Reviews by SJMJ91

Well, here we are again with yet another film adaptation aiming to relive the magic and beauty from our favourite comics and TV programmes during our childhoods. Being one who didn’t really read many of the comic books but used to watch the original TV cartoons at a young age, thoughts of yet another feature film based on The Smurfs to start off with weren’t all that great due to the fact that the altered adjustments in the film from the cartoons are easily recognizable which could kill the charm and innocence that we witnessed in our childhoods. Having already featured two Belgian animated versions in 1965 and 1976, the latest American version of the classic cartoons is beyond corny as it turned out a completely failed disaster in almost every single aspect!


In all honesty, The Smurfs is a perfect example that demonstrates how even a family film, the most light-hearted genre of film out there, can go wrong and totally fall apart as it simply does not have any of the particular concepts that are required to satisfy its target audience. It is literally humourless and there really is absolutely funny or witty about it at all, there is no emotion or chemistry between neither the Smurf characters nor the young couple, not to mention the acting, character development and script were all absolutely atrocious. On the other hand, like every film that involves animation deserves, The Smurfs clearly does have its impressive visual effects but even they didn’t save the film as the dialogue simply makes it like an altered version of Alvin And The Chipmunks.


Over the years, director Raja Gosnell has provided us with some of the corniest, family orientated disasters of this generation. Gosnell’s previously best-known work is the live-action/CGI converted feature film of classic 2D cartoon show Scooby Doo and its absolutely atrocious sequel, it doesn’t come to a great surprise that lightning has stuck yet again. Despite liking the first Scooby Doo film in 2002, Gosnell truly knows how to transform a gem from a kid’s childhood and turn it into disaster. The screenplay of The Smurfs is beyond soppy as it is written in a really bad dialogue, especially with how the film ended as it could have ended stronger than it actually did. Plus, the incredibly corny scenes lacked reality and truly kills the humour, charm and innocence of The Smurfs characters.


Excluding the Smurfs, Hank Azaria is perhaps the leader of the pack as he portrays the evil wizard Gargamel. Over the years, Azaria has been part of a large number of films but with rather lame performances, and it’s safe to say that he truly cannot act at all and gives us yet another appalling performance. This film as well as the Gargamel character really could have worked out brilliantly if the character was a bit more comical let alone more evil. Honestly, not in a long time has there been a soppier, poorly acted and wooden dry couple in a film! Glee star Jayma Mays and Neil Patrick Harris, who has a reputation of starring in unsuccessful and corny films portray the selective roles. There is literally no sparks, no chemistry and simply no love or compassion between them in the slightest, let alone either of them have for the Smurfs.


Quite honestly, if you’re a big fan of The Smurfs cartoons and/or the original comic books, you will most likely be disappointed or even rather disgusted at this updated American version because the Smurfs in this one really aren’t the Smurfs that we saw back then. Yes, they have the same features but personality wise and how we think about them, they are all entirely different! Including the 3D animation, they all carry the incredibly annoying and unrealistic characteristics of Alvin, Simon and Theodore from the Alvin And The Chipmunks that will have some kids at least under 5 giggling on occasions but it will not impress others.


Overall, The Smurfs is an absolutely atrocious film that is an utter disaster in almost every single way. Yes, the film does have its decent effects but a film really isn’t just about the effects, whether it is aimed for kids or not. If there’s anything that The Smurfs has taught us, it’s taught us that if you’re intending to touch the next generation with a film based upon a TV show or a kind of book from the previous one, make sure that you get the facts straight first and just make it original rather than merging it with other films. After how this one turned out, who knows how the sequel upcoming in 2013 will transpire.

First of all, before watching Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy it’s important to know that it is not the James Bond-like spy film that features gun fights, car chases and a lot of violent physical contact. Nevertheless, it is unlike any other espionage film that you could possibly see as it takes you on a more theoretical journey into complex investigations and problem solving. Although spy films are not the most favoured sub-genre that everybody will enjoy, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is neither one of the best nor worst spy films that there has been as it provides positive qualities and negative flaws on equal fronts.


Having said that Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is unlike many other espionage films such as the James Bond, Jason Bourne and Mission: Impossible franchises, there are a few certain faults that the film consists of that could make its viewers slightly lose interest. For example, reading the synopsis doesn’t seem too difficult to understand but when you’re actually watching the film and as it goes into specific detail, it becomes rather complex and can occasionally exhaust the audience by gradually making them feel a bit lost by it. So, as a result of this, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy really is a film that needs to be watched more than once to gain a full and clear understanding of the story or to just simply read the novel and watch the 1979 television series.


