See: Guardians of the Galaxy

I loved Guardians of the Galaxy.  Although I am a fan of the Marvel cinematic universe (particularly the Captain America films and The Avengers, but I will see pretty much any Marvel film) I was apprehensive when I heard their next film was going to be 'Guardians'. This is partially because I'd never heard of the comic and partially because when the posters and trailers were released there was a gun toting raccoon and a tree that could walk.  This did not inspire me with confidence - why couldn't they just forget this rubbish and Make the Black Widow film already? - but I decided I would go anyway. And I am glad that I did.

Chris Pratt is an excellent lead as Peter Quill, like a less serious intergalactic Indiana Jones, endearingly trying to create his own legend as 'Star Lord'.  All of my concerns regarding Rocket (the genetically modified raccoon) and Groot (his walking tree friend-cum-bodyguard) were misplaced - it's not an exaggeration to say that Groot is the emotional heart of the film (and I have to respect Vin Diesel's much reported on extensive voice work for the character) and Bradley Cooper's Rocket is also convincing and sometimes sympathetic character.  Zoe Saldana's Gamora was excellent, if underused. If I have one little quibble it's that the villains are a bit two dimensional - I got the impression that they had a lot of backstory in the comic but this wasn't really reflected in the film (I particularly felt that the relationship between Gamora and her adoptive sister Nebula was problematic and could stand more exploration).  Karen Gillan's Nebula was such a big part of the build-up to the film at comic cons that I expected more. Like her screen sister I felt she was underused. Although she did look extremely cool.

The soundtrack is brilliant (I have found it extremely addictive).  I found the film really uplifting and entertaining.  I would love to see the characters of Guardians to interact with the more established denizens of the Marvel Universe and also to see how they then deal with the broadening of their ideas of aliens and space.  This film is still on at the cinema. Go and see it. 

Rating: 8/10

See: Silver Linings Playbook

I watched this in the cinema last November, and enjoyed it immensely. This film delivered something very different from what I was expecting- the trailer made it look like a standard romantic comedy (albeit one with an excellent cast)- and so I thought it would be a pleasant if not challenging way to spend an evening with my housemates, when in fact by trying to market it like this I feel like they were doing it a disservice.  Jennifer Lawrence received the Best Actress Oscar for this film, and she was very good in it but I also thought the rest of the cast were equally good.

The main thing that I liked about Silver Linings Playbook was the portrayal of mental health issues. In the UK we are encouraged by adverts to talk about mental health- it's seen as more of a taboo subject that people are secretive about even more than the most embarrassing bodily function (or malfunction). 'Silver Linings Playbook' is a love story about two people with (arguably serious) mental health problems- but it's also a film about families. One thing that struck me we was the inference that everyone to some extent has problems of this kind; Robert De Niro as Bradley Cooper's character's father has compulsions that have been accepted- the family has adjusted to building life and ritual around them, which I think is a realistic picture of what happens in that kind of situation.

Silver Linings Playbook is a funny, quirky, and bittersweet film. All of the acting performances are excellent, and it makes a good point but without driving it home too much. Worth paying for.    

See: Oz The Great and Powerful

'Oz The Great and Powerful' has a lot to live up to as the prequel to the classic MGM musical 'The Wizard of Oz', starring Judy Garland in what is arguably her best (as well as best-known) role.  Although it is a good and enjoyable film, 'Oz' never quite lives up to it's full potential. My friend commented that at certain points you could tell it was a Disney studios film because you could tell which bits were going to have rides modeled on them, which feels uncomfortably cynical especially when compared against the perceived innocence of the original film.

In some ways, the cynicism feels appropriate; 'The Wizard of Oz' is about the innocent Dorothy's journey to help her friends and to return home to Kansas, whereas 'Oz the Great and Powerful' is about Oz's personal journey to redemption. His character is weak and selfish, ambitious to become a great man but not bothered about becoming a good man. Franco's turn as the winking, theatrical Oswald (Oz) is entertaining but has an emptiness to it- like some of the other actors (for example Mila Kunis) it feels a little like they aren't really giving the same level of performance they might for a more serious role. I did enjoy Rachel Weisz's performance as Evanora.

A good film for a Sunday afternoon, but not worth buying the DVD.

See: Safe Haven

I had already read a (rather disparaging) review prior to seeing this film, however my housemates wanted to go- it was going to be a nice group outing, you know how it is, so I thought I would give it a chance. After all, it's a film of a Nicholas Sparks book (weirdly one of the few exceptions to the rule in film where the director is well known and the writer unknown) and I liked 'The Notebook' and that's well known for being a sentimental weep-fest. However, I now have a new theory when it comes to Nicholas Sparks films; the story runs to a formula- person A meets and falls in love with Person B- usually with some kind of complication; different socio-economic class, running away from a violent past, one of them is about to go to war, as a result of which they break up, only to get back together. This is fine; many Hollywood films are  formulaic, and I have always been a believer in clichés being clichés for a reason. The problem with Nicholas Sparks films is that they repeat the formula but using less talented actors each time. One reason that 'The Notebook' is so successful is that it has such a standout cast; including Ryan Gosling in his breakout role, Rachel MacAdams (whose chemistry with Gosling was brilliant), the amazing James Garner and Gena Rowlands as the older Allie and Noah, and James Marsden as Allie's other suitor Lon. The cast is the reason that 'The Notebook' doesn't drown in sentimentality. 'Dear John' casts Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried as the star-crossed lovers, who are (although still good) not as feted as Gosling et al. I didn't connect with the cast of 'Safe Haven'; I felt like they were going through the motions which made the film feel clunky and awkward and made the adherence to a formula painfully obvious.

