Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo, aka your new favourite film stars

Before everyone saw/sees The Artist they had/will have this exact conversation: “Every film critic in the world loves it, and it’s nominated for a million Oscars, but I’m not sure I’ll like it because it’s in black and white and it’s silent and it’ll probably be horrible.”

Critically beloved, Oscar-nominates bores are standard fare, especially at this time of year, so: fair enough. But The Artist is not boring or horrible! It’s really, really, great: unique and joyful and captivating and – best of all – unpretentious. Director Michel Hazanavicius didn’t make a black-and-white silent film then shove a stick up its ass just to show stuffy film critics how much he knows about cinema. He made a black-and-white silent movie because he’s passionate about cinema. The Artist glows with that passion.

There isn’t much to the plot – silent movie star is pushed aside by talkies movie star¹ but they fall in love anyway. That’s pretty much it. With an adorable dog. Spoiler alert! – but The Artist is nevertheless super-engaging. Because the story unfolds via expressions and body language and the occasional title card, you’re forced to pay attention. And this is a pretty rare thing in an age where everyone’s attention span is about three seconds long. Succumb to the siren song of your smartphone, and you’ll miss an important plot point… or at least the adorable dog doing something adorable.

There’s also the novelty factor of watching a black-and-white film – everyone onscreen radiates that spectacular monochrome glow – with almost no dialogue – “This is how people used to watch movies? Neat!”. But the old-timey gimmick doesn’t dominate The Artist to the point where that’s all there is to it. This is mostly down to leads Jean Dujardin² (his smile!) and Bérénice Bejo (her smile!), who are marvellous terrific wonderful amazing. Their chemistry! Please cast them opposite each other in another movie, Hollywood. I want to watch them together again and again and again and again.

Sadly, like many films before it, The Artist does not feature enough Missi Pyle. But it does feature just the right amounts of James Cromwell and John Goodman. I didn’t expect any of them to be in this film!

Don’t force yourself to see The Artist just because it’s got lots of Academy Awards nominations and you want to sound smart pretending you liked it. Go see it because it’s a fun, straight-up entertaining film.

1. “Talkies”. Isn’t that a great word. “Talkies”. What a shame it fell out of fashion. Let’s all start using it again! “Hey, want to go to the talkies tonight?” “Nah, I hate 3D talkies.”
2. Which is sexy-French for John Gardener. God, English is so dull.

Young Adult is not the zany black comedy suggested by its trailer (which, by the way, basically spoils the entire movie, so you should probably avoid it. Here’s the link!). This is a dark, twisted-and-not-in-that-cute-Hollywood-way portrait of a disturbed woman, but it’s a portrait that doesn’t say enough about its subject.

(Light spoilers ahead.)

The trailer does get the basic plot right: beyond-beautiful Charlize Theron is Mavis Gary, the author of a failing series of young-adult novels who returns to her hometown to reclaim her high-school sweetheart Buddy (Patrick Wilson), who’s now married with a kid.

Soon after arriving in Mercury, a sort of Everywhere/Nowheresville that could stand in for pretty much any small town in America (or Australia, for that matter – the strip mall/fast-food landscape looks the same), Mavis encounters Matt (Patton Oswalt), a former classmate who was brutally beaten and crippled when he was at school. The two bond – who doesn’t love connecting with friends of the jocks who terrorised you as a teenager? – even as Matt tries to talk Mavis out of her ridiculous plans with Buddy.

The problem with Young Adult is that when I ask myself “What is this film about?”, I can’t really come up with an answer. “Continuing to behave like a high-schooler well into your adulthood has bleak consequences.” And… that’s it? The plot doesn’t move beyond that premise; it’s not thoughtful enough to be a character study, too sour to be a comedy.

