This is definitely not 40: "This is 40" (2012) Review

So Apatow is on the scene again trying to tell everyone what life is like being 40 years old and after watching "This is 40"(2012) I would have to completely disagree with his whole perspective. I'm not a massive fan of his films anyway but thought 'hey, I'll give this one a chance, it might actually be funny' but ooooh I was so wrong. Then again what did I expect form a director whos filmography includes some of my least favourite films like "Pineapple express"(2008) and "Funny People" (2009)- I know these are films that people describe as brilliant comedies but they are just not for me, sorry. However Apatows filmography is so diverse that some of his films I quite enjoyed like "Bridesmaids" (2011) and "Knocked up" (2007). In my opinion "This is 40" completely missed the boat and overall the film drew out various emotions but mainly: disappointment, anger and the total disbelief that the film encompasses what it actually means to be 40.

The first annoying thing about this film: talk about keeping it in the bloody family! Apatow has cast his wife, Leslie Mann, and their two biological children in "This is 40" replacing himself (the father figure) with Paul Rudd- not quite sure what he is implying in doing so. Rudd really adds the only comedy in the film. Leslie Manns acting is fairly minimal, considering she is so upset about hitting 40. The eldest daughter is given random scenes throughout the film, that do not follow any continuous editing and seem quite out of place but yet all illustrating that she is going through a 'teenage crisis' and the youngest daughter just plays herself really, prancing around annoying everyone else.

"Knocked up" (2007) was praised for it's ability to convey real life issues focusing on the modern day relationship and single parenthood. The concept behind "This is 40" is very relative to modern life as most people think they are 'passed it' by age 30. Society dictates they should have already settled down, bought a house, maybe had/ having kids and in a well paid job- however this is no longer the reality and people are marrying later (if at all), and thus hitting 40 should not seem that old- I mean the retirement age has increased to 75! (In England). Unfortunately Apatow does not execute this concept well at all.

One of the most frustrating things about this film is that it is like a two hour long Apple product advert- the kids watch endless hours of 'Lost' on ipads, iphones, iMacs and other ishit products. Yet the viewer is supposed to believe that the family are 'poor' as they are having money problems. Seriously, just stop buying Apple! Idiots! Also they somehow can still can afford to pay an accountant (maybe its just my family but what normal person can afford to hire there own permanent personal accountant and still try and convince an audience that they are 'poor'?) In addition the father is a record label owner and the mother owns a shop supposedly giving them this modern 'bohemian' appeal and conveying them as down to earth people- Just, please, no, stop it.

There is nothing much else to add about this film. The story and the narrative flow like a bunch of shots shoddingly held together with moments of absolute disbelief in the characters and their lifestyle. This is definitely not 40 at all.

Verdict: Lousy.

Oscars 2013: "Anna Karenina" (2012)

Director: Joe Wright

Writers: Tom Stoppard (Screenplay), Leo Tolstoy (novel)

Starring: Kiera Knightly, Aaron Johnson, Jude Law, Matthew Macfadyen, Michelle Dockery

If I was going to give an excuse as to why I neglected to write about the Oscar nominated films in advance, I would say that it was due to the fact that this years Oscars contained some long ass films. The cinema seems to be reverting back to the days when film would last for hours, when an audience reaction wasn't necessarily the main objective and it was more the fascination with people moving on a screen (ie ‘Birth of a Nation’) and had to be viewed in two sittings (sometimes even three). These days most cinemas don’t have an interval in the middle of the film so the viewer is stuck in a dark cinema or glued to the sofa (hypothetically speaking) for hours on end. Therefore it took time to watch all of the nominated films, dedication to writing notes, and then more time to attempt to provide a somewhat interesting overview on what the film was like and why one should choose to watch it. Okay so maybe I’m being a bit dramatic, basically I’m one lazy motherblogger. One of these long films, and the subject of this post, is Joe Wrights “Anna Karenina” (2012) starring Kiera Knightly, Jude Law and Aaron Johnson.

Out of the three Oscar nominations, ‘Anna Karenina’ won one for Best Achievement in Costume design (made by Jacqueline Durran). This year, Durran also won a BAFTA for her costume designs, as well as a CDG award from the Costume Designers Guild. Safe to say, the costumes in this period drama are pretty spectacular. After all, what kind of period drama would the film be without costumes? The film won another 12 prizes and has been nominated for 30 awards in total.

