The Forty-Three Thoughts I had while watching A Deadly Adoption (2015)

The few months preceding the TV debut of this Lifetime movie were filled with doubt that it even existed, and the nature the film would take if indeed it did. Ferrell and Wiig released several statements claiming the movie was a hoax, and that it would never be made, and then admitted that it would and so on and so forth. This invariably piqued my interest, which says nothing of the films interesting plot or even of the star quality of the films leading roles. It does, however, tell you everything of my gullibility to publicity stunts. Even when I know something is a publicity stunt, I still burn to see it and satisfy the curiosity that was brought about by fake campaigns and righteously indignant actors who feel so betrayed that their movies were leaked ahead of time (ahem, looking at you Rogen and Franco). Of course, what is genuinely interesting (or is it?) about this film is that it’s a Lifetime movie. You know? The type of film that claims to be inspired by true events and that they show on channels like 5* at 2am, and particularly at Christmas, when they know we’re all trapped by our inability to cope with cold weather and darkening skies. It’s not just any Lifetime movie though. It’s a satire Lifetime movie. A spoof with two comedy veterans no less. Which can only mean one thing, obviously – it will either be brilliant, or even worse than the genre it is spoofing.

No time like the present to find out.

Okay, so the film is two minutes in and I already know that Will Ferrell is an alcoholic, a past-his-prime writer, and responsible for his wife’s miscarriage. Oh how I love a film with no subtext.

Should I find this flashback showing the tragic loss of their unborn child so funny? I feel like a bad human right now. Seriously though, I can’t stop laughing. I can feel the bad karma points just wracking up. *Its like those slot machines in casinos that make that incessant beep-beep sound when you've won and dispense coins, except in my case, its bad karma and I have hit the jackpot* 

So the pregnant chick just ripped up a picture of Wiig and Ferrell. CRAZY BITCH ALERT. (…no shit Rachel, it’s called A Deadly Adoption…)

Why is Will Ferrell’s hair so blonde? He looks like a 50 year GP from a Southern Belle TV programme.

So Ferrell can’t go on a book tour because last time he partied and blacked out and this is really bad. Hmmm, maybe I should reconsider how I’ve spent my life so far…?

They’re having a moment whilst discussing sunblock? Ugh, no wonder I haven’t found a boyfriend! I’ve been missing all of the deep-rooted conversational topics. *Note to self: talk about sunblock and insect repellent the next time you see a really hot guy and you will be married within six months* I’m going to call it the Will Ferrell guarantee.

Ewww, according to this guy that Wiig should clearly be with, men just can’t get enough of those six-month pregnant women. Really? I mean I know people have weird fetishes, but how could that be a turn on?

Oh she’s having a secret phone conversation. Yet more evidence that SHE IS A BADDY.

Should she really be drinking coffee when she’s pregnant? Doesn’t that stunt the babies growth? (In all seriousness, I wonder how much coffee my mam drank when she was pregnant with me.)

Well clearly crazy-pregnant-girl is creepily watching that little girl sleep because she’s not really pregnant and she wants her own kid. Though frankly she has taken a very unnecessary and confusing course of action in pursuit of this goal. Moron.

Of course crazy-pregnant-girl has an extensively tattooed boyfriend wearing a wife beater with greasy hair, because there wasn’t enough Lifetime-movie clichés in this Lifetime movie as it is.

No wonder housewives love these films, it’s hilarious-yet-addictive predictability galore.

The pregnant chick (what the hell is her name?!) is telling the little girl that she can’t trust men. Steady on, you don’t wanna ruin her teenage years just yet, she's only six years old. She's got plenty of time to have her romantic illusions shattered by the male species' inability to live up to the expectations forced on us by films.

DUDE! Don’t tell her you don’t love your wife when you’re going to adopt her non-existent baby. That should be like the first rule in the When Adopting a Baby Handbook – do these fictional fathers know nothing?! (I’m looking at you Jason Bateman from Juno).

Okay on second thought, don’t trust the pregnant chick. She’s smiling and being cryptic. I hate people who smile too much. Gives me the creeps. People who smile too much almost always have an agenda.

Dun-dun-dun. She’s wearing a fake bump and the kid has seen. That kid is totally getting murdered now. P.S. I was right about that agenda. Go me.

Okay, so now we’ve got a flashback showing that Will Ferrell and the pregnant chick had a drunken one night stand ages ago and we’re expected to believe that he just forgot this? SERIOUSLY. This is actually hilarious. You don’t forget the face of the person you recently slept with; I don’t care how drunk you are.

So the child has been kidnapped and the pregnant chick is using a false name. This is all happening way too fast, I’m so confused. I am clearly an idiot.

God, I wish Ferrell would dye his god-damn hair and I wish Kristen Wiig would stop talking about ORGANIC FOOD. UGH. (Okay, so she hasn’t discussed organic food for a while now, but I can’t stop thinking about it, she’s so stupid JUST STOP IT KRISTEN)

So this dude who’s in love with Wiig has just described the getaway vehicle as “old, not too old though”. Good going there, you’re being SUPER helpful. They’re totally going to find the kid now.

Why does putting clip-in blonde and purple streaks suddenly make the pregnant-but-not-actually-pregnant chick a badass? My childhood experiences tell me this is most definitely not the case – a purple streak does not a badass make. My words of wisdom for the day.

Don’t follow the bad guy by yourself dude-who-should-be-with-Wiig, you will get murdered and Kristen Wiig will cry because you’re a dumbass

He just got punched and the screen went black I TOLD HIM NOT TO DO IT WHY DON’T CHARACTERS EVER LISTEN

I think I should just write a film where people make only logical choices that way they won’t get shot needlessly

Gotta love a film with a slow-motion shot of litter rolling softly through the wind. How American Beauty of them…

Kristen Wiig you are a comedy BADASS kick this crazy bitch in the face. Screw the gun, you should just slay her with your vicious, vicious words

Finally, a bitch fight

Oh, I genuinely thought Wiig would win that one. A for effort I guess

Will, your wife is in the car being poisoned get off your ass and SAVE HER

OH-MY-GOD he’s face after being shot, that was my second favourite part of this movie. It’s the expression one would wear when a friend tells them they look a little fat, not the expression you would associate with agonising pain. I’m so happy right now.

Will Ferrell doing a slow-motion dive for a gun was never gonna end well was it? He just doesn’t have the right build. Not to mention he didn’t jump with his legs. I know all the moves, I should just be a professional stunt coordinator and maybe his stunt double.

Why are the people in this film getting shot and handling there fatal wounds so well? Like seriously, this dude was shot in the stomach and all he can muster is a feeble “Ow”?! You're literally going to die, why can't you have an existential crisis or something?!

Note to self: readjust expectations and stop being uptight. Its a Lifetime movie. *practices calm breathing* (I am legitimately practicing calm breathing as I watch/write)

Will Ferrell is having a slow-motion superman moment and I am getting so god damn sick of all of this slow-freaking-motion. Stop. It. 

