Alpha Papa

Like a lot of popular culture I was late being introduced to Alan Partridge. I found that after a few too many references that I just didn't get I bought my husband the original series on box set. He enjoyed revisiting them and I had a giggle watching them for the first time. It was not the funniest thing I had ever seen and it did not come close to Father Ted or Spaced. It was however clever, enjoyable and not too taxing.

When they announced the film I had some reservations, I was unsure if they could string out a long enough plot and if they could maintain and stay true to the characters. I was worried that it would all come down to Steve Coogan's ability to "BE" Alan Partridge and everybody else would get over shadowed. I think there is always a risk taking a small production and making it a film which you are trying to sell an idea to the world and not just the BBC.

I should not have worried at all. It was better than the series but it stayed very true to itself. Along with some very funny slapstick there was a good plot. It was filmed in a way that felt very old fashioned and "British". The cast were incredibly strong and funny and supported Coogan perfectly. The plot is based around a hostage situation at the radio station where he works. This has come about after the station is bought by a new company. I think one of the main strengths that comes from Alan Partridge as a character is that although he is over the top you recognise him. You cringe because you have met people like that and you can even identify traits in yourself. Or at least I can - Alan Partridge is what happens when you speak before you think. The scenario itself is also over the top but the responses of the characters are normal and awkward.

This is a comedy, and a silly comedy at that, but it is grounded in a decent plot with a strong cast. It is more than just slapstick and although Partridge grates on you as a character you can't help but like him a little. There is an element of 'feel good' about it without too much saccharine sweetness.

Man of Steel - WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS AND ANGER

I came to the Superman franchise later than most people, being first introduced to Smallville I then went back and watched the 4 original films. I liked the cheesy take on superman but felt it had been explored as much as it needed to be. I was therefore looking forward to Man Of Steel. I wanted something edgy and different. I had some reservations about yet another 'origin story' but I put that behind me and got ready to watch the film. I enjoyed the start of the film, the mood was darker and bleaker and I loved the idea of Clark Kent going from place to place to try and find himself. There was a dark crisis of confidence and a muddled adolescence that came out really well. The depiction of Krypton was well done, although I felt there were similarities with the machines in The Matrix trilogy.

The decision to crowbar Lois Lane into the story as knowing Superman's identity from the start was an interesting one. I think it saves some of the questions over how anybody can be so naive that have always popped up in other versions. What it also did was to make the story unnecessarily convoluted in a different way. Her presence at each point in the plot, especially in the Arctic, made little sense, and for me the chemistry was not there and Amy Adams gave a weak performance throughout. She was not as feisty as I felt she should have been but that is just a personal opinion and I can see how the relationship could develop in future films.

My biggest problem with the film was the switch just over half way from being an interesting take on the story to being one big fight scene. The length was an issue for me, the repetitive nature was dull and more than that it was one big Matrix rip-off. I have seen people fighting through skyscrapers before, I have seen it in slow motion. There is nothing new offered here. The first fight was visually interesting but after that it was just too much. This is not the only film guilty of this, I would put Transformers and indeed the end of Star Trek: Into Darkness into the same category. The most unforgivable aspect of the film to me is the fact that Superman kills. He should not kill, he should not wipe out a city. He should have fought in space or even flown to a desert. After such a long and protracted fight scene that has wiped out Metropolis he kills Zod. If that really was the only solution then he should have killed Zod  if the first place and spared the civilian life.

There are many small pointers that bugged me in the end to due with continuity and plot but if I am honest then they only annoyed me because I was so angry with how rubbish the film turned out to be. I will not nitpick at those as if the second half of the film had been like the first then I would not have minded at all. Despite me not being over-awed by Amy Adams I felt that the rest of the cast did a good job. It was let down not by performance but by script and production and an inherent need to crash through skyscrapers. This film was made by people who watched The Matrix trilogy and are big fans of Alduos Huxley's A Brave New World but who forgot to research Superman.

I am intrigued by the next film. Like most people I want to see the Superman/Batman interaction and I have some hope for Lex as the villain. I do have a concern that they will mess it up again, although I think it will be one to watch on amazon prime and not worth a cinema ticket.

No Country for Old Men

After giving Fargo a good star rating on Lovefilm we received No Country for Old men. If I had not known they were directed and produced by the same people I would have figured it out quickly. It has the same deadpan delivery and the same stark landscapes. The film is set around a hunter who comes across a drug deal gone wrong and takes the money from the scene, he is then pursued by a ruthless and relentless killer.

