Star Trek Into Darkness

Abrams is back, prior to his Star Wars Disney Reboot, with the second of his Star Trek movies.

Yup, he's back to the other space based franchise he successfully booted up four years ago with one of the most fun and rewatchable movies of that decade. In the first of this series, time is rewritten as to allow Spock (Zachary Quinto, Heroes), Kirk (Chris Pine, This Means War) and the rest of the crew aboard the Enterprise to engage in novel and increasingly energetic adventures. Into Darkness follows the team as they fight against the evil genius of John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock) who has declared war on his former employers, Star Fleet.

How does this latest outing compare to it's predecessor? Well, the acting is terrible, the science is off, the ridiculous plots and melodrama are cranked up to eleven and the dialogue is laughable. Basically, all I could have hoped for. I should preface this review with a warning that I am not a fan of the Nimoy and Shatner films, nor the original series - mainly due to never having watched them. What follows will only refer to the previous Abrams film, and nothing that precedes it.

That being said, what I do love about the current reboot of the franchise is the sense of fun that has made repeat viewings of the first film possible and pleasurable. Its silliness and the campness allowed for total immersion in the whole new world that the directer created. If, like me, this was your experience of the 2009 film, then I believe you shouldn't be disappointed with the latest offerings.

Having now seen Into Darkness twice - with a possible third viewing on the near horizon - I think that the over-the-top-action-romp-ness of the film will carry it at least as far as the audience who enjoyed the first. These are films very much centred around punching, shooting, blowing things up and screaming over the sounds of explosions (in space. Yeah, don't ask.) There are, if you wish to find such things, some broad questions raised in the areas of politics, race relations and such issues, but really if that were the point of a movie like Star Trek Into Darkness, it would have failed miserably to achieve it's prime directive.

I believe the only true problem in the film is the acting. It is terrible. It's easily over come by loud bangs and gun fights, but I mention it only in passing as it provided, for me, the highest level of comedy the film reached - even with amusing wit and repartee written into the script. But if you fancy a good, hearty laugh, look out for the hammed up performances of Pine, Urban, Pegg, Yelchin, Cumberbatch and Eve.

The most fitting comment I think I could make regarding Star Trek Into Darkness was one made by those who designed the advertisements played before the movie. Before Star Trek started, the audience was treated to the action-packed first scene of the new Fast and Furious (6) film. Need I say more.

Rewrite and Restructure

It's been a while. Too long, in fact.

I'm finding the fact that I've written very little for this blog a horrible perpetual motion machine of annoyance. As much as I've love writing here, University deadlines, exams and a drying up of funds has lead to less cinema trips (and more DVD watching). Even more unfortunate is the fact that this all has resulted in an apathy for review writing because the blog looks so bare!

In solution to this suck-y state of affairs, I'm gonna change the mission statement of the blog. Where, originally, my intent was to give reviews of what was on at the cinema, what I'd recommend people see and what to stay away from, I think an all purpose cinema blog would be far easier to run.

The plan now is to have three different types of posts; to continue the "what's on at the cinema" section; to begin a "what I've been watching"  review section; and to have a space where I can voice general thoughts, opinions and ideas about movie related happenings going on around me. I hope there are still people interested enough to keep up looking through the posts and keeping up to date with everything new coming along. In an ideal world, this new system (and the five month holiday I find myself at the beginning of) will lead to a minimum of one review/update a week. If that works out well, and there are still people showing interesting, I'll endeavor to keep it on a more regular schedule when I return to Uni in September. 

Also, it has been pointed out to me, I'm not running the greatest looking site on the internet. Although, I am not the most artful person in the world, I'd love to have someone who knows how themes and blogs work to help me out if they have the time, and make the blog look better! Throw me and e-mail, or get me on Facebook if you wish to be my kind-hearted savior.

Thank you for your patience those who have come back to the blog to read this!

A Trilogy

Today I went back to the cinema, and since I was there with a friend who doesn't make it there a lot, we went to see the new Danny Boyle (Trainspotting) movie Trance. I'd seen this for the first time around a month ago, and thoroughly enjoyed myself letting this silly, slightly sleazy and slick film wash over me. The second time through, I enjoyed it even more, but what struck me about the movie was just how it reminded me of two other films I had watched recently, how fun I'd found all three, and how the three might just be one of the best selections to put together for a movie marathon night in.