Mavis sneers at pretty much everyone who enters her field of vision, but I didn’t dislike her because she’s so unlikeable. Unlikeable characters are fine in principle, and it’s not like I hated her: she’s best when her powerful sarcasm is turned up to 11, scoffing when a date boasts about travelling in South-East Asia and rolling her eyes at a stranger’s baby (strangers’ babies are the worst). Nor would Young Adult have been better if Mavis had experienced some vague redemption – that would’ve been way worse, actually – but unlikeable characters still need to offer some reason for us to follow them, and Mavis doesn’t.

She doesn’t feel complicated as much as she feels disparate; she’s mentally ill and an alcoholic and there’s a late reveal about an adolescent miscarriage that probably fuelled her present-day miscarriage, but none of it gels, and some her characterisations are just obvious (the bit where she looks over a chart used to teach autistic kids about emotions, then she remarks that she doesn’t feel any. CLUNK). There’s too little sense of Mavis and what her regular life is like, or how a bitchy high-school prom queen even became a writer in the first place.

(There’s a vague implication Mavis writes young-adult novels because she’s stuck in permanent adolescence herself, which I emphatically reject, and it suggests screenwriter Diablo Cody is pretty ignorant about YA as a whole. It’s not just Sweet Valley High these days.)

It’s not just Mavis who’s so oddly drawn: what is Young Adult trying to say about small-town America? Should we share Mavis’s contempt for Mercury and her classmates who stayed behind? Or come away believing that even escaping your past doesn’t guarantee you’ll escape mediocrity? I have no idea.

Director Jason Reitman offered a better portrait of a stunted adult in Up in the Air. Watch that instead.

So last summer I was sleeping with the windows open and my next-door neighbour was watching Singin’ in the Rain turned up to full volume and I thought, “I should watch Singin’ in the Rain too!”, but then I thought “Sheez it’s so late turn down your TV!”

Anyway. I finally got around to watching the movie ¹. And… it’s kind of overrated. Greatest cinema musical of all time? Really?

Kinda ironic it’s about the making of a so-so Hollywood film that’s transformed into a great film with the addition of a few unrelated musical numbers, given that pretty much describes Singin’ in the Rain itself. Meta! Singin‘ isn’t as terrible as its film-within-a-film Dueling Cavalier, not by a long shot, but its best known numbers – ‘Good Morning’, ‘Make ‘Em Laugh’ and the iconic title track, which is pretty neat, I’ll admit – don’t have anything much to do with the plot, and a long, actually-pretty-snoozy chunk of the second act is given over to an extended fantasy sequence which has nothing to do with the plot.

(Wikipedia says “Singin’ in the Rain was originally conceived by MGM producer Arthur Freed, the head of the ‘Freed Unit’ responsible for turning out MGM’s lavish musicals, as a vehicle for his catalog of songs written with Nacio Herb Brown for previous MGM musical films of the 1929-39 period”. TL,DR: the songs really were just shoehorned into the plot.)

Singin’ in the Rain is plenty entertaining. It’s often hilarious (especially the disastrous “Yes! Yes! Yes” “No! No! No!” test screening of The Dueling Cavalier, and Jean Hagen as insufferable ingenue Lina Lamont). It’s not one of those “classic” films that bores the pants of everyone who isn’t a film critic. It’s a good movie. But I don’t believe it’s great.

Those aforementioned film critics aren’t much help revealing why, either. Roger Ebert and David Stratton and Margaret Pomeraz basically consider it great because it’s considered great? Yeah, okay, then.

1. To re-watching it, that is, but the first time I watched it was for uni film studies and I’ve decided that doesn’t count.

"If Voldemort doesn't have a nose, how does he smell? Terrible!"

To prepare for the recent release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2: The Lengthily Titled Sequel, my Significant Other and I spent one whole weekend watching all seven previous films. (Which is not as arduous as you’d think! Two on Friday night, three on Saturday, three on Sunday. It’s easy to be an obsessive nerd!¹)

So here are all the Harry Potter films ranked from worst to best. (Minus Deathly Hallows, Part 2. Needs time to settle before it can be given a proper rank.)