Although finding the complex and rather slow dialogue was the only major problem, the direction and filming side of production was just superb! From the director of Swedish horror film, Let The Right One In, Tomas Alfredson goes somewhere different as it becomes his very first English language film. Time and time again, we see this ‘whodunit’ style thrillers resulting in plot twists and dark background stories but Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy expresses the dark yet rather clean settings of the film demonstrating life in the 1970s and during the Cold War. Despite the style of filming, Alfredson just lacked expressing that realistic feeling you get when trying to feel attached to the characters, so he may be able to do a lot better but he can do a lot worse than this.


Let’s all be perfectly honest about this: Gary Oldman is undoubtedly one of the most underrated actors of all time who has delivered some fantastic performances and has appeared in a lot of blockbusters over the years. His performance in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was absolutely brilliant as George Smiley which could result in him finally gaining him a long-awaited Academy Award nomination for Best Leading Actor. One who has watched the TV series would have found it a rather difficult task to be able to surpass what the late Alec Guinness managed to bring forth to the character, but considering that I’ve not watched the series; Gary Oldman is the one who could’ve surpassed Guinness. Recent Academy Award winning actor Colin Firth (The King’s Speech) makes his mark and delivers a good performance as Deputy Chief of the Circus, Bill Haydon. Other strong additions to the cast are uprising young actors Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch who together add a bit of youth alongside the older and more experienced actors. Mark Strong makes a very crucial appearance as Jim Prideaux in the powerful prologue of the film and within the rather sudden flashbacks that constantly kept appearing at the most unexpected times.


Overall, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is neither a fantastic film that is one of the greatest of its genre as well as of 2011, nor one of the worst either. Gary Oldman deserved the critical acclaim that he received and is accompanied by a strong ensemble cast that saves the film. I wouldn’t go as far as to call the story a ‘mess’ but there are many ways where it could have been a lot easier to understand and could have been better.

As we should’ve all gathered about now, remakes and second adaptations from another film/novel have proved themselves as massive gambles that have become either a huge success (e.g. The Departed, King Kong, Scarface) or a huge disappointment (Psycho, A Nightmare On Elm Street, Planet Of The Apes). Although the Swedish version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was released in 2009, the idea of a second film adaptation but in English after only two years was a rather unorthodox and unusual one as it ultimately became quite a shock. However, when it came to our attention that David Fincher was selected as director, the anticipation to watch it began to build and expectations were high. Amazingly, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo overcame all obstacles and made itself worthy as one of the best films of 2011 and re-lives the brilliance of the 2009 Swedish version.


There are certain arguments debating about whether this English language version is even a remake at all due to opposing languages with different actors and crew members despite being a second adaptation. Nevertheless, from a personal perspective, this version is not a remake of the 2009 Swedish film but it is re-living the source of both films and it takes you to yet another different level. In addition, this version has perhaps enhanced its viewers to watch the other adaptation to gain an understanding and an outlook of what to expect in this one, although it’s not really essential which one you select to watch first because they mutually provide the exact same emotional feelings from one another.


During the early stages of his career, David Fincher has provided us with many dark thrillers that include Alien 3, Seven, The Game, Fight Club, Panic Room and Zodiac, but has provided us with other fantastic dramas The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button and The Social Network. However, as far as this is concerned, it is the exact film that only Fincher could pull off (in English language, at least) due to the fact that he simply ventured back to the drama and thriller genres that he has been famously recognised for and has merged them together, which is what we have with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Actually, his attention to detail is a very similar style to what the late Stanley Kubrick did in the past. Fincher provides us with a film that somehow manages to not take all of the credit from Niels Arden Oplev, director of the Swedish version, and all the other crew members as the English language version pulls off the exact concepts that we saw previously. Screenwriter Steve Zaillian has worked alongside directors from the likes of Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorsese where he has written some of the most creative and extremely powerful scripts of the past 20 years. After already co-writing 2011 film Moneyball, he works alongside David Fincher as he somehow improvises and, like Fincher, doesn’t necessarily steal any of the aspects in the previous version. In fact, it wasn’t Fincher and Zaillian adjusting the story and its concepts to fit in with its target audience, it was altering the actors and crew members into the Scandinavian neighbourhood and feeling like a re-birth of the book.


