The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2

So here we are again. Back in the land of bloodless vampires and shiny waxed werewolves. Yes, we are back in the world of Twilight…

The story continues with Bella (Kristen Stewart) embracing her transformation from human to vampire and watching proudly as her daughter Renesmee grows at an accelerated rate. Because of this, she is mistaken for an ‘immortal’ or vampire child, which had been outlawed by the ruling Volturi.

Aware that their lives and the life of the Renesmee are in danger, Edward (Robert Pattinson) and the rest of the Cullen family appeal to other vampire clans to confirm that Renesmee is not an immortal and to act as witnesses and allies in their plight.

The Volturi arrive to destroy the child (as well as the Cullens) and a battle commences…

As you can see, not much of a plot and they managed to make that last a whole one hundred and sixteen minutes. 

I shall start with the one good thing in this film. 

Michael Sheen. 

Michael Sheen is AMAZING as Aro, the leader of the Volturi. He acted everyone off screen just by raising his one eyebrow. His performance veered from Kenneth Williams when he meets the child (the child’s name is unbelievably stupid, so I am refusing to use it anymore) to Tony Blair’s fake sincerity when he reads the mind of Alice Cullen. The man was brilliant, he was the only one not taking it seriously and the only time this film was bearable was when he was on screen.

The bad things? I shall start with the actors. Other than Michael Sheen, they were all dreadful, utterly, utterly dreadful. Wooden and totally lacking in any real ability to act. Meaningful glances do not make a good actor. Neither does sighing. Nor does pouting. The screenplay? Dreadful. There’s no point giving your actors meaningful glances to do if there’s no dialogue to back them up. And where’s the story in beautiful people just standing around in beautiful houses? The direction? No real sense of proper direction, so dreadful. The cinematography? Actually not too bad. The battle scenes were very well done and were the only moments when I actually felt any kind engagement with the film. Imagine my disappointment when it turns out to be only an apparition. How I would have loved for all the characters to have died (except for Aro, of course). They also resolved the werewolf to human transition problem that has plagued them in the last few films. Hurrah!

I know that Twilight is an easy target for non-teenagers like myself but there is a more serious issue here. Teenagers, particularly girls, are being exposed to films which perpetuate the myths that as long as you have a boyfriend then its OK, that the idea of having men rule your life should be embraced, that every aspect of your life should be controlled and that you should be prepared to sacrifice everything for your one true love. Is this really what we want our young girls to be seeing? 

It also raises the question that should films (particularly those aimed at young girls) have more responsibility in ensuring that there are more positive female role models? There are very few films with proper female leads that any young girl can aspire to and it is very depressing to think that this could be the only film that a 13/14 year old girl could and would want to see. The values and ideals presented in the Twilight films are not values or ideals that I would want impressed upon any young girl today.

Verdict: Aside from all the points made in my review, the films in this franchise are incredibly dull. A fact that was demonstrated at the packed midnight screening that I attended where a couple of people tried to start an applause at the end… 

The applause didn’t catch on.

Argo

One area of American society that always interests me is the work of the FBI and CIA. So on hearing about this film and the fact that it was based on a true story my appetite was whetted.

The film is based on the aftermath of an attack on the American embassy in Tehran in 1979. The vast majority of the embassy staff were taken as hostages, but six escaped and took refuge in the Canadian ambassador’s home. The ambassador, Ken Taylor (Victor Garber) then tried to devise a plan to enable the Americans to leave the country without being captured by the Iranians.

In the US, CIA operative Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck), has been asked to help secure the release of the Americans. Mendez comes up with the plan to create a fake movie, so that he can pose as a Canadian producer, go to Iran on a film location scout and bring back the Americans who are to be seen as part of his film crew.

Despite Mendez’s boss’s reservations, it is obvious that this is the only viable option. Mendez gets in touch with a make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman) and convinces him to help him with the mission by creating the buzz around Hollywood press about this film. Chambers advises that in order to make everything look as authentic as possible, Mendez needs to have a script and a director. Chambers introduces him to Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) who agrees to be a part of the charade.

The story moves on to show how Mendez gets into Iran and how he convinces the both the Americans and his manager to go along with his audacious plan.

The film is really interesting as it was about an event that I was not aware of and it is the type of story that I really like. The attention to detail is impressive in terms of everything looking like it came from the time of the story. I was particularly struck when the credits were rolling, how uncannily similar the Americans and their actor counterparts were made to look. 

The film was really gripping and tense right up until the last few frames, testament to the subject and  that the film never went down the ‘worthy’ route which so frequently happens. My only reservation is that in some scenes the Americans were outright rude to Mendez, I find it very difficult to believe that this would actually have happened in real life. If someone is risking their own life in order to save yours, I think little more gratitude would have been displayed.

Verdict: A really tense film which shows an audacious, and in places, ludicrous plan in action. Gripping, well acted and directed, this is a very entertaining film that proves that Affleck is developing into quite the actor and director. And the little catchphrase involving the word Argo will stay with you for a while.

Skyfall

Like most 30-somethings, James Bond was an ever present figure in my cinematic life. My dad and I would often watch them on a Sunday afternoon and no Christmas Day was complete without a Bond film to fall asleep to after lunch. Despite this, my interest in Bond is fairly limited, he didn’t seem a particularly ‘real’ character and you always knew that no matter what happened, he would be fine.

My personal favourite Bond was Roger Moore as I felt he brought a fantastic sense of comedy to the role. I lost interest when Timothy Dalton took up the challenge and although I know I’ve watched Pierce Brosnan versions, I couldn’t tell you anything about them.

I was persuaded to watch Casino Royale a while ago and immediately saw the massive improvement which was down to the popularity of the excellent Bourne films. The bar had been raised and Casino Royale more than met the challenge. Daniel Craig had made Bond more human, the story was more interesting and the film was visually very appealing.

Most people would agree that Quantum of Solace was a bitter disappointment, the film made little sense and the franchise looked tired and past it’s best. Moving onto 2012 and the franchise was celebrating 50 years since the release of the first Bond film and the pressure was on Sam Mendes to bring the film back to its former glory.

So Skyfall is a different, but very familiar kind of Bond. He is older, more careworn and is very aware of his increasing age. We find out more about his background and his complex relationship with M (Judi Dench) which shows him in a different light. Bond doesn't have quite the same swagger, the same confidence he had in previous films. I think that this a deliberate attempt by the film makers to show Bond with flaws and weaknesses and it was an excellent way of deconstructing and almost rebuilding Bond that everyone knows.

The story is typical Bond and is so quite unashamedly. There is a fantastic villain in Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) who is a former MI6 agent who holds a grudge against M. The plot is fairly simple and involves beautifully choreographed fight scenes and the necessary explosions. There is, of course, the usual close calls and a brilliant twist near the end that will make most viewers gasp. The film is very well made, fast-moving and holds the attention well.

Although I'm not a massive fan of Bond, the job has been very well done here. It was interesting that so much of the film was set in the UK although I couldn't really see the point of the China section (yes, money I know). But for a 50th anniversary film and all the pressures that creates, it met the challenge.