Gilderoy Lockhart was pretty good, I guess, even though it's weird that a 12-year-old girl would swoon over Kenneth Branagh

7. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Poor Chamber of Secrets, wedged between the freshness of the first instalment and the maturity of third. The best you can say about Chamber, really, is that it’s okay. (The worst you can say is merely “Dobby”.)² The book is notable because it has that “Harry destroys what later turns out to be the first of many horcruxes, and hey, isn’t it awesome how Jo Rowling included one even back then? She really did plan out the whole thing in advance! Neat!” thing going for it. Aside from that, it’s largely skippable and for completionists only – just read the Wikipedia summary.

In the film’s favour, the climax in the titular chamber has that bit where Harry clambers all over Salazar Slytherin’s face, a nice reference to the well-known scene from North by Northwest. Way to be creative and subtle, director Chris Columbus! Too bad you didn’t do that more often.

Harry Potter and the Future Mother-in-Law

6. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone

This one’s as bright and bland as its CG-rendered Quidditch stadium (currently battling it out with Firenze for the title of Worst Special Effect in the Entire Film Series and Possibly Cinema History). Columbus’s direction is servicable – he touches on all the most memorable bits in the book, but brings no depth to the wizarding world.

Here’s what I mean: one of the best scenes in Prisoner of Azkaban (aka Harry Potter and the First Film Not Directed by Chris Columbus) is the early one in the Leaky Cauldron where Mr Weasley warns Harry not to go chasing after Sirius Black. The foreground has basic plot-advancement. The background has a floating kettle pouring tea. In the background! Contrast that with the “HEY LOOK, THEY’RE USING MAGIC! RIGHT HERE! ACTUAL MAGIC! LOOOOOK AAAAAT IIIIIT!” tone in pretty much every scene of Philosopher’s Stone, and, yeah.

Meanwhile I imagine Dan Radcliffe never rewatches this one. He’s pretty terrible in it. Rupert Grint is the best of the trio – Emma Watson clearly graduated from the Perfect Enunciation Junior Academy of Annoying Acting the day before shooting commenced, though to her credit she nails the “What. An. Idiot” and “Levi-OH-sa” lines.

(PS, you can take your “Sorcerer’s Stone” and shove it, America.)

Surely there's got to be a more scientific way of testing for Polyjuice Potion than this?

5. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1

Putting Deathly Hallows, Part 1 in fifth place is kind of harsh, since it implies it’s only barely better (not legions better) than Philosopher’s Stone. But something has to come fifth, so.

However it was adapted, Hallows was always going to suffer. The middle act is… camping. And arguing. In the woods. Snore. Hallows, Part 1 suffers even more greatly because it’s part one – the really good climax stuff isn’t even in it. It’s half a movie – exposition-heavy, action-light (pretty much the opposite of Deathly Hallows, Part 2).

That said, it’s still a great movie. Anything that includes the death of annoying house elf Dobby is automatically good!

Harry Potter and that Guy from Twilight

4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Goblet of Fire will always have a special place in my heart. I became a Harry Potter fan – a “Potterhead”! Is what some folks call it – right around the time this book was released. And then there was that epic million-year wait till the next book! So Goblet of Fire was the one you’d probe for clues about what the next instalment would be about. (Remember there was that thing where James came out of Voldemort’s wand first, or something, and everyone was like “THEORIES THEORIES THEORIES!”, and then it turned out J.K had just fucked up? Good times.)

Con: The movie goes light on Grubbly-Plank (who is clearly meant to be a lesbian?), who, for some reason, is one of my favourite minor characters in the series (possibly because she’s clearly meant to be a lesbian?).

Pro or con, depending on your perspective: Robert Pattinson’s in it, so I guess Twihards would love this movie the most out of all of them? Assuming being a Twihard is still a thing?