I mean I should probably preface this entire thing by acknowledging that I know it’s a shoddy lifetime movie, but seriously, why are Ferrell and Wiig being so pathetic? Grow some balls guys and maybe tell a joke or something. I don’t know, I’m just spit balling right now…

Ferrell has walked into the middle of the road to stop the crazy bitch from driving away. I hope he ends this whole thing by holding out his arm and shouting NONE SHALL PASS. That would be such a beautiful moment

Why is the little girl clutching her stomach like that? She doesn’t look like she is in need of her diabetes medicine, she just looks constipated.

Oh would someone just shoot the crazy bitch already, maybe then the slow-motion will end.

Nope. Even when she gets shot we still get slow-motion. Writing the words “slow” and “motion” is starting to fry my brain. I am losing the will to live.

At least Wiig finally grew some lady balls

Oh my god, they’re seriously going to end this with a cheesy dance party? I literally want to kill myself and yet I can’t stop smiling. I’m ashamed of myself right now.

It’s finally over. I feel so overwhelmed.

Meryl Streep’s line from Doubt keeps running through my mind. Meryl feels the feels that I feel which is kind of ironic because that’s the only film of Meryl’s that I was never too keen on.

So its official, A Deadly Adoption might be the best worst thing I have ever seen. Like Meryl said – “I have such doubts”. One thing I can say of this film is that it made me realise a lot of things about myself as a person - specifically that I should really try to avoid these types of films at all costs. Spoof or not. Mainly because they impair my ability to write without an exclamation mark every other sentence, which is obviously the end of the world. 

Into The Woods (2014)

Love Meryl Streep (obviously, because who doesn’t?!). Love James Corden. Love Emily Blunt. Love Anna Kendrick. I could take or leave Chris Pine, but I’m thinking you get my point. I pretty much love this cast. Do I love this film? Not so much…

This has been highly anticipated by me and my friends for a while now, and the rave reviews only heightened our enthusiasm, so perhaps that goes some way into explaining why it fell so flat for me. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t hate it, and if someone wanted to see it again I would, but my problem is that this film has no longevity. With musicals you usually expect something epic and awe-inspiring, something that will grab you by the gut and either gets you up singing and dancing or has you on the floor sobbing by the end. This film elicited neither reaction, and as such left me disappointed. The premise is that an old witch living next door to the Baker and his wife has promised to lift a curse she put on him and his kin if they procure four precious items that will return her youth, and in their adventures they come across popular Brothers Grimm characters along the way. It’s an extremely interesting premise, right? That’s not a trick question, I swear. The premise was a part of the reason I wanted to see the film after all. The thought of a mish-mash of fairytale characters interacting with one another and participating in one epic adventure sounds brilliant, and in its highly successful Broadway run it has proven time and again to be just that. In film however, something has been lost in translation.

Perhaps it’s the fact that the rights to the film belong to Disney, and so a lot of the gritty nature of the original script and story had to be cut in order to maintain that fun and friendly vibe we recognise from the main distributor of children’s entertainment. I’m no expert, as I haven’t seen an onstage version, but from my research I noticed a few essential moments were left from the film. Apparently the onstage version is much raunchier and violent, and I think that if this film had been picked up by a different distributor, it would have had the potential to be truly great. I’d just like to make it clear as well that I went into this film having done zero research, so the fact that I left knowing that something was missing is a clear indicator that this film has been altered too significantly to feel true to its audience. (Or its adult audience anyway).

That wasn’t my only problem with it though. I took issue with certain scenes that came off as either extremely unsettling or too rushed to feel authentic. For example, the short cameo made my Johnny Depp playing Mr Wolf saw him sing and act in a way that came off as highly paedophilic. Obviously playing the horrible wolf is going to have its drawbacks, but honestly I and my friend were looking at each other more than the screen (in abject horror) as we watched him creep behind the girl, pull the occasional suggestively erotic pose and then sing about her bright pink flesh which has no lumps. “Lumps”? In reference to a prepubescent girl? Yeah, basically the wolf is talking about the fact that this child has no breasts and how he finds this attractive in a victim. Frankly I was appalled that this was allowed in the film, because I know that if I was a parent I would be shielding my children’s eyes and writing letters of complaint to whoever allowed such blatantly erotic and paedophilic moments to play out in a children’s film. When Little Red admits to the Baker that she was scared but also “kind of excited” by the wolfs advances, that is really the last straw for me. And in a Disney film?! But anyway, I think I’ve said enough about this short section of the film to relate that I am NOT happy about Depp’s character. Oh yeah, by the way Disney and director Rob Marshall, thanks for ruining Johnny Depp for me. I’ll never be able to look at the guy in the same way again.

This scene was not the only thing I took issue with though. Unfortunately, I was not a massive fan of the singing talents of one particular character, the actor who plays Jack – Daniel Huttlestone. I hate to say this, because some may also recognise him from Les Miserables where he played Gavroche superbly, but in this film his talents did not transfer quite so...smoothly.Your guess is as good as mine as to why. When he was singing it honestly just sounded like he was shouting, and his acting came off as forced and exaggerated in parts which ruined key moments in the film. (God, I feel like such a bitch saying mean things about a kid. I’m sorry!). Wasn’t the biggest fan of Chris Pine’s singing voice either, but he played the Prince Charming who isn’t so charming very well, and his scene with Billy Magnussen singing under the waterfall was some brilliantly clichéd (that was what they were going for, so I mean it as a compliment) cinema.

The film wasn’t without its merit (namely a fantastic and enthusiastic performance of It Takes Two by Corden and Blunt which made me really happy and saved this film from being switched off half way through. Also Streep. Because Streep is a merit in everything she does) but it didn’t meet my expectations and for this I am bitterly disappointed. It felt rushed, contrived and too abrupt in parts to maintain my interest. Why Meryl Streep’s character, the driving force for much of the action in the first half of the film, suddenly disappears in the second half is beyond me. If an explanation was given, it certainly wasn’t blatant enough to offer me and my housemates any sort of resolution to her character. But, it’s a Disney film aimed mainly toward children, so I guess not everything has to be tied up neatly…

All in all, I was not happy with the outcome of this film. It wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t great either, which is surprising given the stellar cast and experienced crew (Rob Marshall and Steven Sondeheim) at its helm.

A rambler’s star rating?

Begin Again (2013)

Most people will come for this film because of its oddly-paired starring duo, Keira Knightley and Mark Ruffalo, or perhaps because they saw Once (the writer-director John Carney’s Dublin set musical hit) and thought that Carney could once again work his magic. I, personally, entered the film with neither option spurring me onwards and colouring my views. I’m not an avid fan of either actor and, though I’ve certainly heard of Once and read the rave reviews that accompanied its release, I haven’t actually seen the film. I think that’s the best way, as a viewer, to enter into the experience. Completely unbiased and willing to let the film do what the film needs to do.