Some people have been saying that this is the film of the year. I don’t agree at all. This is a great, well-made film but there are no boundaries being broken here, nothing original or ground-breaking. This is a Bond film, albeit a very good one, but it is just a Bond film.

Verdict: A fantastically cinematic film with standout performances from Bardem, Dench and Craig. Although I didn’t think that the film had evolved as much as it could have done, I can completely understand why they wanted to create a film celebrating the 50 years of Bond. I am left wondering where the franchise can go now, the constant references to Bond’s age throughout the film would indicate that maybe the next film would be less action-based which would be a shame in my opinion.

Looper

Science fiction is a funny genre for me. There are some fantastic films representing the best of the genre and then there are some which just leave me utterly baffled and confused…

The year is 2074 and time-travel has been been discovered and made illegal. However, criminal organisations use time-travel to dispose of people they no long want to exist. The people who carry out these assassinations are called ‘loopers’. When the criminal gangs want to ‘close the loop’, they send the looper’s older self to the past to be killed by their younger self. Failing to do this is a death sentence.

The story centres on a looper called Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who amongst other things is troubled by what he does and is making plans for a future in France. He is ready to do an assassination, when he is faced with his older self (Bruce Willis), during a struggle Old Joe escapes and Joe needs to find him and destroy him before the criminal gang kill him.

Old Joe is also trying to find and kill ‘The Rainmaker’ - who is a child that he believes is responsible for the death of his wife who was murdered during Old Joe’s capture.

So from my brief synopsis you can see that it’s a slightly confusing film. The plot is interesting, but for me there are too many strands to the story and once you get past that, it very obvious how this is going to end. In this respect, it is nothing special at all which is a shame as I am a fan of all the main actors in the film.

I particularly like Gordon-Levitt and was blown away by his performance in 50/50 this year, but his performance is overshadowed by what they have done to his face in Looper. They have done some subtle prosthetics to make him look like Willis, but it is very, very distracting because you really aren’t sure if they have done something to his face or if it’s just you not quite remembering what he looked like. Either way, it was an issue and wasn’t especially necessary.

Beyond the prosthetics issue, the main reason that the film didn’t work for me was that there was no engagement, I didn’t care about the characters and thought that the pace was too slow.

I can appreciate that it was brilliantly shot and it looked really good, but I really didn’t ‘get’ this film at all.

Verdict: Excellent performances from all the main actors, but the film didn’t engage me at all and Gordon-Levitt’s prosthetics were an unwelcome distraction. I’m not entirely sure that I’m alone in not totally getting this film judging by the comments I overheard on leaving the screening.

The Dark Knight Rises

If there’s one franchise that has been truly reinvigorated and reinvented in the last decade, it is the Batman trilogy. Under the directorship of Christopher Nolan, this franchise has shown that smart, interesting and intelligent films can come from a comic book.

I’m only going to outline the basics of the plot as I would hate to reveal any spoilers.

The film is set eight years after the The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is a recluse in his home, refusing to see anyone other than loyal butler Alfred (Michael Caine). His financial wealth has disintegrated due to an investment in a machine which produces clean energy. Unfortunately as the machine can also be used an a nuclear weapon in the wrong hands, Wayne decides to mothball the project, despite the objections of Wayne Enterprises board member, Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard).

The City of Gotham, however is experiencing a relatively peaceful era, with a number of organised crime participants having been locked away thanks to the Dent Act which was created in honour of Harvey Dent.

However Police Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is finding it more and more difficult to cover up the crimes of Dent, but decides to go along with it.

In the meantime, Bane (Tom Hardy) who is hell-bent on destroying Gotham, begins his reign of terror and control, starting with crash of Gotham’s Stock Market and culminating with Gotham effectively being under military rule.

Another strand to the story involves Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) a cat burglar who entices Wayne out of his self-imposed exile and leads him to Bane.

One of the major flaws of this film (and cinema chains have to bear some responsibility as well) is how incredibly difficult it is to work out what Bane, in particular, is saying. This character has a mask which completely covers the whole of his mouth and the voice is very over-synthesised making it near-impossible for a deaf or hard-of-hearing to be able to follow. Alongside this, you have persistent drumming which is great in terms of building up an atmosphere, but also happens to be at the same tone and sound level as Bale’s speaking pattern when he is Batman.

My fault with cinema chains is that there were too few screenings of a subtitled version of this film. In London, from 9.30 pm on Monday 30th of July to Sunday 5th of August, at one cinema chain, there will be 511 screenings of this film. Of these 511 screenings, only 4 will be subtitled, which is a total of 0.8% of screenings available. There are 9 million deaf or hard of hearing people in the UK, which is approximately 15% of the general population. I am not a deaf/HOH person with a chip on my shoulder, but this does seem to be incredibly disproportionate. I have asked the four main cinema chains to tell me why this is so, unfortunately none of them could come up with a satisfactory answer.

Anyway, off my soapbox and time to review this film.

As you would expect from Nolan, the film flows well and holds your attention for its entire length (a whopping 2hrs 40mins). It is action-packed with some great fighting scenes and the usual slick mechanical inventions, although I thought 'The Bat' was the ugliest fighting machine I’ve seen.

Hardy was great as Bane (despite the issues understanding what he was saying), and for someone who had half of his face covered up, he was incredibly expressive with both his face and his body. All of the other characters were excellently played and although there wasn’t the time to delve deeply into the characters background, they were shown to be fully rounded with backgrounds, fears and hopes.

The story goes off on various tangents which aren’t explained, but it does all tie up nicely at the end. Although, I would argue that the ending was a tad predictable.

Lots of people have asked me whether this is the best of the trilogy and I would have to say that The Dark Knight is the better of the three and it is for a very simple reason. Although you have Bane who is a fantastic physical presence in the film, the disappointment when you realise that he is more brawn than brain is quite immense. I felt that The Joker in The Dark Knight was a much better character, a more interesting role and a more intelligent adversary for the Batman. Obviously that film was totally eclipsed by the performance of Heath Ledger, and despite The Dark Knight Rises being a really excellent ensemble piece, it doesn’t have the standout performance that The Dark Knight has in The Joker.

Verdict: Nolan once again provides an intelligent action film which has excellent performances from all involved. However, issues with understanding Bane and the lacking of a standout bad guy, means that while this is a highly enjoyable film, it’s not quite as good as The Dark Knight. Will be very interesting where this franchise now goes.

The Amazing Spiderman

Although I am not a fan of comic books themselves, I seem to enjoy the film versions. Films such as Superman and Batman have kept me entertained for many years and I recall enjoying the first Spiderman starring Tobey Maguire which was released in 2002. I don’t remember watching the second (which some critics claim is the best) and I never saw the third.

However, I was looking forward to this version, Andrew Garfield is an interesting actor and I have liked everything that Emma Stone has been in recently.

The film is a reboot of the Spiderman origins story and seeks to cast a little more light on the disappearance of the parents of Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) and in particular the work of his father.

