Brave ☆☆☆☆½

I was going to see this film at the cinema but it was on during the summer (children) and it is that bit more obvious you are going to the movies on your own if during a holiday period. Not that I care about seeing films alone, its just embarrassing when you used to work at the cinema in question and some persons in there still run away from you because a) they are incredibly sad people and b) you were a bit of a cow to them....but thats another story no one needs to know.

Also with regards to Brave a few people had told me it was incredibly disappointing and about the only interesting thing was the hair...ok so props to the animators the hair is EXTRAORDINARY (Merida's red locks look almost exactly like my own curly frizzy mess of a hairdo, except not blond). However the hair is absolutely not a scene stealer in my own, humble opinion.

Merida, then, is a princess in a Scottish tribe whose father and mother have arranged for suitors to come from the three other tribes in the Kingdom to become her husband...Merida is not so happy about this. She is an independent, strong willed, warrior child who is as good at archery as a certain Katniss Everdeen.
Merida has three younger brothers (triplets) who are the usual trouble makers but adorable with it, and also sport some rather spectacular curly red hair.

And this was all I knew plot-wise before seeing the film so that is all I'm going to tell you, I think the not-knowing where the film is going is actually something refreshing for movie-goers - all too often the trailer tells you everything and spoils it.

So then, why did I enjoy the film so much even though my friends did not?

Firstly the animation is beautiful: the scenery of the highlands, the tribesmen and women in their celtic garb, and the way they can animate hair and fur so it moves in the wind still makes me smile from ear to ear.

Second the stereotypes. Weird that I am classing this as a positive but, as person of Scots heritage (as in I have living relatives who are Scottish including my mother) I can confirm that, in my family at the very least, we conform to the stereotypes in this film. We are loud, enjoy a drink or five, are incredibly thrifty (we're not cheap we're careful) and are reasonably happy to have an argument. I thought the way these stereotypes were portrayed reflected well the Celtic orgins of the Scottish people, living in hard lands and having to fight for survival...but also poking fun at the same time in a good-hearted way. You cannot be offended by the portrayal of Scottish people in this film and if you are, well then I sincerely hope you get a life sometime soon.

However what I really loved in this film was the family dynamic it portrayed. Merida is a strong willed daughter fighting against a mother who wants her to be perfect princess. Her father is indulgent and encourages her humour and her fighting, and her brothers are adorable scamps who cause chaos wherever they go.

Disney isn't famous for its mother-daughter exploration, especially not in princess movies:

• The Little Mermaid (Ariel): single father strong willed daughter
• Beauty and the Beast (Belle): single father strong willed daughter
• Aladdin (Jasmine): single father strong willed daughter (I sense a theme)
• Sleeping Beauty (Aurora): parents alive but taken away and raised by fairies until 16
• Snow White: single father evil stepmother
• Cinderella: single father evil stepmother
• Tangled (Rapunzel): parents alive but stolen and raised by evil woman until 18
• The Princess and the Frog (Tiana): single mother

Now don't comment on here asking about Mulan or Pocahontas, they don't count.

Brave is the first Disney princess movie to focus on the bond between mother and daughter (yes Tiana is raised by her mother but it is her father who inspires her). Merida and her mother are allowed to have a confrontational and true to life teenage daughter and parent relationship. They fight, they misunderstand each other, and then, with a little help, come around to what each other was really trying to say in the first place.

This isn't UP or Wall-E, you won't find the horse is able to communicate in ways other than the usual horsey methods of stamping feet or whinneying, and you won't be rolling off your seat laughing.
What you will get from this film is a beautiful portrayal of life for a teenage girl set against the stunning highlands, expected to marry and to be a lady when all she wants is to shoot arrows and be a girl for a bit longer.

I would say for those who haven't seen the film is to set expectations low (often films are ruined by our own preconceptions), don't anticipate a comedy when really it is a drama, and do not take offense at the stereotypes on behalf of anyone you know who is a Scot - they need a thump if they find it offensive. And lastly enjoy the accents - there is something special about the Celtic lilt.

I really did enjoy Brave, and I hope you do too.

Also, keeping with Pixar tradition, John Ratzenberger gets a voice part too :)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey ☆☆☆☆

With all the fantastic and exciting new films out this year I must admit this one fell to the back of my brain. Not because I wasn't excited, no siree I squealed when it was first announced, commenced further squealing upon finding out some of the casting (Armitage, Cumberbatch & Turner caused the majority of pig-like noises) but then time passed and the Avengers happened...it slipped my mind somewhat.

It has also been a VERY long time since I have read The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings, too long in fact. I was somewhat concerned that it was going to become three movies but after seeing this first one - hey, make it thirty so long as you don't kill off my very favourite characters that you will kill off because Tolkein did. Ahem.

For those unfamiliar with the story don't worry I'm not about to spoil plotlines or character deaths, but you should know that there is going to be a review of one of these films with me quite literally just typing "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO". In two years time if anyone still reads this blog/I still write it and this doesn't happen, I will give you my last Rolo.

So briefly then in case people have been living in a box of bad literature:

The Hobbit is the tale of one Bilbo Baggins, a quiet sort of Hobbit who lives alone and doesn't take with any kind of nonesense or shenanigans thank you very much. He loves food (as all good Hobbits do) and is partial to a good smoke. Then one day a wizard stops by his house in the Shire, name of Gandalf, and Bilbo's life is never the same again.
He is pushed into an adventure he didn't ask for with Dwarfs he never thought he would like, thirteen of them, on a quest to get back the Dwarfs' home and treasure which was taken by the Dragon, Smaug. The quest involves fighting with Orcs, talking with Elves and Wizards, battling with Goblins, and the unveiling of how Bilbo came upon the One Ring.

Thus begins Bilbo's story, more of which will be revealed in later films, but for now this is all that needs to be known.

I really enjoyed this film. It was spectacular in its scenery, extraordinary in its battle sequences, and really well cast and acted. It does not get a fifth star because sometimes I felt like I was watching LOTR again in the music or the scene that was being portrayed, especially those scenes with the characters we have already met before. Nevertheless the huge amount of Dwarf action means it is nothing less than 'Brilliant' to my eyes.

Another of my minor qualms is that the sweeping shots, especially at the beginning, made my eyes go fuzzy - and I was watching this in 2D because that extra dimension gives me a headache that makes me sick. So it was probably just my particularly screwy eyeballs that meant I didn't enjoy the cinematic moments as much as I should.

But aside from that, fantastic film. Especially the Dwarfs. Did I mention that already? LOVE the Dwarfs!

Still can't remember all their names...Bombur Bifor Oin Gloin Thorin Fili Kili...yep thats all I can do from memory. The Dwarfs were the characters who really stuck in my head after reading The Hobbit and I'm pleased to say they've had the same effect from the movie.

Richard Armitage (Spooks, Robin Hood) leads the warriors with quiet grace and authority, he really suited that beard! Fili and Kili are the young (and very good looking) Dwarfs who are a bit like Merry and Pippin from LOTR, a double act but brave and willing to fight. They are played by New Zealander Dean O'Gorman (The Almighty Johnsons) and Irishman Aidan Turner (Being Human). Another Irishman is James Nesbitt who has the best moustache of them all, yes even better than Fili's braided one. Nesbitt gets to keep his accent, as do some of the Scots, but most are English. I long for a New Zealand accent in these films, I can't imagine Tolkein would object.

Speaking of NZ accents Bret McKenzie (Flight of the Conchords) gets more lines in this movie as an Elf in Rivendell, it took me a while to spot him actually but when I twigged it made me smile a LOT. I never did spot Peter Jackson though, mind you I still haven't noticed him in the second or third LOTR.

As for The Hobbit himself, Mr Bilbo Baggins, Martin Freeman does a fine job. Though I find Freeman does have a certain way of acting (I guess as all actors do, apart from chameleons like Meryl Streep) it really suits this portrayal of Bilbo, because he is this funny little man who doesn't like his world being upset but grows as the story does. Freeman showed moments of a steely glint and that was perfect for me.

There is a lot of humour in this film, the teasing of Bilbo, the general talk of the Dwarfs, the singing and the playing about in Bag End was a real joy to watch. The Hobbit wasn't designed for serious adults in the way that Lord of the Rings was, there wasn't much social commentary happening (except perhaps about the perils of greed) so humour really befits the tale and the actors involved.

This is a very long movie, running at almost three hours it is important to go to the toilet before hand and to not drink too much during the film. I actually didn't feel the length because the film did not drag, internally I was wondering where they were going to end it having heard it was a cliffhanger, but they chose an optimal point to leave off the story.

The benefit of the length of the film and the fact it is in three parts is that almost nothing is left out. You get more than The Hobbit because Jackson & co have been able to draw on the rich histories surrounding Middle Earth, but also I've heard that they have embellished some characters to build them up more for the audience, making them more important in the likelihood that their end will seem all the more tragic or deserved.

I am looking forward to part two enormously, but more so I look forward to getting the DVDs and having all the crazy extras to watch - Barry Humphries I'm sure will feature in these.

Silver Linings Playbook ☆☆☆☆☆

This is a film that lives up to my rating - right after watching it I asked my friend "can we go see it again?!"

The film follows Pat (Bradley Cooper), a former substitute teacher who has recently been in a mental institution for eight months following a violent attack upon his wife's lover when he catches them in the shower. Upon release Pat is determined to stay in shape, not take drugs to help him through his instability, and read his wife's entire syllabus (she is an English teacher) to get her back.

Pat lives with his parents who are responsible for him, played by Robert De Niro and Jackie Weaver, reconnects with best friend Ronnie and his wife Veronica (Julia Stiles) who introduce him to her slightly unbalanced younger sister Tiffany, played by the incomparable Jennifer Lawrence.
In order to get beyond the restraining order placed upon him, Pat agrees to help Tiffany with a dance competition in exchange for her assistance in getting a letter to his wife.

