50/50

There very few films that are solely about cancer, frequently cancer is a side issue in a film. So when I read about 50/50 and given my previous employment in a cancer charity, I was intrigued. The only downside was that it had Seth Rogen in it...

The story focuses on Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who is in his late 20's and is diagnosed with a very rare tumour on his spine. His first reaction was one of denial and then he realises that he has to tell his friends and family.

His girlfriend Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard) initially was very supportive and pledges to look after him, despite Adam giving her the opportunity to leave the relationship. However, her support is less than effective.

The next people who need to be told are his family including his mother Diane (Anjelica Huston) and his father Richard (Serge Houde). Adam is reluctant to tell them as his father is suffering from Alzheimer's disease and he feels that his mother is overbearing.

The next significant person is his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen) who proves to be a very positive influence during Adam's subsequent treatment. Another important influence is the trainee psychologist, Katherine (Anna Kendrick), who helps him deal with his problems, particularly with the issues surrounding his mother and the acceptance of his illness.

Despite my initial reservations about Rogen being in this film, I found myself really warming to his character. The story was interesting, funny and there was the odd teary moment.

Gordon-Levitt is fantastic as the bewildered Adam and Huston puts in another excellent performance as the mother who just wants to help her son.

Although I have no direct experience with cancer, there have been numerous reviews from people who have had cancer treatment and the general view is that it is a fairly realistic portrayal. Furthermore, the story is based on the experiences of Rogen's close friend, screenwriter Will Reiser who underwent treatment for cancer.

My only slight criticism of the film is that the therapist relationship was a bit 'shoe-horned' in and is ethically dubious. Otherwise I thought Kendrick's performance was delightful.

Some reviews that I have read claim that 50/50 is anti-women and I completely disagree. Although the film is essentially about the relationship between Adam and Kyle which is portrayed in a very positive light, other relationships become incredibly important towards the end of the film. The relationships between Adam and his mother and his therapist, both of which he needs to be able to cope with his illness are of equal significance.

Verdict: A very thoughtful, sweet, funny and realistic film which I thoroughly enjoyed. Credible and moving performances from all involved and a career best from Rogen. This film is also notable for being the first film I've seen where members of the audience applauded at the end.

Puss in Boots

I must confess to a soft spot for the Puss in Boots character. He was always my favourite in the Shrek series and when I saw the trailer (and laughed out loud), I was quietly looking forward to this prequel to the Shrek series.

The story is essentially the back-story of Puss (Antonio Banderas) before he meets up with Shrek and Donkey. It starts in the Spanish town of San Ricardo where Puss becomes best friends with Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis). 

Humpty Dumpty's dream is to find the Magic Beans, go to the Magic Castle and obtain the golden eggs laid by the golden goose. To find the Magic Beans, the pair steal various beans without ever finding the Magic Beans. This led them into trouble with the law. 

After a while Puss decided that he didn't want to steal from the townspeople anymore and when Humpty tricks him into stealing from the local bank, Puss disowns him and goes on the run.

After seven years, Puss finds himself in a bar where he hears of the whereabouts of the Magic Beans. They are in the possession of the murderous Jack (Billy Bob Thornton) and Jill (Amy Sedaris). Puss decides to try to steal them but is thwarted by Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek).

It transpires that Kitty is working with cahoots with Humpty which leads to the three of them obtaining the Magic Beans and finding the golden eggs.

This is a forgettable, but fun film. As per usual I didn't see the 3D version, but I don't think that I missed anything visually. The story was somewhat over-stretched, but it wasn't really an issue for me.

The best thing about the film is Banderas's voice which is fantastic, the animation was good, although not ground-breaking. There were quite a few chuckles and certainly the many kids in the screening that I attended thoroughly enjoyed themselves.

Verdict: A fun-filled film which will keep kids entertained and not be too much of a hardship for adults to watch. By no means a classic, but its good fun nonetheless and Banderas's voice is just brilliant.

Moneyball

I'm not the biggest fan of sports, I don't take sport particularly seriously and really can't empathise when others do. However sports films, when done well, can evoke quite strong emotions and although I know next to nothing about baseball, this film appealed to me as it was based on a true story.

The film starts with the Oakland Athletics baseball team losing the final game of the 2001 season. With three of his top players leaving, General Manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) has to work out how to replace the players with virtually no money.

After a disagreement with the team scouts on how new players should be selected. Beane visits another baseball team where he meets Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) who tells him about a new method enabling him to select new players using certain statistical attributes.

Having been convinced that the new selection system would work, Beane hires Brand and sets about employing new players that have effectively been cut adrift from the league. These players are very cheap and he can sell them on once they have shown their worth.

Whilst doing this, he finds obstacles in the form of the scouts who resent that he is ignoring their experience and the Oaklands manager Art Howe (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) who disagrees with Beane's tactics and on more than one occasion defies Beane's instructions.

The film then goes on to chart their season and gives an insight into how cutthroat the buying, selling and trading of players can be.

I saw this film a few days ago and waited to write this review as I'm really not sure about it. On the one hand, it's an interesting theory into how statistical data can enable a player to be seen in a very different light. On the other hand, as I know nothing about baseball (and the film goes into some detail about various statistics which determine whether a player would be effective in a particular team), it went over my head...

I will say that the script was very sharp and tight (another fine job, Mr Sorkin) and all of the actors played their roles well. There was no need for the father-daughter anguish story (which I have read is fictional). It added nothing to the story and was frankly a waste of time.

On a personal note, I would really like to see a Brad Pitt film without Brad Pitt eating in every other scene. It's getting very off-putting.

Verdict: If you are a baseball fan, this will probably be one of your top five films of the year. However as the subject matter held little interest to me and I didn't understand a lot of the statistical analysis that they were using, this was not a film for me.

My Week with Marilyn

A rare treat is when you go to see a film and you are pleasantly surprised. As someone who holds Marilyn Monroe in quite high regard, I wasn't totally convinced that Michelle Williams could do the role justice. I was very, very pleasantly surprised...

The story is taken from the point of view of Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) who grew up obsessed with the movies. He manages to obtain a job as a dogsbody at Laurence Olivier's (Kenneth Branagh) production company just as he was about to make The Prince and the Showgirl with Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams).

The film describes how Monroe and Olivier worked together, the problems and insecurities that Monroe faced and how she tried to overcome them with the help of Clark.

The film focuses on a week that Monroe spent with Clark, away from the pressures of work and where she was in a 'safe' environment.

The film is an utter delight. Williams plays Monroe with fragility, humour and a real vulnerability that was a joy to watch. She not only looks absolutely stunning, but also nails Monroe's voice perfectly. Branagh is brilliantly cast as the grumpy Olivier and clearly loved being stroppy on set.

Redmayne plays the awestruck Clark beautifully and with a sense of bewilderment that was very endearing. There were several cameo roles that also deserve a mention, Zoe Wanamaker as Monroe's acting coach was great as was Judi Dench as Dame Sybil Thorndike.

My only criticism of the film is that it would have been fascinating if it had delved more into the reasons why Monroe felt the way she did.

Verdict: Wonderful performances from Williams and Branagh and an interesting story make this a gorgeous, lovely fluff of a film a real joy to watch.

Hugo

There are a couple of directors who I will go and see whatever they produce. Tim Burton is one, Steven Spielberg is another. Obviously Martin Scorsese belongs in this group. Although I have mixed views on his work, it's always worth watching.

I didn't know that much about the film, having missed the trailer. The first I really heard about Hugo was when Martin was interviewed by Mark Kermode. The film sounded really interesting and a world away from a typical Scorsese film.

The film centres around Hugo (Asa Butterfield) a young orphan, who after several family misfortunes, looks after the clocks in a Paris train station in the early 1930's.

Hugo spends his time avoiding the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), stealing food and objects for his precious project: a broken automaton which was found by his father. His father noted all of the designs of the automaton in a book which Hugo uses to find the missing parts.

One of the shops that Hugo tries to steal parts from is a toy shop owned by Papa George (Ben Kingsley), who takes the book away from him as punishment for stealing from him.

Hugo then tries to enlist George's goddaughter Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz) to help him get his book back and complete the automaton. It transpires that she has the missing piece (a heart-shaped key).

When the automaton works again, it reveals that Isabelle's godfather was a well-respected film maker who left film-making after becoming disillusioned with the business. The film goes on to explain the start of cinema in the early 1900's.

First of all, this is a beautifully made film that has clearly had a lot of love and passion bestowed upon it. I saw it in 2-D, however I can see that it would have looked just as good in 3-D. 

I liked the basic message of the film which was essentially that everyone has their role to play in the world and that there's no such thing as a 'spare part' and there were some chuckles throughout the film, but the film felt like a very long two hours and seven minutes.

The problem with Hugo is that it is essentially two films mashed together. The first being about a boy who lives in the station, the second being about a film-maker being rediscovered after many years in the wilderness. The more interesting story is the second. The first is very much your early Spielberg type story and if truth be told, I found it a little dull.