Quite honestly, to be able to come close or to even surpass Noomi Rapace’s outstanding performance as Lisbeth Salander would be a very difficult task for any actress to be able to pull off, especially in a different language. Out of the numerous number of candidates for the role, Rooney Mara (who had previously worked with Fincher in The Social Network) gives a performance that fits almost every specific aspect of Rapace’s Salander that literally makes Mara’s role neither worse nor better than Rapace’s. Mara adds one very slight adjustment to Lisbeth Salander’s character that Rapace didn’t: a sense of innocence. Noomi Rapace was a slightly darker Salander but they were both equally as fantastic as each other. Mara rightfully deserves an Academy Award nomination for Best Leading Actress and if she does receive one, it will perhaps justify Noomi Rapace not receiving one seeing as she was robbed.


Alongside Daniel Craig, fellow actors Viggo Mortensen, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp were battling it out for the leading role of Mikael Blomkvist, and as good as the other actors would have been in the role, Craig provides a role that is only for him (in the English language, of course) but isn’t quite an Oscar worthy performance. We all recognise him as James Bond now and personal thoughts about him being in this film were mixed to begin with and he actually became a surprise as he provides an equally sensational performance as Michael Nyqvist in the role of Blomkvist. Although Max Von Sydow, a famous Swedish Hollywood actor, was the favourite to star in the film as Henrik Vanger, veteran actor Christopher Plummer replaced him and provides another brilliant performance! Plummer illustrates perfectly the lonely, depressed and rather desperate grandfather that Henrik really is. Stellan Skarsgård, who has portrayed good supporting heroes and villains over the years, makes his mark and gives a performance to remember as well. There are other brief appearances from other actors Steven Berkoff, Robin Wright, Joely Richardson and Embeth Davidtz also.


Overall, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo became both a huge surprise yet at the same time became something that was rather expected from Fincher as this English language version is neither better nor worse than the Swedish version. Also, there are a few twists and turns that we didn’t see before, so there are a few minor surprises in store. After how this turned out despite the rather crazy idea to begin with and they could not get any better than this one, the other two sequels in the trilogy don’t necessarily have to be made. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo has become yet another triumph for David Fincher featuring filmmaking at its finest, fantastic performances (especially from Mara) and an innovative script that would make the late author Stieg Larsson proud.

For decades, films based upon the magical and enchanting tradition of Christmas have melted the hearts and inspired a countless number of people from the likes of hilarious disaster-comedies, live-action family heart-warmers and visually stunning animations. However, making critically and financially successful Christmas films within this current generation is often a rather difficult task due to the fact that the overloaded budget and effects usually take over the meaning and message of the story it’s trying to tell its audiences (The Polar Express for example). As far as Arthur Christmas is concerned, it not only provides dazzling effects but it amazingly establishes the Christmas spirit for both kids and adults.


Arthur Christmas ultimately fulfils a question that is always on a child’s mind when it comes to Christmas: how does Santa get round to every single house around the world and deliver all of the presents in one single night considering the world population is growing? Plus, as children we have questioned about the appearance and the outlook of Santa’s grotto and his home in the North Pole and of what we witness in the film, our imaginative knowledge of Santa is tested as the backgrounds come pretty close to what we would like to imagine within the North Pole. The most charming concepts about Arthur Christmas are that the story is just very simple although there are a few particular moments where the film has its occasionally slow segments, but that didn’t jeopardise the Christmas spirit that the film beholds.


Throughout the past 20 years, Aardman Animations have given us some of the most creative, hilarious and beautifully crafted feature films, but Arthur Christmas becomes only their fourth animated feature after Chicken Run, Wallace And Gromit In The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit and Flushed Away where they collaborated with Dreamworks Animation. However, for Arthur Christmas, they cooperated with Sony Pictures Entertainment in their first feature together. Like Pixar Animation Studios in the USA, Aardman Animations in the UK have always made their films where they have made the characters; story and script their number one priority if they are to succeed, which is why both have succeeded admirably almost every time. Aardman have mixed all kinds of verbal jokes from the likes of wacky slapstick and physical humour as we have seen in the pats that is efficient for kids and adults alike.


Aside from the effects and story, a strong and energetic ensemble cast is a huge priority the majority of the time as it can often be the key to a successful film for the family. After previously leading an ensemble cast in other 2011 animated film Gnomeo And Juliet, James McAvoy leads the pack once again but even better this time as he brings forth a very sweet, funny and heart-melting character with a big heart and shows a tremendous amount of courage. A funny key part of the characters is that most of the main characters names are associated and are linked in some way with Christmas, but the heir next in line to be Santa is called Steve with Santa’s original name in the film being Malcolm. These could be almost like humourous gags within the characters but it’s funny and adds more reality to the characters and makes them more human.