Then followed poignant drama, utter hilarity, thought provoking scenes, and some dodgy gambling to create one of the best films of this year. In my humble opinion. Also some dancing to put Strictly Come Dancing to shame.

Bradley Cooper said in a recent interview how proud he was of this film, because it was filmed in his home city of Philadelphia, had all around fantastic performances, and was a story that had real depth and heart to it. I could not agree with him more.
The story was unexpectedly hard hitting, yes I knew it was about mental illness but the violence and confusion that is portrayed on screen was entirely believable and quite scary. The levels of mental illness too are explored as we have Pat, his friend Danny (Chris Tucker, most famous for Fifth Element and Rush Hour) from the hospital, and Tiffany who has been acting out of character since she became a widow after a brief marriage.

Now at this point, if you know who Jennifer Lawrence is, you might be surprised at her playing a widow. Her most famous incarnation is probably as Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games, a seventeen year old girl who has to fight other children to survive. She is also only 22 years old in real life, whereas Bradley Cooper is 37 (though he doesn't look it). I think what we are meant to think is that, yes there is an age gap, yes she is quite young for a widow, but that does not matter a jot when watching the two together on screen.

Oh my god was Lawrence's performance amazing. It was funny, and scary, and heartbreaking. There is a moment where I just welled up from the emotion that was being emitted on screen just by her facial expression. So powerful. And she gets to be this cray outlandish character who can scream and shout, and she does it well. Again previous knowledge of her work shows she can do understated like someone with twenty years more acting experience, she was Oscar nominated for her performance in Winter's Bone when she was twenty, again playing a seventeen year old living an incredibly tough life. It was a revelation to see her be so outrageous.

Bradley Cooper too was extraordinary. I've mostly seen him in comedy or romantic roles so I know he can handle those easily, plus he is easy on the eye for those brainless action movies he may turn up in. I've not seen Limitless but have been recommended to watch it, and I will because Cooper has executive producer credit for only two films, Limitless and Silver Linings.
His performance in this film is definitely Oscar nomination worthy, not entirely sure its a winning role - depends who else he is up against, but every accolade should be put on him because its such an intense and believable portrayal of a man who has lost everything because of mental illness. There is a scene where he is on the verge of losing it entirely and its just extraordinary to watch, you feel like he might just explode there and then.

The chemistry between Lawrence and Cooper has no rival from this years drama releases, they talk, dance, yell and smile with so much ease that nothing feels forced. I was incredibly impressed.
In fact the whole cast had amazing chemistry. De Niro and Weaver were just fantastic as Pat's put upon parents, being woken in the middle of the night and having to deal with his outbursts. You learn so much about the family dynamic.

The writer/director David O. Russell is previously responsible for 2010's The Fighter, Three Kings and I Heart Huckabees. He provides tight direction to a story that could easily have run away with itself. The attention isn't entirely focused on how Pat and Tiffany feel, instead it spends time with how those around them are affected by their respective problems.

I loved this film, I wish I could afford to go see it again, alas will have to wait for the DVD. 

The Social Network ☆☆☆½

Finally, a film I can review that will not spoil a thing unless you have been living on a different planet the last six or seven years and have never heard of Mark Zuckerberg, the Winklevoss twins, or Facebook.

I'll assume you have.

Considering the plaudits and the mild shock that it didn't get best picture Oscar night you might be wondering why it took me so long to see it and why I have given it three and a half stars. In a nutshell its because I was never that interested in the story. Yes I have been using Facebook since May 2006, I know about the lawsuits brought against Zuckerberg and would be able to point him out in a line-up. I also love David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin - so what held me back?

Honestly I just didn't want to know how much was stolen from the Winklevosses and Narendra (the twins business partner). And Jesse Eisenberg...no doubt was he made for this role, but he is one of those actors like Michael Cera or Kristen Stewart who seem to be the same person no matter what role they are in. They are the new generation of Michael Caines - perfectly good actors but with something a little too familiar for them to be entirely believable. I have seen Eisenberg in many things previously, his best probably The Squid and the Whale, and I'm not sure where he goes from here. If he could master another accent then maybe he'd be able to break the cycle of playing the same character with a different name.

That all being said I did watch the movie. And I did enjoy it.

David Fincher is a stylish director and is responsible for many fantastic films (Fight Club, Se7en, Zodiac etc etc) and The Social Network is no less impressive. I particularly enjoyed the Henley race of the Winklevoss twins with Griegs 'In the Hall of the Mountain King' backing the competition. The artistic direction too was particularly beautiful at times.
Aaron Sorkin's script was also incredibly impressive (he is responsible for A Few Good Men, Moneyball and many many others). That man knows how to get people talking, and boy can Zuckerberg talk. Actually the way he is played I wasn't sure how he managed to get a girlfriend in the first place (the breakup being the catalyst for Face Mash, the precursor to facebook). Of course this section is probably fictionalised for creative purposes, but it was quite uncomfortable to watch - that might just be me or, more likely, it was the intention of the filmmakers.

The acting across the board was superb. Andrew Garfield is quite an intense actor but he can embody a character, I have no idea what Eduardo Saverin is like in real life but I can imagine the betrayal and reaction to it was pretty similar to what was portrayed on screen to make him sue his former best friend.
Interestingly the push for advertising by Saverin is exactly what puts me off using Facebook now, I hate that companies target me because I am of a certain age or gender and send me weight loss ads or wedding planners - no thank you. 
Armie Hammer does a great job as identical twins, having to be two different people who have the same face. I also liked the dynamic between the brothers that was created in their arguments and discussions, such a rare thing even when siblings are played by different actors.
Justin Timberlake was also very good. The last film I saw him in (In Time) was such a disappointment that seeing this film has upped his credibility once more. His portrayal of Sean Parker, founder of Napster, did no favours to Mr Parker as he seems to be this paranoid mess of a person at times. But then he might well be, or it may be more artistic license being used.

I have been reading some Wikipedia articles about Zuckerberg and co, and their reaction to The Social Network, of which Zuckerberg is diplomatic but clearly unhappy to be seen as 'the bad guy'. Sorkin too is quoted as saying he was telling a story rather than relaying the truth, which I'm quite pleased about.

It really is a very good piece of filmmaking and storytelling. Beautifully shot and very well acted from start to finish. It did make me uncomfortable that such a powerful idea is wrapped up in so much controversy, but then really what revolutionary thing isn't - look at animal testing, awful when you look at the details but incredible when you see a person live because they have found the right treatment for cancer.

Since May 2006 I have communicated in a whole new way with the world. I'm not exactly thankful for the many hours I have wasted changing my profile, checking my wall, uploading photos. But I am glad it exists, and I can see why they wanted to make a movie out of it.

Threesome ☆☆☆☆½

No this isn't a review of porn, I haven't stooped that low in my lack-of-job boredom. This is a review of a rather brilliant TV show from Comedy Central UK that stars Emun Elliott (The Paradise, Game of Thrones) Stephen Wight (The Paradise, Misfits) and Amy Huberman (an Irish actress I haven't seen before).

They play Richie, Mitch and Alice - three flatmates and best friends/girlfriend and boyfriend who, after a lot of drink and more drugs decide on the eve of Alice's 30th birthday to have a threesome. Hence the title.
Alice gets pregnant by this decision but not by her boyfriend Mitch, but by gay best pal Richie.

I decided I wanted to review this show because I have only just discovered it and am already hooked after two days. Its hilarious. It was also welcome relief after watching The Paradise for eight weeks on the BBC. Don''t get me wrong it was enjoyable enough, but both Wight and Elliott star and they are so much more suited to Threesome than their period selves. For one they get to keep their own accents, always a bonus because often actors seem more sure of themselves if not having to worry too much about diction. For another Elliott gets to be this out and proud Scotsman and Wight a slightly bumbling but hysterically funny man who has landed a girl who seems fairly out of his league for a jobless guy.

Huberman too is a revelation. I have not seen her in anything as I do not live in Ireland or get Irish TV, but she is ridiculously funny. There is an episode in season two where she believes the fridge is evil (as does Mitch) and its like watching your best friends when they are high - they entirely believe everything they are saying and seeing but do so in such an exaggerated way you can't help giggling.

In fact a lot of this show is watching a trio of people behaving like they are on drugs (or in fact are actually on them) and being quite silly. They are children in charge of a small person, but they are also family.
There is a lot of slapstick and physical comedy - a fight involving a vacuum cleaner means some uncomfortable questions about wife beating from the doctor and social services. It is also witty in dialogue and does not use gross out humour.

The show has begun to attract some pretty decent guest stars - we've had Bill Bailey, Robert Webb and Joe Thomas from the Inbetweeners so far in series two.  Hopefully a sign that the show will come back for a third series at the very least.

If you have Virgin Media try and find this show On Demand, Sky may have an equivalent, but if not series one is on DVD and would be well worth a look. I definitely recommend it, its the funniest British show I have seen in a very long time.

Skyfall ☆☆☆☆☆

For non spoiler reviews I'd advise looking at Empire Magazine or their website as, like with so many films this year, I'm not going to be able to articulate why this was my favourite Bond film without revealing the details.

However as a synopsis the film concerns M and a hard drive containing a full list of spies and their aliases who are currently undercover. Through, what will be argued through the film, M's bad judgement call the drive is lost and Bond presumed dead. This is only the beginning of M's torment.

Cue many cars, guns, explosions, a bond girl or two and a disfigured arch nemesis and you have a bloody good film.

