Movie Review: Tired of Kissing Frogs (Cansada de Besar Sapos)

Title: Tired of Kissing Frogs (Cansada de Besar Sapos)

Director: Jorge Colón

Year Released: 2006

Running Time: 100 minutes

Classification: R

Genre: Romantic comedy

Generally speaking, you don’t watch romantic comedies for their ability to broaden your worldview. What you want is a fun and wish-fulfilling love story that can make you happy (until you go home alone and realise that you have absolutely no one – no one at all – and that you are so, so lonely and the only thing that can numb your pain for now is a tub of ice-cream, eaten in front of the TV, cat optional). With this in mind, I sat down to Tired of Kissing Frogs with low expectations, curious as to how a Mexican romcom would differ from the usual (English-language) ones. To my surprise, the film 1) adhered to the typical (Western) romcom tropes – including the stupid ones – and 2) was shockingly, painfully dull.

The premise of the movie is your typical silly romcom premise: our heroine Martha (Ana Serradilla or Mexican Natalie Portman) catches her boyfriend cheating on her and dumps his ass. Having been thusly burned, she joins an online dating service called “Cansada de besar sapos” and decides to “act like a man” – that is, become a ~playa. Of course, Martha goes on dates but doesn’t actually sleep around – we can’t have a slut as a heroine after all – and on the side she strikes up a friendship with cute waiter/aspiring actor Xavier (José María de Tavira). And, well, guess what happens. Go on, guess.

In addition to this set-up there are the usual romcom staples: Andi (Ana Leyevska) is Martha’s sassy best friend and colleagues Joaquin (gay and wry) and Daniela (kinky and ditzy) serve as comic relief. Add in a “crazy” scene where Martha and Andi have to dress up as strippers and you have all the ingredients for a romcom. Yet somehow, the recipe doesn’t quite work.

Mainly, I think it’s the pacing and the script and the entire logic of it all. Things happen so slowly that you can see all the events – the breakup, the dating montages, the misunderstanding – lined up before you long before they come to pass. It’s no fun when you get to the scenes either; they’re already tired by the time they arrive, having come at you with the speed and subtlety of an approaching street cleaner. Another consequence of this is that you find it really easy to spot all the irrational, nonsensical situations in the story (such as the whole playa thing) without losing track of or being distracted by what’s going on on screen.

I’m pretty tolerant of dumb premises, but in this case, everything is so workman-like and clichéd that it all comes across as bland bland bland. The story and the dialogue are so stock standard that it feels like a checklist for a romcom rather than a romcom itself. During the parts where they needed character or relationship development or whatever, there’d often be some sort of montage with a song. You get the feeling that the writers put in a montage and a song whenever they didn’t know what to write. Not surprisingly, there are a lot of montages and a lot of songs.

Worse, quite a bit of it is poorly edited. I normally don’t notice these sorts of things but by golly I noticed it here. Not only are the montages poorly put together (the music changes can be abrupt) but you also become actively conscious of the different cuts. It’s clumsily done and there are times you notice things like the colours or lighting or “look” being different between shots. The bright side of this I guess is that I have a newfound appreciation the work done by editors and continuity checkers.

Not even the novelty (to me) of its Mexican origins helped alleviate the dullness. Like the cast, the city setting is stylish, pretty and strangely vanilla, with nary a cultural quirk to be found. Had the dialogue been in English I could have easily believed that we were somewhere in the US or Britain.

I mean, I guess they tried. The performances aren’t bad and the actors do what they can with what they’re given. Ana Serradilla brings a liveliness and likeability to Martha and there are some genuinely funny moments throughout. There’s also a realism to the story and romance, particularly towards the end, and this lends a sense of freshness to the movie. As a result, the relationships seem real and relatable.

The flip side of this of course, is that realism is boring. If I wanted to know what ~real life~ is like, I’d just go outside. Sometimes, I wondered if it was the realism that made the movie feel way longer than it was, but then I’d remember the “crazy” shenanigans near the beginning and remember that that was boring too. Just because the characters are doing wild things doesn’t mean the movie itself is wild. The most intriguing thing I found about this film was its lesson in how much technology had changed between 2006 and today. Needless to say, that’s not a good sign.

Alex’s Rating: 1.5/5

Movie Review: Monsters University

Title: Monsters University
Director: Dan Scalon

Year Released: 2013

Running Time: 104 mins

Classification: G

Genre: Animation, Family and kids, Comedy

The most anticipated prequel has hit the screens, Monsters University!

Monsters University is the story of how Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sulley (John Goodman) meet before Monsters Inc. If you don’t know who Mike and Sulley are and have no idea what Monsters Inc. is, then you must go, now, watch Monster Inc. then come back to this review.