The other two films that Trance put me in mind of were Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky's 2010 Oscar winning movie) and Side Effects (Steven Soderbergh's, supposed final film). Trance is the story of Simon (James McAvoy, X-Men: First Class), an amnesia-suffering, inside man in an art theft who is taken to a hypnotherapist (Rosario Dawson, Sin City) in an attempt to find where he had hidden a stolen painting. Black Swan tells the story of a ballerina (Natalie Portman, V for Vendetta) driven to insanity by her quest for perfection in the role of Swan Queen, while being constantly advised by her choreographer (Vincent Cassel, Trance) to learn to lose herself in the role. Finally, Side Effects is the description-defying story of Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo), the depression she suffered, the relationship between her and her therapist (Jude Law, Sherlock Holmes), and how her recovery unraveled. 

There seems to be a long list of things connecting these films, as is apparent, no doubt, by their summaries. What is true of their style, is that all three films look good. Danny Boyle's stylized view goes into hyperdrive as this movie descends further into McAvoy's mind, while Aronofsky manages to get inside the dancing sequences of Swan Lake fantastically and Soderbergh's slow and unassuming camera led to genuine shock as the plot twists rolled into this "medical" drama.

The other areas which these films share common ground, are those that all similar genre pieces do - but in these films they are about as good as it gets. The three all dive head first into the minds of their protagonists, they manage to shock and excite in equally shocking and exciting ways, and maybe most importantly (although their sexual politics all occasionally waver in ways which are all too common in the movie business,) they all contain interesting, well developed and brilliantly acted female characters. Natalie Portman's Swan Queen was exceptionally well done and was the performance for which she won an Oscar. Rosario Dawson's therapeutic tones guided you through the movie beautifully, but in a subtle way could lead you astray from what was behind each character you encounter. Rooney Mara's performance as Emily Taylor was, again understated, at times sinister and even elegant in the most appropriate ways.

 As a trilogy they deliver all of these things, and more. Add to this that they all, without exception, have had a profoundly strange effect on me, at least. I have a habit of attempting to guess where a film is going story-wise, especially with films such as these, but in each case I had a different experience. Whenever a revelation was made concerning plot or character (and believe me, between these three, you aren't short on them), instead of thinking "as I thought" or "I'd have never guessed that," my brain said to me, "How the hell did you not see that coming?" After I thought this through a while I realized that this was the greatest strength of the movies. These are films that you are engaged in to such an extent that no amount of explicit foreshadowing will render them silly, instead the films wash over you in the most enjoyable way possible and not a thought is given to what is coming next because what is on right now enthralls you greatly.

These three films, despite my enthusiastic praise, are not the high water mark of cinema, and they are in no way the best movies ever made. What they are however, are fantastically fun, and thematically linked films which are easy to laugh, cringe and engage with. Anyway, this is probably just my way of telling you that I'll no doubt be having a movie marathon when the three of these come out on DVD, and I'd recommend anyone with a love of horror-inflected, "psychological," M. Night-style movies do the same, and see them all.

Hitchcock

The legendary director Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins, The Silence of the Lambs) and his wife, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren, The Queen) are shunned by Hitch's production company and so they move into self-financing following the success of North by Northwest in an attempt to bring the audience a "nasty piece of work." That nasty piece of work is the iconic and insurmountably influential Psycho.

From this film I really took one positive and one not so. The great thing about it, for me and for which I've seen it, in other places criticized was the mentioning, but not dwelling on, the areas of the story that everyone knows so well. There's about thirty seconds at the beginning where Hitch sits about wondering what to do before Robert Bloch's manuscript shows up. The discussion of when to kill off Mrs Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johannson, Avengers Assemble) was prompt, well managed and over some scrumptious toast.

This left range for something else to go on, which in itself was probably a good thing, but didn't totally work for the movie. While all the preparation and production of Psycho was going in the background, the story we were really getting was that of a breaking relationship between the genius behind so many great pieces of cinema, and her husband who takes all the credit. The negative aspect to was in the way it reminded me of The Iron Lady. It seemed like the story of Alma and Hitch could have been told, and be interesting without being those two particular characters. All-in-all, it just about pulled it off.