The Order of the English-Looking Children

3. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

The climax of this film. Wow! It has several of my favourite scenes in the whole franchise. First: Dumbledore vs Voldemort! This is an even better wizard fight than the bit in Lord of the Rings where Saruman spins Gandalf around on his head! It’s just a shame it doesn’t go longer – if there’s one thing Harry Potter needs, it’s more epic wizard fights. Second: Fudge stumbling into the Ministry of Magic and gawping “He’s back! Voldemort’s back!” The first time I saw this movie the entire cinema hooted at what a dunderhead Fudge is after he said that, and it was one of those kind of neat collective viewing experiences. And third, my favourite: the flashbacks Harry has to his loved ones while he’s possessed by Voldemort, which allow him to pwn the Dark Lord and boot him out. That touches my cold, dead heart.

Imelda Staunton is also amaze as Umbridge (the series’ true villain) but I still wish they’d cast Matt Lucas in the role in his Marjorie Dawes get-up. That’s how I initially pictured the character! Also, Fred and George’s smackdown of Umbridge is way lamer than it is in the book, but that’s okay, because Fred and George are generally way lamer in the movies than the books anyway.

"Here's my plan to rescue Sirius, Hermione. Instead of contacting someone in the Order, which would be sensible, we'll leap blindly into a place I've only visited once before."

2. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

My stars, this is a gorgeous film. It’s like watching a painting. Hands-down the best-looking entry in the film franchise. And, at the risk of going all emo on you, it’s so beautifully sad – Hermione’s tears over Ron’s tryst with Lavender, Draco pondering the weight of the task Voldemort has thrust upon him, and (oh this scene is wonderful) Harry confronting Slughorn about what Lily’s death really meant to him. (Such acting in that scene, incidentally. Aah, Jim Broadbent.)

But it doesn’t drown in angst, either, which is surprising for an instalment that ends with the death of a treasured character. It’s funny. Won-won! Cormac being a(n incredibly good-looking) d-bag!

It’s a shame the film botches Dumbledore’s death so badly: in the book Dumbledore stuns Harry so he can’t do anything while his beloved headmaster is murdered, while in the movie Harry just watches. And does nothing. Which is completely in character, except it isn’t. Like, okay, movie-Harry is even more of a dopey lump than book-Harry³, but even he wouldn’t just stand there gawping while dark wizards attacked.

Seeing Hagrid naked for the first time was a memorable experience for the children

1. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

This is my favourite book, too. It raises the stakes of the series significantly, lifting it out of Middle-Grade and into Young Adult, and the film does the same – the opening scene of Harry playing with his wand under his bedsheets (subtle) has more depth and subtext than the previous two films combined. Thanks, Alfonso Cuaron!

He shifted the series away from “bright and superficial” and into “dark and moody”, pioneering the shadowy look that peaks in Half-Blood Prince. Most importantly, this film that works best independently of its book – it doesn’t have so many of the  “You’ve read it already, so we won’t bother explaining this plot leap” touches⁴ – except for how they gloss over explaining all the Moony/Padfoot/Wormtal/Prongs backstory, I guess.

Major con: screenwriter Steve Cloves giving “If you want to kill Harry, you’ll have to kill us too!”, one of Ron’s best lines, to Hermione. Of all the Cloves-obviously-despises-Ron moments, this is the worst. (Well, maybe second to that bit in Hallows, Part 2 where Harry and Hermione dance together; if Cloves had had his way, they totally would’ve pashed.)

Other major con: the unidentified fat black kid in Trelawney’s class who pops up, plays Exposition Fairy about the Grim, then never appears again. I don’t know why, but that really annoys me.

Previously: Dumble-war: Michael Gambon vs Richard Harris

1. Of course there’ll be an extra movie to wedge in there once Part 2 is released on home-entertainment media, but you can squeeze it in!
2. This is all relative, of course; it’s only lame compared to the radness of the other books. And because it has Dobby in it.
3. This isn’t snark, this is stating a fact. Harry is… kind of dumb. Go re-read the books/re-watch the movies if you don’t believe me.
4. The worst of which comes at the end of Goblet of Fire, where Dumbledore is all like, “Aah yes, priori incantatem”. Everyone who’s not read the book is all like, “WTF?”

