Transcendence - hopefully not my last film of the year

The writing was sort of on the wall for Transcendence before I even watched it.  When I checked out its IMDB entry I discovered that 'people who liked this' also liked such abominations as Lucy and The Tourist.  Sigh.  But of course silly me I never checked that before the physical DVD was in my possession; so what is a film-nerd to do but watch it anyway and prepare to rage?  So here we go.

Johnny Depp is miscast as Will Caster, a socially introverted caricature of a scientist who is obsessed by artificial intelligence (AI) and who wants to create a computer that can think.  His wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) gets to be all weepy and emotional about things (cos she's a women innit) and his mentors & colleagues get to sound all scientific.  Paul Bettany is Evelyn's unemotional foil (cos he's a man innit) while Morgan Freeman stands about sounding like the narrator and getting all the lines the writers think are most profound - cos that's what his career has become.  When Caster is shot by anti-AI terrorists (led by Kara Mara - another good actor who is in this film why?) his team decide to try to save his mind by uploading him to a computer.

This then leads us naturally into familiar science fiction territory - what does it mean to be human, and can a machine ever be so.  Except that the film completely shies away from telling this story.  Instead it turns Johnny Depp's character into some sort of big bad with a huge shoot-out and lots of convenient plot holes that can't be ignored in such a terrible film.

I'm almost more depressed that I've got used to films like this than their actual existence.  Lucy especially is a film very similar to this, a film that never gets deeper than a mere scratch into anything approaching proper science fiction, but somehow thinks itself deeply profound.  It's a film that thinks it's being clever because it asks how a human can prove they are self-aware, but then never goes on to explore that.  It's a film that feels like a marketing opportunity without a script, a collection of famous cast members without any characters for them to play, where the final act of descends into an action shooter because that's what the committee that 'wrote' the script thinks audiences want these days.

In short, this is a very poor attempt at science fiction.  Oh, and Cillian Murphy is also in it for a bit - talk about wasted acting talent.

Some of you might be surprised to find me blogging about Science Fiction trash rather than conducting an in-depth review of the new Star Wars film.  The truth is that I have not seen it yet; I just don't get along very well with insanely packed cinemas of fan-boys.  Probably go and see it between Christmas and the New Year.  Yes I am excited about it, but the crushing failure of the hopefully soon-to-be-retconned prequels leaves me hoping that it simply isn't terrible.  Watch this space for my thoughts.  Merry Xmas all!

Last House on the Left - Horrible Horror

Way back in the day when I was hardly into film at all, my friends were all watching a brand new exciting horror movie called Scream.  Scream took the world by storm, and I was informed by the film-reviewing world that Wes Craven had re-invented the horror genre.  What no-one stopped to tell me though, was that Craven had been here before, creating horror thrillers that inspired a generation of film makes over several decades.  With Craven's recent death, I am taking the time to watch some of his more famous back-catalogue.

Last House on the Left starts innocently enough, but by the end has degenerated into a bloody revenge fantasy in which a nicer-than-nice middle class family shows us how society is only a short step away from violent anarchy.  The plot is that middle class Mary of liberal upbringing and her more worldly-wise friend Phyllis go to see a concert, try to score some drugs, get kidnapped by a gang of sexually violent criminals - and then there's bloody horror.

With this - his first film - Craven set the template for a genre that has now become so ingrained in the minds of the movie-watching public, that it's hard to imagine a time before these tropes existed.  The movie is shot on grainy film stock, often with poor lighting, indifferent cuts and stunted chemistry between the actors - in other words trying not to look like a film, trying to look like real life.  Herein lies the true nastiness of it, rather than trying to tell a horror story or deliberately scare us, Craven is doing something much more animalistic than that.  He's trying to get under our skin by presenting us with youthfulness and innocence, and then ripping it to bloody pieces.

Of course the cleverness here is that even through this, the film is politically charged.  It plays into the fear of every liberal parent, that their liberalism contradicts that animal instinct to protects one's children above all, and that one's civilised exterior is only a front waiting to be washed away to reveal the darkness underneath.  When presented with something of unimaginable horror, such as the people who brutally killed your daughter, where will our civilisation go?  Who are the 'good guys' in the film - do we applaud the revenge of a murdered daughter, or do we shake our heads at the senselessness?

Looking back, it's a film that has been bettered by film-nasties since, but as a piece of film history it's clearly still relevant and seeing the opening shots of a genre that continues to draw huge audience appeal.

Spectre - More Bond!

The release of the latest incarnation of the James Bond franchise was greeted with the usual round of media frenzy over Daniel Craig's abs and teeth gnashing over product placement.  For me, the two most exciting things about this new movie is its title - implying a connection to Bond's most famous villainous organisation - and the fact that it kicks of a hugely exciting winter movie season, which will contain, of course, the new Star Wars.  How the audience gasped when the trailer for that came on (though it hardly seems likely none of those people hadn't seen the trailer already - an observation which might be worthy of a study in psychology).

Spectre does indeed do what one should expect it to from the title.  The movie goes to great lengths to carry out fan service and introduce Hans Blofeld's criminal organisation, complete with scar on his eyes, a white cat, a huge facility in the middle of nowhere and numerous other nods to Bond lore.  In this sense it is doing what this incarnation of Bond has tried to do from the start, which is to update a franchise that was strongest in the 1960s and 1970s for the 21st century.  Here is where is succeeds, with its strong opening sequence it makes effective use of the modern symbology of action films a la Jason Bourne, Bond certainly feels more relevant for the contemporary audience.

In addition to the ambitious and largely successful opening scene, there is a classic Bond super car chase through the streets of Rome, and other Bond tropes that others might struggle to pull off, but work because the audience is familiar with how these films are meant to work.  For example Bond and Bond girl Dr Swan take a train journey across an African desert, and have dinner in their evening wear on the first classic dining carriage.  Because such trains clearly come kitted out the Orient Express.  Oh how the world of Bond loves to suspend our disbelief.

But there are several 'buts', and here they are.  Spectre is far too long.  I noted in particular a scene in which Q (who is now perfectly cast as a modern latte-sipping Shoreditch start-up nerd) is chased for a bit on a ski-lift, but then just escapes without any peril,  100% filler in a 2.5 hour long film.  Spectre also wastes its villain.  Christophe Waltz is introduced as a darkened figure issuing orders silently from the shadows in a scene that has nods to both Thunderball and From Russia with Love, a true kingpin of the international criminal circuit, all rather wasted when we get to see him aimlessly torturing Bond for no real reason.  And consider motivation for a moment, what actually is the motivation for the bad guys in this film?  The plot tries to tie together all the recent Daniel Craig movies under the same umbrella and casts the Spectre organisation as responsible for them, but this in itself feels rather weak.  What's wrong with just stealing a nuclear weapon and holding the world to ransom like they used to?

On a deeper level, I wonder if Bond even works in the modern era of post-Bourne action.  Casino Royale worked and was the best film in the Bond franchise for decades, but it was brutal and unforgiving, Moore-esque eyebrow-raises were nowhere to be seen.  When trying to marry the excitement and visceral action of a modern spy thriller against the occasional camp that the Bond-going public eventually demands, the film plays dangerous games with its own tone.  Take note of a moment during the car chase in Rome.  Bond is being chased by a man who we have just seen horribly gouge someone's eyes out, so a moment when a slightly fat Italian man bump his fiat into a wall and sets off the airbag sort of ruins the drama.  All it does is break the 4th wall and remind us all this is a Bond film, which makes us wonder why we're bothering with all this visceral peril when we know Bond's going to win and get the girl.  Perhaps we were better off in the Moore era with its double-taking pigeons and "... attempting re-entry"?  Maybe not.