The truly unappealing quality to this film was the performances. With the cast it contained, this film promised some loving and well-crafted portrayals and delivered caricatured silliness. I wasn't as impressed by Sir Anthony as everyone else, and that's a problem in a film about such a big character. I'd far rather have seen Toby Jones (The Girl).

If you were excited about it coming out, or you showed some general interest in it, I'd recommend you go and tell me if I'm wrong or not.

A Good Day to Die Hard

Die Hard - one of the most iconic action movies of all time.
Die Hard with a Vengeance - oh, so good and so fun.
Live Free or Die Hard - all the fun, not quite as well made, but still pretty damn good.
A Good Day to Die Hard - well, coming after what has passed, it's really no good.

The more I think about it, the less I like this film.

Mr. John McLean (Bruce "Yippee Ki Yay Melon-Farmer" Willis, Die Hard) is back, is old and is the father of super spy John "Jack" McLean Jr. (Jai Courtney, Jack Reacher). This father and son go on a civilian massacring, (oh yeah, and some bad guys too) family bonding session in Russia. In the finale we see side-by-side slaughter in the remains of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

It's a brief, if comprehensive plot summary, 'cause this has none of the style, smarts or story of its predecessors. Really, Live Free or Die Hard is pretty damn vacuous to begin with. It makes up with it by being great fun to watch; the same cannot, in anyway, be said for A Good Day. I didn't totally hate it while I watched it, but like a Flag Hippo it was only when I let my head hit the pillow that the thought hit me, "What the fuck did I just watch?"

Other than that, the film has no time for nuance, for fore or after thought, it seemed a very Smash and Grab affair. With lots of Smash, Bang, Whollop and a great big grab of whatever you pay to get in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, despite the fact it may be my favourite tag-line ever, "Yippee Ki Yay Mother Russia" the line isn't contained in the film! Boo to 12A.

Les Miserables

I've spoken to those greatly interested and informed on musicals and have been given an implicit warning - if you don't know what your talking about, don't pretend. So, I'll do my best to review this film constantly with that in the back of my mind, and encourage anyone to tell me when I'm just being ignorant in relation to the art.

Les Miserables is a bit of everything. We have a constant chase, a character study, a love story, a story of triumph, of an uprising and a revolution. It's a story about class, and comedy, morality, legality, death and song. We follow Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman, The Prestige) from his stand off with the jailer Jarvet  (Russell Crowe, A Beautiful Mind) on ending his imprisonment through to forming another identity and trying to live his life with his new found faith in God. His story intersects with that of Fantine (Anne Hathaway, The Dark Knight Rises), a woman desperately attempting to feed her child anyway possible now the child's father has left them. Oh yeah, and this all happens around the 1832 Paris uprising.

Let's start with the cast, as far as I'm concerned, it was perfect. Hugh Jackman belongs on a stage, he should always be singing and dancing. Anne Hathaway, with her rendition of "I Dreamed A Dream" had me welling up - and not many songs or films for that matter can do that. It was heart-wrenching and seemed honestly distraught and defeated. Russell Crowe has been slated for his performance, but I see no problem their at all. He was reserved, but riling when he needed to be. Amanda Seyfried, Samantha Barks, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Eddie Redmayne also put in fantastic performances. Helena Bonham Carter is also not half as annoying as usual! Hats off to the casting department, is all I can say.

Now, the singing and the direction of the musical pieces. Wonderfully Tom Hooper's (The King's Speech) choice to use on-set singing paid off. You could hear in each note that the actor's weren't just mimed, but were felt and made in the moment. The ability of the camera to get into the faces of each character just added to this, notably on the bearded and broken Valjean. The scene where he is troubled by his calling to God, and is pacing in front of a church's alter just allows every nuance of his face to be realized in a way even the greatest stage presence could not portray. Subtlety is key.

I don't know if the build up and the praise rather showed my hand, in that there is a huge "But..." coming. I want to use this, otherwise fantastic, film of the year quality film to make a point. Can we stop using CGI for entire sets and backdrops, please? Why does anyone think this is a good idea? It looks tacky, and it looks silly. It pretty much ruined this movie, just making it seem cheap, modern and silly. The scenes on the barricades looked iconic, and looked beautiful in parts; it just makes you wonder why it couldn't all look that way. If it can be done on a stage, it does not need these tremendously terrible, computer generated, scenic shots. Just Stop It.

