Davis Vs Crawford

This 'verses' is alot more interesting and juicy as these two women are obviously extremely talented and very well respected. But with these women a big difference between them and the rest of the reviews of Actors/Actresses I've done so far have all had similarities between them, whether they're styles or they've been in alot of films, or they're rivals but its not feud like with these ladies.

I don't know why I didn't do this sooner as the intensity and the hatred these women had towards each other is so juicy and intriguing its been made into a TV Show called Feud which was created by Ryan Murphy who I love and no I haven't seen it yet, but the two women are being played by Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon so I immediately think its gonna be good and I need to see it now. Anyway, let's start as always at the beginning of both of they're lives. Bette's life seems pretty normal her parents did split up when she was about 7, she had a younger sister and was encouraged by her mother to do Acting and her mother even went to New York with her, so she can study Theatre as that was her main speciality before films became bigger and needed more actors rather than Joe from the street. Joan on the other hand was experienced with dancing that was her thing and her mother and father separated and Joan didn't even know her real father, as her mother remarried and had a stepfather who owned a theatre and that's when Joan loved dancing and wanted to be a dancer. Although Joan's stepfather got in a bit of legal trouble involving embezzlement and soon after her mother and stepfather split up and I think it really affected Joan and her relationships with men.

So their beginnings are quite different, but abit similar as they both have divorced parents, and that's pretty much it both have wanted to perform from an early age, one was encouraged, the other just liked it. Joan is alot more tougher if that makes sense, like she has done all the crappy jobs and dealt with some real arseholes. Bette Davis is tough aswell, probably just as tougher I guess, because she had a strong woman her mother in her life and found the first few years on screen really difficult as actresses at that time who worked in film were all beautiful and were usually sweet and endearing. But Bette was just the opposite of that and had very strong facial features like her beautiful eyes and her voice was strong and very screechy and theatrical in a way. Whereas Joan Crawford found it fairly easy being a dancer and the vaudeville circuit being popular they were just churning out actors from there. Also Joan Crawford was typically very beautiful and started being a body double for Norma Shearer who was the most popular actress at the time and also had the gift of the gab in a way being quite streetwise with things but in a classy way, things were just different for them both. But they are amazingly strong, fantastic no nonsense women. 

In terms of roles they both have played its very similar as they've both had the privilege I think of playing truly unique women who are independent, sassy, and outspoken. At that time those kinda characters for women were coming into they're own, back then female characters weren't very three dimensional and it was either a sweet doting wife, or a doting mother. There wasn't many characters depicting women who are real and women you see in real life. So in some ways these women are real pioneers in that field, because crazily enough women arn't always cheerful, smiling housewives they can be real bitches. 

In terms of there feud, they only worked on one film together called 'Whatever Happen To Baby Jane' and they hated each other I will talk more about that film soon. Sometimes I reckon from the huge feud they had, was probably overexaggerated as that something that happens, particularly with two very famous and successful actresses, who also has very strong personalities. They did hate each other, but I like to think its not as bad its really made out, because thats when things turn into gossip and hear'say.

In 1963 Oscars, Joan Crawford, Hedda Hopper tried to sabotage Bette Davis so that she wouldn't win, and I can understand why Joan would be annoyed that she didn't get nominated because she did the same film, and was just as good in that as Bette, and had the utmost hatred towards her at all. But I do think that was the wrong thing to do, as I think it should be a fair game, and whoever wins, wins and that's it. I just seemed abit childish I think, but then again it could be hear'say as apparently she persuaded Geraldine Page to take the night off when she won, Joan would take the Oscar as a sort of favor to her. The actual winner of the night which was Anne Bancroft and she wasn't there so Joan persuaded again the Oscars if she could that the award as a favor to Anne. Even though Joan didn't win, I guess she wanted the whole 'I have an Oscar do you?' to Bette backstage. Again like I said it could be hear'say, but I have a feeling they couldn't exaggerate that.