Spectre ends in a way that suggests the current run of Daniel Craig as Bond is over, and that the franchise is set up with all the components in place to tell many more Bond stories with many a different leading man wearing the dinner jacket.  As a lifelong fan of Bond I will continue watching these movies as long as they keep making them, but I just can't get out of my head the idea that this character would be better left in the age for which he was invented.

Macbeth - it's *really* grim up North

I will watch anything with The Fassbender in it, just keep plugging away mate - you'll get an Oscar one of these days.  When it was announced that a new production of Macbeth was to be released, with Michael Fassbender in the starring role, well this was a film I had to see.

I am reliably informed that this new adaptation is extremely faithful to the original 17th century play.  The plot hardly needs introduction, but here it is none-the-less.  It is the Dark Ages in Scotland, and the land is in the midst of a civil war.  King Duncan's most trusted general is Macbeth, a man who we see at the start of the film driven to the edges of insanity by the brutality of war and the loss of his sons.  When at the end of his latest victory, 3 witches appear to him on the edges of a misty moor to prophesise his future as king, Macbeth finds himself lost to the temptation of power.

Macbeth requires no analysis by me, many much more well-informed scholars over the years have analysed the play to within an inch of its life.  Personally for me, this is always the Shakespeare play that I found to be the most accessible and interesting as a teenager learning about The Bard.  The story is accessible and character-driven, resonates in the modern world and is uncompromising in its brutality.  Michael Fassbender is a great choice of actor for the lead role, his depth of intensity lends itself extremely well to it.  From the very start he plays Macbeth as a man for whom the constant churn of war and death have left him soulless and hollow.  Marion Cotillard plays Lady Macbeth, less overtly the 'bad guy' here than she is traditionally played - again she seems to be driven by numbness and sadness at the loss of humanity afforded by the bleak Scottish highlands over which the power struggle is played out.

And what about those Scottish Highlands?  Filmed off the west coast of Scotland, the land is a character all of its own here.  The rugged hill-tops are shot with dark reddish filters that create a tone of foreboding and doom - almost as if the human participants are driven to their fates by their dark environs.  Perhaps the 3 witches playing as trickster gods are the physical embodiment of the landscape, tormenting their inhabitants and showing them the human folly of thinking they can 'own' the land.

Fans of Shakespeare will find a lot of interest in this adaptation.  It is very faithful to the source material while at the same time adding an interesting spin to the motivations of Macbeth and his oft-vilified wife.  People who aren't familiar with Shakespeare might - as is ever the criticism of the original plays in a modern context - find individual lines of dialogue hard to follow, but everyone is talking English, and you just need to get used to the idea that you wont understand everything, just as long as you get the gist it's fine.  Sort of like listening to a foreign language.  Macbeth is a classic for a very good reason, take some time to check out this excellent modern adaptation.

American Sniper - A surprisingly balanced view

So, an American film about macho gun-ness directed by Clint Eastwood.  When the Hollywood darling of the US Republican party directs a film called American Sniper that chronicles the exploits of the US army's most killingest sniper in the Iraq war, you can be sure that guns are going to be on the agenda.

Eastwood - though resolutely Republican - is fiercely in favour of gun controls.  Though of course in the US being in favour of gun controls generally means just banning M16's and allowing anyone to carry a pistol so long as they fill in a form - but whatever.  At least it means we're likely to get a balanced view of the matter from a US viewpoint, and that's pretty much what American Sniper delivers.  Bradley Cooper leads the movie as Chris Kyle, a US army sniper who is shown growing up in Texas learning from his father that might is right and that guns are part and parcel of life.  He goes off to join the army soon after the destruction of the World Trade Centre and before long is a sniper operating on the rooftops of nameless towns in Iraq.  Kyle dispatches nameless Iraqi fighters, while grappling with his conscious over what to do in situations that don't meet his expectations of what to find in a war-zone.

Overall, American Sniper is remarkable even-handed.  It manages to neither pass judgement on the Iraq war or US foreign policy, nor on the individuals involved.  Instead it presents a neutral view of events from the point of view of someone who is clearly a gun-enthusiast, but who understands the power he wields.  As is typical with many war films, there is very little focus on the 'other side'.  There is little difference here, and the presence of a single Iraqi sniper with whom Kyle can duel to the end of the film does little to redress that.  But then this is an American film, and Eastwood does have form the other way (he directed Letters from Iwo Jima), so I think it can be forgiven.

I think it would be easy to go into watching a film like this expecting an agenda from it, and believing that agenda to be confirmed.  I think that indicates a good balance to it.  It's a film that's very well-constructed, edited to maintain a good right pace in the battle sequences and heart-felt where it needs to be.  The montage that plays out with the closing credits could be seen as being pro-gun, but in reality it simply showcases a very American subculture without disdain or veneer.  However the outside world might feel the need to judge the American pro-gun lobby we cannot deny that the movement is strong and deeply-rooted.  American Sniper comes with a recommendation from me.

Pretty Woman - you read it right: Pretty Woman

No one can ever be able to accuse me of being a film snob - last weekend I watched Pretty Woman.  Now though many a man might at this point feel the need to defend their manliness and point out that they watched said film with their girlfriend (which I guess I am sort of doing with this statement), I am happy to hold my hands in the air and state that the film selection was mine.  Having seen the DVD in her collection, and being aware that I had not seen it, the film-junkie that kicks around in my brain took over and I found myself suggesting that we might watch Julia Roberts and Richard Gere enter the 1990s with a classic of the Chick-Flick genre.  Clearly no further persuasion was required, and the DVD (extended version - very much not required fyi) was set to play.

The very first thing that struck me about the film is how much Richard Gere has appeared to have aged since it was made, whereas Julia Roberts seems less-touched by the passing of 25 years.  I suspect that this is because if you want to maintain film star status as a woman in Hollywood, you have to (with a couple of notable exceptions) look young, whereas men are allowed to age.  Whatever else I thought about the film, it is interesting to think on it in this way - as a comment on early 21st century celebrity culture.

The plot is classic boy-meets-girl, Julia Roberts is Vivian, and Richard Gere is Edward.  He is an ashen-faced corporate mogul who's boardroom dealings have left him bereft of humanity tired of life.  She is an articulate prostitute operating on the streets of LA, her profession has left her unable to see the good in good in humanity or a future for herself.  A chance encounter puts them in the same hotel room when Edward decides he wants some company (conversation only mind) for the evening, from there the plot writes itself.  I am told that the charm of the film derives from the chemistry between Roberts and Gere, however the special edition that we were watching left me feeling rather cold towards them.  Their initial encounter in the hotel room felt quite tedious and strung out, while revealing precious little about the characters.  A classic case of film editing as an art form, and where simply adding more scenes doesn't help, and trimming back is what is needed.  Fewer or shorter sequences within a scene like this can add to the pace, improve the tone and add a bit of sparkle to the characters.  Less really is more.

We actually get very little character development throughout the film.  There is little to tell us how Vivian got into the situation she is or why Edward decided to become a financial mogul.  Neither character seems to suit the career they've allowed themselves to fall into.  We are left to fill in a huge number of gaps and (I assume) project ourselves and our own values on to these characters.  I guess therein lies the secret of the popular success of movies like this, that the audience is allowed to fill in the back-stories of the characters however they wish - a complete escapist fantasy.