Hugh Laurie was very good as Steve as he provides the well-spoken and attractive English accent with the cool yet rather arrogant personality. Although personally finding Jim Broadbent a favoured candidate to possibly portray Santa in a live-action film one day, he provides his voice in a role that almost completely defines Santa. In most of his roles, Broadbent has portrayed characters with a genuinely soft and easy-going nature and provides a very good performance. Santa’s true nature in this film is tested and it goes into great depth about and becomes a story of self-discovery. Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton and Ashley Jensen make supporting appearances in their respective roles while Laura Linney, Michael Palin, Joan Cusack and Robbie Coltrane make their voices heard in cameo appearances.


Overall, Arthur Christmas is a dazzling and exhilarating adventure that takes you beyond what you imagined as it takes you to the imaginative and enchanting world of Christmas on the North Pole and is sure to build-up the Christmas spirit to an even higher level. It miraculously isn’t ruined due to the big budget but small brains and heart like we have seen many times over the years and it will be an adorable family film to watch anytime including the Christmas season. It is a strong contender for Best Animated Picture 2011 and will hopefully become a Christmas and family classic in years to come.

You could write a very long list of the sports films that there have been over the years where we witness a re-telling of one’s story onto the big-screen both inside and outside of their career, and have either been huge successful Oscar contenders or simply films for entertainment alone. Although sports, let alone films based on them, aren’t always for everybody and considering that baseball perhaps isn’t the most popular sport out there, but despite that Moneyball reveals itself to be another rather sensitive and thought-provoking biographical sports film that takes you on a trip into the financial and tactical aspects of baseball and it teaches its audience quite a number of lessons.


Out of all of the sports that there are, in almost every single one the genre as a whole is usually split into two as it consists of two separate different styles of sport. We have the heavy-going, depressing and rather violently approached films that abide with a lot of physical contact and has a very dark tone to it (i.e. Raging Bull, The Fighter, Million Dollar Baby, Cinderella Man) and there are the slightly easier-going, occasionally funny and rather enlightening ones with still an affectionate story, such as Invictus, The Damned United, The Blind Side and Bend It Like Beckham. Moneyball, however, falls into the latter style and provides a traditional sports film alternatively becomes a brain waving exercise for the mind as it helps gain a more clear understanding of the baseball sport alongside interesting mathematical statistics.


From previously working on Capote in 2005 in his first feature film debut, director Bennett Miller goes on to make only his second theatrical feature and makes a film that isn’t all about the sport itself it features, but it’s an in-depth personal story that is like the occasional underdog story that we have seen over the years. So, it basically focuses more about what goes on from off the pitch rather than on it. Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, who is the latest winner of the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for David Fincher’s The Social Network, this time not only works on another different genre and another bio-pic, but he’s also not alone as he writes alongside co-Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian who wrote the scripts from the likes of Schindler’s List, Hannibal, Gangs Of New York, American Gangster and the American remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Together, Sorkin and Zaillian collaborate and write a very creative and rather sharp script that is worthy of a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination. However, there is one problem with Moneyball - the pacing of it is rather slow and drags on a few occasions, so it could’ve been cut short by at least 10-15 minutes.


Brad Pitt has always been a Hollywood favourite ever since the dawning of his career in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but as of late he is providing performances that have bought us a whole new side to him that took him a very long time to show. Following his great performances in recent films such as The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, Inglourious Basterds and The Tree Of Life alongside some of the greatest directors of this generation, Pitt provides another performance to remember as Billy Beane. Considering that Brad doesn’t really resemble Beane himself hardly at all and due to Brad’s good looks, his manly nature and his famed status as a recognizable celebrity sex symbol, Brad provides almost his own character and shows that only he could pull it off so exquisitely. So, as a result of this, Brad deserves an Oscar nomination for his role.


Jonah Hill, like Seth Rogen in 50/50, really could have been the induced poison of the film that could have killed and totally ruined it. However, like Rogen, Hill achieves a long-awaited breakthrough as young economics graduate Peter Brand. You may find him incredibly annoying in the majority of the films that he has been in or absolutely hilarious, but the chemistry between him and Pitt on-screen is an almost exact illustration of a real relationship between a teacher and his apprentice. Phillip Seymour Hoffman also delivers a very good performances and adds more sophistication to the film and works alongside Bennett Miller for the second consecutive time in a row after Hoffman’s Academy Award winning performance in Capote. Robin Wright also makes a brief appearance as Beane’s ex-wife Sharon.


