Beview

Film Premiere and Review - Pudsey the Dog: The Movie

Woof woof, there's a new star in tinseltown and it's a dancing dog! The adorable Pudsey shot to fame in series 6 of Britain's Got Talent in 2012, and straight into the nation's dog-loving hearts. I mean, who could resist a dog that cute!? Not forgetting his (human) owner/trainer Ashleigh too, who is Pudsey's other half but is slightly less cute... Anyway, Pudsey is now back in the spotlight with his very own movie. Produced by Simon Cowell (who else?), it sees Pudsey causing mischief and mayhem in the countryside as he helps save the village and save the day. A tried and tested formula for a classic family movie - and it can't hurt by adding a cute dog to the mix. The movie Wikipedia page is looking a bit bare at the moment, so I'll do my best to fill you in...

I had the pleasure of attending the premiere, which was executed to the theme extremely well. Kudos to the PR people for that. A "be the star of the poster" photoshoot, kids getting their caricature done, free bone-shaped biscuits and much more. For the first time in a while, I felt like a kid again. Hell, I ran straight for the biscuits! Anyway, Leicester Square had a healthy buzz of fans waving Pudsey flags (kudos again), and saw the return of other BGT faces like this year's winners Collabro. Funny story, whilst picking up my tickets in the hotel lobby, I was actually standing around with said winners without realising. Unfortunately, they're more difficult to recognise when they're not all standing together side by side and singing Les Mis songs. I digress; back to the review...

I won't paint you a picture of perfection. Pudsey: The Movie, when you strip it down, is a basic film - but then again, what did you expect? The formerly stray dog are taken in by a family who have packed up and moved to the fictional rural Chuffington. There's the mum (Jessica Hynes), teenage daughter Molly (Izzy Meikle-Small) and sons George and Tommy. And of course, the latest troublemaking family member Pudsey, voiced by a very enthusiastic David Walliams. You have to applaud the cast for creating a vaguely believable family, and bringing a voiceless dog to life. Logically, Pudsey vocalises his thoughts only - I don't think the world is quite ready for a dancing and talking animal just yet. Having said that, I found his voice very distracting at times. It's quintessentially Walliams. It's funny, but not necessarily in the way the producers intended... You have to appreciate the whole BGTness, if anything. Although I have to strongly add that even though Amanda Holden is strongly billed across all the trailers and bus posters, she is the voice of a dog for about... 3 lines?

The film is filled with sweet moments, even if they don't always actually make sense. The importance of family love, friendship and loyalty. But I don't think a film like Pudsey is looking to go that deep. There are breakdancing dogs, dogs running wild around London, massively exaggerated villains (so exaggerated, they may as well have added the mandatory prosthetic nose with the warts), communicating animals including a pig who thinks he's a hen... The kids in the cinema giggled uncontrollably at the childish jokes, so I think the crude quips and poo jokes went down well with the target audience. The adults can quietly chuckle whilst counting the number of dog-related puns the producers managed to fit in, and the ode to Babe and other animal in-jokes. And one very questionable innuendo. Moving on...

Many critics seem to have been very quick to universally pan this Hollywoof film. I can't completely agree, because I did enjoy myself and I did enjoy the film. It made me laugh and it made me smile, and I didn't go into the cinema expecting 90%+ on Rotten Tomatoes or anything. It's a feel-good family film and I think it ticks enough boxes to do just that. As soon as you accept that this is a silly harmless film aimed at kids, you realise it's not necessarily a film you should tear apart with your paws and claws and all. Sure, the storyline is predictable, but I can appreciate the Pudsey camera tricks, and a fun 90- minute adventure which manages to utilise the dog's dance abilities. Also, credit to Ashleigh who is out of the spotlight but is equally as important. (And truthfully I did leave the cinema slightly biased thanks to the free fruit bowls.) I'm not sure if you're still feeling the "OMG IT'S A DANCING DOG" hype, but if you have kids, take them along and they'll have a blast. If not, I hear Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is out now!?

