Strangers In A Bed - Charlie McDonnell

Brief summary: A Youtube short film telling the mini story of a younger trainee nurse who is attempting to travel to Newark, USA to meet his long distance boyfriend, Charlie, for the first time, yet ends up sharing a hotel bed with a disgruntled homophobic American on his way to a cowboy funeral. 

One of the first matters to discuss would be the purpose behind this film. Though Charlie's short films can occasionally be genuinely lacking a moral, given the controversy of the topics portrayed here, this felt like there should have been a different, deeper moral to it than just 'don't judge people by their appearances or sexualities'. I guess it raises the issue of 'bigots are people too', in some way, but I'm not really sure that's the healthiest message to take away from it. 

Jack played a really sweet character in the film, and I think what was interesting about his acting is that, from having watched him as Youtuber, you anticipate the sarcasm and the fast wit, something his character goes without. However, looking at his character from an objective point of view, it becomes a natural and believable role. 

I also think they really captured the feel of staying in a hotel, and being away from home in a new country, emphasizing how alienating it can be to be the only Brit in town. The theme of isolation really was highlighted here, in having such a minimal cast and location. Only two sets, two featured characters, the third only contactable by phone, one homosexual, one heterosexual (arguable), one room, one hotel, one bed...Much like Charlie's first film 'The Tea Chronicles', the lonliness and isolation of the characters are keenly but subtly felt, as both the hotel-room guests and the tea drinking housemates appear to have little to no connection to the outside community; unlike his second film 'OFFLINE' in which this isolation is forced and much more of a prominent and exaggerated theme. 

In terms of contextual dialogue I loved Jack's throw away line 'do you want some chocolates? They're British' as that completely summaries the self-conceit of British tourism. We love to travel, but we also all believe you love to have us in your country. We know we're British and adorable. We know everybody loves a Brit. We will rub that in your face until you chase us round the room with an erection and a cowboy hat. 

Not sure how many points can be awarded for Charlie's American accent, however, this in no way impacts the characterisation of his relationship with Jack. It's a very sweet, awkward and charming coupling, which is great, and though more back story would've been great, from a few simple lines 'you can explain it to my parents then' 'it's my first time here' 'we're in the same continent!' the audience can fully understand the basics of their fledgling relationship. 

Another minor point of criticism (only a teeny tiny one) is that I feel labeling it as part 'comedy' seems to be pushing it a little. Whilst not a solidly dry and solemn performance, it's raucous comedy aspects are a little lacking. However, I do fully understand the lack of suitable genres for a film such a this one. Drama, definetly, however this is more of a politically spoken film, rather than a comic one. 

On the soft comic scenes they did include (e.g. Jack in the bath) they timed well, and shot well, in fact. The entire production can't be faulted, as the minimalist set only enhances the audience's focus on the lines and characters involved. The secondary actor to be praised would be John Christian Bateman, as homophobic American roommate Bill. He plays a brilliant role here, and matches the complex part exactly (without meaning to offend him of course).The casting there is a particular highlight of the production. 

Overall, enjoyable, easy to watch, though it may take a few watches for the full effect to really set in. If anything, the realest of the saga, and yet the most simplistic. 

How To Train Your Dragon II

In the follow up to the hit Dreamworks production 'How To Train Your Dragon' (released in 2010), 'How To Train Your Dragon II' comes soaring onto our screens, following the story of Hiccup and Toothless' journey to find a family outside of their own, and through worlds they never believed to exist. 

Voiced by Jay Baruchel, the once young and adorable Hiccup has donned adulthood in style, settling down to his life as the hero of Berk, with the fastest dragon, the prettiest girlfriend and the strongest father in the village. However when Hiccup and Toothless begin to stray too far from the Viking hold, the world outside of Berk reveals itself to be a little less accepting of dragons than they'd originally hoped. 

