Top Ten of 2012

What a totes cracking cinematic year it has been. I certainly haven’t seen as many films as I had hoped (I never do!), but I had no trouble coming up with enough stellar movies to easily populate the list. In fact, it was quite an effort to stick to ten. Disclaimer, as always: I take no responsibility for movies in this list technically being 2011 films – I see them as they arrive on Kiwi screens. In alphabetical order, my top ten of 2012 are:

The Dark Knight Rises – I agonised for quite some time about whether to include this film or Whedon’s brilliantly entertaining Avengers. In the end, TDKR simply moved me more.

The Hobbit – I risk being deported if I don’t include Sir Peter Jackson’s latest Middle Earth caper in this year’s list. And, furthermore, this is a film made by a cinematic pioneer, with an undying passion for the material. Nuff said.

Into the Abyss – My spiritual hero, Werner Herzog, at his best. A simply wonderful look at an awful subject, this film surprises and angers and saddens and challenges, but manages to do so without preaching.

Looper – A real surprise: compelling and thrilling and smart. I immediately wanted to watch it again. With a masterful performance by Joseph “He’s Everywhere All the Time” Gordon-Levitt.

Martha Marcy May Marlene – By no means an easy watch, this film is outstanding and has remained with me for months. Disturbing and unsettling, with a lead performance that is out of this world.

A Royal Affair – Wonderfully lush, this film was definitely a standout. I laughed, I cried and I learnt a great deal about Danish history.

Searching for Sugar Man – Two documentaries is maybe a hard sell for such a short list, but I simply couldn’t leave out this mysterious and uplifting story of an unknown superstar. I was an instant fan of the film and the music.

Skyfall – It hasn’t pleased everyone, especially those who like their Bond more misogynistic and wise-cracking. But it’s a Bond for the times – failure, emotional depth and all. And I loved it.

Tinker Tailor Solider Spy – It was film of the year ‘thus far’ when I saw it in January and remained a strong contender at the year’s end. Brilliant cast, brilliant story, brilliant atmosphere.

We Need to Talk About Kevin – And finally, my film of the year. An absolutely glorious film – stark, disturbing, beautiful and utterly unforgettable.

Very highly recommended (and so very nearly in the top ten):

The Artist, The Avengers, Chronicle, The Descendants, The Ides of March, Seven Psychopaths, The Way

Disappointment of the year:

Rock of Ages

Quote of the year:

Tony Stark (to Loki) in The Avengers - "There is no throne, there is no version of this where you come out on top. Maybe your army will come, maybe it’s too much for us, but it’s all on you. Because if we can’t protect the Earth, you can be damn sure we’ll avenge it!"

Seven Psychopaths

Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson, Long Nguyen, Tom Waits, Abbie Cornish, Linda Bright Clay

Dir & Scr. Martin McDonagh

Well, what a great film to get you right into the Christmas spirit! I’m kidding. But, you know what, I like to laugh at Christmas and I certainly laughed a lot during Seven Psychopaths … a little too much perhaps. It’s one of those black comedies in which you laugh, and then feel just a little bit of shame for doing so. I really liked this film. It’s not the best of its genre or even the best by McDonagh (of In Bruges fame). But it certainly ticked a lot of boxes. Highly recommend.

Seven Psychopaths is what you might call meta. A movie within a movie, and then some. Marty (Farrell) is a struggling screenwriter, possessed of a movie title – Seven Psychopaths – and not much else. His dog-napping friend, Billy (Rockwell), is desperate to help Marty write his movie and curb his drinking. Alongside this artistic struggle is the story of, well, quite a few others. Including Hans (Walken), Billy’s dog-napping accomplice; Charlie (Harrelson), a crazy gang lord who just wants his dog back; Kaya (Cornish), Marty’s long-suffering girlfriend. By the end of it all, Marty has his film.

McDonagh set his own bar extremely high with the brilliant In Bruges and this film has certainly suffered from constantly being compared to it. Sure, it’s not as good. It meanders in places, especially towards the end. Excuses itself from its shortcomings too easily and is, at times, a little too self-aware. Is perhaps a little too ridiculous in places. McDonagh has enough going on to pack several films. But for all its erratic-ness, there is much to like about Seven Psychopaths. Not least, it’s blooming funny. It’s also quite bloody, so be warned.

Perhaps the movie’s biggest saving grace is its brilliant cast. Here, McDonagh is truly blessed. Farrell is, as ever, very watchable. And set quite against type, as a floundering, cowardly screenwriter. Harrelson is spot on type – violent, crazy and emotionally unstable; he’s a treat to watch. The women don’t have much to do here (something which is humorously noted in the movie itself), but Clay is sublime and Cornish a welcome addition. Waits is creepily wonderful as a former-serial killer just searching for his long lost love. But the real stars of the film are Rockwell and Walken. They simply steal every scene they are in. Rockwell is right in his comfort zone, as wacky and unbalanced Billy. And Walken is… well, he’s Walken. Speaking in that way he does and shining every time he’s on the screen. And he injects most of the heart into the film, which is certainly needed.

It’s not perfect. But its dialogue is razor-sharp and the performances are brilliant. Spending a couple of hours in the company of Walken and Rockwell and Farrell means I can forgive a lot.

P.S. Him Indoors pointed out that it should really be called Seven Sociopaths, for many reasons he outlined on the drive home from the cinema. I’ll let you make your own decision. Personally, I just think psychopath is funnier.

------------------

Hans: An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Billy: No, it doesn’t. There’ll be one guy left with one eye. How’s the last blind guy gonna take out the eye of the last guy left?

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Hugo Weaving, James Nesbitt, Aidan Turner, Dean O’Gorman, Graham McTavish, Andy Serkis, Sylvester McCoy, Cate Blanchett

Dir. Peter Jackson
Scr. Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens & Guillermo del Toro (based on the novel by JRR Tolkien)

This movie is like nothing you have ever seen before. And I’m not being hyperbolic, I promise. I can also say with near certainty that some movie-goers will hate it and complain that it’s not “cinematic” or that it looks “too real”. These people have small minds and need to get out more. Seriously though, this is something new and shiny, much like colour or sound or high definition. It’s innovation; it’s pushing the boat out. And kudos to Jackson for taking us to a new place, whether this new place is universally embraced or not. Let’s not forget also, this is a charming and enchanting story, with larger than life characters and a whole lot of heart. I highly recommend.