Friday, July 18, 2014
0 Comments

Film review: The Fault in our Stars

ansel elgort

I write this review fresh from the cinema, tear-stained face, red eyes and all. The thing is, The Fault in our Stars is one of those films where you walk into the light of the real world beyond the screen, still filled with emotion and breathlessness. This is something I'm excited to write about, with the film still very raw in my recent memory. I mean, for ages we've all heard critics raving about how wonderful the book is, but seeing how that is translated onto the big screen is a whole other story. (I've tried to keep this as spoiler-free as possible, but if you're reading this and debating whether or not to see the film, go see that first then come back soon!)

The Fault in our Stars is a film adaptation of John Green's bestselling novel, all about living and dying, and the love story of 16 year old Hazel Grace Lancaster and Augustus Waters. She's a thyroid cancer patient who recognises that her time is limited, and he's now cancer-free following a leg amputation. I read TFIOS only several weeks ago, and this was after months and months of repeatedly being recommended it but still putting it off. I guess you could say I am part of the target audience of this book/film, and you'd be absolutely right. I felt all the emotions the author John Green (subtly) poured into the soul of the book and their protagonists Hazel and Augustus. The characters, despite their tragic experiences with cancer, offer a refreshing view to such an often-taboo subject. He's a leather jacket sporting guy, whose refusal to light a cigarette is poignant. Written as a confident, good-looking and optimistic teenager, he lifts the main character, Hazel Grace Lancaster, into a place filled with metaphors and wisdom beyond their years.

Ansel Elgort was not how I initially imagined Augustus after reading the book, but I was completely won over by his performance in the film. It's so easy to believe that he is crazy in love with Hazel; an Ansel smile and those puppy dog eyes are all it takes (am I being a little biased here?). The film revolves around the two individuals, as well as their relationship, and Augustus is so much more than a pretty-faced love interest. Ansel captures the likeable essence of Gus, from the intelligent humour and take on life, to the vulnerabilities. And of course there's the incredible performance from Shailene Woodley in yet another remarkable role. Again, writing from a fan-of-the-book perspective, I couldn't have thought up a better translation from script to screen. From a critical point of view too, she's spot on. From the quips, the stand-off with "douche-pants" Peter van Houten, the "little infinities" speech (which had me in hysterics) to the tears which never give away fabrication of any sort. The chemistry between the two is more than believable. In a world where films about teenage romance are literally everywhere, this is an example of where teenage romance is so genuine, and you're rooting for them not just because the director wants you to. Both actors arguably have their stars on the rise. They're like a rollercoaster that keeps going up....

Hazel's narratives in the film work well to include Hazel's musings in the book. They're littered here and there but not powerful enough to detract from what's going on, plus there's something awfully honest in Woodley's voice alone. For example, "I fell in love the way you fall asleep: slowly, and then all at once." What a bloomin' good metaphor. Readers of TFIOS will recognise passages word-for-word, and then realise that the film is actually (unlike many others) very faithful to the original material. It works; it's complete, like putting a face to a name. There are minor changes I observed (namely the ex-girlfriend, a few minor characters, and a slight technicality with the ending), but nothing too extreme or controversial. The supporting characters, particularly Isaac and Hazel's parents, are also well cast with the flawed mother-daughter relationship being surprisingly human and real.

I can't complete this review without a brief comment on the soundtrack. This includes a nice accreditation for Vivaldi, and other more-popularised tracks such as Charli XCX's Boom Clap, Kodaline's All I Want (which has me on the edge of tears when I hear it on a happy day), and obviously the credits song All of the Stars by Ed Sheeran. They all offer an emotion, whether joy or heartbreak, in perfect harmony with the film.

I won't go on about the emotional side to it. It's a film about cancer, it's a well-known tearjerker, and most people go in with an inkling (or full knowledge) of what's going to happen. Yet there's still something about the combination of everything (the simplicity of the filmmaking, the music, the acting) which delivers the punch harder than you're expecting it.

Of course I can't comment on the perspective of those watching without having read the book, which I expect would have been many. Since I like the novel, and made references to it in order to fill in any gaps, I was able to let things slide - like the way Gus is so into her before they've even met, with the whole eye contract across the room thing, and so idealistically upfront about it. Is that realistic, or is that just my hopeless romantic side wishing wistfully? Ok, making out in the Anne Frank House is not a clever idea (but the readings of the diary in the background make it make sense), and the Peter van Houten/An Imperial Affliction part is probably not explained well enough to those who have no idea who Anna is.

