Cherry Bomb

BOOM! British-made-teen-coming-of-age-drama, IN THE EYES! A positively explosive display of Northern Irish youth! I'm sorry, didn't mean to scare you there. Bet that was quite terrifying wasn't it? And maybe even quite annoying. But do not fret! Cherry Bomb (2009) certainly doesn't seek one's attention quite as much as my metaphorical bombs do (God knows we love them). Yes, despite the confusing title (The poster made me believe it could be something to do with virginity and pool activities... it isn't) the film is actually not half bad.

Okay, so when I really think about it, I don't actually rate it that much. The sensible and analytical side of my brain says "Come on, Julia. There wasn't much to it really, was there?". Whilst the hormonal, 18-year-old side of my brain shouts "Look at the hot boys! LOOK at them!"

I know, I know. I'm a silly billy who gets distracted by naked torsos but seriously. Hey. SERIOUSLY. Can you blame me? First we've got the delectable delights of Robert Sheehan, who proved himself slick and quick-witted in the hit show Misfits whilst bringing an edgy 'I don't give two fucks' element to this new character. And then there's Rupert Grint. What the hell happened to him?! You think you've got it all sussed, good ol' reliably nerdy Ron and then BOOM! (sorry, I will stop) He's turned into a great big pile of sexy.

But honestly, looking past the fact that there was plenty of totty to ogle at, the movie itself didn't feel much different to any of your standard BBC dramas. There were a few visually pleasing shots and the acting had promise but the script lacked the intense, show-down sequences which the narrative might have strived upon. Personally, after seeing the spectacular things Shane Meadows is capable of, any other drama not up to scratch becomes something I find very hard to connect to. There was many a sensitive moment that could have been amplified, for example lead female Michelle's (Kimberly Nixon) relationship with her Dad (James Nesbitt) but alas, it all seemed to be lightly brushed over and then quickly forgotten about.

I doubt I will intentionally see it again but it was entertaining all the same. Cherry Bomb gets 3 out of 5 stars for me.

Shrek Forever After

On viewing the 15 foot cinema posters featuring the tag-line 'What the Shrek just happened?', I couldn't help but to sigh and think "Oh Dreamworks, won't you just give it a rest?". Not because of the tag-line itself, that is obviously comic genius, but because at the time the makers of Shrek seemed to be on a suicide mission. The Shrek orange hath been squeezed. Juice a new one. And by that I mean a new idea for a film.

This, of course, being before I'd actually seen the latest movie. Yes, I admit it, I pre-judged. But let's be honest, Shrek's track record hasn't been tremendous. The first, a classic, the second, eagerly awaited but deemed unnecessary and the third, just down-right forgettable. That, along with Christmas specials and 9 years of full-on merchandising, was it any surprise that there was a sour undertone before the fourth spin-off even reached cinemas?

However, you have to hand it to the makers, they didn't want the last thoughts of Shrek to be eternally connected to the bomb-shell that is the third film. And so, they decided to start a-fresh and incorporate the ever-popular 'It's A Wonderful Life' narrative into the land of Far Far Away. Essentially, Shrek makes a deal with Rumplestiltskin (a new character, voiced by Walt Dohrn) to be rid of his hum-drum married life and spend a day being a true ogre. Obviously, things do not run swimmingly and Shrek finds himself and his loved ones in mortal danger. A spanner is thrown into the works though, as Shrek not only has to save the day, but also has to try and re-kindle all of his past friendships (Fiona and Donkey etc.) as, in a kind of 'parallel universe' kind of a way, nobody knows who the beloved ogre is.

The new story is refreshing, not only in the sense that you get to meet the characters all over again, but also because Dreamworks seem to have finally attempted to go back to more of the favoured elements of the original film. One of these being the music, using familiar and sometimes humorous tunes really made the difference when it came to entertainment. Also, the use of jokes that are both for adults and children were incorporated which seem to have been all but forgotten in the past two movies.

Overall, despite the fact that there have been a few misses in the series, you can't deny that most of the time Shrek has been a fun and entertaining watch for all ages and successfully goes out with a bang.

