Why I Love Girls

Forgive the tongue in cheek title, anyone who knows me will know that it is totally false! Girls is a HBO series created, written, produced and directed by Lena Dunham, who infuriatingly is 26 and recently signed a book 4 million dollar book deal with Random House. The series follows four new yorkers in their twenties as they attempt to navigate the world of dating, sex and work. The series mainly follows Hannah, a 24 year old from Connecticut struggling to make her mark on the world. Hannah is a writer who near the end of series two signs a deal to write an e-book. During the series premier Hannah is financially cut off by her parents, she is fired from her internship at a law firm and quits her job due to perceived sexual harassment from her boss.

The series takes inspiration from another HBO series; Sex and the City, a fact which is referenced in the pilot episode. Dunham described on Letterman how the characters were probably inspired by SATC to move to New York, and yet discovered a very different world. The show differs entirely from SATC in both tone and energy. The jaunty lounge inspired soundtrack is replaced by a more subdued, indie soundtrack, and the characters snappy retorts are replaced by very real conversations, where characters say things that sound utterly ridiculous. One of the real attractions of 'Girls' is that it is real. The characters are developed and three dimensional, and feel like real people, rather than mere representations. The show presents twenty-something life as we know it, the shows characters are deeply flawed, and the relationships between the main characters are not perfect; there is no eternal friendship and no perfect relationships, the characters are self centered and are not always there for their friends, and the show doesn't present the idea that your friends will always be there for you no matter what.

The show is also noteworthy for its frank depiction of sex. The characters actually have sex, there are no negliges, the characters actually get naked. The show is unafraid to show characters in an unflattering light, double chins and all, and Dunham herself often appears naked. Scenes featuring the character playing ping pong naked and having sex doggy style show the characters looking at times ugly and real. The show features a character who has some very dark sexual practices and fetishes, anal sex, masturbation and dirty talking are all analyzed and explored. Hannah herself proclaims that it is her greatest sexual fetish to have sex with herself, 'and also her worst nightmare. The costuming is also very real, he characters clothes are not always perfectly tailored, the characters are often costumed from thrift shops and from chains such as H&M. The characters often wear clothes that look frankly ridiculous, such as Hannah's 'shorteralls'.

The show also depicts sexuality in an interesting way, the second season premier shows Marnie having sex with Hannah's ex boyfriend, Elijah, now a gay man. The casting of Elijah is interesting, as he is played by Andrew Rannells, who by the way is really camp. The interesting thing about this casting is that it tells us a great deal about Hannah, in that she is so self involved that she doesn't realize that her boyfriend is gay, even though he is really camp. The shows opening shot is also interesting, as it shows two heterosexual roommates in bed together. It is this kind of sexual ambiguity which is really practiced these days, and characters in the show are rarely defined by sexual labels but by sexual expression, just as Samantha predicted on Sex and the City.

'Girls' is a show which portrays women as they see themselves and as other people see them, not in the glossy, smart way they would like other people to see them. Characters are self involved and selfish, and entire episodes are dedicated to really trivial problems, whereas actual problems are brushed over. 'Girls' is honest, frank and real. The characters are complex, delicate and realistic, and not always likeable. 'Girls' is essentially a tribute to our generation, fucked up and wasted as we may be, we're still important.

Hannah: I could be the voice of my generation. Well, a voice. Of a generation.

Oz, Neither Great nor Powerful

Oz The Great and Powerful is a 2013 Disney prequel to the 1939 MGM film, directed by Spider-Man director Sam Rami. The film stars James Franco as Oscar Diggs, a small town traveling magician from Kansas, who is whisked away in a tornado to a magical land called Oz, where ha encounters three witches: Mila Kunis plays Theodora, Michelle Williams plays Glinda, the good witch of the south and Rachel Weisz plays evanora, the wicked witch of the east. The film uses a spectacularly large amount of CGI, and a large part of the film was made on a digital backlot.

The film is set many years before the events of The Wizard of Oz, and describes the wizard's arrival in Oz. Oscar Diggs is swept away to a magical land by a hot air balloon while he is attempting to escape from the wrath of his investors. Diggs discovers a world in turmoil, where three witches fight for power. The problem with this film is that it has no message, the film says nothing about power or magic, and the character of Oz is totally miscast, with James Franco lacking the slick charm of the magician, and seeming like merely a slimeball. The films only message seems to be that cheating pays, and nothing is said about what truly makes a great man great, a missed opportunity rather.  The film is only a semi-prequel to The Wizard of Oz, and the film makes little reference to the 1939 film, neither visually nor stylistically. The narrative of the film somewhat follows the MGM film, with Oscar meeting Dorothy's mother in kansas, and Diggs being sucked into Oz in the same way that Dorothy was. Stylistically the film shares very little with The Wizard of Oz. The only real similarity is that the film opens in black and white and transforms into color when Diggs enters Oz. The film also begins in the old fashioned 'academy' ratio, and gradually expands into widescreen.