If you have seen Monsters Inc. go re-watch it anyway.

But first, Blue Umbrella, the most recent Pixar short played before the movie is brilliant and is completely new to the design of Pixar. If anyone can make people feel for inanimated objects, Pixar can. 

Back to the review.

Monsters University did not leave me disappointed and is exactly what I thought the movie would be. I wouldn’t say it was the best but definitely is on par with Monsters Inc., if not, then a little less only because it uses the same characters in Monsters Inc. so doesn’t feel original – which it shouldn’t feel, since Monsters University is a prequel to Monsters Inc.  

The start of the movie is just too cute. Little Mike is sooo cute to the point I felt disappointed when older Mike gets off the bus in front of the University. This movie is purely about chasing your dream and not giving up. Mike is inspired to be a Scarer and will do what he can to be one. The storyline is very cliched. It has your usual jocks, cheerleaders, punks and losers. Both Mike and Sulley have to prove their worth by joining forces with the members of the Oozma Kappa fraternity (the losers) to win the Scare Games. The only thing not cliched about this movie is there is no love interest which is a plus. There was no room for it.

Monsters University has all the ‘Pixar’ needed to make it a funny family film. If you have seen Monsters Inc. you will love the guest appearances in this movie. As for the new characters, I found Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren) terrifying and I use the word terrifying because I don’t like anything that has more than 4 legs. Eeuuggghhh……

The character designs of the Dean and Art (Charlie Day), a member of the Oozma Kappa fraternity was the most interesting. I may not like insects, but for the role of the Dean, an insect was the most appropriate. As for Art, he is just all furry with tree trunk legs and tiny arms. A little bit awkward appearance-wise but the most mysterious and funny of them all. As for the other Oozma Kappas, they were ordinary. I understand that’s the point but their unique abilities were awkward. It made the last competition unconvincing even though Pixar did its best to illustrate Oozma Kappas' weaker potentials. I felt more towards the Oozma Kappas as a group rather than them as individuals.

There is some character development in this movie, mostly focusing on Sulley… and Randall has some screen time. It’s not a very successful development when most people know how Sulley and Randall will be in the future. The focus of this movie is on Mike and I loved it. In Monsters Inc. I favoured Sulley over Mike. I found Mike bossy and a little selfish. In Monsters University, he’s still a little selfish but it was driven by his dream. He might be bossy towards the Oozma Kappas, but he never gave up on them and did his best to help. This is typical of the main character in college films but having believed Mike was bossy and selfish, it was nice to see it wasn't the 'true Mike’.

My favourite part is the end of the film and how they become Scarers. It’s not what one might think it would be, but it proves hard work does pay off. There are funny scenes but I preferred the story itself. The funny bits were a bonus.

I’ll definitely be re-watching Monsters University again and may even follow that with Monsters Inc. True to a Pixar film, I’m sure there are a lot of Easter egg surprises in the film I have missed. I enjoyed Monsters University and recommend everyone to go watch it, just remember: relax and enjoy. Mike and Sulley will always be the lovable monsters they are.

  

Terri’s Rating: 4/5

Note: There was one fault I found. I may be wrong but in Monsters Inc. as Mike and Sulley walk to work, I’m quite sure Mike mentions he met Sulley.

Movie Review: Despicable Me 2

Title: Despicable Me 2

Directors: Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud

Year Released: 2013

Running Time: 98 minutes

Classification: PG

Genre: Comedy, Kids and Family, Animation, Action/Adventure

(Note: this review contains spoilers for Despicable Me (the prequel))

2010’s Despicable Me stands out as one of the more original kids’ films of the last five years. In that movie, evil genius Gru (Steve Carell) attempts to steal the moon. Because of plot reasons, Gru adopts three little girls. Because it’s a kids’ movie, Gru relinquishes his villainous ways to become a good father. All in all, it’s a pretty cute film, full of laughs and “awww”.

Understandably then, you had to wonder where they’d go with Despicable Me 2. It necessarily lacks the villainous glee of the first movie, which is both good and bad: good, because it means there’s character development; and bad, because it’s not as original. In the sequel, Gru has his hands full being a parent and intends to start a business making jams and jellies. All seems well until he is suddenly kidnapped by Lucy (Kristen Wiig), an agent from the Anti-Villain League. Apparently, someone has created a chemical that turns its victims into mutant purple killing machines. The AVL “recruits” Gru in the hope that his expertise in villainy will enable him to uncover the identity of the villain responsible. Personally, I liked that they made Gru an “ex-villain” rather than a sudden, all-out hero.