Telling the tale of two lost souls trying to find themselves through music, we begin with Greta (Knightley) singing a melancholy tune while clearly lamenting some sort of recently suffered tragedy. As it turns out, she’s a recently graduated Brit who travelled to the Big City with her long-time love Dave (Adam Levine) so that he could pursue he’s musical talents with the production company he recently signed with. Things don’t go as planned, as is often the case when people make big life decisions based on their lovers’ lives, and suddenly Greta is left with her guitar; a single suitcase; and her pal Steve’s (James Corden) stodgy couch as the place to rest her head. Things aren’t great, that’s for damn sure. Ruffalo finds himself on the down-and-out as well as the alcoholic absentee father who has just been fired from the production company he co-founded. Cue the cute-meet in a dingy bar where Ruffalo hears Knightley sing and, instead of seeing the verging-on-suicidal woman the audience see, he spots something special in an awesome scene where the downbeat original is transformed into an upbeat orchestration imagined by him.

The musical collaboration begins, and the pair quickly form a bond based off of their mutual need to create something great and something that goes beyond the troubles they have recently suffered. The film is magical in this sense. The quirky pair bounce off of each other and their chemistry is really quite surprising, and palpable from the word go. This broken pair needs each other, just as much as they need the music, because it’s nice not to feel alone. Don’t worry though, it’s not a romance per see, although there are flirtatious gazes and the suggestion of something “more” littered throughout the film. That’s exactly what made me love the film as well. It doesn’t conform to some Hollywood idea that a film can’t be something great and truly substantial unless its leads end up in a romantic embrace. It does the exact opposite. It shows that sometimes what’s truly best is to know that you can love yourself, without having to be loved by somebody else. That’s an important and powerful message.

What I loved most about the film was the raw charm it exuded and the bloody brilliant soundtrack throughout. From the outside looking in, the cast seem odd and mismatched. I mean we’ve got Knightley, Ruffalo, Adam Levine, James Corden and Cee-Lo-Freakin’-Green and to me it just seemed so odd and out-of-place, yet as I was watching it felt completely right. The actors just seem to bounce off of each other, and Corden brought his foul-mouthed-British charm to the fore consistently, which felt palpable and real as he interacted with Knightley and Ruffalo. The scenes where we see Greta film and sing her music in random locations across the beautiful NYC are breath-taking and charming and, as a viewer, just make you wish you were there. There is no better feeling than live music and the atmosphere it gives, and you really get the sense of this atmosphere in the film – which, kudos to the actors and director, because that is an impressive feat.

If you’re a fan of brilliant music, brilliant actors and a story that will leave you feeling hopeful then please see Begin Again. It’s something great and its messages are healthy and direct. You don’t need anybody but yourself, and you certainly don’t need the approval of many to feel the glory of success.

A rambler’s star rating? 

Hyperbole and a Half (2013)

What can I say about this book? First off, I will say that Allie Brosh is a wonderfully unapologetic human being. She is courageous and hilarious and she doesn’t bullshit – not for a second. If you’re not familiar with her work, then I’ll give you a brief biography. Brosh is a comedian blogger and now published writer. She has a unique style, in that most of her blogs involve pictures with funny captions than they do so much long ramblings of writing. She writes about her life, that’s it, yet she has managed to garner a massively loyal fan base.

I’ve come across her work before. In fact I remember the very first time I came across it. I was having another of my insomniac-fuelled internet binges and searching random blogs. I think I might have been searching about depression or something, because I distinctly remember that this was the first blog post of hers that I saw. I was quite taken aback by Brosh’s candour – she depicted her ongoing battle with depression in both an hilarious and no-holds-barred way. She didn’t shy away from how shit she still felt, yet she still managed to make me laugh. As someone who has and does battle with mild depression (something I’ve never wrote about or admitted before), I thought this was an inspiring acknowledgement of her inner demons. This post about depression, and the one that followed it, are included in her book, which I was very happy to find.

It wasn’t until very recently though that I came across her work again. I was scrolling through Facebook, as one often does, when I saw a link on either Buzzfeed or HelloGiggles (which I now for the life of me cannot find), about the best 14 books of 2014. As a literature student I find it my obligation to read these types of articles, which is actually pretty time-consuming because hell, there is a lot of these articles floating around, but back to the point! As you have probably realised, this book was on that list, and as I googled it and read reviews for it I very quickly realised that ‘Hey! This is by that really cool writer I came across AGES ago. Well, now I have to buy it!’. Man was it a good investment.

I read the entire book in a night, avidly consuming each section and laughing my head off throughout. The book is made up of new and old material, and is split into 18 different sections which tell tales of Brosh’s life. Ranging from the aforementioned sections covering her depression, we also hear tales from Brosh’s childhood and in one section see how she would interact with herself at different ages – which is highly amusing not to mention god damn relatable. She often laments on how very weird she finds herself, and the pictures she uses to accompany these lamentations emphasise her points beautifully. The comic-strip paint-produced style looks so simple (literally, even a toddler could produce the images Brosh creates), and yet it is its simplicity which makes it so great.

As I was reading/looking through this book, time and again I thought to myself – this woman is literally in my brain. In a section called “Identity”, Brosh talks about the innate selfishness of herself, and discusses how she only acts like a good person because she wants to be perceived as a good person. With each example she offered, I laughed and thought ‘Shit, that is me. That is me all over!’, which made it all the more funny. The fact that Brosh can discuss deeply serious topics such as Identity (a conversation theorists and psychologists can go round and round in circles with till their faces turn blue) with the brash humour she uses, and yet so eloquently capture what every person secretly thinks about their own identity is remarkable. Brosh doesn’t just use her unique style and narration to make her audience laugh, but also to make them think. About themselves, about the ones they love, about everybody. Whether she does it intentionally, I’m honestly not sure. I think she does it mainly for herself. Like if she doesn’t get these thoughts and feelings out then they’ll just fester and rot, but frankly that makes it all the more powerful. I find that when a writer creates something for themself and for themself alone, its always so much more powerful. So much more intimate and beautiful, and an experience readers never quickly forget. 

While the style and genre of this book won’t win Brosh a Pulitzer prize for her work, she definitely wins the award for most relatable, ridiculous and most unapologetically blunt writer/creator/internet-star out there. Seriously, this woman just gets humanity and all of its thoughts and all of its feelings. The intricacies and flaws that make up every human are related by Brosh in a manner that make you realise just how complicated and yet surprisingly similar people are.When you read this book, you will think to yourself, ‘Wow, I could’ve written this’ and that’s not because its simple or clichéd, but because Brosh captures every thought and feeling (simple or complex) and puts it down. You’ll feel like you know the woman after you’ve read this comic novel, and most importantly, you’ll feel like she knows you. 

So, to reiterate, what can I say about this book? What I can say, is that you have to read it, because, aside from making you laugh till your stomach hurts, it will also have a profoundly deep affect on you, especially if you have ever suffered from the crushing and mind-numbing effects of depression. Brosh might just give you hope. I can say that because she certainly gave it to me. 