Overall, Moneyball is an enjoyable sports film that is, unlike many sports film, a rather enlightening and colourful experience that is all-round interesting to watch. Due to its colourful background and the nature of baseball in general, if you’re either American, Canadian, descent of either or are simply a fan of baseball in general, you may gain the upper hand with this one than others who don’t fit into any of these. To help gain a clearer understanding of baseball, Moneyball is a great starting point and you will feel very glad that you’ve watched it.

Loosely based upon the children’s book of the same name by Richard & Florence Atwater in 1938, it took approximately 73 years for the release of the feature film. However, despite the very long awaited release and as cute and as child-friendly as it seemed to begin with, there were immediate impressions that it would have its fair share of clichés and corny concepts that wouldn’t make it one to remember. Having said that there were neither high nor low expectations for Mr. Popper’s Penguins, it was simply just going into a film that may have had its weaknesses but it was just a bit of fun that was worth your time.


Quite frankly, any film involving relationships and personal bonds between humans and small animals is incredibly cute and appealing for children, but considering that this does just this for its target audience, Mr. Popper’s Penguins is severely wounded for its obvious predictability and the pacing of the film was occasionally slow at times. It begins satisfying but when the penguins came into the equation, the pacing of the film gradually got slower and it became something that was rather dry and at times, rather empty. There are a few funny laughs in the film that added charm and an easy-going nature to the film.


The films from director Mark Waters have been considered as popular public favourites over the years from the likes of Mean Girls, Freaky Friday and The Spiderwick Chronicles. However, now that he has provided us with his latest feature film, Mr. Popper’s Penguins is a film that is genuinely easy enough for Waters to make as it features the colourful and enlightening tone with friendly and funny aspects, such as the penguins watching Charlie Chaplin films. However, he provides us with a more visual approach to the film that attempts to aid the film from falling into disaster. Admittedly, the script was rather corny that consists of on-going gags and occasionally continues almost needlessly, but it occasionally shows the wackiness of Jim Carrey at his absolute best.


Having provided two divided sides to his acting ability by giving absolutely hilarious and wild performances and then really serious and emotional ones over the years, Jim Carrey stars in a role that proves almost instantly that he is almost like a fill-in slot for the film by avoiding a disastrous critical response. In fact, it is almost like a very balanced role that leans towards neither a performance to remember nor one that leans him into a disaster, although Carrey has had his fair share of hits and misses over the years. In all honesty, if you’re an avid Jim Carrey fan especially from his films in the 1990s, you’ll get quite a bit of enjoyment out of this one and this film really would have been a disaster and not funny or delightful in the slightest if he hadn’t been in this film. Veteran actress Angela Lansbury added a bit more sophistication and became a treat to the film as she stars in only her third film in 10 years and delivers a decent performance.


As far as the penguins are concerned, you will not be able to resist them and will fall in love with them very quickly or you will truly despise them. The six penguins named Captain (the leader), Loudy (nosiest one), Bitey (the most nibbling one), Stinky (the one who’s prone to flatulence), Lovey (friendly and cuddly) and Nimrod (the clumsiest one) and each of their different personalities have their similar natures with the seven dwarfs in the classic tale of Snow White. They each are one on their own and do heart and soul as they each bond with Mr. Popper rather quickly and become a great deal to him. The only major problem with the six penguins is that it alters and toys with the facts about their nature, and there are certain moments that are almost laughable to witness (i.e. playing in the park in the snow with them and nobody’s around). Nevertheless, they are adorable characters that will put a grin on their viewer’s faces.


Overall, Mr. Popper’s Penguins is a very corny film with many flaws, but it is also a very cute and fun film to watch that will leave you feel a bit warmer inside at the end. To be honest, it needs to just be appreciated for what it is and it’s nothing to take seriously. Although it’s a film that really could have been a lot better, at the same time could have been a lot worse. So, it makes itself worthy as a warm and entertaining enough film that is a decent recommendation for families to just sit down and enjoy.

In all honesty, there are males out there who are going to immediately presume that Bridesmaids is going to be just another chick flick that we’ve seen year after year, as it appears to have familiar concepts like we have seen in the TV series of Sex And The City and the two feature films due to the relationships and social behaviour between female friends and relatives. However, Bridesmaids became a rather unexpected surprise and somehow miraculously surpassed its chick flick outlook and turned into an absolutely hilarious comedy that is suitable for males as well as females.