Toy Story 3

There is no doubt about it, the people at Pixar are nothing short of experts in the field of heart-rendering family flicks. Let me just run a few titles past you: We've got Monster's Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Wall.E, Up and of course, Toy Story. The first Disney/Pixar film to be made in 1995, Toy Story was an animated success which became immensely popular and a family favorite.

It is now 15 years on and the third installment (also the last) to the story is now out in cinemas. Perhaps my biggest mistake on viewing the film was to watch every trailer, read every review and listen to every person's opinion on it. Audiences treated the trequel (is that even a word?) as if it were a classic. But not just that, a new kind of classic. Beyond all classics. "Better than the first two by miles", they said. So, as you can imagine, I was looking forward to seeing it. Which raises the question,'Is too much good hype a bad thing?'. Don't get me wrong, I didn't dislike the movie. I want to clear that up right away before I get severed dolls heads in the post. What I'm saying is that it doesn't half spoil your enjoyment when you sit through an entire movie, expecting something marvelous and breath-taking to happen. It clouds your view somewhat.

Before you start over-heating with anger, judging me to be a heartless critic who has no real understanding of the series, let me explain what I liked about it. A fair few parts of the film were very funny (although granted not as many as I expected thanks to the hype again) but still, characters such as Mr Potato Head and a new addition, Ken, both had scenes which made me laugh. It was also nice to see Pixar referencing back to the previous films, allowing the audience to feel like part of an exclusive club. I enjoyed the heart-felt moments (who'd have thunk?) as well as the way that it rounded up the entire trilogy nicely at the end.

And now onto why I wasn't so impressed. The story was enjoyable and entertaining. But the claims that it was better than Toy Story 1 and 2 are just nonsense. At a push, better than the second one maybe but has everyone forgotten just how brilliant and ground-breaking the first movie was? Something else that people in other reviews raved about was the supposedly 'delightful' new characters. Many of which barely had a few lines between them. Old favourite Buzz Lightyear also seemed to lack screen time which could have been the result of having too many new additions to the story. Toy Story 2 successfully introduced unfamiliar faces slowly, giving them time to be accepted by the viewer. However, Toy Story 3 seemed to want to pack too much into too little a time-frame.

Once again, I wish I hadn't subjected myself to all the positive attention it got before-hand. I probably would have enjoyed the film a lot more if I hadn't. I feel I can't rate Toy Story 3 just yet, until I have seen the movie again, after public attention has died down and I can gauge what it means to me and no one else.

Inception

Director Christopher Nolan has enticed audiences with clever conundrum Memento, wooed them with the slick showmanship of The Prestige and seduced them with the heavy-weight character development in The Dark Night. But this year's Summer movie must-see is said to be his best triumph yet.

After seeing the movie, I can safely say that my mind is truly boggled by the amount of substance and body that comes with the dream-based masterpiece that is Inception. A plot essentially inconceivable not ten years ago and even now, due to it's complexity and yet solidarity within itself. Like his previous success, Memento, the writers were able to come up with a concept that is completely original and extremely ingenious.

Nolan himself manages to pull-off one of the greatest movie making techniques there is; treating his audience as adults who don't need every ounce of the story explaining to them. This is shown brilliantly through actor Ellen Page who plays the young and clueless character, having to learn the ways of the dream-world that is already so familiar to the other characters, but manages to pick everything up not only easily but with gusto, reflecting well on how Nolan perceives his audience.

The large budget is used immensely well, with breath-taking effects that are completely necessary for the visual portrayal of dreams but at the same time, never begin to feel used for commercial reasons or detract the audience from the story. The story itself is fantastic. Both intricate in it's complexities but so simple as an idea it sends you wild with disbelief. The ending especially, left me physically shaking with anticipation and excitement. And surely, any film that leaves it's viewer in that way, deserves 5 Stars?

Get Him To The Greek

'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' spin-off, 'Get Him To The Greek' (2010) follows budding record company intern Aaron Green, played by Jonah Hill, as he tries to maintain and deliver the world famous rock star Aldous Snow, played by Russell Brand to L.A's Greek Theatre. However, the task is easier said than done, as Aldous is recovering from an album flop through the use of copious amounts of drugs and women. Essentially, Aaron has every aspect of the wild world of rock and roll thrown upon him in a matter of days.

