Captain Phillips - Review

Finally got myself along to the cinema recently and took my parents to see Captain Phillips. I already had a great sense of anticipation in seeing this, with plenty of media coverage surrounding this real life story, and names like Tom Hanks and Paul Greengrass involved, I was naturally excited.

Captain Phillips certainly delivers, it's a tense, exciting and well paced film. There's a great familiarity with Tom Hanks' character and, although not a direct copy, there are elements of Chuck from Cast Away and Jim Lovell in Apollo 13. Hanks commands here and it's probably one of the greatest roles he's ever done, he's thoroughly believable and engaging as a well worn Captain. However the crowning jewel of the film is Barkhad Abdi and the two other real life Somalians who play the Somali pirates. As complete new comers to acting on screen Abdi who plays Muse is devastatingly brilliant, with moments of utter confidence and belief in front of Tom Hanks to those moments of self doubt as their escape plan begins to unravel.

Greengrass is the one steering the story and commanding excellent attention in pacing and storytelling. In what could easily have become a rather dragged out second half, Greengrass explores the dynamics of the group of pirates, upping the ante as one member seeks to usurp the authority of their captain Muse (Abdi). The tension created in both the initial hijacking of the ship and the subsequent kidnapping of Captain Phillips is real edge of your seat stuff. The beginning of the film also introduces us to the pirates and gives us a window in to why they are doing this. By having us involved in the pirates story at the very beginning of the film and understanding their motivation, we are invested in the interests of both parties.

As usual Greengrass is using handheld cameras, which he knows how to do. So many producers have jumped on this idea in recent years and in many cases this unnecessary motion and intentional shaking does nothing more than annoy this cinema goer. However here it draws you in, it makes the experience feel more real, and doesn't ever make you feel like it's a unnecessary gimmick, rather it is a great cinematic tool.

The themes running throughout the plot will speak to everyone. One in particular rang true and it was the idea how much we do for our job and the fact that it's a means to an end. The arguments with the crew who aren't 'paid enough to deal with this', the business like approach to the hijacking, the way the authorities interact with everyone, and 'that scene' where we feel this cold unemotional treatment of someone going through emotional trauma. It's a job, 'it's just business' says Muse as he takes command of the ship.

What makes Captain Phillips amazing it's how universal it is, this isn't flag waving, god save America stuff, this is a truly even handed, very human perspective on a terrifying turn of events. The script coupled with the fantastic acting never once feels fake, there's something honest and deeply accessible here and you will come out this feeling like you've witnessed something memorable.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

I'll Be Back . . .

. . . as the great Austrian once said, and I will hold to my word. All's very busy here and I've been trying to take time out to write thoughts and feelings on films that I've seen and all manner of things going on but, finding the time is proving incredibly tough.

I've got so much I want to talk about, like how surprising yet still brilliant The World's End was, or how old siege face Alan Partridge in Alpha Papa was a great revisit of the character for the fans, but does it cater for just anybody? How Jim Carrey was criminally sidelined in the rather misguided but still a bucket fun Kick Ass 2 and how my ultimate pick of the year, (bar the next Hobbit film) Elysium delivered on a promise at being a balls out sci-fi movie, with added socio political riffs, South African cussing and craaaazy weapons.

Not to mention I haven't done a piece on just thoughts about films up coming. I really want to talk about how utterly mind blowing it is that Star Wars Episode VII is going to be shot on 35mm . . . . un . . . . believable. It means a lot for cinema any may be a fantastic middle finger to the likes of Cameron and yes I'm going to say it, Jackson for bludgeoning us over the head with 3D!

Sorry this is a short one just want to get something down and set myself an internet based promise to keep writing film stuff because it's written in ink . . . vicious, digital, ink.

For now if you haven't please read my Behind The Candelabra review, possible one of the knock out films of the year, took me very much by surprise. I also wanted to share with you all a trailer for a film I am trepidatious about however given it's a sequel to probably the best thing to come out Dreamworks Animation I can't help but feel a touch excited . . . enjoy.

I will be back!


 

Behind The Candelabra - Review

The cinema seems to be busting at the seams with big blustery blockbusters and today instead of going to see After Earth or Fast & Furious 6, films I have yet to see, I decided I wanted to see something a bit different. Behind the Candelabra has popped up out of seemingly nowhere, a biopic about the later years of Liberace's life. With names like Steven Soderbergh, Matt Damon and Michael Douglas in the shoes of the king of showmanship, I couldn't help but be drawn to it instead of the usual summer fare.

I certainly was glad I gave it go. It's not your average biopic, in fact it's not a biopic at all, it charts the latter part of Liberace's life when he is introduced to Scott Thorson. Dealing intimately with the relationship that formed from this meeting, Behind The Candelabra is seen through the eyes of Scott as he tumbles down the rabbit hole in to the life of this famously extravagant celebrity.

The film deals with the idea of a homosexual relationship brilliantly and pulls absolutely no punches, it feels distinctly honest, not glamourising or emphasising points that you might be battered over the head with in a normal biopic. Moments of intimacy between the two become so normal the thing you notice more is the fantastic acting and humour. We are deeply immersed in these characters, all scenes revolve either of the two and feels distinctly claustrophobic, adding to the ideas the film is putting forward. In one scene Scott (Damon) gets upset at the fact that he and Liberace (Douglas) never go out. They are consumed in this plastic opulence, we don't see a great deal of the outside world, which is the crown jewel of this particular film. Most films focused on celebrities will tell great yarns about their life with vast scope and endless take offs of other famous people they've met throughout he years, here we have just a few very focused performances, you get to indulge in these characters.

Both Matt Damon and Michael Douglas are outstanding here, I was aghast at how brave they both have been in really taking this on and making it feel real. It's certainly one of the best performances I've seen from Michael Douglas, and the fact that he gels so well with Matt Damon here is testament to these two fantastic actors. Also worthy of note is Dan Aykroyd who plays Liberaces manager Seymour Heller, a great presence here with a great look and impact on the film and the feelings Scott goes through.

There are moments of absolute comedy, like Liberaces man servant strutting through this palace of a house making drinks serving tight white shorts. I was watching this in a tiny screen with about 5 other people and laughed ferociously at certain bits, I just couldn't help myself.

A deeply rewarding watch and one that has stuck with me as I'm now picking this up months later to finish off. It's the film I talk about when raising the question of films that have made an impact this year. It's definitely not for everyone, but if you like great thoughtful character movies that speak volumes about the times they were set in and the real people they represent you'll eat this up for breakfast.      

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Man Of Steel - Review

It was only a matter of time before Zack Snyder got his chance to reboot a franchise, it seems to be the move that's making this generations Blockbuster heavy weights. With a checkered past that critics consistently pick at, and to be put in the driving seat for a franchise that only recently got dealt a reactionary damp squib by Bryan Singer in Superman Returns, one can't help but feel a sense of pessimism before seeing this latest crack at the man in blue tights.

The expectation, given one or two of the names attached, is very high and these names will undoubtedly reel people in to cinemas, albeit for wrong reasons. Those who know well and good what Snyder does best will revel in the visuals that shout action, adventure and surface meaning. However there's a different tone here that non of the previous Superman incarnations have hit, some emotion and meaning makes it through, particularly in scenes with Kevin Costner. Snyder seems to have learned some lessons in forging some connection with characters. However the age old problem of making Superman relatable is still there, especially when the final act sees the world become an arena for one hell of a grudge match.