Sometimes its just nice to know that you're not the only one feeling how you feel...

A ramblers star rating?

Frozen (2013)

And who says adults can’t enjoy animation?? That’s the question I found myself asking as the end credits rolled and this delightful Disney movie came to its conclusion. I’d been looking forward to this since its trailer was released, especially since one of the lead characters was voiced by the wonderful and hilarious Kristen Bell. Unfortunately responsibilities come before indulging in my inner child but, alas, I watched; I loved – and now I review.

My initial love of the film is its leading ladies and the dynamic and love between the two that becomes the films driving force. Instead of some fabled love-at-first-sight mumbo-jumbo to take us to the films problem and eventual solution, we have a complex story of sisterhood and what the strength of this bond will force one to do. Herein lies the two leading ladies – Elsa (Idina Menzel) and Anna (Kristen Bell). The film begins by establishing the strong bond of love between the two borne from their adventures and fun due to the ice-cold powers emanating from the hands of Elsa, who can turn the ballroom of their giant castle into an ice-rink. Their fun quickly takes a turn for the worse though when Elsa accidently sends a bolt of ice to her beloved sister Anna, knocking her unconscious and eventually leading to any-and-all memories of Elsa’s magic being taken from Anna – to ensure her safety (I won’t go into details, because I don’t want to spoil it). After this Elsa becomes ruled by fear, and begins to ignore her endearing and fun-loving sister Anna to keep her safe. At the films conclusion it turns out this fear-driven method of avoidance and control may not have been the best course of action because, it being a Disney movie and all, love is of course the answer and solution to pretty much everything. Oh how I wish my life was a Disney movie…

The film doesn’t just find its strength in its outside-the-box true-loves-kiss-maybe-aint-the-answer-this-time approach however. It’s also made extremely endearing because of its lead, the princess that saves the day – Anna. I’d read a few interviews before seeing the movie where Kristen Bell explained that she didn’t want Anna to be some run-of-the-mill princess who relied on men to solve the problems and couldn’t pull a few punches herself. She’d explained that in helping create Anna she hoped to bring to life a character she’d always craved for as a kid – a strong, determined, and very awkward princess. A princess girls could actually relate to. Well Kristen Bell – BRAVO. Her wishes have been fulfilled in this character because, unlike many of the Disney princesses preceding her, I felt more endeared and in-tune with Anna than I have for a Disney character before. Her strength often surpasses that of the lead male – Kristoff - whom she saves on more than one occasion. In addition to this strength comes her no-holds-barred argumentativeness, which leads to some downright hilarious disagreements between the hapless Kristoff whose found himself helping the princess without much choice in the matter. The slight awkwardness and naivety which also makes up Anna adds a truth to the character that young girls could do with these days. Furthermore (and I hope I don’t sound obnoxious when I say this because, really, I’m only nineteen and have no right to a level of superiority that only parents can adequately pull off), kids could do with being reminded that they are indeed kids once in a while, and Frozen, with its messages of friendship and female empowerment, is an excellent method of doing so.

Of course I couldn’t write this review without giving mention to the non-human sidekicks that have come as a highly expected, and wonderfully anticipated, aspect of any contemporary Disney film. (We need only look at Tangled and Shrek as points of reference). Frozen has even surpassed these animated-capers though with Olaf the talking snowman and Sven the goofy and adorable reindeer. I won’t lie, Olaf might just be better than Donkey from Shrek, and believe me, I realise the magnitude of this statement. His enthusiasm and loyalty make him extremely likeable, yet the real clincher is his craving for summer and warmth and his ignorance at what this means for him. The scene in which he sings his enthusiasm for this season is perfect and makes you want to rewind and watch all over again. The fact that he has no subtely whatsoever also puts him up there with the best of the Disney-sidekicks. Also it can’t go without saying that the voice for Olaf – Josh Gad (whom some may recognise from Love & Other Drugs, New Girl and The Internship) – is absolutely perfect. Gad’s comedic timing is essential in bringing Olaf to life and his enthusiasm and nuance make him perfect for voiceover, especially animated voiceover.

To bring the review to a close I’d like to reiterate some points. First and foremost – who said adults couldn’t enjoy an animation?! If you are an adult and were wondering whether to catch this when it comes out on DVD then I would give you a big resounding YES. It’s hilarious, endearing, and doesn’t follow the usual Disney recipe (200g of true-love, 100g of evil-hoping-to-destroy-love, 50g of song-and-dance, 1tsp of talking-animals and just a pinch of magic). The film is refreshingly original while still maintaining the elements that we love. Also, this film has some damn catchy songs – type into YouTube “Let it Go” and “In Summer” to see what I mean.

To cut a long story short…

Would I recommend this? Even if you don’t usually go for an animation I would encourage, maybe even insist, that you see this. It’s too funny, sweet and original not to. 
A film rambler's star rating?

Project X (2012)

Project X is CRAZY. I’m sure there are a number of ways I could describe this film that would sound more elaborate and adverbially overloaded but I think crazy, or perhaps “BATSHIT crazy!” pretty much covers it. For a film with next to no plot and limited character development it does a pretty good job of keeping the audience on their toes and guarantees a reaction. It will either be an extremely positive reaction or an extremely negative one…but let’s face it, that’s what first-time director Nima Nurazadeh is going for. As for my reaction, even though the film defies the level of standards I have come to expect as a loyal cinephile, I won’t lie, it was pretty positive. If your one of those rare few who hasn't heard of this film then I’ll give you a brief rundown of the films plot: three awkward high school seniors (Thomas, Costa and JB) throw a birthday party to make a name for themselves and earn a reputation that isn't “nerd” or “loser”. As the night progresses though things spiral out of control and what was supposed to be a medium-sized “get-together” turns into the coolest party of the year with some jaw-dropping repercussions.

As a teenager it is my unwritten obligation to see this film and enjoy it. I have heard many my age admire the films scope and express a desire to imitate the shenanigans of Project X. Now while I have fulfilled my obligations to enjoy the film, any desire to imitate its events or even be present for such events is next-to-none. Why any teenager would put their bodies through the physical torture of excessive alcohol (I’m talking to the point where you lose consciousness) and drug-abuse just so they can say they did it is beyond me. Nevertheless the characters of this film do, and with an eagerness that clearly isn't outside the realms of possibility (the film is in fact based on a party thrown by Aussie teen Corey Worthington in 2008). As the film progresses its craziness increases and just as you think the crew behind this film can’t top the previous act, they do and with some serious panache. The highlights of this craziness include a scene in which we see some pissed-off and extremely intoxicated partygoers throw a dwarf into an oven, we then see said dwarf drive house-owner Thomas’ car into the family pool for revenge and one particularly memorable moment involving a flamethrower. This film should come with one of those “DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME” warnings.

I think these 3 may have over-delivered in there plans to throw the best and most memorable party of the year. Unless infamy is the new popular?!