In true 'stardom' fashion, just about every celeb under the sun pops up for a little cameo, either effectively displaying just how mad and random the world of famous people can be with the premise that you never know who you'll bump into, or simply the makers of the film showing off who they have in their phone book. Although saying that, the latter is merely the realistic reflection of the former. In other words, it's full to the brim with familiar faces.

The film, is essentially Russell Brand's. And I believe it's important to know that going in. Jonah Hill's character is attempted to be built upon, however the glimpse at his relationship with his girlfriend doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the movie and so might as well be ignored. After all, Aldous Snow is the main character and Brand barely has to act as the events are so close to his past ‘roguish ways’ that it might as well be a documentary.

As a comedy, the film does work well. Nearly every scene will raise at least one chuckle, with the largest laugh coming from a hectic party sequence in which Hill's character descends into panic while fights break out around him, having to resort to the comforting babblings of Aldous. Sean Combs, aka P. Diddy, is particularly good as boss of Pinnacle Records and general nut job, Sergio Roma and completes the movie as an entertaining watch. I give it 3 Stars and ‘Get Him To The Greek’ is out in cinemas now.

She's Out Of My League

A quick introduction/ explanation. I was planning on reviewing a brand spankin' new film that is now being shown in cinemas, most likely being Get Him To The Greek. However, upon reaching the cinema I discovered I was too late for the showing and instead saw the next available film, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. I WILL NOT be reviewing that film. No. It's just not going to happen.

So, I shall instead review a film I saw about a month ago and is no longer in cinemas. She's Out Of My League (2010), is a romantic comedy starring Jay Baruchel as the fairly whinny Kirk (coincidentally a name that is only ever connected to 'looserdom' and 'nerdiness'- you'd have thought fictional parents would learn) and Alice Eve as the 'supposed Greek Goddess who is in fact quite average looking' Molly. Which is sort of a draw back, considering how the entire film is based around the idea that Molly is jaw-droppingly, 'I need a change of trousers' beautiful. She's pretty. But she's no Cameron Diaz in There's Something About Mary. There's a definite spark missing. Which is interesting given that the character of Kirk becomes so smitten with her and so aware of just how feeble he is in facial comparison, that he and his friends feel the need to constantly anchor insecurities on 'The Scale', Kirk being a 5, Molly a 9. Inevitably, and obviously, it is discovered that people are actually more than just attractive manikins and can, in fact, be rated on their personalities as well. Somebody phone the papers.

Saying this, there are moments where the film comes into it's own and feels less like every rom-com script ever written and more like a realistic and subtly humorous watch. The main reason for this is Kirk's group of friends, all of which are believable as people and together having a brilliantly relaxed and funny rapor. Some of the best moments being when camp chum Devon compares every situation to a Disney classic. Because of this, the movie can go into the category of a good 'ill film', essentially something to cheer you up when illness and bed confinement gets you down.

Sadly though, the successful elements are not built upon. The film ironically displays it's own insecurities by being slightly too cliche; the girlfriend's disagreeing father, the huge slobbery dog that gets into a whole mess of mischief. She's Out Of My League seems too afraid to be different although it still remains entertaining. I give it 3 Stars and it is now out for purchase on DVD.

Watchmen

There are many unexplainable things in the universe; the big bang, dark matter, black holes and the production, distribution and consumption of the film Watchmen (2009).

Adapted from the graphic novel of the same name, Watchmen attempts to massage all comic book nerd's brains in a motion picture of a well-loved book. Not being an uber- fan of the series myself, I was unsure of what to expect of the film. I hoped I would be subjected to some light action/adventure super hero fun that would neither demand my entire attention nor bore me to tears. Instead, I got a movie so deprived of any logical plot progression it almost hurt. The first half consists of essentially, talking. Granted the opening title sequence seemed promising, with a decent soundtrack and historical attention to detail, but that quickly deteriorated into people in costumes having a good chat.

The narrative seemed to take a dramatic turn around the time of one particularly repulsive and insulting sex scene, when the Disbelief Train hit Gore Town with a quick stop off at Garish City. Limbs were then severed, blood splattered and the blue guy named Doctor Manhattan seemed to get decidedly more naked. Now, this may have been forgivable (although probably not) if any of the story had actually made sense. But it didn't. The ending was so confusing the characters might as well have started a round of Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody. At least that would have been entertaining.