All films are political - even Pretty Woman.  On one hand you could be kind to the film and say it is a rejection of monetarist politics; witness our two characters, each of whom has forgotten how to connect on a human level because of their career choices - each of which involves making money by dehumanising people and being dehumanised in return.  On the other hand you could say that film focuses very much on Vivian's material transformation, in which she becomes more of a real person when she's able to express herself through Edward's money.  In this sense it's unsurprising that there's so little depth to the characters, they are foils for the politics of the day, a politics championed by Thatcher and Reagan that idolised monetary gains beyond anything human.  Whatever else the film does, it appears to be a rejection of the idea that money is worth more than people.

The film ends exactly as one might predict, with each teaching the other a lesson about the world and Edward turning up to whisk Vivian away on the modern equivalent of the white horse of her medieval fantasy.  It's not Citizen Kane, but then no-one should expect it to be.  I'm not an idiot, I do get that films like this are designed as female escapist fantasies, in which our every-woman is whisked away by a gentleman wearing a suit.  There are enough popcorn male fantasy films out there, so there's nothing wrong with a bit chick-flick balancing things back the other way.

A little over-long and clunky in places, Pretty Woman is a film I wont be falling over myself to see a second time.  However it is watchable and certainly funny in places.  It's status as a touchstone film for 1990s pop culture, means I am very glad to finally be able to give an opinion.

Foxcatcher - a showcase for acting?

So I rented Foxcatcher because it's one of those films that the movie world told that that I 'had' to see.  Not really sure what any of it was about, which if I am to believe the hype is the best way to enjoy it.  Here Channing Tatum plays Mark Schultz, a US wrestler who won a gold medal during the LA Olympics in 1984, and Mark Ruffalo plays his brother David, who also won gold.  The film tells the tale of how the brothers were persuaded to train under the tutelage of eccentric millionaire John Du Pont, the heir to the Du Pont chemical empire, and how their relationships with each other broke down over the course of the years.

This is a film that's little more than a showcase for acting talents.  Steve Carell plays Du Pont, a man who's eccentric behaviour and attachment to his mother have stunted his social development in a world that should be his playpen.  Essentially it's about the American upper classes.  Du Pont is the heir to an empire, and as such should have the world at his feet.  Instead he is miserable, psychologically stunted and only capable of forming relationships by throwing his money around.  I'm sure stories like this have more resonance in the US, but over here in the UK our upper classes operate in a different way.  Over here it's all about privilege and secrete codes and behaviours that signal one class over the other; a film that's a study of a character who has nothing more than his money going for him and never grew up - well it doesn't really do anything for someone like me.

Add to this the fact that Foxcatcher is incredibly slow-paced and I can't really say I enjoyed my experience.  I can see what they were trying to do here, but I think they dropped the ball by going too far down the film-as-art route.  This isn't a film that needed sloth and time staring out of a window, it's a film that needed to focus a little more on the US culture of 'money wins' that it's trying to analyse.  Admittedly it does do that, but ultimately I just don't think this is a subject that required a film.

At best it showcases a couple of actors in roles you don't normally expect to see them.  Tatum usually plays the tough dufus and Carell has never done anything other than comedy.  That in itself might be enough to bother, but I'm not convinced.  At its worst it's a painfully slow depiction of a character who that isn't really that interesting.  Take care when choosing to watch this film.

Whiplash

Billed to me as 'film of the year so far' by the fine people at RedLetterMedia (even though they didn't actually get around to reviewing it), I was very excited about finally seeing Whiplash - the film for which J K Simmons had his contribution to bit-part acting recognised by the Academy in February this year.  The role he plays here is one any actor would have been eager to get their teeth into, that of obsessive music teacher Fletcher at one of New York's biggest and most prestigious music schools.  Fletcher runs the school's elite jazz band, and expects rigorous attention to detail from his students.  He is revered and feared by all at the school, the students equally scared of being noticed or over-looked by him.

Miles Teller (who looks a lot like Will Wheaton, and who actually plays the drums) plays Andrew Neimann, an aspiring drummer who Fletcher brings into his band and is then driven by varying levels of obsession to succeed.  Initially fearful of his own talent and Fletcher's reputation, he is soon driven by an obsession to be the best drummer in the world - an obsession that Fletcher is all to eager to fuel.  Andrew clashes with his family, his classmates, a potential girlfriend and finally with himself as he is psychologically and physically pushed to Fletcher be the best.

Just taken on a purely dramatic level, this is a superb film.  It's about a clash between two characters who both want the same thing.  It's about excellence, and what it means to achieve that tantalising concept.  It's asks if true talent comes from the heart, the head, practice and dedication, or something deeper in your soul.  But not only this, like any great piece of music it swings back-and-forth before coming to a crescendo with an entirely unexpected denouement.  A final sequence of music plays out that's a battle of wills between characters and a comment on the creative process - "art from adversity" if you will.

Thankfully the Oscars took note of Whiplash when handing their awards out earlier this year, Simmons took an award for his acting, while the film was rewarded for its editing and sound mixing.  The award for sound is obvious, the award for editing becomes clear on second viewing when you realise how Andrew's view of the world and obsession with being the best is faultlessly built up from interesting framing, cuts and camerawork.  Would have been good to see it get the best film award given its simplicity in form that disguises a deep meaning in its heart - but you can't have it all.  Instead we have an outstanding film with an intense performance from J K Simmons that everyone should watch.

Thelma and Louise - What's the girl version of a Bromance called?

Shockingly, here is a film that I hadn't managed to see until only a few weeks ago.  When a conversation about the merits of so-called 'chick flicks' led to an investigation of the imdb's list of 'best' chick flicks, and the discovery that Thelma and Louise is on the list - I suddenly realised that here was a way into the click flick genre I might be able to cope with.  After all, this is a film that has entered the mainstream in a number of ways and for good reasons.

Directed by Ridley Scott, Thelma and Louise is a revenge fantasy in which our two anti-hero leads go on a crime-spree across the southern United States after Thelma (Geena Davis) narrow avoids an attempted rape that results in the would-be raper being shot dead by Louise (Susan Sarandon).  Knowing that no-one is going to believe the story and in all likelihood they will get the blame for almost being raped, the girls decide to go on the run.  What starts as a desperate escape from the injustice of a male-dominated justice system turns into a full-on crusade against macho culture.

Is Thelma and Louise a chick flick?  Well probably, it does have Brad Pitt in the nude after all.  But it's also much more than that genre tag would commonly imply.  It's a crusade against machismo in society, a buddy movie, a love story and an advert for the scenery of the Southern USA.  The film is on the surface extremely anti-macho, but it isn't anti-male.  It tells a story that's very clear at portraying many sides of men, you have Harvey Keitel as the understanding but misplaced cop, Brad Pitt as the ultimate desirable heartbreaker and Michael Madsen as Louise's surprisingly astute and caring husband Jimmy.  Jimmy might not be able to remember what colour Louise's eyes are, but he loves, cares about and respects her deeply.  In this sense it's a film that's a study of men and male behaviour, from the point of view of women.

The ending of the film is a now-famous scene that has been much-parodied, shame that it looks a little cheesy when you watch it now 25 years after it was made.  The power of the story is still there though, and the fact that it still resonates 25 years on shows us how far we still have to come before men and women will be treated equally by everyone at all levels of society.

Enemy - Spiders for some reason

The second Jake Gyllenhaal film I had in my possession recently was Enemy, a film that's much more enigmatic and weird than the relative straightness of Nightcrawler's deconstruction of the American Dream.  Here Gyllenhaal plays two characters, Adam is a distant and disconnected teacher, Anthony is an aspiring actor who appears as an extra in a film that Adam watches.  The fact that these characters are each played by Gyllenhaal provides the driving force of the narrative, since when Adam see's his apparent doppelganger he immediately becomes obsessed by his existence, and resolves to seek Anthony out.