The purpose of the party is like any other which is hosted by 3 geeks – to get drunk and have sex. That’s the motivational pull of the film and in this sense it resembles any other teen-centric cast such as cult-favourite Superbad, as well as the British TV shows The Inbetweeners and Skins. I've heard many resemble the film to The Hangover but on this front I would have to disagree, not only because both films show a completely different perspective of the dangers and pleasures of alcohol, but also because of both films’ respective cast and setting. Project X has one central location (the birthday boy, Thomas’ house) which increases the intensity of the situation and heightens the audience’s increasing-bewilderment. The Hangover, however, jumps from one location to the next and keeps us in the dark for much of its plot which means all of our reaction is pinned on its ending. I’m not passing judgment on either approach because at the end of the day both films achieve the goals they set out to achieve. I will say this though - Project X surpasses The Hangover in its shock factor and its impressive ability to draw out the events of a single party (believe me, “boring” is one word which will never be used to describe this film), however The Hangover is more enjoyable overall and doesn't require as much effort on the senses.

Now to address (or elaborate) on the positives and negatives of the film… Let’s start with the positives, shall we? First of all the 3 protagonists of the film, particularly Thomas (played by Thomas Mann whom some may recognise from Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters) and Costa (Oliver Cooper) who are extremely funny in their roles as disillusioned and absurdly-naïve high school teenagers. One thing the film manages to do, despite the lack of a plot, is portray a convincing relationship between these three characters. I don’t know if I’d call it character development because none of them seem to learn from the events of the film, but we certainly see a sense of camaraderie play-out which is endearing amidst the drunken-chaos of the films events. The second positive is the style with which the film was made. Each shot is taken on a hand-held camcorder (the cast and extras were handed camcorders during filming and accumulated 10 hours’ worth of footage!) which heightens the films realism and places the audience within the party, to the point that when one character jumps in the pool so do we, the audience. I’m actually a big fan of this style after seeing its success from previous films such as Tonight You’re Mine and End of Watch, though it’s been a popular method since the 1999 horror The Blair Witch Project. What also heightens the realism of the film is the opening credits in which the audience read this text from the screen:

“WARNER BROS. PICTURES AND THE PRODUCERS OF THIS FILM WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE WHO CONTRIBUTED FOOTAGE TO THE MAKING OF THIS FILM.

THEY WOULD ALSO LIKE TO APOLOGISE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AND THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF NORTH PASADENA, CA FOR THE EVENTS YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE.”

This is a very crafty tool in perhaps duping some of the more gullible members of the audience into believing that this film is a genuine documentary (I doubt anyone did, but you never know…), but alas it is not. The fact that the film features a cast of unknown actors increases this pseudo-realism and, in my opinion, increases the intensity and visceral quality of the film.

Now onto the negatives of the film. I’m not going to go too in-depth with this because if I do then it will turn into a tirade and this post is becoming long enough. So, short and sweet – the treatment of the family pet at the start of the film from some of the party-goers is anger-inducing. Seriously, I was shouting at the screen for parts of it. Also, the lack of an actual plot is frustrating and at points I was sat wondering if anything other than shots of half-naked women, puking teenagers and happy-partygoers was all we were going to get but, alas, that’s what you sign up for with this film so I shouldn't have expected much more.

All-in-all though this film was pretty entertaining and left me satisfied for what it was (believe me, it ain't about to receive a bevy of Oscar nominations. But it does do a good job of entertaining the teenage contingency). I won’t lie, it’s a bit of a one-hit-wonder, but an extremely impressive one as one-hit-wonders go. The cast are funny and convincing (I've always thought it must be hard to portray a convincing paralytic-drunk, but these guys do it. In fact the whole cast does it, and it’s a big-ass cast), the set is impressive and the ending is one of the most jaw-dropping I've seen of this films genre.

To cut a long story short…Would I recommend this film? If you’re looking for a plot, then look elsewhere. If you’re looking for something to shock and entertain though, then you should give it a go.
A film ramblers star rating?

That's it for now folks...

The Croods (2013)

When I heard about this film I won’t lie, I wasn't that enthusiastic. My reasoning for this is mainly that I thought it would be a rehash of other pre-historic animations we've been barraged with in recent years. Now I’m not pointing any fingers *cough* Ice Age *cough* too-many-sequels *cough*…okay, so I am. But anyway I figured that there was only so many ways you can tell that “its-the-end-of-the-world” story to a target audience of mainly kids without killing (pardon the pun) the subject. After watching The Croods however, I quickly changed my mind, because the film doesn't just tackle this subject but a whole lot more.

The film tells the story of The Crood family (duh-doy!) who are living a simple and desperately frustrating life in a cave where there day-to-day routine consists of hunting and sitting in the dark listening to the same stories from family patriarch and all-round fuss-pot father Grub (Nicholas Cage). All of this changes however when an earthquake destroys there cave and they must travel across the new and fantastic planes of a land they have never explored. Along the way the Crood family pick up Ryan Reynolds’ character Guy who shows them that there is more to their caveman lifestyle than simply surviving and forms a romance with the adventurer of the family Eep (voiced by Emma Stone). This romance instigates the anger of a figure we all recognise and have faced at one point in our life – the over-protective father. The scenes in which we bear witness to Grub’s attempts to keep these budding young-romantics apart are hilarious and endear us to the characters’ situations – making them more real and giving the older members of the audience something to chuckle at (either from fond recollection or Fatherly understanding). Aside from the conflict that naturally arises from Grub’s determination to keep Guy and Eep away from each other there is also conflict caused by Grub’s prehistoric and ultimately futile lifestyle and the rules he ‘implements’ to ensure this lifestyle does not change. For example anything new is viewed as dangerous and must therefore be destroyed, darkness equals danger and my personal favourite - curiosity killed the cat (he doesn't say it like that, but you get my point). When Guy shows up though he interrupts the status quo and shows the rest of the Crood family that things can be different, that new ideas and using your brain over your brawn are good and that living that caveman lifestyle is no longer necessary. Not when you've got a genius inventor/entrepreneur such as Guy in the family anyway.

Guy's sudden and commanding entrance into the Crood family sets in motion a host of themes within the film which in turn allow the characters to develop and understand a new world they have never been exposed to. While they learn these lessons however the earth that they have had so little interaction with (prior to the events of the film) is crumbling and moving beneath their feet, even as they seek homage elsewhere. We in the audience of course know that the reason for this crumbling earth is the creation of the many countries that make up Earth today, but the Croods and their tag-along idea man Guy think that the world is ending and that there only chance for survival is to seek the Sun. In their journey to find the sun and a new home the Crood family are brought together through the many struggles that they face which highlights the films main message – the importance of family.

The trivial frustrations and family-dynamics that we're all so familiar with in our day-to-day lives has been captured rather convincingly in this film. I mean, just look at their faces - awkwardness and good-natured ribbing is plain to see (especially in that sneaky old grandma!).