All in all, a film that might delight previous graphic novel fans but otherwise remains pointless and juvenile to anyone else. Sorry Zack Snyder, I'm afraid it's 2 Stars from me.

Moon

Moon (2009) is Duncan Jones's directing debut, who decided to write a sci-fi movie solely for actor and friend, Sam Rockwell. The story-line is simple but at the same time intricately complex in the ideas it conjures up. Astronaut, Sam Bell has been working on the moon with the help of computer GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey) to mine a new energy resource which he continually sends back to Earth. His three year contract is nearly up but two weeks before he is to be sent home, there is an accident involving a moon buggy and one of the harvesters. After this shake up, strange things begin to happen and Sam finds himself with a confrontation that leaves him to question his own sanity.

The film represents feelings of claustrophobia, confinement, limitation and insanity. Sam is forced to look at himself through different facets of his personality, becoming aware of just what he is capable of. The movie is contained through its use of essentially, one giant set that was constructed to replicate the exact living space of the astronaut. Also, because of the small budget, only a few special effects are used and most of the scenes which are on the surface of the moon were achieved through models. This gives a weightless feel to objects that would usually contain a lot of density; something that is realistic to the lunar atmosphere. The most credit has to go to the acting of Sam Rockwell, who carries the entire film by himself and manages to show audiences that he is capable of displaying shifts in a person's disposition.

Despite the film being a definite salute in the direction of Stanley Kubrick's Space Odyssey, the movie can still be enjoyed by anyone simply interested in psychological thrillers and the human condition. Personally, I believe the film was successful in being a beautiful yet unnerving look at the stability of one's own character and life. I give it 4 Stars for being a moving masterpiece.

Clash of the Titans

Clash of the Titans- the tale of Perseus, son of God and general big mac, Zeus, who embarks on a journey of revenge and protection of the city Argos (yeah, yeah "Good job, I ordered a toaster from there" and other such puns) from the rather nasty beast The Kraken, son of Hades. To do so, he must retrieve the stone-turning abilities of one Medusa and her many tete snake chums.

Questions can be asked such as, "How are Medusa's rockin' eyes still able to work with the head decapitated from the body?" And also, "If Kraken is Hades' offspring, who the hell is the moma?!" But these are merely linked to the Greek story itself and not the film. Perhaps we shall never know the answers, or perhaps I could just pick up a book once in a while.

The great thing about modern technology (and more specifically CGI) is that practically anything that the mind can conjure nowadays, can be replicated in 'touch it, it's real!' visual graphics. The Clash of the Titans is a perfect example of this as it is a classic Greek tale from start to finish with no need of side-stepping the story due to the fact that scenery and monsters are practically impossible to recreate realistically without the use of computers. Overall, this is the best quality of the film, the fact that the entire story can be told how it was written. Character- wise, I was especially fond of the fact that Zeus (Liam Neeson) wasn't instantly labeled as 'the good guy' as he himself, had tricked Hades (Ralph Fiennes) in the beginning.

However, the movie did contain a couple of rather unnecessary let downs. The first being Sam Worthington, who's portrayal of Perseus wasn't particularly bad, just down-right boring. Audiences are more likely to connect emotionally with a cardboard cutout of a bowl of porridge than Worthington. Also, the 3D element was clearly a last-minute decision and because of this, there is essentially no need to be wearing the glasses.

All things considered, the story is timeless and director Louis Leterrier clearly had oodles of visual fun making it. I give it, 3 Stars

Remember Me

I won't lie to you. If asked the reason for wanting to go see Remember Me at the cinema I will have to admit "... Robert Pattinson's face." But you really can't blame me. The boy has been told he's attractive so repeatedly for so long now that he has, in effect, become 'attractive'. As a noun. "I am not sexy, I am sex" or something similar. And I have to say, I wasn't disappointed by just how much of Bobby's swagger they managed to squash into the film. He has a sexual aura on screen similar to that of a cougar, James Dean and a jazz saxophone combined.