Julia Roberts playing a woman who looks like Julia Roberts, next to George Clooney playing a man who doesn't look like George Clooney

So you’re watching Hollywood Movie, starring, say, Male Lead Played By Well-Known Actor (for simplicity’s sake, let’s say Steve Carell) and Female Lead Played By Well-Known Actress (say, Amy Adams), and Actress’s character comments on her crush on Tom Cruise, to which Actor’s character responds that Angelina Jolie is way more bangable.

What’s really going on here?

Obviously Hollywood Movie is fictional, but scenes like this happen in films all the time, where recognisable actors refer, in character, to their real-life Hollywood peers. What are we to make of these moments?

One assumption is that Hollywood Movie is, in fact, set in an alternate reality where the actors Steve Carell and Amy Adams don’t exist (or at least, where they’re not Hollywood stars); however, a couple of regular, ordinary, non-famous characters who happen to look exactly like our reality’s Steve Carell and Amy Adams do exist.

Alternatively, we can assume that Hollywood Movie is set in our reality, and is about a couple of regular, ordinary, non-famous people who happen to look exactly like the film stars Steve Carell and Amy Adams. The problem with this assumption, though, is that you then have to wonder why none of Hollywood Movie’s other characters (played, presumably, by yet more well-known actors and actresses) ever notice Male Lead and Female Lead look awfully like Steve Carell and Amy Adams. Or why Male Lead and Female Lead never notice every significant person in their lives also looks like a Hollywood actor((Steal this idea: a comedy about a town whose residents do realise they all look like Hollywood actors, and open some sort of impersonation theme park! Charlie Kaufman, are you available to write this thing?)).

The only film I can think of that explicitly addresses this conundrum is Ocean’s Twelve, which has Julia Roberts playing Tess, a woman who looks exactly like Julia Roberts and impersonates her to gain advantage. Yet this just raises more questions – why doesn’t anyone remark on Danny Ocean’s resemblance to George Clooney? Or on Rusty’s resemblance to Brad Pitt, or on Linus’s resemblance to Matt Damon, et cetera?

It seems Ocean’s Twelve is a clumsy mishmash of both of our earlier assumptions: it’s set in an alternate reality where Clooney et all don’t exist, but in which Roberts does exist.

He has a pretty good body for a street rat who never has anything to eat.

In Disney’s 1992 classic Aladdin¹, Robin Williams’ Genie can do pretty much anything – except, as he points out shortly after meeting the eponymous hottie, grant more than three wishes, kill people, or force them to fall in love. Those exceptions aside, his powers are pretty much limitless.

(Or are they? What would happen if Aladdin wished that the rule banning wishing for more wishes no longer applied? Surely Genie would have to grant it; that Aladdin can wish Genie free at the end of the film demonstrates that it’s possible for “commanders” to wish genies to overcome their limitations.)

So, on the face of it, it makes sense for the archvillain Jafar to wish to become the most powerful genie in the film’s climax. He thereby gains that limitless (for all intents and purposes) power. “Ah ha!” you might point out. “It’s actually stupid of Jafar to wish to become a genie, because genies can only wield the full extent of their powers when a commander wishes for them to do so!”

But we know this isn’t so: when Aladdin is trapped with Genie in the Cave of Wonders, he tricks Genie into freeing him without wasting a wish. This proves that, in the Aladdinverse, genies can use their powers under their own steam. They may not like doing so – even when Aladdin is unconscious and drowning, Genie doesn’t save him until Aladdin kind-of-but-not-really “wishes” to be saved – but there doesn’t seem to be any penalty for granting these “freebies”.

(If you wanted to fanwank a little, and I do, you could make out like there’s some “genie equivalence rule” which dictates that, since Aladdin scored a free wish from Genie, Genie is thereby obliged to “trick” Aladdin into making a wish – which he clearly does in the above scene, by almost literally putting the words of the wish into his mouth.)