Given this the film succeeds in creating excitement and taking you on a ride. The first scene wastes no time in grabbing your attention. Never has an alien world been so bombastically realised just as a jump off point for a film. It gives some real meat and potatoes to Jor El played excellently by Russell Crowe. What follows is a real juxtaposing narrative that sets up Clark Kent on Earth, flitting from his adult life as a ghost who always seems to attract treacherous situations, to those moments growing up with his foster parents. Henry Cavill is brilliantly cast here, he's charismatic and well suited to the role without trying to rob from previous performances. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane provide the more grounded emotional heart of the film, which is our gateway in, naturally we feel a greater deal for the human interaction between these characters and I ended up wanting to spend more time here. In fact Costner nearly steals it and in one scene in particular you could feel he'd struck a chord with the audience. However the plot has some ways to go, the development of the relationship between Louis (Amy Adams) and Clark doesn't seem so poignant or necessary and once Zod (Michael Shannon) catches up on Cal El (Clark) the resulting destruction is visually outstanding but loses its edge.

The heft of CG shots does take its toll, there are some that look suspect in places, especially in scenes with Zod and his various armoured suits that are clearly super imposed on to him. However in realising the speed and the furosity of Supermans power the computer effects and the way in which those scenes are shot make this feel epic and eye popping. I chose to watch this in 2D so I could fully enjoy these moments as 3D causes nothing but blurring and headaches. As this was retro fitted rather than shot in 3D I would seriously recommend seeing this in good old 2D.

The thing is, for all my criticisms I really reeeeally enjoyed it. Like the previous Snyder comic book movie Watchmen I was on board and enjoyed the spectacle of it. The thing is with Superman he gets away with it better, this is a 12 rated film for a bloody good reason, because 12 year olds will utterly love it. There's some stuff here for adults alike, but I could only help but feel like the kid I ended up sat next to, that thrill and that excitement of seeing Superman realised in a way that's believable on the surface. Those moments of wonder like when he pushes a bus out of a river and kids look on in astonishment. Those emotions that coarse through you when Clark is threatened and you know he could end it with a flick of his little finger.The sense of awe is palpable and it knocks spots off a lot of comic book movies that have preceded it. It's just unfortunate that it had to refer to type to tie it up, but again it had a lot more to it than say the latest Spiderman.

It's not perfect by any standard, and it does nothing particularly new as far as reboots are concerned, robbing ideas from various films. However this is my favourite incarnation of Superman on screen and just as I unflinchingly love some daft Hollywood blockbusters of the 90's I stand by this and say that I thoroughly enjoyed it.

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

The Great Gatsby - Review

So I've set myself a challenge, no looking up, no re-edits or constant re-reads, just grammar and spell checking, and do it as fast as possible. In order to really put my opinion out I'm firing this review out fast and frantic and without too much forethought. Much how the film The Great Gatsby actually feels. As with anything that Baz Luhrmann lays his hands on, The Great Gatsby is the absolute definition of over the top. Everything from the cinematography, the special effects, the music, all are dripping with opulence and luxury, the costumes are astounding and the characters full of emotion and rather ridiculous. Welcome to the Luhrmann with a big budget in a cinematic world that just begs men like him to create spectacles and for you to wear 3D spectacles.

The Great Gatsby has turned many heads and raised many eyebrows as it's not exactly new ground for cinema, there have been incarnations of this American literary masterpiece before. The fact that the book is held in such high esteem, I can't help but draw parallels to Luhrmanns past work. He doubted so many doubters when he modernised Romeo & Juliet. But back when celluloid was king and the idea of modern style 3D was impossible, Luhrmann had a boundary, that ultimately kept him reigned in. Moulin Rouge is the obvious pre-cursor to this as it has a similar pace and over exuberance. With Gatsby I would say he's pushed this modernisation a little over board but in doing so created something memorable.

The thing is I went in blind, never read the book, had no idea what it was about, I was there as a film fan. For all its grandiose pomposity, I really enjoyed what I saw, even with stupid 3D, I got wrapped up in the ridiculousness of it. There was a fantastic sense of optimism and desperation wrapped in an inventive shooting style. The sets stand out, they're memorable, when Nick (Tobey Maguire) steps in to that room to meet Daisy (Carey Mulligan) the curtains flying wildly, but almost like their dancing, it imprinted on me. The telling of it from Nicks memory as a recovering alcoholic isn't particularly meaningful, however it occasionally offers a respite from the furious pace the story has. The film has only one setting and it's cranked up to 11, every scene feels electrically charged. The modern music soundtrack adding to this furious nature as cars fly along like they're in a Fast and Furious film. The over use of CGI had me at odd's, most of it looked decent but some of it wasn't great and it pulled me out of the film because I felt like I was watching a video game. There's a real effort to get as much in here and that's obvious, given the long running time, and as the plot unfolds and the pace simmers it does feel very long. But the stars dazzle and Leonardo DiCaprio is well cast as the obscure Gatsby, reminding me of his role as the very troubled Howard Hughes in Aviator. Tobey Maguire isn't quite as irritating as usual but he still over eggs as an idealist and when he gets serious I still never buy it. Carey Mulligan is stunning and well cast for this, along with her brutish husband played by Joel Edgerton.

I came out of the cinema feeling I had really enjoyed what I saw, but once again I felt I'd have enjoyed it more without the glasses. They still irritate me and the only time I've ever been comfortable with them was for Life Of Pi. Having said that it did not let it effect my opinion of the film. There are moments of good cinema here, but you feel that there is something far deeper that Luhrmann is attempting to reach for, but just isn't quite getting there, and this is hindered by it's relentlessness in beating you over the head with computer generated images and Jay-Z songs. Younger audiences will find it dazzling and extraordinary if a little daft, and to be honest, that's how I would describe Lurmanns films in general.

Also set myself a record, 1 hour from first writing to posting, not bad, I reckon.

★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

Third Contact - Independent Film Review

This week I was given an opportunity to see a an independent film by first time Director Simon Horrocks and asked to voice my opinion. Made over a year on a tiny budget with a cast of friends and acquaintances who worked for pretty much nothing, Si is hoping to get his production Third Contact in to cinemas in the near future.

Third Contact follows depressed psychotherapist Dr David Wright as he seeks to unravel the mysteries surrounding the suicide of two of his patients. The world he inhabits is not as it seems as he falls deeper into the rabbit hole that will see him discover a new outlook on the universe.

Third Contact starts very hurriedly with the complex fundamental idea that underpins the plot laid out mere seconds into the film. If you've never heard of quantum mechanics and its principals, like me, you will find this a hard pill to swallow. With it carrying on by throwing up names of people we've not met, nor will ever meet in a rather off hand way I honestly began to get a little lost. I actually forgot who Renee was and how he related to everything. So whilst I was trying to figure out what the slightly obnoxious man on the couch was going on about, or who the weird woman in the house was, I suddenly found myself thinking, who are these people they are talking about? However as the film continues I started to to scrape back what might be going on. And on re-viewing I realised where I'd missed the cues, having been lost in other thoughts first time around. My main issue is there is no time for you to pick up the pieces, there's no equilibrium set, we're introduced to our central protagonist at the same time this hard to digest idea is thrown into the mix, and that's 30 seconds in to the film. However once you see the film as whole you understand that the confusion at the beginning drives the questions later in the film.

Tim Scott-Walker pulls the most weight here in the acting department, with many moments of conviction and honesty, he's a good central character. Given most of the cast worked for little or nothing and consisted of friends there is an obvious short fall in the conviction of some of support characters. Many of which are foreign, which puts up another barrier when some of them struggle with particular words. My major criticism is the over use of bad language, particularly in a few earlier scenes, some of it is unwarranted and feels forced and is not a mark of conviction, just laziness.  

