Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

Title: Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
Year: 2013
Director: Tommy Wirkola
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Famke Janssen
Red Rating: RRRRR (5/5)
High Point: Opening
Low Point: Fist fight with the police

So we all know the story of Hansel and Gretel from when we were kids. A little girl and her brother get taken to the woods and left there when they come across a house made of sweets. Hansel gets fattened up by the witch who lives inside and eventually the children fight off the witch and burn her instead of getting burnt themselves. But what happens to them after that? You'd think they'd be living happily ever after, just like any other fairy story, right? Wrong. There were plenty more witches for Hansel and Gretel to be defeating, otherwise there'd be no film. And it would be pointless for me to be writing this.

The opening was awesome, to say the least. Showing us the classic story we all cherish from our childhood, but the gothic twist was amazing. The Tim Burton- esque candy house which was meant to look appealing actually looked pretty creepy and makes you wonder why they went towards it, why would you go towards a creepy sweet house in the middle of a forest, I don't know, kids back then. All the opening credits were backed by the one and only Hans Zimmer's original score for the film and drawn out newspaper clippings of various witch slayings carried out by the new witch hunting duo. As the credits go on, the clippings show the pair getting older and older which in my opinion is an amazing way to show an aging process in a film quickly. No cheese, no cliches, just perfection and a really effective way to show the brother and sister team growing up together.

The realism of the film was also a highlight for me. The now older Hansel injects himself throughout the film and we are left wondering what the huge steampunk style injection is for. This is until he explains to their new friend Mina that as he was force fed so much candy as a child, he developed diabetes, having to now inject himself with insulin otherwise he'd die. He explained how he was one of the first people to develop the illness and that he didn't really understand it, but by this little realistic twist to the film, it made the story a little more believable if you can look past the fairytale creatures.

The team not only deal with witches in this film, but they also meet a giant troll Edward, who is one of the witch's helpers. A bad guy? No. Edwards helps the team from the inside when the witches come to attack. Not only new fairytale characters but new friends of the witch hunters are introduced throughout the film. The fanboy Ben instantly captures the audience's hearts when he introduces himself asking so many questions about witch hunting to his idols. Mina was saved my the pair when accused of being a witch and it's safe to say she has a thing for Hansel.  Then there's the group of witches, who reminded me a lot of the three witches from Shakespeare's Macbeth. As it is set in the time Shakespeare would have been around it would really surprise me if they weren't based on the infamous characters. One leader, two followers who could potentially be as powerful as the notorious leader. A perfect recipe for a triple threat of supernatural bad guys.

Now I really had to search for my low point this time as the majority of the film was completely flawless. There was one action scene around the middle of the film. It involved the police force of the town and Gretel. This is very picky of me I know but I had to put at least one negative in this. You could tell very clearly that the punches weren't real. Each one thrown was around 15cm in front of Gretel's face and the angle the scene was shot at made this clearer. There, negativity over. No more bad points.

This film has now taken one of the prime spots of my amazing films of the past few years, and possibly the title of one of my favourite films. The time period is represented perfectly, Hans Zimmer worked his musical magic over the whole film making it even more dramatic and epic and the costume really setting the witch hunting duo aside from the ordinary town folk in their black leather corsets and jackets and the steampunk style weapons making them different to any supernatural fighting team I've ever seen in a film. This is one I will be rushing out to buy on DVD.

Despicable Me 2

Title: Despicable Me 2
Year: 2013
Directors: Pierre Coffin & Chris Renaud
Starring (voices): Steve Carell, Kristen Wiig, Russell Brand, Miranda Cosgrove
Red Rating: RRRR (4/5)
High Point: Agnes' birthday party
Low Point: Big action scene

You would not believe how excited I was to hear our little yellow square friends would be returning to our screens this year after the first instalment back in 2010. This time the story follows Gru (Carel) and his girls Margo (Cosgrove), Edith and Agnes with their ploy to find Gru and partner. This being said, Gru wants to focus his time on other things now that he is not a super villain and changes from producing jams and jellies to helping the Anti-Villain League, finding his new friend Lucy (Wiig). We spend the whole film wondering who the new super villain was who stole the secret lab in the Arctic circle while watching Gru and Lucy's relationship blossom as well as observing Gru become more like a father figure compared to his awkward carer role in the first film. With both new and old characters, it sure wasn't a disappointment.