Some of the characters were unnecessary, Baron Cohen's Inspector Gustav is a blatant copy of 'Allo Allo's Officer Crabtree to the point where I almost expected him to say 'Good Moaning'.  And as is to be expected, there were the 'shoe-horned' in romances. Again, completely pointless and added nothing to the story.

Verdict: A really beautiful looking film, but there isn't enough action to keep kids entertained, and it's not interesting enough for adults.

The Thing

I only started watching horror/gore films in the last year or so. As a consequence the fantastic 1982 version of The Thing is still relatively fresh in my memory and has rightly earned it's place in my top five horror films.

I saw the trailer a while back and was very unimpressed to say the least and debated whether I should see this particular version of the film.

The film is meant to be a prequel to the 1982 version and therefore ends as the 1982 film starts with the dog running away from the compound.

The film starts with paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), being asked by Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) to join him on an expedition to help identify a creature found frozen underneath the ice of Antarctica. When they arrive, there is a team of American and Norwegian scientists, as well as additional support staff.

The first task is to try to identify what the creature is. Against the advice of Lloyd, Halvorson insists on getting a sample of tissue from the creature where he determines that it is nothing that has ever been found before. This is a cause for celebration for the camp until the creature makes its presence known.

The story then goes on in a very similar way that the 1982 version does, in that the creature can imitate human cells and the people within the compound have to be able to identify who is human and who isn't (all down to whether you have fillings apparently)

Ultimately the creature can only be destroyed with fire, so there's a lot of flame-throwers being used, a fair amount of blood and gore although not really enough to satisfy the torture-porn fans.

Let's start with the good things about the film: Lloyd is a welcome addition to the team. She's a strong female in the Ripley from Aliens series mould and unusually there is no love interest, which means that the film's focus is solely on the creature rather than some shoe-horned romance. The role was played really well by Winstead.

I also like Joel Edgerton's character, helicopter pilot Sam, who is a reluctant hero until the very end. Edgerton has a great screen presence and has the right attitude for playing the action hero.

The acting was passable, some of the shots were interesting and there were no lulls in this 102 minute film.

However, it's a film that suffers because it is both too similar and different to the 1982 version. It's similar in that the story is virtually identical (despite it being a prequel). The special effects don't appear to have moved on or improved since the 1982 version.

The film doesn't have the tension or the chill factor of the 1982 version. I simply didn't care about the characters, because there were too many of them, so it got a little confusing working out who had been taken over by the creature.

The creature itself appears to have been based on the aliens from District 9 and was, in my opinion, lacking in imagination in both its structure and what it was able to do.

Verdict: A soulless remake of a fantastic film. Only positives were the strong performances of Winstead and Edgerton. Avoid and watch the 1982 version instead.

The Ides Of March

Like most people I know, the American democratic process can both enthral and irritate me at the same time. Despite this, it is always an interesting subject and there are a number of great films that bring this to the big screen. 

I heard about this film before I saw any trailers and was instantly intrigued and quite excited. George Clooney has seen his directorial stock rise in the last few years and Ryan Gosling is fast becoming the actor of 2011. Coupled with Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and Marisa Tomei and you have a potentially fantastic film.

Stephen Meyers (Gosling) is the Junior Campaign Manager for Democrat Mike Morris (Clooney) who is campaigning for the Democratic nomination in Ohio. The Democratic nomination is between Morris and Ted Pullman (Michael Mantell).

Meyers is approached by Pullman's Campaign Manager, Tom Duffy (Giamatti) to work for Pullman rather than Morris. Meyers refuses as he firmly believes in everything that Morris stands for. Duffy warns him that nothing is as it seems and he too will become jaded with the political system.

Before meeting with Duffy, Meyers tries to contact his boss, Paul Zara (Hoffman) but Zara doesn't answer his phone. When Zara calls him back, Meyers chooses not to tell him about the meeting.

There are two other additional story lines. The first where Meyers has a relationship with intern Molly Stearns (Evan Rachel Wood), which turn leads him to find out things that make him realise that Duffy was right in his warnings. The second is about the lengths both Democrats nominees will go to gain the endorsement of Senator Thompson (Jeffrey Wright). 

I'm not going to give the ending away as you can probably guess for yourself what it may be, which is the main criticism that I have with this film. It is predictable and you know exactly where it is going after the first half. 

The acting is fantastic and again, Gosling shines in a role where there is a lot of focus on him. Clooney is great as Morris, playing the role with a mixture of smarm and underlying unpleasantness which was very subtly done. Hoffman was excellent as always, the script was tight, direction was appropriate and the film chugged along at a fair pace. But there was something missing. I think that had Aaron Sorkin been involved, it may have found that missing thing.

Verdict: On paper, it should be a fantastic film, but in reality, it just didn't hit the spot for me. I don't think it has anything to do with the acting, direction or the even the story to a certain extent. I just found it a bit predictable. As an aside, if you are someone who follows American politics, you are unlikely to learn anything new about politics from this film.

I'd recommend that you watch a couple of episodes of The West Wing instead...

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part One

As I have said in an earlier review, the whole vampire genre holds no appeal for me whatsoever. However realising that there would be an interest in this film and living in a town where only the most popular films are shown in my local cinema, I had to bravely bite the bullet and see this film.

I should also inform you that I watched the previous three films in one go to prepare myself for this film.

The film starts with the wedding of Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart) which as weddings go, seemed fairly normal. There was one guest missing, Jacob (Taylor Lautner) who turns up later in the evening. Bella informs Jacob that she and Edward were planning on consummating their marriage during their honeymoon. Jacob is furious about this and tries to attack Edward, but is held back by his wolf pack.

Bella and Edward go on to their honeymoon where the marriage is consummated, within a week Bella is pregnant with a half-vampire, half-human foetus. The foetus is growing at an accelerated rate and Bella is warned by Edwards's father-figure Carlisle (Peter Facinelli) that the foetus will kill her and advises that  she has an abortion. Bella refuses and the pregnancy takes it's toll on her body to the point where she needs to drink blood in order to stay alive.

Meanwhile, Jacob's wolf pack are planning on killing both Bella and the child as they see this as a threat to their own survival. This leads to Jacob and Edward working together in order to protect Bella from both the wolf pack and the Volturi who are also interested in the foetus.

Allowing for my total disinterest in vampires, this film is still awful. The story is so stilted and predictable that even if you know nothing about the books, you will still know what happens. The acting is virtually non-existent save for the few seconds that Michael Sheen graces the screen. 

I am developing a real hatred of the characters. Bella who is quite frankly the most miserable, selfish annoying character I have ever come across, is becoming more and more difficult to bear. I am not a feminist in any way shape or form but I hate the way that Bella allows a vampire and a werewolf to control what happens to her. I do not understand why both Edward and Jacob are so infatuated with her, she has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.  The one bright spark in the film was when I thought Bella had actually died, only to be cruelly deceived minutes later. 

The other characters are one-dimensional and are really not worth writing about, they are either vampires or werewolves, the only options available it would seem.

I appreciate that the film isn't aimed at me, but even those who this film is aimed at deserve so much better than this.

Verdict: Just dire. Films like this make me want to never watch another film ever again. The sooner this soul destroying franchise is over, the better.

Arthur Christmas

Whereas the vast majority of Christmas films are utter balderdash and deserve to be ignored, there are two in particular that are required viewing over the Christmas period, in my humble opinion.

The first is Scrooged which is possibly Bill Murray's best ever film. The second is the very schmaltzy and horribly saccharin-sweet Santa Claus: The Movie starring Dudley Moore and John Lithgow. Before you judge me on my latter choice, I can happily justify it by saying that it was in actual fact the first film I ever saw at the cinema, so it will always be special to me.

I was looking forward to seeing Arthur Christmas as I am a huge fan of Aardman and was keen to see their interpretation of a Christmas film.

The story is based around the Christmas family which comprises of Arthur (James McAvoy), his father Santa (Jim Broadbent), his brother Steve (Hugh Laurie), his mother Mrs Santa (Imelda Staunton) and Grandsanta (Bill Nighy).

Each year the Santa family and thousands of elves work to ensure that every child receives a present. The operation is run in a military style by Steve who secretly harbours an ambition to be the next Santa. The current Santa is very much the figurehead and does not contribute a great deal to the procedures. Arthur is entrusted with responding to the letters from children, a job that he takes great pride in. He is particularly taken by a letter from Gwen.

At the end of the mission, it transpires that the only child in the world not to have received a present from Santa was Gwen. Despite Steve claiming that it can't be done, Arthur and Grandsanta try to get the present to Gwen before sunrise on Christmas morning.

The film is a lovely modern take on the Santa story. I particularly liked the Santa title being a hereditary one which did make for some amusing moments. The animation was clean and effective, I cannot comment on how it looks in 3D as I refuse to watch a film in 3D, but I liked the visual style of the film and cannot imagine that 3D would have added anything to it.

The main issue was that there simply wasn't enough laughs in this film. The screening I was in was dominated by children and I didn't hear them laugh too often either.