Time mends the wounds inflicted in the first act and I really was driven by the mystery of the plot, the acting and the shooting style drew me in as I realised that I'm really in unfamiliar territory here (a rare thing in cinema). The pace settles and as David tries to unravel the mysteries of his patients suicide, you see the pieces start to fit together. What is great to see is that there are steps towards highlighting character signposts, however some of these aren't paid off in anyway. For instance David has an OCD moment in the opening scene, yet this is never really touched upon or signposted again.

There are films that take a particular amount of concentration, needless to say all films should have your undivided attention, but in the case of Third Contact you really need to have your ears and eyes tuned in properly.With juxtaposing scenes, including one that had me vastly confused, in which David inhabits an alternate universe and sees himself walking the street, you will ultimately leave this film with many questions. Third Contact will jar you at first, but understanding will follow if you want it to. Having been a debut project for Si Horrocks, Third Contact certainly comes loaded with real promise and attention to detail. What I most enjoyed was Davids internal struggle with his past and how those memories, shown in colour, had a great shooting style and gave more depth to his character.

My first viewing of Third Contact resulted in me visiting the website and as if knowing that curiosity would follow, Si has constructed a site that explains more in depth those ideas that underpin the plot. I found this understanding enriched my experience of the film. Like one of my favourite films Donnie Darko I wanted to understand more, and while the dealing of the subject matter in Third Contact isn't as well executed, it comes loaded with that same promise; that you can discover the answers yourself and come to your own conclusion.  

Third Contact has one heck of aura around it, from the moment it starts there's an air of foreboding, something isn't quite right, like a David Lynch movie, it's immediately obvious from the way people talk to the cinematography. My immediate reaction was one of confusion with the plot, however the way in which the film is shot, and the quality of it is testament to the effort by Si Horrocks and the tiny budget this was made on. Also for a debut this is fiercely ambitious, with a concept that has it's roots in sci-fi this has a real world feel to it, much like Primer or Donnie Darko, the ideas can be believed in a real world environment. However I can't help but think that this could have been better executed, with expectancy that the audience will figure out certain character traits by paying attention to all of the exposition, this would be a hard film to enjoy for an average cinema goer. However for film fans who like intrigue and go to the cinema to have themselves challenged, Third Contact for a low budget debut has some great ideas and does its best to realise them. There are lessons to be learned here, but what I can honestly say there is real promise here for Si and his future as a writer/director.

★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

Star Trek Into Darkness - Review

For this film fan Star Trek was the least interesting thing in sci-fi cinema, until in 2009 J.J. Abrams revitalised the franchise into something that was, well . . . cool. A truly entertaining and fresh look at the story revolving around the original TV series. The first outing did an outstanding job of bringing these characters together and making it feel new, rather than treading down a familiar path. Just like Christopher Nolan brought Batman back to life, Abrams has reinvigorated Star Trek and catered to a much wider audience. Four years on and the follow up; Star Trek Into Darkness looks to be bigger and bolder, but will it be better?

Into Darkness see's Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Qunito) and the crew of the Enterprise hunt down John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) a one man weapon of mass destruction, after he attacks Federation headquarters on earth. With a lot at stake, and difficult decisions to meet head on their subsequent mission to find and kill him reveals truths about themselves, their enemy and the Federation.

Into Darkness starts with an almighty bang, no introduction necessary, as we see the crew in the final climactic stages of a mission to seek out new civilisations, to boldly go . . . etc. Lives are already on the line and lands us right in the middle of a situation that could end the life of certain pointy eared crew member. The crew is exactly how we left them in Star Trek, albeit a little on edge right now, in what will be the most exciting opener you'll see all year. It's great to see that the mood created in the first outing is reignited by throwing a bit more gas on the fire.

The following major plot thread doesn't give anyone time to breath. There are some dialogue scenes including Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and Kirk in a bar in a 'wait haven't we been here before?' moment (seriously every bar on earth must be lit same way in the future). Though no sooner are the crew back on Earth, they are abruptly en-route to find and destroy their new nemesis John Harrison. In the lead up there are expansions on Starfleet and the 'Prime Directive' which basically entails not starting or seeking out confrontation. However as terrorists go John Harrison is pretty ruthless, having beamed to another planet during an attack that has close personal cost to Kirk, the fool hardy Captain naturally seeks out revenge that could spark a war. So far so reasonably simple, there are some great dynamics created here, Cumberbatch plays the villain with a thickly laden menace, and Kirk responds as you'd expect. Later in the film the two have a furious one on one of deathly stares and brash words, in which I felt Cumberbatch although convincing, over egged the evil a little. The events of the opening act fuel the drama in the relationships and choices of the crew. All the major crew members are given some part to play that are ultimately greater than the those of the previous film, with Scotty (Simon Pegg) getting a lot more screen time in this case. The locations created are believable and everything once again looks visually astounding, with added Abrams lens flares, naturally. The soundtrack once again hits the mark with a definite theme running through that may have you humming it out the door.

The action moves at a lightning pace and certain twists and turns in the plot raise some questions. It's difficult to disclose any plot points here because they will ruin the overall surprise, but the film keeps going at a furious pace with a lot of serious conversations happening in the middle of the action. It gives you no chance to sit back and think about out that what you just witnessed. What helps carry the plot is the fantastic cast and sharp writing. The chemistry between these characters still feels electric and fun, Bones (Karl Urban) Kirk and Spock bounce off each other like an expert comedy trio. All the characters have a distinct impact on the tone of the film which is great to see in production that relies heavily on CGI and action. The final act is explosive without being overly grand, certainly not as epic as blowing up planets and creating black holes that you're nearly sucked in to. However the stakes are risen at a human level as Kirk risks his life to save his crew, and Spock has his moment to exact some green blooded bad assery.

The result is a fantastic re-visit to the crew of the Enterprise one that sees the pace vastly increased and the stakes risen. However with questions raised concerning the plot line dominating the third act, one feels the first outing was better executed and more believable. This is still great fun to watch and it once again keeps things interesting for fans and the newly initiated. Having been chosen to helm the new Star Wars movies, this film shows that J.J. Abrams is the only man qualified for the job. The joy is upon leaving the cinema in 2009, having just seen Star Trek, I craved more. Into Darkness was no different, I still want to see more.

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Evil Dead - Review

Horror remakes, they never seem to end, and like movies based on video games they nearly always deliver poor or sub standard results. So imagine the collective sigh of millions of film fans when it was announced that one of the holy grails of horror, The Evil Dead, was to be remade. A small amount of relief came from the fact Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell were producing, but still is this really warranted? As someone who'd never seen the original before now, I had a chance to see the two with a fresh perspective.

Evil Dead (dir. Fede Alvarez) follows Mia (Jane Levy), her brother and three friends as they spend a weekend in a cabin in the woods in order to help Mia kick a drug habit. On discovery of a Book of the Dead they unwittingly summon demons that possesses members of the group. A desperate fight for survival ensues as the evil grows and bodies begin to stack up.

Evil Dead, although being a remake of The Evil Dead, does things differently to the original in terms of story and tone. The original plays out very simplistically, there's not a good deal of character foundation. The remake has a sturdy structure to it, the visitors have been here before as kids, they're long time friends and they're here to help Mia kick a drug habit, far from the world where she can fall back in to it. When shit hits the fan there are legitimate reasons for them to stay, it feels believable. This isn't your typical, stupid kids do stupid shit kind of film. Surprisingly any amount of humour is almost non existent, except in a few instances with one character flat out refuses to die, despite multiple, horrifying wounds. This lack of laughs is a little jarring and really not what I expected from the this film, and the seriousness makes you want to re-watch Evil Dead 2 just to remember why you initially wanted to see this.