The film looks very little like the original film, the MGM film used largely low-fi practical effects. For instance the door opening to color was achieved with some very careful painting of the door, a sepia tinted outfit and a slight tint on the whole first segment led to a very convincing effect. The whole of the 1939 film was filmed in a studio, whereas this film was mostly made on a digital backlot, sacrificing reality for fakery, and grounded imagery for fancy graphics, and The film for the most part looks terrible. Generally this film can be split into three segments, the first black and white segment, the second segment set on and around the yellow brick road, and the final segment, which portrays the battle for Oz. The second segment looks the worse, and is the one which looks the least grounded in reality. This segment was mainly shot on a digital background, and depicts a world in which everything looks larger than life, and giant. The problem with this is that rather than looking awe inspiring, James Franco just looks ridiculously small, and looks out of place, the real problem is that there is no point of reference, and the actors are simply pasted onto these backgrounds with no interaction between the characters and their surroundings.

The character of Finley is also a problem, the character looks fake and rubbery, and fails to leap the uncanny valley. However the character of China Girl is unbelievably cute. The final sequence of the film looks fantastic, and the filmmakers use an art deco style for the emerald city, and although the city differs from the in the MGM film, it looks fantastic. The film overall has a rather good script and a fun story and the overall conclusion of the story is really rather clever. The wicked witches costume annoyed me a little, as she has a strap round her neck, which makes her look really small and a little fat. The film also suffers from the fact that many of the iconic properties invented for the MGM film were not allowed for this film, due to the rights being held by Warner Bros. The ruby slippers are an example as well as the swirl design in munchkinland and the mole on the wicked witch of the west's chin and the exact color of her skin, this leads to the witch being presented as a small fa woman with an unappetizing skin color, as opposed to the real iconic monster in the 1939 film.

Overall many of the failures of this film are due to it being too tied in to the film world of the MGM film, yet legal issues hamper it from becoming a true prequel, and from having the classic iconic feel of the original. Overall the film looks withering and lacks any real grounding, the characters seem superimposed and photoshopped onto their environments. The story is rather clever, however it has no meaning and says nothing about power or greatness. this film pails in comparison to Return to Oz which looks better and has more substance. 50% prequel, 50% spinoff; 100% pointless Rating: C+

Theodora: Aren't you the great man we've been waiting for?

Return To Oz

Return to Oz is a 1985 dark fantasy film from Disney and is a half sequel to the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz, and an adaptation of the second and third Oz books. Although receiving mixed to negative reviews upon its release, the film has now become something of a cult movie. The film featured a cast of largely unknown actors. The films is considered by its fans and by fans of the books to be a much more faithful adaptation of the novels than the MGM film. Part of the success of this film is in its refusal to sink so low as to attempt to replicate what made the 1939 film so iconic, this film has been compared in recent years to Oz The Great And Powerful, however what makes this film so much better than 'Oz' is the fact that it is much less reductive and less referential, the film is in full color, the opening included (unlike Oz the Great and Powerful). The film actually makes more use of intellectual property created for the 1939 film, such as the ruby slippers, however is actually much less derivative.

The film is much darker than its predecessor, the film begins with Dorothy in Kansas, unable to sleep and having hallucinations about Oz, her mother sends her to an institution, where she escapes on a stormy night, in a chicken coop, and finally washes up on the shores of Oz, where she discovers a world torn apart, and destroyed by the Nome King. The yellow brick road has been destroyed, and munchkinland is in ruins and the world is observed by the rocks, who relay information back to the Nome King. All of the citizens of Oz have been turned to stone, including the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion. Dorothy makes two friends in Oz who are essentially horrific industrial versions of her previous friends, she encounters a man named Tic-Toc, an industrial tin man who has to be constantly wound up in order to move and think, and who is not alive, and who has no soul. Her other friend is Jack Pumpkinhead, a scarecrow with a pumpkin for a head, who was created in order to scare off the wheelers, and who was brought to life using Mombi's powder of life. The trio use the powder of life to bring to life a flying sofa they have patched together. The trio travel to the Nome Kings cavern where they discover that he has the emerald slippers, and that he destroyed Oz and turned the scarecrow into an ornament, the group must reclaim the slippers, and save the wonderful land of Oz.