Daniel Craig is my favourite Bond, perhaps because a lack of interest on my parents behalf meant I was not introduced to the films until ITV began their incessant re-runs and so I was not taken with Sean Connery or charmed by Roger Moore. Though I do have a soft spot for Pierce Brosnan. Craig's are the only films I have seen at the cinema, and are the only ones with half-believable gadgets.

Skyfall is certainly the best Bond film for me, buoyed by a British director with a talent for pathos (and now explosions), and so below I will outline exactly what I loved so much.

Please do not read on if you have not yet seen Bond, you will only be cheating yourself.

******************************************************************

To begin with I connected to the plot of this film more so than I have done previously (my comparatives will only be Craig's work).
I have no clue about playing cards or gambling so Casino Royale was a bit lost on me, Quantum of Solace was a revenge movie, whereas Skyfall is going back to basics. Basic tech, origins of the Bond story, and is about the dilemma of being an agent in the field.

Acting/character wise Craig's Bond and Judi Dench's M were magnificent. Their connection, the perhaps inappropriate way that M treats Bond (like a son not anything perverse) is a beautiful thing. The final half of the film with James rescuing M, taking her to his childhood home for protection only for her to die anyway, was so poignant. It's the first instance of James showing love for someone other than himself since his tragic relationship with Eva Green in Casino Royale.

The Bond women followed a similar vein to previous, James sleeps with one and she dies trying to help him while the other gets outrageously flirted with. Luckily for Naomie Harris she turns out to be Moneypenny, and the set up for her role being revealed was pretty darn clever. Now I'm not the brightest bulb in the box when it comes to guessing film twists - I'm one of those who gasped at the end of the Sixth Sense - so I'm sure many people guessed who Harris would be.
I liked this nod to the future - establishing a new Q (played perfectly by Ben Whishaw), Ralph Fiennes' Mallory becoming the new 'M' after proving himself to be more than a stuffed shirt, and Harris as his secretary Moneypenny who we will all look forward to in further films having flirty banter with Mr Bond.

The action was pretty glorious and more than a few pennies were spent on those explosions. The train adventure at the start was almost not quite believable - but then the point of these new Bonds is that it might - with 'might' in huge capital letters - be possible for these stunts to be pulled off. I especially enjoyed Craig's Bond as being unfit for even the most basic tests, showing that his habit of drinking till his liver screams has not left him unaffected. This is the grisly and time-worn Bond that Pierce Brosnan and his scruffy beard could never accomplish.

What is of particular kudos to Sam Mendes is keeping everything simple, and of course nodding to previous Bonds in the choice of car and gadgets. I was so upset to see that gorgeous Aston Martin blow up, such a relic of Bonds gone by - but perhaps that was on purpose to say 'Look, this is new Bond, you've had three films to establish his story and character but now we are moving on to the next fifty years'.

Skyfall turning out to be Bond's childhood home and not some top-secret government conspiracy or previous assignment that went horribly wrong was also genius. Not being a true fan I have not read the books so if this was not the scriptwriters and Mendes' decision then please do tell me, but it was perfect. Skyfall represents something that Bond lost a long time ago, family and stability. As M says, orphans make the best recruits, and using his home to hide M just adds to the protective nature of Bond and M's relationship - no matter what has been done James wanted to protect M, and she lets him do it because she trusts him wholeheartedly.

The destruction of Skyfall and the death of M represents a change for Bond. Any ties he once had are now gone, except for Queen and Country Bond has no loyalties. I have this small fear that future directors and script writers will try and move back toward the cheesy 'I'm EVIL and will destroy the world except wait, Hello Mr Bond' but I think Daniel Craig might have something to say if it does.

Speaking of evil Javier Bardem was a very good villain, as he has proved before in No Country For Old Men. This time he was almost saucy in his demeanour, incredibly flirty with Bond, and you really believed that he felt he was right in his pursuit of M. I actually found myself removing some blame from Silva as it was M leaving him to the Chinese torturers that set the nail in the coffin of his sanity. His deformity was also horrific, having your face partially collapse because of syanide that was supposed to be your ticket out did not do his synapses any favours. I was glad to only see it once but full credit to the special effects and make up people for making it look so real.

I wanted M to be the one to kill Silva, but then it always had to be James. He was M's true and loyal protector, even if he could not save her life.

On a final note, I liked the death by komodo dragons scene, it was primal and scary if the CGI-d lizards did look a little fake, and I especially liked that not once does he ask for a Martini - but you see it being shaken and poured out for him, less cheesy but still true to Bond.

Drive ☆☆☆☆½

I think I may have fallen in love with Ryan Gosling all over again.

Aaaaaaaaand that is all I can say without MAJOR SPOILERS. Lets just say: surprisingly violent, interesting musical score that meant a half a star down from me being desperate to watch again, utterly engaging, and beautifully acted by all those involved - but especially Ryan Gosling and his smile.

So don't read the review below if you haven't seen the film, I'm not even going to put a synopsis up because I feel if I had known less about the plot I would have enjoyed it more.

***********************************************************************

I had a pretty good idea I was going to enjoy this film, didn't think I would become quite so hooked as I did which was really quite naive of me considering I have mentioned in past reviews about the power of Ryan Gosling. When that man smiles I smile. He is a beautiful actor and not just aesthetically, he hardly speaks at all in this film but even just saying 'hi' creates so much atmosphere.

The film did surprise me with the level of violence, though its 18 rating should have given me some clue. The juxtaposition of the calm beauty of his first and only kiss with Irene, with the Driver's brutal take down of the unnamed bad guy and the smashing of his skull had such power over me. I was lost in the moment, as Irene was too, then I saw a man's head disintegrate which brought me sharply back into the violence and reality of what has been happening.

I really loved that we never find out the name of the Driver. As with Kill Bill a lot of curiosity is created by not naming a person, making the audience question every move they make, how they came to be in this situation, and why the hell can they fight like that?! Evidently Driver has a dark past, living in a grey present, and has a potentially black future ahead of him. The shards of light in his present are of course in the form of a love interest, the lovely Irene played by the equally lovely Carey Mulligan.

Mulligan is a star in young British talent. Along with Emily Blunt she can do funny, romantic, and heartbreaking. She can also do a convincing American accent, and was in quite possibly my favourite Doctor Who episode ever - Blink. I loved Irene in this film, she was trapped in a marriage to a felon and she falls for the boy next door. The boy next door accidentally assists in the murder of her husband and reveals himself to be quite a capable killer himself - poor Irene. And yet, she still knocks on his door at the end though he tells her he will be gone, because she wants the boy next door for herself no matter what he has done. If a boy ever kisses me in an elevator like Gosling does and slows down time, even if he smashes in peoples skulls for a living I would still knock on his door....I think. I'll get back to you on that.

Ryan Gosling was quite simply extraordinary. He carries this film with broad shoulders and an understated brilliance. I just love him. Yep that's it, I love him, he acts well, he makes me smile, and was scary violent in this film.

The death scenes were vivid and shocking and actually seeing Christina Hendricks get her head blown off was awful. Where other directors would cut away from the scene to keep the rating down and therefore get a bigger theatre going audience, Nicolas Winding Refn keeps all the blood and gore in. It would look ridiculous if the tone of the film were not so dark, and I imagine arterial blood really does spurt like that.

The musical score was sometimes a little heavy handed, hence me not giving this film five stars. Music often indicates what is about to happen and I felt it sometimes gave the game away during this film.

Apart from this I loved the film, to the point I'm considering it to join my DVD shelf as a film to make people pause after they get past all the Disney movies and chick flicks.

Looper ☆☆☆☆

Looper's are assassins in the past who take care of 'problems' sent back 30 years through a time travel device owned by the future mob. When their loop is closed its because they have, as per an agreement upon sign up, killed their own future self. This is where it gets tricky for our protagonist Joe whose future self decides this isn't what he wants and goes on the run.

That is all I'm going to say plot-wise because its all you need to know. I'll add a couple of spoiler notes at the end for those who have seen the film but I'm going to attempt a review that doesn't spoil the film!

The concept for the movie is interesting and well produced. It is the first truly original sci-fi film I've seen in a while, well, except for one element that is not exactly unique to my mind. Otherwise the idea of assassins from the past working for the mob in the future I certainly have never seen before. It also involves an extra sci-fi element of telekinesis that some of the population have, but it isn't some amazing gift but more of a cheap trick. That was a nice touch for the story, not making it a huge thing that being a 'TK' had radically changed the world.

I mostly enjoyed the storyline, it does get a bit disturbing for my taste at points though. It is really quite violent, much more so than I had anticipated. Now I am okay with violence so long as it isn't Saw-style I want to make the audience sick - this wasn't trying to make me sick. I think the parts that affected me most were ones where hands got shut in doors or broken, or the violence you didn't witness but had to let your imagination fill in the gap.

As for the acting, I thought it was superb from everyone involved. It takes a bit of time to get used to Joseph Gordon-Levitt's new nose and eyebrows but apart from that his and Bruce Willis's time travelling selves are a convincing pairing. Emily Blunt is fast becoming one of my favourite actresses and she plays her role very well with a decent American accent. I was pleasantly surprised to see Paul Dano in this movie who has failed to quite get the recognition he deserves, at least thats how I see it. He is an extraordinary actor who has been in the more indie side of Hollywood for a while but hopefully from this and his upcoming comedy Ruby Sparks he will start getting more centre-stage roles. Dano was part of one of the more disturbing elements of this film but he was, for me, one of the stand-outs of the whole movie.

The writer/director Rian Johnson previously made another of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's movies you must watch, Brick. He does not let the film slip out of his grasp and carefully blends the sci-fi with the human interest. I felt the balance was right between the two but I know that my friend felt there was too much focus on JGL and Blunt and not enough on Willis. Johnson has made a film that contributes something new to the sci-fi shelf, but it was the latter half of the film and the ending that has left me a little disappointed, much in the same way Duncan Jones' Source Code was so almost a five star film for me but the end left me annoyed enough to not want to see it again.