The action is reasonably unpredictable, and with focus occasionally shifting from characters, you have a vested interest in some of them, however it's easy to guess who will come out on top. There are efforts to avoid cliched tricks of the trade that I have come to sigh and laugh at, therefore the shocks come from rather random places, and once or twice I did physically jump in my seat. However that idea of haunting, brooding and disturbing horror still remains absent, as it does from countless modern horrors, I firmly believe that no film will ever impact me the way The Shining did. The effects are quite simply stunning and grotesque, with most being old school in camera solutions mixed with flutters of digital enhancements. They will make you squirm and reel as there's so much care and attention made to keep this feeling very real. The result is a horror film that I actually enjoyed watching, the pace, action and the all important foundation of the story had me reasonably interested. What helps is the way the back story gives Mia's outcome some kind of metaphorical implications, rather than simply it's all over, let's get to a hospital and try and explain this madness. There's some element, albeit a very obvious one, that she may have ousted her demons.

It's not perfect by any standards, the genre and the setting are well worn and makes me think of The Cabin In The Woods in the which the idea is riffed on almost in a spoof fashion. It rings with those familiar problems with modern horror, but does a better job at keeping you engaged and occasionally surprised. Given this comes from the guys who defined the cabin in the woods horror, I can't help but respect that they tried something a little different, rather than a flat out remake (a funny mindless horror) they went a different road and sought to give us some serious scares. Brave move and on it's own it stands out further than a lot of horror movies, but ultimately makes me want to settle back in to the not so serious predecessors for some relief.

★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

The Bitter End . . . or Lager End - The World's End Preview

Way back in 2004 the print and promotion will have mentioned 'from the guys who brought you Spaced', whether or not you knew what they were going on about, Shaun Of The Dead had instant appeal to a wide audience here in Britain, and sated the appetite of those already of the Wright/Pegg/Frost bandwagon. SOTD's appeal came down to it's thoroughly British sentiment and comedy rubbing shoulders with the traditionally American genre, the zombie movie. It also had that magic quotable chemistry with so many scenes becoming repeated in pubs and common rooms country wide. Hot Fuzz was hot on it's heels in 2007 with another similar spin on the action movie genre, mixed with a bucket load of British wit and circumstance. The many references to Shaun Of The Dead (including a certain sweet freezer favourite) and Hot Fuzz's great success prompted many to beg for more. With fame and various projects tying Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg to different projects they are back once more after six long years with a fresh flavour of Cornetto.

Now the posters read 'from the guys who brought you Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz' and early this morning the first trailer for 'The World's End' was released and has prompted many social media feeds to explode with quotes from the past films and a looooot of excitement. It's anticipation especially here in Britain is warranted as these are films that speak to us culturally, yet they don't come loaded with Shane Meadows or Ken Loachs overtly serious dystopian themes, they are enjoyable, hilarious, OTT fun. The premise of the new film is 5 friends led by Pegg, seek to revisit and conquer a pub crawl they failed to complete in their teens. Now fully grown and most in suit and tie day jobs, their journey to drink a pint at 12 pubs, ending with The World's End, sees them embroiled in some kind of alien takeover that seeks to end the world as they know it.



I'm particularly looking forward to it, the cast and creators alone warrant attention, these are actors/writers/directors who we've seen grow into stars and now it feels a bit like your home town band who got famous coming home to play a gig. With Paddy Considine, Martin Freeman, Eddie Marsan and of course Nick Frost in the mix, one can imagine the tone this will have the potential for some serious laughs. Based on the teaser trailer there are already hints of that British culture of small towns and pubs and that familiar central protagonist not fulfilling his potential, living in the past, a bit like Shaun. From very first glance it would be easy to say it won't live up to expectation, but the joy of Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz was not just in the premise; it's the writing, the comedy and the characters and of course pub based action, and from what we've seen here Edgar Wright and co. know your poison.

The World's End is released on July 19th 2013.
Expect a film review soon after ;)

Oblivion - Review

The Sci-fi genre has produced some cinematic masterpieces in the near and distant past, the genre is a subtle beast that can often be dogged by clichés and can over compensate on style. When Tron Legacy came out in 2010 that fact certainly rang true, here was a chance to make something that stood out, but for all it's visual splendor, the result felt like a rather boring affair. Oblivion is an originally conceived idea from Tron Legacy director Joe Kasinski, that has the advantage of being a totally new story and universe fronted by the biggest star in Hollywood. Oblivion is another visually arresting adventure that comes with many twists and turns, but is it as good as it looks?

In the non too distant future Earth is attacked by aliens, the resulting war leaves Earth pretty much uninhabitable. Oblivion tells the story of Jack (Tom Cruise) who, along side Victoria (Andrea Riseborough), is tasked with maintaining a number of drones that protect Earths best chance at survival. But all is not as it seems and the discovery of a crashed ship leads Jack down a path that will change his own fate and the whole of humanity.

Right off the bat the sense of scale in this film is immediate, the soundtrack soars as we learn about Jack and the world he inhabits. The plot manages to hold it's cards pretty close to its chest whilst all the time dishing out great set pieces with lush visuals and naturally brilliant handling by Tom Cruise and his costar Andrea Riseborough. The master stroke of the film is the setting and the things you take for granted visually. It is truly stunning, the world feels real, the sets, the design and the technology are so clean and pleasing to the eye that you can't help but marvel from time to time. However this was exactly how I felt towards Tron Legacy. Joe Kosinski has taken that extreme talent of creating realistic looking fantasy worlds and brought it to Oblivion. But for all it's visual trickery, Tron Legacy felt very empty and cold. Oblivion has a lot more to it in its story and you feel a greater sense of connection with the characters because it doesn't hold to any pre-conceived ideas laid down by a previous film. Cruise and Riseborough interact well together, and with their eye in the sky keeping tabs on them, the first act plays out as great isolated triangle of drama between these characters, that is affected greatly by the arrival of a fourth character in the shape of Olga Kurylenko.

There is an underlying issue with the film, and it's that we feel like in some way we've been here before, a number of familiar themes came up throughout, yet they belong to a number of sci-fi movies. The obvious ones are Moon, Wall-E, Mad Max and there are even obvious cinematic nods to Independence Day, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Prometheus. This list goes on. Given that many of these are robbing of style and of plot ideas it completely undermines the effect this film could have. Granted if you watch this film without those previous cinematic experiences you will find this wholly original and extremely effective, but that's highly unlikely. Cliché is the top word critics have been using to describe this film and every single one of them nailed it on the head. The rule book on sci-fi isn't re-written here, it's followed almost to the letter. It also feels enormously long, and with its scale reaching higher and higher, it runs away with a story line that could have been more concentrated and effective. The length in the end feels necessary in explaining the rather long winded twists and turns, but it means you don't leave the cinema with any of your own ideas.  

Personally, although I found many of the ideas here old hat, the child in me got thoroughly wrapped up in this, not only was it visually stupendous, the soundtrack had me by the ears immediately. With M83 providing the soundscape for Oblivion, you could hardly call the score original, yet it provides a lot of the emotional impact in many scenes here, giving more scope and scale to these already great looking shots. In fact I have become unhealthily obsessed with the title track that adorns the credits with vocals from Susanne Sundfor, it's so epic and wonderful I actually can't stop listening to it. The choice of actors is well founded, but what has come up time and again in reviews is that it eventually feels like one big Tom Cruise machine. I really thought he was great in it, but it gives very little opportunity for any other characters to be developed fully, with Jack going through all sorts of traumas and thoughts, everyone else feels flat and opaque.

The result of all this is a film that is well crafted in it's look and sound, but although having a strong first act, falls into a hole of clichés. Oblivion rings with familiar tones, you've seen this kind of thing before, it feels like your watching a number of films at once in places. However once the dust settles on this very long affair, I couldn't help but feel I'd watched something that will stick with me, for a while at least. It's worth seeing in a cinema for the visual spectacle alone and the film as a whole is good, it's just a shame, because it could have been great.  