After the disappearance of his parents, Parker is brought up by his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and his Aunt May (Sally Fields). He is a typical teenager in that he has concerns about school, girls and bullies.

The story really starts with the discovery of his father’s briefcase which contains papers which reveal his work with another scientist, the one-armed, Dr Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans). The papers reveal how to regenerate parts of the human body using DNA from other animals, specifically lizards.

In order to meet Dr Connors, Parker blags his way as an intern at the company that Dr Connors works at, OsCorp where he finds genetically modified spiders and consequently gets bitten by one of them.

The story goes on to show how Parker copes with his new superpowers in both school and at home. He then decides to meet Dr Connors, to explain who he is and to give him the papers written by his father. The papers turn out to be the final jigsaw piece for Dr Connors being able to create the formula which enable him to create a limb to replace his missing arm.

The film moves on as the formula goes wrong and instead of just creating the missing limb, it takes over the whole of Dr Connor’s body and turns him into very angry lizard hellbent on destructing the city. Obviously the only person who can save the city is Spiderman.

The main problem I have with this film is its complete lack of originality. There is nothing here that I hadn’t seen in other films and this, in my opinion, is its major flaw. The cast are good, Garfield is excellent as the teenage Parker but I did feel that both Stone and Ifans were completely wasted in their roles. Stone had very little to do part from being disapproving at times and Ifan’s villain had no real depth, reasoning or bite.

For me, some of the best films are about good vs evil. This film was very much ‘meh’ vs ‘meh’. The villain was totally lacking in any villainousness qualities, particularly when you compare him to Willem Dafoe in the first Spiderman film, who was excellent. Garfield was great playing the troubled teenager, but less great when playing the superhero and I can’t quite put my finger on why.

As per my film policy, I did not watch the film in 3D, but in 2D. However, I can see that it would have looked great in 3D, particularly the swinging through the streets scenes. But unfortunately this was not really enough.

I love Martin Sheen in anything and he was great as Uncle Ben and it’s been a while since I’ve seen Sally Fields in anything, so it was great to see her too.

Verdict: A hyped-up film that didn’t deliver in terms of original story or providing an engaging villain. A stellar cast that didn’t have too much to work with which leaves a rather disappointing film. A real shame.

Katy Perry: Part of Me

Now, before there are any judgements about why I went to see this documentary, let me explain. I planned on seeing The Amazing Spiderman, but it was sold out so I decided to see this film before seeing The Amazing Spiderman.

My knowledge of Perry is fairly scant, I only really know of her through her marriage to Russell Brand and I only like one of her songs, but I do have an interest in celebrity culture and thought that this potentially could tell me more about life being a pop star.

The documentary is basically following Perry on her mammoth world tour in 2011 and all of the trials and tribulations that that ensues. We see the stresses of being on tour as well as the highs that Perry experiences. She has a very dedicated crew around her and she appears to particularly enjoy the meet and greets with her fans after the shows.

The interesting aspect of the documentary is when Perry’s relationship with Brand breaks down and although we are not given any real reasons for the break-up by Perry herself; her crew make comments alluding that Perry was the person who did all the work in the relationship by constantly flying to wherever Brand was during her days off, the point being that Brand never made the effort to visit his wife.

Another aspect that the documentary shows is Perry’s progression from a christian rock singer to the bubblegum pop princess. It is clear that she found her childhood to be stifling and maybe that explains why at 27, she feels the need to act, dress and look like a teenager.

The documentary aims to show Perry ‘as she really is’ and to a certain extent it does, there is genuine heartbreak when she has to perform after realising that her relationship with Brand is ending. Some sectors of the British press have made a big deal about Perry being shown without make-up which I thought was quite endearing.

However, this is clearly a very controlled documentary and it does show Perry to be a very canny individual and she definitely knows her market. But it does raise the question, how does she move on from being the bubblegum pop princess? She is only a few years away from turning 30 and obviously her target market will also have grown up, where will she go when the bubblegum bubble bursts?

Verdict: Interesting, if controlled, documentary. I didn’t care much for the songs although I did enjoy the concert footage. The breakdown of Perry’s relationship with Brand was very well handled and it is clear that Perry is an ambitious young woman who wants to be a role model to young girls. If I was 12 years old, I would probably have loved this film.

Fast Girls

Although I’m the least athletic person ever, I do have a great admiration for athletes. To be able to be that dedicated to something that can be so fleeting is astounding to me. I love watching athletics and when I saw the trailer for Fast Girls it looked very convincing.

I am also a fan of Noel Clarke and this seemed to be a foray into more mainstream cinema after his successes with Kidulthood and Adulthood.

The story is based around Shania (Lenora Crichlow) who is a talented sprinter from a very disadvantaged background in London. With the help of coach Brian (Phil Davies), she manages to get into the National Team for the World Championships which are taking place in London. In 2011.

In order to qualify for the National team, she beat local rival Lisa (Lily James) who comes from a very privileged, if pressurised background. Naturally she has had her nose put of joint by the arrival of Shania.

The coach Tommy (Clarke) is keen for Shania to join the 4x100 metres relay, despite Shania having no experience of running in a team. Her fellow teammates are welcoming apart from Lily and as you would expect, this provides problems for all involved.

The film goes onto to chart the relationships between the two girls and how that impacts on the team.

First of all, the film should really be about the Olympics and although I am aware of how strict the rules are around using the London Olympics 2012, it seems a bit churlish that they weren’t allowed to use it. Especially as the film is essentially about achieving greatness at a huge sporting event.

That aside, it is a lovely film. All of the characters are engaging and although they did slip in some clichés, the sweetness of the film allowed that to pass by. 

The dialogue was spot on and did not appear to have been Americanised, which was great to see. The actresses in the main roles certainly looked like professional athletes and although it was clear from some of the race shots that doubles had been used, it wasn’t an issue for me.

My only complaint is that there is very little backstory, the running time is under 90 minutes long, so a bit more information about the girls’s backgrounds would have added a depth to the film.

Verdict: A really engaging, sweet and well-made film that deserves will be successful. All of the characters are likeable and while you know how the film is going to end, it’s a lovely journey getting there and I came out of the cinema smiling...

The Devil Inside

Scary films are a relatively new phenomena for me, it has only been in the last two years that I have watched the classic scary films such as The Exorcist and The Thing and surprisingly I really enjoyed them and the feeling of being scared.

The trailer for The Devil Inside was really good and looked genuinely creepy. Oh how appearances can be deceiving...

The story is based on three murders that took place in 1989 by Maria Rossi (Suzan Crowley) whilst an exorcism was being performed on her. Her daughter, Isabella (Fernanda Andrade) only finds out this some twenty years later and starts to investigate why this happened.

Her investigation takes her to a Catholic psychiatric hospital in Rome where her mother resides (although it is never explained why Rossi was transferred there) and after meeting with her, she is profoundly disturbed by what she finds. 

Afterwards she meets two priests who specialise in exorcism. Ben (Simon Quarterman) and David (Evan Helmeth) are prepared to exorcise Maria to see if they can rid her of her demons.