The scenery and the special effects however were fantastic. The future looks entirely bleak in parts but also there is colour and life, leaving you thinking this is probably how the world will end up if time travel, telekinesis and the mob start changing all the rules.

Undoubtedly original, exceptionally well acted, an interesting concept. It just didn't blow me away like I thought it would and disappointed me greatly in parts, which meant I cannot give it five stars, but it definitely deserved four.

*********************************************************************

Now, for MAJOR SPOILER time (I cannot stress enough to NOT read this before seeing the film):

So first on a positive note, though disturbing I thought the special effects of how the past shows up on the future selves was extraordinary, especially what happened to poor Seth whose decision to run and put his trust in Joe left him mutilated. It actually still makes me feel a little sick seeing his face collapse and his inability to speak meaning he must not have a tongue. Just horrific, but clever, and likely to appeal to many.

Like I said above I loved Blunt, when she runs scared from her own son to hide in a safe you realise quite how demonic that little boy is. Which leads me on to what disappointed me in this film.

Cid, the boy who is to become the rain-maker with his exceptional telekinesis, was too much of a Damien character. This was the part that was not unique, there have been many incarnations of the small child with too much power who gets hurt or wants to protect those around him and loses control. The kid who plays Cid was super cute and I had seen him in One Tree Hill previously, and he does very well frowning at the bad man come to kill him. It was just too disturbing that Joe's future self would go so far to kill children to stop the rain-maker from becoming a reality and allowing him to continue living with his wife. It was too selfish a motive.

And of course that is what young Joe realises and so stops Cid from losing his mother by killing himself, his young self. NO! Not what I wanted and not fair. Too sad, and far too confusing. As my friend put it the whole time travel, space-timey wimey ball makes no sense and leaves you with more questions than answers which just wasn't satisfying.

This film had put me through a lot and I wanted a happier ending than the one I was presented with. Maybe that is me just being a romantic but I can't help it, I never want to see JGL die. I wanted him to change the fate of himself and the world by killing Bruce Willis, moving in with Blunt, and raising Cid to be a decent human being who would put his TK skills to good use.

I'll end on a positive though. The part of the film that completely stood out for me was the life of Joe after he kills his future self, closing out his loop as was meant to be. The life he lives being such a waste for so many years, taking drugs and killing people. The transformation too from JGL to Willis was also great, the moments at the beginning where JGL looks in a mirror and notices his hairline is receding, Willis with his wig. Then Joe finally beginning to live life, falling in love and getting married. You can see why he feels so strongly about saving her and his life with her. I wanted more of that romance, but I guess what I was given was a man fighting to save it, which is romantic too even if the methods are not to my taste.

The Cabin in the Woods ☆☆☆☆

This is one of those films I can't review without spoiling EVERYTHING because that was exactly how Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard intended it to be. So just to sum up I thought this slasher movie was innovative, well acted, interesting, and so gory I screamed into a cushion several times. It's a horror film for Whedonites, he is my god and to me everything he touches is golden.

I did go into hysterics once the film was over though, and I mean proper hysterics where you can't breathe properly for several minutes and laugh so hard it hurts your body without being overly sure what you are laughing at...

Now for my review with aforementioned SPOILERS.


Now I know many reviews gave this film one less star than I have, also friends of mine have mentioned that they thought it was 'ok but not the best'. As previously stated Joss Whedon is a god to me and I really appreciated his touch with this film. The humour was evident throughout and the bloodbath at the end was akin to the ridiculous edge that the original Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie had (which Whedon wrote as well as creating the iconic TV series).

Goddard on the other hand is most famous for writing Cloverfield but this is his first foray into directing. However you imagine Whedon was never far away for guidance, especially as he co-wrote the film with Goddard.
That said I thought the direction and writing were tightly woven, the film never lost focus and remained weird, funny and scary throughout.

Weird is the optimal word for this film because, let's be honest, it's bat shit crazy. Well produced madness, but completely nuts nonetheless. I enjoyed the blend of cliches from all 'college kids in the woods' movies and the innovative ideas behind the reality TV style production. It was like the Hunger Games really with the puppeteers pulling the strings like TV executives, worried about putting on a good show.But it also cannot be directly compared to the Hunger Games because, although humans were pulling the strings, the mysterious gods were the reason behind such an elaborate ritual sacrifice.

I think that is what stood out for me, that the slashing of these young people was to appease mysterious Titans that would rip the Earth apart if not sated by a blood offering. Also the manipulation of the kids (I know they are meant to be late teens/early twenties but 'kids' is quicker to describe them from now on) was brilliant, from infusing the blond hair dye of one of the girls with chemicals to make her stupid, to infecting the house and surroundings with pheromones and decision altering gases to prevent them being sensible and making the decisions viewers often scream at the idiots on the screen such as "DON'T SPLIT UP!"

I loved the group of college kids going off to the cabin, not just because of Thor (aka Chris Hemsworth) but also Fran Kranz and Jesse Williams (Greys Anatomy). To be honest at the beginning I was rooting for the boys to survive. And I forgive stoner Marty for putting himself before the Earth because he was a fantastic character, and I'm kind of in love with Fran Kranz...for those who have no idea who he is watch Dollhouse and I dare you not to fall for Topher Grace.

The fact is the college kids fall into every pitfall and cliche category possible.They carry on to the cabin even after meeting the scary as feck Mordecai, go into the cellar when it just bursts open, read the Latin poem that raises zombies from the dead (sorry they were murderous redneck zombies, totally different category). The zombie did scare the crap out of me, I was actually screaming into a cushion because they were pretty horrifying. But then Whedon does what he does best, and makes them funny. The zombie hand that Marty had dismembered with a trowel 'saves' Marty and Dana, which he praises as if it were a dog that has caught a stick.

I laughed a lot, and out loud. OK so I was watching this movie on my own in my house with a cushion to protect me so I was a bit more vocal than I would be in a cinema or if I was watching it with another human being. Nevertheless I still think I would have laughed, from that opening where Sitterson and Hadley are conversing about fertility treatments and what they are up to at the weekend and its suddenly comes up CABIN IN THE WOODS in startling red letters that fill the screen, to the bird of prey flying along after the college kids but gets disintegrated by the protective wall that encases the cabin in the woods, and even the bloodbath. Yes I laughed a LOT at the bloodbath. That may have been the hysterics kicking in, but it was just SO ridiculous and funny. More importantly it felt like it was on purpose. Amy Acker (Angel) being eaten by a giant...snake? Hadley being eaten by a longed for Merman, a cruel irony which he acknowledges before his death scream.

Sitterson and Hadley were the kinds of characters you do find yourself sort of rooting for. Just doing their jobs, but doing them well. Manipulating the kids into making bad decisions and just trying to not make the world end. Sitterson was played by Richard Jenkins who seems to get small parts in a great deal of films, but is probably best known for playing the dead father in Six Feet Under (you'd also recognise him from Dear John and Friends With Benefits). Hadley is played by Bradley Whitford who was in the West Wing (something I never watched), but I loved him in this film. He showed compassion for the kids, especially Dana. Though I particularly enjoyed his final, meaningful speech to his team being interrupted by the prospect of tequila and a big party.

Like Hadley I also began to root for Dana, she'd had her best friends head thrown at her by a zombie, seen her friend motorcycle into an electric wall of death (funniest death scene because you knew what was about to happen and they all still had so much hope), and a potential love interest be spiked through the neck whilst driving where she ends up in the lake, only to be met by the super scary zombie when she struggles out. Which is why I, though I didn't want him to die, felt I understood when Dana pulled a gun on Marty at Sigourney Weaver's behest (she gets great small, evil roles in movies now which is fab). She also is the one who works out what prompted the horrors of the redneck zombies, where the kids chose their deaths - another facet of this film that I really liked.

Apart from the humour, the horror, the script and direction, the best thing by far was the acting. Joss Whedon is lucky to have an arsenal of actors who fall over themselves to be part of his work, even if the role is tiny. Most important though everybody played it straight, no-one was in this movie thinking 'this is actually a bit of a spoof and a comment on horror cliches so I'm gonna ham it up' they were all serious about their roles. When Dana goes crazy in the cube of death you really feel for her because her connection with the crazy chainsaw guy in the next cube feels quite powerful. Then she decides everyone in this underground facility of horrors should get a taste of their own blood and you can't help going 'yeah you go girl'.

I enjoyed this film far more than I thought I would, which is most likely because I am a supreme wuss when it comes to horror so cannot compare it to a lot of other slasher movies. But it was also funny whilst being gory and horrific, and the humour wasn't from forced one-liners or deliberately funny scenes. No-one could say that a bloodbath is intended to be funny, but the design and the deaths were ridiculous enough for me to both squirm and laugh at the same time.

The end was a moment of brilliance and I think the cause of my (continuing) hysterical laughter. Marty and Dana sit sharing a spliff, wishing they could be witnesses to the apocalypse rather than just causing it, when a huge molten hand erupts from the earth to smash the cabin to bits. End.

I couldn't breathe for quite a while and the memory of it is making me tear in laughter once more. I don't know, maybe I'm just weird or too easily pleased? I guess I called myself the Friendly Film Fan for a reason, and I don't come much more friendly than when reviewing a film from Midas himself, Mr Joss Whedon.

I loved it. I laughed, I screamed. Its pretty much all I want from a horror film.

Untouchable ☆☆☆☆☆

Funniest film I have seen in YEARS.

The film is based upon the true story of a rich tetraplegic (paralysed from the neck down) and his rough'n'ready carer who comes from the council estate area of Paris. It follows the friendship that is created and the truly heart warming story of how these two figures from completely opposite ends of Paris come together and vastly improve each others lives.