★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

The Curse Of The Oversell

Today anyone with a computer, hell, a phone with an internet connection has the choice of watching billions of videos, with services improving all the time for fans of film to watch at home. YouTube now has a rental option for a number of older titles, add to that Netflix and LoveFilm and one day the idea of a physical disc to watch your films will be extinct thanks to the internet. With the internet having become such an advertising hot bed, film companies have naturally engaged with the idea of showing extra content online.

It's almost an occupational hazard for myself, and for any film fan, we enjoy seeing trailers for new movies. What seems like a life time ago I used to fervently want to get to a cinema early so that I was ready not only to see the film but all the trailers that came before the main feature. It's yet another function that cinema used to have that has unfortunately been lost in ether as the internet has waded in and made off with that excitement or uncertainty we all once felt. Certainly it is partly my own fault, but when a hotly anticipated film gets its trailer debut online, I can't help but watch, especially now that most people with a good connection can watch a full HD version without the need for waiting. Social media has obviously turned that old way of telling someone about a film to "here watch this, you'll love it!". No effort or expense just click and enjoy, which is great. Although now when I go to the cinema there's this horrible feeling of age when they run a trailer that I saw months ago, in fact this trailer's so old, I've seen the second offering from this movie already. This however rarely spoils my enjoyment of seeing a film I have anticipated. Then there's the movie clips . . .

Clips have become the medium of distributors with really bad poker faces. The films been test screened, the reactions are mixed, or the film is a hard sell, or this needs to be such a massive hit that it must not fail. Distributors flood the internet with clips from their film, and over the past couple of years I've notice that a large percentage of these films that have a good 10-15 minutes worth of clip material, tend to fall short of the mark when you finally see them in the cinema. Personally I can't see what the point in clips are, trailers have always served their purpose well, and if your trailer has done a good job, the viewer knows what they might expect from the film. Unless you saw Drive and you're this crazy woman. Clips spoil what otherwise might have been impacting scenes, now they've just become those bits you've seen already. The Hobbit was chief among them, with so much access to this movie in the form of behind the scenes blogs, several trailer incarnations and a plethora of minute long clips anyone seeing all this content knew way to well what they were in for. Rewind to when The Fellowship Of The Ring first hit screens, I saw one trailer for it and only once and the film totally knocked me over because of that lack of exposure. However the game has changed since it's release in 2001 and it's mainly down to internet piracy forcing companies to oversell their films to get bums on seats. Clip views represent a very small percentage compared to the views of trailers, with The Hobbit trailer having over 11 million (estimated) views and clips ranging in the 200k mark. So what really is the point, other than to leak a bit of footage of a film that is already being glorious over hyped? I fell in to that trap with The Hobbit . . . I'm a fanboy, I watched everything going and I still enjoyed the movie, however I wish I hadn't because a number of parts were tainted by that "I've seen this bit" thought. I'd have seen the movie without one singular trailer, given my love for Peter Jackson and the previous films, yet fans are unfailingly drawn to these revealing tit bits like moths to a flame.

Now you see a number of films taking this road. Jack The Giant Slayer chief among them at the moment with many clips revealing to me how over reliant it is on CGI and how wooden everyone seems to be acting in it, so much so I honestly don't think I'll bother going. The film stinks of band wagon jumping as dark edgy fairy tale movies have seen a trend thanks to Alice In Wonderland, Snow White and the Huntsman and just out this week Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (another clip whore). A raft of clips seems to be the calling card of a film that's set to fail or to be bad, although in a few cases this isn't true, but the majority of clip heavy movies make it feel like a hard sell of something we don't want, rather than just natural promotion of a piece of work. I am sure many would agree that some of the best cinema experiences are those where you've been blind to expectation, where you take a chance on a poster or a friend or critics recommendation. Trailers are a finely crafted marketing tool that can entice the viewer by setting a mood. You wouldn't read a few pages from the middle of a book without knowing the rest, so why play clips of film? Trailers can be done badly enough as it is in a number of cases and often come pre loaded with cliched teases that make you want to see more. Clips just do that, without that vale of painting the colour of the movie. Your just seeing a bit of the bloody film and they usually build up to bits we don't get to see to obviously make you try and think 'I'd like to see more'. I can understand them being uploaded post release to promote the dvd as you've likely seen the film, but to take those scenes out of the context of the whole film before anyone sees it I think is a poor decision.

Some video bloggers don't make things any better and seriously if you need to watch someone review a god damn trailer then you're clearly on a mission to destroy any kind of self enjoyment when you actually see the film. As a regular film viewer I personally have never been sold on a film through a clip, hell rattle off names of Directors and Producers I like and you don't need to show me the trailer. However for those who just go to the movies to have fun and get away from it all, have you ever been sold on the 'movie clip' or are they just a pointless addition to a marketing campaign? Let me know via comments if you wish. For now at least you can watch the new Iron Man 3 trailer below which sells via explosions, a supposed evil person wearing dodgy looking shades, Gwyneth Paltrow in nowt but a bra and loads of CGI Iron Man back ups, my favourite kind of trailer . . . . . . . . not! I smell movie clips!

Lincoln - Review

Tackling a subject so indelibly written in to history, and one so well known is always difficult to bring to the screen. However the story of the last 4 months of Abraham Lincolns life is not just any old history yarn, this is arguably the most important man and moment in the history of America, sending ripples across humanity for all time. So imagine the pressure felt in bringing this particular man to the big screen. It's no secret that this story has been in the back of Steven Spielberg's mind for many long years, and just as Peter Jackson knew long before The Hobbit took shape that Martin Freeman was his Bilbo, Spielberg had for many years known that the only man to fit Lincolns boots was Daniel Day Lewis. You can think of no greater partnership to tackle this important subject in history.

Lincoln covers the end of Abe's life as he sought to cure America of slavery whilst also bringing an end to the civil war. With opposition coming from all corners and a number of votes that must be secured in order to bring about the passing of the 13th amendment. Lincoln shows just how much the 16th president had to fight his corner, support his family and inspire those around him, to accomplish what seems an impossible task.

From the opening scene it is immediately obvious that Lincoln will not spare any detail, like Saving Private Ryan it plunges the viewer briefly into the thick of civil war. As it seeks not only to bring reality to these events, so too it brings reality to its central character through the incomparable Daniel Day Lewis. With no footage nor vocal recordings of the man himself, the take on this well documented individual is inspired and life like. This is no biopic trailing the life of the man from his birth to his infamous death, rather the film throws us straight into the frying pan of a government trying to hasten the end of a bitter civil war. If your history on the American civil war is non existent then the first act of the film will come as a barrage of information that might swamp you. It's advisable to go in with at least a Wiki understanding of what's going down. However for the initiated it will make the events feel real and fresh, coupled with dialogue fizzing all the way through like a Shakespeare play, the casting and the production is note perfect. The first act is the hard sell (for some) but as the plot thickens and you become more settled into events the overriding emotional engine gathers speed in the form of the attempted passing of the 13th amendment, which would put paid to slavery once and for all. The details are beautiful, and reality of the film is undeniably palpable, but to some that means slow and boring. There is a heap of heavy talking here, however it's not all serious. Spats of humour are poised throughout, one particular scene involving Tommy Lee Jone's Thaddeus Stevens confronting a memorably named Alexander Coffroth, had this critic laughing out loud in a very quiet screening.