Like the first movie, there are plenty of laughs to go around, whatever your age. The humour ranges from slapstick, mostly played out by Gru’s adorable Minions, to send-ups of stereotypes, like the improbably tough Mexican wrestler villain El Macho and the fitness freak blonde girl with whom Gru goes on a date. I actually laughed out loud a lot during this movie, which is more than I can say for most comedies.

From the promotional materials and from the moment she shows up on screen, you know that Lucy is Gru’s designated love interest. Gru’s daughter Margo (Miranda Cosgrove) also gets a love interest in the form of the dashing Antonio (Moisés Arias). Sadly, the romantic plot developments in the film felt exactly like that: they were moments I felt I had to endure in order to get to the rest of the story and were only palatable when intertwined with comedy, like when Gru goes all overprotective dad over Margo’s new boyfriend.

The animation is cute and colourful and I found myself admiring Gru’s home décor more than once. The 3D is used effectively: I liked that I was able to look into the sets, rather than at them, particularly in big, busy locations such as the mall. If you want to get the “most” out of the 3D, then you may want to stay for the credits as you’ll get to see some Minions shoving stuff at you through the screen.

Conceptually, Despicable Me 2 is “less” than its predecessor: the villain protagonist angle is gone, a predictable romance plot has been added and there’s less interaction between Gru and his kids. That said, I think I liked this film more. While Gru’s relationship with his daughters is more static, there are still plenty of heart-warming “family” moments of the kind that made the first movie so memorable. There’s also a greater sense of chaos compared to the very plot-driven prequel and I’m pretty sure it’s funnier as well. The cute little Minions also get to play a bigger part, which, admittedly, may or may not be a good thing, depending largely on whether you’re a parent who’ll now have to fork out on Minion toys (now available at a store near you).

Despicable Me 2 is a fun, funny, fluffy family movie and a pleasant way to spend an afternoon. It’s no masterpiece of cinema, but with the current crop of movies out right now you could easily do worse.

Alex’s Rating: 3.5/5

Movie Review: The Woman In Black (2012)

Title: The Woman in Black

Director: James Watkins

Year Released: 2012

Running Time: 95mins

Classification: M

Genre: Horror, Drama, Thriller

After reading the book, I decided to give the 2012 The Woman in Black movie a try. The movie did not stay completely true to the book, however the changes made improved the process of the storyline and in some ways gave the audience a restful ending (or maybe just for me).

*I've also done a review on the book written by Susan Hill for anyone who is interested. I strongly suggest you read the book first before watching the movie.*

Unlike the book, the movie starts straight in the midst of the horror with the deaths of 3 children and the presence of the woman in black. The genre is set and the mystery begins.

Daniel Radcliffe portrays a convincing Arthur Kipps, characteristically. Thanks to Radcliffe’s previous movies (namely Harry Potter), appearance wise he looks too short to be a man and too young to have a child however as the movie progresses, his appearance is forgotten, replaced by his acting

There are some minor changes to the characters in the movie and some added surprises that, if you are the fan of the book, may or may not like. I personally thought the changes gave the movie more to play on and had to be done to make the movie longer and more visually interesting.

The biggest change is the existence of Arthur’s son. Arthur’s wife dies from childbirth and leaves him with their son. This happens at the start of the story and it is his son who propels the story further than the ending written in the book. (For those who haven't read the book, Arthur's son is not born until the end of the story).

In the book, Arthur lacks action and is left frightened; in the movie he attempts to solve the horror to save his son. To do this, the script writers included a thorough explanation of the woman’s history and existence and showed the consequences when one meddles with her. 

I preferred the changes. The book was brief and did not have as much death as a horror reader would have liked. I also preferred the ending. The ending can be considered happy depending on how you look at it. There is proper finish to Arthur’s story. As for the woman, it can not be sure what truly happens to her.

The actors, houses, locations are all perfect for the era and Eel Marsh House looks exactly as described in the book. Even the marsh lands look perfect. The colour of the movie stays dimly light and foggy, blending into the costumes.

This horror film plays heavily on noise. Without the sudden knocking, whispering and scary music, this movie would not be a horror. The noises were perfectly timed and will definitely make the audience jump in their seats. 

Just remember, if you are looking for something a bit more visually frightening you might want to skip this movie.

I spent most of the movie with my eyes under the pillow and hands clapped around my ears (I hate scary films). The reason I continued watching was to see why the woman did the things she did (even though I have read the book, the movie explained this more clearly with some extra touches) and how everything was resolved. I was much more satisfied with this altered story then the book. 

As much as I enjoyed the book, I preferred the altered storyline of the movie. The storyline in the book was simpler and was perfect for a short novel. For a movie, the changes enhanced what the book already had and added more dimensions.