Having said that the plot of the film is very basic and is rather short and sweet, Bridesmaids lasts approximately 2 hours and it is neither rushed nor incredibly slow. It has the ability to fit in the time to understand the characters and it manages to turn itself inside out, so to speak, as the comedy within dominantly surpasses the soppy girly story. The style of humour in Bridesmaids has familiar concepts to 2009 hit comedy The Hangover due to the combination of running gags and hilarious and awkward situations on a life-changing adventure. In fact, Bridesmaids is just like The Hangover but with females.


Being the guy who went on to produce (and occasionally direct and write) some of the most popular comedies of this generation but has received either mixed or a negative overall critical response, Judd Apatow has made a name for himself and has been part of a few successful comedies (e.g. Superbad, Knocked Up, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Pineapple Express, Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy), but his latest hit Bridesmaids is quite possibly the finest film that he has ever done. As for director Paul Fieg, who has only directed episodes from television shows directs only his second film and although his previous and debut feature: Unaccompanied Minors did not gain widespread acclaim let alone hardly any recognition at all, he goes on to make his breakthrough with Bridesmaids.


Kristen Wiig has made frequent cameo and supporting appearances in films produced by Judd Apatow (Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story), and she takes not only the leading role in Bridesmaids, but also serves as co-writer (her first script) alongside other screenwriter and actress Annie Mumolo who appeared in the film too. Wiig gives a performance to remember as Annie, the young woman who is almost completely alone and perhaps feels she needs to be this maid of honour in order to make something out of her life. Wiig provides a rather bitter yet absolutely hilarious and rather sexy approach to Annie’s character and as result; she deserves her Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Musical/Comedy.


Especially when it involves Annie, the film consists of typical issues from the average chick flick like jealousy, insecurities, narcissism, cat fights, self-doubt, self-pity, self-destruction that we generally see in real-life between young women. Helen is an almost perfect enemy for Annie in this case. Rose Byrne, who had already starred in James Wan’s latest horror film Insidious and X-Men prequel X-Men: First Class, Byrne’s performance as Helen is entirely different but it was very good as there are so many hilarious yet rather serious sparks between herself and Annie. Melissa McCarthy gives without a doubt the funniest performance of the film as Megan who is a rather similiar character to Alan Garner, portrayed by Zach Galifianakis, in The Hangover and it’s sequel. Wendy McLendon-Covey and Ellie Kemper are added to the mix and make the female wolf-pack even funnier, and expect a nice surprise appearance from British comedian and actor Matt Lucas.


Overall, Bridesmaids is one of the most surprisingly brilliant films that don’t often come our way very often. This is not a chick flick, it’s an adventure comedy that goes through experiences of priceless disastrous events and use of vulgar language and humour, but it also has a heart that will move its audiences. It rightfully deserves a Best Picture - Musical/Comedy nomination at the Golden Globes and it makes its mark as Judd Apatow’s greatest comedy to date and one of the most entertaining films of 2011.

Well, here we are again with yet another colourful and enlightening romantic-comedy from Woody Allen but hasn’t given us a film that has fulfilled the beauty and delight from previous successes - Annie Hall, Manhattan and Hannah And Her Sisters. However, having said that you’d know almost exactly what to expect with almost every single Woody Allen romantic-comedy, he achieves another breakthrough in his career as Midnight In Paris takes us on a daydream-like adventure through Paris and becomes his greatest film in years!


The city of Paris is perhaps one of the most common film-location choices and over the years, has made its mark as glistening sunshine within the film industry and the world of Hollywood, which we have witnessed in films such as Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Amélie, two of the three in the Trois Couleurs aka Three Colours trilogy and amongst others. Within the first 5 minutes of the film, we are taken into the beauty of Paris as there is just footage of the most attracted sites within the city, and are introduced into the colourful nature that leads into the story. So, as the film progresses, the film provides not only the beautiful settings of Paris, but also the personal effect it has on the characters and audiences watching.


In addition, Midnight In Paris represents other particular forms of beauty as it has enchanting and enlightening continuous music that almost tells the story, and it is a very colourful story with dazzling cinematography and art direction. There is only one flawed issue that could be quite crucial and affective for other viewers, and that is Midnight In Paris isn’t your traditional hilarious laugh-out-loud comedy and is rom-coms that happens most of the time. However, due to the positive aspects of production within the film, it makes up for excluding laugh-out-loud humour by making it still enlightening and colourful enough for its viewers.


