gosling and Hoffman in silhouette behind the American flag as Clooney takes part in a presidential debate. The shots and settings are well thought through, at the story's expense. Definitely one to see though, if only for the brilliant acting performances.

14 Days of Free Film Challenge - Day One, Larry Crowne

It's taken me long enough, but I've finally joined Blockbuster. My new house is closer to one and at the moment they're offering one film a night for fourteen nights for free. Sounds good to me, so I have accepted their challenge.

For my first rental, I picked Larry Crowne, not because I really wanted to see it but because my mum had mentioned wanting to see it and it's the weekend so I thought I'd better keep her happy.

In this film,Tom Hanks plays a hard-working guy who loves his job, until he's fired because he never went to college. Suddenly at a loss as to what to do with his life and how to afford to keep living, he joins a college to learn economics and 'The Art of Informal Remarks', taught by Julia Roberts. Basically, as you'd expect, he gets more confident and they fall in love.

That's basically it. As my mum put it "You could write down what happened in that film on the back of a postage stamp". (Although she liked it more than The Descendants, which she described as "that stupid film we saw on Tuesday).

Nevertheless, Larry Crowne was a sweet film that didn't require any thought to enjoy. Although Tom Hanks was good in this film, it would be nice to see him getting some better roles. He's done some really good films in the past, but this makes it seem that, if he keeps on getting parts of this type, he's just going to end up playing peoples' sweet granddad as he gets older, and he's better than that.

I'm not a big Julia Roberts fan, but her character was a bit of an idiot in this film anyway, so she didn't bother me too much.

So, overall a sweet, easy film with a simple storyline. A nice, gentle start to my 14 Days of Free Film. Now off to Blockbuster to choose the next.

BAFTA Live Blog

Tonight I'm going to give live blogging a go, following the BAFTAS. Come back here at 9pm :)

Midnight in Paris: Review

I have to say, when I saw Midnight in Paris listed on Sky Box Office, it was only with vague interest that I decided to press buy and spend £3.49 of my mum's phone bill. However, I had no idea how far I would fall in love with this film. I only hope my words can begin to describe the enchantment of this film. I gush, but I do hope more people will watch this film because it is truly beautiful, and in our capitalist 'make films only for money' culture, that's truly a rare find.

Gil (Owen Wilson) and Inez (the stunning Rachel McAdams) visit Paris 'tagging along' on her father's business trip. While Inez lives the ideal Paris holiday life, meeting up with an old acquaintance and having various nights out with him and his wife, Gil wanders around the streets one night, drunk and looking for his hotel. In a magical twist of fate, as the clock strikes midnight, a car that seems to be straight from the 1920s turns the corner and its occupants beckon Gil inside.

Remarkably, these occupants turn out to be Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald and they transport Gil, wine and all, to a party thrown in honour of Jean Cocteau, also attended by the one and only Ernest Hemingway. Following the magnificent party which Gil cannot quite accept as real, he wanders back to join Inez in their hotel room, questioning- but at the same time sure of -the reality of the night he's just spent.

I don't want to ruin the magic of this film, but it continues in much the same vein, with Gil meeting various amazing historical figures in the streets and bars of Paris as the nights go on. The beauty of this story encapsulated me - as Gil fell more in love with Paris, so did I, and so should the whole audience. Inez's reaction to her infidelity is immature and laughable at best, which places the audience firmly on Gil's side. Woody Allen's expertise is so evident here, one cannot deny his genius. The audience is drawn into the magic and grandeur of Paris through the ages and this journey is such that one cannot help but be enamoured by it.

It is refreshing to see Owen Wilson in a role which does not depend upon comedy and he has certainly done his career a favour by taking on this role. Rachel McAdams veers back towards the Regina character of Mean Girls that made her so popular with a younger audience, but away from the Allie in the Notebook which drew her so many older fans. She is a perfect medium between the two, and you cannot help but love her for it, despite her flaws.

Midnight in Paris is a beautiful depiction of one man's love affair with the city, and is also one that viewers will envy until they can recreate it themselves. Woody Allen's waving of his magic cinematic wand has surely done the Parisian tourism board no harm on this occasion.

Why some filmgoers need to be a little less ignorant.

After hearing about this news story, it angered me both as someone who loves film and who also, for my sins, works at a cinema.

I know not everyone intensely researches every film before they go to see it at the cinema, but trailers a promo material for the Artist has been everywhere in recent weeks, following its nomination and subsequent success at the Golden Globes. Even before that, it received a considerable amount of publicity, despite initially being seen in only a limited number of cinema screens. Surely, when you decide "I'm going to go the cinema to see the Artist", you have a basic knowledge of the film which compels you to pay to go and see it? There's usually something that makes you want to see a film - I find it hard to understand that people could choose to see the film without knowing it was silent and black and white. If it was simply a random choice at the cinema, it's a rainy afternoon, there's nothing better to do - let's go and see what's on, then that's slightly better but, in that case, what right do they have to complain? If you didn't mind what you went to see, how can you then complain that it wasn't what you wanted?

Actually, more importantly, DOES IT MATTER that the film is silent and black and white? Again, I know not everyone's as passionate as me about film and, unlike me, some people aren't willing to watch anything put in front of them, but how much harm is watching a silent film going to do? Give it a chance....you might even learn something. This sort of thing really angers me. People are much too fast to dismiss a film and, I know that's not the end of the world, but I kind of think it says a lot about peoples' personalities and society as a whole. Everything's so disposable to us and we expect only things we like to be put in front of us.

Anyway, back to ignorant filmgoers. Another thing which irritates me when I'm at work selling tickets is peoples' reaction to being told a film has subtitled. Honestly, I'd say around 80% of people have actually changed their mind to see a different film after I've told them. First of all, we show very few subtitled films in a week (by which I mean subtitled for the hard of hearing - unfortunately the cinema I work at rarely, if ever, screens foreign films, and I don't even want to think about the ignorance that would be displayed if it did!!!), and the times and dates of these subtitled showings is clearly advertised. Without going off on a sociology rant, people who having hearing difficulties have as much right as anyone else to see a film and what they can watch with subtitles is fairly limited anyway. Most of the people that complain are parents, though I'm sure if their child had a hearing difficulty, they would be the first people to complain there weren't enough films they could watch.

And again, I return to my previous point: DOES IT MATTER? The subtitles are really quite small at the bottom of the screen; unless you specifically focus on them, they don't cause any distraction or disruption to your film viewing.

I urge people to be less ignorant when going to watch films!!! You only buy DVDs you want to watch - why not exercise the same discretion when going to the cinema? However, what I'd like the most is for people to stretch themselves in terms of the films they watch. What harm is it going to do to watch a silent film, or a foreign film? At worst, you've spent two hours of your life watching a film you didn't like - but at least now you know you didn't like it!

I'd also like to point out that no, you will not and do not deserve to receive a refund just because you didn't like a film. I've not forced you to go and watch it (despite my above plea).

If anyone comes out and wants a refund because they didn't realise War Horse had horses in it, I'll quit my job and declare the apocalypse has arrived.