But now onto a more serious subject, the actual film itself. I admit that after a while, I began to buy into the stumbling romance and opportunistic life values of the film. Even with the perhaps annoyingly kooky 'I eat my dessert before my dinner' token lead female (Emilie de Ravin), or the inevitable 'deep' conversation between the couple who try to 'out-death' each other with nasty stories of deceased relatives.

All this could have been forgiven, if it were not for the frankly offensive ending. I won't give much away, but in my eyes, using a terrible (and real) disaster in order to shake up the ending a little is not something that should be considered appropriate. Apparently, director Allen Coulter was fishing for socially relevant brownie points and a way to make the narrative end on a truly depressing 'your life's actually quite pointless' statement.

I give this 2 Stars for a film that could have been mediocre, but turned out more of a disaster than the subject it ended on.

Avatar

Avatar... Where do you bloody begin with Avatar? So I went to see it (probably a good idea, what with me now reviewing it) and I must say it was very nice. I know what you're thinking 'Julia, where's the formality? Where's the professionalism? It's as if you can't be arsed..!' well, you would be right, avid reader. I can't do a serious review on Avatar because it's so flippin' big that it's beyond reviewing. It's beyond anything. I can't actually form propper sentences in order to describe it. Bleh. Ya see?

Okay so really, there's only two things I can say about it (and I am leaving it at two because you start on three and before you know it you're writing a 15,000 word essay when you really should be doing coursework.. heh) The first 'thing' if you will (told you I couldn't be bothered) is:

1. I know, you know, Santa knows that the story just isn't up to scratch. (santa..? I must be hungry, I'm writing like a moron) The plot's been done so many times that when you try to think of all those times it leaves a similar sensation as when you try to ponder about the universe or imagine a very large number of things (education is going well, thanks for asking). The story of Avatar can be simply described as a cross between Fern Gully and Pocahontas. But hey, I'm not complaining as I'm sure most 90's kids won't.

2. Point numero dos (go me) is that actually, it's very pretty. I mean REALLY pretty. When it finished I practically clung onto my chair because I didn't want to leave the amazing world of Pandora. The effects are truly gorgeous and even though I'm not usually one to go and see a movie on effects alone, I would definitely recommend this to anyone. The world that Cameron has created is one of complete realism because every nuance of his living earth is individual and yet related somehow (like the breathing holes in every animal and the fact they all seem to have three sets of legs). So just go see it. That's more of a command than a request. If you don't see it on the big screen in 3D then you really are missing out. Time for me to find some food I think, to restore a bit of sanity.

New Moon

Yes, I know. And no, I’m not going to scream obscenities if you don’t like it. To be honest, I’m not THAT much of a fan myself. But what can you expect? The Twilight saga is sweeping everyone up in its colossal mudslide of domination, whether you blumin’ like it or not! And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, teenage girls being encouraged to get to grips with their sexual selves and all. But that’s for a more feminist blog, and I digress. The second film hath arrived! Which means even more hype than the first (doesn’t seem possible does it?) As you can tell by scrolling down, I have not reviewed the first film. There are many reasons for this, the main being, it was rubbish. I think many can agree that it was a very standard depiction of the book; it knew it would get fans either way and so didn’t seem to try at all. But this time around, there’s a new director in town, Chris Weitz and lo and behold, he’s done quite a splendid job!

As a film lover, you become accustomed to the idea of having to sometimes sit through not-very-good films, its part of the process (especially if you’re quite a picky film lover). So imagine my surprise when the very first shot of the film is one, very large, very absorbing, orange moon that stares you straight in the face. This moon then begins to peel back, agonisingly slowly, to reveal the title ‘New Moon’ and immediately, you can’t help but think quite enthusiastically ‘THIS is more like it!’. The acting, as to be expected, is fairly bog-standard, but not annoyingly so. The whole film seems much more rich and magical than its senior in the sense of its colour and effects. The wolves especially work very well, for example when Bella first glimpses one of the beasts and all that can be seen are two fierce eyes accompanied by a frosty breath in the dark which looks about as real as you could get. What also pulls the movie up to a much more respectable notch is the impressive and mesmerising sound track, which has a delectable fistful of atmospheric tunes that work perfectly in sync with each other or individually on their own. Listening to the much-acclaimed album is a dream-like experience that hypnotises and sums up the tone of the film brilliantly.