Over all, I really enjoyed the film, even when it was being silly, and even when it didn't make sense, well that didn't matter. I can imagine such a better film, and all it needed was for some cost cutting on CGI. It doesn't seem much, but really it is a major problem in this film, and in general.

Go and see it. Make your mind up for yourself, but I must say I'll be watching it again. And again. And again.

Jack Reacher

There's something about Tom Cruise!
I have no idea what it is but every time I see that self-satisfied looking grin I get shivers down my spine. I think this is mainly because it's not really smug, or arrogant, or anything. It's a fake smile. Just look at the hollow eye. The man has no joy. Ever.
Basically, he's perfect for this part.

Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise, Top Gun) is an ex-army cop who discovers how easy it is to just disappear into America, and becomes addicted to no one knowing where he is (Okay, Dead-Behind-The-Eyes Cruise is perfect for this). Then two years after the last trace he left, he turns up apparently to the aid of cut-and-dry mass murdering sniper who opened fire on 5 random people on the street. Along the way, Reacher has to deal with the fantastical The Zec (Werner Herzog, Grizzly Man) - that means "The Prisoner", by the way.

Problems?
Bad story, badly told. Had nothing interesting to say, no real connection to the characters, not much fun either. Really, it wasn't the worst movie ever, but it was no where near good. It also wasn't nasty or cynical, so there's no need to scream about it. It's just adding to the increasing decline in cinema..........

Due to this film's incredibly below average story line, however there are several scenes I think must have been picked out of an entirely different movie. To begin with, the first section of the movie is pretty horrible. The sniping sequence in an other movie would receive horrified applause from critics. Along with that, there were lots of fight scenes, and every one was hard, slow and sore. No background music and no over the top sound effects. Not good enough to move the film above a four out of ten, but somethings I like to see when I go to cinema.

Not a recommendation Not at all. But, then again, not all bad.

Coming Soon...

2012 was great fun for movies and it looks like we might get the same come 2013.

Here's the Top 5 Movies I'm looking forward to in the coming year:
(In no particular order)

1. The World's End - For me, this film has been a long time coming. After Edgar Wright's absence from the trio that brought us Spaced, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz we finally have the closing peice of the Corneto Trilogy. A Horror, a Buddy-Cop movie and now a pub crawl. I'm sure (hoping like hell) they will not disappoint.

2. Now You See Me - This film was tailor made for me, we have magicians using "magic" to pull off a fantastic heist. The Prestige meets Leverage? I hope so. Plus, a pretty impressive cast calls in, fronted by the all-grown-up looking Jesse Eisenberg.

3. Star Trek Into Darkness - Very much hoping for as good a fun film as the original. We've got a good cast now joined by the joyful Benedict Cumberbatch and hopefully a nice engaging story (though I'm doing my best not to hear what that is.)

4. Les Miserables - I know nothing of this film, but I know it is a classic novel, so just looking forward to learning the story.

5. Zero Dark Thirty - A ten year hunt for the most wanted criminal (possibly of all time) who orchestrated the killings of hundreds of Americans ended in his death last year. I'm actually surprised it took this long for the film to come out. I really want it to be interesting, and I really want it to be good.

Other than that there is a list of films that I simply can't wait for. In hope, here's my list.

The Impossible, Gangster Squad, Django Unchained, The Sessions, Lincoln, Bullet In The Head, Warm Heart, Hitchcock, A Good Day To Die Hard, Cloud Atlas, Carrie (remake), Evil Dead (remake), The Great Gatsby, Man of Steel, Kick Ass 2, The Wolverine, White House Down, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.

Hopefully this year will see as many of these films as possible reviewed in full on the blog. All in all, I'm sure some will be better than others, but hey, with that selection there ought be some great trips to the cinema in 2013.

December Update and High Fidelity Nonsense

If anyone's out there, the reason for no reviews has been due to a very busy and lowly funded December. Mainly without a train ticket. Anyway, this is just a wee post to say I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas, and that I look forward to pushing up and posting more views and reviews in the New Year. Have a good one, while I leave you with this:


Top 5 Best Cinema Releases of 2012 (Not seen nearly enough, apologies)

5. Ginger and Rosa - Very well put together, interesting character drama with some great central performances
4. To Rome With Love - As witty, charming and overall funny as you would expect after Midnight in Paris. This Woody Allen guy shows a wee bit of promise.
3. The Dark Knight Rises - Tom Hardy was great, Christian Bale was great, everyone did their job well, but it didn't have the interest or the structure of the previous two. Still a very well made movie, and one of the best of the year.
2. This Is Not A Film - A fantastic documentary about the need to film. When an Iranian film maker is banned from directing anything all he can do is sit in his house and allow a friend to film him. A really great and interesting movie.
1. Skyfall - Really, see below! It was a very well made apology for the crime that was Quantum of Solace. Worth seeing it, again and again and again.