I am somewhat embarrassed to say I have never read The Hobbit (or anything by Tolkien for that matter). For those of you who have, you’ll know the story well. Bilbo Baggins (Freeman), a quiet-life-loving hobbit, gets swept along on an adventure with wizard Gandalf the Grey (McKellen) and thirteen displaced dwarves led by warrior Thorin Oakenshield (Armitage). Their kingdom, Erebor, has long been ruled by the evil dragon Smaug and they embark on a quest to reclaim their home. Along the way, friends and foes are encountered, including the strange creature Gollum (Serkis) who will change Bilbo’s life forever.

The book will spawn three movies, fleshed out by other writings and details by Tolkien. And indeed Jackson and his creative team. An Unexpected Journey feels very much like part one of a larger story. Jackson takes time in setting the scene and giving key characters depth and motivation – it’s a nice thing that he has the luxury to do so. The movie, because of this, does seem to take some time to get going. But when it hits its stride, it’s unrelenting, chaotic and cracking. This is also a much brighter and happier Middle Earth than the one we experienced in the Lord of the Rings (LOTR) trilogy. There is less lurking in dark corners and it lacks that constant sense of foreboding. Which I admit I missed a little.

The Hobbit is the first feature to be filmed and projected at 48 frames per second (fps). The standard is 24 fps. In addition, it’s in 3D. I guess if anyone is up to this task, it’s Jackson and his team. There is no question that this combination messes with your mind. How long it takes an audience member to adjust might directly correlate to how much the film is enjoyed and embraced. It’ll be a very personal journey. For me, the adjustment was swift but I was still repeatedly surprised and thrilled by the detail and smoothness and clarity. Although I could have done with a pause button to simply take it all in.

The cast on offer here, much like that in the LOTR trilogy, is stellar and clearly having the time of their lives. If some feel the look of the film is too clinical, they can be rest assured that this cast ably offer the emotional connection the audience needs and craves. First and foremost, Freeman is simply perfection. He was born to play Bilbo. Such enthusiasm and heart and humour and nuance, he is a delight. I connected with him so much more than Elijah Wood’s Frodo. McKellen is back as a younger Gandalf and is brilliant as ever, a little more vulnerable and unsure than his LOTR Gandalf. The gaggle of dwarves is very entertaining, though few are truly fleshed out. Armitage, as their driven and courageous leader Thorin, has the most to do and does it very well. The other standout for me is Serkis, reprising his role as Gollum. Without question, the best scene is the riddle battle between him and Bilbo – absolutely captivating and wonderfully funny. Some have compared McCoy’s wizard Radagast the Brown to Jar Jar Binks, which is awfully unfair.

If you are a Tolkien and LOTR fan, you will not be disappointed by this visit to Middle Earth. The technology on display here may divide audiences and I’m sure the likes of James Cameron are looking on with great interest – if it goes well, who knows how many frames per second Avatar II might be filmed in. Jackson clearly believes in his vision. This particular movie-goer was simply delighted by it all.

------------------------

Gandalf: You’ll have a tale or two to tell when you come back.
Bilbo: You can promise that I will come back?
Gandalf: …. No. And if you do, you will not be the same.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2

Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Billy Burke, Peter Facinelli, Ashley Green, Jackson Rathbone, Michael Sheen

Dir. Bill Condon
Scr. Melissa Rosenberg

I have a love/hate relationship with the Twilight movies. Well, maybe ‘love’ is too strong a word. But I was happily entertained by the first instalment, Twilight, and by Eclipse. Both New Moon and Breaking Dawn – Part 1 (BDP1) however, drove me near insane with rage. Which is, in itself, rather entertaining (I like nothing more than yelling at fictional characters). So could Breaking Dawn – Part 2 (BDP2) bring balance to the universe? In short, yes. BDP2 is wonderfully ridiculous and gloriously naff and I had a great time watching it. It also has, without question, the best and biggest fight scene you’re likely to see all year. To those who like to dismiss these films out of hand, you’re missing out on a real treat.

At the end of BDP1, our gloomy protagonist Bella (Stewart) gave birth to her miracle child, died while doing so and was “saved” by her vampire hubby Edward Cullen (Pattinson). So, finally, hurrah, everyone is a vampire. Except, of course, for werewolf Jacob (Lautner) who is nonetheless stuck with the Cullens because he “imprints” on Bella and Edward’s daughter, Renesmee. It’s not all happy families however, and once again the Volturi – the most powerful clan who enforce the laws of all things vampiric – are after the Cullens and their new strange half-breed child.

I haven’t read the books on which this series of films is based, but I’m told that this last instalment posed the most problems for filmmakers and fans alike. In other words, nothing much happens in the book. A lot of standing around and talking and coming to sensible agreements about thorny issues. Yawn. I think without really annoying the fans too much, Condon and Rosenberg have managed to let us have our cake and eat it too. In a glorious, ripping-heads-off sort of way.

The special effects are, as always, a tad awful. And I’ve learned to live with that. But nothing quite prepared me for the horror that is baby Renesmee. I understand they had to make her do things they couldn’t possibly get a real baby to do, but did she have to be so utterly unsettling? It was the frightening element of the movie.

The performances in BDP2 are largely more of the same. Although, I have to admit, this is the first time I actually didn’t mind Bella. Stewart is finally able to portray a strong and formidable leading lady, rather than one who largely mopes about. Pattinson was also a bit more animated and engaging in this instalment. Lautner continues to be the weakest link. Along with every non-Cullen/non-Volturi vampire on offer (and there were quite a number to choose from), who were all utterly ridiculous stereotypes. It’s great to see Bella’s dad Charlie (Burke) back and Burke gives a lovely performance, as always. The real highlight though, without any doubt, is the return of Michael Sheen as Aro, the Volturi leader. He captivates every time he appears on screen. And that very special laugh was the best bit of the whole movie and worth the price of admission alone.

