Well, this was an intense thought I had to write down...

Can we ever trust our own judgement?

Everyone tries to be "right". Everyone thinks they're right, nobody honestly thinks they're wrong- otherwise what's the point?

Don't mistake "right" for being "good". Some people happily admit they're terrible, foul people... but they still think they're right. Everyone feels they have their right to be whatever they choose. Even if you're forced into doing something you don't think is "right", the person forcing you thinks they're "right" and you think you're "right" for thinking they're wrong.

But how can you trust what you think? How can anyone? Since when did we delude ourselves in thinking what we think is right is... well, "right"? The whole reason we argue is to defend what we believe in and what we believe in is correct.
Why doesn't anyone have the brutal honesty to stop and not trust themselves? Just because you're not mentally challenged doesn't mean what you think is going to be correct. And for the mentally unstable ones, it takes guts to resign yourself to that harsh reality of realizing what you believe to be right is not. But then again, who is to decide that what you believe isn't right in the first place? When the mentally unstable integrate back into society, are they really correcting themselves? And even then, which society? There are many societies, religions, cultures etc. that have different expectations of morals and what is "right".

How an earth do you convince yourself that what you think or believe in is correct? Is it confidence, arrogance or ignorance? When the complex human being realizes it is wrong, it quickly resolves this by correcting him/herself. Noble, yes, but how can you be sure? Is it a "gut feeling" you go upon? How can you trust your own judgement? How do you know you're not mentally unstable??

Leon/The Professional

If I should briefly summarize what I felt at the end of this film, I'd use the word: disappointment.

Let me clarify myself here: this, by no means, was a bad film. My disappointment actually came from my own expectations. What I was prepared for when sitting down to watch this film was a slick, cool action thriller about assassins. That's what any film which includes assassin's usually are, I didn't get what I was prepared for.

Leon, or The Professional, is a French thriller starring Jean Reno as the titular character. He's a hitman working for the mob. I had to look up what the difference is between "Assassin" and "Hitman". There is no difference, but somehow being called a hitman seems a little more... sleazy.

Leon doesn't even refer to himself as a hitman, or an assassin or a killer or a murderer. He calls himself a "cleaner", a somewhat insightful title that alternates the typical image of a hitman in our minds. When twelve-year-old Mathilda (Natalie Portman in her debut film) asks what he does for a living, he calmly replies he is a "cleaner", perhaps as an attempt at protecting her innocence and casting himself into a falsified good light. This seems to contradict though, as he continues to try and protect Mathilda's innocence he does so by degrading himself, knowing deep down, in a moral sense, that his lifestyle isn't to be indoctrinated into her.

Mathilda herself is a dark character and she's quite well-written. Despite this, her development was my biggest disappointment. The first half of the film gives the impression that she will become a ruthless child assassin, as she certainly has the right character for it. She becomes Leon's protégée after her family are massacred by a corrupt DEA agent (Gary Oldman). The scene building up to her family's murder is quite impressive, Mathilda manages to narrowly escape the clutches of her family's murderers by simply walking past her apartment door and knocking on Leon's, her neighbour. I liked this because it seemed to be a plausible situation that Mathilda found herself in, and she dealt with it in a way a logical character would, she remained as calm and thought fast. Though this was an impressive feat of Mathilda's character, I couldn't shake off the sense that she should have been older. It felt wrong to be putting a twelve-year-old in the middle of this turmoil, it was almost disturbing in a way.

Mathilda's age is a big issue for me. Though, prior to watching this film, I felt okay with the idea of a twelve-year-old assassin. I imagined Mathilda to be in the same characterization of O'Ren Ishii of Kill Bill- same principle of a young girl, witnessing her family murdered, swears revenge, becomes an assassin in order to achieve it. Despite Mathilda's thirst for revenge, she fails to succeed due to her childish ways. This is when the figurative punch of reality hit me in the face... Mathilda is TWELVE. Even more disturbing, she replicates the mirror image of my younger sister when she was twelve, hairstyle, gangly body and facial features. Suddenly, Mathilda's transformation is much more personal to me. Do I really wish for this young girl to dedicate her life to killing for hire? In Hollywood, sure, I could switch off and admire the idea for its abstract appeal, but realistically? If I'd known a pre-teen girl who's family was murdered, would I really aid her in extracting revenge?

While this thought circled my head it seemed like Leon was asking himself the same thing. Though he begins to value his student and takes her on a surprisingly comical "Take your kid to work" day, he knows deep down he's doing Mathilda wrong. When Mathilda begins to proclaim her love for Leon, the feel of the film starts getting "Lolita"-themed. It was expected, of course, but the image of my younger sister refused to leave me. Every time little pubescent Natalie Portman gives hints, unashamedly tells people that she is Leon's "lover", attempts to sneak provocative kisses and plays "dress up" as Marilyn Monroe- my mind grasps firmly at the thought that she should still be older.