Top 5 Worst Cinema Releases of 2012 (non of which are really worthy of comment)

5. Argo
4. The Possession
3. Men In Black 3D
2. The Watch
1. End of Watch


Top 5 Pleasant Cinematic Surprises of 2012 (to look out for on DVD)

5. Red Lights - Cillian Murphy gives a really good performance in this silly fun and "super rational" movie. Friday night in? Looking for a movie? You could do a hell of a lot worse.
4. Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows - This film makes an appearance because the film for which it is a sequel. The original showed some great promise and as a sequel, Ritchie really delivered. Never thought I'd say that, but hey. In fact, get the two of them - watch 'em back to back.
3. The Expendables 2 - I'm not crazy, no. Hear me out... There's one film I would relate this too, and that is the horror classic Scream. This is a film which knows it's camp and silly and ridiculously violent, and it revels in it all. It knows exactly what makes an average action movies, and hits it up to eleven. Good, good fun.
2. Ruby Sparks - Although there are holes in it, and it's a fraction too long we have a creepy and interesting fairy tale. Half silly, teen rom-com, half freaky Grimm tale.
1. The Perks of Being a Wallflower - Great teen movie. Fun and right on the edge of being a little too quirky. The correct amount of quirk, in fact, to warm your heart. For all outsiders and wallflowers who wish to be taken in with a crowd of misfits - or have maybe already found one of their own - you'll love it.


Thanks for a good movie year, and for keeping up to date with the blog. Hope to see you back for more of the same in January.

Alex Cross

Based on James Patterson's novel "Cross", we see Matthew Fox (Vantage Point) and Tyler Perry (Diary of a Mad Black Woman) playing the psychopathic sadist Picassso and the psychological profiler Alex Cross, respectively. Picasso is a hired hand assassin taking out high level banking executive, and Cross is tasked with stopping him, but after foiling one of the killer's hits and hurting his pride - it becomes far more personal for everyone involved.

My major thoughts when watching this film? It probably was a good genre book. Everything about it seemed like it was so faithful to an original text, that in places that made it a bit creeky. What works in a book in the way of dialogue and plot device can look and sound a little silly when it's seen on the screen. The same problem comes up in casting, mainly in the form of Richard Brookwell, the head of the Police Unit played by the majestic John C. McGinley (Point Break). Basically, Brookwell seems to be a well meaning, if a little naive police inspector. John C. McGinley, may be well meaning in most cases, but he's also a bad-ass. He should always be the badass.

To be fair, these are my few criticisms of the film. After the tirade of cool-psychopathy in End of Watch, I was very pleased to see some dumb, and silly action with no over pushing of crazy, horrifying agendas. This was just telling a basic police chase story, and that, for me at least, is good fun. Might have made an interesting TV series along the same vain as 24 or Lie to Me, that way we could know the characters a little more.

Finally, is this film worth seeing?
If you want to have a bit of a laugh at chunky dialogue, and genuinely quite tense action sequences - go for it. There are problems, and it's no where near a great film, but it does exactly what it says on the tin. If you like the look of the trailer, you wont waste your time going to see it.

End of Watch

Never has a film been more aptly named. I was checking my watch and begging for it to end.

Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Donnie Darko) and Mike Zavala (Michael Pena, My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done) are LAPD's finest thugs. They run riot, breaking the rules and, as they boast, killing loads of people! That's about as much plot as you need. If you watch the trailer, in fact, you'll see the entire film.

Frankly, I was disgusted by this film. This was a cynical piece of advertisement for police brutality. The message of the film seems to be, "We would just kill everyone who broke the law, if it weren't for the damn paper work!" And it portrayed two thugs in Taylor and Zavala, who are supposed to look "cool" while basically advocating psychopathy. There was even a scene where Zavala takes off his badge and gun to fist fight a gangster, while Taylor looks on, films the fight and laughs manically. And we're supposed to watch this and say "God, wouldn't it be cool if police were actually like that." No. No it wouldn't. So, that's the major message you're supposed to take away.