With so many of Hiccup's relationships at the forefront of the film this time, it made for a refreshing change that they were all portrayed so beautifully, and with such realistic complexity; Hiccup and Astrid, for example, having grown up together since the first film are completely settled in their relationship now, shaking off those dorky, awkward male and female tropes of adolescence, and are shown many times to be comfortable and ease with each other, for good. This type of relationship is one rarely seen in the younger relationships of animation; with most being defined solely through 'true loves kiss' and the occasional heroic rescue, and so to see the two simply sitting together, and greeting each other, and sharing in each other's domestic adventures shows great promise for further Dreamworks films. The relationship between Hiccup, and his father, Stoick (voiced by Gerard Butler) also develops and changes within the plot of the film as well; with the Viking Chief's rising expectations of his son grating against Hiccup's dreams of exploration and freedom. Yet, with the sudden return of Hiccup's supposedly deceased mother Valka, we are introduced to yet another side of Stoick, who really comes into his own role for the predominance of the film. We see him now as not just a Chief, or a father, but as a lover, and protector as well. 

Now, if I am to be completely honest, when I first became aware that Hiccup's mother would be re-introduced into the film, I wasn't expecting it to be that great a plot move; as I worried it might change the focus, and the premise of the film; drawing the attention away from the titular dragon and onto the evolving family dynamics instead. However, after watching the film, it can be said that, without a doubt, Valka's story line and Toothless' go hand in hand, pacing each other for intensity and emotional resonance every step of the way. As, in this film, it's not just Hiccup who finds family in unexpected places. 

One of the highlights of HTTYD2 would have to be the writer's exploration into the dragonkind, and the lore of dragons outside of the isolation of Berk. The audience is introduced to so many new species, kinds, and dragon kin, it really adds to the depth of the film, fleshing out and testing Hiccup and Toothless' bond, emphasizing it against the other human/dragon relationships explored throughout the plot. Another personal favourite would be the elements of humour used to balance out the powerful emotional scenes, as it genuinely is a laugh out loud film, though perhaps not one with jokes and lines a younger audience might understand. 

Though the animated aspect might lead you to suspect a 'kiddies film', all sugar coats and slapstick, it would actually be a push for me to recommend taking young children to see it, as now that Hiccup has grown up, he's facing several issues which may be a little too complex for them to truly understand. Not to mention that many of the scenes are those of battle and fighting, and can be very powerful and intense at times. 

(Sidenote - when I personally went to see it, we went for one of the most popular screening times, yet not one person watching that film was under 17 years of age)

In terms of cinematic viewing, so many of the panoramic shots are so beautifully designed they fail to look like an animation, and it's easy to forget that the forests and seas on screen are simply combinations of paint and pencil. Full credit must go to the artists and animators behind the film, as their work here is breathtaking, and definetly highlights the stand-alone power of the film. It seems to carry everything the ideal animation should; an artistic backdrop, believable relationships, likable, complex characters, the excitement of the magic and fantasy, the innocence of animals - it even has a beautiful musical number, with none of the childish glee of Disney, yet with all the charm and emotion of romance. The film is an award winner, without question, and we will definetly be seeing it in positive reviews to come. 

The Railway Man (2013)

