Monday

I think it's important to warn that the second half of the title Marley & Me is almost as important as the first half. The movie is as much about 'Me', the reporter John Grogan, as it is about 'Marley', a slightly insane dog. Mentioning that I'd seen the film to people they would say: 'oh, the dog movie, why did you see that?'. I did wonder as I sat down in the cinema what I was about to watch: there were large groups of young girls sitting with us in the theatre. I turned to Gill and said 'what have you done to me?'. Nonetheless, I can safely say that this is quite an adult film. Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston are suitably heart-warming and sweet, with believable on-screen chemistry. It's a sunny, easy film, not too sentimentally written, although the 'low points' are cushioned and easy to swallow. I wonder if it's destined to be one of those movies that adults in twenty years talk about watching as a child. I think it lacks a dynamic edge to be truly memorable. If you aren't manipulated into tears by the ending, you're a better man than me. Although the site of all the bawling girls did make me start to laugh. I have to say this film succeeds in everything it set out to do, and of course you already know if you want to see it or not. As you might expect, I won't be seeing it again.

Wednesday

In one episode of the Simpsons Homer visits the cinema. He gets irritated that there are so many adverts before the movie. When one of trailers actually makes him laugh, he quickly declares: 'I'm laughing, but it's a laugh of impatience'. There's another joke by Peter Kay that I like. He's in the cinema with his girlfriend when something odd happens on screen and she says 'like that would happen in real life'. He turns to her and says 'We just paid £5 for a bag of popcorn, this isn't a place of reality'. I'm going to the cinema tonight, and again tomorrow. As you may have noticed, I go quite a lot. For me, the cinema never fails to be exciting. There are some people I know who never go, preferring to rent the film and watch it in the comfort of their home. I still do enjoy watching movies at home, but they are different joys. The communal act of watching, of the darkness focusing all of you on the screen, the sound surrounding you completely, cannot be replicated. It's inexplicable, and possibly incommunicable too.

Monday

Vicky Cristina Barcelona is a strange title. There are no commas, and there is no 'h' in 'Cristina'. This, in a roundabout way, does give you a hint toward the tone of the film. It's playful, to say the least. There is a voiceover which I'm still uncertain about - it detaches us from the characters, and in many cases isn't necessary. The voiceover's statements and jokes are so distinctively like Woody Allen, that it would've been interesting to hear him do it. The voiceover gives the film the tone of a travel documentary, which is odd. Unfortunately, like some of his other recent films, the acting is not great. I somehow get the feeling that Woody Allen doesn't let the actors have many takes - although I have no evidence for this suggestion. The film takes a while to become interesting, and it is heightened significantly by the arrival of Penelope Cruz, deservedly an Oscar winner. She not only performs well herself, but raises the level of the other actors around her. The scenery and the photography of it is incredible. I liked this film before I went in, because I like Woody Allen, but I wonder what people who've never seen his movies think. It has a gentle humour, and an engaging dynamic, but it's ending might leave a few people frustrated. Certainly his best film since Matchpoint.

Friday

Two things that might interest you: strandedcinema.co.uk has now ceased to function, primarily because I didn't want to keep paying for it. I didn't feel it was that necessary anyway. Secondly, I've recently noticed a website called strandedcinema.com. It's a lot more professional than my postings, but does seem to have stopped some time in January. What puzzles me is why you would use the name 'stranded cinema'? I personally think it's a pretty bad, inexplicable name for a site about movies. I'm not sure if I've ever explained why I chose it. The Evening Standard was running free cinema tickets - that's why I started posting here. So, I wanted a pun on the newspaper's name. I was also interested in the cinemas that were shutting down across London. I had a recollection of one that used to be on the Strand. So, 'stranded' was vaguely similar to Standard, and also hinted at those cinemas that had been abandoned. What's more, my reviews were going to be stranded, in the sense of a piece of thread, or string of posts. I later found out that the cinema I was thinking of was on Piccadilly, not the Strand, so 'Stranded Cinema' really doesn't make much sense anymore, but it has stuck somehow.

Monday

You may not have known, or been interested to know, that The Lake House, a romance starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, is adapted from a Korean movie called Siworae, or Il Mare. Although this might seem like an irrelevant bit of trivia, I think it is vital to understanding the movie. The tone of this film is distinctly un-American. There are certain Hollywood romances which have a touch of magic, or superstition, to them, but nothing like this. Keanu Reeves moves into a lake house and finds a letter in the mailbox from the previous owner, Sandra Bullock. It soon becomes clear, however, that she is not a previous owner, but one two years in the future. They somehow then begin a correspondence, and fall in love. As you can tell, this is all a bit weird and illogical, and I think it fails as an American film, but I suspect it works as a Korean one. The storyline and themes fit more correctly with Korean cinema and I have a suspicion their conclusion to the film might have been different too. The American version skips over traumatic and serious issues, as well as the illogicality of the whole procedure. Of course, this movie isn't aimed at me, but then I think it also fails its target audience.

Thursday

I'm not sure what to make of Juno. The beginning wasn't promising. She isn't a likable person, and the film, like the character, assumes its own importance. She is already pregnant when we meet her and little is said of the conception. She talks and thinks like an adult, which seems to detract from her depiction as a child (something I baulked at throughout). Gradually, though, as she reveals her sensitivities and humour, you do begin to like her. I finished the film, however, not sure if we are supposed to like her, or the other characters. It's odd. It's a film that fits into the bracket of 'quirky American movie' a bit too easily, when it isn't as funny as Napoleon Dynamite or have the poignancy of Superbad. Moreover, the 'unwanted pregnancy' theme was handled much better in Knocked-Up. The most interesting relationship is between Juno and the character played by Jason Batemen, although this is something that again is never properly resolved. The ending, however, is quite effective, without being too sentimental. Overall, I have to say I won't see the film again unless it happens to be on somewhere already.

Wednesday

Two films that sound like they might work but don't are Deception and The Upside of Anger. They're the kind of films, Deception especially, that probably made a good pitch to a producer, make a good trailer, but fail to deliver over 90 minutes. Deception stars Ewan McGregor as an accountant who is befriended by Hugh Jackman. They accidentally swap phones and McGregor starts receiving calls from anonymous women asking to meet him in hotels and have sex. This all quite intriguing. The problem is that the film then goes off on another tangent and we never really discover what the hotel business was all about. It gets forgotten for a much more routine storyline. The Upside of Anger, on the other hand, suffered either from bad casting, or bad advertising. The problem is that it is a romance, a comedy and a tragedy, and yet none of these. Kevin Costner is also in an unusual role, a retired alcoholic sportsman, probably uncomfortable to his normal audience. Starting from the end and then going back, the voice-over and the lacklustre performances serve to make this an uninteresting film, to me at least, which lost my attention frequently throughout. These are two films that serve to warn you about watching a movie merely because the premise sounds interesting. More often than not, that is all that's interesting about them.