Rogue One - Or: Why it's not as bad as a lot of people make it out to be

Rogue One.

Or: Why it's not as bad as a lot of people make it out to be.

First off, this film is a Star Wars story, but not one centred on the Skywalker family. So there is no great need to compare it to the Episodes. Star Wars films have a bigger budget and more time spent on them. It is the story of (spoilers, bloody expect them) how the Death Star plans were stolen just before the events that take place in Episode IV – A New Hope. It centres on Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) and Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) but involves a whole host of people who join together to steal the plans.

One issue I had with the film is the lack of character development. Apart from Jyn, not much is known about any of the other characters. Cassian gets given a tiny bit more development than the others, but even then it's not more than just hints about his past. There's a little bit said on each other member of Rogue One, just to give you a bit of an idea about who they are, but not really enough to get an understanding about their involvement in the story.

This leads on to an issue I had with understanding character motivations on my first viewing. Because I knew very little about each character I just didn't understand why each individual joined the group. They would appear on screen, something would happen, and then suddenly they were willing to do almost anything to help the Rebellion. But then on a second viewing I realised that that was kind of the point. They had nothing to lose, and they knew how bad the Empire is, so they were willing to give up their lives to help take it down. One word that gets repeated a lot throughout the film is "hope". This is presumably to remind you that it precedes A New Hope, but the characters mention hope and destiny a lot in this film. It started to get a bit wearing and preachy.

On my first viewing, Jyn just randomly goes from wanting nothing to do with the Rebels, to suddenly leading a huge suicide mission to help destroy the Death Star. It was only during the second time I understood she is doing it to try and clear her father's name. If she was able to get the plans her father said showed the key to taking down the Death Star, it would prove he was (kind of) a good guy. She also hates that the Empire destroyed her family, and this is her way of getting back at them.

Something I've heard a few people talk about is the way that Cassian kills a fellow Rebel at the start, without much of a thought. On my second viewing, I paid attention to this scene, because I agreed how out of character it seemed. Cassian definitely takes a couple seconds after killing the guy, where he looks down at the body, before making his escape. He felt guilt for what he had just done. The man had a broken arm so was not going to be able to escape, he would have been captured by the Empire and they would have tortured him to find out about the Rebels. Cassian couldn't let this happen, so felt the only thing to do was kill the man. It was a horrible thing to do, but he saw no other option. This is further evident in the scene where he fronts the group of Rebels who join Jyn in the Rogue One group. He says something along the lines of that they are a group of people who have done horrible things for the Rebellion, including murders and assassinations. He feels regret for what he has done, and this probably includes the murder at the start.

Another thing I found confusing was Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed) – the pilot loses his mind, then suddenly is alright. He is sitting in a cell, a drooling wreck, completely unaware of what is going on around him. The next scene he is running out of the hideout, and then having a full conversation. Seeing as he is told before his torture that he will go insane as a side effect, it is very strange that he gets better so quickly.

Seeing as I titled this review "Why it's not as bad as a lot of people make it out to be", I better start saying what I liked about it. Firstly, it's funny. Really funny. People forget how funny the original Star Wars film was, and this film harks back to that. Secondly, it is so much more realistic than Force Awakens. Something that annoyed me about FA was the way that Rey just seemed to know how to do everything. And I mean everything. The reason I don't like Superman, and in fact find him boring, is because he can just do whatever he wants and there doesn't seem to be much of a threat against him. I got the same feeling with Rey. Oh, the ship they're on is broken, she can probably fix it though – ah yes, she knows exactly what to do on a ship she's never been on before. But in RO, the characters are flawed. They do heroic things to make up for what they'd done in the past.

Also the acting in this film is really good! Diego Luna, who played Cassian, really impressed me. Aside from The Terminal, I don't think I've ever seen him in a film before. He did very well and made the character one of my favourite Star Wars characters. There were a lot of Easter Eggs in the film too. Thankfully it didn't try and ram them in your face, screaming "HEY FANS! Remember this bit yeah?!" It was just the occasional line or background character that was relevant to other Star Wars films. My favourite being K-2SO (Alan Tudyk) starting to say the immortal line “I have a bad feeling about this”, but Jyn and Cassian stop him. I liked this because that line is in every Star Wars film, and the fact that he didn't get to say the whole line was their way of saying "Don’t compare us to the Episodes, because we’re not the same."