In addition to the costumes, another predominant feature of this film is the production design and cinematography.The combination of the two really set the scene beautifully for this period drama and essentially transport the viewer into Tolstoys mind, or for the literary critics out there, at least the audience saw Joe Wrights directional vision. The stage set up and the unique frame transitions using trains, a stage backdrop and theatre backstage area helped in providing a slightly claustrophobic atmosphere for the viewer- in turn emphasizing the rising tension in the film that runs parallel to the emotions of Anna Karenina herself as she becomes increasingly watched and judged by society for her sordid affair.

I literally prayed that Kiera Knightly (Karenina) did not pout her way through this film. In general, I admire her as an actress and there really is no one else who can do period dramas as well, but at times I worry whether she believes that everyone pouted their way through life from the 16th century (Pirates of the Caribbean) to 19th century. Anna Karenina begins the narrative as the Belle of St Petersberg society. In his novel Tolstoy managed to encompass a whole society at the height of Russian Imperialism; a vision that I believe Wright has managed to convey beautifully by using the stage where the whole of society seems to unite. The theatre is used to convey the illusion of a pretty, decadent and heavily embellished society given centre stage, that behind the scenes (scenes that have been shot in other locations) tell a very different story. At certain points throughout the story the audience do sympathize with Anna: she is married to a husband (Law) who treats her well, but is boring and more focused on his work. Therefore it is understandable that Anna is going to want to fall and experience a more passionate, different kind of love with Alexei (Johnson). Yet even after her affair she tries to maintain her self important reasoning believing she is above everyone else thus refusing to accept her new position in society and in turn becoming increasingly outcast.

Three quarters of the way through the film the tone seems to change from being 'steamy' and full of sexual tension to cold and empty, until eventually Karenina falls off her pedestal/ station platform. Overall the film questions many aspects of life, fantasy, reality, emotions, and human characteristics. It also makes the viewer question whether society today has changed that much since Tolstoys Russia. I know, unfortunately we do not endorse Oscar winning costumes everyday, but living in London where at least once every two months the tube and overground services experience major delays due to a person throwing themselves under a train, it does make you wonder what kind of life that person must of been living in todays society to drive them to do that.

Verdict: watch it! Knightly doesn't pout too much in this one, honest.

"The Brass Teapot" (2012): What's your favorite cup of tea?

*Not an Oscar film

Director: Ramaa Mosley

Writer: Tim Macy

Starring: Juno Temple, Michael Angarano, Alexis Biedel

Whats your favourite cup of tea? a refreshing Earl Grey? detoxing Green tea? fresh and fruity cranberry and sanguinello orange? or maybe a classic cup of tetly tea? With so many options the possibility of a good cuppa is granteed, at least 99% of the time. To keep you all up to date on the world of tea, here is my review on a new flavour that has been released in 2013- Money. It’s not everyones ‘cup of tea’ (wink) but those who have tried it lap it up in large quantities. Warning: after drinking large quantities of aforementioned its classically sweet taste can turn sour. Or at least that's whats happens in one of the most random films I seemed to have watched lately.

The plot: a recently married couple are having money troubles. The wife, Alice, struggles to find a job whereas husband, John, gets fired at the start of the story. One fine day, driving along a road, the couple are in a car crash. Whilst John is talking to the police about the incident, Alice spots an antique shop across the road and sees a lady carrying a teapot inside. Alice feels drawn in, obviously by some intense craving for tea, and tells John she is going into the shop ‘to see if there is anything worth buying that will get them on tv, on a show like ‘Antiques Roadshow’ where they can get money for an item. She finds the brass teapot in a random room and steals it, running back to the car and telling John to drive off as fast as he can. The next day, Alice accidentally hurts herself and notices that the teapot rattles. Lifting the lid she finds some money inside. She soon realises that every time she inflicts pain on herself the teapot gives her money- that's right folks, that's how ‘money tea’ is generally brewed. Soon the couple are ignoring all the usual advice on ‘treating your body like a temple’ and trying to make as much money as possible, doing everything they can to reach their target of a million dollars. The worst the pain caused, the more money they make- its all relative, like the more water you boil, the more tea you can make. The big question in the film is: how far will they go/ how much tea can they handle?