Personal lives of both, are quite similar as they both have had a lot of husbands, and had children in which they have been very domineering towards. Like with Joan Crawford her daughter Christina wrote a book called Mommie Dearest and it was made into a film, and it basically was a horror. Apparently she was a very domineering, and just not a great mother but I don't believe it was as bad as it's made out again, things can be misinterpreted I don't think you should take things as fact and figure. I believe this could be the case, as Joan was a strong woman with a very outspoken personality on life. Bette Davis's Daughter B.D wrote a book about her relationship with her mother and again she was a domineering woman, but I think Bette forgave her and completely understood, as with Joan I guess she didn't like to be made out like some Villainess.

I love these two women, as they are both so colourful and flawed which is something I admire and love in people. We've seen them, threaten, showing attitude, and just explode in general both onscreen playing amazing characters anyone would be jealous of, and in there day to day life aswell. Whoever you prefer you can't deny you wanna be, either one of them I know I do, as they are both just so brilliant you'd love to have a drink with them and a chat about anything. Basically what I'm trying to say is they are my kinda women, independent, sassy, don't take shit, complete leaders. Joan was in a way much more versitile where she did other things than Acting, she was a business woman and a Dancer with Bette she was just an Actress, but an amazing one.

I honestly can't decide, as there is no competition between them both because like I've said before and I'll say again they are both so brilliant. I'm gonna say and I only say this because I just do and maybe she wasn't a little bitch at the Oscars, I prefer by the slight bit Bette Davis, as I just love her that bit more, and also I've heard of Bette Davis's name more. I've really enjoyed writing this post, and talking about amazing women which is something you all know I love, especially Classic Hollywood. I'd love to know who you prefer, or what film you like of them, and I'll speak to you all on Friday! 

Review: The Women

So we're gonna talk about Joan Crawford abit this week as I wanna talk more about Bette Davis, and Bette and Joan had quite a history so why not. Plus this film is very interesting and totally unlike any film that I ideally like to see, basically I didn't think it'd would be my cup of tea as it just sounded like a Bridget Jones Chick Flick from the plot summery that is. 

What this film is about is a group of friends who all live in fairly middle class standards, one of them called Mary Haines (Norma Shearer) who's husband called Stephen may or may not be having an affair with this beautiful, flirtatious woman called Crystal Allen (Joan Crawford). When Mary finds out about this and confronts Crystal about it and tells her to stop, Crystal just refuses and Mary and Stephen get a divorce. 2 years later Crystal and Stephen are married and Crystal has been having this affair with this new man who is married to one of the friends who's a countess and it just blows up. 

The plot of the film annoys me somewhat as the friends are good and so is Mary's mother as they're both very supportive of Mary because she's the innocent one and going through quite a bad time with everything. Also none of Mary's friends who are played by Rosalind Russel, Paulette Goddard and Joan Fonatine and a plethora of other brilliant actresses, none of the friends seem to like Crystal which is justified I guess as its the thing where its 'you've hurt my friend so automatically I don't like you' but it just seems like they all just gang up on her, which is horrible.

Crystal's character is someone I actually like, because she is a woman who knows who she is and is fine with it. She is very much of this bacheloresque woman in a way, because she is so strong and doesn't care what people think of her or her relationships, which I think is great as you shouldn't care what people think, but at the same time you should take people's feelings in to account if you're doing something like what Crystal did and she was very selfish and hurt other people. I mean she's a bitch but she admits it and is fine with it and not shady or denying that she is. 

Mary the main character is something I can't relate to or understand as she in the end and this frustrates me. In the end she goes back to Stephen the man who cheated on her in the first place! It annoyed me that Mary confronted Crystal and not Stephen who did the dirty and its more of a marriage and couple thing rather than it being another issue, but that's just me. They really tried to make Crystal a real bitch, from her costumes she wore to her attitude towards people, particularly towards her Step-Daughter little Mary. I like little Mary she is very passive aggressive towards her and it just makes me love her so much, because she does it in such a polite way you can't be annoyed at her. 