So, what shall I end on? Let’s go with Darth Vader. This seemed to totally divide viewers. He doesn't spend much time on screen, but then it’s not as if we really expected him to. If he was involved in the story a lot the characters wouldn't have gotten so far! It would have been very cool if he was involved on the fight on the beaches at the end though. He was in the advert for about one second, so was actually in the film more than I expected. He lives in a big spooky Lord of the Rings style tower on Mustafar, and tells a joke. But wait! He tells a couple jokes in A New Hope. And Anakin Skywalker tried to make a few jokes. So stop whining about it. And what about the final couple minutes where he tears through a ship full of Rebels; that was just fan service wasn't it? Yes, and I loved it. I don't care if it was fan service – I am a fan, and it serviced me good.

I loved this film. I think even more so than Force Awakens. I believe people are scared of saying that because when FA came out, everyone said it was their film of 2015; and then a couple months later people realised it wasn't that great if you took the nostalgia goggles off. Rogue One was obviously not made to be a new Episode, and as far as I'm concerned it really shined being on its own.

Follow me on twitter, I'm bound to start getting funny there at some point.

First thoughts on The LEGO Batman Movie trailer (24/07/2016 - Comic-Con)

Hello. It's been a while.

In 2010 the film Despicable Me was released. A recurring aspect of this film involved the Minions doing something silly for a minute or two. I personally didn't find them funny but could see how the humour would appeal to some. In 2015, the Minions got their own film. I avoided it because I thought that the characters could be funny in short bursts, but a whole film based on their nonsense babbling and hitting each other would be totally unbearable. Turns out it is the 11th highest grossing film of all time - but still only got 56% on both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.

Anyway, The LEGO Movie came out in 2014 and I had it as my favourite film of 2014. It seemed like straight after The LEGO Batman Movie was announced. This was because the character of Batman was for many people (myself included) one of their, if not their outright favourite characer. He had a lot of brilliant one-liners and just came across as really cool. So why was I so disappointed to hear this news? Well, because I thought LEGO Batman was like the Minions. He appears on screen for a couple minutes, does something funny, then goes away reappearing about 20 minutes later when you've almost forgotten him. A whole film based on LEGO Batman would be very difficult to sustain the high level of humour and keep people interested (like the Minions film).

This trailer released by Warner Brothers at Comic-Con really surprised me and has changed my opinion about the film, in as much as a two and a half minute trailer can. It shows the film will be animated in the same way as The Lego Movie, computer generated but only containing LEGO bricks so people can try to create every scene at home.

It also shows that the film will be really funny. However, all of the bits that made me laugh in the trailer are things that Batman says. In The LEGO Movie, he does say funny things, but there are also a lot of culture references from other characters or hidden in the background, these were missing from this trailer. [edit: I have since watched two previously released teaser trailers and there is a brilliant reference to Glengarry Glen Ross as well as previous Batman films - so maybe there will be the kind of references that I loved]

This film is doomed to be compared to The LEGO Movie, even though it shows a different tone from it. Batman seems to be going through some sort of existential crisis, and it's up to Alfred (Ralph Fiennes) and Dick Grayson/Robin (Michael Cera) to help.

This trailer relieved some of my worries about this film, by showing a huge cast including a lot of the classic Rogues Gallery and the Justice League. I am still concerned that Batman's voice will eventually become more of an annoyance than something that made me laugh so much, regardless, I will be going to see this film with a much more open mind now.

There have been quite a few trailers recently *cough* Ghostbusters *cough* that put me off seeing a film, this one did very much the opposite.

Just a reminder of my Twitter, and MoviePilot links.

The Babadook (2014) - What Shall I Watch On Netflix?

The Babadook (2014)

Directed By Jennifer Kent

Produced By Kristina Ceyton and Kristian Moliere

Starring: Essie Davis, Noah Wiseman, Daniel Henshall and Hayley McElhinney

SPOILER ALERT (Also, a spoiler warning for The Shining)


Continuing my tour of the horror section of Netflix, we move on to what has been referred to as the scariest film of 2014. From my experience, people either found this film boring and ridiculous, or the most terrifying hour and a half in cinema.

I'm sorry but I won't be able to avoid spoilers in this review; I will be talking about the last 5 minutes and that is because I am examining the two points of view. The first point of view that the film is boring comes from people expecting a monster movie. This is not helped from the trailers, which definitely gave the impression that this film would be a tacky jump-scare filled experience that wouldn't require much thought. The second point of view comes from appreciating the themes developed in the film and from looking at it from a purely psychological point of view.