Critics love to hate all things Twilight. If you don’t mind me plagiarising for a moment, I completely agree with the oracle Mark Kermode, who said recently: "the sight of stuffy, bespectacled greying men berating films aimed primarily at teenage girls is as farcical as it is depressing." I like to laugh at Twilight as much as the next person, but I can’t deny that I have a soft spot for the whole weird and wonderful and ever-so-slightly-camp Twilight universe. And if you take it for what it is, BDP2 is an entertaining film.

------------------------

Jacob: Lot of red eyes around here …

Skyfall

Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney, Ben Whishaw

Dir. Sam Mendes
Scr. Neal Purvis, Robert Wade & John Logan

After the disappointing Quantum of Solace, fans have been holding their collective breath, hoping that Bond can be restored to the wonderful grittiness that was Casino Royale. Well, everyone can finally exhale – Mendes has delivered not only the best Daniel Craig Bond, but the best Bond outing …. (wait for it) …. ever. Well, maybe that’s overstating it, but not by much. Skyfall is not just a great Bond film, but a great action film, period – more than a sum of its Bond-ish parts, Skyfall walks a fine line and walks it well.

As is tradition, from the very opening scene, Skyfall drops us right in the middle of the action. Bond (Craig) is hot on the heels of a stolen list of undercover British agents, when he is shot and presumed dead. Of course, he isn’t dead and resurfaces when M (Dench) needs him most – MI6 is under attack, from an unknown enemy and from inside the corridors of political power. Bond is tasked with finding the list and restoring order to the universe.

It’s a pretty simple story, which is somewhat of a relief. The rule of thumb seems to be the more convoluted a Bond plot, the more awful the film. In Skyfall, the actions of a madman (Bardem) are driven by that most wonderful and visceral of motivations: revenge. And for Bond and M, this is a story of redemption and resurrection. This allows Mendes and his cast to delve, to reach down deep, and bring to the screen the most emotionally honest Bond to date. Sure, you don’t necessarily want every Bond film to be Skyfall, but this is a real emotional injection in the arm of a franchise which has certainly suffered from its fair share of two-dimensional characterisation.

Mendes also manages to navigate the fine line between a good film and a good Bond film. Without the knowing, and sometimes humorous, nods to the past, Mendes was in danger of making a film that simply wasn’t Bond. Without making fun, Mendes manages to homage the past and bring it right into the present.

The action on offer here is spot-on. Not too frantic or detached. But retaining a style and finesse that is all Bond. The whizz and bang of the London underground scene made my teeth rattle. I could have lived without all the product placement, and loudly scoffed at one particular moment when the camera lingered a little too long on Bond’s Omega wristwatch. But what’s a little mid-action advertising between friends?

For my money, Skyfall offers some of the best acting in a Bond film ever. Craig has already shown us he is more than cut out for this role and his performance here doesn’t disappoint. Dench is her usual wonderful and slightly cantankerous self. Bardem completes the oddly-Shakespearean trio, with a performance that possibly tops them all. Darkly camp, if there is such a thing, he is perfect. Fiennes is a welcome addition to the cast, giving a restrained and understated performance. Whishaw, as the new Q, is a delight. And Finney, well, I thought he was dead. Turns out, not so much.

I hugely enjoyed this film. I slapped my knee and whooped at one point, quite against my will. And the opening credits were simply the best (but being an Adele fan, I would say that). I highly recommend Skyfall, and not just to Bond fans. This is a fine action film with surprising emotional depth.

--------------------------

M: Dignity! To hell with dignity! I'll retire when my goddamn job is finally done.

Argo

Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Alan Arkin, Victor Garber, Tate Donovan

Dir. Ben Affleck
Scr. Chris Terrio

Critics have piled praise on Argo, heaped it on, up to its eyeballs. I have to admit I was underwhelmed. The film does one thing very well – tension. I felt nearly physically sick from the opening scenes until near the end of the film. It’s uncomfortably tense, which is good. But aside from that … It just was. Not terrible. Just not particularly memorable either. If you have an interest in the era and the events, I imagine you’ll enjoy it, so by all means see it. And if you’re Canadian, see it – it’ll give you warm fuzzies.

Argo is based on true events. In 1979, angry revolutionaries stormed the US Embassy in Tehran and took more than 50 Americans hostage. A group of six escaped and took refuge in the Canadian Ambassador’s residence, holed up for weeks while awaiting some sort of rescue. Enter the CIA and a plan so crazy that it just has to be true. CIA specialist Tony Mendez (Affleck), posing as a movie producer scouting exotic locations for a sci-fi movie called “Argo”, attempts to retrieve his fellow Americans and leave Iran right under the noses of their wannabe captors.

Argo is a ‘film within a film’ film, a classic caper flick. And while there is certainly humour – some of it quite dark, some of it in-jokey – this is a pretty grim film. It’s sobering and, as I said, tense. Interestingly this doesn’t jar against the Hollywood satire elements of the story, although it certainly (on paper) had potential to. And all credit to Terrio and Affleck for this. While it doesn’t jar, it doesn’t always mesh either. It tends to jump around a bit too much not to be distracting.

My biggest problem, however, was that I just didn’t care enough. The onslaught and maintenance of tension didn’t necessarily equate to actually being concerned about whether the diplomats lived or died, were rescued or not. It’s a cold film, which is hardly surprising. But a certain something is lacking that meant not only didn’t I care, but I had also largely forgot about the film hours after seeing it. I accept that I seem to have taken up residence in an extremely lonely minority on this, but it is what it is.

The acting is mixed, though I don’t think it’s fatal to the film. Affleck is just fine as Mendez. He’s never going to set the world alight with his acting prowess, but he’s not awful here. And he has pleasing and era-appropriate facial hair. The actors playing the hidden Americans are largely forgettable, which is unfortunate and certainly problematic. There are some shining lights. Cranston, playing Mendez’s supervisor O’Donnell, is his usual excellent, watchable self. And Arkin and Goodman – the Hollywood connection – are funny and engaging.

Argo seems to be a little confused about what it’s trying to be. Is it a caper? Is it a docudrama? Should it have been funnier? Or less funny? For me, it didn’t gel and it certainly didn’t shine. And that’s seems quite unforgivable for a film with so much crazy plot potential. See it, by all means, I don’t care. I don’t recommend or not recommend. Which is an odd place for me to occupy.