Before they can do this, they decide to show Isabella what a real exorcism consists of and the person being exorcised mentions Isabella and her situation several times.

We then to the exorcism which David is beginning to be very concerned about doing as priests cannot perform exorcisms without permission from the Church. However, Ben convinces him that it is the right thing to do and the exorcism goes ahead with severe consequences.

I can honestly say that there is nothing good about this film, so lets just move on to the bad things:

1. Hidden footage/shaky camera - filmmakers, this is the worst possible way to show a film. It is not clever, it is just very annoying, particularly when it is done so badly as in this  case.

2. The acting - They spent far too much money on the rubbish cameras to spend it on actors who can actually ACT.

3. The best films have a coherent and engaging story - this had neither.

4. The ending of the film can almost make or break a film - please ensure your next film actually has one.

5. Make sure the marketing of a film makes sense - The posters for this film feature someone who is in the film for less than half a second and isn't even a proper character.

6. Scary films should be scary - This was laughably bad with absolutely no scares at all.

Verdict: If there is one film that could easily be prosecuted for breaching the Trades Description Act, it is this one... 

The Raven

Now, those who listen to the BBC's flagship film review programme (Kermode & Mayo's Film Review) will know that I am a huge fan of John Cusack and that I am the co-creator of the 'Cusackathon'.

So, when a Cusack film is about to be released, there is an element of trepidation. Is this going to be a classic such as High Fidelity or Max? Or is it going to be 2012 or Hot Tub Time Machine? Unfortunately, it's not good...

The film centres on Edgar Allen Poe (Cusack) and the last five days of his life which go from elation to despair to the downright unbelievable.

Professionally, Poe is finding it increasingly difficult to get his work published as his editor reveals that the public only like Poe's gory tales. Personally, however his life is taking a turn for the better as he becomes engaged to Emily (Alice Eve). This is despite her father, Colonel Hamilton, (Brendan Gleeson) strong reservations about Poe's suitability.

While this is going on, there are a number of gruesome murders taking place, the detective in charge, Inspector Fields (Luke Evans) initially thinks that the murders are linked to Poe. He soon realises that the murders are based on murders that Poe has described in his stories. It then becomes clear that the killer is working his way towards harming someone close to Poe to get to Poe. In order to prevent this from happening, Fields and Poe have to work together to work out the murderer's next move.

Although this is a fictionalised account of the last five days of Poe's life, it is just an absurd story, told in a really boring way. Cusack looked distinctly uninterested and as though he is just going through the motions. Evans and Gleeson were good, but not even they could do much with the dire and clunky script.

Visually it looked good, but that did little to save this film.

Verdict: Given that I have been a fan of Cusack since Say Anything, I quite frankly deserve to see a little less of this and other garbage such as 2012 and more Max and High Fidelity. Cusack - get a better agent who can get you into better films...

A Dangerous Method

David Cronenberg is one of those directors that I am likely to see whatever film they are involved in. From the fantastic The Fly to the sublime Eastern Promises, he is an original and I always find his films thought-provoking if nothing else.

A Dangerous Method is about the relationship between Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and the infant beginnings of psychoanalysis.

The film starts in 1904 with the arrival at Jung's Zurich clinic of Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), manic, desperate and having to be physically restrained by her companions. Using Freud's theories and method, Jung has success in calming her and eventually enabling her to use her intelligent inner mind. This leads to Jung writing to Freud about Spielrein and her treatment and the two develop a professional relationship based on discussing their theories and ideologies.

Jung and Spielrein embark on an affair which has far reaching consequences, on both Spielrein's mental health and Jung's ability to continue his work.

Despite seeing Freud as a surrogate father, their relationship breaks down when Jung disagrees with Freud's ideologies, particularly Freud's assertion that everything stems from sexual repression.

This is a film drenched in tension and intelligence and I found it interesting to watch. Knightley is fantastic as a deeply troubled young woman, indeed her chin should win awards for its performance. Mortensen was sublime as always and Fassbender has added yet another film to his list of excellent performances.

However, I felt the pacing was slow and drawn out at times. This is not an 'action' film at all, it is very much a conversational film, which was interesting, but difficult to follow at times. I felt the sex sciences were strange, but my guess is that is how Cronenberg wanted them done.

Despite the great performances, the film was let down by Cronenberg's direction somewhat. It felt restricted and the film didn't flow as well as it could have done.

Verdict: An interesting film about a fascinating subject with excellent performances. Let down by less than brilliant direction, but a film worth seeing nonetheless.

The Descendants

Now, when a film as hyped up as much as The Descendants has been in recent months, my natural reaction is to be incredibly harsh and have very high expectations. Add George Clooney, a man of limited appeal and talent in my opinion, into the mix then I was ready to not be impressed by this film...

Matt King (Clooney), a descendant of one of Hawaii's first white land-owning families, must decide whether to go ahead with a multi-million dollar land deal that will destroy a vast bit of Hawaiian forestry to be replaced with tourists and condominiums. 

At the same time, he faces a personal crisis. His wife, Elizabeth, has had a boating accident, leaving her in a coma. Matt now faces the decision to disconnect her life support and become a single father to his two daughters, 17 year-old Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) and 10 year-old Scottie (Amara Miller) while dealing with the frustration of the locals at his proposed business deal.

Another twist in this story is a secret involving Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie) which makes Matt doubt his life up that point. It is the actions following the revelation that, I feel, gives the film it's heart. Matt reacts in a very human way initially and then in a very compassionate way which gives the film a great tenderness despite his very obvious hurt.

The film is very gentle, but very powerful and I thought about it a great deal after watching it. Although it didn't feel impressive whilst watching it, it is a film that has grown on me and I am going to see it again. I cannot quite put my finger on why it was impressive, but this seems to be a common opinion amongst critics that I respect.

The leads were all impressive and although Clooney has limited range as an actor, he was very good in this film, possibly the best I have seen him in anything. Woodley and Miller were charming and competent in their roles and I hope they use this as a platform to elevate themselves to great things. 

I really liked the way that Hawaii itself was a character in the film, showing what some consider to be a paradise island, to be as dark, rainy and depressing as any other place on earth. Clearly there is no such thing as paradise.

Verdict: Packed with some excellent performances and a fab soundtrack, this was an engaging and thought-provoking film with a bitter-sweet ending. An excellent film that will stay with you for some time. 

Chronicle

I am a bit partial to a superhero film, there is something quite satisfying about good overcoming evil. I wasn't really inspired by the trailer but went on the recommendation of Dr Mark Kermode and others...

Chronicle follows a high school teen named Andrew (Dane BeHaan) as he chronicles his life on a second hand video recorder. Not only does he record his home life (his abusive father and dying mother), he also records his days spent at school, from the lonely lunches watching the cheerleaders practice to the bullies that roam the hallways, much to his cousin Matt's (Alex Russell) chagrin. Matt wants Andrew to put the camera down and just try to be normal. 

