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.