--------------------------

John Chambers: You need somebody who's a somebody to put their name on it. Somebody respectable. With credits. Who you can trust with classified information. Who will produce a fake movie. For free.

Looper

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels, Paul Dano, Noah Segan

Dir & Scr. Rian Johnson

I’m a complete and utter sucker for time travel movies. Often, though, they get so bogged down in explaining themselves, the joy of the whole idea is whittled away. Looper is certainly not without its faults. It’s hugely derivative, full of holes (pretty glaring holes, if you want to see them) and is, at times, unintentionally funny. But, you know what, I had a ball watching this film. Not your run-of-the-mill time travel tale, Looper has humour and thrills and horror and a pleasing amount of heart. The performances are all well above average and, in the case of the two leads (which are, errr, the same lead), stellar. A truly entertaining night out.

In the not-too-distant future, 2074, time travel has been invented and instantly outlawed. Offing people in this particular future is not an easy task, so the mob uses time travel to covertly send people back in time to be killed and disposed of by “loopers”. Joe (Gordon-Levitt) is a young looper, in a grim 2044, living the high life with the blood money he gets paid. The only way out of the business is to “close your loop” – when the loopers’ older self gets sent back for the younger self to kill and collect a massive pay check. When Joe fails to close his loop, letting Old Joe (Willis) escape, all hell breaks loose – both men are on the run, each trying to protect their own future.

This is a creative, surprising, thrilling film. Without offering up plot spoilers, it takes the audience in unexpected directions – it’s science fiction, sure, but it also has a healthy dose of horror thrown in. This isn’t jarring though – writer/director Johnson handles the action with ease and the story moves along at a pleasing pace. For a movie of just under two hours, it sure felt like he managed to get a lot in. Although we do get some Looper Universe 101 at the beginning, Johnson (to his credit) doesn’t get bogged down in explanation or revelation.

Sure, there are holes. I won’t go into detail, but let’s just say, time travel mythology isn’t easy. One glaring scene in the middle of the film hangs by a tenuous thread of explanation. And the whole second half of the film – where the two Joes exist in the same time, with largely their own memories – defies belief. This will frustrate some viewers, those of the pedantic persuasion. I suspect most will just let it ride. For me, there is an emotional weight to the film (lacking in so many of this genre) which makes its flaws much easier to forgive.

Much of that weight comes from some very fine performances. Gordon-Levitt transformed himself for this role. His appearance is only one part of this – he has Willis’s mannerisms and speech patterns down to a fine art. And it’s a credit to him and a boost to the film. Willis himself is somewhat against type. A not-so-nice man driven by pure selfishness to protect his future. We’re so used to rooting for Willis in movies; it’s refreshing to be conflicted. Willis also brings a lot of the emotional highlights. When he first does the particular thing that he thinks he has to do (sorry, vague I know, but it’s for your own good), his reaction is gut-wrenching and almost had me in tears. The conversation in the diner between the two Joes is a particular highlight for both actors. Blunt is, as always, wonderful. Tortured but utterly strong. Dano’s appearance is brilliant but all too brief as Joe’s fellow looper, Seth. And Daniels, as mob kingpin Abe, is delightful, with some of the best dialogue at his disposal.

This highly-stylised science fiction/horror/action film manages both depth and heart. Quite a feat. It’s compelling, entertaining and exciting. Highly recommended for anyone who likes the genre and recommend even for those who don’t.

---------------------

Abe: This time travel crap just fries your brain like an egg …

Dredd 3D

Karl Urban, Olivia Thirlby, Lena Headey, Wood Harris, Domhnall Gleeson

Dir. Pete Travis
Scr. Carlos Ezquerra, Alex Garland & John Wagner

After the absolute debacle that was 1995’s Judge Dredd, it’s not surprising that no one has touched the comic book franchise until now. But with a legion of loyal fans, fans who tend to be men in their 30s and 40s with plenty of disposable income, Dredd and his fellow Judges were always going to appear on the big screen again. And, damn, it was worth the wait. Dredd 3D is ultra-violent, ultra-stylised and awfully good. There was even cheering and whooping in my screening. I’m already looking forward to the next instalment.

Set in a futuristic America, where daily violence and hardship is commonplace, the police from the Hall of Justice have the authority to act as judge, jury and executioner. Judges, as they are known, are uber-cops. And Dredd (Urban) is the most uber of them. Teamed up with a rookie with psychic abilities (Thirlby), Dredd takes on Ma-Ma (Headey) and her gang who deal in the reality-altering drug, Slo-Mo. Explosions and generally a lot of violence, along with a pleasing smattering of super-dry humour, ensue.

Dredd is both super ambitious and utterly unambitious. Each in perfect measure. As mentioned, taking on Dredd again after Stallone managed to mangle the character so utterly was a risky venture. And to do so in pricey 3D, with an 18 certificate and an unknown lead took some guts. But there is certainly a market for Dredd alongside the shinier Captain Americas and Iron Mans. Where Dredd is unambitious is its storyline. A snappy Future Reality 101 lesson and we’re into the action. And the action itself is confined to a single building block with a suitably evil villain and her henchmen. This simplicity suits the action and the mood very well. It’s bloody and violent and grimy and very effective.

The 3D, as much as it pains me to say, isn’t bad. Not overly gimmicky but, when it is, it’s pretty effective (mostly in portraying those high on Slo-Mo). I’m unconvinced that outside the Slo-Mo moments it adds a great deal, but it wasn’t too distracting.

There is, of course, a wonderful New Zealand connection that comes with this flick – Dredd himself. And Urban does a truly splendid job. Acting within the confines of a helmet that he (thankfully and faithfully) doesn’t remove, his strong jaw and serious scowl are perfect. He utilises the pause and tilt of the head to great effect. It would be so easy to descend into hamminess (see Stallone or, for that matter, don’t), but Urban manages to deliver Dredd’s signature lines with authority and subtlety. And his drier-than-dry comic delivery is spot on. Thirlby, as the rookie Anderson, is nowhere near as annoying as she has the potential to be. In fact, she does a great job as the very human face of the film. Headey is absolutely horribly wonderful as drug baroness and criminal queenpin Ma-Ma. And a very good turn from Gleeson, son of Brendan, as Ma-Ma’s troubled computer nerd.