Based on the heartbreaking journey of World War II veteran Eric Lomax, 'The Railway Man' tells the story of one lonely man's mental development, through his new wife Patti (Nicole Kidman), his old friend Finlay, and the re-discovery of his once-torturer and jailer Takashi Nagase.
Told through a series of flashbacks and fast-forwards, Lomax (Colin Firth) is shown to the audience as a man of trauma and a horror; of psychological warfare, and secrets, something Patti is determined to change when her husband's night terrors and panic attacks return the day after their wedding. A beautiful couple, these two have such touching chemistry it would be hard not to like them, however, both actors appear a little two young to obtain such an old relationship; with both Kidman and Firth looking decades younger than the supporting soldiers, all of whom fought alongside Lomax in the war. They act and move as older characters as well, and whilst this presence is commended, it fails to show on their faces, giving the effect a very dramatic edge - something a film as powerful as this really didn't need.
Playing a young Lomax, however, is 'War Horse' actor Jeremy Irvine, who creates an absolutely blinding performance here, pushing innocence and intelligence to the limits amidst the dry and cracked background of his Japanese prison. In terms of actors, director Jonathon Teplitzky appears to have opted for quantity over quality, and putting the issue of age aside, it really does work here, for the plot and the story are the real stars here, and the audience can feel the care taken with these issues, and the importance of them against the overshadowing of half a a dozen Hollywood stars and celebrity faces taking over the scenes.
Set to work in Japan's 'Death Railway', the British army, Lomax at the helm, are beaten and battered in shame over Britian's surrender in the second World War, and tortured brutally in response to the simply homely act of building a one way radio to listen to the London airwaves, and to hear a little bit of home. The conditions of the railway are designed brutally; the stifling heat and isolation almost burning through the screen, and the punishments predictably heavy and heart-wrenching. A controversial point to be made would be that, though the initial act of torture is dutifully unpleasant, having already seen the repeated and flinchingly enforced brutality of 12 Years A Slave, personally, this scene felt a little over worked, something built up to for a good portion of the film, but lasting only seconds on the screen.
The conclusion, and in a way, climax of the film, was admittedly, stunning. Firth plays an absolutely staunch performance in the final few scenes, leaving every single member of the audience in absolute bewilderment as to his actions when confronted with his old jailer, and questioning even themselves in their moral responsibilities as the credits roll.
A heart-felt, and carefully performed film, perhaps not a family classic, but a softly played and touchingly embracing movie - think The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas, but less cinematic.

12 Years A Slave (2013)

Typically the subject of many a memorable High School  History class, the issue of slavery is one attempted by so few directors, and creators, with the last being Michael Apted's beautiful, and yet ultimately white-man heroic 'Amazing Grace'. A biographical drama, 'Amazing Grace' was both uplifting, and heartbreaking, drawing parallels from many a star-studded Holocaust trauma, but, did ultimately lacked the powerful statement of independence within the enslaved. So, whilst these films showed the bravery of a privileged against a privileged, '12 Years A Slave' did something different.
And they did it brilliantly.
Telling the true story of freedman's son Solomon Northup; '12 Years A Slave' shows the entirety of a rich, and all too kindly man dragged kicking and screaming into mistaken captivity, pulled away from his family, and into the brutal life of a slave named 'Platt'. Chiwetel Ejiofor (previously of Love Actually, RedBelt, and Children Of Men) plays an absolutely gut-wrenching performance in this, wiping all other characters out in his breathtaking portrayal of resolution, and hatred, and sorrow, and desire, and everything everyone thinks a slave should never feel. Ejiofor doesn't play the part, he is the part. He is himself in the worst of positions, and he never falters in this conduct, pulling everything out of his repertoire to do this role the justice it deserves.
Taken from heartbreak to heartbreak, he is beaten, bruised and bottled away, hiding any semblance of intelligence for fear of a use worse than endless cotton picking. Benedict Cumberbatch, too, plays a genuine role of sweetness and underlying goodness, something much needed in such a dark setting, with his very first line bursting forth 'have you no mercy, man?' before taking his place as Solomon's first master. A secondary reviewer of this film called his character 'perhaps the cruelest of them all', a line which embodies so much, as through his kindness and sympathy for his slaves, rescuing them from the unflinching gazes of murderous overseerer's, saving the children, respecting the men for who they are, he teaches them nothing of the real life they face. Cumberbatch's presence in the film is felt desperately by characters and audience alike, and it's with a genuine slight to the heart that Solomon is pulled away from him, and presented to his next owners.
Insane, and tyrannical, Michael Fassbender, and Sarah Paulson play married couple, Mr and Mrs Edwin Epps, and to the best of their abilities, they are villains. They are wicked, and evil, with no excuses made, and no sympathy to be found for them. Both play their roles fantastically well, though personally, I for one, will never quite look at Fassbender the same after this deadly performance.
For the one, small criticism I have; There is a sense that Pitt's role within the film has been overplayed heavily. Though he directs predominantly, it should be said that his actual character has very little screen time, and too few lines to be actually remembered as significant, so for those drawn to the film expecting a glorified Hollywood starlet performance, lower your expectations. It seems his name counts for more in the trailer, than his actual role in the film does.
However, from plotlines, to performances, and in setting, and symbolical meaning, it's a deafening watch, and it feels important, somehow, in today's world. Midst comedies, and love stories, and tragedies, this is a story, and it is a story that needs to be told, and watched, and understood; it is a film that will surely go down in history.