In actuality the biggest question should be: why a teapot? Out of all the objects in the world- why a teapot? I suppose it gives the film an alternative, sort of bohemian feel (especially as it was made of brass with some pretty engravings) and maybe, by closely relating the teapot to genie lamps, the prop is trying to attach certain myths to the tale. The opening credits of the film show old tapestries and portraits of kings/queens/ various other important figures holding ‘the’ teapot, hinting that this money brewing kettle has got around and has played a dominant yet subtle part in history. All fairy tales have a dark side, most of them never have a happy ending, and this new tale is no different. Naturally, the film progresses to show the evil side of human nature emerging as the more money they brew,  the greedier they get; it changes their physical appearance, affects their social life, and alters their relationships with family and friends. Eventually they realise the teapot is becoming more demanding in what it classifies as ‘pain.’ Thus bringing us back to the original big question: How far will the characters go?

Well, with boring (sorry) character names such as ‘Alice’ and ‘John’ they are not exactly going to be the most adventurous of people. This is also emphasised in the way they spend their money: they buy a nice house and eat at fancy restaurants with drab, stuck up rich people (oooo crazay!). So really, the audience already knows their limits and what the outcome is going to be, thus bursting the bubble of suspense I assume the film was trying to create. The best part of this film is the beginning, as although the plot seems a bit ‘out there,’ it makes for easy viewing. The worst part of this film is the end; in fact, by the time you get half way through, the story feels so drawn out and stretched it loses its original flavour- you can just about watch until the credits, but you’ll completely mentally shut down before they roll.

Verdict: Indifferent. Watch if you have absolutely nothing else to do.

Oscars 2013: "Silver Linings Playbook"

Director: David O. Russell

Screenplay: David O. Russell, Matthew Quick (novel)

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawerence, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, Chris Tucker and Julia Stiles.

I don’t really know just where to begin on explaining this film. In all sincerity- from someone who generally hates romance films- I absolutely loved it.  Originally I thought is was about two people with mental health problems who fall in love inside a mental home in some indie ‘quirky cute’ fashion, in a sort of annoying Zooey Deschanel kind of way- so it took me a while to sit down and watch it. Another reason I thought I would not enjoy this film was because of Bradley Cooper, I’m not his biggest fan, as you can probably detect from my rather negative rant on his film “Limitless” (2010). In actuality, it is about two people who have psychiatric issues but the meet and develop a relationship in the outside world and certainly not in an

annoying 'quirky' fashion. It is a black comedy, mixed with a type of coming of age film as the characters leave their negative pasts behind and look for a brighter, happier future. Excelsior!

This film just proves the point that to be a critic on film I need to keep an open mind to various other films rather than dismissing them straight away- message loudly received, thanks. Bradley Cooper was actually great in this film. His subtle style of acting worked well for a character who spends the duration of the film in a rather subdued state, trying hard to suppress any past feelings of anger and aggression having been released from a psychiatric unit at the start of the film. The real star however, or starlet, of the film is Jennifer Lawrence. Maybe you were expecting me to add something new compared to all the other reviews out there who praise her but um nope, nothing negative to say. I’ve not read the Hunger Games books and went to watch the film to see what all the fuss was about- I did enjoy it, but didn’t really think Lawrence was anything spectacular. So really, her Oscar win should read ‘Best emerging Actress’ rather than just ‘Best Actress’ as I don’t think anyone was expecting her talent to stretch thus far. Talk about Excelsior.

The story is loosely based on the authors, Matthew Quick, own experiences in dealing with depression. He has a lot in common with Cooper’s character, Pat Solatano. As Lawrence’s character, Tiffany, bluntly points out, Pat has ‘poor social skills’. He interups his parents sleep by storming into their room to discuss a book he finished reading at 4am or because he can’t find his wedding video; he asks inappropiate questions about peoples private lives; he goes back to the school where he has a restraing order and asks for his job back and all because his main focus is to try and win back his ex-wife Nikki, no matter how early in the morning- he will try everything to get her back. He uses the word ‘Excelsior’ to invoke inspiration in getting his life back on track or back how it was.  

