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.