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...