Plot? Well, a mother (Amelia – played by Davis) is being driven to hospital to give birth to her son (Sam - Wiseman) when her husband crashes the car and dies. The film cuts to six years later with the boy being disturbed and disruptive, to the extent that he is thrown out of his school. The mother is obviously at her wits end trying to do her best to look after the child, even working at a nursing home (which she hates) rather than pursuing her career as a writer. She hasn't found time to enter into a new relationship and blames many of her problems on Sam. She reads a story to her son every night before he goes to sleep and one night he finds a book called Mister Babadook. After reading the book, Sam claims to see the Babadook and blames his disruptive behaviour on its actions.

If you were expecting a monster movie, then you will be annoyed with the fact that the 'monster' has as much screen time as it does. The Babadook hangs around in the background of a lot of scenes, especially after the half-way mark. I personally feel that the threat would be greater if it was implied more, as you will start to get used to its presence. You will also find the conclusion very unsatisfactory – Amelia defeats the Babadook by screaming at it.

I think that Davis should have received more recognition for her role as the distraught mother. She looks genuinely tired and fed up. At one point or another, all parents will be annoyed by their children, and she manages to nail perfectly all spectrum's of her character – from the timid wallflower to the absolute psychopath. Wiseman does a good job as the child, I honestly wouldn't have blamed Amelia for killing him if that was to be the way the film went.

If you look at the film from a purely psychological stance – maybe even believing that the Babadook doesn't exist – then this becomes one of the greatest horror films of the last 20 years. Amelia often has dark marks on her hands, this could be soot from when she tried burning the book, or it could be from her creating the book as it is made using charcoal and she does say she used to be an author. What if the Babadook is just a figment of Amelia's imagination, fuelled by her son also imagining it? So then the Babadook becomes a representation of her fear and depression caused by her husband's death. This explains why it is repeatedly seen in the background, in the shadows. The creature/grief is always there, with Amelia denying its presence. She claims she is fine and just needs some sleep, a trait some people who suffer from depression share. If she could confront her grief rather than insisting people didn't talk about it then she might be able to defeat it.

This is where the ending comes into play. Amelia screams at the Babadook saying that it will leave her and her son alone. My experience with grief is that if you just let it sit inside you then it grows stronger and you have to let it out at some point, like the scene in Garden State when the characters scream into the quarry. Of course such forms of grief as the death of your husband will never truly go away, hence why the Babadook ends up trapped in the basement and Amelia has to confront (or feed) it every morning. The basement was where she kept all of her husbands old possessions and so this continues this theme that it represents grief. “It's quiet today” is her way of describing how she still feels sad over the loss of her husband, but on some days it is easier to deal with/confront. She feeds it worms; which may represent how worms eat a buried corpse (reinforcing the idea her husband can't come back), but then again maybe I'm looking waaaay to much into this theory.

Another idea is that about halfway through, Amelia has a vision of her son dead and herself standing over him with a knife and near the end she is strangling him. What if she actually does kill him and the rest of the film is a further exploration of her imagination. The only real evidence I have of this (bare in mind I have only seen the film once) is that Sam is terrible at magic and watches those cheap magic DVDs in order to expand his tricks. During the final scene, he does a basic trick with a coin, which any six year old could learn, but then he transforms the coin into a dove. I really doubt a six year old could learn how to transform a coin into a dove from a DVD. Amelia and Sam are much happier in this scene and he is no longer the annoying brat from the beginning of the film. What if Amelia killed him and then imagined the perfect child as his replacement?

I might have gone a bit too far with that theory. Just an idea that I hadn't seen anywhere else.

So, if you go into this film expecting a monster chasing a lady and her son around their house you will be bored from your interpretation of the film. If however you watch this film with the idea that the Babadook is created purely by Amelia then it becomes truly terrifying. My favourite style of horror is psychological and this film has some elements of my most-loved horror film: The Shining. Well that is if you believe that The Overlook Hotel isn't really haunted and it is Jack's mind deteriorating that causes the events to take place.

So I give this film a 9 out of 10.

As per usual, my Twitter and Movie Pilot links.

Carrie (2013) Review - What Shall I Watch On Netflix?

So, it's Halloween this week. It is literally my favourite... festival? Season? Time of the year. Thankfully Netflix has a lot of horror films, so my review of Jack Reacher that I promised will have to wait for a couple weeks as I'm getting right in the horror spirit.

First up is Carrie. The 2013 remake, not the one from 1976. This is a difficult review to write because if anyone knows anything about Carrie, it's how the film ends. So am I including spoilers? Well, yes, I suppose if you know absolutely nothing about the story then I am going to be talking about the ending and you may not want to proceed.