So we have Driss, played by the simply gorgeous and extraordinary Omar Sy, who comes into wealthy Phillipe's life (played by Francois Cluzet who is a stalwart of French cinema) as a man who has just come from a six month stint in prison for robbery and needs a third job interview to turn him down so he can claim benefits from the State. Driss' unpitying attitude toward Phillipe intrigues the tetraplegic who decides to hire him as his carer to test if this young man can cope with having a job rather than claiming from the State. Most importantly, Driss made Phillipe laugh.

The story unfolds as Driss becomes a caring and focused individual, learning to work for his money (whilst dabbling in a little artistry) and Phillipe finds light and laughter where before he had been engulfed with pity.

This film is HILARIOUS with all the capitals. It finds humour in the most awful situation and, like the film makers themselves have said, it is very British in its comedy as it is very very dark. I'm not sure I have laughed at a joke about a disabled person without feeling a tiny bit guilty, but today I laughed so much my throat hurt from trying not to guffaw in the 7 person filled cinema.

The music too is wonderful, blending 70s Funk with classical masterpieces with ease as Driss and Phillipe introduce each other to their musical worlds. The dancing scene was particularly wonderful and unscripted, they just said to the cast 'do what you feel'. Boy does Omar Sy have some dance moves.

Most importantly though the chemistry between the two leads is phenomenal. Though Cluzet only has his head to move he acts with his entire body - par example he almost falls out of his chair but moves not a single iota and that was itself impressive, whilst also being laugh out loud funny. His eyes too are extraordinary, so expressive, which is something that can be lost in comedy when people are prat-falling across each other.
Omar Sy is just a beautiful man, incredibly funny, and heartbreaking too. I have found a new crush.

The story is incredible, and the fact that it is true lends itself more to the comedy rather than make you back away from laughing. It is refreshing to watch a film that wants you to laugh with the disability rather than at it.

This is truly one of the funniest and heartwarming films I have ever seen, and I'm still giggling from the memories it has given me.

Mirror Mirror ☆☆☆½

Even though this film was slated upon arrival I think I must have been in the right mood because I thoroughly enjoyed it. I even enjoyed it more than Snow White and the Huntsman which is why it deserves the extra half star to Kristen Stewart's real life love triangle. I also didn't pay for it as Love Film are currently trying to woo me with free films so that probably has helped the rating and this review too!

I am not going to describe the plot because, refreshingly, it actually follows the conventions of the original Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs fairytale.

Firstly, there are SEVEN dwarfs. Not eight. And they have been played by DWARFS. Not mini versions of British actors in a 'we're not copying the Hobbits' but blatently are style. And these guys rock, completely living up to the expectations of the viewer and providing some lovely comic moments. They aren't called Happy Sleepy Dopey etc but they do have some good names and matching personalities, there is Butcher the butcher (played by a wonderful actor called Martin Klebba who is probably most famous for being in Scrubs), Grimm the teacher, Napoleon who wears a magnificent hat and does makeovers, and my personal favourite Grub who, you know, eats all the time.

Secondly Snow White looks like Snow White. Her hair is black, her skin is white, her lips (after Napoleon dabbles with some fruit juice) are rosy red. She is played by Lily Collins who is far more convincing as Snow than Ms Stewart. This is perhaps unfair as I think I gave her a fairly positive review, but, there was no love triangle in this film (apart from Julia Roberts trying to marry Armie Hammer) so I am already remembering parts of the film fondly rather than wishing I hadn't just witnessed another Twilight film.
Back to Lily, she is great. I loved her in The Blind Side (if you haven't seen it then go, now, Sandra Bullock won an Oscar for this the same year she won a Razzie!), and she doesn't seem overwhelmed by the enormity of being a Princess.

Of course the film isn't burdened on her shoulders alone. Julia Roberts has the fun task of playing the evil step-mother/Queen. And I truly believe she had fun with it. She loses her focus when Armie Hammer's bare chest is on show (well who wouldn't?), has conversations with herself in the Mirror (which I'll come back to), and has a great time making Nathan Lane squirm as her manservant Brighton. It is possibly one of my favourite Julia Robert's performances because she just seems to relish it so much.

I enjoyed that the conversations with the Mirror began with the Queen saying 'Mirror Mirror on the wall' which then turned her mirror into a portal, taking her to a strange hut full of mirrors where she could converse with her reflection in peace. It was intriguing that the Mirror Queen had an American accent where real-life Queen was English, however I imagine that was to highlight that she wasn't simply talking to herself in the mirror.

The film suffers from the same lack of cohesion with accents as the film Penelope does, where you were never quite sure if they were in the USA or the UK but James McAvoy should have been allowed to be Scottish regardless! Snow White was American and her Dad British, the Prince American and his lackey British...perhaps there was a theme of the Brits being evil/slightly rubbish. Ah well, not that it matters, the real Snow White was German so who cares what the accent is as long as there are no subtitles for my tired brain to deal with!

As for the Prince, played with some kind of fierce joy by Armie Hammer (another graduate of that Facebook film I have yet to watch), he was so much fun! He was pompous, funny, gorgeous, and not afraid to play the fool as he attempted to embody 'puppy love'. Actually that reminds me of one of my favourite scenes where he absolutely went puppy crazy over Julia Roberts whose laughter, I am positive, was real.

There are some cracking one-liners in this film - after the sappy declaration that it is about time the Princess did the saving not the Prince, Armie Hammer gets to respond with "No! Its a successful story - there have been focus groups!"

The film differs to the original story on one important point, Snow White is never tricked into eating poison and woken by her Prince. Instead, like the above sappy quote points out, it is the Princess' turn to do the saving. This I didn't mind because it wasn't sticking to the original plot very well, the dwarfs were bandits on stilts rather than diamond miners, but it all worked. Essentially, there was no love triangle to feel awkward about, no Kristen Stewart pulling odd faces at the camera, and I was a fan of the Spice Girls so I don't mind a bit of Girl Power now and then.

Directed by Tarsem Singh, the film had his stamp of being beautiful and colourful. The only other film I have seen of his is The Cell and, although I didn't like it, I found the visuals to be quite stunning. The same is true here, the colours are masterfully put together as the scenes from the village have everyone and everything so grey while Snow White sparkles in gold, and the ballroom scene where only the Queen, the Prince, and Snow White's red lips have any kind of pallor apart from beige.

He also brings his Bollywood influence to the film and it ends on a strange but rather well thought out final song and dance, as Bollywood films are known to do. It also proves that Lily Collins can sing like her Dad, and lets Armie continue to be funny as he awkwardly gets pulled into the dancing.

This film was funny, it was silly, and there were some good actors living up to their characters. You didn't need to take the film seriously, it didn't want you to. It wanted you to laugh, and I did.

The Dark Knight Rises ☆☆☆☆☆

First off I'd like to say that if you have seen Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, enjoyed them but are thinking 'I'll wait for the DVD' for this one then DON'T. Catch it while you can on the big screen, it is entirely worth it.
If you haven't seen either but are intrigued I'd recommend the entire series, if only to get to see this final film.

Next I need to point out that I absolutely cannot review this film without spoilers so this should be as far as you read if you have not seen TDKR yet.

So to reiterate: SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

Ahem.

As there are multiple spoilers I will not give the usual run down of the plot, rather just launch in with why I thought it deserved five stars.

Even though it has been four years since the last Batman film there is hardly a difference between the execution or the special effects, and that is because Christopher Nolan rather wisely stayed clear of the pull of 3D. I personally thank him because I cannot watch 3D movies without obtaining a splitting headache, but equally the rest of the world and Batman fans everywhere should thank him for not creating effects for the enjoyment of the 3D audience. I could see if the studio had demanded 3D that the Bat would have flown over our heads, the footballer running from the disintegrating earth would have run into our laps, and Anne Hathaway's boobs would have been in our faces somehow.

The continuation of the story from The Dark Knight was pretty seamless, one can only imagine had Heath Ledger not died then perhaps The Joker would have made a return as Cillian Murphy's scarecrow does, playing the manic Judge, Jury and Executioner that Tom Hardy's bright new world of Gotham demands.

Tom Hardy, what can I say? When I could understand him I was mesmerised by the Sean Connery-esque lilt, and even when I had no idea what he was saying I remained fairly terrified. He was enigmatic (helped by the mask holding his face together) and engaging, a thrilling figure on screen. The bulk of his presence is more than enough proof to the audience that he could kill Batman. Seriously, Hardy has shoulders you could be carried on for weeks. The emotion too that is conveyed by Hardy's eyes is consuming, the tears at the end are almost heartbreaking enough to make you forget he has broken a great many necks in this film.

Marion Cotillard is a convincing femme fatale, the one who seems to be so right for the broken Bruce but instead is his mightiest enemy, the one who gets him killed. I adore Cotillard and am happy she appears to have become a darling of Hollywood as, as much as I love the French language, it is nice to not have to read the screen when she is on it. The back story of Cotillard's Miranda is compelling, and although I thought Bane was not the child of Ra's Al Ghul but actually his protector, I must admit I did not see it coming that Cotillard was that child, despite not being entirely sure of her as a good guy.

As for the actual good guys in this movie I LOVED both Hathaway's Catwoman (who is notably never called so) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Robin (who is only referred to by this name at the end). I was unfortunate to see one of those occasionally hilarious Meme's that revealed who JGL's character really was, but it did not spoil anything really. His performance as Blake, the cop who knows that Bruce Wayne is Batman and still believes in him, is brilliant. He is another actor I cannot get enough of and is ageing ridiculously well, whilst Nolan gives him the roles of his life so far. That final scene of his going up into the Bat Cave was so tantalising as well - you just wanted the film to carry on with Robin, something that no one would have said about Chris O'Donnell's boy wonder.