The main problem for me was that I didn't connect at all with Julianne Hough in the lead role- I felt she was unsympathetic and unconvincing.  There didn't seem to be any attempt at hiding the formula or indeed showing any progression in relationship- for example Josh (Hough's character Katie's prospective stepson) is opposed to the union all the way through then suddenly changes his mind- it feels like a whole section of his story has been cut out to save time. I feel like Cobie Smulders was underused (even though her role was somewhat ridiculous even for a sentimental film like this one). Josh Duhamel as Alex is charismatic but seems to be struggling against the tide of mediocrity of the rest of the film. I think I would have preferred it if 'Safe Haven' had been really terrible, but it doesn't even achieve that- it's OK, and that's all.


    

See: Les Misérables

The lesser used film poster

I'm not going to lie, I was worried when I found out they were making a film of Les Misérables. Generally speaking I enjoy film adaptations of musicals (and musical adaptations of films, Legally Blonde being a great example - what I would really like to see is a film of the musical of the film, if that's not too meta.) but I loved the musical when I saw it in the West End. I wasn't convinced that they could do it justice on film and of course I was worried about the casting.

I needn't have worried on the casting front- as soon as I heard Hugh Jackman was playing Jean Valjean I was relieved- not only is he one of my favourite actors, he is also an experienced musical theatre actor which is comforting. I found the casting of Russell Crowe as Javert to be surprising- although I (increasingly) admire him as an actor I wasn't sure he was vocally up to it- being in a rock band called "30 odd foot of grunt" doesn't exactly scream "qualified to sing a famously difficult score" but I really enjoyed his performance and liked the tone of his voice. I haven't any complaints about the rest of the cast either; Anne Hathaway has been rightly lauded for her role as Fantine (her rendition of "I Dreamed A Dream" is brutally beautiful, she gives an absolutely captivating performance given that she is only in the film for 20 minutes at the most), Eddie Redmayne is a brilliant Marius (and has a lovely singing voice), I loved all of the revolutionaries particularly Eponine and Gavroche, and thought Helena Bonham-Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen were brilliantly funny as the criminal Thenardiers.

I've read other reviews complaining that Crowe's vocal lacks the strength to do songs such as "Stars" justice but I think it is unfair to judge the film (and its cast) against the musical (and its cast). Different media has different requirements. Something I particularly liked about the film was the intimacy- on stage there is no capacity for subtlety, but the camera means we can be next to the characters, to see the expressions on their faces, and allows for a more quavering, softer version of a song that is belted out (by necessity) on stage.  I think it also meant there was a really great juxtaposition between the huge sweeping camera shots (for example the breathtaking opening scene of the criminals pulling the ship into     the breakers yard) with intense focus on the characters faces. (There is a downside to this focus; during one of the songs the light kept hitting Hugh Jackman's tongue and it was all I could focus on for that scene. But maybe that's just me). The much-debated decision for the cast to sing live on the film (as opposed to the arguably more traditional technique of filmed musicals of recording the sung vocals separately) works well. Although some of the vocal performances were a little bit sketchy I liked the immediacy of it, and I thought that the rawness it brought to songs such as "I Dreamed a Dream" and "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" more than made up for this.

I saw the film twice in the cinema and cried both times, which is unusual for me- generally speaking if I cry at a film it's in the privacy of my own home. I would recommend this film, probably more so if you are already a fan of musicals. Going to see the theatrical version is an amazing experience but also very expensive, and this is a good cheaper alternative.

8/10          

Read: How to be a Woman, by Caitlin Moran

Unlike a lot of voracious readers, I go for long periods without reading a single book; there might be an extract here or an article there but I can go for months without reading a whole book. Then, seemingly from nowhere I will have what counts for me as a burst of productivity wherein I devour four or five about the same number of days. January this year I tried to pace myself, but Moran's How to be a Woman was so good that I just couldn't help myself.

Any prospective male reader shouldn't be put off by the title; it's not an instruction manual (though don't be disappointed by this if that's what you're looking for- it's worth reading anyway). It is partially a manifesto of Moran's feminist beliefs and partially an autobiography of how and why she came to be a feminist- from her awkward adolescence through to the present day. Even though I consider myself a feminist I would ordinarily avoid (like the plague) a book described as a feminist manifesto. However, this is a book about true feminism- not about misandry, or some kind of belief that women are better than men, but  about equality and fairness, and more importantly it is accessibly written and absolutely embarrass-yourself-by-laughing-out-loud-on-the-train, read-out-so-many-extracts-your-friends-won't-need-to-read-the-book hilarious.

In fact, the only reader I know that I wouldn't recommend this book to is my Nan, and that's because of the proliferation of profanity (specifically a certain Anglo-Saxon word beginning with the letter 'c' that I am quite happy to use in real life but wouldn't use in writing on the internet and certainly wouldn't use in front of my Grandparents. I once accidentally used the F word in front of them. Mortifying.) although I think she would be approving of the overall message. On a serious note, it helped me look at important issues such as abortion in a new and logical way. This book is not only brilliantly entertaining but timely and significant- for too long feminism has been discussed either in serious academic books that pass most of us by or in glossy magazines that perpetuate the same things that we should be resisting. Moran has helped me articulate my own beliefs.

I give this book a rating of: 9 out of 10