(I’m quite unsure about many of the decisions I took. Probably a few of the films under “good” could be placed under “great”, but I’ll leave them where they are for now. “Good”, I think, is a very praising remark for any film anyway. Also, the order the films are placed *within* the colour code is by no means reflective of my preferences. It is rather the order I watched them in. )

My Dinner with Andre (1981)

Rope (1948)

2046 (2004)

Gone with the Wind (1939)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Christmas in July (1940)

The Artist (2011)

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1974)

Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959)

Coriolanus (2011)

Happy Together (1997)

Dersu Uzala (1975)

Billy Liar (1963)

Shame (2011)

The Gold Rush (1925)

Cat People (1942)

The British Guide to Showing Off (2011)

The Magic Box (1951)

Puss in Boots (2011)

Hugo (2011)

CJ7 (2008)

Howards End (1992)

Here is the explanation of the color code:

• red is for……………………………………….masterpiece (adored it)
• blue is for……………………………………..great film (loved it)
• green is for……………………………………good film (liked it a lot)
• purple is for…………………………………alright film
• orange is for………………………………..did not really enjoy it, not my cup of tea
• yellow is for………………………………….pretty much hated it

(all of the above are my opinion only, obviously)

Also, the order they are in is not completely reflective of my preferences. So, here goes:

 My Week with Marilyn

Strengths: good depiction of Monroe’s inner troubles, memorable performance from Michelle Williams. Weaknesses: other characters lack in depth, pace seems a bit too rushed at beginning of film, almost montage-like. It gets better when seen a second time though.

 Senna 

Strengths: being composed exclusively of archive footage, it is impressive how successfully it manages to create such a captivating and perfectly balanced narrative. Weaknesses: can’t really think of any.

 The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo 

Strengths: remarkable performance from Rooney Mara, captivating investigative process which the two main characters undergo to find the killer, appropriately fast pace, beautiful cinematography. Weaknesses: the subject matter, that is the crime being investigated, is so clichéd and plain uninteresting (but, as this is not the focus, it’s easy to not dwell upon it).

 Beginners 

I don’t think you can enjoy the film unless you understand and, even better, identify with the characters and all the mixed emotions they’re going through, which is essentially the focus of the film. Really good characters, touching stories, great performance from Christopher Plummer, plus an appropriate amount of comedy, I was completely immersed in the film.

 The Artist

Strengths: excellent humour,  great performances from the two main actors and a very talented dog. Weaknesses: though I loved most of the metaphorical scenes, it felt some of them were superfluous, as it seemed to me the same points were being made over and over again, without any real effect. But, all in all, very good film.

 Submarine 

What could have been a very common coming of age story is approached in such a sweet, tender, and, most of all, unusual way. Interesting characters, smart and funny script, overall very entertaining film.

 Le Quattro Volte

Such a raw and original subject matter. Truly innovative, through its lack of any dialogue at all, and the profound implications achieved through the idea of the soul living on when the body dies, more precisely by embracing four different conditions of nature; and that is, after all, only one of the interpretations that can be given to it. Also, genuinely and almost unintentionally funny moments delight and surprise the audience every now and then.

 Drive

Memorable film, it is sure to become a classic. Strengths: Ryan Gosling’s quiet, yet powerful character, alongside other very well shaped characters; story that stands out through its subtle depth. Weaknesses: I was not entirely satisfied with Carey Mulligan, nor with the extremely graphic violence scenes, which, although not there to glamorize violence,  were too disturbing, for no real purpose, I would say. I mean, the scenes themselves did have a purpose, but I don’t think them being *so* graphic had any purpose.

 We Need to Talk About Kevin

Tilda Swinton will astonish you with her deeply moving performance. Ezra Miller will scare the bejesus out of you…paradoxically, without seeming overtly scary at all.  Every little scene abounding in symbolism, We Need to Talk About Kevin is the perfect example of “less is more”.

 Perfect Sense 

I don’t care how flawed people seem to think it is, I believe it to be brilliant and, as long as it touched me so deeply that it made me cry my heart out, I shall always defend it. Great story, great script, great performances, everything is truly great about it. Not to be missed!

Mulholland Drive (2001)

The Exterminating Angel (1962)

Bicycle Thieves (1948)

Matinee (1993)

Beginners (2010)

Christmas in Connecticut (1945)

Hannah and her Sisters (1986)

Chasing Amy (1997)

Annie Hall (1977)

Manhattan (1979)

The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946)

My Man Godfrey (1936)

The Well-Digger’s Daughter (2011)

Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (2008)

Snowtown (2011)

Romantics Anonymous (2010)

Here is the explanation of the color code:

• red is for……………………………………….masterpiece (adored it)
• blue is for……………………………………..great film (loved it)
• green is for……………………………………good film (liked it)
• purple is for…………………………………alright film
• orange is for………………………………..did not really enjoy it
• yellow is for………………………………….pretty much hated it

(all of the above are my opinion only, obviously)