It's Matt who drags Andrew out to a party, and it's at this party the two meet up with Steve (Michael B. Jordan) who is the most popular person in school. He's discovered a unexplained hole in the ground in a secluded area and they want the camera to record what they find. As they delve down into it, they discover something strange, made of crystals and light that disturbs the video quality and gives them telekinetic powers. 

As you would expect from three teenage boys, at first they use the powers they have obtained to amusing effect including freaking out customers in a store and moving cars to confuse a shopper. As the stress of family life gets to Andrew, he finds it harder to control his powers which leads to him self-destructing. 

This is a really well-made and well-thought out film. The story, as far-fetched as it is, actually seems very plausible when you think about how three teenage boys would react to suddenly having super-powers. The three lead actors are impressive and the script is very tight with few lulls.

I know that some critics have been negative towards the 'found footage' aspect of the film, but if I'm completely honest, that didn't bother me as I assumed that it was a 'home footage' scenario rather than 'found footage'.

The last fifteen minutes were a little over the top, but all in all, a really good film that was far better than I thought it would be.

Verdict: Apart from the 'incredible sulk' aspect to the ending, I thought this was a thoroughly entertaining film with brilliant performances from the leads, a realistic script and an interesting story. A very pleasant surprise...

The Woman in Black

One of the many problems with being a child star is that your audiences very rarely allow you to grow up. As this is Daniel Radcliffe's first lead since the Harry Potter films, it was always going to be interesting to see how it pans out.

I should point out that I haven't read the book or seen the play, so am seeing the film on a standalone basis. 

Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is a bereaved young solicitor with a three-year-old boy, who is sent by his firm to broker the sale of Eel Marsh House in the remote village of Crythin Gifford. Once there, among suspicious locals, save for a welcoming Sam Daily (Ciarán Hinds), he gradually uncovers for himself the story of a black-cloaked woman that lures children to their deaths.

I know that this is a very short synopses of the film, but there is an awful lot of detail and I really don't want to spoil it for anyone!

Radcliffe is surprisingly good in this film, physically he looks different to Harry Potter which helps. However, I do think that he is slightly too young to play the role of a father, which I found quite difficult to believe. I do accept that that could be my own prejudices coming into play. But as a first feature film since the Harry Potter's, it's a very commendable effort and I hope that whoever is advising Radcliffe on future roles steers him to doing as wide a variety of roles as possible in order to shake off the Potter tag.

The supporting cast was very good, Hinds is as reliable as ever as the only sane person in the village and Janet McTeer was excellent as his troubled wife.

The film itself is interesting. I really enjoyed the basic story (although it is different from the original novel) and people who have a genuine affection for the book may not feel the same way. I should also point out that the ending is very different to that of the book and of the play. The film is beautifully shot and director used the space and bleakness to superb and chilling effect.

But it is not that scary... There are lots of moments of tension which are brilliantly done, a few jumpy scenes, but that was the extent of it. I have heard of people having issues sleeping after seeing this film which is an overreaction in my opinion.

Verdict: A good solid effort from Radcliffe, in a well-acted and well-directed film, but just not scary enough for me.

Martha Marcy May Marlene

There are some films that warm your soul, stretch your brain or just make you feel something, whether it be anguish, fear, laughter or empathy. When a film leaves you feeling nothing, that's a worrying sign...

The film is about Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) who has had a difficult and challenging childhood (the details of which are not revealed) and in order to escape her life, enters in a cult ran by Patrick (John Hawkes).

The cult is portrayed in the usual clichèd way, an enigmatic leader who rules the followers using violence and charisma. There is the sexual openness as well as sexual abuse that nobody questions. The girls are renamed by Patrick (again this isn't really explained why) and Martha is renamed Marcy May.

After two years Martha decides to escape the cult and she calls her older sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) to come and pick her up. Lucy then takes her to the house by the river where she is staying with her husband Ted (Hugh Dancy).

The films alternates between Martha's current life with her sister and episodes of her life within the cult. As her mental state declines, Martha becomes more and more paranoid that Patrick is going to come and get her.  Martha's erratic behaviour causes tension between herself, Ted and Lucy and eventually leads them to consider taking Martha to get professional help.

I am going to start with the good things about this film. The first is the excellent acting by Olsen (not something you usually associate with that surname). She really is destined for great things and I look forward to seeing what she does next. The second thing is that the film is beautifully shot and looks exquisite.

We've a lot to cover in the bad things: Firstly, there is no backstory whatsoever. We have no idea what happened in Martha's childhood so the ability to empathise and rationalise her behaviour is lost. There is no present story either. The film is literally a selection of 'things' that do not link together in any real coherent way. The film is far too long and far too slow. I am guessing that it was slow to build tension. You need a story in order to build tension. At no point did it look as though Patrick was going to come after Martha. So you have no tension.

As for Martha's erratic behaviour, it honestly seems more like a teenager having a strop rather than real mental disturbance. When I say this, I am referring to the dialogue and the direction, not the performance of Olsen. The cult activities were shown in a very clichèd manner and was full of so much hippy bull-shit that there were members of the audiences chuckling.

The ending was awful.

There genuinely is nothing worse than a film that makes you feel nothing and that's what I felt.

Verdict: An ambiguously annoying and pointless film. Olsen and Hawkes delivered fantastic performances and deserved a better script and direction for their efforts. Oh and a story as well...

Carnage

I'm always wary of a film that is adapted from a play; they are two very different mediums and although there are some notable successes (Shakespeare tends to transcend well), it can be a tricky and fraught process.  Plays tend to require a response from the audience whereas films don't and this can generally be where a play fails to transcend onto the screen easily.

Carnage is based on the play God of Carnage which I have seen in London's West End. The play is excellent and when I saw the cast list for the film, I had some hopes for it.

The story is about two couples whose eleven year old boys have had a fight, resulting in one child sustaining a serious facial injury. The couples have come together to discuss how best to reconcile the boys and move on.

Michael and Penelope Longstreet (John C. Reilly and Jody Foster) host the meeting at their apartment, and are keen to find an explanation and apology for their son's injury from Alan and Nancy Cowan (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) who in the beginning, are very well-meaning and anxious to resolve the issues.

The film moves on as the civility between the four breaks down and the flaws that each individual has are shown. This leads to each individual going through the gauntlet of emotions and the constant switching of allegiances within the four characters.

The film is set in an apartment and the only characters are the two couples. This immediately creates an unwanted claustrophobic effect which continues throughout the film. The dialogue is stilted and feels forced and there were a number of opportunities for the Cowans to leave that were not taken for very unrealistic reasons.

Foster starts the film on 'shrill' and doesn't seem to move from that level and Winslet just looks bored in all honesty. I have no time for Reilly whatsoever, but I have to concede that Waltz was the real star of the film, he has perfect comic timing and was absolutely brilliant, particularly in the exchanges with Foster.

Verdict: Claustrophobic and uncomfortable film with Foster being particularly unbearable with her bulging veins and shrill voice. Waltz made it just about watchable. The play is so much better.