Firstly, the film was great for a family audience, much like the first film. Adult references to Isaac from the 1980's classic 'Love Boat' and jokes that younger children may not understand, 'I know what makes you a boy' being my favourite line addressed to Gru from the youngest girl Agnes, worked incredibly alongside the classic jokes that even the smallest of children would understand such as fart jokes and slapstick humour. This family approach means that unlike some children's films, adults will also get a few laughs whilst treating their little angels to a cinema trip. Parents, if you're unsure if this is for you, it is, trust me. 

The new characters explored in the film, such as Gru's new sidekick Lucy and Salsa restaurant owner Eduardo, give the film the additional boost it needed rather than keeping the same characters from the first film. No reference was made to Gru's previous enemy Vector, so he was probably still stuck on the moon where he was last seen at the very end of the first film. This helped the storyline progress though and it was probably the reason that no repetitive jokes or comments were made, all the material used was fresh and funny. The doesn't go to say that some favoured elements of the first film were forgotten, fear not DM lovers, the fart gun made a well received return alongside Kyle the dog and Kevin, Bob, Stuart and Dave the minions. 

I was very disappointed, however, that one of my favourite characters from the first film failed to make an appearance apart from a 10 second dancing slot at the end, and this character is Gru's beloved mother. The evil mum who doesn't exactly care about her son, his future or his wishes. One of the funniest characters in the first film. I was actually quite shocked that she didn't have a speaking role this time around as there were plenty of opportunities for her to have slid in. But as the running time was already quite long, maybe she got cut, I don't know. 

I was pleased that there is probably room for another Despicable Me instalment after the quite predictable ending (well, it is a kid's film and I am 17, so this probably wasn't a bad thing) so I'd keep your eyes peeled well back after this film hits the shelves for an announcement from the almighty Universal Studios. A new villain maybe, more focus on Gru's family life? We didn't get to see Agnes' mother's day recital so that would be a nice little short, just a hint there Universal. Even possibly a return of Gru's evil side? An older version of the girls taking over from their father? I wish I could write scripts instead of blogs because I would be right on this, I have too many ideas. 

A big question on most people's lips is: is this film as good as or better than the first? My answer, no. But it was going to be very hard to make a film better than one of my all time favourites from any genre made for any age. However, it is still incredible with its fair share of both funny and sincere moments. I would recommend the film to anyone, of any age, just go and see it, right now, go on, book your ticket. You won't regret it, I promise, and let me know if you agree with me! Until next time.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Title: The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Year: 2012
Director: John Madden
Starring: Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Maggie Smith, Bill Nighy, Dev Patel
Red Rating: RR (2/5)
High Point: The Start
Low Point: Most of the film

This story follows a group of retired English people who decide to take their time off in India and explore the world, some already having previous ties to India such as one of the men having grown up around the corner from the Marigold Hotel which they all conveniently decided to stay in as it described itself as a retirement hotel for the elderly. The film follows the retirees as they explore and grow to love the Indian culture and get to know the owner of the hotel, played by Dev Patel from Slumdog Millionaire. The film focuses on each character's story, including the owner's own problems with his family which the retirees decide to help him with. They have their up and their downs but eventually grow to love each other and you get the rest, the cliche group of people who become good friends and then everything's good. The end.