The characters that make up this family are surreal in their realism…if that makes sense?! We've got the pre-requisite rebellious teen Eep, the understanding Mother (Catherine Keener) trying to keep the family together, the loud and opinionated mother-in-law that you love to hate (Cloris Leachman), the oft-humiliated middle child (ain't that always the way?), the kid sister and the over-protective father. The actors portraying this everyday family bring an hilarity and sincerity to their roles and really play up to the stereotypes attached to each archetype (Yikes...lotta "types" in that sentence!), to the point where you’re watching and thinking “oh-my-god. It’s like my family. In fact it’s so much like my family that it’s kinda scary”. The fact that these animated characters seem like real people is important in emphasising that heart-warming message of love and family that we are left with at the end, and also makes those funny family frustrations that much more hilarious. Not to mention how freaky it is that the animators and the cast behind the characters are able to dupe you (or me, at least) into thinking of the Croods as real people.

All-in-all this film is a fun family affair which will be sure to keep both the kids and the adults of the audience very happy. The lessons of love and family make it a heart-warming addition to the animation box-set, with the added bonus that the film does a good job at providing a fun history and science lesson. The films encouragement of innovation and teaching of the inevitability of evolution make it seem slightly smarter than your average animation movie. But, then again, each animation has an important message to offer. That is, after all, why we all love Disney and Pixar even as adults – they never fail to teach us something very important. And on that note, I’ll stop because I can feel myself getting cheesy, and nobody wants that.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? Yes. Its kinda like The Flintstones for the kids of the 21st century and who would we be to deprive them of that awesomeness?! 

A film ramblers star rating?

That's it for now folks...

Blue Like Jazz (2012)

Many of you won’t have heard of Blue Like Jazz, unless you've read the book first (which I haven’t) or seen the trailer and decided to give it a go (which is how I found it). If you have seen the trailer then you'd probably be expecting some fun-filled story of coming-of-age that also answers some of those big questions about being young. Well, if these are your expectations, (like they were mine), then prepare to leave unsatisfied. This film isn't really about college life and becoming a new person, its more about accepting the person you already are. Which sounds like a big old stonking stereotype, right?! Well, truth be told, this film kind of is. The trailer might give the impression that you’re going to see something hugely original and I don’t want to mislead you, you won’t, but since when is anything truly original these days? Yep, this film is full to the brim of stereotype. But that’s okay because while the story is stereotype its direction and its cast are fresh and bring something to this film which makes you want to stay and pay attention.

The story centres around Don (Marshall Allman), a college freshman who comes from a strong Southern Baptist background and is disillusioned by his life and religion. To escape this former life of religious structure and a stifling parent he moves from Texas to a college (that’s university to us English folk) in the Pacific Northwest where religion is mocked and his life undergoes a drastic 180 flip. Don decides that the best way of forgetting his affiliation to religion is to join those who mock it and protest its existence, which involves an hilarious scene where himself and the college “Pope” (random guy who dresses like the Pope every single day and is apparently one of the most popular guys at his college…Yep, seemed strange to me too) put a giant condom onto one of the towers of the local church and a banner which reads “Do not let these people reproduce”. Tad excessive perhaps? Yep. Harsh? Yep. But of course, that’s kind of their point. Which is an aspect of this film that confused me immensely – I constantly questioned why, a: Don could go from the assistant youth pastor in his local church to a willing participant of church defacement and, b: why the people of this college hated religion so much? If you’re looking for an answer to this question like I was then you will be disappointed, because one is never really provided. I could only guess that it is borne from the generation in which we live that has built up an intolerance and disillusionment to religion and its politics and hypocrisy.

To the films credit it knows when to back off a little with the religion and knock it up a gear with the comedy and "romance".

You’re probably thinking at this point that the film is a huge middle finger to the concept of religion and religious faith but this is where our protagonists love interest and biggest “all-things-religious-and-morally-just” contender turns things up a gear and offers us a different perspective. This character’s name is Penny (played by Claire Holt whom some may recognise from The Vampire Diaries) and she is a formidable presence in Don’s life who constantly questions his motives and in turn makes him consider these motives and his own beliefs throughout the film. Though this character is necessary within the plot she sometimes comes off as high-and-mighty and frankly I find it hard to believe that a character like her could possibly exist in real life. At least not a 19 year old version embarking on the first (maybe second) year of their college life. I mean this character protests the social injustices of bottled water and its effects on the Indian economy, volunteers in foreign countries during Christmas break and has a freaking statue of Jesus in her college dorm room! Doesn't exactly scream realism now does it? But I digress… My point is that this character adds a depth to the film which stops it from becoming a one-sided debate against the relevance of religion in modern society and instead offers a perspective wherein we get too see the positive effects of religion (shitty politics aside) in modern society.

It all seems pretty heavy for a 108 minute feature set within the context of a religious-free college, huh? That’s exactly what I thought which is why I couldn't escape that thought in the back of my head which screamed and protested at how stereotypical and contrived the entire story is. Its overall message is pretty positive, don’t get me wrong, but the film as a whole is just stereotype after stereotype with a dashing of contrivance (the cherry to our sundae, if you will). For example, when first integrating himself into the unfamiliar life of a rowdy 19 year old freshman Don goes and finds himself a lesbian best friend. This lesbian friend then proceeds to give our loveable protagonist an edgy new make-over (because that happens every day *eye-roll followed by world-weary sigh*) and tells him to go in the closet with “the religious stuff”. Yep, a lesbian told this guy to “go in the closet”. Well I for one couldn't help the eye roll and slight disbelief as this scene played out. This is just one example where the plot felt contrived and slightly ridiculous, and I could probably offer you more but then I feel like I would be over-emphasising my point and perhaps giving the wrong impression of this film. It’s not bad per se; in fact for the most part I enjoyed it, especially the scenes involving some alcohol-involved embarrassment or an exchange between our star-crossed duo Don and Penny. Hell the film even got an enthusiastic laugh once or twice, despite the heavy subject matter. When I wasn't enjoying Blue Like Jazz though I was being pulled between the films two forces, both of which elicited different and rather negative reactions. The scenes showing Don’s mockery of the church inspired feelings of irritation and anger at his childishness and lack of consideration, while the scenes involving Penny and her do-gooder tendencies came off as a huge and unwanted guilt-trip on the films part.

Yep, these guys are in a fake pulpit and this fake Pope is hearing fake and drunk-induced confessions. This is at a party. This is how non-religious colleges have fun...apparently. 

But I’m going to move on from my irritations at this film and instead explore the aspects which I did enjoy and which redeem it from my dislike. Namely the fresh-faced cast and stellar soundtrack. The actor portraying Don gives a convincing performance as a disillusioned teenager experiencing a severe existential crisis and at no point did his performance seem false. Which I know probably sounds hard to believe given how much I extolled this films adherence to stereotype, but just take my word for it. Allman shows extreme talent in this role and the fact that he made me want to watch despite the many instances when his character irritated me is impressive. His leading lady was equally impressive and Miss Holt made a good job of a heavy character whom I can imagine in less talented hands could of come off as annoyingly self-righteous and broad (or more so than is called for in the script anyhow). Instead Holt manages to ground this character and leaves the vague impression that there might be a fire to this character that we just aren't privy to onscreen. As for the soundtrack, I’ll keep it short and sweet – the songs are cool and add a contemporary feel to the film which is very necessary given the subject matter. When things in the film get a bit too doom-and-gloom on comes a song and suddenly things don’t seem quite so hopeless. The contemporariness of the soundtrack also emphasises the intended audience of this flick (not that it really needs emphasised given the films setting and central protagonists) and keeps our interest, as well as making us feel more comfortable (on a subconscious level) with thinking about religion and its place within our young lives. 