Shame

As an amateur reviewer of films, my role is to essentially articulate what I liked and didn't like about a film to an unseen audience who may or may not agree with my views. There are some films which leave you speechless...

Shame centres around successful executive, Brandon Sullivan (Michael Fassbender) whose life is effectively ruled by his sex addiction. This is further complicated by the arrival of his young sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) who needs to stay in his apartment for a while as she seeks a career as a singer.

From the onset, it is clear that these are two very damaged people and you have to assume that something happened in their childhood, but this is not revealed during the film. The consequences of their childhood is seen in their reckless behaviour; with Sissy, it is her self-harming and unsuitable relationships; for Brandon, it is his constant need for sex.

Brandon quickly realises that he cannot continue with his lifestyle while Sissy is living with him and tries to take the opportunity to establish a relationship with a work colleague Marianne (Nicole Beharie). It becomes obvious that his only method of communicating is through sex.

This is a fantastically powerful film, with Fassbender and Mulligan attaining career highs. Both gave honest, engaging and raw performances and although there are several graphic sexual scenes, these are not gratuitous in any way. The sexual scenes were never shown as being enjoyable for Brandon, had they been seen as pleasurable, it would have undermined the message of the film.

It is a brutal film that hides nothing, doesn't gloss over any aspect of the subject matter and shows sex addiction for the torment that it is.

Verdict: A tough, but remarkable film that was unjustly overlooked at the Oscars. I would liked to have had more backstory, but unusually, I didn't mind that I left the screening with more questions than answers and in silence. 

Truly fantastic performances from Fassbender and Mulligan (her version of New York, New York is gorgeous) and I am looking forward to seeing what director Steve McQueen does next.

J Edgar

I will admit to not being a fan of Clint Eastwood neither as an actor or director. I checked his filmography on Wikipedia and there are three films that I like that he has been involved in. However, that aside, I am interested in American history and J Edgar Hoover has certainly made his mark on American history.

The film is set in flashbacks as Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) dictates his story to a variety of junior agents in order to correct stories that are in the public domain and to provide the foundation of his autobiography.

The film centres on his time as Director of the FBI and the numerous battles he had with politicians, other law enforcement agencies and criminals. The film also looks at his relationships, in particular with his assistant Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), his PA Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts) and his mother Anna Marie (Judi Dench).

The relationship with Tolson is the most interesting, but is never quite dealt with. It is clear that while there is a very close relationship between them, it remains chaste throughout Hoover's life as the great love of his life was his work.

There are many things wrong with this film, but I will start with a positive. Despite the clunky and limited script and the truly atrocious makeup in the later years, both DiCaprio and Hammer tried to make the best of a bad job. They tried to bring intelligence and weight to the roles, but it is difficult when you are dealing with a poor script and poor direction.

Now for the things that are wrong: The general storyline glosses over so many aspects of Hoover's time at the FBI. The fact that he was reluctant to investigate organised crime; the incidences of corruption that occurred under his leadership and his opposition to the civil rights movement.

There is some attempt to show Hoover in an unflattering light. For example the 'Personal Files' are mentioned and his eagerness to use wire-tapping are briefly discussed, but there is no real depth to this film. Much like the recent film about Margaret Thatcher The Iron Lady, the film focuses on someone in old age and doesn't go into any of the stories that made them the controversial figure that they are.

The film is far too long (almost two and a half hours) and has the pace of a snail. The makeup is truly awful and seriously impedes not only DiCaprio and Hammer's ability to act, but at times, their ability to even move.

Verdict: If there is any positive to be taken from this film, it is that it has made me interested in the story of J Edgar Hoover. Surely the point of the film was to tell me the story? Best avoid and find a decent biography of Hoover instead.

Margin Call

Given the recent bad feeling towards bankers and the financial sector in general, it seems timely that a film about a bank facing a financial meltdown should be released. I never thought that this topic would produce a 'thriller' but in the case of Margin Call, it really does.

The film is set around a fictional bank's risk management team where a number of employees are being made redundant including Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci) who heads risk management on the floor in question. Before leaving the building, Dale hands a USB stick to his risk analyst Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto) and asks him to finish a project that he has been doing. 

Sullivan takes a look and discovers that the firm is on the brink of financial ruin due to toxic assets. He informs Will Emerson (Paul Bettany) who is the head of trading floor and realising how serious the matter is, reports the findings to floor head Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey). 

The story moves onto what the firm can do to essentially save itself with other senior staff members becoming involved over the course of the 36 hours the film is set in.

This is a really interesting film in that it plays down the glamourous element of banking that films such as Wall Street epitomise. There are strong human elements in this film, you easily identify with all of the characters and their flaws. From the rookie analyst who is about to lose their dream job, to the senior executive who just wants to get a life back, they are all well developed, fully rounded characters. 

The script is tight, intelligent and realistic. Although I found some of the financial jargon confusing, it wasn't really an issue as the film moved along swiftly.

The cast were fantastic with standout performances from Spacey and Jeremy Irons who played the sinister CEO with panache. 

Verdict: For me, this was an engaging, tense and thought-provoking film which stays with you for some time. Brilliant performances from all cast members, but in particular Quinto's over waxed eyebrows... The best film about Wall Street that I have watched and it was thoroughly enjoyable.

War Horse

Unlike some critics and other film fans, I have not been looking forward to the release of War Horse. Why? Because I am a complete wimp when it comes to stories about animals. The merest touch of cruelty or bravery involving an animal and I'm crying like a baby. Add to that, the master manipulator that is director Steven Spielberg and a screenplay co-written by Richard 'tearjerker' Curtis, there was no chance that I'd make the screening without blubbing. Then you have the fantastic music of John Williams; it got to the point that even the trailer would bring a lump to my throat...

The story starts with a thoroughbred foal being born and as it grows older, it gains an admirer in Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine). When the horse comes up for sale at auction, Albert's father Ted (Peter Mullan), who was looking for a plough horse, gets into a bidding war with his landlord Lyons (David Thewlis).

Ted wins the bidding war, and faces the wrath of his wife, Rose (Emily Watson) who is furious that he has wasted the money on a horse that can't help them run their farm. Albert persuades her that he will train the horse to help plough the field, so they can plant turnips and pay the money they owe to Lyons.

Despite their best efforts, the weather destroys their crops and Ted is forced to sell Joey to the British Army who are looking for horses as World War One has been declared. The officer who buys Joey promises Albert that he will look after him and if he can, he will return him to Albert.

Joey goes into military training and becomes attached to Topthorn, another horse within the army. The horses are then sent off to France to participate in the war. During a calvary charge, the two horses are seized by German troops who use them to pull ambulance wagons.

The horses are later used by two young German soldiers to escape from the army. In order to allow the horses to rest, they hide in a windmill which is owned an elderly Frenchman (Niels Arestrup) who lives on the land with his granddaughter Emilie (Celine Buckens). The horses are discovered in the windmill by Emilie who tries to persuade her grandfather to allow her to ride them, which he refuses until her birthday.