Awk well, at least it looks good, right? Well, no. I think there's a lot to be said for found footage films and for hand held cameras. This film wanted to use the motif, but clearly decided one or two cameras weren't enough and so went through the totally useless plot of Taylor needing to film everything, while occasionally just using auxiliary camera. It's totally pointless and ridiculous, and probably entirely for advertising purposes, as it features heavily in the trailer.

Then there was the dialogue. I've heard it praised, from the point of view of Taylor and Zavala, but did these people who spoke so highly of it hear the other characters. There was one gangster in the film who I'm sure must never have learned a single line of his script, and was told, no bother, if you can't think of what to say, just punctuate your language with any old swear word you please. CONSTANT swearing. I'm sorry, no one speaks like that. Not realistic at all. Some may say, hang on, the cops talk like people, right. Just talking about life and family and such, and that's realistic, isn't it? Yup, it was. I'll give you that. It made me hate the characters even more because they were racist, homophobic and sexist, and I wouldn't want to spend a second in any of their company, but I'm sure some people speak like that.

I'm sorry, but this film genuinely made me angry. It was horrible. I wont say this often, but do not go and see this film. You're just encouraging this type of disgusting, lazy and cynical film making. Normally I would want other people's opinions on films, and welcome people to tell me I'm wrong, but PLEASE, do not fund this horror of cinema by paying money to see it.

Gambit

A tale of three performances.

Harry Deane (Colin Firth, Love Actually) wants to get one over on his foul-mouthed, soul-destroying boss Lionel Shabandar (Alan Rickman, Die Hard) and to retire early - as the Coen Brothers write. Deane intends to con the billionaire using his love of fine art, a crafty forger and the grand-daughter of a historical figure (Cameron Diaz, There's Something About Mary). Turns out, it's not as simple as all that. Hilarity ensues.

And boy, do I mean it. One of the funniest new films I've seen a while. The film goes through phases of smiles and chuckles and then you end up almost on the sticky floors of the cinema, laughing like hell. Colin Firth's fantastic physical acting and Alan Rickman's fantastic voice just knocked me down. The two of them make a great pair, and the Coen's seem to have written the parts with them in mind.

If you want a good fun cinema going experience, this is for you. Not get many like this, very few and far between.

Argo

One film this year I've managed to go into without any prior knowledge. I had no idea what to expect, and the first ten minutes had me very interested.

Ben Affleck directs as we start off with a thirty second tour of the history of Iranian politics and then move on to 1979 where we see the beginning of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Sparking a revolution in Tehran the US Embassy is taken over and the 52 workers therein became hostages. But six escaped and as the action kicks off when they find themselves holed up in the house of the Canadian diplomat. Back in America, Tony Mendez (Affleck, Dogma) decides that the only way (the ONLY way) to get the hostages (well, six of them) out is to put together a fake film that will, at the height of the international tension, be shot in Iran.
Maybe you can tell, I'm not convinced.

As I say, Iranian politics of which I know less than nothing about, seems like an interesting premise for a film. I was looking forward to learning some new things, finding out the American perspective on these events, and maybe being given something to think about. I learned three important things; a) The writers of this film love the 70's and stressed even more is the fact that b) the writers of this film love movies and finally, and what impacted on me most about this film c) the writers of this film love films from the 70's. I mean, c'mon! Such a wide range of things that could be discussed and explored surrounding this event, but no. Nothing.

This would be acceptable, if and only if, the film was about something else. I think that may have been the intent of those involved, but god did it go down in flames. This "character" drama was filled with one dimensional people that even if you knew, you wouldn't care about. You have a main man who is difficult to care about at all, 'cause he's just pretty dull. The other six have no back stories and actually rarely feature except to occasionally remind you that they exist.

Basically, it was so promising that - even though it looked quite good, was occasionally humorous and the performances weren't awful - it ended as a crushing disappointment. It was dull, and with such a broad range of large themes, it seems almost impossible to have missed every single one so spectacularly.

Also, the joke around which they titled the film was funny the first time. To hear it then repeated over one hundred times just made me think that at one point the entire script was just funny situations where that joke could be made.

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.