Rather than being a straight-up science fiction tale about a man who discovers his doppelganger, this is a film that is punctuated by weirdness that goes well beyond the realm of 'normal' science fiction.  Adam is a man constantly spaced out, lecturing about conformity, oppression of the state and appearing to barely enjoy his own life at all.  Anthony is shown to attend a sex show in which expressionless men in suits await the finale, a sparsely-clothed dancer appearing to stamp on a tarantula.  Spider webs seem to appear throughout the film, as does an image of a gargantuan spider towering over the city and a final shot that many on the internet have described as genuinely terrifying - even I was moderately rattled by it.  Adam finds himself slowly becoming more like Anthony as the film progresses, eventually the two appear indistinguishable to anyone not actively looking to tell them apart.  They appear capable of switching between each others' lives, conforming to the boundaries that each has set for themselves.

In a film as dense and oblique as this, there are many meanings and interpretations one can draw.  The film was shot with a yellow-tinged filter, giving it the feeling of a nightmare experienced on a long hot summer night.  There are hints at governmental oppression, of fear of commitment, fear of the self, and even that Adam / Anthony live under an oppressive regime - but are unaware of it.  What if the appearances of spiders in the film are to be taken literally, but that the characters in the film have been brainwashed to make them unaware of the terrifying truth around them?  Perhaps Adam / Anthony fears his own infidelity, and that one of them doesn't really exist outside of his own perception?

There's lots to see and think about from this film, plus as ever Jake Gyllenhaal being brilliant.  Perfect candidate for a weird film night - after watching Enemy you'll be eager to have a conversation with someone.

Nightcrawler - American Psycho 2

Somehow I've managed to have in my possession two Jake Gyllenhaal film at the moment, the first being Nightcrawler, a story in which Gyllenhaal plays mysterious unemployed loner Louis Bloom.  Bloom hits upon the idea of driving around the streets of Los Angeles with a police radio waiting for news of crashes and accidents to come in.  He then races to the scene to film the gory aftermath, selling his footage to whichever local TV station will pay the highest price to feed its sensationalist agenda.

Bloom is introduced to us without backstory or fanfare, he is an everyman, he is Norman Tebbit's web dream - the unemployed man who is getting on his bike and looking for work.  All we know about him is that he is here and he is motivated to succeed.  We have no idea why or what made him this way, all we know is that he has bought into the very essence of the capitalist dream, if it makes money then it has to be good.  Bloom will do and say anything to become a success - the American Dream made flesh.

In this sense the film has very similar themes to American Psycho, adjusted for the modern age of sensationalist news coverage.  Bloom represents the American Dream distilled into its purest form.  Bloom has read all the self-help books and can recite the words of aspirational speakers when talking to the people around him.  Bloom has become something other than human though.  In his striving to be the best, to maximise his potential, to live the American Dream, he has lost all empathy.  Bloom propositions his producer Nina (Rene Russo), blackmailing her for sex but dressing it up as market forces - the Capitalist Utopia at work.

In the middle of this is of course Gyllenhaal, giving a tour-de-force in acting as the wide-eyed and terrifyingly driven Bloom.  For Bloom nothing is more important than money, his career and the market forces that will drive him to success.  Thankfully the film did get an Oscar nomination (for screenplay), but I think before his career is done Gyllenhaal will be deserving of more than his current single nomination for acting (for Brokeback Mountain).

Disturbing, well-acted and well-shot with an eerie atmosphere of a society gone wrong, Nightcrawler is an excellent film that that might easily have crept under your radar.  I encourage you to seek it out.

71 - Belfast back in the day

With my job now taking me up to Leamington 2 nights a week I am planning to use the time up here to catch up on films in the evenings.  Last week I watched something I've been meaning to watch for ages when it appeared on my film horizon a year or so ago - 71.  This is a film that tracks the nightmare that one unwilling soldier from Derbyshire finds himself in when him and his unit get shipped out to Northern Ireland in 1971 in the middle of the Troubles.  When a riot breaks out and he becomes isolated from his unit, he is lost in a foreign world inside his own country, and becomes entangled in a world he doesn't understand as he tries to survive.

In 71, Jack O'Connell plays Gary Hook.  O'Connell was recently the star of Angelina Jolie's underwhelming directorial debut Unbroken, however what's clear from his performance here that he'll be making marks in the film world in the future.  Hook is training with the rest of his unit and are expecting to be shipped out to West Germany as part of the UK's Cold War operations there.  However they are suddenly and unexpectedly sent to Belfast, where they become an enemy of the people inside the borders of their own nation.  The film follows Hook as he becomes lost from his unit, becomes the target of IRA hitmen, British Army infiltrators and saboteurs on both sides worried that he will give them away.

This is a film that is absolutely brutal in its portrayal of this conflict, and hardly shies away from the terror and angst that was created in a community still struggling to leave this recent past behind it.  I have relatives from Ulster and have been to county Antrim in the heart of the Loyalist North, but I struggle to comprehend the division and hatred that people felt for their countrymen who often lived only streets away.  It's a battle that's been going on for hundreds of years, a battle that seems alien to people from the rest of the UK.  It's a battle that a majority in Northern Ireland also hope is in the past.  This is a film that attempts to convey some of that baffling and terrifying complexity to the uninitiated - it's a film that anyone with an interest in the modern history of the UK should watch.

Spooks - no, not a horror film

Not been going to the cinema as much recently as I normally do, but I did get to the Reading Showcase on Sunday afternoon a few weeks age to see Spooks: The Greater Good.  Aka - Spooks.  This is the film version of the popular BBC TV series Spooks, hence I guess the reason for the The Greater Good tagline to differentiate it from a normal episode of the TV series.

I am reliably informed that Spooks is in fact the Harry Pearce Show.  I.e. the one constant character throughout the whole series is Harry Pearce, and the plot of the entire series essentially boils down to Harry Pearce always being right.  Normally this sort of Mary Sue author avatar character (see also 1d4chan on this matter) is a symptom of desperately lazy writing, and over the course of an entire TV series I could see it becoming grating, over the course of 100 minutes of film adaptation though it's more than passable.  Also I didn't know Harry Pearce was going to be right until the end when I was informed of the fact - which made the film much more interesting I'll wager.

Perhaps more interesting than the film itself was the appearance of Kit Harrington as ex-agent Will Holloway, the man who Harry Pearce parachutes in to do the leg work while he skulks under cover working out the plot from afar.  Harrington has of course become famous because of his role as Jon Snow in the outstanding Game of Thrones, and as with all such actors it's always interesting to see what they do next.  Harrington was ideally-cast in Game of Thrones because of his obvious looks and grim demeanour, whether he ends up carving himself a niche as an action cliché in the silver screen mainstream remains to be seen.  Here he does well enough, staring darkly in the mid-distance when required and generally being mysterious.

Overall Spooks: The Greater Good is clearly a film that was made because the BBC wanted to exploit some of its IP to generate a bit of income.  And good luck to them.  This isn't I film I think many people will be remembering for its plot in the months and years to come, fun though it is as a diversion.

Almost Famous - almost missed this film

In my quest to delve into the annals of film history and seek out the Oscar winners of yesteryear, it seems I might have overlooked some acclaimed material of the modern era.  Almost Famous was released in 2000, just before I began to watch films as a serious hobby.  As a result it flew completely under my film-dar (that's a pun on radar btw) until a few weekend back.  I think that perhaps in the past I had been given the wrong impression by the film's poster art, which involves Kate Hudson lying on a bed in her pants holding a guitar.  It made the film look like it was about some kind of psychopathic nut-case groupie desperately craving the reflected fame that is provided by hanging around in the dressing rooms of rock stars.