Let's start with the positives. It has an end, eventually, after 124 minutes. Of course there were a few good points because it got 2 Rs. When the film starts it does have some funny moments thanks to Maggie Smith, Professor McGonagall in the Harry Potter films. The racist banter won't be for everybody but if you can take it you're in for a giggle, however this dies down as she becomes used to the Indian culture. Younger generations will also get a kick out of the familiarity of the older folk not knowing much about technology as the characters are first shown as technophobes who are unaware of the differences of wifi and wireless. 

As a viewer, you do find yourself learning small bits about the Indian culture; how their family life works, how their children play and the vibrant colours and music which crowds the streets. You really do get a real feel of what life would be like living in the heart of India, a very beautiful country. 

The British references in the film really get the viewers on side. PG Tips, Radio 4 and Hob Nobs make this film a truly British experience and I think we've all had the trials of attempting to take food on holiday just in case we don't like the food over there right? It can't only be me! Even going for two weeks away can be a challenge for us Brits, we love our familiarities and we find it hard to go without the things we love and class as our own.

Now for the negatives. It's a very slow start. The characters are introduced one by one and we get a small indication of what sort of people they are but it takes a while for the viewer to understand what they have in common and why they all feature in the same film. However, when the real story kicked in, things started to happen far too quickly and before you know it, they're all in India and you start to wonder why. 

This film is definitely suited for an older generation. Most people my own age (17) haven't heard of it, I've only heard about it because I found it within my Nan's DVD collection. As a younger viewer under the age of 50, I found the film very boring, it took too long to explain the smallest of things and yeah, boring and slow really. I also got confused by the amount of stories within the main one. Each character kept getting themselves into more and more situations leading to at one point the five or six main characters having around three stories each and everything get tangled up in a giant Marigold web. If it was so confusing for me, I wonder how confusing it would have been for their over 50 target audience. I actually sympathise with them on this one.

For me the little comments at the start of the film, mainly coming from Maggie Smith, I found funny. But then it all went downhill, the lighthearted comedy became too deep especially when SPOILER ALERT one of the main characters dies from a heart problem, a bit sudden and far too saddening for a comedy. It also got slightly confusing as Maggie Smith's character started as the general racist old woman from England, so why would she decide to go to India on her own, especially undergoing the hip surgery she was supposed to get from a doctor of who she demanded to be British? It was a huge contradiction and really made no sense. Personally after 45 minutes, I was getting extremely bored. 

I found some parts of the film incredibly uncomfortable and quite inappropriate, I know it was meant to show people another light of the older generation, but showing an old man reading the Karma Sutra and attempting positions on his own was scarring for me to watch. The highly sexed character also talks about going to an Indian brothel and smoking 'apple tobacco' which I found very inappropriate and it made me squirm slightly, I really don't want to know about old people having sex, even thinking about sex, pretty disturbing stuff. 

So in Britain, the film was rated as a 12A which is the same as a PG-13, you can watch under the age of 12 or 13 with an adult's consent or with an adult present, now I believe this isn't right. No films under a 15 age rating are allowed to use the 'F' word, apparently this film is an exception, and the sexual references, other bad language and racial slurs, this film should not be watched by anyone under the age of 15. However, I don't believe this is a worry as I'm probably the youngest person to have ever have watched this film. 

The characters were very cliche and I became very irritated by them after the first hour. They played on stereotypical behaviours far too much; you had the highly sexed character, the moaning old lady, the worrier, the calm one and the one who is always reminiscing about growing up in India. Do something new for once!

Overall, a complete waste of 2 hours I could have spent watching something more worthwhile. Or doing college work, that would have probably been more fun. Yes, if you're over 50 go for it, you might even enjoy it but for anyone who isn't yet thinking of retirement, stay well clear. The huge names in the film have really let themselves go, this will probably one they want to keep off their acting CV when auditioning for their next performance. 

