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.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★