Logo

Before seeing this film, I hadn’t really made up my mind about Seyfried. After seeing Letters to Juliet I have decided that she is not my type of actress.

Oh, she has beautiful eyes and hair that stays perfectly in place (something I find hard to believe would happen in the stuffy New York City summers) but she lacks the charm that is especially vital for a leading lady in this type of film. Some actors can make so-so dialogue sound great; Seyfried makes so-so dialogue sound so-so. I can’t help but think that a better actress could have lifted the film a little.

Letters to Juliet delivers pretty much what it promises: Light and fluffy. It’s more good natured than The Proposal, less vapid than Valentine’s Day and far more chaste than The Ugly Truth.

Let’s put it this way: It’s better than you would expect.

How To Train Your Dragon is the first film that I have seen in a long time that I actually really enjoyed. From start to finish I was enchanted, captivated by the charm and the general open-heartedness of the film.

As in any film, Hiccup also gets a kick-ass love interest, Astrid. Though I will say that America Fererra, who voiced the role, is perhaps a little too one-note in her interpretation.

I also applaud the genius who decided to cast Craig Ferguson as Gobber, the Viking in charge of training the young’uns in killing dragons. Ferguson is a great addition to the cast. It was also nice to hear Gerard Butler, as Hiccup’s father Stoic (what did I tell you about the Viking names?), with his native Scottish accent.

One thing that I didn’t understand about this movie: why did the adults have Scottish accents and the adolescents have American accents? Actually I do know why but I can’t be bothered writing a massive rant on the Americanisation of EVERYTHING!

Film: Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang
Director: Susanna White
Starring: Emma Thompson, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Rhys Ifans, Maggie Smith, and Ralph Fiennes.
Plot: Nanny McPhee returns to the screen, this time helping a harried mother, Mrs Green, whose husband is away fighting in the war. Nanny McPhee uses her magic to teach Ms Green's three children and their two cousins visiting from the city five very important lessons.


Sheeeeeeeeeee's BA-ACK.


Yes, the world’s fourth favourite nanny, (behind Mary Poppins, Fraulein Maria and Super Nanny’s Jo Frost), is back again to transform terrible children into angels!


Well, not that all of the children in Nanny McPhee are really terrible. The Green children aren’t all that bad, really. They saved their sugar coupons to make their father some jam for when he comes home from the war. In my opinion, the Green children (Norman, Megsie and Vincent) are unfairly punished by Nanny McPhee. It’s the city duo, Celia and Cyril that need ‘whipping into shape.’ Anybody who turned down their nose at my house, made fun of me, and ruined my father’s special jam all within the first five minutes of meeting, would not be welcome. There really is no wonder that the Green children don’t like their cousins. If they weren’t so funny in their snobbishness, the audience wouldn’t like them either.

Performance wise, the kids are actually very good: Eros Vlahos and Rosie Taylor Ritson as city cousins Cyril and Celia fare best, particularly Vlahos who mastered the spoilt brat swagger. Oscar Steer as Mrs. Green's youngest son Vincent is simply too cute! Asa Butterfield (from The Boy in The Striped Pyjamas) is probably the weakest, but even he has his moments.

 

I also enjoyed the period detail of the film. In particular, Vincent and Cyril’s trip to the War Office in London was particularly well done. It was interesting to see the film makers approach their presentations of the war office from a child’s perspective.

 

Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang has its charms, but they aren't quite as sweet the second time around.

There is a bit of ridiculousness as to the extremes of the tragedy of Tyler and Ally’s lives:  one's brother committed suicide, and he found the body, and other whose mother was shot in front of her. You would think they would do a lot of living. Unfortunately, all they do is a lot of moaning.

 

No. Trust me, you're not missing out on much.

Let me be clear, A Single Man is not a movie for choc top eating or popcorn munching. Any noise emanating from the audience is a distraction. Not only because this film is very quiet (literally), but this film requires focus in order to fully appreciate the beauty and the detail. Director (and former fashion designer) Tom Ford has been criticised for overdesigning the film, but the highly stylised visuals works in its favour. Going into the film I did expect it to look good (what else can you expect from the man who single-handedly revived Gucci?), but what I did expect was for Ford to be a decent storyteller. Every frame has been carefully constructed to let you a little bit more into George’s world: to show what it’s like for a man struggling to get through the day as normally as possible. I felt as though I was watching film as art as opposed to film just telling a story.



The film tends to lose a little bit of pace in the final act. The minimal dialogue wears a little thin and the film has a little bit of a struggle to keep itself moving all the way to the end.

Thankfully we have Colin Firth in the leading role to distract us from the pacing problems. He gives a wonderfully un-Colin-Firth-like performance as George, the man at the centre of the story.

Without Firth’s skill, without his ability to withhold and yet display so much, George would disappear, swallowed by the heightened visuals. But Firth holds his ground. You only need to watch Firth's face as he is told of his lover's death. The camera presses slowly in. You see his disbelief, his struggle to maintain control, his anger that he cannot attend the funeral. It’s truly a marvellous scene, for which Firth deserved the actual Oscar, not just the nomination.



As for the supporting cast: Matthew Goode plays George’s lover Jim, seen through flashbacks, gives a performance that I actually for once, like. But I felt his character lacked definition. But then I suppose its George’s idea of Jim that’s important. George cannot live without him, whatever type of man he might be.

Julianne Moore’s role as George’s perpetually drunk friend Charley, is a little more than an extended cameo.

Nicholas Hoult is good, as college student Kenny, who takes an interest in George, but not quite up to par with Firth. I see a lot of potential in him, but maybe I was distracted by the amount of make up or fake tan that he was wearing. I’m pretty sure he had more make up on his face that the rest of the cast combined (females included).



However, I did find the relationship between George and Kenny (Nicholas Hoult) to be a little disconcerting: mainly because of the whole teacher/ student thing. I also am uncomfortable with George replacing Jim with Kenny. People tell me that George want replacing Jim, he just found something to live for…. But I disagree. So much is made of the age difference between George and Jim and George and Kenny that the film seems to be drawing an intentional parallel between Jim and Kenny. Is there really that much difference between one you can’t live without and the one that you can live for?

This is not for the 'I just want to be entertained' viewer. But, if you have the patience, then you will be rewarded.

A Single Man Official Site here.

LEIGH ANNE'S FRIEND: You're changing that boy's life.

LEIGH ANNE: No, he's changing mine

without making the audience cringe? Bullock's fast talking, sometimes brash, but always incredibly generous Southern matriarch Leigh Anne Touhy is a breath of fresh air.

Bullock runs rings around her co-stars, who try in vain to match her. Tim McGraw as her doormat husband fails miserably. Only Kathy Bates as Michael's Democrat tutor comes close.

Having seen the film, I am still surprised at Bullock's Academy Award win. Yes, she was good, but I am so over people winning awards because “it’s their turn.” Maybe everyone was just so surprised that Bullock could do much more than her usual from com fare that they jumped at the chance to recognise it?

To conclude: Bullock is great, everyone else is so- so, but the film, dare I say, it is exactly what you would expect: designed to leave you feeling all warm and gooey inside at the end.

Well, you probably have already seen it, so you know that Avatar is an overhyped, overblown, glorified cartoon. And that’s me being generous.