About that title, Blue Like Jazz. Its noted early on within the film that “Life is like jazz, it has no resolution…” but I think what this film teaches us is that if there is anything in this world that has no resolution it is religion. It cannot and never will be resolved because it is a personal journey. I know, I know – I’m deep… (In case it isn't obvious I’m being self-facetious). 

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? It would only appeal to a minority of people and the films stereotypical handling of a heavy subject matter are off-putting features of this film, but if you’re open to the idea of pondering religion and getting a chuckle or two from the deal then yeah, I would recommend it. 
A film ramblers star rating? 

That’s it for now folks…

Dark Shadows (2012)

Dark Shadows sees the return of working-duo Depp and Burton in their 8th feature film together and like their previous cinematic jaunts we are given a weird and sometimes-wonderful slice of gothic pie. For those unaware this is based on the long-running TV show of the same name which aired from 1966-1971. In its time the show was a popular staple and its fans include Depp, Burton and Pfeiffer themselves, which perhaps explains why this adaptation was made. I certainly don’t think its Burton adhering to the vampire-fad that’s been seeping into cinema and TV since Twilight graced our screens. Indeed this film bears no similarity to the teen-fad that is Twilight, with Burton lending a dash of his trademark dark humour to the vampy proceedings.

Of course when it comes to gothic Burton is the unofficial King of the genre, with each film in his directorial past reminiscent of the stereotypes of the genre. In this film that gothic edge is brought to the forefront with hanging buttresses, hidden passageways and foggy settings contributing to the dark and gloomy atmosphere of the film, not to mention the pre-requisite crazy witch-bitch (It’s not really gothic without that last one now is it?). Said crazy witch-bitch is played by the talented Eva Green who brings a quirky-hilarity to the role of scorned and vengeful Angelique who has some serious issues when it comes to Depp’s Barnabus Collins. Angelique embodies that one ex you have who just can’t seem to forgive and forget and this is shown to the extreme when she kills Barnabus’ family and fiancé and curses him to eternal damnation by making him a bloodsucking vampire. To add salt to the wounds she sets the village locals on him on your stereotypical dark-and-stormy-night who chain him in a coffin where he stays put for 196 years (the devils in the details) until he is accidently set free.

His release into this new world that is the 1970s sets in motion a whole host of events which is set against the backdrop of Barnabus acquainting himself with the much-changed town of Collinsport, where our film is set. His confusion and reaction to this much-changed world is where much of the films hilarity is sourced and Depp is quite convincing as a disillusioned vampire with a biting (no pun intended!) determination to restore his crumbling families former glory. This modern-day Collins family is comprised of family matriarch Michelle Pfeiffer, rebellious teen Chloe Grace Moretz, haunted and disturbed Gulliver McGrath, and scumbag absentee-father Johnny Lee Miller. Each actor is well-cast in his or her role, yet I couldn't help but feel slightly disturbed by Moretz’ character who was highly-sexualised given her age. This just seemed a rather unnecessary attribute to Moretz’ character and was played with such a hyperbolic energy that I couldn't help but cringe slightly when the character came onscreen. I don’t know, maybe I’m just overreacting. After all this is the same actress who at 13 years old played the foul-mouthed Hit Girl in movie sensation Kick Ass, so maybe Moretz is just keen to avoid having that oh-so-innocent child-star quality in her films and on her resume.

Moretz' character is a somewhat bizarre one, even for a Burton production, and her subplot just feels like a clumsy last-minute addition to the screenplay.

In terms of this films enjoyability I think that might be somewhat hindered by its ‘all-over-the-place’ quality, with too many sub-plots confusing the films main purpose and too many characters vying for attention in this ambitious production. For example the film begins by introducing us to the Collins’ new governess “Victoria Winters” (played by Bella Heathcote) and so I assumed she would take centre-stage (alongside Depp of course) throughout the film, which was apparently a foolish assumption to make. Though this character does have a romantic link to Depp’s their relationship is never given enough screen time to feel authentic, nor is Heathcote’s character throughout the film in general, though as it turns out her genesis is vital to the plots cohesion. This lack of screen time was not only irritating but seemed clumsy on Burton’s part (she’s the romantic lead after all. It would be like a 2-hour Harry Potter film with only 30 minutes of said character being shown!).

To add fuel to the “random plot twists” fire there is also the case of Moretz’ character and her interesting…”progression” (for lack of a better word)…at the end of the film which was just a confusing and unnecessary addition to this already heaving film. The fact that there are so many subplots and character-dilemmas might be explained by the fact that the film is based upon a TV show, so it would be a fair assumption to make that the film takes its inspiration from one or two (or several) episodes, but since I've never seen the series upon which the film is based I can’t be certain (just idle speculation).

All-in-all the film is a relatively enjoyable one and certainly if you’re a fan of a Burton-Depp production you’ll derive some pleasure from this quirky comedy, but don’t hold out too much hope for a cohesive plot and direction. The film is slightly wacky but its overall look and tone is splendid and well-worth at least one viewing.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? I guess, but it’s more the kind of film that you’d watch on a Sunday afternoon when there's nothing else on. 

A film ramblers star rating?  

That’s it for now folks…

Amélie (2001)

IMDb Top 250 Ranking - #68

Many people will have heard of this film and many people have probably already seen it, so you might be wondering why I would bother to write a review on it to begin with. (Well, aside from my obligations toward “The Challenge” that is). My only excuse is that with regards to Amélie, I am late to the game. I have never seen this film and frankly I was always reluctant to. You see I’m not really one for foreign subtitled films and I know that makes me quite a bad “Film-Freak” but I’m learning from my past indiscretions. In fact Amélie has made me an outright convert for them. And if you haven’t been such a fan of them yourself than allow me to do you a favour, because this film is pure perfection and if you don’t see it then you will miss out on something quite important (don’t worry, the world isn't going to end or anything. Or, well I mean…it could. And all because you didn't watch Amélie, tut-tut. Shame on you!).

I was first convinced to give it a go when my seminar tutor showed us a scene from the film (one of the first scenes of the film where we are introduced to a grown-up Amélie and her work colleagues) and was discussing how films can subvert conventional narratives to create something new. This is certainly something this film does. I was really quite intrigued by the structure of the film and as my classmates discussed Amélie I quietly sat in wonderment that I had never given the film a chance. It was kind of an epiphany, which might seem clichéd or trivial (regarding the fact that I had an epiphany about a film, of all things) but nevertheless it happened and you can stop rolling your eyes, thank you very much! So anyway, months passed and I still hadn't seen the film despite my promise that I would. You know, life gets in the way. You have friends to socialise with and university assignments to write and submit. But enough with the life story, I have seen it now and as you can probably tell, it had quite an effect upon me.