 Overall this film is good, but some of the characters are abit crap I should say, like Mary she just annoyed me at the end where she went back to Stephen who broke her trust but she loves him anyway. I feel like there should have been more of Stephen in the film, because that way he's more 3D you didn't even see his face throughout it. Love Joan Crawford in this obviously, and Paulette Goddard was brilliant aswell, because both are so mesmerising you can't stop watching them. 

Review: Of Human Bondage

The name does sound abit dodgy, trust me its not a porn its a wonderfully modern story with the fabulous Bette Davis.

The basics of the story is what happens when you fall for the wrong girl, It's about a man called Phillip (played by Leslie Howard) who is in love with waitress Mildred (played by Bette Davis) who is this very vulgar and unlike the sort of woman Phillip would go for. Mildred shows no liking to him, as much as Phillip would show it. Mildred fell for Emil, meanwhile Phillip falls for Norah and tries to get over Mildred. Emil leaves Mildred pregnant and distraught she goes to Phillip for help. 

This story is so modern as Bette Davis as an actress at the time was so dynamic and brilliant, and usually she plays alot of cold, brass women. That's something I love and I find very modern as back then in society it was very much man can be the crazy, angry one, woman can only be sweet, and kind and thats it. So in storytelling I find it fascinating that this character felt so 3D and I just wonder how this story affected the world and women. 

I love the use of the characters like Phillip as he is so sweet and nice, for some reason he loved Mildred. Mildred throughout the film really did like him, she just released her true colours as she moved in with him. Norah said at one point how humans have bondages over people, people they just find themselves attach to, like Philip is to Mildred and that will always happen. One thing that I love about Bette Davis is her voice its so unique and different, again I wonder the huge affect she had on the world at that time in the 1930s. 

The reason I say its a story of what happens when you fall for the wrong girl, its also a case of don't be taken for a mug. Phillip is Mildred's knight in shining armour constantly, from when Mildred's pregnancy, and being abandoned twice by the same man. She is a horrible woman, but I love watching her, and yet I still want her sarcastic, twisted sense of humour, but that's down to the fantastic script writers,  

                                                                
The camera angles of the film are one of the reasons as to why I love this so much. I love how it goes from one shot directly on the face when its a dinner conversation or just a conversation. Especially for facial expressions, as it just made me love the film even more because I don't think many films do that, not even now its all about the shot being on both, capturing both expressions of the actors. Its crazy that this film was made in 1934 with it being so modern and everything, but its even crazier that its based of a book by W. Somerset Maugham which was written in 1915.

There will be a Bette Davis post watch this space, as I need to talk about her, she is just so brilliant I want to be her. Anyway sorry its a bit late but, better late than never and I shall speak to you all tomorrow! 

Peppermint Friday Review #27: Porco Rosso

Been really wanting to do a review of a Studio Ghibli film as they are amazing, and everyone should talk about them, as I only ever really hear film buffs talk about them (like me), and Anime fans, as Studio Ghibli is the Japanese Disney. So I don't really hear that many people talk about them, well in my area I know its a multi million empire churning out classic films, but whenever I mention it too people they're like 'who?' and that annoys me. 

Porco Rosso is about a World War I veteran who was turned into a pig by a curse before the film takes place, his mannerisms are very charming, and gentleman like. At the beginning Porco take down some sky pirates, after he's finished he goes to his usual diner and bumps into an old friend Gina. The head of the sky pirates go to their diner and plan for they're next attack, which is on Porco. Porco gets attack, and is assumed dead, he then decides to head for Milan to see the mechanic Piccolo assisted by his granddaughter Fio who is very enthusiastic about mechanics.