Dredd is certainly not for general consumption. I had to hide behind by hands a couple of times. But if you can stomach it, see this film. This is how comic books should be adapted. It doesn’t try to be more than what it is. And what it is, is very entertaining indeed.

------------------------------

Judge Dredd: In case you have forgotten, this block operates under the same rules as the rest of the city. Ma-Ma is not the law... I am the law.

Jagten (The Hunt) - GUEST POST

Mads Mikkelsen, Thomas Bo Larsen and Annika Wedderkopp

Directed by Thomas Vinterberg
Written by Thomas Vinterberg & Tobias Lindholm

Have you ever been accused of doing something that you know you didn’t do? Have you ever felt the cold, pitiful, disgusted stares directed at you simply for walking into a crowded room? Or, putting it another way, have you ever accused anyone else of doing something - without proof - and without thinking about the effects it can have on their life? Bold questions to start a review with, sure; but these become even more profound in the hands of a director as visually and narratively attuned as Thomas Vinterberg is in 2011’s Jagten (The Hunt).

Mads Mikkelsen is Lucas, a teacher forced to take a job at a kindergarten after his school closed. Divorcee, father to a teenage son, friend to many in his small Danish community, and unjustly accused by his best friend’s small daughter of molesting her, his once serene life is quickly upended by the hysteria that follows. The common, relatable life he leads is filled with such warmth that by the time the movie winds down 111 minutes later, you cannot help but literally despise the very place that sucks you in so convincingly in the first act.

And this is the main ‘problem’ with writing a review for The Hunt. How do you reflect on a film that is so unrelenting, so utterly bleak - that literally makes you feel sick to the stomach to watch - and still find positive things to say about it? In no small way is it due to Vinterberg’s maturity as a filmmaker. Gone is the forced ‘realism’ of the Dogme-95 movement that he founded with Lars von Trier; in it’s place is a sumptuously close style of filmmaking that is more authentic than The Celebration ever could be. Kudos must also be reserved for cinematographer Charlotte Bruus Christensen. Together, these two make the material so welcoming to look at that it becomes more bearable to watch. The real hero (unsurprisingly) is Mikkelsen, delivering what has to be his best performance to date. The Jury at Cannes clearly agreed, awarding him 2012’s Best Actor award for his profoundly real turn as the tortured soul who takes this film from good to great, all the while making it look like - forgive the pun - child’s play.

The film isn’t without flaws though. Holes in the plot, which other critics have drawn attention to in their reviews, manage to take the film’s impact down a notch. Lucas’ failure to call for legal assistance immediately beggars belief, as does his decision not to cut off all contact with his child-accuser and her family. These don’t cripple the film, but they certainly hold it back from being an entirely taut piece of cinema. It is hard to say whether this was all intentional, designed to play up Lucas’ own naivety, or simply a narrative misstep. Either way, it is jarring enough to distract you from an otherwise tidy tale.

The Hunt is not the first movie to make us look at how quick we are to judge others unreasonably. However, unlike the pretentiously unsatisfying Doubt (dir. John Patrick Shanley, 2009) which traversed similar territory, this latest offering from Thomas Vinterberg is a gripping, marvelous piece of cinema that manages to rub every raw nerving ending and eviscerate any hope for a happy ending that festers in a viewer more accustomed to syracuse-laden Burbank offings available at the mega-cinemas down the road.

------------

My sincere thanks to guest reviewer, Clark Hennessy, for taking my tickets to The Hunt off my hands and then showing me up by being a better reviewer ...

Into the Abyss; Bully; Searching for Sugar Man

Into the Abyss – Dir. & Scr. Werner Herzog
Bully – Dir. Lee Hirsch; Scr. Lee Hirsch & Cynthia Lowen
Searching for Sugar Man – Dir. & Scr. Malik Bendjelloul

Recently, at the Wellington International Film Festival, I took in a documentary threesome. All three reminded me how documentaries can move an audience and how powerful a voice a documentary filmmaker can have. And, no, I’m not talking about the likes of Michael Moore, who is too fond of seeing himself on scene for my liking. A good documentary doesn’t force a message down your throat. And while all filmmakers have a bias, a good documentary filmmaker owns up to it but doesn’t let it overpower the story. Into the Abyss, Bully and Searching for Sugar Man – three very different films – succeed to varying degrees. And when they do truly succeed, it’s quite something.

Into the Abyss is the latest from Werner Herzog (Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Grizzly Man, Encounters at the End of the World) and is an examination of why people kill and, in turn, why the state kills. Following the story of death row inmate Michael Perry (who is scheduled to die within days of filming), his crimes and those affected by his crimes, Herzog explores murder and capital punishment in a very personal way.

Bully is Lee Hirsch’s look at peer-on-peer bullying in American schools. He tells the tragic story of youngsters who take their own lives because of the trauma they experience at the hands of other kids. He also follows a few victims of bullying in their day-to-day lives, notably a socially awkward teenage boy called Alex. We are asked to not only examine and question the actions of the bullies, but the inaction of parents, school administration, law enforcement and communities.

Searching for Sugar Man is Bendjelloul’s debut film and follows the story of two South Africans who set out to discover what happened to 1970s singer/songwriter Rodriguez. Virtually unheard in the US, his homeland, Rodriguez is a legend in South Africa. A mysterious legend who they know next-to-nothing about. That’s all the description I’m willing to give. Trust me, the less you know about this movie going in, the better.

The filmmakers in each of these movies are largely invisible – just a voice asking a question. And, in my mind, the relative success of each film is largely based on how much they attempt to direct our outrage or opinion. Or, in the case of Sugar Man, how much they choose to reveal to the audience as the story is told.

For my money, Into the Abyss is the most successful of the three. Perhaps it is helped by having a seasoned pro at the helm. Herzog is a master. But even I was surprised by how little he seeks to colour proceedings. We know very early on his bias – he tells Perry he does not think the state should kill. And I know from interviews with Herzog that he is vehemently opposed to capital punishment. But he does not preach to the viewer. Into the Abyss is a grim, powerful, poignant film in which we are left to make our own judgments and reach our own conclusions. Without question, one of my films of the year.