Verdict: Lovely story with some nice animation, but let down by the distinct lack of laughs. I doubt that any of the kids in the screening will remember this film for long.

The Help

As a book, I've heard many great things about The Help and the trailer caught my imagination. My concerns were as this is a film about racial attitudes in the 1960's, would the film be a touch 'worthy'?

The film centres around the inhabitants of Jackson, Mississippi and in particular the relationships between the white families and the black maids who work for them. The film especially focuses on the role that the black maids play in the raising of children within the white families.

Skeeter Phelan (Emma Stone) has returned home to Jackson after graduating from the University of Mississippi and is upset to find that the maid who worked for her family has left and there are no plausible explanations provided by her family.

After finding a job at the local newspaper, Phelan decides to write book about the experiences of the black maids. She first approaches Aibileen (Viola Davis) who is reluctant to share her story through fear of losing her job. 

However, after overhearing the plans for a law to insist that black workers have separate bathrooms from their white employers by Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas Howard), she relents and recruits another maid, Minny Jackson (Octavia Spencer) to tell Phelan their stories.

There are several racially motivated incidences which lead to more and more maids offering their stories to Phelan which lead to the publication of her book.

As I mentioned earlier, there was a real danger that this film could be a 'worthy' film, but thankfully it is anything but. The story seems realistic enough and coupled with some really great performances by all involved, it is an absolute joy to watch.

My only criticism of the film is the 'shoe-horned in' love story between Phelan and a local Senator's son Stuart which, in my view, was completely unnecessary and added nothing to the film.

Verdict: A really lovely film which will make you laugh out loud, cringe and cry in equal measure. With some truly outstanding performances, expect to see this film racking up the film award nominations over the next few months. 

In Time

Science-fiction is a bit of a marmite thing for me. Some science-fiction is fantastic, others can be dull, tedious and lacking in the sense department. In Time is most definitely the latter.

The film is set in 2061 where humans have evolved to stop ageing when they reach 25. Once they've reached 25, people acquire time either through work or other means and everything is measured by the digital clock on each person's arm.

Essentially time is the currency and when you've run out of time, you die. Time can be given or taken by anyone through a special type of handshake.

Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is 28 years old and lives with his mother Rachel (Olivia Wilde) who is 50. They survive on a day-to-day basis thanks to Will's job in a factory.

On a night out, Salas saves Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) who is 105, from a local gangster who is after the time remaining on his clock. Hamilton reveals that the reason that everything becomes more expensive is so the rich can stockpile time and live forever. He then gives Salas his remaining time and commits suicide by 'timing out'. Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) is sent to investigate the death and tracks down Salas.

With the extra time he was given, Salas decides to visit other time zones designated for people who can afford them. He ends up in a casino with a time-loaning businessman Phillipe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser) who invites him to a party he is hosting after being impressed with how Salas won a bet.

Salas meets Weis's daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) and tells her about the life he used to lead which leads her to consider changing her own lifestyle.

Whilst at the party, Leon traces Salas to the party and attempts to arrest him. Salas, realising that he would be blamed for the death of Hamilton, takes Sylvia hostage and this leads to a 'Robin Hood' style turn of events.

I shall start with the two good things about this film: The first is the concept. The idea that time replaces money is interesting and throws up all different possibilities. The second is Seyfried's ability to constantly run in 6-inch heels. Truly amazing...

The bad things: I do not know where to start... 

Firstly, the cast. Timberlake is truly appalling, more wooden than a garden shed and shows just about as much emotion as one. The scene where he mourns a loved one is laughable to say the least. He just isn't a leading man. Seyfried is no better, she can just about muster her lines and pout at the camera. There is absolutely zero chemistry between the two. Even Murphy looked ashamed and bored in this film.

Secondly, the story makes no sense whatsoever. It lacks any engagement with the audience and you really do not care about any of the characters.  

Thirdly, the visual style is dull, un-cinematic and there are too many car chases which have very little relevance or impact on the story.

Fourthly, it is clichéd within an inch of it's life and has constant references to time which are idiotic. 

Fifthly, the script is unbelievably clunky and just so lacking in anything that it's incredible the film got made.

Believe me I could go on...

Verdict: Simply the worst film I have seen this year. Your life will poorer for seeing this film...

Johnny English Reborn

The fact that I know that I've seen the original Johnny English, but can't remember anything about it probably tells you that it's not a film that has set my world alight.

However, it was a drizzly Sunday afternoon and this was the only thing that I either hadn't seen or was prepared to see...

The story is about former hapless MI7 agent Johnny English (Rowan Atkinson) who after an incident in Mozambique was dismissed from the service.

English then goes on a retreat in Tibet to 'find himself', but is called back to London as he is the only agent that can foil a plot to kill the Chinese Prime Minister.

It transpires that there is a group of three people, two who are MI7 agents and one former CIA-agent who are paid assassins, going under the name Vortex. English needs to find who the group members are and prevent them from carrying out the assassination.

As you would expect, there is the untrusting Head of MI7, Pamela Thornton (Gillian Anderson), the suave fellow MI7 agent Simon Ambrose (Dominic West) and the love interest who is a behavioural psychologist, Kate Summers (Rosamund Pike).

You don't need me to tell you that English succeeds with the inevitable mishaps along the way. Neither do you need me to tell you that English's young sidekick Agent Tucker (Daniel Kaluuya) ends up working out who within MI7 are the traitors, but is dismissed by English.

Essentially, you go into the cinema knowing exactly what is going to happen. Despite this, the film is OK. There are quite a few laugh out loud moments courtesy of Atkinson, but you feel that he is being restricted in this role, which is a shame as he is a brilliant comedic actor.

The jokes are a bit obvious and repetitive, however I have sat through worse films this year.

Verdict: A film that when you are in a cinema full of kids, you find it funnier than it actually is. Atkinson is really not utilised and you know exactly where the film is going and how it gets there... Kids will love it and adults will find a few chuckle moments too.

Anonymous

Shakespeare's work is something that I have always tried to like, but this has not always been successful. Growing up, I studied Macbeth which remains my favourite Shakespeare play, although the best version I have ever seen was one in my local community centre.

When Shakespeare is done well, it is fantastic; one example would be the recent production of Richard III at the Old Vic. When it is done badly, it is dire; a recent production of The Tempest caused the one and only time I have ever left a theatre at the interval and didn't return...

So my opinion on Shakespeare is divided, but I cannot deny the importance of his work and the impact it has had.

The Anonymous trailer caught my eye when I first saw it a few months ago, I love a conspiracy theory and this theory has been around since Shakespeare's time.

Anonymous starts with with Derek Jacobi giving a lecture to a New York audience, explaining the conspiracy theory. The film uses flashbacks to show the life of of Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans) from the age of twelve when he is placed under the guardianship of William Cecil (David Thewlis) to his death.

The young de Vere is clever, artistic and passionate about his writing. Unfortunately Cecil does not share his views and makes it quite clear when de Vere enters his household that he disapproves of these activities.

De Vere goes on to marry Cecil's daughter and is discouraged from writing as it will 'bring shame on the family'.

The flashbacks then show an adult de Vere attending a play in London where he is amazed at the reaction from the crowd and sees how plays can be used as propaganda. Whilst he is watching the play, a young playwright called Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) is arrested for sedition and de Vere uses his considerable influence to free Jonson.

Part of the deal is that Jonson stages de Vere's plays under his name. The first play to be staged is Henry V and the crowd's reaction is overwhelming for Jonson so when they call for the playwright, an actor called William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) steps up to accept the accolades.

The story then goes on show the dealings between de Vere and Shakespeare and leads to a revolt orchestrated by de Vere. The various relationships between de Vere, Queen Elizabeth and other members of court and family are also explored.

A second strand to the film depicts the end of Elizabeth I's (Vanessa Redgrance & Joely Richardson) reign and how the various parties were conspiring to ensure that their man attains the English throne on Elizabeth's death. There is also information about the number of illegitimate children that Elizabeth had and how that impacts the line of succession.

First thing that I should say is that the director, Roland Emmerich, clearly does not like Shakespeare. The Shakespeare character in this film is portrayed as a fraudulent, blackmailing murdering drunk. Not a view that most people would agree with.

However the film is fun with some really good performances, particularly from Ifans, who I've never really rated. He seemed to suit the role of the angst-driven Earl and was very convincing in some of the more sensitive scenes. Richardson and Redgrave were great as Elizabeth, Redgrave particularly relishing the opportunity to play a slightly darker, madder version of the Queen. Thewlis was excellent as Cecil and had a calm evilness which gave the film a touch of coldness.

The sets and background were brilliantly done and gave a very real sense of what Elizabethan England would have been like. 

There are some issues with the film; the flashbacks can be a bit confusing, particularly when involving characters who happen to look very similar. I found it a bit tricky to work who was who and at what point in history. 

Some people have questioned the historical accuracy of the film. My answer to that is that Anonymous is as about as historically accurate as Blackadder. I am aware that the director is a passionate believer in the de Vere theory, but the story just does not hold up. My guess is that if he really did feel that the de Vere theory was true, then this film would be more serious than it comes across.