On her birthday, Emilie is allowed to ride Joey and encounters German soldiers. The horses are captured by the soldiers, despite her Grandfather's pleas and used to move heavy artillery alongside other horses.

Meanwhile Albert has enlisted in the army and is serving in the trenches in France alongside best friend Andrew and is constantly trying to find Joey.

I'm not going to give anything further away as I really don't want to spoil anything for anyone who hasn't read the book or seen the play.

First of all, this is a masterclass in manipulation by Steven Spielberg. There are moments of joy, moments where you can't look at the screen and yes, there are moments where you sob. I found some of the scenes particularly difficult to watch as I genuinely don't like watching animals in pain (real or otherwise). The most difficult scene for me to watch was one which starts with Joey running through the battlefield (it's shown in the trailer).

That said, the film is good. It's very, very sentimental and the war is shown in a both a harsh and romanticised way. I particularly liked the way it showed that even in desperate circumstances, people (and animals) can do good.

As the film is a 12A, there is no bloodshed on screen and most of the violence is off camera. There were elements of Saving Private Ryan, in terms of showing the conditions that the soldiers and horses were operating in, but this was the extent of it.

The horses are the clear stars of the show, and they were truly magnificent. There's not much to say about the human actors as none of them are in it long enough to give a great performance. However Irvine was quite endearing as a very naive Albert and I was also taken by Arestrup's performance as the Grandfather, who for me, said one of the most moving lines in the film.

The music is gorgeous and has been brilliantly done by John Williams. The cinematography is very slick and there are some scenes which are spectacular and lay testament to the skills of the horse trainers.

One of the problems of this film is that as it is episodic, so you forget Albert and it is his and Joey's relationship that starts and finishes this film. War Horse is also very, very predictable. You know exactly who is going to survive and who isn't and that doesn't make the film any easier to watch in my opinion.

The ending is contrived, however the story leading up to the ending was actually very sweet and moving as it involves soldiers from opposite sides coming together for the sake of something else.

Verdict: A tad long and I wouldn't take anyone under the age of 12 to see it, but War Horse is a very sentimental, predictable film that will take you through the full gauntlet of emotions. The horses are the stars of the show and Spielberg used them to great effect. That combined with a heart-tugging score by John Williams makes this a real tearjerker. I'm glad I went to see it, but I don't think I will watch it again, not because it's not good, but because I found some of the scenes distressing to watch.

I should also point out that I stayed until the very end of the credits as I wanted to be sure that no animals had been harmed during the making of the film and I was pleased to see that the American Humane Society had been monitoring the filming to ensure the safety and well-being of the animals involved.

The Artist

One of the most special things about seeing a film is when it is as good as everyone says it is...

The Artist is a French film about Hollywood cinema between 1927 and 1932, the era where silent films were in decline and talkie films were emerging.

The story centres around popular silent film star George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) and Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) who wants to be in the films. After bumping into Valentin at the premiere of one of his films, Miller's picture is printed on the front page of Variety. She decides to audition as an extra for Valentin's next film and after his intervention, is offered a role as a dancer.

Miller then moves up the Hollywood ladder, with her roles becoming more and more prominent. Meanwhile Valentin is finding things more difficult. As studios are refusing to make any more silent films, he decides to self-finance a silent film which opens on the same day as Miller's new film which is in sound. Valentin is financially ruined while Miller becomes the toast of Hollywood.

The story goes on to describes how two key events help bring Miller back into Valentin's life.

This is quite simply one of the most loveliest films I have ever seen. Dujardin is absolutely fantastic and a joy to watch. Bejo is wonderful as Miller and together they have real chemistry. The dog is truly remarkable and although I laughed when people suggested he should be nominated for Best Supporting Actor, I can quite see now why it has been suggested.

John Goodman is brilliant as studio boss Al Zimmer (John Goodman) and James Cromwell is great as Valentin's loyal chauffeur Clifton.

Cinematically, it is a masterpiece; shot in black and white and with fantastic music accompanying the brilliant acting, it is nothing short of stunning.

Verdict: A funny, moving, witty, majestic and beautiful film that, if there is any justice in the world, will win Best Film at every awards ceremony it has been nominated for.

The Artist is now in my top five favourite films of all time. I cannot wait to see it again, in fact if anyone wants to go and see it, let me know.

The Iron Lady

The deposition of Margaret Thatcher was one of the earliest political events that I can remember. Even now, two decades on, her name still sparks furious debate between those who were destroyed by her policies and those who benefitted from them.

My interest in this film is solely down to the fact that Thatcher was the first female leader of any country in the western world which was an extraordinary achievement at the time. I was also interested in how her downfall came about.

The film is set in present day, featuring a frail Thatcher (Meryl Streep) who is suffering from dementia and hallucinations about her late husband Denis (Jim Broadbent). Each hallucination brings a flashback and it is through these flashbacks that various events are portrayed starting from Thatcher's childhood up to when she resigned as Prime Minister.

The main events that are covered include her path to becoming Prime Minister, the Falklands War, the Brighton bomb and Thatcher's relationship with Europe.

First of all, I have to commend Streep's performance. There are generally three things that make Thatcher recognisable, the first being the hair, the second being her bags and the third, and most importantly, being her distinctive voice. Streep absolutely nailed the voice and the performance was very realistic. Likewise, Broadbent did a great job as Denis Thatcher and Olivia Colman was also excellent playing Carol, Thatcher's daughter.

My main problem with this film is that it focused too much on the decline of Thatcher, too much on the dementia that she suffers from. I would have preferred a straight biopic, telling me more about why Thatcher made the decisions she did and I especially would have liked to have learnt more about her downfall. Any remotely interesting elements or events were heavily glossed over and there was very little explanation or probing into why certain things happened.

Verdict: More about how this woman became Prime Minister and how she was deposed would have made for a much more interesting film. The cast were superb, just let down by a weak script and in my opinion, a very questionable structure and a real lack of bite and intention.

I'm not angry, just very disappointed.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Before writing this review, I feel that I should be very clear from where I am reviewing this film. I haven't read any of the books. I haven't seen the original 2009 film versions of the books and am therefore reviewing this as a standalone film.

The film starts with the aftermath of a libel court case, which journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), lost against corrupt businessman Hans-Erik Wennerström. The financial implications of the court case are substantial and although Blomkvist has the support of his editor Erika Berger (Robin Wright), Blomkvist decides to take a leave of absence.

Meanwhile, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) is researching Blomkvist for Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), the former CEO of a family conglomerate, Vanger Industries. Salander is an extremely troubled, but highly intelligent woman who for reasons which aren't fully explained, is a ward of the state despite being in her 20's. This means that her finances are controlled by a court-appointed guardian. Although this isn't an ideal situation, it is one that worsens when she is appointed a new guardian who takes advantage of Salander's weak position.

Vanger requests to see Blomkvist on the family island in order to offer him a job. The job is in two parts; officially he is writing Vanger's memoirs, but in reality, he is to try to solve the mystery of his niece Harriet's disappearance forty years ago. Harriet's body has never been found and on the night that she went missing, the island was cut off from the mainland due to an accident on the bridge which is the only means of access.