This movie is not for everyone. For anyone who likes the more mystery horror stories, I suggest you give it a try but if you are looking for something fast-paced with more gore, try something else (you will most likely find this movie boring).

Terri's Rating: 3.5/5

I do not like scary movies, so the rating is based predominately on the storyline and the cinematic effects.

Movie Review: Oz the Great and Powerful

Movie Review: Oz the Great and Powerful

Director: Sam Raimi

Year Released: 2013

Running Time: 130mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Adventure, Kids and Family, Fantasy

I was reluctant to watch this movie. I wasn’t quite sure how the actors would sit in this genre since none (that I’ve seen) have been in this style before. I loved The Wizard of Oz as a kid and loved, even more, Wicked the musical. I didn’t want anything to ruin my memories of Oz. But, alas, it is not ruined.

Oz the Great and Powerful is not even in the same league, hence not worth being associated with The Wizard of Oz or Wicked.

The story tells how a circus magician, Oz (same as the land), played by James Franco, arrives in Oz and how his arrival changes the struggle between 3 witches (Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams). With famous actors/actresses, magical costumes and stunning visual effects, how can this movie go wrong? Well for a start it felt more like a mini TV series than a big Hollywood film.

None of the actors/actresses delivered. This may be due to them not fitted for this genre or to the ‘shallow’ script. The characters were developed lazily and poorly, even the established characters were so basically written, there was no depth in their personality therefore I felt nothing towards them.

The worst was Oz himself, James Franco. He is an unreliable man who wants more in life but does not have the courage to achieve his ambition. He is a liar; he sleeps around, and will do anything for money. Oz is not a likable character, even till the end when all ends well and he saves the day, I was left feeling cheated and underwhelmed. He had the most reason and depth to have his character develop thoroughly but at the end of the day he is Oz 'the not so great and not so wonderful'. 

For the 3 witches, it would have been better to have shown their history rather than hear it from the characters. At least with visual aid, the ‘who’s good, who’s bad’ isn’t just merely implied but set in solid. From the movie, I did not feel the hatred between them was real since I had nothing to go by but talk.

(Side note: Am I the only one who thinks James Franco is not a good actor? Okay, so I haven’t seen 72 hours, but I’ve seen him in other movies and… nope, don’t like his acting…. Maybe it’s just me.)

The costumes stay true to the story with one exception, Theodora. She is the one dressed black pants with a purple jacket and a massive rim hat which I can only assume was chosen because it resembles a witch's hat. Her costume looks less Ozzian, and more Carmen San Diego in purple.

The visual effects were bright and stunning….. but a little too bright. The characters seemed to bounce off the screen in a ‘does not fit into the scenery’ way. Imagine the puzzle pieces that do not fit, now picture those pieces in an entirely different colour as the puzzle. This might have been done on purpose to allow a magical effect but what surprised me the most was all the animated creatures suited the background just fine. Then again I watched this movie in 2D and on a fairly modest sized screen. Maybe on the big screen it would have been different.

Having mentioned 2D, this movie was obviously made for 3D with the occasional flower or weapon diving straight into the camera. The 3D effect was less beautiful (Avatar) but more fun (Spy Kids). Watching it in 2D, I found the effects wasteful and eventually annoying. I recommend watching it in 3D.

Having ranted about the movie: the black and white introduction was a nice touch. Oz the Great and Powerful gave a respectful nod to the original film. It felt like home…..

The Wicked witch of the West was my favourite character by far. She had enough intensity in her make up and eyes to make her really evil.

This movie is enjoyable if you watch it in a kid’s perspective. I did not love the movie, but I did not hate it. I can see the enjoyment and the fun ride some people might have, and at some parts so did I, but I will not be re-watching this movie any time soon. 

Terri's rating: 2/5

Movie Review: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Title: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Director: Timur Bekmambetov

Year released: 2012

Running Time: 105 mins

Classification: R

Genre: Action, Fantasy, Horror

Even the thought of Abraham Lincoln being a vampire hunting is preposterous and they decide on making it a non-comedy. Did it deliver? NO.

For anyone who doesn’t know this already, Abraham Lincoln was the 16^th President of the United States and is famously known for ending slavery. He was assassinated in 1865.

Oh and he hunted vampires.

For a movie like this, I expected action and/or horror and/or comedy. From the trailer, it didn’t seem like a horror or comedy. Even so the trailer looked good. It made the title Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter look appealing...... ok so maybe just appealing to me. I was disappointed. 

Personally I am not a big fan of vampire movies, but I’ve seen enough to know how standard vampire movies are. I know vampires are not real therefore vampire hunters are not real, but in the Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter world they are. The vampires still have super strength etc etc and humans are still boring with no special power. So, how can a measly human boy fight vampires without any chemical/biological/technological help?