Anne Hathaway is fantastic as Selina Kyle, the cat burglar who has gotten in with the wrong kind of people. Though the loudmouth next to me in the cinema proclaimed 'she's not as good as Michelle Pfeiffer' I have to vehemently disagree. Pfeiffer was part of Tim Burton's Batman world, a crazy and more fantastical realisation who is rejuvenated by her many cats when she suffers a near fatal accident.
Hathaway embodies the realism of Nolan's vision for Batman, and actually upon further reading on the character her Selina Kyle is the closest to the original comic book creation. If anything could turn a straight girl gay it would probably be seeing Anne Hathaway in that skin tight leather catsuit, Hardy's shoulders were just enough to stop me falling over that line but seriously, that suit was entirely unforgiving and hats off to Hathaway for looking as amazing as she did.

Hathaway kicked serious butt in this movie, and she did it in six inch heels. A fantastic performance and a worthy adversary-come-perfect partner for Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne.

Ah Christian Bale, though out-done on shoulder muscles by Mr Hardy he does still cut a pretty fine figure on screen. A recluse at the start he is reminiscent of an old man shuffling about his mansion in depression. When he finally puts the Batman suit on and comes sweeping in I actually beamed, it was so exciting to see him back. Bale is an incredible actor and manages to balance the gravelly voiced Batman with the broken Billionaire with great skill, you can see him positively light up when Hathaway's Selina makes her first impression upon his life.

The relationship between Bruce and Selina I couldn't get enough of - I wanted more banter and more screen time between the two. Bale and Hathaway matched each other on cock-sure confidence, wit, and emotion. I knew the ending would be of the two of them and the romantic in me beamed yet again as Bruce Wayne finally gets his happy ending with a woman to challenge and excite him without making him feel guilty for his sacrifices.

The recurring characters, apart from Batman of course, are the indomitable figures of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman. Each carry on the spirit with which they began the trilogy, Caine as the father-figure who has to break Bruce's heart to make him move forward, Freeman the genius who sucks Bruce back into living with more toys for the Batman (including the coolest flying machine ever), and Oldman as Commissioner Gordon who has sacrificed his family the same way Bruce Wayne has sacrificed any chance of having one - by staying remote and on edge with the lies about Harvey Dent.
They are all brilliant, but then men of their stature in Hollywood would not be anything less. Caine is particularly wonderful as the father-figure who can never be as close to the boy he sees as his son as a real father can be.

Now this film is not without its faults. Toward the end there are a series of shots that seem to have been edited together a little hastily so that I was confused at when exactly Cotillard had gone 'missing', how close the Research and Development basement was to the hostages and how Fox and Bruce could get there without incurring more fighting. But these are trivial really in the grand scheme of the film and understandable as the film is a hefty 165 minutes in length already, although I could have easily watched another 30minutes.

Christopher Nolan has done a masterful job in my opinion with the Batman franchise. I have commented before in reviews that I am a Marvel girl through and through, but the Nolan's Batman trilogy could have been invented by the brothers and no one would be any the wiser (Jonathan co-wrote the latter two films). They are so much more than comic book adaptations and have been a strong addition to the DC franchise, making up for the embarrassing previous incarnations of the caped crusader.

Though I do not want to go into heavy detail of why these special effects were exceptional (the sewer bombs were just fantastic and that football field being demolished from below? stunning), I want to make a special mention of The Bat. This vehicle (can I call it a vehicle?) is incredible, it doesn't look like a bat in the slightest, more like one of those flying beetles, but even then you think someone with the time, money, and ingenuity could make something like this work. THAT is the real touch of genius that Nolan and his brother have brought to these films, there is something at the back of your mind that thinks 'yeah, one day, that could happen in Bill Gates' basement'.

Special effects and scenery aside (Gotham looks more like Manhattan film by film), the characters are what make this film worth watching. The dialogue is slick and never cheesy, there is humour and emotion in the words and the performances, and there are more British actors in this than you can shake a stick at, you just have to spot them.

I loved each and every performance. I loved each and every scene. Hathaway and Gordon-Levitt are my stand out stars but they do not steal their scenes...well Hathaway does sometimes.

I had no intention of owning any of the Batman films (let alone Green Lantern or Superman) but I think I may have to rethink my stance on DC. Nolan has certainly convinced me with this final offering that Batman is worth investing your time in, and some shelf space.

In Time ☆☆

In Time is the story of a future where humans are genetically engineered to stop ageing at 25, whereupon the year on their 'arm-clock' starts to count down. Time is now quite literally money, and the rich get to live forever while the poor struggle each day to earn/gamble/fight their way to gain an extra day. One such man in the ghetto is Justin Timberlake who, after being granted one hundred years by a wealthy man sick of living, is pursued for the 'theft' into the wealthy district of New Greenwich where he meets heiress Amanda Seyfried. After being cornered Timberlake decides to take Seyfried as a hostage, who later becomes a willing accomplice to his mission to give people more time, and they spend the rest of the film being hunted by the time police and others who do not want the balance to be upset.

Despite being an interesting concept, In Time fails on a number of counts. At first it appears to be trying to create the sinister future seen in Equilibrium, with the action and partnership present in the Bourne Identity. What it fails to achieve is the intense personal connection between the male and female leads that Matt Damon and Franke Potente exude in Bourne, while the future appears to be bleak but utterly unbelievable - whereas part of me whilst watching Equilibrium felt 'well it might happen'.

Though Timberlake is a capable actor and Seyfried has shown her worth a number of times, they fail at the attempt to become a futuristic Bonnie and Clyde.

Equally the rebellious rich girl kidnapped by handsome stranger has also been done much better in films such as Danny Boyle's A Life Less Ordinary.

The dialogue is clumsy. Seyfried exclaims while Timberlake is driving backwards (fairly capably) "do you even know how to drive?!" ummm, yes love, he's been driving for a good ten minutes now. Also their conversations seem to be made up of statements by Timberlake and Seyfried throwing questions at them.

The characters are flimsy at best. Alex Pettyfer does a rather good impression of an English gangster, however this isn't a Guy Ritchie film and the accent nor the character have a place here, only serving to show that people will continue to be awful in the future and English people will always crop up as the bad guy no matter how unlikely it is for a Brit to be in a futuristic USA that seems to keep within its own borders.

Cillian Murphy has the role of 'time-cop' who seems to be a jobsworth beyond belief, risking his own life to stop rules being broken. Murphy does not grab your attention on screen and the character he is given is laboured with terrible dialogue (as the rest of the cast are) so that even as a bad guy he becomes almost funny.

Vincent Kartheiser channels his Mad Men character by being equal parts appalling human being and completely incompetent when it comes to women. He is the father of Seyfried and a millionaire many times over, controlling the economy and keeping the poor desperate and the rich safe in their mansions. Basically Andrew Niccol (writer/director) had a list of characteristics of the typical baddy and forced them all on Kartheiser.

As for Seyfried and Timberlake, well, lets just say that the haircuts say it all. Seyfried sports a do that screams THIS IS SCI-FI while Timberlake's shaven head is reminiscent of the Jason Statham look, except that he cannot pull off the quips or the stunts with as much pizazz as our resident hard-man. As for the quips, like the rest of dialogue they feel stilted and pushed in where the film really did not require any comedy for it to work. Niccol obviously disagreed and puts in awkward moments that are meant to be funny but halfway through smiling you start to wonder if its because it is a genuinely funny moment OR you are just feeling embarrassed.

Another haircut related issue I had was that Seyfried does not change her hair once - OK yes you stop ageing at 25 but does this mean you are a vampire who also stops growing their hair? It could have done with the gritty edge behind the Potente/Damon relationship in Bourne that they have to change her hair to be able to survive. Instead Seyfried spends the entire movie with one haircut and impeccable make-up. Even Bonnie and Clyde looked a little roughed up sometimes.

This film failed to satisfy me as a Sci-Fi fan. It had all the components of being a genre pusher - the idea of time actually being money? kinda genius. The execution however was just pants. And that is my professional opinion as an amateur blogger: In Time = MASSIVE PANTS.

The script was weak, the direction marginally stronger and the acting laboured. This is such a shame because Niccol is responsible for the fabulous Gattaca, a strong futuristic film with a great cast of Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman, and wrote The Truman Show which is perhaps one of the best Big Brother type films in existence.

Not sure I can recommend this film, if you think you might like it be my guest but I'd rather you watched Gattaca, Logan's Run, or Equilibrium. In fact, definitely watch Equilibrium before you even consider In Time.

Bachelorette ☆☆½

Hollywoodland, in all their wisdom, have got a system whereby they release a film before it is even out in theatres to iTunes (US only) for a limited period. So that is how I managed to watch Bachelorette about three weeks before its release thanks to a friend who is both American and has a US iTunes account.

Bachelorette is set the night before the wedding of Becky, the 'larger' member of the B-Faces from High School which consisted of three others who are to be her bridesmaids: Kirsten Dunst's waspish Regan; Lizzy Caplan's confused Jenna; and Isla Fisher's sweet but dumb Katie.

These three supposed best friends of the bride are determined to have some fun, even though the bride has said that a quiet night is what is needed because of her relations coming from out of town. Jenna and Katie instead snort the coke that Jenna has smuggled with her on the plane (in a talcum powder bottle - heads up airport security checks from now on won't let you have liquid or talc) and proceed to ruin the speeches at the rehearsal dinner by 'outing' Becky's high school bulimia and being so wasted that all they do is say they have lost their phone.

Later at the champagne party (which was arranged instead of a full on bachelorette) a stripper that Katie knows turns up to make the party a bit more lively. However the stripper calls Becky pig-face (as she was called in High School by everyone, even her bridesmaids) which, understandably, makes the bride question the motives behind hiring the stripper.

