Skyfall

What Nolan has done for Batman,

Mendes has done for Bond, James Bond.

Sam Mendes brings us the best Bond. The best Bond film. And one of, if not the best film you will see all year. Up front, I'm not a huge Bond fan. Until now, I've considered them little more than throw away fun. Quippy, silly, and generally nonsense. Even Daniel Craig's fairly serious debut as 007 was never going to be a classic film - despite me thoroughly enjoying it. What we have now is theme, thought, cinematography and some out of this world acting and directing.

I would love to give a synopsis of the plot, but I do feel the less you know the better in this case. Go and see it if you want to know.

There are two main comparisons I feel I'd be remiss to leave out of a review - the work of Nolan, as mentioned above, but also that of Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss in TV's Sherlock. What I think we are seeing is, in the wake of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, film makers with big budgets insisting on plot, character development and not treating their audience like total morons. Mendes decided on a base-line theme, a point of convergence for the film to fit around - in a very Nolan-esque manner - and in my opinion something Nolan has glossed over in his Batman Trilogy. We see the effects of age hitting Bond and M together. We see the new, technology driven generation stepping in and asking why do we need such old fashioned ideas like espionage. It provokes genuine, plot driven interest outside explosions and chases - which you care about far more with realistic characters. And are especially awesomely done, I think. Then there is the Britishness, the everyday people getting in the way, the shots on the moors, even just the lighting comes almost straight off the fantastically directed Sherlock.

I guess one thing I should do is quickly defend the opening remark about "best film of the year." I will stand by this. The Dark Knight Rises was top contender for such praise - and I'm taking nothing away from it at all. I came out of that film perfectly happy that the trilogy had a fitting and thoroughly enjoyable ending. Skyfall was just one better. It dealt with the re-building of a broken man in a far more convincing, more feelings driven way than Rises, and its final act was magnificent in a measure that was lacking in the showdown in Gotham.

Apart from being beautifully thought out and shot, the acting is top notch. Bond, himself is believable (unlike Quantum of Solace - less said about that film the better), Judi Dench played her more central role very convincingly and a range of supporting cast were all put together nicely. Now to the important casting decision - the Bond Villain. Javier Bardem does not disappoint, manically and camply brilliant in his malevolence - a kin to (again) Andrew Scott as Moriarty crossed with Heath Ledger's (othersideofBatman) Joker.

All these similarities are not to say the film is unoriginal - by no means. It's a pity it is released post these two other works, as it was in production at the same time, so it was merely due to the post-production schedule that it is being seen later in the year.

I loved it. It really was a FILM worth watching, not just a good Bond film. I don't have the time or the space to mention everything worthwhile seeing in this film. Long may it last, and Happy 50th Birthday to the old man.

Ginger and Rosa

Sally Potter brings us the story of two girls. They were born together, and grew up together. Set in 1960's Britain, the film centers around the Cuban Missile Crisis and how these two inseparable girls became young woman. Ginger, (Elle Fanning, Super 8) the poet, wants to protest, wants to stop the war and Rosa, (Alice Englert, 8)  a romantic, wants to live life and find a man she can love. Ginger has to fight her fight while her family life crumbles around her and Rosa just falls for the wrong guy. The friendship starts to split while priorities change.

I really liked this film. It had something that you don't see often enough in films - the central concern of the main female character is not to meet a man. Ginger is our heroine. She's not totally disinterested in men, we see her with a couple at different times, but that wasn't in any way important to the plot. We have a young woman with thoughts, ideas, a future, and an incredible sense of autonomy.

One thing annoyed me about this film - it was a change. I don't feel comfortable having to make special mention of the fact that a film isn't subscribing to gender roles, but the truth is, a well-rounded female character is hard to find in modern movies. At this point, it's probably relevant to say I've found my tip for a nomination, if not a winner of this years BAFTA for Leading Actress. Elle Fanning was fantastic in her role, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a wee supporting nomination for her mother Christina Hendricks.