Blomkvist reluctantly agrees to the job, on the understanding that Vanger provides him with damming information about Wennerström, who was a former employee of his.

Blomkvist moves into a cottage on the island and begins to piece together information about the Vanger family and in particular, Harriet. In order to investigate murders associated with the Vanger family, he asks the Vanger's lawyer Dirch Frode (Steven Berkoff) for a research assistant, Frode recommends Salander as she did such a thorough job researching Blomkvist. 

Salander agrees to work with Blomkvist and between them they work out what happened to Harriet and solve the murders that had eluded the police for over forty years.

First of all I should point out that the first 45 minutes of this film is a little slow, although punctuated with some graphic rape and revenge scenes, there isn't much going on. However, the story is a little complicated and requires the time so it can be fully understood by the audience.

Once Salander and Blomkvist come together, the pace picks up and the film gets very interesting and engrossing. There are several twists and turns which are unexpected and enjoyable. 

Mara is the real star of the film, she is captivating as the troubled Salander and she handled the film's more difficult scenes (the rape and revenge) brilliantly. She played Salander with a mixture of toughness, vulnerability and intelligence which was a pleasure to watch. Her last scene in the film was particularly heartbreaking.

Craig was more one-dimensional and showed very little emotion, however I am not sure if this was on purpose or just the way it came across. Plummer was great as the retired CEO and in one particular scene, was especially moving. 

The film was incredibly slick and beautifully shot with the brutal Swedish countryside being fully utilised. Although I will not be able to listen to Enya in quite the same way again, the music was great and very well suited to the film. 

Verdict: A very slick thriller which once it gets going, really does keep your attention. Mara is absolutely superb and Craig is watchable as always, although this is one of his weaker roles. Some graphic, but necessary scenes make this a tough watch at times, but a very engrossing film nonetheless. I look forward to the other two films in the Millennium trilogy.

Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol

I love a good action film. When an action film is done well (for example Die Hard), it is a fantastic treat. The simple good vs bad story is still as effective as it ever was and there is nothing quite like seeing the good overcome the many obstacles to defeat the bad.

Throw in a little espionage, some high-tech gadgets and you have a recipe for success in my eyes. I remember really enjoying the first Mission Impossible although I don't remember the two sequels.

The film starts with an IMF agent being gunned down by assassin Sabine Moreau (Léa Seydoux). The slain agent was carrying nuclear codes wanted by Swedish nuclear strategist, Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist) otherwise known as 'Colbolt'.

To get the codes back, the IMF extract Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) from a Moscow prison and he is recruited to lead fellow IMF agents Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) to try to get information on the identity of Colbolt.

In order to this, they must break into the Kremlin's archive rooms to obtain records on Colbolt, but another team has beaten them to the records and the mission is aborted. Consequently the Kremlin is blown up which leads to the IMF team being disbanded by the US President. 

The IMF Secretary (Tom Wilkinson) gives the team an opportunity to re-group and act outside the Government instructions in order to track down Colbolt and the nuclear codes. An incident means that former IMF field agent, William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) joins the team and this causes some disharmony during the mission.

The film goes on to follow the team as they try to get the codes back and ultimately prevent a nuclear war between Russia and the US.

As an action film, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is not a classic, but it is good fun and zips along nicely at a fair pace. Cruise plays the role well and some of the scenes (particularly in the Dubai section of the film) are spectacular, especially given Cruise's penchant for doing his own stunts.

There were a couple of things that seemed a little out of sorts. The relationship between Hunt and Carter was not quite established either as platonic or as romance. Like so many films, the potential romance story appears to have been shoe-horned in a little. 

The narrative didn't quite run smoothly, which was then covered up later in the film and some of the fight scenes went on far too long. There was also a detour to India which was completely unnecessary (although for obvious reasons, it will help the film be successful in India) and added very little to the film, except for showcasing possibly the best hair in show-business, courtesy of Anil Kapoor.

Pegg was brilliant in his role, with all of comedy moments coming from him (and I did chuckle more than the required 6 times to classify a film as a comedy).

Verdict: A fun action film although by no means a classic. Tom Cruise doing what he does best, chasing the bad guys while being able to deal with any number of gadgetry thrown at him. At best a good throwaway action film. You'll enjoy it, but you are unlikely to remember it.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

I wasn't expecting very much when I saw the first Sherlock film, I wasn't a fan of Guy Ritchie and didn't think much of Jude Law either. Despite this I really enjoyed the film and was looking forward to the sequel: A Game of Shadows...

The film starts with the bombing of a government building Strasbourg, the latest in a line of bombings in Europe orchestrated by Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris). Linked in with this is Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) who delivers a package to Dr. Hoffmanstahl as payment for a letter. The package is actually an explosive device which is foiled by Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr). Holmes takes the letter from Adler which leads to a confrontation with Moriarty.

Holmes is investigating the bombings and a series of deaths that he believes are connected to Moriarty. However, there is the small matter of Dr Watson (Jude Law) and his wedding to Mary (Kelly Reilly) where Holmes is the best man charged with organising the traditional stag night. Unfortunately as Holmes is so preoccupied with his latest case, the only person he invites is his brother Mycroft (Stephen Fry).

Whilst in the club where the stag night is taking place, Holmes meets the intended recipient of the letter, Simza (Noomi Rapace) who along with her brother Rene were previously members of an anarchist group who, under duress, now work for Moriarty.

The story moves into a typical cat and mouse game between Moriarty and Holmes which leads to an international summit in Switzerland and the full revelation of Moriarty's plans.

I really enjoyed this film, although it does have a couple of issues. The first being that although the fights scenes are brilliantly choreographed and excellently shot, there are far too many of them. I found them to be pointless particularly as their impact on the story is minimal. 

The second issue is that there isn't enough sleuthing for my liking. Sherlock Holmes is all about the intellect, about how he solves the mystery. This film seemed to be relying heavily on action rather than intellect which is to the film's detriment.

That said, the positives far out way the negatives. Downey Jr is superb as Holmes, he is making the role his own and he appears to relish the challenges that it brings. The banter and chemistry between him and Law is as strong as ever and is key to the success of the film. 

Law is great as Watson as he has to play the straight man. In fact it's the only role that I've enjoyed watching Law play. 

Harris was very good as Moriarty and Fry was brilliantly cast as Mycroft, although, I felt that maybe I saw a little too much of him...

However, I wasn't that impressed with the character of Simza - not particularly interesting or enlightening, I would have preferred to have had a bit more backstory on her character.

Despite my reservations about the number of fight scenes, they are beautifully constructed and the attention to detail is fantastic.

Verdict: A high-voltage and entertaining thriller with superb performances from Downey Jr, Harris and Fry. The story is a little convoluted, but the film is fast paced and has absolutely no lulls whatsoever. The only criticisms are the number of pointless fight scenes and the weak female lead. Thoroughly enjoyable otherwise, bring on the third instalment.