TFIOS is by no means a perfect film, but I do think the essence of the book was captured well, the acting brought the characters to life, and I was more than satisfied as a reader watching a film adaptation of a good book. Ok, so the "girl meets boy and they fall in love story but there's a twist" is a little predictable and I understand if viewers find it all a bit cheesy. But if you can see past that, you can witness a beautifully-told celebration of defying the things that threaten you, the fragility of living and more importantly, the magic and honesty of falling in love for the first time, and living in the face of dying.

Tuesday, July 01, 2014
0 Comments

(More) ones to watch!

days of future past

Sunday, May 11, 2014
0 Comments

New label alert: VLabel London

fashion

Tuesday, April 22, 2014
0 Comments

Wanting what you can't have

wanting what you can't have

I recently gave up two loves of my life for Lent: chocolate, and crisps. And even more recently, we were reunited. Over the 40 days, I would kick myself for giving up both, and count down the days to crisps. Chocolate was slightly easier, as I'd completely innocently bent the rules for "The Rules" to exclude Nutella and hot chocolate, so I was never really totally deprived of chocolate... But still, it was a tough 40 days. Now it's over, I've abused the ability to have chocolate a tad too much, but I'm not really bothered by crisps. A classic case of wanting what you can't have (and in the crisp case, not wanting what you can have when you can have it!).

Is this why we play hard to get? Or why "unrequited" is an actual word? The game's all in the chase - for some, anyway. If someone's not interested, it makes it more interesting, because now it's some sort of mission for your inner savvy agent and there's the fixation that won't go away until you have it (which will be never). The idea of making the impossible (aka "can't have"), possible (aka "have"). When you're single, you miss being in a relationship. When you're in a relationship, you miss being single. You secretly want to be famous, but once everyone's screaming your name, there's suddenly nothing more desirable than "a normal life". Obviously this isn't the case for everyone, but it does happen. Fortunately, my only real experience of this is Le Lent Crisp situation. Totally the same thing....

It's plain to see in some cases. Everyone knows that Channing Tatum is happily (and incredibly adorably) married, but it doesn't stop you pining over those Magic Mike abs, does it?

When I had a pretty serious jaw operation several years ago (with a 6 month recovery period), I couldn't eat solids properly for 2 months. Besides baby food and soup, I wanted good ol' junk food (think choc n' crisps) but physically couldn't eat. The solution? Crush some chocolate up and make a milkshake, and having what I couldn't have. The conclusion? Wanting what you can't have is a real thing. A quick Google search will tell you all about extrinsic motivators and driving satisfaction through the need for dopamine and all that.

It's not all doom and gloom though. I can't have an all-expenses trip around the world with 5* yachts and personal chefs and champagne around the clock, but then again I don't particularly want it. There are plenty of people I can't "have", but that doesn't mean I "want" them. Let's face it: David and Victoria are meant to be together. Just because wanting what you can't have exists, doesn't mean it's a common occurrence and will - or should - particularly affect you. There's always been the whole grass is greener psychology, but the truth is, there's so much to enjoy from what you already have. There is a simple, admirable beauty of being satisfied with what you have, no matter how great or small that is.

There are loads and loads of needs and wants out there, but the state of not having something shouldn't have to be the most important reason to want to have it.

(If that makes sense? If not, think crisps. Everything is clearer with crisps.)

PS. Who said you can't have it anyway? As Will Smith in The Pursuit of Happyness once said...Don't ever let somebody tell you... You can't do something... You got a dream... You gotta protect it. People can't do somethin' themselves, they wanna tell you you can't do it. If you want somethin', go get it. Period.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014
0 Comments

#SELFIE (more selfie stuff)

#selfie

Wednesday, March 12, 2014
0 Comments

To selfie or not to selfie?

facebook

Selfies.