On a broader level, we have a strong plot, some great characters, and interesting writing. The directing is iffy, really. Nothing too wrong with it, it's just forgettable.

What I will say is, go see it. No doubt be in my top ten of the year.

On The Road

"The only ones for me are the mad ones.

The ones that are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything

at the same time, the ones you never yawn or say a common place thing, but burn,

burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars."

Okaaaay, these immortal lines don't fully feature in the film, but I love them too much not to add them in.

Walter Salles finally brings to the screen Kerouac's modern classic (by the way, I'm a fan of the book.) Sal Paradise (Sam Riley, Control) is the voice of the piece, an up-and-coming writer blinded from reason by "it" and the man who personifies "it", Dean Moriarty (Garret Hedlund, Tron: Legacy). This isn't a road story, and it ain't no bromance - it's about addiction, and about youth and about something totally, positively undefinable that can confront you at any time. So, Sal chases after Dean and Dean chases from girls to drugs to music to a normal life - being bored by one after another.

Now, the film. I think it will entirely depend on the angle you enter it from. I read the book, loved the book, was excited for the film. From this, I took away an average experience. There were elements of the film I loved, parts that were done about as perfectly as they could have been - I found myself really enjoy the music scenes, the dancing and all the ecstasy that came from the writing in the book. A role, very well cast was Carlo Marx (Tom Sturridge, The Boat that Rocked) - played the poet's part perfectly. 

Downsides, well, I'm really sorry to say Kristen Stewart. Basically, I thought she might pull a performance out of the bag, but no. She was literally just Kristen Stewart, throughout, she had no character.

There is an utter lack of story line, which may be more of a problem for someone who didn't read the book - as I just enjoyed the company of the characters I had read about. 

I didn't care much either. I don't like to say this, but I didn't much care about anyone or any thing and it's been a while since I read the book so I don't remember how I felt at the time, but when it got to the emotional scenes - most of the time - I. Didn't. Care.

So this film, it's not the best I've seen, not the best in the last week even, but when it was good, it was great. It was probably as good a version of this story as you're going to get. If you enjoyed the book, go into it with an open mind and you may well enjoy it.

Taken 2

Liam Neeson (a.k.a. Brian Mills) security officer, ex-husband, father, and giant is back on the scene again, not quite in real time. Not quite, in fact, in real... anything. Mr Luc Besson gives us another story of action, torture, running and car chases - but this time with a twist. This one is a 12A.

In Taken we have Mill's daughter (Maggie Grace, Lockout) stolen away by drug and human traffickers, and so it's up to him, in 72 hours, to search for her kidnappers, find them, and kill them. Also, rescue her. So, we're a couple years down the line at the start of the new film and for a nice break from his ex-wife's second divorce, her and Brian's daughter are taken to Istanbul for a holiday. As Brian and his ex-wife start to hit it off again, in come the fathers, brothers and uncles of EVERYONE killed in the first film. They want Mills, and they want him to suffer.

Now, the first one wasn't a classic. It was funny, silly and action-y. First problem for number two, lost the action. It definitely wasn't taken to any sort of new level. The fight sequences are cringing at the hits before you have the chance to - it's like a film laughing at its own jokes. I understand it was cut to get its low rating but it is no film for a twelve year old - never mind younger.

Then again, I am glad of one thing. This film, I like to think, understood the success of the original and then made a move to do the same thing again. The rating was a minor hiccup compared to the comedy gold of Liam Nesson hiding behind walls only to jump out (all 8ft. of himself) on top of the bad guys.

It is totally silly, it's lost the action appeal of the former, but if you're a fan of the first, go for it - no doubt you'll enjoy it.

In case you can't tell - I just love Liam Neeson.