In reality though, Almost Famous - which won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay - is more of a love letter to the rock and roll sounds of the 1970s than any kind of story in the traditional sense.  Patrick Fugit plays Willy Miller, a 15 year old who's mother has skipped ahead several years in school because of his obvious intelligence.  When he gets the opportunity to travel on tour with fictional band Stillwater, he is reluctantly allowed to leave home and is immediately dragged into the crazy hedonistic world of the band.  He experiences the good and the bad of their lifestyle, most notably lead singer Russell's confusing and destructive relationship with 'Band-Aid' Penny (played by Hudson).  She's a 'Band-Aid' because she 'aids' the band in whatever they need.  Surely I need not explain further?

Part coming-of-age tale, part tribute to the rock music of the 1970s, Almost Famous is a story about a boy growing up before his time through the power of music.  At the same time it's about the lead singer of Stillwater - a man who never really grew up because he became a rock star.  Linking these two together is Penny, who seems like a fellow lost soul but despite her connection with the band causing her emotional pain, she understands the world they live in better than anyone.

It's a film you'll want to watch if you have any sort of connection to rock music from the 1970s.  Don't be fooled by the poster.

God's Pocket - gritty, working class

Watched this excellent drama last Tuesday evening.  Set in the 1970's working class community of God's Pocket (which seems to be somewhere on the Eastern seaboard of the USA, at some point in the 1970s), it tells the story of a community reacting to the death of the young mouthy upstart Leon (Caleb Landry Jones).  Leon crosses one too many lines and is killed when a co-worker hits him over the head with an iron bar in an act that could be argued is self defence.  The workers at the site though tell their own story to the police, and Leon's death is officially recorded as an accident.  Cue various parties, including Leon's mother (Christina Hendricks) refusing to believe the official story, and searching for a different answer.

God's Pocket is a film that tries very hard to paint a picture of a community, and then allows a story to be told naturally through the interactions of the characters.  This is as opposed to a more typical structure that might focus on the story and introduce characters as and when they fit into the narrative.  The central story of potential murder is one that almost gets lost as the tapestry of God's Pocket is slowly revealed.  This is a community where being born there makes you an insider, and no matter how long you might be a part of it, an outsider is still ultimately an outsider.  Philip Seymour Hoffman (in one of his last ever roles) plays such a character; a man who is respected by the community, but can never be one of them.  His role is of a man who wants to do the right thing but just isn't very good at it, who's heart is huge and in the right place, but who seems unable to escape the baggage of a past the film only hints at.

The film is very clear on portraying the way that the community depicted in the film treats those it sees as being part of it, and those who are outsiders.  There is a moral code of understanding and justice that the community acts upon without outside intervention, which usually ends up doing the right thing if for the wrong reasons or via dubious methods.

I could see some criticising the film for its sprawling narrative.  The story is quite unfocussed and it tries to get through quite a lot of scene-setting characters in a short 90 minutes of running time.  However I see it as being like a striped-down version of Fargo without the comedy, in which the real story is one of a community and how it reacts to its own criminal elements.  The community knows that Leon is a bad egg, probably even his mother knows it too.  So when he ends up dead the presumption is that he had it coming, so why ask questions?  It's a stark demonstration of the principle of natural justice, and how even in communities that appear to exist outside the conventional law, a natural unspoken law exists none-the-less.  Certainly worth checking out.

The Lego Movie - aka The Matrix

I experienced a moment of intense karma two weeks ago when I watched The Lego Movie, posted to Facebook that I thought it was exactly the same as The Matrix, only for the Cinema Sins Youtube channel to post a video hours later pointing out the similarities between the two films.  I really need to get into film reviews.

Aside from stealing my thunder with regards to this review, Cinema Sins are right.  Fun though the film may be, as interesting as the effects may be and as varied and impressive as the cast of voice actors may be, The Lego Movie is still an unrepentant Matrix rip off.  Each film is about an ordinary everyman living an unremarkable life in a world that is in fact a grand lie designed to mollify a suppressed population.  In each film this man has his perception of reality altered by the intervention of a kick-ass babe and is believed to be 'the one' by an aged and kindly father figure obsessed with prophecies.  He doubts the validity of the prophecy but eventually finds it in himself to be a catalyst for change.  Cut to Rage Against the Machine.  Well, The Matrix cuts to Rage Against the Machine.  Not so much of that here.

It's a completely fine adaptation of The Matrix for an audience of children and their parents.  What I don't really understand is the amount of love that this film got when it came last year - it was even nominated for an Oscar for the song 'Everything is awesome'.  I guess it might have resonated very strongly with parents, given the way that it eventually comes to a rather charming and tear-jerking conclusion that smashes through the 4th wall and leaves everyone happily every after.  It's all about family and childhood dreams and how everything would be ok if only parents could learn to love to play like their kids do.  I wont be a complete sour-puss here, it is a very neat ending.  I just don't understand how it's 7.8 / 10 on IMDB worth of neat.

So in conclusion, The Lego Movie is fine enough, but The Matrix is loads better.

Life After Beth - More American Indie with Aubery Plaza

Some American indie film action the other week resulted in watching Life After Beth.  A very weird film in which Dane DeHaan plays Zach, a young adult / teenager who's girlfriend Beth (Aubery Plaza) has recently died.  Zach enters a state of deep depression, in which he wishes he could have his time with her again.  By the very same film convention that allowed Bill Murray to live the same day over and over again, Beth is brought back to life as a zombie and returns to her family.  At first her family try to keep her return a secret from Zach, and then the fact she's a zombie from her.  But it's a facade that can only last so long.

It seems like the theme of the film is very much to be careful what you wish for.  In fact it very much has the feel of a fairy tale or a story from the bible where a character is tested and realises something about life.  Zach wishes he could see Beth again, but when she comes back it doesn't take very long before he realises it's a terrible idea.  Basically the message is that death is a natural part of life, and that as horrible at it feels when someone we love dies, it's a natural part of life as much as anything else.

Aubery Plaza acting style and range probably means that she's going to remain in the fringes of US cinema.  Anna Kendrick has a minor role here, but is someone I would expect to see winning an Academy Award at some point during her career.  She doesn't do too much here, and to be honest I'm a little surprised she's taking roles like this after being so good in Up in the Air and 50 / 50.  But then she's also been in a bunch of shlock recently (Twilight?) so maybe her career's stagnating.  Either way, Life After Beth is an entertaining film, but it doesn't warrant any more than the 3 paragraphs I'm giving it here.  When I saw its IMDB rating of 5.1 I thought it seemed a little low, but having seen the film it's a rating that looks fair enough to me.

Airplane - Joey in the cockpit

There are far too many funny moments to pick from in a film like Airplane.  It's a film that's packed with almost endless one-liners, sight gags, snippets of comedy and call-backs to earlier moments in the film.  Some of the funniest moments for me are the moments that are simplest in execution.  Here we see when young Joey is brought up to the cockpit and meets Captain Victor, complete with brilliantly out-of-place references to homosexuality and his encounter with 1970s NBA star Kareem Abdul Jabar.  Why is Jabar on the plane?  Is it meant to be an in-joke for the audience or is the joke meant to be the idea that an NBA star needs to fly planes on the side to top up his income?  Either way, the sheer stupidity of it makes it a classic scene.



Like much of Airplane, it's a scene that's so bonkers it's almost not funny.  But just like the rest of the film, it's so unrepentant in its ludicrousness that the only reasonable response is to laugh along with it.  Watch and enjoy.  Then click on the suggested videos and watch more.