This is a big topic. Selfies are kind of "so 2013" with the whole Oxford Dictionary shebang and all, fuelled by the Snapchat revolution. We've had this love affair with good-angle-good-light self-portraits for some time, but last year really cemented it for good. Now celebrity selfies are frequently making the showbiz headlines, and it has become a daily occurrence to see Girl On Bus pulling ridiculous faces in front of her phone. In fact, it's hilarious sitting behind someone and not seeing their face, but instead being able to see the phone screen and the funny photo in all it's 5-second glory. For the record, Girl On Bus has never been me. I'm always the stifled laughter you hear two rows back.

Anyway, selfies are an unsurprising "thing" now. They're so common, the Obamas and the Oprahs are doing it. Selfie with a cat (done that), selfie with a filter (current profile pic, I'm afraid), selfie with a celeb (my personal fave is the David Tennant one)... Nina Nesbitt even wrote a song about taking pictures of yourself. And she named it, uh, "Selfies". However, despite the tongue-in-cheek music video, she has a very valid point acknowledging that selfies display the life we want to show you. That sunshine selfie is basically saying, "hey look at me, the weather here is great"; the sunglasses and sunbeam in the background juxtaposes with the horribly gloomy grey clouds outside your own window. That post-gym selfie is the evidence they were actually at the gym and they want everyone to know it, up for all to see when you yourself are at home munching on a doughnut. Cue guilt. And so on and so forth...

But we live in a Facebook generation where it is so easy to untag yourselves from those unflattering photos so that only the ones where you look fab are next to your name. Instagram have filters that are pretty much guaranteed to make any photo look fantastic. That applies to selfies too - why would we upload a photo if we know we look bad in it anyway? What I'm trying to say is that if you are comparing your life to the glamorous lives posted in people's photos, you'll only make yourself paranoid and upset. It sounds like common sense but it's so easy for the your-life-looks-so-much-better-than-mine mindset to slip through without realising it's actually happening. It's what we were all warned about with the models in the glossy magazines, except now the subjects of attention are our own friends. That applies to general posts and statuses too. You're only seeing the highlights of someone's life: the good hair days, the holidays, the nice cheery smiles where you're not blinking... You never see the whole picture. You're seeing what they want you to see. (Of course, we know this already because it works both ways.)

At the same time, I'm not ridiculing the sharing of selfies because I do it all the time myself. I think there's nothing to be ashamed about. It's great that we no longer need to splash out on a day in a photography studio to produce a photo that we're proud to share. A multifunctional phone does the trick perfectly these days. I think Snapchat is a crazy but very cool idea, and I love that we have become fearless at sharing photos with our friends where we look (albeit intentionally) dreadful. That sunshine selfie? Guilty as charged, but it'll be one of my favourite photos where I can remember how lovely that holiday was. Selfie with a celeb? These things were meant for sharing! The good hair days? Celebrate them with a photo, because let's face it: not every day is a good hair day. I've never done a post-gym selfie, but I can imagine they'll keep you well-motivated so I may have to resort to starting a collection...

Selfies can make you bold and brave and confident. They have the ability to capture a perfect moment in time. Whether we like them or loathe them, they really are here to stay. Heck, even my dad has become a fan of them (although he doesn't know what they're called. And let's keep it that way, because it would be too weird if he started using the phrase, "I'm just taking a cheeky selfie.") At the same time, there is such a thing as oversharing (like, I really don't want to see x100000 cute pics of you and your other half, no matter how cute you are together). Equally, selfies are just a light-hearted, one-sided representation of life which are by no means the full picture. Ever; they've most likely been cropped anyway!

In celebration of selfies... here are some of my own!

The filtered selfie:

The cat selfie:

The David Tennant selfie:

And as for the 5.30am selfie? Or the "I'm freezing and wearing 10 layers" selfie? Or the one where I'm blinking in the bright light of the flash? Nothing to show here; I wonder why....

Tuesday, February 25, 2014
0 Comments

Pages

Film Premiere and Review - Pudsey the Dog: The Movie

Film review: The Fault in our Stars

(More) ones to watch!

New label alert: VLabel London

Wanting what you can't have

#SELFIE (more selfie stuff)

To selfie or not to selfie?

About me

Follow Us

Contact

Blog Archive