This film is so amazing, and funny I simply adore the quick witt humour of the script. The time period its set in is 1930s and instantly its appealing to me I love the costumes, the language being used its so stunning, its delicious. Porco is just brilliant, I love how relaxed he is about his appearance, you can tell he's annoyed by it, but not too much from the outside. The story shows you should never judge a book by its cover, with Porco looking like a pig, doesn't mean he is a pig and acts like one. With Fio who is a young woman, that loves mechanics and is amazing at it, you just never know a person until you get to know them, we all have many secrets and troubles.

Gina is a a character that I love, she is so funny and beautiful, she is very streetwise and you honestly wouldn't think it considering, she is very welll off and beautiful. That's why I love Studio Ghibli so much the way they write they're characters is brilliant, I love how relatable and varied they are. There's not one character who I look at and go 'oh she's like this' or 'he's similar to him' its so different and brilliantly written. I loved that they made the main character a pig, because if Porco was a real man, I don't think it would have been as good a film or character, because it gives it an air of mystery. 

Few other minor characters I like are the members of the Gang, Porco and FIo meet. One of them has such a funny voice its so crazy, and memorable I don't know if I hate it or I like it, its like marmite. I like with Studio Ghibli that with creativity there's no limit, with every Studio Ghibli film its different from the other and thats why i love it, with Disney and I ]'m not hating Disney as they're getting better with stories, its just that most of they're stories are about Princesses. With this film its about air pirates, a man who turned into a pig, if I described it to someone who knows nothing about it, they'll think its some dark, grown up film. 

Overall you should give Studio Ghibli a go as they are amazing and make some real diamonds, and Porco Rosso is a great start! One day I will do a post on my favorite Studio Ghibli films, as they're so good everyone should watch them. I will speak to you all later and have a great day wherever you are!

Peppermint Friday Review #18: Angels With Dirty Faces

We are at the end of Cagney and Bogart week, and I've enjoyed it and all the film noirs even though I have to admit its been a little bit heavy, particularly this film as its pretty intense but one of my all time favorites.

The story centres around Rocky Sullivan who is played by James Cagney in his life Rocky has had a very criminalised lifestyle where he has stealed, been in prison, his lawyer who also own a casino Jim Frazier played by Humphrey Bogart tell Rocky to take the blame for the robbery he committed and spend 3 years in prison, and he will pay him $100000 the money Rocky stole on that day, he does this. Rocky then returns home visits old friends, who tell him to stay in the old parish, Rocky visits Jim's Casino and gets robbed, Rocky finds out its a group of youths who admire him. I won't say anymore but I will tell you the tension between Jim and Rocky goes from nought to one million. 

This film is very intense and amazingly modern in terms of camera technique, particularly the end scene as its the most famous of them all but also the most important one. The character of Rocky is so intriguing its even better as its Jimmy who plays him, as he is amazing at being the tough criminal guy who also is not actually that tough in the end and actually needs abit of TLC. 

Rocky's youths and kinda like his fans aswell, as they really look up to him are amazing too. They do such a brilliant job as they don't look or act like kids who have been doing acting for ages and are really stageschooly. They really are street kids which I love as it makes the film even more genuine and raw. Humphrey Bogart was amazing at playing Jim as he was so calm and concerning but the subtext of being pretty two faced. 

The character of Jim and Rocky are so modern and unique, particularly Jim as he is seen to help out Rocky but backstabbs him. For its time its so modern and different from any film before, and this is from a girl in 2017. This film was made in 1938, and its so edgy and its got dirt underneath its finger nails, people might think that Deniro is the original badass, but Jimmy and Humphrey are a whole different animal. 

This film is amazing, and not for everyone as it can get emotional and violent, but if anyone under the age of 16 watches this won't be as scared or violated than an underage person from 1938. But I could be wrong, as its completely unique to every person, but it can violent to some people. I adore this film and its so modern with its camera techniques during a time when film was just coming into its own. I will leave a link to buy it off amazon if you want as its a fantastic film that everyone should give a chance too!