The magic carpet really is magic: it transports Aladdin and Jasmine from Egypt to Greece to China in (what appears to be) a single night. I'd calculate its average speed if I a) were good at maths, and b) weren't so lazy.

However. Further analysis reveals that your initial impulse to believe Jafar is stupid is correct, albeit not for the reason you supposed. It is stupid of Jafar to wish to become the most powerful genie in the world – because he had already wished to become the most powerful sorcerer in the world, which is already powerful enough.

(Jafar’s first wish to become sultan of Agrabah was a total wash, by the way. First, why not just wish to become ruler of the whole world? Granted, we don’t know big Agrabah’s empire is, but it’s sensible to cover one’s bases. Second, why not just wish to become a sorcerer in the first place, then use all that sorcery to usurp the Sultan?)

It’s telling that, after Jafar becomes the most powerful sorcerer, one of his first acts is to strip Prince Ali of his ersatz royalty and transform him back into plain old Aladdin. In other words, Jafar undoes the effects of Aladdin’s first wish. In other words, he overcomes Genie’s powers. In other words, at this point of the story Jafar is at least as strong as, if not stronger than, Genie.

The fact that Jafar – who is ostensibly a clever man, having managed to rise to the position of Grand Vizier in the Sultan’s palace, though in hindsight he probably only managed that because he had that hypnosis-snake-stick-thing – is then stupid enough to allow some riff-raff street rat to trick him into eternal imprisonment in a lamp, basically stripping him of the benefits of all his wishes, means he deserves what he got.

(Note that when Jafar wishes to become a genie, he’s immediately trapped in a lamp, suggesting imprisonment is the “natural” state of geniedom. Thus, the freed Genie at the end of the film represents a perverted abomination of nature. Furthermore, is it reasonable to assume that Genie was also once a man who was somehow turned into a genie, or do genies exist as entities separate from humans? Sadly, the film provides few hints to the answer – unless you assume it’s set in the far distant future, and Genie was somehow trapped in his lamp sometime around the late 20th century and has languished there for millennia. It’d certainly explain all his relatively contemporary pop-culture references, which would be lost on Aladdin.)

So while from Aladdin’s perspective the moral of the story is “wishes can’t grant happiness”, from Jafar’s perspective the moral is “wishes can grant happiness, but only if you choose your wishes carefully, you idiot moron.”

1. Which, by the way, is the only source this post references. I haven’t seen the 1994 direct-to-video sequel or the spin-off TV series, and I don’t intend to.

Richard Harris, Michael Gambon: FIGHT!

I contend that, in the Harry Potter film adaptations, Michael Gambon is a superior Albus Dumbledore to Richard Harris. HOWEVER. This is a controversial matter.

Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts in the Harry Potter series (except in the last book, because he died in Half-Blood Prince) (spoiler alert!), is pretty much the only major character to be portrayed by different actors in the films¹. Sadly, Harris died after filming Chamber of Secrets, and since it’s not like they could’ve written Dumbledore out, he was replaced by Gambon.

What I like best about Gambon’s Dumbledore is his impishness. In Prisoner of Azkaban, Gambon’s first outing in the role, Dumbledore basically orchestrates Sirius’s freedom and Buckbeak’s survival by handing the Time Turner over to Harry and Hermione. “We did it!” Harry exclaims after the mission is successfully completed. “Did what?” Dumbledore asks, the picture of innocence. Gambon’s delivery of the line is perfection – his Dumbledore has more mystery and mischief than the straight-up kindly paternalism of Harris’s.

Gambon’s Dumbledore also has more style (as noted in Order of the Phoenix by Kingsley Shacklebolt, one of the series’ few black – and therefore cool – characters) and, more importantly, more power. Though we’ll never know, I have difficulty imagining Harris’s Dumbledore locked in combat with Voldemort in the Ministry of Magic, or conjuring a swirling vortex of fire to combat a mass of Inferi in the seaside cave.