It is a delicious theory, but I feel that it is just that, a theory.

Verdict: An entertaining film with some interesting theories and some truly 'out-there' ideas. Impressive performance from Ifans (who is actually quite handsome in this film) and a great set. However, the subject matter should be taken with a pinch of salt and the film seen as an extended version of a very good Blackadder episode.

Contagion

I quite like the majority of Steven Soderburgh's work. I loved Erin Brockovich and Traffic, but was not so enamoured with Solaris or The Informant!. However, his films are very stylish and I was intrigued by how he would direct a disaster film.

The story starts with businesswoman Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) who has cheated on her husband Mitch (Matt Damon) with an old flame whilst on a business trip. She is awaiting her plane home and begins to show symptoms which she thinks are the result of jet-lag.

Once she gets home in Minneapolis, she rapidly deteriorates and dies of an unknown and highly contagious virus. The film then goes into several separate stories. The first focuses on Mitch and his daughter Jory (Anna Jacoby-Heron) and how they cope with the breakdown of society all around them. 

The second storyline is on the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CWC) and Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) who is trying to control the information about the virus to prevent widespread panic amongst the population. 

This leads to the third tangent which is the work of Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet), an Epidemic Intelligence Service officer who travels to Minneapolis to research where the disease has spread and how to prevent it becoming an epidemic.

In the meantime, the fourth strand of the story involves Dr. Leonora Orantes (Marion Cotillard) who is a World Health Organization epidemiologist who travels to Hong Kong to find out where the virus originated. 

The fifth element of the film concentrates on the methods used to try to find a vaccine for the virus, led by Dr. Ally Hextall (Jennifer Ehle). The final component focuses on freelance journalist named Alan Krumwiede (Jude Law) who writes blogs about government conspiracy theories and uses the way the government has handled the virus outbreak to boost his own profile and earnings. 

There are positives that can be taken from this film; the first is the realism. Many people within the medical research community have confirmed that as far as the science and methodology behind finding a vaccine are concerned, this is fairly accurate. 

Likewise the portrayal of the government agencies has also been praised by those in the know. The fact that the film has decided not to go the way of other disaster movies and either over-simplify everything or over-glamourise the situation should be applauded, and this is what makes it an interesting watch.

I found that the way that the people responded to the virus refreshingly true to life; ultimately people only want to look out for themselves and the ones they love and the film showed this very human trait unflinchingly and without any shame. Every disaster has its heroes and they come in different forms, but unlike other disaster films, Contagion showed the heroes in a very quiet and unassuming way which I found quite appealing. 

I love an opportunity to learn new things and I really did enjoy all the facts that came out during this film. For example: people touch their face, on average, 3-5 times every waking moment and there is a method for calculating the risk of a virus infecting the population. It is nice to watch a film which is backed up by scientific fact.

My main criticism with the film lie with the fact that there are too many storylines. I appreciate that Soderburgh was trying to show the impact of the virus from all angles and while this made the film compelling; it meant that some of the actors were not used to their full potential and some of the storylines just drifted away without a conclusive ending. 

Two storylines in particular were redundant in my opinion; the first being the blogger, which features Law attempting an appalling Australian accent. The second being the Cotillard role which was a shame as I am a fan of her work.

Neither role brought anything to the film and I personally would have preferred other stories be more developed and that there was a more conclusive ending to the film.

Verdict: A fascinating subject which was, in many ways, excellently portrayed in this film. However, it was let down by having too many storylines and a rather 'drift-away' ending. 

It will make you consider OCD as a lifestyle choice and view anyone who has a cold or cough with great suspicion. As a last note, any film that kills off Gwyneth Paltrow in the first ten minutes can't be all that bad...

We Need to Talk about Kevin

As a general rule, I rarely see films that have been adapted from books that I have really enjoyed. One example is Alex Garland's The Beach. In this film, the lead actor was clearly miscast and didn't match my interpretation of the book and too many things appear to have been changed just to meet the audience's approval.

I had very similar reservations about We Need to Talk about Kevin, a harrowing, shocking book which looks at the very taboo subject of a mother not loving her son. However, when I heard that Tilda Swinton was playing the lead, my reservations disappeared. Swinton is on my list of actors who I will
watch anything in.

The story is about the relationship between Eva (Swinton) and her son Kevin (Jasper Newell as the child, Ezra Miller as the teenager). The film is shown in four distinct time period and jumps from one period to another as it shows the life that Eva had before Kevin was born,  when he was a baby, the time as a young boy and when Kevin was a teenager.

The film is essentially a series of flashbacks leading up to events where Kevin commits an atrocity that all parents fear. The flashbacks detail the strength of resentment of both Eva and Kevin towards each other and the hostility that grows as Kevin moves towards adulthood.

The story is told from Eva's point of view; the discontent and emptiness of her life since the birth of Kevin, the frustration of being taunted by her toddler son and the anguish and torment of not being able to connect with Kevin as a teenager.

We see how Eva copes alone after the event, where she is subjected to abuse from people in the town and vandalism to her home and car.

I am deliberately being vague about describing this film as I would hate to spoil it for anyone who maybe hasn't read the book. Needless to say, the film manages to retain the important element of the book which was what makes someone evil, is it nature or nurture?

Quite simply, this is one of the films of the year. Swinton is absolutely mesmerising as Eva. She is one of those few actresses who can say so much without uttering a single word. Her strength in this film comes from being able to show her frustration without being able to show it. Her ability to use her awkwardness to show Eva's pain, anguish and confusion is a masterclass in how to act with your entire body. You feel every ounce of the suffering that she is going through.

The other standout performance is by Miller who is angelic to look at, but behind every smile to his father Franklin (John C Reilly) was a look of disgust or a smirk to his mother. The delicate, layered chemistry between Eva and Kevin was overwhelmingly uncomfortable at times, but so brilliantly done by both actors. A special mention should be given to Newell who plays Kevin as a young boy with a coldness and hostility that you rarely see in very young actors.

I must also commend the casting of Reilly as Franklin. I am no fan of Reilly at all, but he plays the role as Eva sees him which is as someone who she feels is an idiot. Reilly was very convincing as the father who seems oblivious to the relationship between his wife and his son.

The cinematography for this film was outstanding. It has a fantastic art-house feel to it and the colour red featured in pretty much every scene of the film from the jam sandwiches made by Kevin to the red pen that Eva is holding when she finds out about the event. The film is beautifully and skilfully shot which only adds to the already excellent quality of this film.

Verdict: Terrifying, haunting and mesmerising; this is one of the films of the year. Swinton should order that trophy cabinet now as the awards will surely be coming her way...

Midnight In Paris

I've only ever seen a handful of Woody Allen films; Annie Hall, Bullets Over Broadway and Manhattan are my favourites whereas the last one I saw was Match Point which I thought was weak. Every year when a Woody Allen film is released, there is always a critic which declares that 'this is a return to form for Woody Allen'. Until now, I didn't believe them...

The start of the film appears to have been sponsored by the Paris Tourist Board, with what feels like a never ending montage of all the things to see in Paris. Thankfully the film moves on from that to a group of Americans who are in Paris for business. They consist of Gil (Owen Wilson), his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams), and her parents. Gil is a Hollywood scriptwriter, who is trying to break out of that world by writing a novel. Unfortunately he is struggling and hopes that being in Paris (a city that he truly loves) will help him complete his novel.

Gil and Inez are, on the surface, a happy, successful couple; scratch the surface and you quickly realise that they want very different things in life. Gil wants to leave his lucrative job and move to Paris to write, Inez wants to move to Malibu and emulate her conservative parent's way of living. Their situation isn't helped by the arrival of Inez's friends Paul (Michael Sheen) and his wife Carol (Nina Ariandra) who truly are a coupley couple. Paul is a real 'know-it-all' and Inez appears more impressed with him rather than with her fiancee.

Searching for inspiration, Gil starts to walk the streets of Paris at night (something his fiancee and her parents fail to understand), and starts to go back to the 1920's and meets the writers that he so admires. As with these types of films, there is a love interest and lots of backwards and forwards in time.

The film is frothy, entertaining and fun; it is all about nostalgia and how each generation looks to a previous era as the 'golden age'. The film is very frank about the message that it is conveying which is that nostalgia is just a  denial of the present.

Now, I want to say that Wilson was great, and he is certainly well-cast in the role of Gil, however there is something about his voice which grates on me and it seems to be more obvious in this film than in his others. As he is in the vast majority of the scenes, I couldn't get away from his incredibly slow, almost indifferent style of speaking. However, all of the other performances were great. A special mention should be made of Adrien Brody for a fantastically hilarious take on Salvador Dali - truly inspired stuff.

Verdict: A beautifully shot film, with lots of laugh out loud moments and some excellent performances. The music score is gorgeous and the film was on the right side of gentle fantasy. However, Wilson's voice did prove very distracting. Despite this, it really is a return to form for Mr Allen... 