12 Angry Men (1957)

Rebecca (1940)

We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

Matinee (1993)

Withnail & I (1987)

Lost in Translation (2003)

Contagion (2011)

50/50 (2011)

My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Wuthering Heights (2011)

Ghostbusters (1984)

Porco Rosso (1992)

Here is the explanation of the color code:

• red is for……………………………………….masterpieces
• blue is for……………………………………..great films
• green is for……………………………………good films
• purple is for…………………………………alright films
• orange is for…………………………………not-so-good/bad films
• yellow is for………………………………….”omg, wtf, this is soooo bad” films

(all of the above are my opinion only, obviously)

• Watched on 26th November 2011

• First time viewing

It starts off in a less than ideal way. The ‘introduction’ presents the main character, Colin Clark, and the context in which he is going to meet Marilyn. It feels too fast-paced (it kind of feels like a montage…an ad or a trailer), and yet it does not feel very entertaining; it almost seems like they’re trying to speed up the action so that they can finally get to the part where Marilyn (played by Michelle Williams) comes in. This results in everything seeming quite shallow, especially the characters.

HOWEVER, it gets better as it progresses. It soon becomes apparent that the film is concerned with what’s behind the idea of Marilyn Monroe…the woman who wants two things: to be loved for who she really is and to become a great actress. But her childhood (the lack of loving parent figures) has made her insecure, and, although she is ‘the most famous person in the whole world’, she is aware that people see her as an image, and that those people who she loves (i.e. Arthur Miller, her husband at the time), don’t truly return her love, and that most people consider her a mediocre actress. This is what makes her break down so often, and she is in desperate need of someone who understands her, as most people think she is merely a spoiled child, whose break downs are just strategies to draw attention. Her often thoughtless actions (i.e. her unfaithfulness to Miller) are not a sign of her being a bad, uncaring person; she really doesn’t mean any harm. She has become weak and craves for even the tiniest bit of genuine affection and kindness. In ‘My Week with Marilyn’, this person who understands her and grows to love her is the main character, Colin. As a result, most of the film is presented through his point of view. As the film begins, it is clearly stated that this is meant to be a true story (as it is based on the two autobiographical books by the real Colin Clark), but I don’t intend to dwell on whether I believe the events depicted in the film to be really true or not, because I don’t think that’s an important aspect. So, as I said before, it gets better as it progresses, in that it loses that initial shallowness and hence it gets richer in substance. It becomes engaging, but the audience isn’t necessarily asked to identify with Marilyn; I can totally understand how people can still find her behaviour exaggerated, in spite of the reasons she has. I, for one, do understand her in a way, as I feel I am like her to a certain extent. So, obviously, it is up to each individual to feel love or hate (or anything in between those two extremes) towards Marilyn, as well as towards the film.

Now, to talk a bit about performance. Kenneth Branagh as Laurence Olivier was alright. Just alright. At the beginning of the film I thought he was quite awful, but he, too, got better as the film progressed. Julia Ormond was alright…as Julia Ormond. But not as Vivien Leigh. Vivien was such a magnificent actress. Both her looks and personality were so unique; there’s nobody who could properly play Vivien Leigh. But I’m sure there’s some actresses who would do an alright job, who would actually remind the audience of Leigh. But I’m afraid Ormond wasn’t one of them. I really don’t have anything against her personally, I just didn’t see any Vivien Leigh-ness in her.

Now…Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe. Although I do have some mixed feelings about this, I would defend her if someone were to say she didn’t do a good job. She did the best job she could have. The part of Marilyn Monroe is definitely hard because any actress could only attempt to play Marilyn…no one could convince an audience that she is Marilyn. The job of actors is to convince the audience that they are the character. But Marilyn Monroe was different from any other actress ever; anyone could attempt to copy her looks, her behaviour, her voice etc…but no one could have that inherent charm, that certain magical something that drew everyone’s attention and that seduced cameras. Obviously, every actress has her own unique charm. I’m not saying Marilyn is better in that way. I’m just saying her uniqueness cannot be copied. So, back to Michelle Williams. Looks-wise, they did a very good job. I am actually quite impressed just how much they managed to make her look like Marilyn. I had a bit of a problem with her voice…it is really nothing like Marilyn’s voice. Michelle’s voice was a bit shaky and she had a bit of a weird accent, whereas Marilyn’s voice was sweet but powerful; she truly had a fantastic voice. So, I feel they could have worked on that a lot harder. Anyway, this is just small criticism to an otherwise good performance. There were moments where I did truly believe she was Marilyn. Tiny moments. But that’s still a lot. She, too, gets better as the film progresses. (I really actually don’t know if everything gets better as the film progresses or if you just get used to it. But it was enjoyable after all).

A good effort. Worth viewing.

(On second viewing, the film itself and Michelle’s performance grew on me quite a lot.)