Next week will be alot lighter if this week wasn't as I'm in the mood to watch a comedy and that's what I'll do! Speak to you alll soon, much love!

Cagney Vs Bogart

Because this week I've been watching a lot of Cagney films, and Bogart films. They are both charismatic and very talented in there performances and they have appeared in the same films together. I'd like to point out very quickly like I mentioned on my new 'FAQ Page' whenever I do 'Vs' posts its not a case of 'he/she is crap and he/she is the best' its either all, I like them both very much there's just one I like more than the other. That's clear? Let's go!

Both of these gentlemen have played the gangsters and both are very charming and charismatic people. Bogart and Cagney have both appeared in the same films together although these films are on the same genre, where they've mainly played gangsters, who smoke and they're usually from New York like Roaring Twenties, Angels With Dirty Faces. 

With saying that the gangster-smoking New York roles haven't been the only roles they've played although they've done it with charisma and charm, with Cagney he is much less apologetic when it comes to being a gangster and particularly when he's a gangster or villain, in Pubic Enemy I mean we can all remember that scene with him shoving that grapefruit in Mae Clarke's face? But at the same time, you can't stop watching him.

Bogart was seen as to me anyway, much less harsher but he is still seen as a tough, quiet and straight talking guy. Because his acting is much less show-offy not that Cagney shows off, but when Bogart acts he doesn't have to shove a grapefruit in a girl's face, its all in the eyes, kinda like the silent treatment in a way. But Bogart was still stern and charismatic, the similarities were Bogart was bought up in New York and so was Cagney so both of them knew about being in New York and you have to stand on your own.

Although both have played light hearted characters, Cagney was an amazing tap dancer and singer, just watch Yankee Doddle Dandy or Footlight Parade. Even in all the gangster, film noir he was in whenever he had a female to act alongside he did it brilliantly, and was just irresistible. Bogart is again such a gentlemen where he is just so charming when he was in Sabrina with Audrey Hepburn (which was one of her first films) he is so charming and kinda awkward as well, not the usual Bogart you would usually see.

I adore both of these actors, as they are so unique and at the time of them they wasn't anything like them, and I don't think there's anything like them today. I'm gonna say I prefer Jimmy Cagney, as I've watched him alot more and thats usually the reason, but also Jimmy can tap dance! and he's so eyecatching. Again I don't hate Bogart, I just prefer Cagney and have watched him longer and more, but Bogart is again very talented, and both are oozing with charisma and charm in all there roles. 

Favourite Horrors

On my last post I mention as to what I'm going to do on Halloween week, as I'm not that into Horror films, It's a fairly but they're my favourites nevertheless.

Freaks

This film is a weird one, like really weird, but I like it. Its about a circus of freaks and the love triangle between Cleopatra, Hans and Hercules, Cleopatra is a trapeze artist who's a beautiful woman she is inlove with strong man Hercules, so everyone assumes they're gonna get together which they do, Cleopatra finds out that Hans who is one of the midgets in the freakshow has a large fortune inheritance. She and Hercules make a plan to marry Hans, murder him and get the money. The freaks soon find out and turn Cleopatra I enjoyed this film, dispite it being completely freaky and just uncomfortable, I feel like its succeeded its job for me, as I felt freaked out and on edge I feel like thats what Horror films such as this one should do. 

 

House Of Wax (1953)

Now I know this version of the film is kinda forgotten from the car crash 2005 remake with Paris Hilton in but this version the 1953 version with Vincent Price is brilliant. He is practically the King of Horror, his voice is absolutely incredible. The story is about this Wax sculptor (played by Vincent Price) who owns a Wax museum that specialises in Historical figures, he adores his Marie Antoinette figure. One day his business partner says to him 'We could make allot of money on the insurance if something happens to this place'  Obviously he says no, but he sets it on fire. Years later the Wax sculptor's hands are crippled and he is left injured, and cannot make Wax figures, because of that he gets the help from Igor and Leon. Then he builds the House Of Wax Museum again, but he kills people and makes them into Wax figures. I love this film, primarily as it has Vincent Price in and his is a legend. The film has just so much more depth to it than the 2005 one. Give this film a chance and don't let the horrific 2005 colour your judgement. 