The least successful is Bully. It is compelling and moving, for sure. But I felt hammered by the director. It’s hard-hitting and, I suppose, that’s the whole point. Hirsch’s aim, it seems, is to shame as many of the “baddies” of the story as possible. At times, it is less a film, more a campaign. But in its quieter moments – as we follow Alex in his efforts to simply blend in, or when we are introduced to a mature-beyond-his-years boy whose best friend killed himself – Bully is extremely human and utterly powerful. Just too selective and manipulative for my taste.

Somewhere beyond Bully but not quite in the same league as Abyss, is Searching for Sugar Man. A film I hadn’t even considered seeing until hearing an excellent and extremely cagey review by BBC Radio’s Mark Kermode. And, boy, I’m glad I did. And I’m even gladder he was so unforthcoming with the details. If you know Rodriguez and his music, this film will be a treat. And, if you don’t (as I didn’t) you’re in for a lovely surprise. Bendjelloul tells the story of the singer, weaving his music throughout the film, through the eyes of some of his biggest fans. And what a story it is. Sure, I’ve no doubt Bendjelloul has been somewhat selective (in fact, I now know this isn’t the whole truth and nothing but the truth). But I simply didn’t care. Sugar Man is an uplifting, amusing, rewarding film. And technically so good that I can’t wait for Bendjelloul’s next outing.

There are a lot of very bad documentaries out there. Preachy, predictable, tedious. These three films have a lot to offer and help to bolster my faith in the genre. I recommend them all.

The Bourne Legacy

Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, Stacy Keach, Scott Glenn

Dir. Tony Gilroy
Scr. Tony Gilroy & Dan Gilroy

The Bourne trilogy – Identity, Supremacy, Ultimatum – were smart, visceral, tightly-plotted films. They challenged Bond to step up his game and made Matt Damon a truly bankable star. And I wasn’t really expecting more. So the idea of continuing the Bourne story without, you know, Bourne, was intriguing and a tad terrifying. Legacy is a good film. Some great action, solid performances, a spark of chemistry and a good (if somewhat convoluted) plot. But I left the cinema asking ‘why?’ and lamenting opportunities missed.

Legacy picks up towards the end of Ultimatum. While Bourne has come back to the US and is going after his creators, we are introduced to a couple of his fellow “outcomes”, including Aaron Cross (Renner). Because of Bourne’s actions, their continued existence is a liability. Armed with the knowledge that there is a target on his back and an overwhelming need to get more of the meds that make him what he is, Cross tracks down Dr Marta Shearing (Weisz). Together they try to outrun the shadowy forces that want them dead.

It’s not an easy story to summarise into a paragraph. The first 30 minutes are a whirlwind of intel and jargon. I don’t really see how this would be a rewarding movie-going experience if you hadn’t seen the first three instalments and some would say that’s a major flaw. I don’t disagree, but I have bigger fish to fry here. While it moves along at a clip and is a compelling film, Legacy really misses out on an opportunity. By the end of the film, the story is near identical to Identity. I just don’t know where they can go from here. What makes Bond work so well and for so long is that he is employed by someone. Sure, he falls out with his bosses frequently. But, ultimately, he’s answerable to something. What we have here is another story of a highly trained agent who wants to break free, does so, and now what? I fear the next film, if there is one, will be a rehash of Supremacy. And so on and so forth. They really missed a trick on potentially taking this story in a very different and interesting direction. And while the action scenes are thrilling, they are also copies of what we’ve seen before. In fact, the last hour is so similar I thought I was in the wrong film.

Having said all that, there are elements introduced in Legacy that viewers can really sink their teeth into. The conspiracy we have come to know in the first three Bourne films is certainly more sinister and far-reaching than we ever thought.

What I really can’t fault are the performances on offer. Renner is star waiting for a star-making vehicle. I’m not sure this is it, but he shows here that he can easily carry a big budget film and do so with depth and charisma. Weisz is extremely good in support and takes to the action like a fish to water. What’s more, there is palpable chemistry between them that draws the viewer in. Norton, the baddie of the piece (although, baddie is a relative in the Bourne universe), is cold and calculating and very good indeed. Characters from the previous films are incorporated with finesse.

Legacy is a good film. But, when it comes to Bourne, I expect more than good. I expect new and surprising and intriguing and thrilling. What we have is largely a rehash, which is disappointing. I will, however, watch with interest to see what they do next. Maybe Renner and Damon in a double-act big-bang finale? Stranger things have happened.

--------------------------

Eric Byer: Jason Bourne was just the tip of the iceberg.

The Dark Knight Rises

Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anne Hathaway, Marion Cotillard, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Matthew Modine

Dir. Christopher Nolan
Scr. Christopher Nolan & Jonathan Nolan (based on characters by Bob Kane)

It is quite a sight to see – a filmmaker with complete creative control. There aren’t many who get it and, those that do, much too often squander it. At 164 minutes and the absence of the Bat suit for the first 40-ish of those, how did Nolan not have producers breathing down his neck and telling him to get on with it? I’m not complaining. In fact, it’s a beautiful thing. And the result is a very different superhero movie. In fact, TDKR is perhaps better described as a drama with some rather impressive bouts of action thrown in. And it works for Batman in a way it wouldn’t for many others. This is not a perfect film and I can’t help but wonder whether it can really stand alone, but, jeez, it made me buzz. It also made me cry and gasp and, a couple of times, chuckle. I couldn’t help but be thrilled.

At the close of The Dark Knight, Batman (Bale) took the blame for murder, hung up his cape and, as we discover, somewhat let himself go – eight years on Wayne is a limping, gaunt recluse, holed up in his mansion with only his faithful butler Alfred (Caine) for company. Everything changes with the arrival of Bane (Hardy), a masked and ruthless villain hell bent on “freeing” Gotham City from its shackles. Mayhem ensues, as you’d expect.

There is a lot going on in this film. And Nolan doesn’t often let the audience take a breather and put the pieces together. ‘Keep up’, he seems to be saying, ‘you’ll be rewarded in the end.’ There has been some discussion about Bane’s vocals and more than a few are complaining about how hard he is to understand. It’s a reminder of how much we rely on watching an actor’s mouth to pick up what our ears might miss. So, that might be part of it. But I also think it’s Nolan saying ‘come on, just tune in and concentrate.’