Obviously, the series isn’t a masterpiece. But would it really be as successful if it was? I’m pretty sure it’s the simply written books and love/danger filled themes that attract the teenage audience and not all the hidden meanings (because we all know there’s so many of them). And yes, maybe the whole Twilight shebang SHOULD be more sophisticated but really, who are we kidding? Sexy and dangerous vampires? A hot werewolf that wants to be more than just friends? An identifiable female lead? All this included in read-in-a-day books? No wonder there’s screaming teens at premiers with ‘bite me Edward’ scrawled on their faces. All I can say is, at least Weitz has attempted to include more than just the smitten fans in his audience, and make it enjoyable even for those not wearing fangs to the cinema.

Somers Town

Shane Meadows moves away from his hard and aggressive feature lengths to make Somers Town, a gentle, bite-sized film that targets many different underlying themes without actually bringing them into full view. Thomas Turgoose is used once again and proves that his talent continues from the hit This Is England, a factor that will most likely comfort the many fans of Meadow’s. Piotr Jagiello is introduced as a competent actor who works particularly well in the formula of the film as Turgoose’s more reserved other half. Somers Town is automatically realistic in its feel with the use of long scenes and improvisation. This way, the humour that creeps up once or twice does not feel over-rehearsed or thrown in for extra brownie points, but natural and reflective of the subtle and sarcastic comedy that is exclusively connected to the British way of life.

Despite the fact that Somers Town is an apt portrayal of the working class teenager in England, the film does have its flaws. Firstly, the plot seems unstructured and slightly unresolved at the end, which, of course, could be a positive thing, but it is hard to evaluate the film properly without some form of eventful narrative. Therefore, as a viewer, one has to connect solely to the characters which is difficult in such a short time span (the film lasts for a pint-sized 75 minutes). The change from black and white to colour feels a little too obvious in its message and perhaps slightly juvenile for Meadows in its blatant connotation. Other than this, the film is enjoyable and not attention seeking which makes for a good watch but perhaps not a classic for the already acclaimed director.

A Man Escaped or The Wind Bloweth where it Listeth

Robert Bresson 1956

A member of the French Resistance, Fontain, is taken into prison, where he devises a plot to escape.

The film is derived from complete fact, based upon the memoirs of Andre Devigny and is a minimalist, dark and yet very spiritual film. Bresson uses references to God and the Bible throughout, having some of the characters as priests and even naming the film after part of the Bible, John 3:8. However, the role of God and the spiritual are not overplayed as even the main character states that he will not wait around for the Lord to intervene. There is little dialect and the actors used are not actually actors but ‘models’ as Bresson called them; people with little to no experience in acting, a technique used in order to make the performances seem more authentic and legitimate. The fact that the models are not over-acting in order to better their role, means that the characters seem more rounded in the sense that they are going through motions and speech without much notice, a factor that is not only common in humans in captivity but also in the everyday person. Bresson himself expressed how he wanted to display emotion through no emotion, using the suppression of tension progressively from the study of minutia. This being displayed in continuous mundane activities that are repeated again and again.

Tension and hope fluctuate frequently throughout the film, from the activities of Fontain being drawn out endlessly while the audience becomes increasingly aware of his looming death sentence and to the fact that ‘the escape’ is imminent as the past tense 'escaped' of the title implies. However, the viewer still manages to find themselves tense as the situation unfolds , leading up to a climax when the ritual door locking of Fontain's room is at last shown from the outside. A mesmerising, if slightly understated film which I give 4 Stars.

(500) Days of Summer

And so my very own ‘Summer’ ends with one last outing to the flicks to see a long awaited (500) Days of Summer. The one-sided love story about boy, Tom (Joseph Gordon- Levitt) who meets girl, Summer (Zooey Deschanel). Boy falls in love and girl does not. An interesting take on the rom-com and ultimately, a very satisfying film.