The big hitters in the cast are obviously those nominated for awards, including the fabulous Sally Field who is incredible in the difficult role of Mary Todd Lincoln. Tommy Lee Jones is also a clear stand out, adding to the emotional complexity and humour of the film. But so many more cast members deserve credit, each performance supported by the strength of the next, compounding into a piece of work that is thoroughly engaging. There are several strands to the story, one focusing on Lincoln himself as he battles to live up to what he said in the Gettysburg address, and keep not only his cabinet, but his family in check. The others deal with gaining yes votes from 'lame duck' representatives in the the Democratic party, which is handled with great comic aplomb by James Spader and his companions, Tim Blake Nelson and John Hawkes. The third strand is the drama played out in the House of Representatives which acts as a roaring furnace, in one seriously well constructed power house of cinematic entertainment.

The cinematography and art direction further supports and realises the story with shots that would look fitting on a wall as art work. Scenes ooze with character so much so you can almost smell the atmosphere of the room or the smoke in air. The score seeks to lift some of the scenes here, but in many cases it actually serves as an obvious marker for emotion which at times is unnecessary. I actually found myself having to concentrate harder on some dialogue scenes as the score begins to soar over bits where it's really not needed. There's a marked effort to honour Abe accurately, and Day Lewis clearly knows his man, from his ease of talking and ability to connect with people, to his posture and mannerisms, there's no denying he embodies this person completely. Yet in a film baring his name, this is no character study that would potentially alienate us from the bigger picture. He does get the last word, however this film perfectly represents not a just a man, but a point in history shared by and effecting many. I thoroughly enjoyed this, so much so I went to see it again and found I got more from it second time round, in fact I'd say it's one of my favourites next to Life Of Pi that ran for best picture in the Oscars. Spielberg has made some seriously amazing films in his time, so many that even the good ones would be far down a top ten of his work, but Lincoln, like Schindlers List or Saving Private Ryan before it sets a new bar and stamp of quality for Spielberg, as he and Daniel Day Lewis will be remembered as the men who brought Lincoln to life on screen.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Wreck It Ralph - Review

For once I'm getting straight on to reviewing a film I just saw this evening, with many more reviews still in the pipeline I'll take a little of your time to freshly tap out my thoughts on the latest Disney computer animation Wreck It Ralph. This is not a Pixar outing and usually that means a serious dip in integrity and story telling, however here we have a film that really is for all of the family and is rather surprising.

Wreck It Ralph takes us into the world of a video arcade that has that idea of Toy Story, in that when we're done playing the games, the characters have a life of their own, in their own universe in the wires and code of arcade games and power bricks. Ralph is a bad guy in his video game Fix It Felix Junior, but he has a moral dilemma in that he's fed up of being the bad guy after 30 years of service. He wants his fellow game characters including Fix It Felix to see him differently, so he jumps game in order to prove he can be a good guy. His actions throw his game in to jeopardy as he game jumps in a desperate attempt to prove himself, and along the way he finds out what it really means to be a good, bad guy.

I was pleasantly surprised by how well crafted Wreck It Ralph is, with so many avenues the film makers could have gone down that might destroy our memory of the games we so love, they have a clear sense of direction here, with imagined characters inhabiting a well realised video game universe. It's very obvious from the off that this is a film made by people who really love video games, especially ones they played at a young age. It's also clear that instead of tarnishing our perception of known video game characters, the writers have managed to create characters of their own, and ones that fit and feel like they belong there. There are so many influences present here that I couldn't possibly list them all. In the imagined games there are obvious inspirations from Donkey Kong (Fix It Felix Jnr), Mario Kart (Sugar Rush) and Halo (Heroes Duty). The best thing is the film refers to many game characters we may not have seen for a while, and realises them such a way that honours them, without treading all over their legacy. It's difficult to explain but everything just works, from the story telling, the referencing, soundtrack, visuals and the characters. They all ring with those familiar tones that (for this reviewer) instantly transport you back to that time when you played on your Sega or Nintendo.

Nostalgia is a factor, but the story weaves it's own particular magic. Although this film has kids firmly in its cross hairs as the target audience, the plot deals with themes that will ring true with adults. Ralph has done the same job for 30 years that he gets no thanks for, and no-one sees the real him, so he acts out. Vanellope is a glitch in her game, she doesn't fit in and is bullied for it, and she is also trying to prove herself. The connection between these two characters when they meet does become the heart and soul of the film, and with its plot twists and turns, the pair are brought together to form a great alliance. When you pick the film apart it has the typical Disney hallmarks that ring of cliche, however the way these are presented are in a world where you are firmly engaged. The nuances of the characters make you feel like you are in a video game environment, something hard to do when you're transposing retro graphic game characters into a graphically luxurious CG animated movie. For instance the friends of Fix It Felix have excellent motion in which they jerk in their movement like a retro character would.

John C. Reilley (Ralph) and Sarah Silverman (Vanellope) are pitch perfect in their vocal roles and these two comic actors bounce off one another brilliantly in the dialog, you may even take a few phrases out of the cinema with you. Jane Lynch is also very notable as the fiery and fearsome Calhoun, who also gets a back story that gives her character some humanity with a resulting (Disney favourite) cliché love in. The writing is sharp and actually got a number of laughs out of me and more so out of the children in attendance. The animation is top notch with good lighting and textures that, especially in Sugar Rush, might have you watering a bit at the mouth. The 3D lends itself well to this kind of film, especially as it's used to noticeable effect here. The soundtrack has great elements of games gone by subtly blending retro sounds into a modern score. Any negatives about the film stem from the predictable direction the plot goes in from time to time. The bad guy arch is rather old hat, although you might not get to the conclusion before the film does, because you're a child and you are the target audience, or you are drawn in so much you take it as it comes.

Which leads me to conclude that if I were ten years old this film would be quite probably the best thing ever, just for the fun and the characters. But I thoroughly enjoyed this because, like Toy Story, it envisages a world that can reside in your imagination, and it's realised in a way that is believable, entertaining and makes me feel old . . . in a good way. One for the whole family, and for big kids, go and see it.

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Lawless - Review

Apart from going to the cinema quite regularly these past couple of weeks, I've also gotten a hold of films that have recently been released for home viewing. Ones that impressed me during my absence from writing reviews. Now having sat down to watch a second time, I still hold Lawless in great esteem, and it comes as no surprise. One of my favourite films in my collection is The Proposition, a searing piece of cinema from the collaborative efforts of Nick Cave and John Hillcoat. Now they're back with Lawless, with a screenplay penned by Nick Cave and adapted from the true story written by Matt Bondurant called 'The Wettest County in the World'.

Lawless tells the story of the three Bondurant brothers as they bootleg their way through the depression and prohibition. Business is booming, with the youngest Jack (Shia Lebeouf) taking it upon himself to make he and his family better off for it. That is until the law from the city starts making life hard for them, in the form of a sneering and slimey Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce).

Although not as weighty, nor as fearsome as The Proposition, Lawless rings with a number of familiar tones. Three law breaking brothers; two elders with grit and confidence, the younger with a lot to learn, with the law hot on their heels, sounds familiar. With a stand alone force of the law in the form of Guy Pearce being their ultimate threat you can't help but see some kind of comparison with The Proposition. Lawless is a much different beast, it's an easy watch, in as much as the story speaks for itself, it's extremely accessible to most with in roads to a well known history. With the central story focused on a family, there will be themes here that ring true with anyone who has siblings, let alone brothers. With Shia LeBeouf as the young runt of the litter Jack, trying his best to play catch up, and falling prey to foolish mistakes, you end up routing for him and feeling his fury as the plot unfolds. With Jacks older brothers acting not just as his guardians, but as a measuring stick as he treads the difficult path towards becoming a man. Guy Pearces Charlie Rakes is the roaring catalyst, changing the family dynamic by brutally enforcing his law on the county, its bootleggers and Jacks face. The resulting kick off, mixed with Jacks tie in with local gangsters, gives the film its real meat and potatoes. It's very violent when it gets down to the dirty work, with one scene in particular giving you a sense that the older brothers have to cross lines that most wouldn't to protect themselves and Jack. With Rakes closing the gap you have to hand it to Guy Pearce as when we first meet him we already think he's a bit left of center, and by the finale he brings the real madness of this unpredictable character to the fore.  