Much has also been said about the twists and turns in the film and, of course, the ending. Without spoiling anything for anyone, I would just say there are no simple solutions for Nolan. Expectations are high and, even when they’re not, conclusions are never easy. But Nolan has certainly tried to provide closure. It just won’t please everyone, that’s for sure.

I cannot gush enough about how great this film looks and feels. There’s no one as grim and tortured as Batman and, boy, Nolan once again nails the all-pervading sense of darkness. Whatever you want to say about its story and lofty themes, there is little doubt of how brilliantly this film is physically crafted.

Superhero films sometimes suffer from a severe lack of acting nuance. Don’t get me wrong – cartoonish can work. But in TDKR we also see how fine acting can add real drama and emotion. This is certainly Bale’s best outing as Batman. Oldman, Freeman, Caine – I simply can’t criticise. Gordon-Levitt is extremely good and less ‘deer-in-the-headlights’ than he can sometimes be. For me, Hathaway is a surprise. In fact, I would say she is a highlight. Cotillard is stunning and lovely, as always. Hardy has a tough job, with only his bulk and his eyes to work with, and he does a very fine job.

This is by no means a masterpiece and, I hope, not Nolan’s final opus. I continue to argue with myself over whether Dark Knight is a better film. In the end, taken as a trilogy, Nolan has done a phenomenal job. There is no doubt Batman will be rebooted, but I pity the filmmaker who decides they are up to the task. I highly recommend this film.

---------------------------

Bane: You do not fear death. You welcome it. Your punishment must be more severe.

A Royal Affair

Mads Mikkelsen, Mikkel Folsgaard, Alicia Vikander, Trine Dyrholm, David Dencik, Cyron Bjorn Melville

Dir. Nikolaj Arcel
Scr. Nikolaj Arcel & Rasmus Heisterberg

This film truly wowed me. Expecting a good-looking, costume-laden historical drama, I was both surprised and delighted to be met with so much more than that. Sure, this movie is grand – royal opulence, sweeping vistas, heritage on display, etcetera and so on. But it’s also wonderfully intimate, utterly tragic, with a dash of hilarity and some very big and thorny ideas on offer. Knowing absolutely zero about this particular period in Danish history (or, let’s face it, any period in Danish history), I also felt much wiser by the time the credits rolled. Hugely recommended and certainly a strong contender for the top ten of 2012 list.

A Royal Affair is set in 18th century Denmark and, as the title suggests, is the story of an ill-fated (aren’t they always?) love triangle between King Christian VII (Folsgaard), his English wife Caroline Mathilde (Vikander) and the royal physician Johann Struensee (Mikkelsen). It’s also the story of the Enlightenment, of insanity, of passion and tragedy. What more could you ask for?

This luscious film can stand alongside the best historical dramas I’ve seen come out of the UK or France or the US. Benefiting from some beautiful heritage locations, this film looks and feels wonderfully authentic. The costumes are suitably intricate and glorious, bosoms heaving and wigs galore. And when we see the grit and grim of the lower classes, I could almost feel the rats scurrying around my feet.

Against this background, the true success of this film are its more intimate moments of fragility and the lofty ideas and ideals at its heart. It’s a superbly written movie – compelling and nuanced, it doesn’t feel anywhere near its 137 minute running time. I laughed out loud a handful of times and cried twice, but not once did I feel emotionally manipulated.

The acting on offer is top-notch. You may not recognise many of them (unless you’ve watched the Danish crime show The Killing), but they are all very good indeed. Mikkelsen, who has one of those faces that let you know he has truly lived, is brilliant as the German doctor who becomes more powerful than a king. He is all restrained emotion, until he truly can’t hold it in anymore. And then his performance is completely heart-breaking. Vikander is a gorgeous actress and has the perfect mix of youthful guile and weary resignation that this role requires. The stand out for me, however, was Folsgaard as the unfortunate King. He manages to be both an unlikeable and sympathetic character. On the edge of insanity for nearly the entire film, he is never as incompetent as we think he is. A wonderfully executed performance.

If you fancy a bit of history, you will not be disappointed by this film. And if you want a little more to your historical films than just grand houses and frilly costumes, you will also not be disappointed. This is a gripping film. Go see it.

The Way

Martin Sheen, Deborah Kara Unger, Yorick van Wageningen, James Nesbitt, Emilio Estevez

Dir. Emilio Estevez
Scr. Emilio Estevez

This is an absolute wee gem of a film. Poignant, funny, tragic, beautiful. It’s like a Lonely Planet guidebook come to life. And, to top it all off, Martin Sheen is in almost every scene. What more could you ask for? It’s certainly more than a little contrived and far too deliberately paced at times. It’s also incredibly sentimental. But I found I was able to forgive a lot and just sit back and enjoy the journey.

Tom Avery (Sheen) is a 60-something ophthalmologist widower living a comfortable life in California. On receiving the tragic news that his only son Daniel (Estevez) has died during a storm while walking the Camino de Santiago (the Way of St James), he travels to France to recover the body. But instead of swiftly returning home as intended, Tom decides to complete the trail his son could not. Along the way, he meets an array of travelers, all searching for some elusive remedy or inspiration – Joost (van Wageningen), a kind young Dutchman hoping to lose weight; Sarah (Unger), a mysterious Canadian who says she is walking the trail to quit smoking; Jack (Nesbitt), a verbose Irish travel writer with a severe case of writer’s block. And, of course, Tom discovers much about himself and his estranged son.

I do love a history lesson and The Way certainly provides an interesting one. The Way of St James is the pilgrimage route to the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in northwest Spain, where it is thought that the remains of St James the apostle are buried. The walk is a long one – over 800 km from Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port in France. In the film, the aging Tom takes approximately two months to complete his pilgrimage. It’s a fascinating journey, with beautiful scenery and ancient landmarks.

But this film is not a documentary. While Estevez weaves history and religion throughout the plot, we are always reminded that this is a personal story of a man grieving for what he has lost. It’s a tale of self-discovery, not just for Tom but for all that travel with him. But it doesn’t force such discovery in your face (well, not too often). Rather, it’s a quiet, slow-burning film. Compelling, for sure – there is action and laughs along the way, and a wonderfully surprising soundtrack. But it is also utterly hypnotic – it takes your hand and invites you to walk along with it.