So everyone is kicked out, and Regan, Jenna and Katie are left snorting coke and drinking heavily. This results in a torn wedding stress, a mad race across New York to get it fixed, reunited lovers, startling revelations about previous trauma, vomit, overdoses, sex in bathrooms, strippers, more drugs, and finally a wedding.

To me, this film is a poor relation to Bridesmaids. In reality I think if it had come out maybe next year it would have stood a better chance at not being compared because they are actually very different stories. Where Bridesmaids was a clever and empowering film about a woman struggling with the changing life of her best friend, Bachelorette is a tale of three women trying to accept that the least pretty and fat one of the group has her life together and is getting married first.

Something that really bothers me about the film is that it never quite works out what type of film it is trying to be. Unlike Bridesmaids (and I promise, its the final comparison), it does not settle on a single genre - almost like it is trying so hard NOT to be a romantic comedy that the humour gets beyond tasteless (in my own opinion) and fails to keep you engaged with any one character. This I think is due to the helm being taken by first time director Leslye Headland, who also wrote the script. Normally such a combination means the direction is tighter and the story lines less likely to run away or be unresolved, not so much here.

There are moments which are undeniably very funny and I did laugh out loud a few times, however there were more times when I was cringing beyond my normal threshold (I cannot deal with humour like The Office because I spend the majority of the time feeling embarrassed) or trying to work out what was going to happen next and where the story was actually going.

The acting - you know I can't really fault it, the characters being depicted were sometimes awful, sometimes sweet, but the actors didn't exactly fail the writing or direction. I love Lizzy Caplan and had such high hopes that the relationship that was being conjured between herself and Adam Scott would be similar to the one they had in Party Down but it veered between being too shocking to being too cheesy (for my taste). But that is not the fault of the actors it is the script and the direction they were given.

Kirsten Dunst is a brilliant wasp I have to say, I found her reactions to what was going on around her mostly believable, and its quite fun to see her being such a bitch. James Marsden is the male version of Dunst in this film and I just found it uncomfortable - the short relationship that crops up could have been so much better had the language been less forced and their characters just an iota more likeable. Instead I was fairly bored that they ended up together in certain scenes and could have done without that, instead I wanted more time given to the Scott/Caplan relationship so that didn't seem quite so rushed.

Isla Fisher (aka Mrs Baron-Cohen) does ditzy and doped up really well, but again unfortunately her character becomes more like a caricature, getting so wasted that she needs looking after before the party has even begun. There are also dark undertones to her state of mind which are never fully explored but are really quite disturbing, as are revealed in her time with Joe, the guy from school who used to sell her pot but has been in love with her from afar since he was a teenager.

What the film appeared to be going for was brutal realism mixed with comedy - and that just doesn't sit well together. The almost blasé attitude toward drug taking was itself fairly offensive, but then perhaps that is just my British sensibilities not recognising the ease of drug taking in cities like New York. I was also disturbed at how little the friends actually supported the bride to be, and yes I understood the reasoning being that there was jealousy that the fat girl got the happy ending first but really - the lack of respect from the beginning just made me question how and why a friendship would last so long.

I did enjoy parts of the film, and like I said the awful characterisation was not the fault of the actors but the writer/director. I just wish it had chosen a genre and stuck to it - if you want to be dark go pitch black, comedy can take it, just watch Death at a Funeral (the original British one) for proof. Equally if you want romance to get mixed in there somewhere then BE a romantic comedy - you can do drugs and still be sweet and funny, if you get the balance right.

Alas, Bachelorette fails to decide what it is, and to me that really isn't good enough when you have such a wealth of comedic and dramatic talent at your fingertips.

Friends With Kids ☆☆☆½

This film is a real treat. ENTIRELY predictable but much like Friends With Benefits it is done so well that you don't mind that the lives, loves and relationships are following a plot as old as time...well OK so the beginning isn't so conventional but by the end it gets there.

The plot follows a group of friends living in Manhattan: a (I presumed) married couple played by Maya Rudolph (Away We Go) and Chris O'Dowd (IT Crowd); another (completely all over each other) couple played by Kristen Wiig and Jon Hamm (Bridesmaids), and finally best friends Adam Scott (from the AMAZING series Party Down) and Jennifer Westfeldt, the writer and director of this movie (and partner of Mr Hamm).

It begins in a restaurant where Rudolph and O'Dowd, after their single friends complain about a small person making noise and the terrible parents for bringing a child into a fancy restaurant, announce they are expecting. Cut to four years later, their friends live in Brooklyn, and Westfeldt and Scott have to take $50 cab rides to get to their houses because dinner does not happen in restaurants but at peoples homes where they can keep an eye on the kids.
Hamm and Wiig have become this bitter couple who snipe at each other where they used to never stop kissing, most likely due to the lack of sleep from their newborn. Basically, they aren't happy at all.

O'Dowd and Rudolph are entirely stressed, not sniping but yelling at each other, but then they also have not slept and are expecting their second child. All in all what Westfeldt and Scott see are two stressed out couples trying to raise children and decide, after a lot of discussion of the pros and cons of raising a child as friends, to have a baby of their own without being a couple, splitting the responsibility down the middle.

Quite refreshingly this film goes from the conception (an awkward but weirdly lovely 'drunk' night of sex) to the birth, and then follows on nicely with Scott and Westfeldt making their lives work. Until Scott meets a young dancer played by Megan Fox (Transformers) and Westfeldt meets a divorcee with kids of his own, played by Edward Burns (27 Dresses).

The relationships move and evolve, their friends have huge arguments and break-up, and the situation that Scott and Westfeldt in moves from happy to miserable. Don't worry though, as I said at the start, entirely predictable to the end.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film despite the predictable nature of the story, but then sometimes a story told well is good enough. [This is my main complaint with films such as Avatar: I find it mundane because the story, though accompanied by some beautiful graphics, is a classic tale of lovers from different sides of the track, but it is lost among the self-congratulatory special effects and unimaginative quest for 'unobtanium'.]

The cast are fantastic: Wiig and Hamm are scarily believable as the couple who's relationship becomes so sour it could curdle milk; Rudolph and O'Dowd are lovely, also believable as the couple who fight but love each other enough to get through it, and O'Dowd has a fairly impressive New York accent (at least that was the drawl it reminded me of most).

Adam Scott - I have been slightly in love with his strange face since I became addicted to the short-lived series Party Down (though IMDB is teasing me with a film version being in 'pre-production'). He displays a more sensitive side with his portrayal of Jason in this movie which is really sweet and makes your heart melt just a little, even if the language accompanying the tender moment is not quite what the traditional romantic comedy normally would use.
The language is of course due to Jennifer Westfeldt who does a really good job with the script and direction. She has quite a sharp wit and makes use of colourful language but not in a perverse way, as in it is not used to shock the viewer, it is simply just the way we talk now. This is also Westfeldt's first turn in the directors chair and I have to say I can't really fault the direction, it is held together really well and does not dwell on one couple at the expense of the others.

What is important about this film is the believability of it. I can imagine that people who are in their mid to late thirties consider having children with their friends if not in relationships themselves, and perhaps it could work. Of course the overriding romance of this story is that the best friends are actually in love with one another, and the romantic in me adores this. The realist says that if this were to happen in real life it would most likely end in disaster no matter the romantic notion that just loving and wanting the child is enough to make such an arrangement work.


Nevertheless, this is a story about family well-told by all, from the writer to the cast. It is sweet, funny, and boasts some realism. It is interesting that Westfeldt has no children of her own to be able to write so well about the stresses of child-rearing, but perhaps she has observed enough from her own friends to be able to comment. You might be wondering why I only gave it three and a half stars and that is because though I enjoyed it greatly, I cannot rank it as highly as I have The Five Year Engagement.

Above-all, this film is a romance. And I'm a sucker for a well-told romance with some kind of happy ending.

We Bought A Zoo ☆☆☆

Now, this film says it is based on the true story of British journalist Benjamin Mee who bought a failing zoo on Dartmoor. I would call it loosely based - or perhaps even just inspired, as further research into the story showed how many differences director Cameron Crowe (Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous) orchestrated in the movie version.

The real story of course takes place in Devon (South West of England for those who don't know, and one of the rainiest places in Britain) where journalist Mee convinced his Mother to sell his childhood home in Surrey to buy a failing zoo on Dartmoor, along with Mee convincing his wife to sell up and leave their barn conversion in Southern France to move back to rainy old UK. His wife, Katherine, had battled a brain tumour which, less than a year into their move to the zoo came back and she passed away soon after. Mee states that the reason behind the move to the zoo, despite his wife's protests, was that they knew the tumour could come back at any time and if he was to be a single father he wanted a place that was magical for his children to grow up (actually at the end of the article I read his daughter is running along in a red cape beside the wolf enclosure - how much more of a fairytale can you get?).

So the true story is Mee and family along with his Mother and one of his brothers live on Dartmoor and struggle to resurrect a failed zoo. The Crowe version has a bereaved Mee and children move to struggling Rosemoor zoo and work to bring it up to regulation before the summer season begins in decidedly sunny California.

Unfortunately for Cameron Crowe he seems to have a pattern when it comes to film making. Firstly the script must be doused in syrup before being read, a major change (preferably death) has to happen to the main characters, a quirky girl must be the lifeboat for the male hero, and if possible there must be the cutest kid in the world on screen making impossibly adorable comments. Crowe's filmography includes Jerry Maguire (Jonathan Lipnicki the cute-as-a-button child), Elizabethtown (Kirsten Dunst rescues Orlando Bloom), and Almost Famous (probably the least cliched but still pretty saccharine for a rocker movie).