First up the plot. Chloe Grace Moretz plays the titular character Carrie White. She is the schools social outcast, and her life is controlled completely by her fundamentalist Christian mother Margaret (Julianne Moore). Whilst it would appear that the whole school bullies Carrie, it mostly comes from a group led by Chris and Sue. Sue feels bad for her role in bullying Carrie so convinces her boyfriend Tommy to take Carrie to prom. Chris is annoyed at being punished for bullying Carrie so decides to play a trick on her, which results in Carrie using her telekinetic powers to destroy the school and kill many students.

I was sceptical at the casting of Moretz, because she is very pretty and if she was at my school she would have definitely been in the 'cool' group. She does an absolutely fantastic job at playing the awkward kid who doesn't know her place in the world. If you've read my review of Driving Lessons, you'll know that I wished there was a bit more character development in terms of the main character becoming more confident. Carrie doesn't have this issue; she stands up straighter, looks people in the eye and talks back to some – including her mother. I really felt myself rooting for her and even though I knew where the film was going, I didn't want it to result in her being humiliated and destroying the school.

Some of the other casting decisions were great, Julianne Moore is terrifying as the mother and Judy Greer is also great as the sympathetic gym teacher. I loved the relationship between Margaret and Carrie. The mother is obviously thinking that she is protecting her daughter and there are moments – or looks – where both characters acknowledge that the disturbing situation they are in has only occurred because they (deep down) love each other.

However, most of the other characters are pretty terrible. Chris seemed to me to be very unrealistic and exaggerated and Sue fell flat. Tommy did a fairly decent job, but many of his scenes were incredibly cheesy and he probably only seemed passable compared to the other younger actors.

The special effects in this film were a lot better than I was expecting. Sometimes I felt a real prop held up by string would have looked better, but for the most part it was alright. One slight issue I had was when Carrie is discovering and trying out her newly found powers, it felt kind of like an X-Men film. In the book and first film, she has had these powers all her life and they are getting stronger. In this version it is made so obvious that she is making the lightbulb smash, rather than just that something weird is going on.

The 'modernisation' of the film will have helped it reach a younger audience. Carrie watches telekinesis videos on the internet and her bullies film her torment on their mobiles and upload it to YouTube. Apart from that though, there isn't much included in this film that changes it from the original.

Overall, I'm going to give Carrie a six. There were many good aspects to the film, such as character development and some of the acting, however a lot of the acting was poor and I'm still unsure as to why it was decided a remake was necessary.

Next up: If it's in a word, or it's in a look, you can't get rid of THE BABADOOK.

As usual, here is my Twitter link.

Mission Impossible Review - What Shall I Watch On Netflix?

Mission Impossible (1996)

Directed By Brian De Palma

Produced By Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner

Starring Tom Cruise, Jon Voight, Emmanuelle Beart, Henry Czerny, Jean Reno, Ving Rhames, Vanessa Redgrave and Kristin Scott Thomas.

I always knew I had seen the first Mission Impossible film, but it was around ten years ago and I found it boring and confusing. Please forgive me for that; I was young and my tastes have since changed quite a bit. With the new film in the series being released this summer and discovering that Netflix UK has all but the third film I thought I should check it out again to see what I missed on my first viewing.

To sum up the plot – a mole in the IMF/CIA is discovered when Ethan Hunt's (Tom Cruise) team is all murdered whilst carrying out a mission in Prague. Being a top suspect as the lone survivor means Ethan has to prove his innocence (along with the help of those previously blacklisted by the CIA).

Firstly, I would like to apologise for my previous comment saying that this film is boring and confusing. I was an eejit. I really enjoyed this film when watching it again recently. There is always a danger with action films where there has to be huge punch up or shoot out scenes and this film doesn't really contain much in the way of that. Instead; the film relies on the build up in tension. Showing Hunt as a sort of lone-wolf style fugitive who doesn't have time to sleep and has little idea of who to trust is something this film does perfectly. This is done so well by Cruise who is starring in his first real action role, the fantastic soundtrack by Danny Elfman and the brilliant cinematography. Wide shots allow us to see all the important people or aspects of a scene; and these are mixed with close-ups of Hunt when the pressure mounts. Both are employed exactly when they are needed.