Midnight In Paris consists of a strong ensemble cast – mostly American actors in a French city, but there are still some French actors. Leading the pack for Woody Allen’s latest romantic-comedy is Owen Wilson, truly an actor who you either love or you hate. Although, having never been a huge admirer of the man, he has admittedly delivered some good performances in most recent films. In all honesty, his performance as Gill is quite possibly his greatest performance yet as he provides a performance that rather easy-going and inspiring about self-discovery and you want out of your life. In fact, it has opened up a whole new discovery about Owen Wilson as an actor – he can be serious in his roles with either a film director who’s passionate about his/her projects or but in a comedy just for entertainment, he doesn’t always impress. As a result of his impressive performance, he deserves (yes, deserves) his Golden Globe nomination.


Rachel McAdams is mostly recognised as the girl from The Notebook and Mean Girls, so she has already gained the hearts of audiences who love romantic dramas and comedies. McAdams portrays somebody that isn’t so familiar with what she has previously done. Inez is an argumentative, shallow and a rather hateful young woman, who acts rather dominant on occasions, but she did deliver a satisfying performance but it isn’t one of her most memorable. Academy Award winning French actress Marion Cotillard appears Adriana, the mistress of Pablo Picasso, who Gil meets and is instantly attracted to. Kathy Bates portrayed wise and famous American writer, Gertrude Stein, who was in fact a real-life person who lived in France throughout the majority of her life and lived to the age of 72. Adrien Brody makes a cameo appearance as Spanish surrealist Salvador Dalí, who was also a real-life person in the early to mid 20th century.


Overall, Midnight In Paris is a short and sweet romantic comedy that is easily one of Woody Allen’s greatest achievements in many years and for this reason, it has become a well-deserved Oscar contender for a numerous number of awards. It is perhaps focused more on the beautiful settings side than anything else and it cannot really be re-lived, so it is a film that is better only seeing once because you can just experience and travel along with the characters and there will be no experience like any other.

Throughout his 30+ year career as a film director, Martin Scorsese has gone on to make feature films that have become some of the most violent and sinister crime films in the history of cinema from the likes of Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Departed and Cape Fear. However, in 2011 he makes something entirely different that is beyond anything that he has ever done, and although he has taken a vast turn towards almost the opposing genre to what he has previously worked on, he goes on to make yet another masterpiece that takes us on an absolutely magnificent journey about the history of films and expresses a whole new side to him that took us all so long to witness.


Ever since the re-birth of 3D that began with James Cameron’s Avatar, it has become a money-grubbing gimmick but at the same time, has been a phenomenon by experiencing cinema at a whole new level. Having said that there haven’t been many films to have reached the realistic and dazzling level of 3D for a very long time, Hugo manages to avoid being a film that gets slapped, so to speak, by using the 3D gimmick to gain more money. So, it proves that paying for 3D tickets really is worth the money as it demonstrates what 3D is all about, it moves you a step closer to it feeling like reality and the film as a whole expresses the magic of movies and there is no greater experience.


Only until recently, we saw the legendary Steven Spielberg go beyond anything he had ever done as he went on to make his first animated feature film The Adventures Of Tintin, and proudly Martin Scorsese does the same as he provides a whole new side to not only himself as a director and the forthcoming fate of 3D but the spiritual magic of cinema from the past and for the upcoming future. Hugo literally became a film that is split into two as it begins with a beautiful heart-warmer for children, but progresses and becomes a very emotional and enchanting bio-pic of how cinema truly began. John Logan, who’s previous written screenplays have included Ridley Scott’s Gladiator, Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street, Edward Zwick’s The Last Samurai, goes on to write his second screenplay in a Martin Scorsese film (first was The Aviator) and magically balances the charm and magic with the heartfelt emotion and witty humour for children and adults alike.


Hugo may be Scorsese’s first family film but it is also his first feature film without Leonardo DiCaprio ever since Bringing Out The Dead in 1999 as he brings forth a brand new ensemble cast. Asa Butterfield, who gave a breakthrough performance in The Boy In The Striped Pajamas does an absolutely fantastic job as Hugo Cabret, who resembles famous Disney prince Aladdin. Butterfield gets yet another breakthrough and becomes one of the best child stars of this generation. Chloe Grace Moretz already hit the mark as one of the greatest child actors after her mind-blowing and breath-taking performance in Kick-Ass but this time, she expresses Isabelle as not only a cute young girl, but also with a very mature nature. Ben Kingsley perhaps had the most on his shoulders as he portrayed the toy shop owner, later revealed to be the late French filmmaker and illusionist Georges Méilés. Kingsley, who has portrayed real-life people on more than one occasion, provides the realistic feeling that he himself was the backbone of cinema, so to speak, and delivers a fantastic performance!