Real Steel

Before I review this film, I must make a confession. When I was growing up, my absolute favourite cartoon was Transformers, so you can imagine my thrill when Transformers finally arrived on the big screen. Yes, Shia LeBeouf is SHITE and there is never any story to speak of and Michael Bay is a vile film director. But there is something about hearing Optimus Prime's voice and seeing the brave Bumblebee make yet another heroic recovery after being savagely beaten that just warms me to my soul and takes me back to being that 7 year old sitting avidly in front of the TV.

We all have films, TV programmes and music that makes us feel that way and they should always be treasured, no matter how 'bad' they are...

And anyway, the third one was better than the second... Honest...

So, we've established that I like a film about robots hitting each other, so when I first saw the trailer for Real Steel, I was incredibly excited...

The story is a classic father-son redemption tale; Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is a former boxer who travels from town to town making a living providing robots for illegal boxing bouts. His past catches up with him in the form of his young son, Max (Dakota Goyo) who recently lost his mother. His aunt (Hope Davis) is keen to adopt him, but his uncle (James Rebhorn) wants to go on a three month holiday, so offers Kenton $100,000 to look after Max over the summer.

Kenton initially wanted to leave Max with close friend Bailey (Evangeline Lily); but after seeing Kenton take delivery of a former champion robot, Noisy Boy, Max coerces Kenton into letting him travel with him to a fight. Unfortunately, as Kenton doesn't understand how to control Noisy Boy, he is soon destroyed by a superior robot.

With his robot useless, Kenton breaks into a junkyard to scavenge parts to help him create a new robot; it is here that Max's life is saved by an old sparring robot called Atom. Max decides to take the robot out of the junkyard and rebuild him. After using parts from other robots, Max convinces Kenton to allow Atom to fight.

The story moves onto to the inevitable World Championship bout with the most feared robot, Zeus.

This is a lovely film that kept the many children in the screening quiet and quite frankly, rapt. Jackman is brilliant as Kenton, who in turn is a real human character in that he has flaws, is incredibly selfish, but sees a chance to 'do something right' by his son. Goyo is also very good as the sensible and stubborn Max. There were many times during this film where the roles of father and son were reversed, with Max looking to the future and Kenton going for the quick buck without thinking about the consequences of his actions.

The film is executive produced by Steven Spielberg and you can see his mark all over the film; from the long glances between father and son to the emotional appeal of Atom.

The robots are truly awesome and unlike Transformers where all the battles are done in quick succession so you can't really work out who is hitting who; Real Steel fight scenes are done slowly, so you know exactly what is going on. The fight scenes are stunningly choreographed and Jackman really does look and move like a real boxer which almost make the scenes authentic.

The film is a tad schmaltzy and I felt that, at times, the film didn't really know what it wanted to be. Was it just a father-son redemption story? Or is it a story about the battles of the underdog? Or maybe it is just a boxing film? It certainly had elements of all three, but never really followed through with any of them. In spite of this, the film has no pretences and doesn't try to be anything other than what it is. It is a film about robots hitting each other, but there is a charm about the film which I found quite endearing.

There was a trick missed with the film not really utilising Atom. Atom was clearly designed to appeal in the same way that Wall-E was, but this was barely used within the film until the last few scenes. That said, having a robot that has a shadow function is a brilliant idea and worked incredibly well in this film. I particularly enjoyed the dancing scenes.

Verdict: A genuinely lovely, feel good film with some stunning choreography. The ending was very well done and not quite what you expect, but enjoyable nonetheless. Good performances all round made for a very satisfying film. Michael Bay can learn a lot from this.

If you have to see one film this year about robots hitting each other, make it this one.

Red State

I'm going to start this review by expressing my disdain for Kevin Smith's previous work; I am the only person I know who doesn't like or get Clerks and I found Cop Out so very dull. Smith as a person or persona really doesn't appeal to me either. He came across as a very petulant child who threw all his toys out of the pram when Cop Out was heavily criticised (and deservedly so). It was only on the recommendation of Dr Mark Kermode, that I begrudgingly decided to watch Red State. And I am very pleased that I did.

The film starts with high school student Travis (Michael Angarano) being driven school by his mum. On the journey, they pass a funeral of a murdered homosexual teenager, which is being picketed by an ultra conservative religious group called the Five Points Church. The church is lead by Pastor Abin Cooper (Michael Parks) and his followers who are all related either by marriage or blood.

After class, Travis meets up with his closest friends, Jared (Kyle Gallner) and Billy Ray (Nicholas Braun). Jared informs the boys that they are going to have group sex with a woman Jared has been talking to on the internet, Sarah Cooper (Melissa Leo). 

On their way to see Sarah, they clip their car with a local Sheriff (Stephen Root) who is participating in a sexual act in his car. The boys drive away and the Sheriff asks his deputy (Matt L. Jones) to find the vehicle and the people responsible for the accident.

The boys arrive at the caravan and Sarah offers them beer spiked with drugs which makes them pass out. When they awake, they find themselves bound with cling film and imprisoned by the church.

The story goes on to involve an altercation with an armed ATF (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - a law enforcement agency in the US) unit which is lead by Special Agent Keenan (John Goodman). 

I had no idea what this film was about before I saw it; all I knew about it was that it was written and directed by Smith and that Goodman was in it. I knew that people had generally been positive about it, but I was under the impression people were comparing it to Clerks.

The first thing I should mention is that although it is billed as a horror, I would say that it was a little more on the side of 'torture-porn'. There are a number of grisly deaths, all involving guns so cue an awful lot of blood and other body matter. The camera doesn't linger on these scenes for any length of time, but just be aware, it's a bit gory. But there are no scares in this film at all.

In general, it's a really good film and certainly the best Kevin Smith film I have ever seen. The story is gripping, although it does go slightly OTT at some points. There is a little too much reliance on the shoot-out scenes and the ending is disappointing, particularly when I read about the original ending planned by Smith which sounded outrageously brilliant. The film is a little messy in terms of cinematography; my guess is that Smith wanted to try out as many different types of shot and decided to leave them all in. 

I loved the subject matter of Church vs State and the fact that Smith was playing them against each other in this film by showing the evils and ills of both. I find the whole cult mentality really interesting and Smith was able to portray the claustrophobic nature, the blind faith and the repercussions of this lifestyle very powerfully.

The real star of the film is Parks as the charismatic pastor. He is full of anger and passion and is so believably evil. It is a fantastically sublime performance. Goodman was very good as the weary agent, unusually he played the character totally straight which complemented the performance by Parks brilliantly. The last scenes that they have together were exceptionally good.

Leo also delivered a cracking performance as we have come to expect of late. It looked as though she especially relished the shoot-out scenes.

Verdict: A really enjoyable film, with some fantastic performances from all involved. It was a tad preachy at times, but the story was interesting and entertaining. Hopefully this is the start of things to come from Mr Smith.

Kevin, you can leave the naughty step and collect your gold star...

POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Film Ever Sold

I am a huge fan of Morgan Spurlock; like most people I was captivated and appalled by Super Size Me, although Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? was a bit of a disappointment, Spurlock is thoroughly entertaining in everything he does.

The aim of the documentary is to fund a film solely about product placement, through brand sponsorship. Spurlock consults with various experts in the field of marketing and advertising to find out how to gain as many sponsors as possible to fund his film, using himself as a brand. The film also touches on how film-makers feel about product placement, an area where they appear to have very little control.

Spurlock showed a glimpse of the slightly darker side of advertising as POM (who paid $1m to be the main sponsor) rejected all of Spurlock's ideas for advertising their product (which were very imaginative). Instead they told him to make an advert disparaging a rival product which, given that it was said on camera, was probably not a great move on POM's part.

There was a interesting, but relevant detour where Spurlock took the film to São Paulo in Brazil, where they had recently banned all outdoor advertising in the city. Spurlock interviewed locals who claimed that this was beneficial to people living and working in the city and surprisingly, the local businesses also seemed to be favour of the ban as it encouraged them to focus more on quality of products and customer service.

The film held a particular interest for me as I studied advertising and marketing at degree level. Although I was aware that product placement exists, I was surprised (and a little saddened) at how much power the various brands have over films with examples given about individual film scenes being tailored to meet a sponsor's demand.

As I have already mentioned, I am a fan of Spurlock's work; I find him very engaging, knowledgeable and passionate about whichever subject he is working on. However, with this particular project, the fact that he was effectively 'bought' by the sponsors meant that he was slightly compromised and maybe wasn't able to give out the message that he wanted to. That said, it was made clear that none of the sponsors saw the final cut of the film, but Spurlock indicated that there had been horse-trading with the companies involved throughout the making of the film.

Verdict: Fans of Spurlock will enjoy this funny, entertaining and thought-provoking film. Any film or marketing student should find it fascinating and any film-goer will unfortunately be able to spot any product placement in any film, no matter how subtle.

A special mention must be made to Mane 'n Tail, a shampoo for both horses and humans which is Greatest Shampoo and Conditioner of POM Wonderful’s The Greatest Movie Ever Sold...