We start with a young Abraham getting thrown into walls by a ‘bullet in one eye socket’ vampire to a older Abraham throwing vampires out of trains with no assistance. No ‘super strength biological serum’ injection was used and no advanced technology was used. This does not sound plausible.

I get that most people watch it for the action and don’t mind if there’s no reason to Abraham’s super strength but I’m just one of those people who believe if you’re going to make a movie, don’t make it sloppy.

These vampires are not very convincing either. Be romantic or be scary. The vampires in this movie just confuse me. I wasn’t sure if they healed or were just immortal with a human shell. They weren’t particularly scary and obviously not romantic. (Which is fine since vampires are a type of walking dead. Why would anyone fall in love with a corpse? I don’t care how good looking they are.) It felt like the writer wasn’t sure which vampire rules they should stick by. Vampires with powers or vampires who heal and are scared of sun?

There’s a poor effort to integrate the vampire war with the Civil War (I may me be mistaken about the Civil War). I understand the attractiveness of it. To have a non related vampire story integrated into real history would be fun but this was poorly achieved. This is due to the weak background of the story and the awful editing. One day Abraham is young, the next he has a massive beard, a cane and his famous top hat. The texture of the movie design was probably the only thing that was consistent throughout the film.

Before I forget, Abraham’s wife is played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead... not much else to tell since this movie does not play on romance either.

The only thing I was impressed by was how much they made Benjamin Walker look like Abraham Lincoln near the end of the film.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has nothing to offer. Maybe if it wasn’t for the bad editing and unfilled gaps, the movie might have had some potential. Overall, it is not worth anyones time unless of course you want to waste time.

If your looking for a vampire movie, please seek else where as these vampires are busy trying to set their own fictional rules. 

Terri's Rating: 1/5

Movie Review: Wreck-It Ralph

Title: Wreck-It Ralph

Director: Rich Moore

Year released: 2012

Running Time: 108 mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Adventure, Animation, Family and Kids

Being a long-time fan of Pixar, I was quite sceptical with Wreck-It Ralph. No one can possible do better than Pixar. I was wrong. Wreck-It Ralph may not be my favourite animation movie but it’s definitely one of the best.

Basically, this movie is about Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly), a video game villain who is sick of being the villain and decides to go fulfil his dream of being a hero. While on his quest, he causes chaos in the arcade world.

This movie ticks all the boxes of a good kids’ animation. It is enjoyable to boys and girls, adults and children, has great animation, a tender touching story with the perfect amount of comedy. If you haven’t seen it yet I highly recommend it. It may not top Toy Story 3 (which is a personal favourite) but Disney is definitely heading in the right direction with Wreck-It Ralph.

One of my favourite parts of this movie is its reference to old video games. If you ever played video games as a kid, you’ll be delighted to see some appearances of characters from your childhood memories. There is also a joke about High Definition games.

The story is unique and was well thought out. Rather than having the ‘games central’ in cyber space, Wreck-It Ralph’s ‘game central’ looks like a train station with platforms leading to different games. This idea allows the ‘game central’ to look more solid and realistic.

The characters are all likable and surprisingly, relatable. Everyone can sympathise with Ralph. There is a bit of everything for everyone in this film. Comedy, likable main character, little treasures to be found and a twist (which I did not see coming). There is nothing poor I can say about this movie.

Just go watch it already.

Terri’s Rating: 4/5

Adaptations of Jane Austen's 'Emma'

Jane Austen's works are the subject of many a film adaptation and today, I'm focussing on Emma. Our titular heroine is a rich, handsome and clever young woman who plays matchmaker in her little Regency England social circle. Romantic misunderstandings ensue. Like Austen's other works, there is a Happy Ever After for the heroine, in which she ends up with a man. But unlike some of Austen's other works, it is not immediately apparent who that lucky man will be. So if you'd like to keep the suspense going, then I suggest you look away. On the other hand, if you want to know whether you'll like the romance in this story, read on. This piece is intended to help you find an adaptation you'll like. To date, I have only seen four film adaptations of the work. Here they are in no particular order.

But first, a quick rant on the book...

Austen predicted that she had created in Emma a heroine whom no one would like but herself. I'll admit: the one (and only) time I read the book, I disliked Emma. As clever and as lively as she was, I could not forgive Emma's superior manner and selfishness. She treats her “friend” Harriet like a toy – to be picked up and discarded at whim – and I with my 21st century values found Emma's snobbishness to be very off-putting, despite how “appropriate” such behaviour might have been two centuries ago.