The scene in the computer vault is amazing. Few films, especially those wanting to be a summer action blockbuster, would have one of the key scenes in almost complete silence. It is a very brave move – and one that I loved. Not only did it really build up the tension (I swear even I didn't want to make any sound), but I can't think of any other film that has been brave enough to try that technique and so it really stands out. Another reason it stands out is that it really is Cruise hanging from a rope. It is hardly an incredibly technical stunt, but not all actors would have the courage to do it themselves and it all adds to the realism.

Another thing Mission Impossible does well are the scenes where the characters explain what is about to happen. This is a really tricky part in films as of course the film makers don't want the film to be too confusing, but they also don't want the audience to feel like there is a suggestion that they are stupid and will not be able to follow the plot otherwise. Being a spy film, these scenes are actually enjoyable and feel necessary as they depict the characters planing their next move. It also helps build the tension as the task in hand is described in such a way that the audience really do feel like the mission is impossible! Hunt smiles as the job gets explained, and this lets us know he feels up to the task and is actually looking forward to the challenge.

This film is almost 20 years old, but it only shows in the scenes centred around computer hacking and the internet. The rest of the film has aged perfectly. Goldeneye, another spy/action/thriller that came out only eight months before looks a lot older in comparison.

Whilst researching this film, I noticed it is often listed under 'action'. I don't think I would agree that is the key genre here, to me it is more a thriller spy film. If you really enjoyed The Bourne Identity, but wished for more tension and a few less fight scenes then you will really enjoy Mission Impossible. On a scale of Scott Pilgrim to Pans Labyrinth, I would give this film a 9. I really enjoy spy films and I am incredibly annoyed at myself that I let this film become almost 20 years old before I sat down to give it a proper viewing, this just proves that maybe films deserve a second chance. Well – not Scott Pilgrim.

Oh, and Ving Rhames as Luther Stickell is quite possibly the coolest computer hacker ever.

As usual, here is my Twitter link.

Wreck It Ralph Review - What Shall I Watch On Netflix?

Wreck It Ralph (2012)

Directed By Rich Moore

Produced By Clark Spencer

Starring John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch and Alan Tudyk

Wreck It Ralph has only recently been added to Netflix (U.K.) but I have actually wanted to see it since it came out. It's made by Disney but could quite easily be confused for a Pixar film due to the fact that it can very easily keep adults entertained as much, if not more, than kids.

Ralph is the bad guy of his video game called Fix-It Felix. This game is very much like Donkey Kong where Ralph destroys a building and it is up to Felix (controlled by the gamer) to come along and rebuild the building whilst dodging Ralph's attacks.

Wreck It Ralph is quite similar to Toy Story in that once the arcade where the games are kept closes, the characters from the games are free to wonder around – and even travel from their own game to others through power cables and a surge-protector which acts like a train station. When the arcade closes, the characters from Fix-It Felix throw parties for Felix to show their appreciation for his work that day, whilst Ralph is resigned to his home in the town dump.

Ralph becomes depressed, and complains at a group therapy session for video game villains (starring such characters as Dr. Eggman and chaired by Clyde, the orange Pac Man ghost) that he understands that he is the games bad-guy, but he isn't a bad guy. He comes to the conclusion that if he goes into another game called Hero's Duty and wins the medal, then the other characters from his game might treat him in a nicer way. Ralph manages to claim his medal, but accidentally releases into another game (Sugar Rush) a Cybug, which is kind of a cross between the squids from The Matrix and a virus.

The thing I loved most about this film was the cameos and references to video games. From the way that a spilled liquid forms 8-bit shapes, graffiti in the background has references to things like Leroy Jenkins, or even just sound bites from popular games like Metal Gear Solid. I found myself paying very close attention to see what else I could spot. Afterwards I did wonder if I would have paid anywhere near as much attention to the film if there hadn't been so many references. My friend said they really enjoyed the story, and I did too, but I can't help but think the story followed a fairly generic and predictable route. But it is a Disney film meant for children, so I'm probably asking too much.

Another fantastic thing about the film is the sound. The soundtrack is very well made - the composer, Henry Jackman, has presumably spent a fair amount of time playing video games, and I really appreciated the way the styles were replicated. This is mostly shown when Ralph moves from one game to another, with rock and electro played in the FPS game Hero's Duty and pop music played in the Mario Cart-style Sugar Rush. It's a small change, but one I noticed and appreciated.

