Salmon Fishing in the Yemen

If, like me, you’re having one of those depressing days were you feel like your life is going to be long, monotonous and terribly disappointing then the remedy is to see Salmon Fishing in the Yemen. It is sickeningly heartfelt and profound but hey, I’m a sucker for Ewan McGregor! It far exceeds its poor excuse for a film title, however, I guess having a rubbish film title makes you not expect much from a film and be pleasantly surprised.

The cast is simply the best of British with the amazing Ewan McGregor and extremely underrated Emily Blunt. However, my favourite has to be Kristin Scott Thomas as her sarcasm and disregard for anybody else’s thoughts is exactly what I aspire too. The dry humour that she encapsulated with run throughout the film in a truly British way as no one else would possibly find it funny. Ewan McGregor was a far cry from his usual eloquent roles as he plays the verging on Aspergers fish enthusiast with a mundane routine lifestyle, although by the end he had (pretty much) flourished into his usual self. Emily Blunt is incredibly stylish as usual with matching spirit which McGregor’s character cannot quite grasp but together they struggle through and understand each other. I know, I want to be sick too. But trust me on this one – it is worth it!

The use of taboo and controversial topics involving the war in Afghanistan and Anglo-Arab relations it is bound to bring a tear to your eye in someway. I nearly cried multiple times, but then again I am a complete wuss and cry at pretty much anything. As I don’t want to give too much of the plot away I will leave you with this – it was tremendously juicy and I would watch it again right now. The best of British truly shone through but it was missing one thing … a big juicy kiss! I guess we can’t have it all can we.

Picture from: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1827714560/tt1441952

The Hunger Games

I had anxiously awaited the release of this film as I had consumed the book in a day it was that good! This was then followed by the second instalment the next day. I could not put them down. Though this made me excited it also left the film a lot to live up to. However, when I saw the cast I was sure it was going to live up to my expectations. Jennifer Lawrence has not had a lot of acting experience but from what I’ve seen in X-men First Class I thought she was the right choice and she is exactly how I imagined Katniss to be. Just how Josh Hutcherson was just how I imagined Peeta to be. He pulled the baker’s son look off perfectly. Though I have loved Liam Hemsworth ever since seeing The Last Song, I’m afraid he didn’t quite pull Gale off for me. This may be hindered by the fact that I prefer Peeta in the book anyway. As always Stanley Tucci was amazing with his crazy hair and massive teeth! Overall, the casting was pretty amazing and made the film work well, especially casting for those in the Capitol.

Though some parts were different to how they were in the book, it didn’t take anything away from the film or the plot in general. Everything was done with flare and wasn’t brought down to attract the younger audience. The choice of setting and clothing for the districts and the Capitol were brilliant as it showed the true divide between them and the choice of camera angles and sound gave it the rough and confused sense that was needed. Though it was quite long I think it was needed to add all the necessary detail and you didn’t notice the length at all because it was so enjoyable.

I cannot wait for the next instalment which I hope won’t take too long to arrive as the books have left me wanting more. I would definitely recommend it to lovers of the books and people who don’t even know the story at all! It is gripping and trust me, this isn’t another twilight. This one is absolutely juicy.

Picture from: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2868031744/tt1392170

The Iron Lady

I can safely say the best films out there are produced in Britain by the UK Film Council. Of course, a film about one of the most inspirational women in British history would no doubt be enriching and totally captivating. For those who lived through her time in power it was a time for reflection and for those like me it was a time to experience the trouble she went through for the first time. What this film did well was, not only portraying her power, decisiveness and authority, but actually showing that she did have emotions and felt each death in the Falkland war, each riot, each bombing, each cut deeply but realised it was necessary if Britain was to be rebuilt. If it didn’t change the opinions of those who didn’t believe in her while she was in power, it would have definitely leant them some compassion towards her.

The casting choices were exceptional. Meryl Streep was outstanding and did our Maggie justice! Thankfully, she did not overdo the elder Maggie, who had the onset of dementia, and therefore kept her dignity. Jim Broadbent, who seems to be in every single British film, successfully portrayed the madman that grounded the PM, though he was incredibly annoying at times. As this film required, the cast was completely star studded with all of the British greats including, Olivia Colman, Richard E. Grant, Nicholas Farrell and Anthony Head.