The Debt

Films about the Second World War have always interested me, not so much the battles, but more the way that it completely changed people's lives. From Schindler's List to Downfall to The Pianist; this particular period in world history has been well served. The Debt is slightly different as it is about Nazi-hunters working for the Israeli Intelligence Agency, Mossad.

The story is based in two time periods, 1966 and 1997. We are first shown the main characters in 1997, as Rachel (Helen Mirren) is participating in book launch about her story as a Nazi-hunter. She is asked to read out a passage from the book (written by her daughter Sarah) and there is a flashback to 1966, where the young Rachel (Jessica Chastain) arrives in East Berlin to meet with David (Sam Worthington) and Stefan (Marton Csokas).

They are on a mission to capture Nazi war criminal Dieter Vogel (Jesper Christensen) – infamously known as "The Surgeon of Birkenau" for his medical experiments on Jews during World War II – and bring him to Israel to face justice. Alongside working on the mission, there is a growing sexual tension between the three main characters that leads to further complications down the line.

Vogel is working as a gynaecologist and fertility expert, therefore it falls on Rachel as the person who has to entrap him. The plan initially works and the doctor is captured, but then two incidences mean that a cover-up is necessary.

Back to 1997, the consequences of the cover-up become more and more difficult for David (Ciarán Hinds) to deal with which leads to Stefan (Tom Wilkinson) and Rachel being torn between leaving the past where it is or telling the truth.

This is a very, very interesting story and all of the actors do a really stirling job; the script is quite tight and there are very few lulls in this film. Some reviewers have pointed out that the older cast members bear no resemblance to their younger counterparts - personally, this isn't an issue for me at all.

However the film really does stretch the bounds of credibility in the final 30 minutes. The only thing that keeps it from turning into a farce is the great acting from Mirren. It really is a shame as the 1966 segments are engaging, tense and brilliantly done.

Verdict: Really interesting story, but the last few scenes are unconvincing and would be seen as laughable if it wasn't for the quality of Mirren. However, the story and the excellent acting makes the film watchable, but only if you can get over the last 30 minutes.

Drive

I will admit to having a little bit of a crush on Ryan Gosling; he was one of the few decent things in Crazy Stupid Love and I really enjoyed his performance in Blue Valentine. So I was intrigued to see how he would fair as the lead role in a film where there's not a great deal of dialogue.

Drive is about an unnamed driver (Ryan Gosling) who holds three jobs; the first as a stuntman for films, the second as a mechanic and the third as a getaway driver for local criminals. However, there is a potential opportunity for the driver to be part of a legitimate business as a racing driver for garage owner Shannon (Bryan Cranston) which is being funded by local mobster Bernie (Albert Brooks).

He starts to fall in love with his neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan) who has a young son and a husband in jail. Irene and the driver grow close, but there are clear boundaries which are not overstepped in any way. When Irene's husband Standard (Oscar Isaac) comes homes, he and the driver become acquaintances.

The story moves on to reveal that Standard has significant debts from when he was jail and there is a very real threat that his family could be hurt if the debts are not settled. The driver decides to help by being the getaway driver in a pawnshop robbery. As this is potentially the last job of this kind for the driver, it predictably goes wrong. This leads to a chain of events which involve a significant amount of bloodshed.

This is a beautifully shot film with some stunning pictures of Los Angeles which give the film a real 'art house' feel. However the story is a bit lacking and I can't really put my finger on why. The performances are solid, exceptional in the case of Gosling and Mulligan; although I think Mulligan needs to do a role which doesn't involve her looking mournful all the time.

I felt that this was a film of two halves; the first half was an arty, almost romantic film about a driver who was silently showing his love for both the girl in his life and his passion for driving, the second half was a massacre in many respects and I've found it difficult to reconcile the two. There is a remarkable amount of bloodshed and very graphic scenes of violences, some of which lean towards to the gratuitous variety. Whilst I'm not squeamish or generally have a problem with violent scenes, some of it in Drive was a bit pointless.

Verdict: A beautifully made film with some great performances, however a bit too much style over substance for me. That said, Gosling is a star who is definitely on the rise.

Warrior

When I first saw the trailer for this film, I thought that it was going to be another version of The Fighter which I thoroughly enjoyed, but I had a feeling that it might be a 'light' version. I was wrong.

The film is about two brothers who have taken very different paths in life; Tommy (Tom Hardy) is a troubled former marine and Brendan (Joel Edgerton) is a high school teacher with a family. One thing they have in common is an intense dislike of their father Paddy (Nick Nolte) who is a former alcoholic and a born-again Christian. Neither man has had much to do with him in many years.

Both of the brothers are facing financial difficulties and turn to cage-fighting as a way to solve their problems. Tommy asks his father to help train him (his father trained the boys in wrestling as youngsters) on the condition that he doesn't try to reconcile with him. Whilst Brendan asks a friend to train him after having been suspended from his job for participating in a cage-fight.

As Tommy had returned to Paddy's life, Paddy tries to reach out to Brendan in the hope of building some kind of relationship with him as well, but he is rebuffed.

Unbeknownst to them, they have both entered an elimination cage-fighting tournament, where there is a $5m winner-takes-all purse. The brothers go through their respective fights and inevitably end up facing each other in the final. During the course of the fights, you find out more about Tommy's story and why he is participating in the tournament.

Surprisingly, this was a very moving film with fantastic performances from the three main characters. Nolte shows how great he can be, Hardy continues his recent meteoric rise with a stunning performance and Edgerton combines strength and vulnerability with real poise.

Unusually for a fighting film, the number of clichés were kept to the absolute minimum and the only lull was during the training scenes (something I've never really seen the point of in a film) and although you know where the story is going, the final scenes are poignant and somewhat unexpected.

The fight scenes are convincing and brilliantly choreographed. You wince at each thud on the canvas and with each contact made. When it comes to the final fight, you find it more and more difficult to choose who you want to win.

This is the real beauty of the film, it starts out with very clear 'good guy' and 'bad guy' roles and during the course of the film, those roles are turned upside down. This, alongside the incredible performances, is what makes this a different type of fighting film.

Verdict: In my opinion, Warrior is unlikely to be a contender when it comes to awards season—except, possibly, for Nolte as best supporting actor. Despite this, it is a thoroughly entertaining, thoughtful and touching film. Excellent performances all-round and a fairly decent story made Warrior very enjoyable and I look forward to seeing what Hardy and Edgerton move on to in the future.

Crazy, Stupid, Love

I'm not adverse to a romantic comedy; I'm a huge fan of Love Actually amongst others, and having seen the trailer for Crazy, Stupid, Love, I thought it looked promising.

The story centres on 40-something Cal (Steve Carrell) who is told by his wife Emily (Julianne Moore) that she wants a divorce after 25 years of marriage. During the course of the conversation, she admits that she slept with a work colleague David (Kevin Bacon).

After spending several evenings in a bar, he is offered help by local lothario Jacob (Ryan Gosling) who takes him shopping and teaches him how to pick up women. A warm friendship begins to develop between the two as Cal develops the confidence to talk to women.

At the same, Cal's son Robbie (Jonah Bobo) is also having difficulties with affairs of the heart as he is head-over-heels in love with the family babysitter Jessica (Analeigh Tipton). Jessica in turn, is in love with Cal. Jessica keeps asking Robbie to leave her alone, but Robbie persists in making grand romantic gestures to try to get her to change her mind.

Another string to the story involves a young lawyer Hannah (Emma Stone) who rebuffed Jacob's advances earlier in the film, as she is awaiting her boyfriend Richard (Josh Groban) to propose. When this doesn't happen, Hannah decides to spend the night with Jacob, but to Jacob's surprise, they spend the night talking which he doesn't generally do with his conquests. It becomes clear that Hannah is a 'game-changer' for Jacob and he seeks advice from Cal about how to deal with a proper relationship.

The film carries on to an obvious and very contrived conclusion.

There are so many things wrong with this film; the first being that the film is so saccharine sweet and full of clichés that even Cal says 'this is such a cliché' when it starts raining after a confrontation. The second is that it really isn't funny enough to warrant being called a comedy (the Kermode rule is that at least 6 laugh-out loud laughs to constitute a comedy). The third is that there is too much Carrell and not enough Moore and Bacon, who are completely wasted in this film. That said, I thought that Gosling and Stone's performances were good.

All of this I could handle and accept as the film was fairly harmless until one of the last scenes, which is the graduation of Robbie from middle school (remember he is 13). Bizarrely, Jessica goes to the graduation and decides to give Robbie naked pictures of herself (originally intended for Cal).

I have read a dozen or so reviews of this film and no-one has mentioned how inappropriate this is. A seventeen year old girl giving a thirteen year old boy naked pictures of herself. Yet, if it was the other way round, I think it would have been mentioned in every review. Call me a prude, call me a killjoy, call me anything you like; but that scene did not sit comfortably with me at all and I felt that it sullied the film somewhat.