Gary Oldman's performance as the corrupt DEA agent Norman Stansfield is mixed with me. In one scene he is outstanding, in another he's a hammy villain and lets himself down. There's no denying he's a formidable antagonist, but he's not used to his full extent. For the entire second act of the film he's nowhere to be seen, and appears at the end almost due to tying up loose ends for Mathilda's revenge. 

Mathilda's conclusion is a satisfactory one and probably the best ending she could have obtained in terms of the story. My main complaint is, despite myself and my moral questioning, I would have preferred Mathilda developing into a skilled assassin through Leon's training. Believe it or not, it would have actually given the film a much better feel. As opposed to child assassin seeking vengeance, I got troubled youngster falling in love with an older man...

Not what I expected, but not a bad film overall.

Pixar's Up: can animation be for adults?

"Cartoons are for kids"
Sadly, this is the problem with animation. Its immediately lumped into the category of "family film", which basically means "film for kids but everyone will have to sit through it."

However this assumption is hardly surprising, when it comes to Dreamworks Animations, I can understand why.

I wasn't too impressed with Megamind, the only thing going for Shark Tale is the overwhelming amount of pop-culture references and... Robert De Niro the mobster shark.

Shrek was a good original film, soon to be spoiled by sequel after sequel after sequel after spin-off. Please dear god let Puss in Boots be the last of it. The big cute cat eyes make me want to...

... well, nothing. This is the problem: its not even provoking a response any more. The joke's a broken record. Just like a lot of Shrek's jokes, they were funny at first... then... just... really... really.... weren't.

And fine; Dreamworks don't make films for me, I'm in no way their target audience. Kids love repetition like the big kitty-cat eyes.
Fine. Just stop caring about the entertainment for the paying adults. Help them stifle the little brats by showing a loud, colourful, explosive, overly animated mess of which they'll quietly sit, drool and dumbly stare at. Oh and by overly animated, I mean the constant need for the characters to be making jerky, exaggerated, over-the-top gestures and movements. Megamind was the worst for this, think Jim Carrey's style of over-acting but within animation. Funny sometimes but, too much, and it becomes distracting and very annoying. Please Dreamworks Animation Studios. Please stop this, you're trying to hard to grab our attentions.

I contrast, Pixar Animation Studios does what Dreamworks cannot (at least consistently) do: entertain both the parents and children. Even young adults enjoy these films. Remembering back when I went to see Toy Story 3, the absolutely packed cinema was, I'm fairly sure, filled more with teenagers around 17-18 than any other age group. Regardless of whether it was due to the fact we all grew up with the Toy Story franchise, or they simply wanted a film to watch, the response was the same. It was universally beloved and currently ranks as the highest-grossing animated film of all time.

But the feeling of childishness does grab hold of you. You think that maybe you're a little too old for kiddie cartoon films, maybe you should start growing up and watch Oscar-baity films filled with "real" issues and "real" actors and professional acting. Embrace all that culture and independence of mind, maan. No time for jokes. Films are serious business.
But, really? Can't computer animation be serious too?

Disney Pixar's Up is, what I would regard as, one of the most important animated features Pixar has ever released. SPOILERS AHEAD. ABANDON ALL HOPE.
Up tells the story of 79-year-old Carl Fredricksen, a recently widowed elderly, and Wilderness Explorer boy scout Russell, who fly to South America in a floating house lifted by... many, many balloons. This, unfortunately, says everything that's needed to be said for older audiences. The realism isn't exactly the film's major selling point, it never has been. And true, the design of Up is utterly gorgeous. The balloon lift-off scene is perfect example of the beauty of computer animation.

But I don't wish to gush about how pretty the animation is- its a no-brainer.
No, what truly impressed me about Up is the effect of said animation. Its not just pretty, there's a remarkable skill behind the development of the characters within. Though stylized, the characters of Up are still human, and I mean that in every sense of the word: these characters are human. They're believable, their situations relatable and the emotions the animation team has made them convey beats even the most skilled and professional actors.
Whether you've heard about the opening montage of Up, which has even the most hardened of critics and movie-goers sobbing into their popcorn, or the "Stuff We Did" scene (my personal favourite, the animation of Carl's facial emotion is superb and heart-breaking), both scenes are done so brilliantly, that you'd be forgiven for forgetting its supposed to be for kids. I certainly didn't feel childish watching this film, especially with these scenes and their ability to grab my emotions with just a simple, animated gesture or expression that even the most heart-wrenching films cannot do to me.
The amazing thing is the most memorable scenes contain no dialogue whatsoever. This is the potential of animation: a story without the interruption of words or exposition being thrown in your face.
And I wish more animated films were like this. I'd have thought of Up as a daring and insightful tale dealing with: loneliness in old age, the loss of your life-long companion and eventually moving on to fulfill your life's ambitions. This is what Up could have been; but with the inclusion of talking dogs, hammy villains and exotic giant birds called Kevin, the realism presented in the characters and the silliness clash. The silliness wins over unfortunately and I was left with a sense of "what could have been..."