Early in the Harry Potter series – both the books and the films – Dumbledore is portrayed as an all-powerful, benevolent wizard. Harris’s Dumbledore knows everything and can do everything, and Harry is right to trust him completely.

It’s not till later that Dumbledore becomes more nuanced. In Goblet of Fire he makes his first major fuck-up: failing to realise that the real Mad-Eye Moody has been replaced by Barty Crouch Jr. In Order of the Phoenix he makes another grave error when he chooses to distance himself from Harry and the boy’s mental connection to Voldemort, instead entrusting the guarding of Harry’s mind to his nemesis Snape. (Like, seriously, Albus. WTF were you thinking.) And of course in Deathly Hallows we discover Dumbledore’s dark past: his dabbling in the dark arts, the hours and hours he spent shagging Grindelwald when they were teenagers and his involvement in the death of his sister.

Dumbledore becomes a more unlikeable character, on the surface, but he also becomes darker and more complex – which, paradoxically, makes him more appealing. Gambon benefits greatly from getting to portray this richer Dumbledore, which is probably why I like and prefer him over Harris.

Who, by the way, was not a bad Dumbledore. He was a great Dumbledore (his read of the “Alas, earwax” line was spot-on). He just wasn’t as great as Gambon.

Of course, neither Gambon nor Harris is as lively as the Dumbledore in the books – and that’s fine. Film characters are rarely as good as their book counterparts. That’s just the nature of the two mediums. They both did good work; one of them just did it better.

1. the only other one is Voldemort, and that’s if you count the face in the back of Professor Quirrell’s head

Modern Family‘s Claire and Phil Dunphy. (Apologies to the kid whose face I had to chop off when I cropped this photo.)

Date Night‘s Claire and Phil Foster.

Ariel, The Little Mermaid. After bragging to Flounder about all the cool shit she has stashed in her cave, Ariel laments “But who cares? No big deal. I want more.” Jeez, Ariel – you’re already a beautiful mermaid princess whose father dotes on her. What more could you possibly want, you spoiled bitch? (This also kind of applies to Simba, though at least he’s meant to sound bratty when he sings ‘I Just Can’t Wait To Be King’.)

Luna Lovegood, Harry Potter series. In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the intrepid trio visits the home of their schoolchum Luna, who up till this point has seemed like a spacey but innocent weirdo. But when they stumble into her bedroom, they discover “ceiling portraits of [Harry], Luna, Ron, Hermione, Neville and Ginny entwined with the word ‘Friends’”. Cue creepy stalker music. (This is nothing against Evanna Lynch, who is brill.)

The parents, The Parent Trap. So here’s the deal. Nick and Elizabeth (Dennis Quaid and Natasha Richardson, RIP) hook up, have identical twin daughters, then endure a break-up so painful they can never see each other again. Each returns to their respective country – America and England – each taking a daughter with them. And they both agree never to let the twins see each other, nor tell them about the other’s existence. That is horrible. And we’re meant to root for these abusive chumps to get back together?! No wonder Lindsay Lohan is so fucked-up. (For the record: I love The Parent Trap. But, wow, the titular parents are jerks.)

Robert Downey Jr is… the drawcard of a film which is otherwise a bit of a muddle. Director Guy Ritchie’s trademark gangster talk and slick visuals don’t quite mesh with the richly visualised 19th century London of the film, though he nevertheless does an admirable job of transporting audiences back in time to a world of cobblestones, steam and stagecoaches.

But it’s the overly complicated storyline that’s the biggest offender. For starters, there’s no actual mystery to solve – which is a crime when your leading character is the world’s most famous sleuth.

The Lovely Bones

Peter Jackson and fellow screenwriters Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens (the trio also penned the Lord of the Rings trilogy) are mostly concerned with adapting Sebold’s tone of poetic whimsy, because they excise many of the book’s darker, more morally grey moments.

That’s a mistake, because the resulting film lacks both conviction and emotion.