The film makes fantastic use of practical effects, at a time when Star Wars and 2001 A Space Odessey had already been released, and huge advancements were being made in the field of CGI and computer animation, this film uses claymation to animate the Nome King and his minions. Billina is animated using audio animatronics, a technique sadly rarely used on film anymore, being really only used on theme park rides, and a technique for which the Walt Disney Company is known. (Animatronics were also used in The Chronicles of Narnia, also a disney movie) The tone of this film is rather dark, scenes involving the destruction of Oz, may be actually traumatic for some viewers! The film is well acted, and Fairuza Balk does a fine job as Dorothy Gale, holding up the entire movie, and she really is a good actor for a child star. For the record the film is not perfect, it does have some issues, there are occasional tonal inconsistencies, the film suffers from poor pacing and at times seems to lack story and substances, and seems to not have quite enough to fill a feature length film which is longer than the prerequisite one hour thirty.

Overall I really liked Return to Oz, the film is dark and brooding, nicely low budget and organic, and actually adds something to the source material rather than trying to replicate the success of the MGM film, the film feels much less reductive than other Oz movies, and has a nice mature tone and dazzling visual style, and despite some tonal inconsistencies and pacing problems, I can see why this has become a cult film.
Rating: B+

Dorothy: Because I can't sleep, and I talk about a place that I've been to, but nobody believes that it exists.

Deep Throat

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Mystery of The Lone Ranger

Well, it gives me no pleasure to kick a man while he's down, so while i will not be reviewing The Lone Ranger as a movie, i will be attempting to analyze the reasons for this movies faliure. The lone ranger is now the biggest box office bomb in history, in fact, of the five biggest box office bombs in history, three of them are Disney movies, with The Lone Ranger being the biggest bomb of all time. Disney expects that they will have to attribute a loss of 160 million in their entertainment division during the third quarter of 2013 solely due to this film. I reviewed the trailer for this film back in march and predicted that it would bomb, and i would be lying if i didn't feel a small smidge of smug satisfaction at this films failure, despite the fact that it was not exactly a difficult call.

The lone ranger cost Disney 215 million to produce, and when factoring in marketing and distribution costs most likely cost Disney 375 million at the end of the day. The New York Times estimated that the film would have to gross 800 million in order to break even when factoring in revenue splits from cinema's. The film grossed a mere 217 million dollars, a monumental failure by anyone's standards. The highest grossing western of all time is Dances with wolves, which grossed 424 million dollars worldwide, thus the lone ranger would have had to gross twice as much as the highest grossing western of all time, to simply break even, madness! It is also important to note that the most successful western of the past few years was Django Unchained, which is simply a masterpiece and which was exclusively a film for adults.

Interestingly enough, studies showed that over 50 percent of all ticket sales were to over 25's, and 25 percent were to over 60's, much higher than for a traditional Disney movie, thus the real issue here is marketing, Disney marketed this film to children, and except for Disney's 2004 Home on the Range, there has really never been a successful western for younger audiences. Really Disney never should have marketed this film to kids, and should have released it under its touchstone banner, remember that this is the studio that released Nightmare Before Christmas under Touchstone, because it wasn't suitable for children. One can imagine that if this film had been marketed differently, perhaps more adults would have gone to see it.

Without commenting on the successes and failures of the movie, it is easy to see with this films inflated budget, marketing campaign and the projects general misguidedness, why this film failed so epically.

Arbitrage

Arbitrage is a 2012 drama film starring Richard Gere and Susan Sarandon, and directed by Nicholas Jarecki. The film stars Gere as a hedge fund manager at the height of the financial boom, who is about to sell his company for a hefty profit, whilst struggling to maintain control and keep a dark secret.

Richard Gere plays Robert Miller, a rich, self made multi millionaire, about to sell his company for a healthy profit, and who is struggling to keep the different facets of his life separate. He is having an affair with a gallery owner named Julie, and has just cooked the books of his company, and must cover this up in order to pass the audit and sell his company. When he has a car crash his attempts to cover it up implicate others, and Robert must protect those around him whilst trying to avoid prosecution and save his marriage. Susan Sarandon stars as his wife and indie darling Britt Marling stars as his daughter. The ensemble cast is rounded out by Tim Roth who stars as a detective attempting to unravel the mystery.