But, despite this, Pixar hasn't got it wrong, they still made Up a child-friendly film and I'm glad they did. You have to hand it to them, not everyone has the ability to include into kids films: relatively serious, adult issues like:

Mid-Life Crisis!

Global Pollution!

Abandonment!

Death!

Oppression!

Kidnap!

Expressing wish to kidnap children and suck the life out of them!









And yet, somehow, even the most berserk and crazy protective parents can't fault the charm and tactfulness in which Pixar tells a story, making even the most daunting of subjects watchable for children. Even enjoyable. Animation is very effective storytelling and has the potential for more than family fun.

Interesting Photography: Robert Doisneau

Interesting Photography: Dave Nitsche

Interesting Photography: Helmut Newton

A collection of engaging and fascinating photography by Helmut Newton.

Friends with Benefits

And so we get to our typical rom-coms of the year. The sickeningly beautiful actors all coming together to reflect upon how viewers aren't, and will never be, as perfect as they are.
All they have to do is deal with hilariously unfortunate implications, a few misunderstandings and every so often a comical scene showing their "quirky and clumsy" side... showing them fall over. How very original.

At least with the most recent rom-com Friends with Benefits, we see a slightly postmodern twist on the rom-com genre. Characters fully aware of the rom-com formula, you say? Trying to steer clear of the clichés, I hear? This isn't your traditional love story?

.... how original.

Well, it would be. If a certain "lets be friends but bone each other with no emotional attachment" plot hadn't already been done months beforehand and starred another certain female lead from another certain Oscar-nominated film about another certain crazy ballerina.

Yes, this film was very clearly the counterpart to No Strings Attached. They're called: Dueling

movies. Similar actors, similar ideas, coming out at similar time. You'll see it a lot with Dreamworks films vs. Pixar films or lately with Marvel films vs. DC films now The Avengers along with their origin stories are having the Hollywood makeover. You always see it, even if you aren't always aware, its there staring you right in the face: Haven't I seen this movie before? Only with slight differences?

There's no denying that both Portman and Kunis deserve a break after the physically demanding roles they played in Black Swan, I just didn't realize their breaks would be so parallel to each other. I'm talking same airline, same country, same hotel, suites next door to each other and at the same restaurant that night kind of similar. But which one had the better break?

Portman, after Black Swan, starred in two comedy films: Your Highness and No Strings Attached.

Your Highness was met with some pretty negative reviews, and for a comedy film, it hadn't made me laugh as much as it should have. Portman plays a relatively minor role in the film, and is not an integral part to the plot. She merely serves as a distraction, an obstacle and an eventual love interest... and there's a scene with her in a thong.
No Strings Attached was, once again, met with some bad reviews and I can't say I disagree. For a rom-com it seems a little awkward to watch and there is sadly no chemistry to be seen between Portman and Kutcher.

In contrast to two mediocre "comedy" films that star Portman, Kunis stars in a single good one. Friends with Benefits is the story of two friends, Jamie (Mila Kunis) and Dylan (Justin Timberlake) with, you guessed it, benefits!

Yes, we already know where this'll end up- its a rom-com and they -SPOILEEERS!!havetogettogetherintheendSPOILEEERS-!!

But lets be honest, its the inevitability of every rom-com. The genre isn't there to be subverted or challenged, its there as a formula for the typical love story. Two people fall in love, problems ensue, are overcome, they live happily ever after. The story may be told with a different take, the problems may be different, the setting and time may have changed, but the ending is always the same: if two people really love each other, they will end up together before the credits roll. The only film I've seen that doesn't end with such an ending is He's Just Not That Into You,

where Jennifer Connelly's character ends up divorcing her husband, and everyone in that part of the story doesn't have a happy ending- more of a bittersweet one for Connelly herself.

The pace of Friends with Benefits is fast and non-stop, something you don't usually see in a rom-com, but in this case it seemed to work quite well with the story. The fast-paced lifestyle and careers of both the main characters (one of who, can easily transfer jobs from L.A. to New York and back again as if its nothing) suits the way the story is told to viewers. Things start to slow down by the second act, paying more attention to the rom instead of the com.

One thing that surprised me about this film is the casting of Justin Timberlake. When he began acting in Shrek 3, I honestly thought it was because of his relationship with Cameron Diaz that got him the part, and he was just another big name in music trying to get into acting- but with no real acting talent.

In The Social Network, he pops up again as one of the main characters. Good acting, but not enough to really remember him for his acting- just that he was in the film.
And suddenly, whilst watching this film, his acting seems more noticeable. He's wasn't trying too hard (at least it seemed that way) and the chemistry between Timberlake and Kunis was fun to watch.

There was one thing that disappointed me though.
Throughout the film, there are certain jokes made at the expense of the Romantic Comedy genre itself, scenes where the two are watching a typical rom-com and they talk about how typical it really is. Its clever for a rom-com, but by the end of the film, the entire story falls victim to the usual formula, and the end scene was too obvious. I'd expected the self-reflective element of this film to carry on right through to the end, but I'd hoped for too much.