• Watched on 25th November 2011

• First time viewing

Great film, great charm, great acting. I am gutted that I was knackered when I watched it (as it was a Late Night showing, and I had barely slept the night before), as I feel I wasn’t able to enjoy it to the maximum (the narrative got me confused more than once). But it was great in that it is very entertaining and smart. For me, the highlight was definitely Richard E. Grant’s performance as Withnail, who is a drunken unemployed (and unemployable) actor. Basically, the story presents Withnail and his mate (played by Paul McGann, who is credited as “&I”) and their adventures as they go on a “holiday by mistake” to the countryside. (No, it’s not really by mistake; that’s just one of the many great quotes from the film). The narrative only provides a basis for, as I just mentioned, great lines, performed with great charm by the two. The environment in which I watched the film (full cinema, late night) was very appropriate, as the audience was really getting involved in the film by shouting lines at the same time as the characters. Here’s some awesome quotes:

“I don’t advise a haircut, man. All hairdressers are in the employment of the government. Hairs are your aerials. They pick up signals from the cosmos, and transmit them directly into the brain. This is the reason bald-headed men are uptight.”

“We want the finest wines available to humanity. And we want them here, and we want them now!”

“I must have some booze. I demand to have some booze!”

And here’s some extracts, to give you a better feel for the film:

A thoroughly enjoyable film. I definitely recommend it.

• Watched on 24th November 201

• Third time viewing

Sometimes, I get too attached to certain films, and, in a motherly-like way, I feel proud of them and need to share them with the world, but at the same time protect them, and, if someone likes them less than me, I feel as though that person has insulted me. (The more in love I am with a film, the weirder I get; so if you try to talk to me about, say…Nuovo Cinema Paradiso…I will get too excited. Way too excited.)

12 Angry Men…this is one of those films. I grow fonder of it with each viewing. I don’t even know what to begin with; everything about it seems just fantastic to me. So, the story…12 jurors have to decide the fate of a slum boy who is accused of having killed his father. Almost the entire film is set in one single room. 11 jurors vote that the boy is guilty, the 12th juror doesn’t want to make a quick decision, since the life of a person is at stake. He does not necessarily think that the boy is not guilty, but he has a reasonable doubt. Slowly he convinces the other 11 jurors to vote ‘not guilty’. Sounds like a simple enough plot. One might even think there’s no depth to it. But there’s so many layers of meaning that are uncovered as the film progresses and the characters’ true selves are revealed in subtle ways. Their dialogue, their interaction with each other, their gestures, all these aspects help build such interesting characters. All 12 of them are fascinating. They’re common, working men, and yet they become so fascinating. The film drives the audience’s sympathies, but not with a hidden, negative purpose. It builds good and bad characters in an unconventional way. They’re portrayed as good or bad due to what they think, not necessarily due to how they act. There’s nonetheless constant shifts, as the jurors are being persuaded to have a reasonable doubt.

One aspect I find particularly interesting is how important each of these men’s profession is. In a suble way, we find out what each man does for a living, and each profession is reflected perfectly in each man’s personality. One man is in advertising; he is very talkative and comes across as egotistical and shallow. Another one is a watch maker; he pays attention to detail and brings up an interesting point regarding the case. The foreman is a football coach; he is used to supervise and direct other people. The juror who stands alone against the others at the start is an architect; he shows creativity and a flair for new ideas. And so on. So, it’s all in the script. The script is definitely the best thing about this remarkable film. But the camera movement is also extraordinary. The space is constricted, and yet the camera moves in a number of imaginative ways, adding so much to the film. The use of close-ups is particularly interesting, as it helps increase tension. Also, a technique used quite a lot is directing the camera on a certain character, although another character is speaking, which suggests that the dialogue is not as significant in those particular moments, but what happens inside that character’s mind is essential.

An excellent film, I recommend it with all my heart.

• Watched on 19th November 2011

• First time viewing

‘Contagion’ came out in the UK about 5 weeks ago, and it is still in cinemas. Quite impressive. I was initially skeptical towards seeing it, maybe because I assumed that so many big names (Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Marion Cotillard, Laurence Fishburne, Bryan Cranston) together in a film would not result in something of quality (as it has been the case with many films). But that is a foolish prejudice and should not be generalised. Maybe I also didn’t like the premise. Anyway, since I saw that it had been out for so long and it was getting good reviews, I thought I’d give it a chance. And it was better than I expected. It was entertaining, I was not bored at any point. It had beautiful cinematography and good acting (I thought Jude Law and Jennifer Ehle stood out). A highlight was the soundtrack, which matched the atmosphere of the film perfectly. I’m not going to spoil anything, but I also thought the ending was very appropriate. I don’t really know what else to say…it’s a strong film. Not a personal favourite or masterpiece or anything, but it’s good. One criticism that I have is that it got a bit confusing at times, since there are SO many characters, and thus quite a lot of storylines. Also, not all storylines seem to be resolved in the end…but, other than that, I definitely recommend it.

I do not intend to spend much this on this blog, so my posts will not be highly structured or revised or sophisticated or extensive…you get the point. They will be more like a stream of consciousness.