Even so, I thought she could have done better in her choice of romantic partner. I mean, Mr Knightley is perhaps the only decent fellow of the lot, but I did not feel their romance at all. Their pairing seemed too convenient, almost but not quite as bad as Marianne and You-Know-Who at the end of Sense and Sensibility (but that's a different rant). Mr Knightley was also old (can you tell I read this when I was young?) and felt more like a relative. When he talks about having known her since she was a baby and starting to love her since she was thirteen – he, at the time, being almost thirty – then yeah... not sexy. At least, not for me with my prudish 21st century Western sensibilities.

Still, it's Austen, so I don't think I need to say that it's a good book, my dislike of the heroine aside. As you might expect, the characterisation is deft and there's a lot of comedy in this comedy of manners. Further, if you're watching a Regency drama then you at least know (in an Austen story) that the plot and character arcs will come together in a largely satisfying way.

1. Emma (1996)

This version, starring Kate Beckinsale as Emma, was the first adaptation I watched. I don't remember much of this other than thinking, at the time, that it was a faithful adaptation of the book. It has a similar look to the 1995 Pride and Prejudice miniseries and there's a muted darkness to the colours. Beckinsale is appropriately girlish and haughty as Emma while Mark Strong is decidedly avuncular as Mr Knightley (also, I have no idea why he mentions holding her as a baby during his freaking marriage proposal and it haunts my mind to this very day). His hair is also distractingly bad. The Knightley/Emma relationship feels like an adult/child relationship (I got the feeling he'd be the sort to constantly scold her while she'd maybe sulk and cry), but hey, you might like that. Alternatively, you might interpret it differently. I enjoyed the film but liked neither of the main characters. I liked even less that they got together. Otherwise, I remember it being pleasant to watch.

2. Emma (1996)

The Gwyneth Paltrow movie is a lighter take on the story, with the comedic aspects of the tale being played up. There are more active, outdoors-y scenes in this one and there's a warm, 90s sort of feel to the aesthetic, not unlike the 1992 version of Little Women. The beginning feels rushed – a lot of information is dumped on the viewer – and for the first half hour or so it feels like everyone is Acting (I also spent way too much time pondering Paltrow's accent than I should have). It took me a while to get into the film, but when I did, I was surprised to find I rather liked it. Emma seems kinder and more of a goody-two-shoes in this version and I liked her the better for it. Jeremy Northam's Mr Knightley exudes a sort of off-duty sexy professor vibe, and as he's much less imposing than Mark Strong, I much preferred this Emma/Knightley pairing to the one in the other 1996 Emma. However, the performances in general are nothing to write home about and I didn't much care for the side characters (though Mrs Weston was distractingly gorgeous). Still, it's good if you want a sweet, romantic film.

3. Emma (2009)

This 2009 adaptation really benefits from being a miniseries, as the increased length gives it the opportunity to flesh out both the novel's story-lines and characters. In some ways, everything about the atmosphere of this series feels like a revenge against those criticisms of “stuffiness” as regards Regency costume dramas: there are plenty of bright colours and exterior shots and there is a much greater sense of familiarity (perhaps to the point of excess) between the characters. Romola Garai's Emma is lively and energetic; she's snobby but she seems so eager to do well that it's easier to like her. While largely faithful to the book, there is a major departure from the source in terms of Emma's own romantic arc. The series places more of a focus on this and there is no slow-build “reveal” of Mr Knightley as her One True Love: from the very moment you see Mr Knightley, here played by Jonny Lee Miller, you know he's the Designated Love Interest. Here, Mr Knightley comes across as reasonable and kind, and his relationship with Emma feels like one of equals, so that gets a thumbs up from me. The Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax business seems to drag on towards the end, but overall I think this version is one of the more cohesive ones and has one of the better casts. Michael Gambon is a hoot as the hypochondriac Mr Woodhouse.

4. Clueless (1995)

The fact it's a very loose adaptation set in a modern American high school might scare some of you off, but really, it's great fun. Emma is reincarnated as Cher Horowitz (Alicia Silverstone), a rich white girl who along with her black best friend Dionne (Stacey Dash) takes it upon herself to “rescue” new student Tai (Brittany Murphy) from the horrors of unpopularity and loser-dom. What I love about this movie is how it plays with all the movie/high school tropes and how funny and quotable it is. Cher is snobby and silly but she's so well-meaning that you root for her nonetheless. She's taken down a peg or two in this film too, and I appreciated seeing more of her personal growth. I don't have much to say about the Mr Knightley character in this one, other than that he's there, he seems alright and he does what he needs to. I also liked how the Emma/Harriet storyline takes centre-stage over the romance. Worth watching, regardless of whether you like Emma. Probably my favourite adaptation and undoubtedly one of the best American High School films out there.