You're Next - Horror! (sort of)

Watched this one a few months ago, but didn't really have anything interesting to say about it so I decided not to bother.  The blog's looking a bit thin on content at the moment though (doing too many other things at the moment to keep up on cinema commitments) so I thought I'd dredge through my viewings from the last few months and see if there's anything to say about any of them.

So, You're Next.  It's a classic set up involving a bunch of people trapped in a remote location being assailed from all sides by something terrible.  This time around it's a family having a reunion dinner in a massive house.  There are all the usual family tensions going on with some people not liking other people's choices of partner and blah blah, but it doesn't take long for the grisly action to start when a group of men in goat masks assault the house with bows and arrows and knives etc.

The fun arises from how one of the assailees (our lead character Erin) turns out to be something of a badass who has done army training of some kind and is able to fight back.  There is then a reveal when we learn who the assailants are and why they would be attacking an isolated house in the middle of nowhere during a family dinner.  It's Night of the Living Dead without the social commentary, Evil Dead without the animatronics, Cabin in the Woods without the satire or Texas Chainsaw Massacre without the chills.  Basically it's trying to be any and all of these, but not really succeeding on any front.  Watch to fill time.  Or don't.  Either way your life will not be significantly different.

Before I go to Sleep - it's a miracle I didn't sleep through this film

Do I have to review Before I go to Sleep?  I guess I don't have to review it, but I'm going to anyway because I paid to rent the bloody thing and the least I'm going to get out of it is a few minutes entertaining myself writing mean things about it on the internet.

Let's begin with the plot.  A woman called Christine (Nicole Kidman) wakes to discover that she does not recognise the man sleeping next to her (Colin Firth).  Soon she learns that she suffers from amnesia, she wakes up every morning like this, and that Colin Firth is in fact her husband Ben.  After Ben leaves for work she gets a call from a doctor Nasch (Mark Strong) who tells her of a video diary she has been keeping for herself.  She soon learns that both Ben and Dr Nasch are keeping secrets from her.

Skip ahead 80 minutes and you find out that one of either Ben or Dr Nasch is lying, and that one of them is responsible for the attack that left her in her amnesiac condition.  Do you care which?  Well then watch the film, or look it up on imdb.  If I sound like I'm being quite dismissive of this film, then you've read me right, I am being rather dismissive of this film.  I am assured that the book it much better, since there are more twists that don't really work in a visual medium like film.

And that's all I've got to say really.  It's a film that gives away its own limitations by the fact that it's only 80-odd minutes long.  Basically it's a one-twist story without much else going on.  If it wasn't for the presence of 3 very well-respected actors I doubt this is a film that would have got close to being on my radar.  If you're a fan of the book it's based on then you'll probably be interested to see what they've done to move it on to the big screen.  Otherwise, give it a miss.

Guardians of the Galaxy - The Marvel Revival?

It was a summer blockbuster from last year, but it has taken me quite a long time to get around to seeing Guardians of the Galaxy, the Marvel action adventure that pits a disparate band of ne'er-do-wells against some sort of pan-galactic terrorist intent on using the Maguffin of Doom to enslave / destroy the universe.  Classic.  The film combines action, a simple and effective story, good special effects, witty asides and most importantly of all - a sense of fun.  It does this very well, making use of an entertaining ensemble cast to provide 2 hours of entertainment that - though hardly genre-defining or boundary-breaking - is seldom seen these days in superhero action genre that's packed with far too much pain, anger and portents of doom.

The plot for Guardians of the Galaxy is simplicity itself.  Chris Pratt plays Peter Quill, literally the most 'everyman' of all men as a human abducted from Earth as a child who has now grown up to be a small-time space adventurer / good-hearted pirate in a galaxy full of no two creatures that seem to be of the same species (erm - Star Wars universe?).  When he comes into the possession of an "orb of power" that's wanted by arch-villain Ronan, he finds himself pursued by one of Ronan's reformed minions and a cartoon rat version of Han Solo with his very own Chewbacca Ent.  Eventually they decide that the fate of the galaxy is more important then the monetary value of this orb, and decide to band together to defeat Ronan before he can unleash its power.  Cue badass kung-fu moves, weird space ships, even weirder weapons, bad 80s music and a tone that from the opening credits has its tongue wedged into its cheek.

Now this isn't exactly the rocket science of story-telling, but it's effective and showcases what is possible with the superhero action genre when it remembers that it's possible to enjoy yourself watching a film.  It's a film that gets very close to ripping Star Wars off completely, but Star Wars itself was a product of a coming together of a variety of old stories, tropes and action adventure serials that George Lucas commonly cites when talking about his inspirations  So I think we can let Guardians of the Galaxy off there.  And what's wrong with something fresh and new that channels the sense of adventure and simple story-telling of the original Star Wars?  It makes you remember why you loved Star Wars in the first place!

I may offer up a small criticism?  Obviously this is not a film that's meant to be taken seriously but I do get annoyed by the stereotypical use of genders in the film.  Our heroes are all meant to be rogues, but it is constantly Zoe Saldana's character Gamora who provides the heart of the gang, reminding us that people need to be saved and "wont someone please think of the children?!" (she never says this - but you get the point).  She is introduced to us as a rebel who say her family killed at Ronan's hands, so it would have been nice for her to have a slightly harder exterior - maybe a bit like Anne Hathaway's Catwoman in the recent Batman series.  Also the film currently scores over 8 on IMDB, which is way too high.  Yes Guardians of the Galaxy might be a lot of fun, but it definitely isn't Casablanca.

If Marvel can make films like this then why do they need to persist with reboots, rehashes and repeats of stories, characters and mythologies that have been rinsed to death and thousand times before?  The answer is of course money, and the fact that yet another reboot of the Spiderman franchise generates more buzz and ultimately more cash than taking a chance on something new and interesting.  The commercial success of Guardians of the Galaxy is beyond question though, and so I expect to now see an entire Guardians of the Galaxy franchise that balloons out of control. With a bit of luck though it will encourage Marvel to take a chance on more stuff like this in the future.

Ex Machina - why so much hype?

Only back in the UK for a couple of days last week and I went to see a new Science Fiction film that had been heavily trailed and well-reviewed while I was away.  Ex Machina is a film that presents a view of the near future, a future in which true AI is beginning to dawn, and a billionaire entrepreneur (Nathan - played by Oscar Isaac) has created a female robot AI (Ava - Alicia Vikander) that he believes can be the next step in evolution.  To test his creation, Nathan brings in Caleb (a programmer played by Domhnall Gleeson) to carry out a series of Turing tests on the robot, and determine if she has consciousness.

This is a film that looks great, has a simple aesthetic and even simpler setting - the entire film (save for a few moments at the start and end) is set inside the underground bunker where Nathan has carried out his research.  The film consists of a series of interactions between characters.  Firstly Nathan and Caleb get to know each other and Caleb comes to realise what Nathan has created, then Caleb and Ava get to know each other as part of a series of tests, finally Caleb comes to realise the true nature of the relationship between Ava and Nathan, and must work out what is real and who to trust.

Now all of this is fine.  But I cannot understand how this film is sporting a 8.0 rating on IMDB at the moment.  Ex Machina is nothing more than a reasonably good episode of the Twilight Zone.  It's 45 minutes of television padded out into 2 hours through the use of moody shots of scenery and endless scenes of flat conversations that rarely build character, tension or plot.  The plot isn't rocket science.  At it's best it's a rehash of 2001 with a bit of misogyny thrown in and without the awe-inspiring vision of space and exploring the unknown.

Put simply; I just don't get the hype.  It's nothing new, and although the effects used to create Ava are clearly impressive, they're hardly a paradigm shift in film SFX - the are no Jurassic Park dinosaurs here.  Watch Ex Machina if you must, but please don't believe the hype.