Verdict: Clichéd within an inch of it's life and failed to take advantage of the talented cast available. Film was bearable until the naked photos scene, which made an OK film with likeable characters into something a little seedy.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

This has been a film that I have been looking forward to for some time. With the hugely talented cast including Gary Oldman, Toby Young, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, Kathy Burke and Benedict Cumberbatch, it was always going to be a must-see film. In preparation for this, I watched the television series from 1979 starring Alec Guinness as George Smiley. I am in two minds whether this was useful or not, on the one hand it filled in a lot of gaps and provided the back story, on the other hand it meant that I had a very good idea about what to expect in terms of pace, dialogue and obviously the ending.

George Smiley (Gary Oldman) is an intelligence officer working for MI6 (otherwise known as The Circus) who is forced to leave with his boss Control (John Hurt) after a bungled shooting incident in Budapest involving Circus agent Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong). After Control’s death, Smiley is rehired as it becomes apparent that there is a mole within the Circus passing information over to the Russians. To assist him, Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Mendel (Roger Lloyd-Pack) have to undertake risky operations in order to get the information they require without the suspects noticing.

When Prideaux is repatriated, he confirms to Smiley that Control knew that there was a mole high up in the Circus and that part of his mission to try to undercover that mole. He also disclosed that there were four suspects, all of whom are given code names based on the Tinker, Tailor nursery rhyme. Further information is revealed to Smiley by British agent Ricki Tarr (Tom Hardy) who had a love affair with a Soviet trade delegate.

The story continues with Smiley ultimately identifying the mole.

The film is set in 1973 and particular care has been taken to make it look as authentic as possible and it must be said that the cinematography is excellent. There is a sense of weariness and slow decay that deeply permeates the film almost as if everyone knows that the game is up and that they cannot trust anyone at all. The pace is slow and lethargic, but this matches the mood perfectly. The atmosphere is intense, bordering on claustrophobic at times and there is a constant undercurrent of suspicion and oppression which each character goes through as the story continues.

In terms of performances, this has to be the best ensemble put together in quite some time. Lead by the masterful Oldman in a rare ‘good guy’ role, each actor steps up and performs in a measured and understated fashion – there are no show-offs in this film at all. The standout performance clearly comes from Oldman, who somewhat channelled Guinness’s Smiley, but also made his own mark on the role in a quiet but devastatingly effective way. Other notables include Cumberbatch who is excellent and Strong and Firth who were both impressive, particularly in their emotionally charged final scenes. A special mention should be for Kathy Burke who plays Connie, a former Circus researcher, for the best line in film this year: “I don’t know about you George, but I feel seriously underfucked!”

I thought the pace was just about right, the performances were powerful and believable. However, I didn’t feel engaged with the film and it will not make my top three of the year – top five definitely – but not top three. I’m still undecided if it works as a standalone film;  there is so much going on, that without knowing the back story, it would be difficult to keep track of who’s who and where all the various activities lead to.

Verdict: A brooding, atmospheric and intelligently made film, with superb performances from all cast members, but you need to have read the book or watched the TV series to fully understand what is going on. That said, it is a recommended watch and is well worth the trip to the cinema.

Jane Eyre

I must confess to being a bit of philistine when it comes to reading the classic books by authors such as the Brontë sisters or Jane Austen and shamefully I haven't read any of them. In all honestly I'd rather watch a good film adaptation. . . 

The story opens with a terrified Jane (Mia Wasikowska) making a dash from the confines of Thornfield Manor and on to the desolate moors. She finds sanctuary with Puritan minister St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and begins to tell him her ‘tale of woe’ and thus providing the first of the film's of several flashbacks.

With both her parents dead, she was placed in the care of her evil Aunt (Sally Hawkins). This doesn't work out after she has a fight with her cousin and she is packed off to boarding school, where she is punished for her objections to the injustices meted out by the staff who doll out cane lashes like they were going out of fashion.

She eventually finds employment as governess of Thornfield, working underneath Mrs Fairfax (Judi Dench), where she meets Mr Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Needless to say, he is indifferent to her at the beginning and likewise she isn't all that impressed with him. As times goes on, they fall in love with each other.

As I have said before, I haven't read the book, so I am going to review this as a standalone film.

Wasikowska plays the title role with real intelligence and what she doesn't say using her voice, she conveys beautifully through her face and eyes. Fassbender plays Rochester with a broodiness and intensity that is full of mystery. 

My main issue with the film is that it felt like a firework that makes a fair amount of noise and shoots up into the sky with determination, but just quietly fizzles instead of exploding. I kept waiting for some kind of passion to occur, but it never happened. I understand that the original text is rich, vibrant and full of gothic undertones, unfortunately this film was played incredibly flat and understated. Everything from the clothes to the scenery was muted and I felt that the film was missing 'something'. It is supposed to be a love story, but it had the atmosphere of a half-decent horror film.

I did enjoy the film, but I left the cinema feeling a little cheated.

Verdict: Despite superb performances by Wasikowska and Fassbender, the film feels flat and lacking that special 'something'. It's a difficult film to fault, but also a difficult film to get excited about.

The Inbetweeners Movie

I have to confess that I am a relative newcomer to The Inbetweeners which is a comedy series about four teenage boys and their quest to have their wicked way with members of the opposite sex. The series are good fun, it's not necessary to have watched the series in order to enjoy this film. The big question is can they translate this to the big screen. Well, they gave it a bloody good try. . .

The film starts at the end of school for the four main characters, Will (Simon Bird), Simon (Joe Thomas), Jay (James Buckley) and Neil (Blake Harrison).  With the Head of Sixth Form, Mr Gilbert (Greg Davies) making it perfectly clear that he is thrilled that they are all leaving and asking them to try 'not to kill anyone' the boys decide to have a summer holiday thanks to an inheritance from the death of Jay's grandfather.

They book a holiday to Maila in Crete and as you would expect, the accommodation is fairly dismal, but undeterred, the boys go into town to spot the local talent and to get drunk. They keep bumping into a group of girls and the film  goes on to describe how the relationships develop between the boys and the girls. There is one storyline which is an continuation from the TV series where Simon has been dumped by his girlfriend Carli (Emily Head) and tries to win her back whilst on holiday (she has gone to Malia as well).

The film is fun with all of the main characters providing a number of laughs (more than the established six laughs required to qualify as a comedy). Yes the script is a little lazy, there is very little character development, the storyline can hardly be described as original, some of the jokes were puerile and I saw more genitalia than I would like to see in a film; but the film is light and frothy, doesn't require much thought process and will certainly make you giggle.

There is an undercurrent throughout the film which is that all the main characters come to the realisation that this was probably going to be the last time that they were all going to be together as two members were going to be going off to university and this was quite moving to watch. The film captured the end of teenage-hood and the ascent of adulthood in a really delicate and sensitive way.

Verdict: A fun, frothy summer film with a lovely moving sentiment which belies the crude jokes and smutty actions of the main characters.

Fright Night

Generally I've no time for vampires; the whole Twilight saga completely passed me by in both book and film format. As a teenager I had no desire to watch Buffy The Vampire Slayer and whereas peers wax lyrical about programmes such as True Blood, the genre has never held any interest for me. Therefore I've never seen the original 1985 Fright Night on which this film is based.

But I am a fan of Colin Farrell and David Tennant and having seen the trailer for the film, I thought that it looked quite good. I would have seen it earlier, but it was only available in 3D which I point blank refuse to watch. Luckily the 2D version was available in one Cineworld cinema in the whole country, which just so happened to be in London.

The film is set in a quiet suburb near Las Vegas, where Jerry (Farrell) has moved into the local neighbourhood next door to Charley (Anton Yelchin) and his mum Jane (Toni Collette). There have been a number of attacks within the area and Jerry is suspected as being a vampire by local geek, Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse). Ed tries to persuade former best friend, Charley of his beliefs, but is quickly rebuffed. Charley then meets Jerry who takes an interest in both Charley's mother and girlfriend, Amy (Imogen Poots).  It's only when Ed disappears that Charley realises that Jerry is a vampire and sets out to find a way of killing him. 

This leads him onto Peter Vincent (Tennant) who is a Las Vegas magician and reputed vampire expert, in the hope that he can help. It turns out that Peter is a flamboyant fraud and he dismisses Charley's pleas with some scorn. By this point, Jerry knows that Charley has rumbled him and proceeds to try to get into their house (for a reason not explained, vampires can only attack in a house if they have received an invitation) via Jane, but Charley convinces her not to invite Jerry in. Jerry then decides to blow the house up but Jane, Amy and Charley escape and have a high speed chase through the desert.

Now, I have to stop it there as it really will give away the ending - needless to say there is a battle, certain people rise to the occasion and a stake is used to appropriate and bloody effect.

Having read other reviews of this film, most people had issues with the 3D version, because the film contains a lot of night scenes and internal house scenes which are dimly lit. If this has been watched in 3D, an already dark film will have lost another 20-30% of its light, which I can imagine will make it difficult to watch. 