So there you have it. All these adaptations are different and all have their pros and cons. I don't think any of them are “definitive” adaptations but I do think they cater to different tastes. If you have recommendations or favourites, let me know; I'd be interested to see what else is out there!

(A/N: As you can see, I'm trying something a bit different from the usual reviews. Let me know what you think :))

Movie Review: The Host

Title: The Host

Director: Andrew Niccol

Year Released: 2013

Running Time: 125 minutes

Classification: PG-13 (M)

Genre: Science fiction, Romance, Drama

In Roald Dahl's “The Great Automatic Grammatizator”, an engineer creates a story-writing machine which is operated somewhat like a car. The “author” uses pedals and switches to control things like genre, style, humour, length and so on. But it's not as easy as it sounds; the controls must be used judiciously to ensure that the tale is fit for human consumption. It's a great little story and one which I hold in high regard.

Unfortunately, this isn't a review on Dahl's short stories. This is a review on The Host, which is a movie I do not hold in high regard. If its screenplay were produced on Dahl's machine, it would be a version of the machine where the switch for “melodrama” must have got stuck on the ON position and the “science fiction” lever degenerated to a state of advanced malfunction, leaving the plot to function on “passion” alone.

This one note over-dramatisation of everything is partly why the film is so cringe-worthy. While the premise – that aliens, known as yeerks Souls, have taken over the Earth and are using humans as hosts – sounds promising enough, potential moral and philosophical themes are ignored in favour of teen drama, usually of a romantic nature. It's the least interesting aspect of the story, yet it's the aspect that gets the most screen time. The “plot”, which involves our protagonist being hunted down by the Seeker (Diane Kruger), seems more like an afterthought to the romance.

At the very beginning of the film, Melanie Stryder (Saoirse Ronan), is one of the few “free” humans left. When she is implanted with a Soul – a white, glowing alien resembling a palm-sized bacterium with buckets of flagella – the orchestral music swells, rich with strings, ensuring that we know that this is a Beautiful and/or Dramatic Moment. The problem is that every other event in the film is also a Beautiful and/or Dramatic Moment – the scene where Melanie recalls her relationship with Jared (Max Irons), the scene where Melanie's brother (Chandler Canterbury) wonders if the real Melanie is “still in there”, the scene where Melanie sees the human refuge for the first time. So my point is, this is not one of those movies you only realise is bad at the end, or in hindsight, or part-way through. This is one of those movies that you know is bad less than five minutes in, and bad in the manner you can most certainly predict, and bad in the sense that your only reason for staying is the desperate hope it can only get better.

(...this rant review's kind of long, so I'm putting the rest under a cut)

Movie Review: Life of Pi

Title: Life of Pi

Director: Ang Lee

Year Released: 2012

Running Time: 158 minutes

Classification: PG-13 (M)

Genre: Drama, Magic Realism

Life of Pi tells the story of a boy who survives a shipwreck only to find himself sharing a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger. A tad unbelievable, perhaps, but that's the whole point. This is meant to be an epic, spiritual journey – one, which we are told, will make us believe in God. Now, I couldn't help but have high hopes for this film, given its celebrated director, prize-winning book, stunning trailer and great reviews, and I was ready to be a sucker and *~believe~*. Unfortunately, I walked away feeling slightly but distinctly unsatisfied.

Things start off well enough. The visuals are stunning from the get-go, with a vivid palette and adorable HD zoo animals. But as I saw more and more of the writer (Rafe Spall) and adult Pi (Irfan Khan), I felt myself deflate. The use of the interview as a framing technique seemed to work well enough in the book, but here it felt limiting and more than a bit contrived – rather than letting the story speak for itself, we are told, on no uncertain terms, that we are about to embark on a ~journey of faith~.

Perhaps it's because I sat in a bad spot in the cinema, but what ensued was not especially captivating. The early discussions on religion are superficial but heavy-handed and the acting somewhat stilted. As such, the retelling of Pi's childhood seems to drag on (get to the tiger already!) and I failed to connect with the character and his beliefs.

Things get better once Pi is played by Suraj Sharma and the ocean voyage begins in earnest. His plight is terrifying yet so absurd that it isn't so much frightening as it is surreal. The vast expanses of ocean and sky only accentuate the dream-like atmosphere. Speaking of, the visuals live up to the hype. They are, simply put, very spectacular; the tiger looks very life-like and the scenery is gorgeous. It's possibly the most beautiful movie I've ever seen and is worth watching for the graphics alone. Pi's strange adventures on the ocean are easily the best part of the film – in survival mode, Pi becomes easier to relate to and you get a sense of his joy, his awe and his despair. As a bonus, everything looks magnificent, but I think I may have mentioned that already.