22 Jump Street - Funnier than you would think

Having been pleasantly surprised by the amount that I enjoyed 21 Jump Street, it wasn't too difficult to decide upon the second film that I would watch on the long haul to Buenos Aires.  22 Jump Street is obviously the sequel to the reboot of the TV series, again starring Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill as a pair of douchebag cops who are drafted in to investigate a dodgy ring of drug dealers - this time on a college campus (last time it was in a school).

The running gag in the film is one that has carried over from the previous, and to be fair to the writers they've done a pretty good job of making something that could have been tedious into something funny.  The joke is that everything is the same as last time; playing on the idea that the sequel needs to be as similar to the first to appeal to the same audience.  In 21 Jump Street the gag was that everything happening was exactly the same as the TV series.  And it really is the same as last time, but somehow the postmodern acknowledgement of that isn't tedious, it's pretty funny.

I guess the thing that makes the film work is a combination of smart writing and excellent comic performances from Tatum and Hill - aided by Ice Cube ably bringing his performance as the archetypical 1980s style angry black police chief.  It's crude and not subtle in the slightest, but it's undeniably funny with its penis jokes, weird trips, lampooning of the buddy cop genre and general refusal to take itself seriously.  The film ends with a montage predicting future iterations of the xx Jump Street genre, with Hill and Tatum going to all sorts of schools and academies solving exactly the same crimes as they age and pretend to still be in their early 20s.  It's surprisingly funny as end-credit sequences go.

As this kind of stuff goes, it's no Bridesmaids, but it's definitely better than most.

Edge of Tomorrow - not edge of my seat though

The first film I watched on my flight to Buenos Aires a few weekends ago was Edge of Tomorrow, the recent science fiction / time travel / action adventure starring Tom Cruise playing off against a potential love interest who is literally young enough to be his daughter (Cruise is 21 years older than Emily Blunt).  Would this ever happen the other way around without the age difference being a plot point in the movie?  If anyone can think of any examples then I would love to hear about them.

The premise of Edge of Tomorrow is that in the nearish future there is some kind of alien invasion of Earth in progress.  The aliens have no apparent agenda, they're simply evil-looking blobs with tentacles and claws waiting to be dispatched in a variety of ways before they dispatch you.  Tom Cruise's character is press-ganged into joining the marines after insulting his commanding officer Brendan Gleeson.  Cruise protests but ultimately joins the human invasion forces on the beaches of Northern France - which are horribly defeated.  Cruise himself is killed, but he immediately awakens back on the previous day, ready to live the day again and repeat his death in a Groundhog Day style.

And this is the plot for the rest of the film.  Cruise must work out how to try and survive the day.  Not only that, but he soon discovers the reason for his time travel is intrinsically linked with the aliens' victory over Humanity.

Let's be honest, Edge of Tomorrow sounds like a fun idea, but in the end it's science fiction filler.  There are plenty of nice effects, different types and styles of guns and body armour and aliens, plus some cool arse-kicking action, but that's all.  The story is incredibly simple when it's all boiled down, and by its very nature pretty repetitive and full of CGI.  It's fun to look at if you're a fan of the science fiction action genre, but I think that even the most hardened of fanboys will be unable to give it more than average marks.  This is a film very few people will be watching in 5 years time.

Been away - here's some Goodfellas

Been away for a bit, some reviews of films watched on the plan are coming up soon.  In the meantime here's a classic scene from a classic film, Martin Scorsese's epic steadicam shot from Goodfellas:

Frozen - That's right, I watched Frozen

It will not come as a surprise to people who know me that I didn't really know anything about the animated Disney film Frozen until just the other day.  Apparently many of the songs from the film (it is a musical) have permeated into the current zeitgeist and are widely recognised by even those who don't have small daughters badgering them to watch it again and again.  For me - being the pop culture waste land that I am - all of this was new.  My Mum insisted on lending me her DVD of Frozen when I visited Ilford in November, I was rightly skeptical.  But, you know me, Friday evening is DVD night - and so it was that last Friday evening as the cold permeated around Crowthorne, my DVD player got Frozen.

It is times like this when you have to throw your preconceptions of film out of the window.  Though I call myself a film junkie, I maintain a distinct taste for the horror and science fiction genres.  One might think that Frozen - an animated Disney adventure in which a princess has to save her newly-crowned elder sister queen from her own hidden magical powers, aided only by a handsome woodsman, a talking snowman and goofy elk - would be the type of film I wouldn't get along with.  Not so.  In fact, who am I kidding, not just 'not so', but emphatically 'not so'.  Frozen was bloody brilliant.

The plot is thus: Elsa is the heir to the throne of the magical medieval land of Arendelle, where all the sassy characters we're meant to like are Americans and all the weirdo locals we're meant to laugh at are some sort of generic Nordic breed.  Elsa and her sister Anna have magical powers that allow them to control the elements.  When Anna is involved in an accident that nearly kills her, to save her life her magical powers are removed and all memory of magic is purged from her (don't ask why - it just is).  The snag is that Elsa's powers will grow as she ages, as will Elsa's guilt at what her powers did to her sister.  Fast-forward several years and the sisters are grown up, Elsa is an isolated queen avoiding contact with anyone and closely guarding her magical secret.  On the other hand, Anna is carefree and furious of her sister's aloofness.  It can only be so long before Elsa's secrets are revealed and all sorts of icy shit hits the fan...

This is a film that's classic Broadway.  The story is told through a series of pretty catchy songs, all leading up the extremely chirpy 'Let it go' - in which Elsa throws off her self-imposed shackles and embraces her magical powers / womanliness, building a castle of ice around her as she makes a statement about herself / girl power / liberation.  The graphic design in this scene is amazing, and the production of the song spot-on.  It's a great example of how to make something that appeals to everyone at the cinema - something Disney has always excelled at.

The film's about family, love and respect; with an ending about the meaning of love that should probably bring a tear to the eye.  It has excellent comic asides and the music is great (though I could have done without the song that Olaf the Snowman sings - complete filler that one). However, does Anna really need to punch the 'bad guy' out at the end?  Do we want to teach young girls that it's OK to punch men in the face if they're naughty?  C'mon Disney, you can do better than that.

So it might be riddled with cliché and the story might not make that much sense, but it's a film that has an unbridled sense of fun with visuals that look amazing.  I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't enjoy themselves watching it.  So to anyone out there sticking their heels in the tundra and refusing to give Frozen a go, put your preconceptions aside and let the magic of Disney wash over you like it hasn't done since you were a kid.  Just let it go.

Films of the Year - 2014

Got a couple of films in right at the end of 2014 last week, but they weren't good enough to make it into my top 5.  Once again I'm taking some liberties with my definition of 2014 - after all I'm not a proper film critic, so I don't have to do it properly!

5 - The Grand Budapest Hotel

The best thing Ralph Fiennes has been in for ages.  It's funny, anarchic and makes just enough sense to keep you paying attention even for people who might get frustrated by Wes Anderson's method of story-telling.

4 - 12 Years a Slave

Deservedly walked away with a bunch of Oscars in the 2014 awards season, this film is a landmark in telling the story of industrialised slavery in the USA.  The film deserved its Best Picture Oscar, and Michael Fassbender should have got one too for his role as the sadistic slave-owner Edwin Epps.

3 - The Babadook

Mark Kermode's film of the year is third on my list.  Didn't see many horror films this year, but this was clearly a long way ahead of a pack consisting more and more these days of bland shock-horror.  It's part psychological thriller and part horror, but it's tense, edgy, looks dark and intimidating and tells a simple story extremely well.