It's impossible to talk about the sound in this film without mentioning the cast. John C. Reilly does a fantastic job of playing the down trodden guy who feels very sorry for himself. Jayne Lynch plays the sergeant and this is also a very good fit. It's reminiscent of her character from Role Models in that she is very tough and will not tolerate anyone wasting her time. Another character who's voice I loved is Alan Tudyk who plays King Candy. This character is based on Ed Wynn who played the Mad Hatter from Alice In Wonderland and Uncle Albert in Mary Poppins. He does a brilliant job and I can't imagine that it's Steve The Pirate from Dodgeball doing the voice. The only downside to the casting in my opinion is Vanellope voiced by Sarah Silverman. She constantly annoyed me throughout the film, and although we're supposed to feel sad for her and her relationship with Ralph is what gives this film emotion, I found myself really not caring about her and waiting for an excuse for her to be taken out the film. Apparently the actors recorded their lines together, which allowed for some improv, but I didn't notice the lines coming across any more naturally than in other animated films.

Overall: Wreck It Ralph is a great looking, and brilliantly cast animated film, that has the ability to keep kids entertained with its bright colours and interesting characters, but will also keep many adults entertained as they seek out and appreciate the references to games they've played. Adults may not even mind their children wanting to watch it again as I'm sure I won't have caught all the references and cameos on my first viewing. And if they've not been big gamers in their time, the voice acting and different styles of animation/music depending on what game Ralph is visiting should be enough to keep their interest, although replay value will be decreased.

As a gamer, I give this film 8/10

For non-gamers, I think this film would be 6/10

Driving Lessons Review - What Shall I Watch On Netflix

Driving Lessons (2006)

Directed By Jeremy Brock

Produced By Julia Chasman

Starring Julie Walters, Rupert Grint, Laura Linney and Nicholas Farrell

Coming of Age films appeal to me. There is something I really enjoy about seeing the underdog gaining confidence and then coming to blows with whatever has been keeping them downtrodden. In Driving Lessons we are treated to Ben (Rupert Grint) gaining confidence from Evie (Julie Walters), and in a fairly predictable way, Evie learns some lessons from Ben too.

Growing up in a family run by Ben's very domineering mum, but also involving his father (a Church of England Clergyman) and an eccentric elderly man reffered to as Mr Fincham Ben's mother has taken in to look after, is taking its toll on Ben. He gets a job - to partly raise cash but mostly as an escape from his family - helping an elderly actress to carry out daily tasks. She appears to be in denial about many things; she refers to herself as a Dame, she claims to not be an alcoholic and among other things, she also insists Ben drives her everywhere even though neither of them know how to drive. This odd character seems to be exactly what Ben needs to branch out experiences-wise from his mothers guarded style of upbringing before it does too much damage.

The film has a few laughs, mostly from the interactions between characters. Examples of this include the way strangers look at Ben and Evie whilst she goes into detail on her failed marriages whilst on a bus, or the way that the old man's behaviour gets progressively more unconventional and the rest of the characters just accept these peculiar changes.

The soundtrack is fantastic, with Sufjan Stevens, Ben Folds and Nick Drake to name some of the musicians who are featured. The only thing better than the soundtrack is the locations. I would not be surprised if the Edinburgh Tourist Office played a part in this film, and the lake/loch they stop at is beautiful.

Acting wise I found this film lacking. I was pretty bored up until 30 minutes in, when Ben and Evie read and act from the works of Shakespear. The relationship between the two is what drives this film (probably helped from their portrayal of Ron Weasly and his mum in the Harry Potter franchise). In terms of the film being 'coming of age' Grint spends a lot of time hunched over and staring at the ground. I would have liked to see him, after the big finale, standing tall and looking at people in the face as a sign he has become more confident. It is really only the scenes with Ben and Evie I was paying much attention to.

Another annoyance with this film is the finale. I don't like films being weird for the sake of weird, and by the finale everything seems really over the top and it takes away from the realism that the film had held. A really good coming of age film manages to make the viewer think that if the main character can overcome whatever has been holding them back then they can too, and this feeling is lost towards the end as the film goes from having a few peculiar moments to being full on bizarre.

Overall, this film is (aside from Evie's language) inoffensive and would be great for sticking on in the background on a rainy day when your stuck at home with your parents as you don't have to pay attention. There are definitely more original and funnier coming of age films out there in existence, but this one is charming enough to watch with your mum; as long as she doesn't mind swearing too much and can last the first 30 minutes until we see some character development.Overall I give this film a 6/10

p.s. I say Evie swears a lot, she doesn't really, but it is definitely categorised under excessive use of particular words. I wasn't bothered by it much, but I'm sure my granny would not approve of the language. Another coming of age film starring Grint called Cherrybomb is by far less suitable for watching with parents (but still worth a watch). Makes this film seem very tranquil and calm.