At the end we're confronted with the question of what to believe and the answer, supposedly, will affirm our faith. At this point, my good spirits withered away. Especially given the shallow treatment of faith and religion at the start of the film, I found this turn of events to be somewhat of a let-down and a reminder of the things I should have felt but didn't. Where I had previously enjoyed this as a story about a Boy and his Tiger, it all now felt a bit hollow. I can't quite remember feeling this way with Yann Martel's book, so I'm not sure whether the problem lies in the tale or its telling.

Many have found Life of Pi to be marvellously uplifting, but I'm afraid I hold with the less favourable reviews. Certainly it is impressive on a technical level and certainly it is a unique tale to have been brought on screen. Pi's adventures with the tiger are indeed wondrous, but alone, they are incapable of carrying the whole narrative. The film's key flaw is that it fails to give substance to its own spiritual aspirations – but clearly, it seems, many would disagree entirely.

Alex's Rating: 3/5

Movie Review: Les Misérables

Title: Les Misérables

Director: Tom Hooper

Year Released: 2012

Running Time: 158 minutes

Classification: PG-13 (M)

Genre: Historical drama, Musical

Tom Hooper's Les Misérables is a lavish production designed to punch you in the heart and jerk you around by the feelings. If you're not a fan of the stage musical or musicals in general, then you probably won't like the film – it's all singing, all the time. On the other hand, if you like musicals and being emotionally manipulated, then you're in for a right old treat.

Set in 19th century France, the film tells a story of interlocking lives – each, in its own way, touched with misery. At its centre is Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), an escaped convict who remakes himself as an honest man whilst on the run from the law, in this case personified by policeman Javert (Russell Crowe). The sweeping narrative is essentially about people trying to survive in a crapsack world. That said, Les Misérables won't make you too miserable. Sure, a lot of bad things happen, but in the end enough “good” happens so that you won't leave the cinema weeping for the fate of humanity, even if you do leave weeping.

The main strength of the film lies in its star-studded cast, who by and large play their roles with the requisite amount of melodrama and theatrical flair. By now, you've probably heard several opinions about the live singing. Here are mine:

• My favourites were Anne Hathaway's Fantine, Aaron Tveit's Enjolras and Colm Wilkinson's cameo as the Bishop.
• Hugh Jackman could've been better but I still cried during most of his songs. Such is the power of Hugh Jackman.
• I was expecting Russell Crowe to be horrible given all the bad press, but he's not as bad as everyone makes him out to be. While he's the weakest singer out of the main cast, he wasn't objectively terrible.
• Eddie Redmayne continues to confuse me with his strange/good looks and his Kermit-y singing voice (and I like Kermit, so I don't know what to make of this).
• My main disappointment was Sacha Baron Cohen as Thénardier – I found him a bit bland and his having a French accent didn't make sense. I know the story's set in France, but when so many characters have cockney accents, well, it's just confusing.

I must say I really liked the old timey painterly – and occasionally stage-like – look of the movie. The camera, on the other hand, seemed to really like close-ups of faces. I presume this is to ensure that the viewer doesn't miss how heart-wrenching everything is, because it totally is and you should totally cry, gosh darn it. The film practically demands the audience to feel for its characters, and while this might be distracting and annoying for some, I was swept along in the emotional ride all too easily. The one exception was (spoiler alert) Javert's suicide scene, which goes so far that it's almost hilarious.

Two main problems about the movie were the pacing and the unexplained bits. With so much story, so many songs and so little time, there are understandable time constraints, but the oddities were enough to put a dent in my enjoyment. For example (spoiler alert), it feels as if Fantine goes from getting fired to selling teeth all within the space of an afternoon. What about finding another job, Fantine? Or maybe trying a bit harder to get your old job back? Another thing I struggled with was the implausibility of the insta-love between Marius and Cosette (Amanda Seyfreid), and the fact that “being in love” seemed to be their one collective personality trait. The revolution (happening because poor people have it bad? or something) was also badly explained, its execution poorly organised at best and stupid at worst. Had I not known the general plot beforehand, I would probably have struggled with understanding what was going on. While the film is by no means a study in realism, these moments of incredulity pulled me out of the story and I found myself pondering the logistics of it all when I should have been crying instead.

The film is a good adaptation of the musical. The singing and the emotional punishment might not be for everyone, but for musical lovers and masochists it's fantastic. The catchy tunes and ~dramatic~ performances make it one of the more pleasant depressing films to watch. Les Misérables is not without flaws, but half the time they're fun to argue about and the other half of the time you're probably trying too hard not to ugly-cry to really care.

Alex's Rating: 3.5/5