The film is a fast paced thriller, and combines the different sub-genres of legal thriller, financial thriller in the style of margin call, and a drama film. The film is successful in majority due to performances from its leads, Gere gives a fine assured performance of a hugely conflicted man, who is faced with a series of decisions in his personal and professional life. Sarandon offers a fine performance as his wife, but who is criminally underused in this film, only appearing in a few scenes. Brit Marling really shines as Millers daughter.

Overall Arbitrage is a decent film, which although being a little meandering, is saved by assured performances from its leading cast, and a strong script. Rating: B

Robert Miller: When I was a kid, my favorite teacher was Mr. James. Mr. James said world events all revolve around five things. M - O - N - E - Y.

The Perils of High Frame Rate

High Frame Rate is a term used to describe films shot using more frames per second than traditional films, typically 48 frames per second as opposed to the traditional 24. High frame rate is a highly experimental format, and has only been used on a small handful of films so far, notably The Hobbit. This technology has only actually been experienced by a small handful of people, given that less than one thousand cinemas world wide are equipped to display HFS image, and i personally have never experienced this effect, and so cannot comment on its effectiveness, however i can comment on the advantages, motivations and drawbacks of this technology.

As i stated previously, high frame rate uses double the number of frames per second when compared to traditional film. Its proponents have stated that HFR reduces blur and lag, and improves the general lighting of the image.The Hobbit was filmed entirely in HFR using Red Epic cameras. Proponents of this technology have stated that HFR used in conjunction with 3D looks far better, and many of the problems with current 3D projection technology, such as flickering, ghosting and image break up are not apparent when used in conjunction with HFR. I have some issues with Jackson's logic, he states that HFR reduces blur and flicker, however without taking into account what the human eye actually sees, the original star wars trilogy used Go-Motion, a stop motion variation used to add motion blur to images, in order to make them look real, and indistinguishable from the live action footage, so a little ironic that HFR is supposed to improve image quality by reducing blur, when motion blur is inherant in the way we view images naturally.

Detractors from this technology have stated that this technique makes the visuals look overlit, and cheap, and makes the picture look like sports coverage or a video game, ie really really cheap! One of the major issues that i have with this technology is that it prohibits using film, and this technology can only be used with digital film. This irritates me and i am a huge critic of digital film, which although much cheaper to produce, doesn't have the romantic stylized look of film, and although there is great clarity and sharpness, this is not necessarily an advantage. Some have pointed out that HFR is creating a new uncanny valley like effect, in which the images presented look too real, and are thus slightly repulsive.

Overall i have conflicted feelings about high frame rate, although it irons out many of the problems facing 3D viewers, such as darkness, ghosting and break up, however i feel that this is a technology which although being appropriate in some cases, is inappropriate for some movies, and i dislike the fact that this technology is moving filmmakers farther and farther away from using film stock, which really is a shame.

2013's Oscar Season

Well, it is setting up to be an interesting Oscar season so far, and there look to be some serious contenders. Trailers have now been released for many of the films coming out during oscar season. full length trailers have now been released for Saving Mr Banks and Diana as well as for The Wolf of Wall Street and American Hustle.

Firstly Saving Mr Banks looks to be a surefire contender for lead acting oscars. The film stars Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson as Walt Disney and PL Travers, and chronicles the making of the film Mary Poppins, and the difficult and often terse relationship between Walt Disney and the creator of the Mary Poppins series of novels, their relationship was difficult and Travers often had major disagreements with Disney about the project and about the direction and characterization of the character, who has many differences from her counterpart in the novels. The trailer looks really really good and has a nice vintage atmosphere, and was mainly shot on location. Biopic: check, Previous oscar winners: Check, Tom Hanks: Check; this film looks set for nominations for its two leads, and perhaps for best original screenplay.

I previously reviewed the first trailer for Diana, and now a first full length trailer has been released, although i still think that Naomi Watts is a sure set for Best Actress however i don't like this trailer as much as i did the other. The trailer has serious pacing issues, and one cannot tell if this is indicative of the entire movie, or if this is simply an issue with the trailer, therefore although i feel that Naomi Watts will be absolutely fantastic, i am unsure whether this film will receive many other nominations.

American Hustle is an exciting film, directed by Silver Linings Playbook director David O Russell, it stars Lawrence, Bale, Adams and Cooper in the title roles, and this film is so stocked with stars it looks like a surefire to be nominated for all acting Oscars, the film looks exciting and fun and is a departure from Russell's Silver Linings Playbook. The film looks set for not just acting oscars but the big five as well.