The film is forgettable, good fun, Farrell simply smoulders as Jerry and Tennant is an absolute delight as Peter and most of the laughs came from him channelling his inner Russell Brand. Collette is not given enough to do which is a shame as I rate her highly as an actress. Mintz-Plasse is playing yet another hard-done-by geek (clearly not concerned about being type-cast) and the other supporting actors are good. The film has some laugh out loud moments (thanks to Tennant), but on reflection, it isn't really funny enough to be judged as a comedy and has absolutely no scares in it whatsoever. 

Verdict: With the talent cast in this film, it should have been funnier and scarier, but for the 106 minutes it runs, it will keep you entertained, but you will struggle to remember it the next day.

Kill List

There are some films where you walk away from the cinema with a sense of satisfaction that the film has 'completed', that you know everything that happened and it all makes sense. Kill List is definitely not one of those films.

The film is about a former soldier Jay (Neil Maskell) who hasn't worked since returning home from Kiev and finds life in the civilian world difficult to deal with. Coupled with ongoing financial concerns, makes for a strained relationship with wife Shel (MyAnna Buring) and their young son Sam. They host a dinner for friend Gal (Michael Smiley) and his rather odd partner Fiona (Emma Fryer) which was excruciating to watch as the tension builds up between Jay and Shel leading to a heated argument off camera.

Gal talks Jay into accepting some work as a hit man (something they previously did together) but this job is shrouded in mystery, particularly after they meet the person ordering the hit who decides that in order to 'seal the deal', he has to slice Jay's hand. This was an injury that never quite heals throughout the film and seems to be a metaphor for the film itself in many ways.

The couple work through the list and we are never given the reasons why these people are on the list, but their demises are grisly and needless to say, Jay takes out all his frustrations on each hit. This is something that Gal finds difficult to work with and eventually warns Jay to stop acting crazy.

Then the film goes off onto another tangent, involving a cult which involves naked people in a forest at some kind of ceremony. These are the film's most disturbing scenes (even more so than the acts of violence which are shown in full, unflinching detail); partly due to the lack of light within the scenes as you are never sure who is attacking who and what becomes of them.

The final twist in the film is completely unexpected and particularly gruesome and in many aspects, completely unexplained or justified.

This film is deeply disturbing, very claustrophobic but brilliantly made given its very low budget. As I have already mentioned, you leave the cinema with more questions than answers and after chatting to two seasoned cinema goers, it would appear I was not alone in thinking this. 

The two central performances were very engaging, and you easily empathised with the issues that Jay was struggling with. The dialogue was very realistic, the script was tight and there were absolutely no lulls in this 92 minute film. However, I was frustrated by the lack of a proper, conclusive ending and having thought about it overnight, this really acts as a disservice to the film. The violence is raw and unwavering, but as it was clearly the right approach for this film, this wasn't an issue for me. However, people with a more delicate constitution should be aware that the violence is very much in your face.

Verdict: A gritty, disturbing but well made Brit flick which deserves the plaudits it will receive, however the lack of a proper ending will frustrate many cinema-goers. Memorable, but only for the fact that this is the first film I've seen where an audience member fainted mid-way.

The Guard

For those of you who enjoyed In Bruges, which I did once I got a DVD with subtitles, were no doubt thrilled to hear that the ever watchable Brendan Gleeson would once again be teaming up with a McDonagh brother in an Irish crime film caper.

Sergeant Gerry Boyle (Gleeson) is a weary, unorthodox policeman in a quiet coastal town of Connemara where wrong-doing seems to be resolved by threats to 'tell your Mam'. So when straight-laced FBI agent Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle) arrives to solve a drug trafficking crime, Boyle is somewhat bemused by the American and sets about 'winding him up' in that great Irish tradition.

Boyle and Everett have to work together to find the three main gang members and to prevent the drugs coming into the country. There are some lovely twists and the relationship between Boyle and Everett is very entertaining and there is a genuine warmth. We also see that Boyle is a man of integrity and compassion, particularly where the women in his life are concerned.

Although I really enjoyed In Bruges, this film is very different and shouldn't really be compared. Gleeson is excellent as the complex Boyle and Cheadle puts in a stellar performance as a completely flummoxed fish out of water FBI agent. There are some comedic moments, but not enough for me to rate this as a comedy, however, in the screening that I attended, there were a number of Irish people in the audience, and they laughed more than I did. I think that there were some 'in-jokes' that maybe I just wouldn't get.

The supporting cast are fantastic, in particular the three gang members played by Liam Cunningham, David Wilmot and Mark Strong, whose bickering provided much mirth. A special mention should also be given to Owen Sharpe who plays a know-it-all kid with some aplomb.

Verdict: An entertaining film which I enjoyed, unfortunately it wasn't quite funny enough for me and it did descend into a Carry On film at some points. However, Gleeson is always worth watching and it does enough to make it a worthwhile trip to the cinema.

Skin I Live In

There are fewer sweeter things than when you get to see a film totally blind. As in, you haven't seen any trailers, read any reviews and have only seen a poster or two which give you absolutely no indication as to what the film is about.

Add to that that it's a film by Pedro Almodóvar and stars Antonio Banderas and you know that you are in for a treat.

Surgeon Robert Ledgard (Banderas) has created a skin which can be used to treat burn victims and is much tougher than human skin. When announcing to the scientific community this discovery, he claims that he has tested the skin on mice, when he is holding a young woman Vera (Elena Anaya) captive and testing the skin on her.

The story uses various flashbacks to explain the kidnapping of Vera and the subsequent changing of her appearance. We also find out about Ledgard's past, in particular his relationships with his wife and daughter which both end tragically and are the crux that leads Ledgard to kidnap Vera.

As you would expect from Almodóvar, the story is not simple and there are many tangents, twists and surprises within the 120 minute film. For example there are revelations about Ledgard's parentage and relations that he is not aware of. But I don't want to give away any of the key elements of the film, as it would ruin it for those who haven't seen it yet.

This is a fantastic film; rich in colour, music and story. There are moments of comedy, genuine heartbreak and an overriding theme of the macabre. All of the actors are excellent, with Banderas giving an outstanding, commanding performance, clearly relishing the opportunity to show just how great an actor he is (I was struggling to think of a recent good film that Banderas has been in - a search on Wikipedia revealed that his last few films have been in relation to the Shrek franchise).

Verdict: A stunning film, which is a very strong contender for my film of the year. A masterclass by Almodóvar in how to create a tense, clever, visually beautiful thriller without resorting to unnecessary violence or cliche. 

Superb performances by all involved and an absolute delight to have watched it. But, be warned, make sure you go to the film with all your wits about you.

One Day

I love a good romance film, not necessarily a romantic-comedy (I'm not a great fan of most of what passes for comedy at the moment). One of my favourite films is Big Fish which is, amongst other things, a great romance. The trailers for One Day looked promising and although I've not read the book that it is based on, I am reliably informed that it is one worth reading. I loved Anne Hathaway in The Devil Wears Prada although not so much in Bride Wars and I thought that Jim Sturgess was great in The Way Back.

The story takes place over 20 years from when Emma (Hathaway) gets together with Dexter (Sturgess) on their university graduation night in Edinburgh. The date they met is 15th of July (St Swithin's Day) and the film focuses on each 15th of July for the next 20 years.

The film charts the various ups and downs of Emma and Dexter's lives and how their relationship changes as they do. Emma starts the film being a waitress in a Tex-Mex restaurant, whereas Dexter becomes a successful TV presenter. As the film progress, Emma becomes a teacher and then fulfils her dream of becoming a writer, while Dexter's career falls apart as he becomes addicted to alcohol, drugs and women.

They both have relationships throughout the film, Emma with comedian Ian and Dexter with Sylvie, but there is something that keeps bringing them back to each other (at least as friends) until they finally decide that they should be together.

There are problems with this film; the first being the character of Emma. Who is she? Where does she come from? What does she want? Why on earth does she like Dexter? We are told that she is intelligent and attractive in a 'normal' kind of way, but if she was so intelligent, then she would know that someone like Dexter is no good for her. I appreciate that love is blind, but this is ridiculous.

I'm not going to harp on about Hathaway's accent as some reviewers have, being a profoundly deaf person, it's not such a big deal for me, but I think consistency seems to be the issue.

Then we move on to Dexter; such an unlikeable character in the beginning, and barely redeems himself towards the end of the film, but it was incredibly difficult to see why he was so attractive to Emma and others. 

The film has no real passion or intensity, there were only two episodes in the film where I saw something vaguely bordering on emotion, both involving Dexter and his parents and both were played very well by Sturgess. However the film was devoid of any depth or connection. I had no empathy or engagement with the characters and if you've read the book, you know that it isn't a fairytale and even at that 'moment', I simply didn't care.

I also found myself cringing each time Emma's boyfriend Ian was on screen, because he kept reminding me of Lou, a character from Little Britain played by David Walliams and I just couldn't let that go.

Verdict: You can see that this really had the potential to be a great romantic film, and I'm not sure where the fault lies. Sturgess was good as Dexter, but Hathaway is wildly mis-cast as Emma. The production was good and there were no lulls in the film, but I found it a bit irritating and I simply didn't care about any of the characters.