2 - The Imitation Game

It's an anti-establishment film about maths.  How could I not love it?

1 - Her

Technically from 2013, but I'm putting it in my 2014 list because it was up for Oscars in 2014 (and won for Best Original Screenplay).  Her is a classic science fiction story, a brilliantly told story in a world that is brilliantly created and realised.  In my review I described it as Solaris for the modern age, and I think that as time passes more people will come to agree with me.  Film of the year - easily.

The Hunger Games - Part 3a

The last film I watched in 2014 was the film that was meant to be the final Hunger Games film, but because of wanting to make more money artistic reasons the producers of the franchise have decided to split it into two.  This seems to be a part of life these days.  In the future will we see the middle parts of franchises also split into two films?  If they can split The Hobbit (a 200 page book written for children) into 3 films then surely anything is possible?

Hunger Games Mockingjay - Part 1 is the proper title of this film, one that starts the end of the story of Panem and Katniss Everdeen - played once more with no end of gusto by Jennifer Lawrence.  It is pleasing to see the Oscar-winning Lawrence carry on in her role in this franchise, I can imagine other actors with snobbier opinions of themselves leaving such material behind now that they've graduated into the A-list.  This is clearly a film with a lot of pull for top actors though, with Julianne Moore joining a cast that already contains Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland and Philip Seymour Hoffman.  Reading's very own Natalie Dormer even turns up too, sporting an American accent and keeping her top on for once!

This third instalment moves the action permanently away from the actual Hunger Games, loses much of the science fiction from the first part and replaces it with a propaganda war between two factions in Panem's growing civil war.  On one side are the elites in the capital, led by Sutherland's President Snow, on the other are the insurgents of District 13, led by President Coin (Moore).  Each wants to use its own 'victor' of the games to lead a propaganda war to win over the other districts.  Katniss is wheeled out by District 13 as the heroine who stood up to the system and represents freedom - aka the Mockingjay.  The story largely revolves around their attempts to build her up as a heroine of the people and how she reacts to being put on such a pedestal.

I don't want to have to say this, but I didn't think too much of this film.  It was interesting enough because it advanced a story that I found captivating over the previous two instalments, but it felt like it was mechanically checking off the plot points rather than building a narrative.  The tone of the film didn't feel right either.  There is a slightly silly scene in which Katniss can't act, and although it does wonders to showcase Jennifer Lawrence's acting talent, it does little to make the war feel real.  When the action does ramp up and Katniss finally gets into the field and gives an impassioned speech about fighting the capital to the end, the script kills its own momentum by sending her off for a semi-romantic stroll in the woods with Gale.  I can only imagine that this is what happens in the book, and so the script-writers felt compelled to include it, but it doesn't really fit.

I have not read the original books, but I am told that nothing is being left out now, and sequences that were short paragraphs in the book are now being dragged out into elongated segments.  There is a rescue sequence that goes on for a good 20 minutes, in the book this is merely mentioned to have happened outside of the main narrative.  A screenplay should be a different thing to a novel, film and print are very different forms of storytelling and you can't just import one into the other.  It's this sort of milking of a story that can kill a franchise or turn off the casual viewer - not good.

As I've said before, this will all come down to the way it ends.  Everything so far has pointed towards Katniss making the ultimate sacrifice to save Panem.  She sacrifices herself to save her sister in the original reaping.  She is prepared to sacrifice her life rather than kill Peeta at the end of the first games.  She is the 'girl on fire'.  Joan of Arc might be a saint in France, but things didn't end well for Joan herself - look it up.  Despite all this though, I am eagerly looking forwards to part 4.

Under the Skin - Thoughtful Science Fiction

It took me a long time to get there, but I finally watched the much talked-about Under the Skin when I got back from my Christmas break last weekend.

This is an artistic science fiction film that stars Scarlett Johansson as a mysterious alien.  She and her accomplice, a male alien always seen riding a motorbike, travel southern Scotland in search of lonely men.  These men are lured back to a strange and oblique alien dreamscape where they appear to be consumed in an inky fluid, apparently unaware of their fate and for reasons unknown.  Much of this was advertised heavily when the film was released, and so isn't any sort of spoiler, but I wont give away anything else about the story, as the less you know about it the better.

The film is cleverly made in a way that emphasises the themes in the story.  Scarlet Johanssen is undoubtedly a Holywood A-lister, and the disconnect between the world we normally see her inhabiting and the world of southern Scotland is used to best effect.  Amateur and non-actors are used as bit-part characters.  Hidden cameras are used for street scenes.  All of this means that Johansson looks even more alien, as the people acting against and who see her seem ever so slightly star struck and awed by her presence, and the glamour she is normally associated with is striped back to a harsh earthy reality.  Kudos to Johansson for her English accent throughout the film, absolutely flawless - though admittedly her lines are sparse.

What we have then is an extremely thoughtful science fiction film, that's all about humanity and what it means to be a human.  This question is more easily-asked by an outsider, and so it is that Johansson's inhuman alien struggles to understand what humanity is.  The people that she encounters on her travels are vastly different in appearance, motivations and mannerisms, yet they are all humans.  It's the kind of science fiction that I enjoy, with a simple set-up that explores simple philosophical questions about the world.  No messages from the future encoded in a watch by a 5 dimensional being in a bookcase here.  When the special effects do come in though, they're excellent and work even better being their unexpectedness.

I cannot recommend Under the Skin to everyone.  It is a slow burner, and for many the oblique resolution will annoy rather than satisfy.  If you're a fan of real science fiction though, and you don't mind thinking about what you're seeing, then you should watch this film.

Unbroken - Second last film of 2014

Saw my second last film of 2014 last Tuesday afternoon.  It's great to be off work and take advantage of cheap matinee performances starting at 4pm.  Unbroken is directed by Angelina Jolie, her first time behind the cameras.  In interviews she seems to think that she's going to be in contention come Oscar season, I do not agree.

Unbroken tells a true story of one Louis Zamperini, who was the son to Italian immigrants into the US, ran at the 1936 Olympics and then served in the US air forces in the Second World War as a bombardier.  Zamperini was captured by the Japanese after his plane went down in the Pacific ocean in 1943 and spent many years as a prisoner of war, his minor celebrity status sometimes granting him recognition and better treatment, sometimes granting him the opposite.

Now interesting though this man's life may be, I don't really understand why anyone would think it's particularly cinematic.  2 hours and 15 minutes is a long time to drag out a 1500m race, being stranded in the Pacific Ocean and then tortured in a series of Japanese POW camps.  I guess it's meant to be about human spirit, or strength in the face of torment, or maybe a reminder to everyone out there about how terribly the Japanese treated their prisoners of war.  This account of a massacre of US POWs at Palawan certainly provides evidence that there were Japanese prisoner camps where extra-judicial murders took place, but the film's focus on the injury and suffering caused by sadistic guards is interesting.  It seems to turn it into the central theme of the film, one that doesn't really make interesting watching.

Overall then, I'm not really sure what to say about Unbroken.  The true story of the central character's life is interesting enough, but interesting in a way that you might want to read about rather than watch on a big screen.  Jack O'Connell is a good actor and does a good job of looking grimly determined, but that's all that's required of him.  I wasn't really impressed by Jolie's direction; there's a really bland establishing shot at the start of the film of the pilots in the cockpit of Zamperini's bomber, and towards the end she insists on doing a Jesus-shot where Zamperini looks like he's on the cross.  It's very unimaginative stuff.

I think that's the take-home from this review: interesting but unimaginative.  Maybe one to see on the small screen.  Maybe.