The flashback method to illustrate the great lady as she is now and the reflect on her life was thoroughly effective and allowed us to access a personal view on very public events. These films allow repentance and a chance for forgiveness for actions some people of the public may have viewed as mistakes.

Overall, this film is very juicy and every Brit should most definitely see it out of patriotic, moral duty to your country. However, I have to admit I do still prefer the King’s Speech (the best film ever)!

Picture from: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3095903488/tt1007029

Arthur Christmas

Seeing as this is basically the only Christmas film out this year (which I am thoroughly disappointed about!) I felt obliged to watch Arthur Christmas. On walking into the screen I was rather sceptical about the large percentage of children in the audience. However, as the Aardman logo appeared on the screen I felt a comforting feeling as I realised this film was going to be good!

James McAvoy, being a favourite of mine, was another great pull for me. Along with other favourites, Bill Nighy, Jim Broadbent and Hugh Laurie promises the film to be very funny. However, I cannot vouch that everyone will find this film hilarious, as I found myself laughing out loud on my own at many points, to my own great embarrassment. Personally, I reckon Arthur Christmas achieves what every children’s film tries to do by adding in many jokes for parents while keeping it PC enough for kids.

Also, the many details that the makers thought about was quite incredible and pleasantly surprised me, though I am a sucker for attention to detail. This included a machine which measured how nice each child was and gave them presents proportional to their niceness – genius!
I can safely say that this film is juicy and that it’s the best Christmas film I’ve seen in ages! Definitely worth a watch.

Picture from: http://www.impawards.com/2011/arthur_christmas_ver4.html

Hugo

A Martin Scorsese production, Hugo is a far cry from his usual adult-based clientèle as this family friendly heart-warmer is nothing like Shutter Island and Goodfellas. This new look Scorsese flick appeals to all audiences as the star-studded cast all bring different things to the plate. Ben Kingsley appeals to the mature film lover, Sacha Baron Cohen is his usual (I say this lightly) ‘funny’ self while Kickass’ Chloe Grace Moretz and, newcomer, Asa Butterfield bring the fresh-faced cuteness every children’s film needs. The fame didn’t end there as the magical cast of Harry Potter turned out with Helen McCrory, Frances de la Tour and Richard Griffiths along with Lord of the Rings star Christopher Lee. With this cast, Hugo has no chance of failure.

The out of this world feel Scorsese manages to create though it is set in 1930s Paris gives this film the important magical feel that makes it special. It almost has a fairytale ring to it as Hugo is left to fend for himself after his father is killed in a horrendous fire. He ends up working the clocks at a train station while living in its walls on his own. Therefore, the character base for this film consists of the inhabitants of the train station shops including a toy shop owner, a florist and the station inspector. The mystery of the plot, including the automaton Hugo must fix to console himself after his father’s death, is revealed in an innocent and surprising twist.

However, the audience base may be downsized by the innocence of the plot but that did not include me! I really enjoyed it though I thought it would be improved in some places. I rate this film as ripe, but not quite juicy.

Picture from: http://www.impawards.com/2011/hugo_ver3.html

We Need to Talk About Kevin

Having read the book and instantly becoming a Lionel Shriver fanatic, I had high expectations. Though you must accept that there will be a few differences and many events will need to be missed out so my complaints on that aspect will not be heavy.

The beginning of the film showed a birds eye view of the tomato fight in Valencia which set the confused tone that the rest of the film continued with. This was very effective but, I thought, could be too confusing if you did not know the background of the character which is she owns a travel guide company so goes on long trips abroad. I feel that this could have been emphasised more as it caused a lot of tension between her and her husband. However, the film did make a few attempts to draw attention to this.

I understand that the time constraints of films make it impossible to involve every character, however, missing out Kevin’s loyal sidekick Lenny Pugh was a bit disappointing. Lenny allows an access to Kevin’s social awkwardness, not only at home, but in the school setting and that he is not only this way with Eva, his mother. Without Lenny, we also miss Kevin’s interaction with the police which shows his lack of respect for human life before the mass killing. I do admit I probably only miss Lenny because I knew he should have been there, so it did not distract too much.

