Hugo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Thing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ides Of March

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arthur Christmas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Believe me I could go on...

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