It makes for compelling viewing, mainly because all cast members present are putting in brilliant performances. Shia LeBeouf although type cast here, stands out as he fits perfectly into the character of Jack and grows throughout the narrative convincingly. Tom Hardy plays a perfectly pitched and powerful alpha male as he grunts his way through an ordeal that sees his character live up to his legend. The rest of the cast all have some purpose, mainly in bolstering Jacks story line, with Gary Oldman used to great but unfortunately fleeting effect. The female interests are obviously a sight for sore eyes in this more testosterone fueled film, much like The Proposition. However their weight in the actual plot isn't great, in fact it's fairly none existent, except for maybe making Forrest get a little more angry . . . you won't like him when he's angry.

As with The Proposition, Lawless has a soundtrack is well presented, however here it serves more as a back drop, rather than making a huge impact on the visuals. With soundtracks specially recorded and written for their films Cave has helped mold a soundtrack that you will likely want to listen to separately when the film is over.

Lawless for this critic is like a difficult second album for Hillcoat and Cave, with The Proposition sitting so high on my all time favourites list. I thoroughly enjoyed Lawless, and on its own it is definitely one of the better films of 2012, however, given the creative powers behind it and the cast, it should have been the best.

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

           

Les Misérables - Review

There isn't a genre of film more difficult to sell than the musical. Always turning into a complete farce or becoming an assault on the senses. This critic doesn't hold a particular distaste to the genre, however musicals have never sat with him easily. Musicals often have a horrific tendency to sing direct to camera, breaking that all important fourth wall like it's some kind of stage show. Include into that songs sung in a studio, and quite obviously not on set, and you've often got a recipe for a badly lip synced barf fest. Tom Hoopers take on Les Misérables seeks to breath new life into a well known musical and give movie goers an all together different experience of musicals on the big screen.

Les Misérables follows Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackson) in 19th Century France. Long on the run from the policeman Javert (Russell Crowe) Valjean creates a new life for himself and helps raise a child belonging to a factory worker. His decision to father the child alters both their futures forever as he fights to keep them both safe in the tumultuous world of revolutionary France.

The stage show is loved around the globe and well known to millions, but to many others you will probably have heard of it, but just never seen it. To musical lovers this is sacred stuff, a stupendous show that has run for a solid 27 years, so it arrives with much bridled anticipation. This viewer hadn't ever seen the show and knew little about the story, and nothing about the format, which may be a deciding factor as to whether you see it or not. Most musicals that you may have seen, like the more recent Sweeney Todd, have a range of dialogue and musical scenes. Les Misérables does the whole 2 hours and 30 minutes on song, with dialogue one liners for effect and transition. A brave but obvious decision, for this is how the show is done, and with many anticipated fans, why fix what isn't broken?

Film brings with it one huge advantage over the theater, the chance to expand and visualise the larger scenes and to be more intimate with the characters. The opening sets you up for the roller coaster that's about to transpire. A huge, impressive set piece, involving a ship being pulled into dock by hundreds of prisoners, bombastically throws you into the film, sparing no time in getting right to the singing. Jackman pulls with all his weary and wirey might, as he is drenched and battered, and here the effect of singing live is instantly appreciated. Having recorded all of the vocals live on set, you hear every gripe and grimace in his toil. Further scenes benefit massively from this way of recording, with Anne Hathaway proving the stand out as she trembles and impresses through I Dreamed A Dream. What it captures is the emotion, real acting through song and it has an enduring and devastating effect, with guarantees that even if you yourself are not moved by certain scenes, others in the cinema will.

Jackman is clearly the stand out, having cut his teeth in theater, and long before his turn as Wolverine shot him to fame, he starred in the filmed for TV Oklahoma. Other actors obviously don't have the experience, yet still their presence is felt. Poor Russell Crowe seems to come under the microscope every time he utters words in films these days (Robin Hood is Irish? Wait a Yorkshireman? Oh I don't know), but even though he clearly has the weaker voice, his casting as Javert is poignant and cleverly chosen. With such a stellar cast it's hard to pick out who stands tallest in this gargantuan production. Sacha Baron Cohen makes off with a number of scenes as the comedy relief Thénardier, and Helena Bonham Carter as his partner, looking and sounding much like her last musical character in Sweeney Todd. Isabelle Allen as the Young Cosette is also enchanting as she dreams of a Castle On A Cloud, it seems you're constantly reveling at the talent on show. However given the excited talk that followed the exiting of this packed screening, a great amount of praise falls on Eddie Redmayne, who dominates the final act of the film with his stirring performance of Empty Chairs At Empty Tables.

In bringing Les Misérables to the screen the Kings Speech director Tom Hooper has masterfully used his often intensely close and offset shooting style, that brings the performances to the fore. The sets and locations are fittingly excellent and gives the story a greater sense of scale than a theater ever could. The world created is rich and realistic, some times almost too realistic, with scenes that involve a sewer provoking quite the reaction among the audience, as Jean Valjean drags Marius through a river of shit. The shining jewel of the set production is greatly realised in the scenes as the Revolutionaries rise up in the final act. The length of the film gives rise to the potential for a bit of leg crossing, as if missing but a minute of the film would be a shame. There are some odd choices made, that are minor picks. In light of it being set in France, you can't help but let your brain wince when a child runs on with a wise cracking, cockney (cor blimey gavnar) accent. The singing will have its critics among the picky, it's not perfect, but then again theater never is, that's what is so brave about the film. In fact the keen eyed among you may notice that due to such intense scrutiny of the actors, the focus puller, whilst doing a brilliant job, is having a tough time with some performances as they move through the more intense scenes.

All together this makes for viewing that will stick with you, musicals have the added power to instill themselves into your memory through song. The girls will come out singing I Dreamed A Dream and the boys, well they'll have to put up with it. Many eye's will not be dry and new recruits to the story of Les Misérables may be booking tickets for the theater, or going to see the film again. It's an intense journey, and it might not strike a chord with everyone. Oscars nominations are deserved, however in terms of cinematic achievement there are others who I think deserve the wins more. Needless to say the excitement and praise for this film is repeated by myself, it's not the kind of thing I usually love at the cinema, but this time around, this film goer has been won over.

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Life Of Pi - Review

In the world of adapted novels there are those that are deemed impossible to bring to cinema, but in the past decade we've seen films that many never thought would make it to the big screen. The triumphs in these cases have been a result of dedication, not only to the development of special effects and filming technology, but to good storytelling. Life Of Pi has always been regarded as one of these unfilmable stories, so inevitably someone bravely took up the gauntlet, and who better than Ang Lee. Say what you like, but Ang Lee has always been a thought provoking film maker, even if you thought that Hulk was Marvels biggest misfire, you can't help but admire that Lee tried to buck the trend of boom and blast for the more psychological and intense look at the green meanie. With Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain in his portfolio, Ang Lee is one big hitter that doesn't stick to genres, but there are films that define careers and Life Of Pi I believe is that film.

Life Of Pi follows Pi Patel on an adventure, when a disastrous storm takes his family and life from him, and he is left on a life boat, with a lethal bengal tiger (named Richard Parker) for company. In a story that tests his will as well as his soul, he must try to survive alongside Richard Parker.