The wolf of Wall Street is the latest from Martin Scorsese, and stars Leonardo Dicaprio (of course) as a wall street conman who makes it big, the film looks fantastic and funny, and really the only question here is whether Dicaprio will be nominated for his performance, he seems to be somewhat loathed by the academy for apparently mysterious reasons, and his nomination is unfortunately not a cert.

This looks to be an exciting Oscar season and seems to have a truly high caliber of movie, which will hopefully make up for this years disappointing box office receipts.

500 Days of Summer - Review

 500 Days of summer is a 2009 independent film directed by ‘The Amazing Spider Man’ director Marc Webb. The film was financed independently and distributed by Fox Searchlight Pictures. This movie stars Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt in lead performances. Gordon-Levitt plays Tom, a man who is trained as an architect, and yet who works at a greetings card company. Deschanel plays summer, a woman who works as an assistant at the same company, and with whom Tom falls hopelessly in love. The film uses a non-linear narrative, with every scene being preceded by a title card showing the day. The film details the 500 day long relationship between the two main characters, and shows how tom falls in love with Summer, and how she breaks his heart.

The film is clearly presented from Tom’s point of view. Summer, as stated in the early part of the movie, is a perfectly average woman, of average height, weight and beauty, and it may seem to the audience a complete mystery, why Tom is so infatuated with her. Summer is an immature woman, a woman who fails to realize the affect she has on men. Summer believes her and Toms relationship to be a small fling, and tells Tom that she doesn’t believe in true love, or want a boyfriend. This juxtaposition is interesting, their relationship is not the absolute overwhelming love affair that Tom feels it to be, however when watching the film, the audience is so taken in by Tom’s emotion and sheer overwhelming grief, that they, like Tom, abandon reason, and become consumed with heartbreak, and often it is only upon analysis that one realizes that their relationship was little more than a fling.

Interestingly their different perspectives about the status of their relationship, and their opinions about love and relationships change as the story progresses. Tom realizes that all he though he knew about love, and fate was all bullshit, and that love at first sight really was just a myth. Summer on the other hand, believes in all this; at the beginning of the film she describes how she thinks love is a fantasy made up by people who want to believe. At the end of the film, she talks passionately about fate, and how if she had not followed her exact path that day, she would never have met her soulmate. She becomes a doe eyed optimist, where Tom becomes a pessimistic realist. Interestingly despite their relationship being only a small fling, it changes each of them a huge amount.

What I really really love about this film is the fact that it bridges the gap between mainstream rom-com, and arthouse independent movie, the film uses a non-linear narrative and title cards in an unconventional way. The film on two occasions uses a split screen to dramatic and emotional effect. The split screen shows on one half; expectation, and the other half reality. The expectation shows Tom and Summer making up, Tom laughing with a group of fun people, and making up with Summer, the reality is that he drinks vodka alone watching everyone else have a good time, this technique is employed twice in the film, and essentially shows how Toms expectations far outmatch what is probable or even possible. He expects far too much of summer, and even though she tells him that she does not want a relationship, he expects her to fall hopelessly in love and to believe in all the things that he does, the paradox is that she ends up believing in true love after all, just as he loses faith in all which he used to believe.

The cinema is also used in the film. Tom and Summer see The Graduate, which Tom believes to be the greatest celebration of true love, and Summer breaks up with him directly afterwards. Tom imagines himself to be an actor in an avant garde film, and various characters are shown in a grainy black and white filter talking about love and hopelessness. These show how Tom imagines himelf to be watching a movie about his life, and how his grief is so strong, that it is creating an experience akin to an out of body experience. The part in which he sees himself as an actor in a movie shows how he has a need to experience his depression in a way other than internally, in order to rationalize and deal with it.

The ending of this film is beautiful and heartwarming, Tom meets an attractive woman at a job interview, he asks the woman out for a drink, the woman agrees, telling tom that her name is Autumn, Tom breaks the fourth wall and gives the audience a knowing look. Finally there is a title card, with the number one. Summer is over and autumn can begin.

Overall I really like this film, it is well executed and fun. I don’t particularly like comedy movies, but this is one of the best I’ve ever seen, being fun and heartwarming, and asking some pointed questions about love, fate and destiny. The film is well acted and both the films leads are likeable and real. This is a great movie, and won’t fail to make even the most cynical person (like myself) smile. Rating:A-

Narrator: Tom walked to her apartment, intoxicated by the promise of the evening. He believed that this time his expectations would align with reality...