A Nightmare Before Christmas

This will probably be the only superficial film on the list, I was obsessed with this film for about a year when I was at college, because its by Tim Burton, its a dark comedy and I love dark comedies. I love the music and the fun behind it all, I also love Tim Burton's vision of it all with storytelling and the wit of his characters I just love it. I kinda just wanted to throw this in here as I love the film and its so nostalgic, and beautiful. I love the music and the relationship and chemistry with Sally and Jack.

House on Haunted Hill

Another Vincent Price film, I just love Vincent Price he's just so classy and brilliant I love that horror films back then and his era was much more about suspense, and words, rather than it being just blonde booby girls getting killed with blood everywhere. Not that there are no screaming girls in this film as there are, I love the wit behind it all. The story is about a couple who don't seem to like each other they have a ghost party invite there guests over, and if they stay the night they get paid £10,000. I love this film its wonderful, its got humour to it which I think is important for a horror as yes people dying or being chased by a ghost or demon or whatever, but its nice to have a little joke now and again, but it ties in with it. 




The Invisible Man

First black and white horror I saw, and I loved it, it was also the first film that introduced me to Claude Rains an actor who I don't think anyone really knows of. The film is about this scientist who is played by Claude Rains, who does an experiment and it goes wrong and makes him invisible, he then moves to this town to try to fix the invisibility problem. Over time the invisibility goes to his head and he soon goes crazy. Claude Rains's voice is brilliant as we hardly see him not invisible, and his laugh is just crazy. I love that everyone seems really quite stupid, the policeman is very much 'alwight alwight whats going on 'ere den?' kinda guy, but I like that as he's the comedy value to it all. The landlady just screams at everything, at whatever moves it sounds like a parrot's trapped inside her. I do love this film as it's one of the first Old Hollywood film I saw, so for me its very nostalgic because I remember the first time watching this film and loving it. I never saw a huge difference between modern films and then, but I love both theres just something so magical about older films than newer ones. 

Chaplin Vs Keaton

I thought for a change I'd talk about one of the loves in my life, and that is Classic Film Stars & Actors. 

These are 2 very interesting Comics, Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin where they're very similar but complete opposites, we'll start with them at the beginning.

One similarity they both have is that they both started around the same time, and they were amazing writers, directors, actors and comics. 

Chaplin was bought up in East End London, it was just him and his Brother Sydney who then went ton later to become his manager, and his mother who had a mental breakdown and got sent to a mental institute. So for him he felt he had to have money because he had no choice but to be independent for himself and family.
Whereas with Keaton he was pretty much bought up on the Vaudeville Circuit, as his parents were Performers and he was part of his Family Act. So for him he felt that not having wasn't a big issue for him.

For Chaplin in terms of Comedy and a Career he wrote and directed alot of his films, and also he used a character for pretty much most of his films, 'The Tramp'. Which is very clever but also The Tramp was a particular character where he's very silly and doesn't take himself seriously and has a way of doing things, and its an iconic character he created, because he made films around The Tramp until he made 'The Great Dictator' but I mean The Tramp was who he was.

With Keaton he did things a little bit more spontaneous where he didn't really have a set character, but he always had a particular way of playing with Comedy.He always had a very serious, deadpanned face. As he did Physical Comedy with this character persona he had, its very interesting to watch. 

Both of them do Physical Comedy, both do it very well, but also they have such a Diversity in Comedy, where they both have such a vulnerability in there films. Also both are known for the parody they bought to film, Chaplin did 'The Great Dictator' which I wouldn't say is a parody at the time, but it is a parody of Adolf Hitler, however after that film and during that time he was involved in alot of controversy. Keaton did parodies aswell but his were alot less controversial than Chaplin as he just took out of films and other creative things. 