It was the director, David O. Russell who decided to divulge deeper into the fragile relationship between Pat and his family. Robert De Niro plays Pat’s gambling ‘but most definitely not a bookie’ father who blames Pat if his team, the Philadelphia Eagles, lose a match. He refers to Pat as his lucky charm but yet maintains a distance in getting emotionally involed with Pats ‘crazy’ episode. The fact that Pats portrait is not hanging by his brothers on the wall but left on the shelf is a clear indication that the other brother is the ‘golden’ child. Jacki Weaver plays the doting mother who goes to fetch Pat from the unit as soon as the doctos say he is eligible to be released. She is very understanding of Pat’s condition, even if she can at times be too overbering, its clear that she loves her family and does her best to try and help. Safe to say the relationships expressed in this film are less than ordinary but at the same time can be seen as a magnified view of some peoples family life- especially those dealing with a member who has depression.

The film has helped a lot of people to recognise or aid with mental health issues and the impact it can have on someones life and people around them- even in the smallest of cases. The story brings to light the fact that not all people who have depressive tendencies are completly ‘insane’ and can lead normal lives. The film forces people to see the silver lining in all situations and that life may not always go as planned. All in all, a great film and defintely worth adding it to your ‘must-watch’ list.

Oscars 2013: "Argo"

Director: Ben Affleck

Writer: Chris Terrio, Tony Mendez and Joshuah Bearman

Producer: George Clooney

Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman

So the Oscars happened, but you probably knew this already- not exactly flashing news. And now we are moving into this years summer releases- finally we can watch “The Great Gatsby”, which will be a highlight,  for me anyway.The fact that the Oscars are over, however is not going to stop me continuing to write about the films that were nominated and now may or may not have won a golden statue. Lets proceed.

Had I organised my life and written this entry before the Award ceremony on the 24th of Feb 2013, I would of definitely predicted that “Argo” (2012) would win at least one Oscar. Instead it won three: Best Motion picture (Grant Heslov, Ben Affleck and George Clooney), Best Screenplay (Chris Terrio) and Best Achievement in Editing (William Goldenberg). Ben Affleck was not nominated for Best Director at the Academy Awards however he did win a BAFTA for his directing capabilities; so as they say win some, lose some.

Regardless of the fact that the film is now Oscar certified and it comes adorned with 57 other wins from various Award ceremonies the film should not be cast aside as pretentious. It is still, most definitely, worth a watch. The narrative itself seems ludacris: revolving around CIA agent, Tony Mendez (played by Affleck) who devices a plot in attempt to rescue 6 other American ambassadors, who are in hiding in Iran after a raid on the US embassy during the revolution of 1980. The plan is they are going to be ‘smuggled’ out of Iran by obtaining fake Canadian identities and pretending to be part of a film crew searching for locations to shoot a new up and coming Sci-fi movie. A script is chosen, there are storyboards drawn up, costume designs- the works. Mendez travels to Iran and encounters countless problems in trying to extradite the fugitives back to the US safetly. This type of plot, one would think, could only be drawn up in Hollywoodland but what makes the story even more unbelievable is that the film is actually based on real life events.

This is not just your average Hollywood action movie. In fact, there is very little action at all, but tonnes of suspense. The film starts of as a documentary of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and then, using a graphic match, the shot moves from documentary footage continuing the image of the revolution into the film shot. Overall the film can be classified as historical drama. Affleck has been criticised for his falsification of the events- new characters invented, scenes and facts added etc. But, in all honesty, what historical representation or even documentary is completely factually accurate? They all get edited in some way or another- the main objections are that they provide good entertainment to capture an audiences attention for the films duration and perhaps provide a starting point/ alternative information for the viewer who may want to research deeper into the subject in question.

Thus ‘historically’ Affleck neglected to mention the full aid provided from various goverments and give credit to the principle historical players such as Ken Taylor- the Canadian Ambassador who originally (supposedly) devised the whole plan- and completely dismissing the aid given by the British embassy to the fugitives.  It can be argued, however, that due to the mise-en-abyme effect created by focusing on the making of a film within a film, Affleck’s objective was not to support any particular government at all (the American government is not represented very well yet it does play a bigger part in getting the hostages to safetly) but rather Affleck pays the highest credit to the role of Hollywood in the missions success- as any good little Hollywood boy would, when having to premier his film infront of Tinstletowns elite. Essentially the film acts as a reminder to the audience that Affleck has still got some talent since his last Oscar nominated directing project, “Gone Baby Gone” (2007).

Regardless of whatever point, historical fact, myth, story, low budget sci-fi drama the film was trying to fabricate or recreate- the point is YOU need to watch it.