I see why Tilda Swinton was chosen for Eva because of her angular, ‘Armenian’ looks and vacant stare. This worked incredibly well for the aftermath but maybe not great for the before. I mean as a character in her own right the film Eva was perfect and I loved her, but, comparing her to the book Eva, I think she should have a been a little more bouncy before the ‘Thursday’. However, it is unfair to compare her to the book’s Eva as she is merely based on her. Tilda did amazingly, was very convincing and her resemblance to Ezra Miller was surprising!

That now brings me on to Ezra Miller. Basically, he was brilliant. He was creepy yet not detached from an average teenage boy therefore bringing the event closer to home. He looked just how he was meant to be, dressed just how he was meant to dress and was just as sadistic as was expected. However, the contrast between fiendish, plotting Kevin and scared, defenceless Kevin at the end was excellently portrayed by Ezra Miller and I give him credit for doing such an amazing job.

One things that I thought really added to the creepy feel of the film was the use of food. None of the food looked appetising. Kevin’s playing with it and general distaste for it spread to the audience. Though it made me feel uncomfortable, it made me uncomfortable in a good way, in a way that worked for the film.

Though I obviously prefer the book, the film was amazing in its own right and you need to watch it. And you need to read the book! This one is definitely very juicy.

Picture from: http://redmistreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/We-Need-To-Talk-About-Kevin-Poster-1.jpg

Real Steel

Hugh Jackman being one of my favourite actors, I had to see Real Steel. I was sceptical, to say the least, about a near-future setting where fighting robots were a source of mass entertainment. However, it was executed surprisingly well. Director Shawn Levy’s decision to portray the future’s landscape as the same (or even more eco-friendly) as it is now was refreshing as it set a friendly tone. Therefore, the separation between legal and ‘underground’ robot fighting was even more noticeable. Levy’s decision to have a different setting than expected was what made Real Steel different from every other ‘robots in the near-future’ based film.

Obviously, Hugh Jackman was amazing, but I am biased. His character wasn’t altogether likeable, however, you will end up rooting for him! It’s inevitable. As for his son, played by Dakota Goyo, he seemed almost to be trying too hard. Of course, he was cute and produced some heart felt smiles, but I just wasn’t completely taken with him. The character I really liked, surprisingly, was Jackman’s childhood friend, Bailey. Evangeline Lilly was very convincing as ‘that girl who likes boxing’ and her and Jackman’s partnership worked really well. However, my favourite member of the cast was the underdog robot, Atom. The expected rise to glory may seem clichéd but I found myself entranced and nervous in the final fight scene (though it was totally obvious what was going to happen!).

Overall, it was a surprising success and I would definitely recommend it! It was positively juicy.

Picture from: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1078443008/tt0433035

Crazy, Stupid, Love

I know I’ve neglected my blog for the past few weeks but in all fairness I’ve been rather busy. However, to make up for it you are in for a triple whammy!

Seeing as I do not feel qualified to talk about ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’, as I didn’t completely understand it, I’m going to talk about ‘Crazy, Stupid Love’. Though it is a romcom, it’s not the usual ‘couple meet but don’t initially like each other but after a while they start to fall in love (usually after a drunken night together)’. This is a romcom that is just a little bit different.

The casting was perfect. I have always been a massive fan of Steve Carell and I am glad to say that he did not disappoint. He is a perfect mixture of hilarious, awkward and absolutely pathetic! Julianne Moore worked well with Carell as a couple and Kevin Bacon was his usual creepy self. Ryan Gosling, as well as being 100% gorgeous, was, surprisingly, funny in a very unique way. Finally, the most refreshing addition to the cast was Emma Stone who fit the role very well.

What made this romcom different was that it acknowledged and unashamedly accepted the fact that it was a romcom. When Carell is left by Moore standing in the pouring rain he even exclaims ‘how cliché’. When watching this film you need to just accept what it is and, more importantly, enjoy it for what it is. Obviously, as a female, I am slightly bias toward loving the romcom and therefore was born to love this film. However, I’m not going as far to say that this was a must see by any stretch of the imagination. I am simply pointing out the positives rather than dwell on the negatives.