Not all of the movie is spot on, though. The narration at the start and end of the film for example, doesn’t seem to fit with the Indy, self-made feel. However, there are many key moments within (500) Days that really stick with the viewer long after seeing the movie. A few of these being, the outings taken to Ikea and the real sense of fun that the actors portray while creating fantasy worlds for themselves, the spontaneous break into dance that Tom experiences after his first night with Summer and the cut-to-the-core scene in which Tom’s hopes are displayed next to reality. Throughout the film, you are constantly having a number of your own thoughts mirrored back at you, like how often you have seen an event going one way only to find it turns unexpectedly in another. Both main actors play their parts well, with Deschanel playing ‘the bitch’ as many of my friends have put it, when really she is a very rounded character who is neither good nor bad, just undecided. And Gordon- Levitt, who rides easily over the wide spectrum of emotions experienced in a relationship, from elation to bed-ridden depression, and all with a sweet, naïve air and very agreeable visage.

What makes the movie seem so fresh and unique (I believe) is that this kind of romantic story has never really been portrayed as a narrative on its own before. It is about the relationship that usually comes before ‘the one’ and has often been overstepped so that a more satisfying story can be told. However, this portrayal of something that will ultimately happen to most of us is an idea to actually be quite fond of, as it is relationships like these that help to create the very fabric of our own personalities.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

It is not frequently that you find yourself (at the age of seventeen) watching a film at the cinema about wizards and magic for the second time in a row. And yet, this time around, the Harry Potter saga has appealed to me quite considerably. Could this be because I feel inclined to see if any of the characters have become more attractive? Possibly. Or that I have nothing better to do now that my long and fairly uneventful summer has started? Almost definitely. Or, it could be that I have begun to realize just how closely me and others my age will feel connected to the characters/actors because I am in fact, ‘growing up’ at the same pace as them.

On reading other reviews, it has become clear to me that most people fancy the film to be unsuccessful in the tricky task of keeping audiences entertained as we reach the climax of the series. Although more often than not, it appears that certain reviewers forget that the movie is not necessarily designed for every person’s taste (it being about spells and teenage angst after all). After running through the first couple of H.P’s before seeing the movie, I am incredibly conscious of just how much the films have gradually evolved to include slicker cuts and better visually appealing scenes. I am not ashamed to say that I believe that this is the best, so far, of all the Potter films because of its simple, yet endearing moments such as when the star and his peer, Professor Dumbledore venture into a cave that has such an eerie mise en scene that even disruptive children in the cinema are awed into silence. This does however, lead me onto a somewhat negative point. Who are the films now aimed at? Children who may have liked the mystifying, if basic, first renditions of the book could now get easily lost in the plots or even affected by some of the more harrowing scenes that are now frequently used in the ‘darker’ Harry Potters.

The answer to this, I think, was answered back in my introduction. The reason I am so inclined to these films all of a sudden is because somewhere in my daft, teenage brain, I have made the connection that I too, no longer look how I did when I started secondary school, have continuous thoughts about the opposite sex but, more importantly, I am now facing huge decisions in my life (granted, these do not include the help/hindrance of a Lord of dark magic) and I find it refreshing that I am able to see film star equivalents go through the same in a fantasy world of wonder.

Enjoying the sunny weather..

As I have explained before, I get bored very easily. So I decided to make use of the sun last weekend and make this video with my dearest chum Lesley. Just a bit of sillyness really :)

Okaaaaay

So. This is my first blog. My blogging cherry has officially been popped (sorry about the imagery there, I was merely setting the tone.. ha! I just used the word merely!) Back to the point. Blogging. This may be quite hard, as I don't find myself particularly interesting and I'm pretty damn sure that not much interesting happens to me. At all. Ever. I mean really, I need to get some hobbies.

You might be wondering who I am. My name's Julia and I am at the ripe old age of 17 (eww, ripe). I tend to have fairly fleeting interests because I get bored VERY quickly. However, I do love photography, films and stories and combos of all three. If I ever do any more of these (which is unlikely as my memory is ridiculous but if I do I swear I will try to cut down on the brackets. Honest) I will probably bring up more sad little things about my life which you really don't want to know.

So anyway, I will only bore you (whoever you are) with my ramblings if I have anything interesting to say which I assure you, will be extreeaaaamly rare. I'll go now, I'm annoying myself.

Julia x