Ruby Sparks

Stories with a single, solitary idea attached, trying to convey a message. Something almost childishly simple, something that looks childish but with a twist, with a dark edge. In the past we've had Greek Mythology, then Grimm's Fairy Tales and now we have Urban Legends. This is a very well played out Urban Legend indeed. Central concept - what would happen if you wrote your perfect woman into existence?

Brought to us by Jonothan Dayton and Valarie Faris, Ruby Sparks tells us the story of one-hit-wonder teen romance writer Calvin Weir-Fields (Paul Dano, There Will Be Blood) who is set a task by his therapist (Elliot Gould, Friends) to write about someone who likes him, despite his flaws. In a dream, inspiration strikes and in comes the idea of the quirky, fun painter Ruby (Zoey Kazan, Me and Orson Welles and writer of the film) - with whom, he promptly falls in love........ Then, he wakes up one day, and she's making him breakfast.

Here we have the set up, the problems it presents; do you have the right to change her, is there such a thing as perfection, will your perfect woman love you back, and what effect will that sort of power have on someone? We've got a good story-line, a great line to go down, and unfortunately only in parts, a good movie. I'll get to the flaws later. I think we have an interesting nod towards the idea of cloning ethics, which is fairly high-brow for what appears to be a silly rom-com, but that seems to be what is lurking in the background for the entirety of the film. And not just that, but the story does justice to such a topic, in an enjoyable way.

On the subject of enjoy-ability lies the problem. It is grasping at straws to find reasons to include certain plot points, when realistically, they could have been cut entirely and a shorter film made. I found myself checking how long I had been in the cinema a couple of times, purely due to the pointless nature of some of the middle scenes. So, as a story, it works totally and for that, if you have the patience, go and see it. As a movie, it falls short a little just plainly for dragging in the middle, because I did come out of it having heard a better story than I expected, but having seen an average film.

The one film I'd recommend if you liked this would be Limitless, which has the same basic idea and feel behind it - but all in all, probably a better film, if having a totally ridiculous premise.

Perks Of Being A Wallflower

I'm going to start by admitting an immediate bias - I'm a seventeen year old. I'm not going to be able to look objectively onto a film like this, and so despite its many, many flaws, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The film is written and directed by Stephen Chbosky - the writer of the novel from which it's based. I know nothing of the book, so I can't comment on the faithfulness of the film to it. The film shows freshman Charlie (Logan Lerman) starting his first day of High School after a spending time in a psychiatric hospital. Charlie is a writer (which I assume is in some way relevant to the plot of the book, but in the film, is almost irrelevant except for a lovely scene involving a "Secret Santa" gift,) who is taken under the wing of the close half-siblings Sam and Patrick (Emma Watson, Harry Potter and Ezra Miller, We Need To Talk About Kevin). The three, along with the rest of their "misfit" gang (I know, it is silly), go off to do strange things, listen to apparently unpopular music (now the songs that every teenager knows), have fun, and fall in love at the wrong times with the wrong people.

What did I like? Well, the cheesiness and the not-quite quirkiness. It toed the line perfectly between that amazingly young, crazy I-can-do-anything mood and "hmmm, you're pushing it." The majority of this genre of movies tends to set up camp in the latter for me. So for that, it needs to be congratulated. The cheesiness was warranted as well - it's so easy to scoff, but to look back, the taglines and pseudo metaphysical quotes are exactly the thoughts of angst-y, emotional teens. Easier for me to see than most, I guess.

Performances, no complaints, at all. Special mention to Ezra Miller - played his part fantastically.

There are problems - many of them. Not just plot holes, but pointless wastes of time and parts of sheer disbelief in generally believable characters. Do you know what? I don't think they matter, if you, like me, get drawn into everything Chbosky wanted you to be. I was engaged, so I ignored everything I didn't like - and that's the sign of a good movie.

All-in-all, I was not looking forward to it when I went in - came out very pleasantly surprised. I'd recommend anyone with one memory of one night of sheer youthfulness left in their head, go see this film.