At the beginning of the film we are introduced to Pi as a middle aged man, through a visitor played by Rafe Spall (you'll remember him getting too friendly with a snake in Prometheus), an aspiring writer looking for his next story. Rafe Spall is our inquisition into the story, he's the person that we all can relate to. When asked by Pi what someone had told him he replies 'He said you had a story that would make me believe in God'. This scene is revisited as the story is told and highlights the main underlying metaphor once the plot reaches its conclusion, a tactfully used device that works well.

The following story has us follow Pi as he grows up, so by the time we are aboard the ship taking his fathers Zoo across the ocean, we already know Pi very well. The cinematography capturing the fantastic looking French India is breathtaking. Backed by a captivating soundtrack, the first act see's Pi tell his story of growing up and becoming fascinated with religion, and being giving lessons in the nature of animals. Ang Lee manages to do justice to the way children behave and think, a difficult move that has you engaged with the story so quickly.

The master stroke of the film is touched upon when Pi meets Richard Parker (the tiger) and how it deals with the nature of animals. The idea of the tiger as being ferocious and deadly is deftly incorporated into story, so you're under no illusion that this is some kind of Disney style fairy tale. However once the story aboard the life boat kicks off the elements of this being a rather unbelievable tale are uniquely twinned with this realistic approach to the behaviour of animals. This behaviour and the realism of this is realised so magnificently in the special effects used.

I was constantly agog at how incredible the CGI was in Life Of Pi, and more astonishingly at how the 3D was used to great effect. 3D and I have never been the best of friends, but for once the inclusion of it didn't bother me, it was great to see moments that not only didn't seem so pop up card style, but that jumped out at you or enhanced the depth of field with significance and style. It's hard to do that in a film and for it not to feel like a 'look at me I'm in 3D' moment. In the way that The Hobbit left me with a headache, Life Of Pi didn't seem to have that effect.

Saraj Sharma (Pi) is a revelation and as the heart and soul of this film he shines as he deals with his situation, sometimes with success and other times not so much. His interaction with what was probably nothing, on set, is believable and endearing. The journey Pi goes on speaks volumes at every chapter, and whenever he begins to feel control in this impossible situation, life throws him a curve ball, but the presence of Richard Parker gives him strength and purpose. 'Without Richard Parker, I'd be dead by now' he exclaims as he sits on his makeshift raft tied to the boat containing the killer tiger.

I became ensconced in the film and as the relationship between Richard Parker and Pi develops, you become drawn into the belief that out of such great adversity that a tiger could be tamed. The final act brings with it such a great resolution and a new understanding of the story, and whether you cottoned on or not it will leave you in the same position the Writer (Rafe Spall) ends up.

Doubtless, this is one of the finest films I've seen in a while, one that I would watch again, for it's vision and excellent story, that should resonate with all who watch it. As many have said, you just have to go and see it to believe it. It is only showing in 3D which it has been designed for, and with this great attention to a medium I have criticised, I can say it didn't hinder my enjoyment of this film, for once. A must see and a worthy contender for Best Picture and Best Director at the Oscars.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Review

It's 2013 and I've let the blog slide for too long, it's time to get reviewing again. 2012 was in many film goers eyes a year of expectancy, with one film after another coming from Directors who have immense cinematic clout. However given the anticipation greeted by many films last year non come close to the expectancy laid on The Hobbit. The Lord Of The Rings is cinemas greatest success story, a trilogy that is lauded as the finest ever created. 11 years since the release of The Fellowship Of The Ring and we're returning to Middle Earth in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

In a hole under the ground there lived a Hobbit. Bilbo Baggins is his name and we all know him as a rather wrinkled Ian Holm in Lord Of The Rings, who makes an appearance here. But this story concerns a much younger Bilbo played by Martin Freeman, who, along with Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and 13 dwarves, begins an adventure to help the dwarves reclaim their former homeland from the terrible dragon known as Smaug.

An Unexpected Journey plants you firmly back in to Middle Earth and into Jackson's method of story telling. It's like sitting in your favourite chair and enjoying a tipple of your favourite drink, only the label has changed and the flavour has a crisp newness about it. The characters, setting and motifs all ring with familiar tones that instantly has you by the eyes and ears. The story is laid out before us with a fantastic prologue that echoes the style of the former films. Hobbiton looks as good, in fact better than it did oh so many years ago and the crystal quality of the new RED cameras picks out the finest detail in the landscape and faces of our characters. However this viewer prefers not to have to wear such cumbersome glasses to enjoy the experience, more on that later.

Jackson has made the obvious and generous choice to reintroduce Middle Earth and the story of The Hobbit through our original Bilbo; Ian Holm. The first act plays out in what, to most, seems to be a rather slow affair. However having just read the book before viewing, I found that Jackson and Walsh have done their best to expand on a part of the story that focuses solely on Bilbo. With cinema, solid character building is key, and to spend a bit of time working out how Balin and Thorin have come to this juncture gives the story a better grounding. I felt the whole affair flit by, if anything I wanted to spend more time in Hobbiton. The film thunders on in any case.

Leaving Hobbiton gives The Hobbit it's true selling point, not only its glorious landscape, through which this band of 14 trek to the Lonely Mountain, but its central protagonist, Martin Freeman, who plays a much worried and flustered Bilbo. In LOTR it's easy to send Frodo on his adventure, he has no choice but to leave with the help of Gandalf. Here Bilbo is having to be coerced out the door as the outcome of this quest has little consequence to his lovely life in the Shire. The way this is handled is the genius of the film and the way in which it concludes gives a definite beginning and end to this first of three films. Much like Fellowship you feel a sense of connection to how hard this quest must be on a little halfling from Hobbiton.

The Hobbit deals with a much more playful and what seems a more trivial subject matter. The very idea of the plot sounds all together more fairy tale like than Lord of the Rings, so it comes loaded with a much more whimsical approach to the quest. LOTRs first chapter was a particular dark and brooding affair with a real sense of the unknown. So it's no wonder that some viewers have felt disconnected from this first installment. With room to expand and play with the story rather than squeeze a massive book into a 3 hour plot, Jackson and Co. give a grander sense of scale and seriousness to this quest. The prologue, the battle at the gates of Moria and the inclusion of Azog the Pale Orc give the plot a much greater sense of urgency and scope.

The inclusion of Radagast and the story surrounding the Necromancer has not yet inflicted on the quest, and with it not being part of The Hobbit novel, many have sneered at it's inclusion, however with two films still to go, these threads may still have an impact on the trilogy as a whole. However in dealing with the scenes that were in the book, one character nearly makes off with the whole show, as Bilbo meeting Gollum is possibly the greatest interaction with a cgi animated character in the history of cinema. Other expectant scenes such as the stone giants, the encounter with the 'three monstrous trolls' and goblin town, are handled as you would expect and add to that epic and magical quality synonymous with Jackson's Middle Earth.

Overall it's a superb adventure story in it's own right, with outstanding production techniques and effects backed by the strength of returning cast members, talented new ones and a soundtrack that further embellishes and builds on the previous score. However with Jackson attempting to give the film firm strings that lead to LOTR, that never appeared in the book, you can't help but feel that some scenes impeach on the main plot line. With a lot more still to come I for one feel that The Hobbit Trilogy has more up it's sleeve that could see the second chapter give relevance to moments in An Unexpected Journey.

The decision to shoot The Hobbit in 3D has caused this viewer one huge headache (quite literally). I've never been fond of 3D, especially its use in films that seemingly don't need it. With The Hobbit I was constantly pulled out of the experience because of a pair of glasses acting like a shitty filter over my eyes. I've watched 3D films and not noticed this as much but for some reason The Hobbit had me, on both sittings, getting frustrated with the 3D experience. LOTR was incredible without it, why bother? As for HFR I'll have to wait for the next one to bother with that. I fully intend on seeing this one more time in 2D just so I can sit through it without my eyes straining.

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