Les Mis

Title: Les Misérables
Year: 2012
Director: Tom Hooper
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen
Red Rating: RRR (3/5)
High Point: On My Own (song)
Low Point: The ending

I dreamed a dream that I would find this film captivating and awesome, just like my fellow musical loving friends had told me I would. The huge named cast including the amazing Hugh Jackman, Helena Bonham Carter and Amanda Seyfried as well as some amazing newcomers like Samantha Barks, runner up Nancy on I'd Do Anything for all you British readers, worked tremendously hard to bring the story to life, and most the actors played their parts incredibly. The ageing process of Jackman throughout made him almost unrecognisable and Anne Hathaway's performance as a prostitute, though shocking for those unfamiliar to the play, was played so well that, again, she was almost unrecognisable as the girl who played the unknown princess in the Princess Diaries so many years ago.

One downside, however, is that you cannot watch the film if you have plans to do other things whilst watching, it is definitely one you need to put your full attention to, as I received a phone call mid way through, I found it difficult to catch up with what had happened within the 10 minutes I wasn't concentrating. It also goes on for a very long time, 158 minutes to be exact, so it's not a quick one or one to watch in bed as you'd probably fall asleep mid way through if you're anything like me.

The musical lover in me really enjoyed the musical element of the film, seeming though there were actually very few spoken words in the film which is down the the fact that it is actually an adaptation of the stage show enjoyed by many around the world. A particular favourite would be Samantha Bark's performance of On My Own. The song tells the story of how she is in love with the man who she sees as her love interest, however he is more interested in Seyfried's character, Cosette, not to be confused with a courgette which had me puzzled for the first half hour of the film. The raw passion and emotion she showed made me wonder how she lost out on the role of Nancy on the British talent contest created by Andrew Lloyd Webber to find new talent for the West End in London.

The director, Tom Hooper, could have made the year obvious to the viewers in another fashion rather than just having the year and the place emblazoned on the screen in huge gold letters, a sign maybe, a calendar? I don't know, I'm not a director, but for your next big film, try something a little more abstract, it's just a suggestion Tom. yes the huge characters worked but it didn't always fit with the background, a grotty street full of homeless people covered with golden lettering, really? I'm being harsh now, I know that, but surely you should tale more care when tackling such a prestigious piece of culture. However, Hooper's use of mise-en-scene really set the scene, more so than the obvious pointing out of setting and time period with the lettering. The costume and scenery added to the viewer's feeling of wanting the underdog to win as we really got to see how the poorer French people lived during the revolution, I don't know if this was the same for everyone but I really wanted a better life for the less well off French peasants.

Another negative now though I'm sorry! So the film, the book and the play were all set in France, and I believe through time French people, no matter what language they are speaking, have always had a slightly French accent when they speak naturally. So why is it that most of the cast spoke in dodgy cockney accents for the majority of the film? I felt at one point like I was watching Oliver and not Les Mis. Sacha Baron Cohen attempted the French accent and had a good, natural sounding accent for some of his performance, however, this didn't last for long and by the end of the film, he had the same cockney accent as everybody else. Knowing his previous films such as Borat and Brüno, I knew he could do accents well, so this for me was a huge disappointment.

SPOILER ALERT!!!!
Okay so the ending, Jean Valjean dies and we see a return of all the characters who had died throughout the film, this for me was incredibly confusing as both Seyfried, whose character was still alive, and Anne Hathaway, whose character had died around an hour previous to this point, were both on screen together with a dying Jackman with no explanation, it wasn't until the credits that I realised this was symbolic for Jean's death and that he had actually died on his daughter's wedding day, again to me a directorial error to this time be too unclear about what was happening.

Overall, I'd say Les Mis was an alright film, it wasn't terrible but it wasn't anything special either. I was told to watch it as it was, in the words of one of my friends 'amazingly spectacular', however I don't think I was left as mystified as she was after watching the film. I'd say if you were a fan of the stage show or incredibly long operas, this one's for you. Anyone else, don't be too upset if you don't get the chance to see it, you'd actually probably thank me for telling you that you should probably give it a miss.