American Hustle (2013)

With a cast littered in stars, from 'Hunger Games' actress Jennifer Lawrence, to the 'Avengers 'Jeremy Renner, 'American Hustle' had the clean cut promise of being this year's 'Now You See Me'; assurances of drama, wit, intelligence, shock! We wanted sensuality dripping off our screens, passion pulsating from the heels of the long legged girls who strut across our screen, mocking the deservedly mocked, for all their smug idiocy and fool-hardy misplaced trust. I, myself, anticipated a long, drawn out scheme, executed perfectly, stealing thousands of glittering dollars from the grubby hands of the band's ideal victim, sauntering off in the end, proving to the world that life can be clever, if only taken from the right perspective.

I got a 70's fashion disaster in sleazy America, with an overweight man and a woman with a poor accent, working in a dry cleaners.

Main character Irving Rosenfeld, lives, breathes and eats money; escaping the lives of his depressed and neurotic wife (Lawrence), and small, half-neglected son Danny, neither of whom are willing to divorce him from their existence, despite his wish for them to do so. Christian Bale plays an interesting performance here, not quite moving, but not quite laughable either. His character seems to portray desperation for the predominance of the film, which does come off well, but this seems to be the only emotion he conveys. His beautiful wife Sydney, played by 'Leap Year's' Amy Adams has a slightly more in-depth role, acting as not only a real life partner, but a fake British business partner, a seductive criminal mastermind, and an awkward if kindly step-mother to Danny. The one scene I would personally commend both her, and her on-screen counterpart, rogue FBI agent Bradley Cooper, on,is the pin-drop silence of the almost sex-scene between the two, the 'so close and yet so far' atmosphere becoming almost tangible within both the characters and the audience itself.

It should also be said, however, that Cooper does play his role well; for the insanity that is his role, anyway. His heart set on catching the two hustlers, his character Richie drives himself wild,using and abusing them to catch further scam-artists in the act, from low-money art thieves, to highly complex corruption cases within the political field of Jersey. His sweaty, yet stupidly ignorant portrayal is believable as a character, if a little high maintenance, but in the end, his downfall is satisfying to say the least.
A personal favourite amongst this bewildering cast is, possibly, the only half-decent character of the lot. Renner plays a sweet, if a little clumsy Mayor Carmine Polito, who from the very beginning shows himself to be a hands down family man, taking bullets both for his people, and for the people holding the gun, in this case. Whilst he does get a decent amount of screen time in this film, enough for the audience to warm to him anyway, if I were being honest, I would've preferred to see him in the starring role instead, rather than the depressing and 'sore-thumb' castings of Irving in the mix. Jennifer Lawrence is another, for though her acting is, as ever, flawless, her character appears to be walking contradiction of mental war-zone, and intelligence through ineptitude, as though she spends her day whining and sobbing over her depression and crippling social anxiety, when required of her, she willing and confidently storms down a party with Irvine, meeting Carmine's family with the ease of a high-class socialite, frustrating both the audience and the supporting characters apparently, judging by their reactions to the scene.

Even the plot itself is sticky, and awkward. No one seemed quite sure which heist they performing at any given time. There seemed to be too much going on, it was too busy. There were love triangles where they needed to be less, and there were less crimes than needed to be committed. Far from the gripping, slick scenes of 'Now You See Me', this was an un-enjoyable mish-mash of sober comedy attempts, and confusing gaping storylines, none of which had any great impact on the audience as a whole. If I were to award it in terms of stars, there would be few of those too.