In WBAZ the protagonist is Matt Damon who was an adrenaline junkie journalist and recent single parent to a moody and talented artistic fourteen year old boy, and an adorable seven year old who, much like Lipnicki in Jerry Maguire, is wise beyond her years. Maggie Elizabeth Jones who plays Rosie Mee is so friggin cute, and has been given some corker lines. Actually without her I may have been tempted to give this film two stars rather than three. Though obviously her presence ramps up the sugar content sometimes this is forgiveable, what wasn't was the relationship between Dylan Mee and zoo-helper Lily.

Though Colin Ford (who plays young Sam in Supernatural) does well as the angry teenager who is in torment about the death of his mother, Lily (played by Elle Fanning of Super 8) is fairly off putting as enthusiastic zoo worker who is home schooled and quite obviously hasn't been in much contact with other teenagers. Nothing against Fanning's acting abilities, I'm positive she fulfilled the directors wants and needs for her character, its more I dislike the way Crowe has to have EVERYONE falling in love.

Damon looks older than ever in this movie, which is appropriate given he is meant to be a single father who is putting off grief to try and give his children a magical life sans a mother (and he is 42 now so allowed to look it). Damon and Jones together can be heartbreaking at times, but then Crowe will ruin the moment with sweeping music to entirely put you off. However left well alone is the relationship between Damon and Thomas Haden Church (Sideways). Church is the older brother who is trying to move Damon on from his stagnant phase, providing comic relief with snappy witticisms to cut through the sugar. Church is often given this role as his deadpan delivery means you tend to smile or chuckle even if the line isn't that funny.

As for the zoo employees of course there is 'leading lady' Scarlett Johansson who is the prerequisite love interest for Damon, playing Kelly the zoo-keeper. I like Johansson a lot as an actress and she can often make a bad film mediocre, or a mediocre film worth watching, just by facial expression or line delivery. Unfortunately again Crowe manages to ruin some nice moments between Damon and Johansson with overplay of Sigur Ros and other orchestral music.

Of the rest of the zoo-crew there is a Scotsman called MacCready who has an enemy in the form of zoo inspector Ferris (played as a caricature by John Michael Higgins); Patrick Fugit (Almost Famous) is, as far as I could tell, a walking monkey-holder (and the most interesting thing the monkey did was face-palm once), and a plethora of other 'actors' who seemed to just mill around putting posts in and collecting escaped snakes.

The plot follows the renovation of the zoo into a working and profitable park that will support the Mee family for the rest of their lives. It couldn't be more predictable if it tried, and that is a comment I made before realising it was a true story. Crowe seems to have had a checklist of cliches sat beside him whilst making this film and he seems to have fulfilled every single one.

And yet, despite the cliches I still gave this film three stars. That is purely down to Matt Damon's likeability on screen, his relationship with the adorable Maggie Elizabeth Jones, and that none of the acting can really be criticised for being bad. It was never the actors fault that the film was a series of cliches or the characters so exaggerated, they at least seemed to have a lot of fun with their roles.

If I could have picked any other director to handle this story it would have been Danny Boyle. Why? Have you ever seen Millions? It is adorable, it is family centric, and it is above all Eccentric which is what was really missing from WBAZ. The story is weird - who on earth buys a failing zoo? Crowe is missing that eccentricity to his film making to have been able to tackle this film appropriately.

As it is though, it is worth a watch if you happen across it. I would never have gone out of my way to see it, I was lucky to have been lent it by a friend, but that doesn't mean there are others out there who will have found a lot more enjoyment from this film than I did.
It was a British story that needed to be told by Britain not Hollywood. Who on earth believes that California could possibly have a wetter summer than the South West of England?!

Children's animation - do we expect too much?

A ‘conversation’ I had on Twitter today with the Reviews editor Nick de Semylen  at Empire Magazine got me to thinking about grown ups’ expectations of kids movies. Basically it started with me reading the review of Brave at empireonline.com and being halted by a sentence disparaging Pixar saying “Monsters Inc is not half as funny as it thinks it is” to which I reacted with “SAY WHAT?”

This led to me tweeting to Empire with “I’m sorry - Monsters Inc is not half as funny as it thinks it is? please tell me this isn't a consensus across Empire”, Nick replying with “it’s not” which I totally misunderstood, thought he was agreeing that Monsters Inc was pretentious so I sent a slightly passive aggressive tweet back – to which Nick kindly corrected my understanding as in fact he loves Monsters Inc and does not agree with the latest reviewers interpretation of the film.

Apart from totally embarrassing myself, this dialogue with the Empire editor got me thinking – are the expectations of adults too much for the modern children’s animation?

(I apologise for sounding like Carrie from Sex and the City just then)

Now Monsters Inc did get a little criticism from some when it first came out for being too young, reflected in the main human being a two year old cute-as-a-button girl. I would totally agree that Monsters Inc was meant for the five year olds, but this does not mean that an adult could not enjoy it or find it funny. The grown-up can watch Sully’s fur quiver in the snow and be amazed at the beauty of it, can laugh at the jokes about yellow snow and the tedium of office work. In short, though not quite the fully rounded support cast of Toy Story, there are two huge monsters to fall in love with and a little girl that will break your heart and that is enough for five stars in my book.

The pressure that has been put upon children’s films to be as much for the adult as for the child came, I believe, in 1995 when Toy Story first hit the cinemas. Blending humour, film parody, and sentiment with stunning animation John Lasseter brought a game changer to Disney and our screens. From this point we demanded more from our children’s films – these were no longer opportunities to take a nap for an hour while the kids were glued to the latest talking animal flick, grown-up’s were willing to pay to see this film WITHOUT a child in-tow.

Pixar followed up with A Bugs Life, a film I loved but it wasn’t quite Toy Story. Then came Monsters Inc in 2001 and once again our minds were blown. Yes it was more on the level of A Bugs Life with who it was aimed at, squarely at the younger audience, but the animation was breathtaking and the action sequences seamless. It tapped into every parent’s worst nightmares and appealed to every child’s imagination, even those children who were in their forties (I count my Mum here).

That same year came a film that, it could be argued, was aimed at the adult rather than the child. That was Shrek. I loved Shrek, it was farcical and funny, rude and made references to many more adult concerns than any of the previous Pixar movies put together. Shrek was a Dreamworks creation whose previous computer animated effort was Antz, one of the worst animations I have seen with a Woody Allen voiced ant and a gory storyline of death – Disney Pixar were always more clever with their bug movie to make it cute, even the death of evil Hopper at the end came at the mouths of the most adorable looking chicks I have ever seen animated.

Shrek managed to be funny and charming, and teach children (and adults) that appearance means nothing – you can look like an ogre but have the personality of a prince. Though a slightly laboured message by the end of the fourth movie (in my opinion Dreamworks should have left it at 2) Shrek managed to start a franchise that was funny and moving, and gross in the way you know a Pixar movie would never be.

So 2001 was a pretty great year for animation, and our expectations could not have been higher.

Disney/Pixar followed up Monsters Inc with Finding Nemo in 2003 (Toy Story 2 came out in 1999 would you believe) and by far this is my favourite of the Pixar movies. A fish with short term memory loss, a paranoid father who cannot tell jokes (even though he’s a clownfish), vegetarian sharks and a tank of slightly mad tropical fish obsessed with dentistry – sheer genius.

It is not surprising that Pixar and all other children’s movie makers have had such a tough time living up to not only their competition but their own reputations. Shrek 2 was brilliant, Shrek 3 and 4 should have never been given the green light. I’m one of those rare people who disliked the Incredibles, Cars was almost worthy of being made but in no way was a sequel deserved, Ratatouille was gorgeous but slightly too long for children or adults.

Then came WALL-E in 2008 and the world was once again hooked on Pixar and its ability to transcend the lines between child and adult. For the first 30minutes of the film man woman and child were absorbed by this crazy, lonely robot finding treasures in the wasteland of Earth. Of course the film was a huge comment on the environment and our impact upon it, but that didn’t matter to the small people and if it mattered to the big people, well, they didn’t have to watch it did they?

This was swiftly followed in 2009 by possibly the most heartbreaking of all the Pixar films, UP. Honestly if you don’t cry when you watch the first 15 minutes of that film you have no heart and it would be best if you and I go our separate ways.

 UP moved easily between the heartbreak that would mean so much to the adults at the beginning, to the crazy and colourful world of South America that the children would respond to, especially the talking dogs. Ok so the grown-ups responded pretty well to the talking dogs as well.

Dreamworks have had their successes too. Apart from Shrek 1&2 they have triumphed with a martial arts bear (Kung Fu Panda 1&2), and Madagascar 1&2 – although I put that success mostly down to the amazing Penguins. Likewise Universal’s animated effort, Despicable Me, had huge success because it blended the cute (small orphan obsessed with unicorns) with the crazy (minions who are small, yellow, speak in their own language, and are obsessed with bananas).

And this is what we expect from our children’s movies. It has to be cute, it has to be intelligent, it cannot talk down to our children but it cannot ignore them completely in an effort to please the grown-ups. Films that have failed to cross that boundary of childish to child-friendly have failed to set the box office alight.

Luckily for Pixar their latest offering has pleased critics across the board. Brave is a Scottish set, female empowered movie with breathtaking animation (from what I’ve seen from the trailer) that by all means is meaningful and funny to all ages. Introducing the world to the beauty of Scotland and the joy of the Scottish accent I cannot wait to see it.

Pixar and John Lasseter forced the world of children’s movies to step up, and I for one am glad they did. Children should not be treated like idiots and their parents should not be forced to watch mediocre films at extortionate prices. However critics need to remember that first and foremost these films are for children, although they may not make the grown-ups laugh constantly I’d bet any small person would be delighted with the offering on screen. So don’t be so mean to Monsters Inc film critics, it is DELIGHTFUL.