As well as the main story line there are many hilarious sub plots to add to the impossibility of the whole situation. What made this film for me was the way in which all of these story lines finally came together.

However, I shall leave it at that as (you may have noticed) I am not one to divulge too much. This includes the fact that I’m not a reviewer who feels the need to simply retell the story line. I will just say that if you have a chance to watch it then do! This one isn’t quite juicy but with a few tweaks would have been there.

Picture from: http://thedowntownbrownie.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/crazy-stupid-love1.jpg

Jane Eyre

I will put it simply for you: I was not disappointed!

Now, Jane herself. She was mild, calm and plain. Everything she encompasses best. I will admit, she was occasionally too weak and there was an element of cheekiness missing on her part. However, this being an interpretation, I am willing to surpass this fact. Mia Wasikowska was very convincing and her natural, yet obscure, beauty definitely benefits her part. She was the perfect, passive Jane with the sporadic rebellious anecdote to keep the spirit of the character alive.

Jamie Bell’s portrayal of Rivers was expected and followed the average interpretation of the character. His sideburns were particularly ridiculous which simply added to humour of his overly religious attitude. Overall, there’s not much to say about his predictable and insignificant characterisation.

Now, the most important and heartbreaking character, Mr Rochester. Michael Fassbender’s rugged good looks and broody face added to the ever sultry and brooding nature. I was pleased to find the director did not wish to dwell on the ‘moody and cruel’ Rochester that can sometimes be chosen. He was the right amount of rude and cheeky making him particularly irresistible. Rochester’s attempts to penetrate Jane’s respectable exterior with his cheeky, cavalier comments makes the perfect couple.

Though the relationships are fun and exciting, the director manages to keep the Gothic theme strongly alive throughout. There are occasional jumpy moments, along with creeks and bumps in the night. This is vital to the overall Bronte style and I was, therefore, satisfied that this film had done Charlotte’s masterpiece justice. Also, the chronology is slightly different from the novel, however, I feel this worked well for the overall experience of the film.

One final thought, the beard ruins all of Rochester’s appeal.

Picture from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfilms/film/jane_eyre/gallery

Hopes for ‘Jane Eyre’

Converting a classic novel, or any novel for that matter, into a movie is always a little bit risky. So any attempt at visually recreating Charlotte Bronte’s masterpiece is going to be no mean feat. This has led to many hopes and fears on my part about whether or not they’re going to completely destroy or (however unlikely) improve it. ‘Jane Eyre’ is one of my favourite Victorian novels, only to be surpassed by her sister’s ‘Wuthering Heights’.

What I hope they do:

Keep Jane plain. This is Jane’s whole character. She is not particularly beautiful, amazingly intelligent or even slightly funny. Therefore, the choice to use the fairly anonymous Mia Wasikowska is a wise choice. However, having not seen her performance in ‘Alice in Wonderland’, I really couldn’t tell.

As for Mr Rochester, what can I say. He’s not allowed to be pretty as he is quite famously not a handsome man. It’s his teasing charm that entices Jane (seconded by the fact she has never before received attention like his) and therefore the choice of the fantastically charming and experienced Michael Fassbender is bound to be perfect. His extreme masculinity opposed to the inexperienced and feminine Mia will, hopefully, work wonders on the screen.

However, what does not bode well for my above point is that I had to search on the extended character page on IMDb. If this is any reflection of Rochester’s involvement in the movie then I will be, not only disappointed but, mortified. St John Rivers however is billed second. Yes, second!! I’m sorely hoping that this does not mean that they director has decided to take some ‘artistic’ take on Bronte’s original work and make Rivers the male lead. We must wait and see.

This brings me on to what I hope they don’t do. Firstly, the above. But I shall not dwell on that any longer. Secondly, I hope they do not wash over the significance that Rochester’s wife plays. Even a flashback scene would be a nice touch though I do not hold much hope. Thirdly, and finally, I hope they don’t down play the importance of Jane’s time at Lowood because, in my opinion, this is a substantial and important part of her life and the book.

Unfortunately, my pondering will not change how the film turns out, therefore, I shall simply have to wait and write a follow-up review once I’ve seen it. Lets hope it’s juicy!