In personal life, they are very much different. As Chaplin had wife after wife, and even then they were very young girls, so young where he had to go to Mexico just to marry them. But even then he had not very goo marriages with them as he just forgot about them, which is very upsetting. Keaton however married the sister in law of his boss, so he was quite lucky I guess, he children with her, then he couldn't see them anymore which really affected him as unlike Chaplin he wanted to have his children around him. I mean Chaplin didn't hate his kids, he just didn't have time for them thus neglecting them and his wives.  Keaton also was known for a heavy drinker, but then again it wasn't that big of a 'Oh my god I can't believe that' because at the time, everyone drank, and also as him and his character it was too shocking where it was more of a sad thing. 

A difference in the 2 but a complete similarity is that both have a massive sense of creativity but in different ways, for Chaplin he did films with a beautiful story, but in some of his films his always had this story that wanted to come across, with 'Modern Times' for instance he wanted a story to come across as he felt for the people in hard times, he really got a feel of what was happening, rather than, being in a fantasy, make believe world, of 'oh lets be funny all the time'. It was funny but sometimes with a sense of realism. Keaton did things abit more creativity and without thinking of the real world issues, but at the same time it can be more creative to do films with real world issues. Because you're breaking the mold and thats what he did. 

Although at the end of this there really isn't a competition as they're both pretty much the same I guess, I mean in terms of success, and you know I'm not a huge fan of the whole 'Who's better than who?' as I feel both of them are equally as amazing. With saying that however I prefer Chaplin as I've just liked him longer, and I've watched hundreds of Chaplin documentarys, whereas for Keaton I've only watch 1 or 2. I guess you could also say that Chaplin is much more commercially known, partly because of the controversy he lead in his life. I mean you can make up your mind of what you want out of it. 

Review on Cafe Society

I went to see this Film at the Electric Cinema in Birmingham. First of all the cinema is beautiful, and the decor is so classic and stylish.

The film however...erhmm. It wasn't good, to get down to the point. I mean having Kristen Stewart and Jesse Heinsburg as romantic leads is already a bad idea because they are already both very weak, and on the same level, and I hate them both as a couple on screen. With couples on screen personally I find you either have to hate one or love them both.

I didn't find it funny either, I mean it is directed and narrated by Woody Allen, so its very Jewish, which I'd like to point out quickly I don't have a problem with it in anyway. I just didn't find any of the jokes or lines funny, purely because I'm not Jewish, if I was I might find it funny.

The story was abit wanky aswell, as the character revolves around this guy who moves to L.A to be with his uncle who works on a production company, he then starts to like this girl who works closely with his uncle, and his uncle is having an affair with his wife, it turns out it the girl who's dating the main character. The narration is abit pointless as I felt there was no need to do the narration of the story, because we all knew what was going on, and we all had a feeling of what the characters were thinking. 

The only thing I liked was, the fact that it was set in the 1930s, which is something I love loads, because its the 1930s, I love period dramas. The other thing that I liked about it was the colours and landscape of the stills. Which annoyed me cus I like the stills, and the fact that it was set in the 1930s, and the stills was the only strong reasons I went to see it. But when you watch a film you don't watch it because of the beautiful stills, and photography. You watch a film because of the story and characters, if you wanna watch beautiful picturesque views, then I'd recommend you watch a documentary about New Zealand or another country that has beautiful scenic views. The colours were interesting where when they were in L.A it was all beige, and when they were in New York it was all blue. Which is nice, but its not nearly interesting for to enjoy the film.

I couldn't relate to any of the characters, or felt sorry for any of them. It really isn't worth the money to spend on this film, honestly I'd say just watch it when it comes on TV or something. 

The only word I can say for this film is 'eh'