From a personal perspective, Sacha Baron Cohen was the true star of Hugo because now after seeing Hugo and is scheduled to be in Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained, he really is an actor to be reckoned with as he gives a very funny (similar kind of humour as to what we’ve seen him in before) and yet a very genuine performance. Hugo has become his breakthrough in the genre of drama. Ray Winstone, Jude Law, Emily Mortimer, Richard Griffiths, Helen McCrory, Frances de la Tour and Christopher Lee add more warmth to the film with their casual supporting appearances. Plus, co-producer Johnny Depp makes one appearance in a shot during the film. The most overwhelming aspect about the cast and their performances is that despite the majority involved are British and American actors, it still grasps the reality of Hugo really being in the French capital city of Paris.


Overall, Hugo is an enchanting and magical masterpiece that is without a doubt one of Martin Scorsese’s finest achievements and is a perfect film for kids and adults. It is also a huge inspiration to movie fanatics and is literally like a love letter to them and to some of the greatest actors, directors and crew members of the past! This will undoubtedly be a very strong contender for Best Picture and after how this has turned out, it will be a very difficult task for any other film of 2011 to triumph over this one!

When first introduced to Drive and upon learning of the overwhelmingly positive reviews and feedback that it received, it simply cannot be one to turn down with the Oscar season coming up! Although having admittedly average expectations due to it appearing just like another car-chase action film in a similar style of background and characters to the atrocious Fast And Furious franchise, but Drive proved us all wrong as it is a visual artistic motion picture that expresses not only its intense dialogue, horrific violence and it’s personal romantic story, but it is presented as something that is a visual treasure.


Although we do not really know very much about Driver’s personal life or his past, he is someone who we can be linked amongst but exposes darker and more horrific features. The most basic way of defining the nature of Driver is that he is a dark saviour; like the Spirit from the Frank Miller graphic novel and, of course, the DC Comics superhero Batman. Plus, when outside of action, memories came back from Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver as Driver interprets the loneliness and the rather obsessive bond with a young female that is caught into some trouble. Anyway, Ryan Gosling has really blossomed most recently and ever since his breakthrough performance in popular romantic-drama The Notebook, he has fulfilled some fantastic roles in many different films portraying various characters. His role as Driver may seem quite cold-natured that is often muddled feelings from love to anger, but he provides old-school sophistication and is easy on the eyes for the ladies. So, Drive is yet another film that could lead him one slight edge closer to Oscar glory.


Carey Mulligan really is one of those cute looking innocent actresses who usually stars in either really hectic and heavy-going films or ones that consist of raw emotion with a sense of innocence to it. As for her role in Drive, her performance was very good and you could feel the immediate connection between herself and Gosling as Driver. Albert Brooks portrays crime leader Bernie Rose perfectly as he provides a performance that supplies familiarities with Joe Pesci’s legendary Academy Award-winning performance in GoodFellas. So, as a result of this, Brooks w will undoubtedly be worthy of an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor, or maybe even to win it. Other cast members Bryan Cranston, Oscar Isaac, Christina Hendricks and Ron Perlman deliver satisfactory performances also.


In the past, you would generally get all of these explosive action films that are overloaded with computer-generated effects but have very little desire for the story and characters. As far as Drive is concerned, it enables itself to go to a different level as the numerous aspects within the film that mix along with other works from directors of the past who have made similar styles of films. For example, the use of music and camera techniques have an identical connection with Stanley Kubrick’s work in A Clockwork Orange as that exposes character and their backgrounds in a slow and eerie fashion. Aside from Stanley Kubrick, you can quite easily identify Drive as a Quentin Tarantino-like film with the mixtures of music, the occasional use of visual art, gruesome violence and creative scripts which we saw in his previous films Kill Bill (both parts) and Death Proof. Refn exposes something that goes beyond the works of Kubrick and Tarantino as he presents a surreal and experimental approach of Los Angeles to its audiences by often appearing like it’s a dream, and the score and songs that are used within the majority of the film, narrates the story.


Overall, Drive is an intense and explosive film that is very enjoyable and gives an outlook on what cinema really is as two separate sides; as entertainment and a form of art. It has quite possibly become the latest specific study topic for university students with the different concepts and how it compares and contrasts to other landmarks of cinema, and it’s a film you need to just switch on to away from everything else and to just closely observe the beautiful art, listen to the music and feel the thrills of the intense action.