The Hunger Games Trilogy: Catching Fire

Recently released, and ridiculously well reviewed, the film sequel to Suzanne Collin's dystopian teen novel 'The Hunger Games' came bursting onto our screens in a violent flash of black, gold and orange, in the explosive new 'Catching Fire'. 

Given the unquestionable success of it's predecessor, 'Catching Fire' had so much to live up to; and so many high expectations to fulfill. It needed to be brilliant, and brutal; heartbreaking and horrifying, electric and ecstatic...and it was. 

From the very first scene you are thrown straight back into the lives of District 12 as if you'd never left, and far from being a slow burner, it draws you in almost instantly to Katniss' present; a very different Katniss from the one we left behind. Traumatized, she's both opened and closed herself off. She fears her bow, and herself, but is a much more vulnerable and co-dependent character now, unashamed of her emotions in front of her family, struggling to keep up the pretense in front of the cameras of the Capitol. Jennifer Lawrence plays a stunning portrayal of this, giving Katniss such a real feeling, a non-fictional touch, that it makes her story even more absorbing and touching, in the melting and hardening of her heart. Props in particular go to her performance in the scenes from District 11; in the breathtaking deliverance of the universe she is now nailed to, and the battle she goes through to keep herself alive within it. 

Her co-stars, as well, should be applauded, as both boys, Josh Hutcherson, (Peeta), and Liam Hemsworth (Gale), play such gritty, emotional roles so beautifully, whether it be in Gale's torture, and his anger, or in Peeta's pain, and the gentleness he uncovers from it. A spotlight really is shone on this particular aspect of Peeta, as whilst Katniss may draw a few stolen kisses from Gale, it is easy to see these are kisses of home and of District 12, where kisses are good enough to answer unanswerable questions, it is Peeta who takes both, who takes the kisses as false, and pulls the words of everywhere out from inside her hardened soul. Hutcherson is given an incredibly endearing role in this, and whilst this may characterization was a little sickly-sweet in 'The Hunger Games', it is almost as if we are seeing it through Katniss' eyes, in that she too found it overwhelming and irritating, this endless goodness, but now, against the background of anger and fear, it's the only thing holding her together. 

A slight problem I did find, in the adaptation, was the notable under-use of the supporting characters. Whilst this is understandable, given that so much of the film was dependent on the relationship of the three main icons, it was a little disappointing that such ingenious characters, like Beetee and Wiress, were given such little screentime, and such shallow characterization. From reading the books, obviously, we appreciate their importance within the story, but for a movie-only viewer, they're portrayed a little useless, really. This is also true of Finnick, and Mags, as their back stories, which are so crucial to the audience's understanding of them as characters is significantly lacking, meaning we get quite a distorted view of them, and could prompt a slight dis attachment from them in comparison to the love of other characters. This could all, of course, be an intelligent symbolic move on behalf of the screen-writers, in the parallels between the context of the book, in that the horrific truth of the games is trivialized compared to the love story, and the publication of the film, where fans care more about the Gale-Katniss-Peeta love triangle than the struggles of the Arena, and the rebellions of the Districts. 

However, one of my ultimate favourite things about this film would have to be it's cinematic glory. Whether it's watched in a cinema, on a tablet, TV or laptop, it is impossible to miss the absolute beauty, and color of the scenes in the movie. From the Mockingjay dress, and the howler monkey cove, to the lightening tree, and the snow covered District 12, every image is breathtaking, and it's almost impossible to take in everything all at once. And, without giving away any spoilers, the grand finale is possible one of the most stunning cinematic shots I have ever seen, in any film ever. 

In it's casting, it's costume, it's cinematography and, most importantly, in it's relation to the books (10 out of 10 for that), 'Catching Fire' is jaw-droppingly good, and no matter who you ship, who you hate, who you love, and who you root for, you will not be disappointed.  