Where Fargo had snow this has an expanse of vast and unforgiving desert with no shelter or comfort - this beautifully mirrors the main villain. Javier Bardem give an eerie performance with his huge stature and unwavering attitude. There is a lot of violence but oddly the cringes come from injuries. It has a 'wild west' feel but is undeniably modern with the vehicles and drug trafficking. There are also deaths that are left 'off camera' which in some ways are equally effective as it leaves it to your imagination.

It is filmed almost as if you are following a character as opposed to watching the events unfold from a distance and this gives a more intimate and at times harrowing perspective. One of the most striking things is that they are not afraid to use silence. This works incredibly well, there is no forced mood music or a need to fill screen time with dialogue. Yet again the performances are intentionally emotionally barren with dispair being the only emotion that reoccurs.

It does not have as much humour as Fargo, it is a sinister thriller set where crime is a regular backdrop and with a greater body count. They say the difference between a Shakespearian Comedy and Shakespearian Tragedy comes down to the end, and I think the Coen Brothers work on a similar principle.

Fargo

There are a number of films which "everybody" has seen, everbody except me that it. My friends and family seem to believe there is a significant gap in my film and cultural knowledge. So to plug the gap, get "in jokes" and because some of them are apparently very good we got a Lovefilm subscription for both new releases and "classic" films I had missed.  This also led to film night, where once a week we watch a film (and there is no stitching allowed).

This week we got Fargo. It featured in a lot of the 'top film' lists, got a really high rating on IMDB and neither my husband or I had seen it. It was a very good film, 20 hours after watching it and I am still thinking about it. I am unable to give it a classification that I am happy with, it is a crime drama and a thriller and a comedy. It is set around a man who wants to get his wife kidnapped so he can split the ransom that his father in law will pay and the persistent pregnant police woman who is on the case. The film is set in North Dakota, this provides a backdrop of snow and, at times, low visibility. This adds a lot to the film as it is very dramatic, bleak and calm which is a good reflection of the film itself. It also contributes to the feel of the film which is understated and bare. The other advantage of snow as a backdrop is that it shows up blood.

Despite being about murder and crime the film has a gentle plodding pace and feel. Nothing seems rushed. Everything is bare and stark, and the sex scenes are in no way glamorous. There is a lack of emotion shown by all characters only broken by the odd outburst of despair or anger. This means that when emotion is shown it stands out. In between the violence there are shots of normal domestic life and relationships which is a stark contrast to most crime dramas where the crime solving is all inclusive.  There are also side plots that I feel are there because they are for the sake of showing that not everything needs to be explained or part of the main plot. The acting is incredible throughout, the characters are consistent  often delivering lines in a deadpan way that must have been challenging to maintain.

Starting the film by saying that it is a true story puts the audience in an interesting frame of mind. As a viewer you start to wonder about the string of events but also how people are portrayed and how they feel about the portrayal. It is also a good way to get the audiences attention straight away as you feel like you are watching a film about something that has changed people lives. By the end I was convinced that there had been quite a lot of artistic licence used and looking it up it only seems very vaguely based on a crime in the area but not as extensive as the film shows.

Monsters University Review

I feel I should start out by pointing out how much I love animated films.  They are often so detailed and work on a lot of different levels. There are often jokes that go over children's heads, and of course they are written with the intention of making people smile.  Other comedies can be preachy or saccharine whereas an animated film gets away with more.

Monsters University is a prequel for Monsters Inc. I had my reservations because sometimes prequels and back stories are just a quick and easy way to avoid coming up with anything original. Monsters University, however, stuck closely to Mike and Sully as characters explaining how they met and following their time at University, showing where the friendships and rivalries in Monsters Inc. come from.  I think it works well as a stand alone film, and you do not need to have seen Monsters Inc. first although you will obviously get more jokes and references if you watch both.  

It has been a long time coming and I think it showed. The graphics were amazing and you could see the difference from the first film. The use of light was fantastic and showed in the outdoor scenes. The fur, slime, spikes and teeth all seemed very real and you could easily forget that you were watching an animated film. I thought the action in the library was amazing and something to look out for. 

Monsters Inc. relied on a human as a relatable character whereas by making the characters younger I feel that it would allow children to relate to the monsters and help with the “it is okay to be different” message. There was a lot of slapstick aimed at a younger audience. It is the sort of film I would be happy to let my daughter watch when she is older as it is a genuine feel-good animated movie with lots of silly parts. 

Both my husband and I laughed out loud. I found the observational humour very funny and clever. Using a University or School as a setting is a nice touch as the stereotypes of different groups is something most people can relate to. Although it is clearly set around the American system as a base I think a lot of it is still applicable. I know I saw both myself and some of my contemporaries in the characters.