So let’s begin, shall we?

The actual story is a simple one in the plain light of day, yet it is told in such a fabulous and complex way that you get caught up in the many narratives that evolve from Amélie’s tale. Amélie is a quiet girl living a life of seclusion in her one bedroom flat with a bunch of neighbours whose lives she finds herself entangled in rather unwittingly. It is because of this that many of our charming subplots are borne and as Amélie endeavours to improve these lives and the lives of her co-workers she finds herself caught up in a romantic journey which will have you believing in true love. I would defy even the biggest cynic to come away from this movie without that fluttery little feeling making itself known in your stomach. Don’t get me wrong though, this film doesn't portray love as something utterly perfect. There is no naiveté in the narrative, though there might be some in its main character played by the almost-too-perfect-to-be-real Audrey Tatou. 

This is one of the last scenes of the movie and personally one of my favourites. This scene has such an understated perfection to it which might be down to how these characters interact once they finally come face-to-face.  

As the story plays out we learn about our characters through an uninvolved thirty-party narrator, who introduces each character with personal details along with their likes and dislikes. This narrative construct is not only hugely distinctive but also helps to endear us to each character and is an apt way of knitting together various subplots which each add an element to this story that leads to its charming conclusion and feels like a necessary lesson in life. What these lessons might be is up to the individual, though I think taking advantage of life is a theme inherent in this quirky film.

Aside from its unique narrative form Amélie also boasts quite a distinctive visual quality, which is perhaps a product of the narrative. Warm colours and vibrant backgrounds adorn this films setting and elevate the atmosphere to parallel its charming protagonist. The films aesthetic style has a timelessness about it reminiscent of the old-black-and-white-classics that remind you of grandparents who bemoan modern cinema and talk about the good ol’ days “back when movies were good and proper!”. I can’t quite explain why I would make that analogy but it seems to fit with what I thought of the films visual quality from that gorgeous bob that Tatou sports to the understated glamour of her simple apartment and belongings. Something about this film just screams “classic”, and I’m not just saying that due to hindsight. I swear!

That feeling of timelessness might also be derived by the films lead character Amélie who is played by a perfectly cast Audrey Tatou (interestingly the role was written for English actress Emily Watson, despite the fact that she speaks not a word of French. Well, with all due respect to Miss Watson, I'm glad she rejected it and Tatou stepped into the revered shoes of this wonderful character). Tatou brings this shy and lonely figure to life with what seems like an effortless charm and captures what it is to live life on the side-lines, more of an observer than a participant, yet as her courage and willingness to experience life becomes more apparent in the film so does Tatou’s flare and quiet fire. I won’t keep going on because at this point I think I've made my point about this film and its characters. That point being that here the stars have aligned and brought us what I think is perfection in film form. If you don’t believe me then give it a go yourself. I promise you, you will not regret this decision.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? Qui, c’est fantastique. A film ramblers star rating? 

That’s it for now folks…

For A Good Time, Call... (2012)

Okay first things first, I know this movie will raise a few eyebrows amongst you, but I urge you not to judge this film based off of its synopsis. Don’t get me wrong, this film is what you think, but it’s also NOT. It all revolves around two former-college “frenemies” (I really hate that term, but whatever…) who both need to find a roommate so they can stay in New York and live the “American Dream” which is when mutual friend Jesse (played by an hilariously camp Justin Long) forces them to move in together. The two women, strapped for cash, very quickly set up a phone-sex-line and realise a lucrative, if not slightly filthy, business opportunity. The phone-sex-line however, is not the centre of this film, though it certainly plays a significant part. The heart of this film lies in the friendship that grows from this business, and this is where a lot of our laughs and “awh” moments come from.

The film gets off to a slow start and if I were one of those obnoxious types to walk out of a movie within the first five minutes, then I probably would’ve done with this one. It’s not filthy or obscene, as you might expect, it’s just boring. And boring isn’t what you want in a film (especially given the aforementioned title). As it turns out though this is quite important for the films central protagonist (or one of them at least) Lauren Powell (played by the writer of this quirky little film, Lauren Ann Miller) who finds herself stuck in a boring life with no prospects. Enter Katie Steel (played by the hilarious and charming Ari Graynor), who injects some foul-mouthed fun into Lauren’s life and makes her realise that she doesn't need to settle for boring.

In this scene Katie (Graynor) introduces Lauren to the 'phone side' of the business. It makes for a funny moment in the movie with an unexpected outcome. 

This film is borne from a post-Bridesmaids we-women-can-be-just-as-filthy-and-funny-as-men era and it takes that female empowerment to a whole new level with both ladies showing their modern-esque sexuality and embracing there situation. They don’t lament their career and pity themselves for running such a service. In fact they revel in their power and it’s quite an empowering, if not slightly wacky, message to bring to our screens. Aside from the I-am-woman-hear-me-roar quality to the film though comes the message of love that slowly grows between the characters, and this is where the film really grows on you. The chemistry between the two lead actors is very convincing and as I watched I couldn't help but think that they had a truly distinctive “Womance” (that’s the female version of a bromance) that is rear to see in film or TV. In fact now I think about it there is no pop-culture media-frenzy womance that really comes to mind, which is irritating really. Maybe this awesome little film will pave the way for more womances in the future, I certainly hope so.

My favourite aspect of this film is undoubtedly the hugely talented Ari Graynor who brings such an energy and charm to the production as Katie Steel. She steals every single scene with her foul-mouthed exuberance. Some may recognise Graynor from the 2008 Independent-Indie Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist where she played the drunk but adorable Caroline and much like that film here Graynor brings her quirky adorableness and adds to it with a role she can really sink her teeth into. The growing vulnerability and innocence with which she portrays the “all-talk” Katie is very convincing and she actually makes you empathise with this character (which is quite impressive considering, well…her day job). Another quite impressive aspect of this film is the cameos it managed to pull from the likes of Kevin Smith and Seth Rogen. Granted Rogen is married to star and writer Lauren Miller but still, the ensemble cast is impressive and really adds credit to this Independent-flick.

So yes, to tie a bow on this little ramble, this film may be about two women who run and operate a phone-sex-line but it is also a film about friendship, love and independence. Plus it premiered at Sundance to rave reviews, so how bad can it be?! But hey, don't get me wrong, this film may come highly recommended but that's mainly for the many laughs it provides. 

Best Line: 

Jesse: You girls are living some fucked up version of the American Dream.

To cut a long story short…

Would I recommend this? I would, without a doubt. Although perhaps not to the more…prudish (no offence intended!!)…of this readership. A film ramblers star rating? 

That's it for now folks...