Doctor Who: Day of the Doctor

The Day of the Doctor. The 50th anniversary of the longest running science-fiction television show in history.
This is an episode fans have been waiting for 50 long years to see; the culmination of 13 doctors, 2 re-births, 1200 years, 11 TARDIS', 77,0000 viewers, one star-dipped cast; all building up to the single greatest episode in BBC's long history.
And it was ok.
The episode starts in a typical fashion, with 11 and Clara reuniting to answer a summons from an important historical figure and travelling off across the universe to find out what they want. And then we're introduced to the War Doctor. And then Rose comes back. And then Queen Elizabeth I comes out of the TARDIS riding on the back of a horse with the Tenth Doctor. And then a big timey-wimey hole opens up in the middle of the universe and they all somehow fall into an unpredicted Zygon take-over in the middle of sixteenth century Tudor England.
Story wise, yes, it was good. And it was, by far, one of the most entertaining and exciting episodes of Doctor Who to date. But it didn't make sense. Essentially, the premise of the episode is that the supposed 'War Doctor' is in fact the eighth Doctor, played by the legendary John Hurt, on the eve of committing one of the worst crimes in science-fiction history: the genocide of his own people. So, in an 'Ebeneezer Scrooge'-style twist, he is sent forwards in time to experience the consequences of his decision by none other than the interface of the killing machine itself; in the form of old companion, Rose Tyler.
And this is where it gets confusing. A great deal of the episode is centered around the interaction of the three Doctors, (Hurt, Tennant and Smith) and the glorious things they achieve together, using the memories and calculations of their previous incarnations, and whilst this is an incredibly clever idea, it does have it's major flaws. Now, as a beloved fan of the Rose/Ten companionship, I, and many other fans with me, were sincerely disappointed that, in having lost and found each other and lost each other again so many times, in this one final episode, they did not interact once. In fact, the episode goes so far as to put them in the same room, up against the same wall, and yet he cannot see her, speak to her, or even become aware of her existence beside him, due to the fact that she is, essentially, inside the War Doctor's mind. But yet, considering this, and considering the fact that both Ten and Eleven can vividly remember meeting their previous selves in this meeting, and can remember being taken to see themselves on the eve of this decision, it would surely suggest that they remember a Rose-shaped interface being the one to take them there as well? No? And even when Hurt exclaims 'Thank you Bad Wolf Girl!' and reveals her existence to the two Doctors, we are only a given a brief  'did you just say Bad Wolf Girl?' from Ten, which is then ignored without explanation. So again, whilst an intelligent idea, perhaps a little too advanced to be 100% plot-hole proof.
On top of this, we had the use of Queen Elizabeth I, played by Gavin and Stacey star, Joanna Page, whose role, whilst witty and well cast, unfortunately retained the standard characterization method used by all royally-written characters of Doctor Who (see Queen Victoria, Liz, and countless other's, all of whom have fallen victim to the lazy writing of Steven Moffat).
And finally, the feel of the episode. Whilst this may just be my personal take on the series, I just feel, in general, that Doctor Who has lost so much of it's original allure, and the sacrality it boasted in the first few series, under the writing of fan favourite, Russell T Davies. It's gotten too confusing, too complicated, and to go into it having missed only one episode the week before you could wind up finding half of the history dug up, wiped out and re-written by the egotistical authors who think it's 'time for a new approach to the show'.
The role of the Doctor used to be a beautiful thing. It used to be what children grew up aspiring to be. 'The Doctor' was the height of acting standard. It was the most commemorated casting in television.
And now... so what? People don't care anymore. No one knows what's happening, who's playing who, who lived and who died, who the companion is, which aliens to love and to hate. In today's TV land, people care more about who dropped an egg in The Great British Bake Off than who the Twelfth Doctor's going to be.
So, in conclusion, whilst it was nice to see some of the old favourites return, from David Tenant to Tom Baker, overall, both the episode, and the series, have lost their magic, and it's going to take something big to bring it back.