The performances in The Way are near faultless. Estevez inserts himself into the film sparingly and effectively as the deceased Daniel. Nesbitt is entertaining as ever, loud and rambunctious and ever-so-slightly annoying. But in a good way. Van Wageningen is simply lovely as jovial Joost. Unger has more to work with than the other supporting characters and she is brilliant as Sarah, a woman with much to hide. But for all their good work, this is undeniably Sheen’s show. He’s the anchor and he manages to convey so much without much more than a look. It’s clear that Estevez wrote the role with his father in mind and Sheen doesn’t disappoint.

I heartily recommend this film. It won’t be everyone’s cup of tea, perhaps too slow and, at time, meandering for some. But I adored The Way, sappiness and all.

----------------------

Daniel: You don’t choose a life, Dad. You live one.

The Amazing Spider-Man

Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Campbell Scott

Dir. Marc Webb
Scr. James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent & Steve Kloves

It seems very odd to reboot a franchise so soon after a trio of movies with the same superhero. We had Tobey Maguire in the red and blue suit in 2002, 2004 and 2007. And this film doesn’t pick up where they left off. We start again, spider bite and all. Maybe ten years is a much shorter time period in cinema history than it used to be. Or maybe they just thought they could do a much better job. And, in many ways, they have. This is a thoroughly enjoyable film with some great effects and a stellar cast. But I just couldn’t help leaving the theatre thinking ‘what exactly was the point?’

Peter Parker (Garfield) is a teenage struggling with what most teenagers struggle with. He’s trying to figure out exactly who is he, trying to get the girl (Stone) he likes to notice him, and trying to avoid getting beaten up. Abandoned by his parents at a young age and left to be brought up by elderly relatives (Sheen and Field), he’s more angst-ridden than most. Mysterious science documents, left hidden by his father, led him to the lab of Dr Curtis Connors (Ifans) and an encounter with a genetically altered spider that changes his life.

Undoubtedly, one of the strengths of this film is the special effects. They have finally managed to make a man swinging from building to building on super-strong webbing utterly awesome. The heft and weight is spot on and he no longer looks like a flying cardboard cut-out. I didn’t love the 3D (when have I ever loved 3D?!) – I found myself slipping the glasses off a lot during scenes that were so obviously 2D. The light loss with the glasses on was extremely annoying. I do have to admit that I did duck twice, so, yeah, I guess the 3D sucked me in a little.

The other real strength of this film is the performances. Maguire was a whiny, wee Peter Parker. Garfield is a revelation. Well, not really, because he has been pretty great in everything. But he brings to Parker/Spider-Man a perfect blend of angst and humour and self-righteousness and sorrow and fragility. Plus, he’s adorable and a completely believable teenager despite his advanced years. Stone is great, as ever. Spunky and intelligent, she’s has chemistry to burn with Garfield. Ifans gives a solid performance, though the Lizard is not the most interesting of villains. A completely added bonus and highlight is the duo of Sheen (Uncle Ben) and Field (Aunt Mary). They are two such acting powerhouses and add some real emotional weight to the life of Peter Parker.

If superhero movies are your thing, there’s much to like in this film. It’s nothing new and maybe we could have lived without another Spider-Man for a few more years. Having said that, I’m looking forward to the next instalment.

------------------------

George Stacy: Thirty-eight of New York’s finest, versus one guy in a unitard.

Rock of Ages

Tom Cruise, Alec Baldwin, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Paul Giamatti, Russell Brand, Diego Boneta, Julianne Hough

Dir. Adam Shankman
Scr. Justin Theroux, Chris D’Arienzo & Allan Loeb

I really, really wanted to like this movie. It seemed to be made for me. With Shankman at the helm, a wonderfully eclectic cast, and a whole lot of eighties soft rock, what could possibly go wrong? Well, quite a lot apparently. It has moments, glorious moments, where everything seems to come together beautifully. But, for the most part, Rock of Ages is truly awful. And not so-incredibly-awful-that-it’s-actually-brilliant awful. Just awful. I can forgive a lot (and often do) but, for me, it’s the mean-spiritedness of this film that just didn’t sit right.

Rock of Ages is the story of a small town girl (Hough), living in a lonely world, who took the midnight train going anywhere. And a city boy (Boneta), born and raised in South Detroit, who took the midnight train going anywhere. Well, not quite. She came into town on a bus and I don’t know where he was born and raised, but you get the picture. Girl, with big dreams, meets boy, with big dreams, and sparks fly. Alongside this love story is the battle between a group of conservative housewives, led by Zeta-Jones, and the proprietor (Baldwin) and patrons of The Bourbon Room, a nightclub on the Sunset Strip. And alongside this is the weird and wonderful story of Stacee Jaxx (Cruise), a rock god with some serious issues.

These not-so-neatly interwoven storylines make Rock of Ages a bit of a narrative minefield. Of course, Shankman has some great songs to fall back on and make sure things are moving along at a swift pace. But it doesn’t always work and, at a little over two hours, this film simply feels too long. The film is, of course, based on the Broadway show of the same name. And while I can imagine the energy in a theatre when the crowd-pleasing songs are belted out, the movie lacks the intimacy and, sadly, the resulting electricity.

And that mean-spiritedness I talked about, well, it’s just bewildering at times. Zeta-Jones’ character is so incredibly evil and cold that it defies belief. The scene where Jaxx pees, well, where he shouldn’t be peeing is horrible. And talk about inappropriate. Okay, sure, Grease was completely inappropriate in its day and all the better for it. But Rock of Ages simply feels slimy and a little bit grotesque. The scene in which Jaxx and the Rolling Stone reporter get it on was truly unpleasant and not nearly funny enough. I don’t know what I was expecting, but this wasn’t it.

It does hit the mark on occasion. The New Kids on the Block parody is truly inspired and very funny. The use of the classic rock tunes on offer is mostly pretty clever. The sing-off between Zeta-Jones and her cronies and Brand and his posse is gold.

And a few kind words also have to be said about the performances. Zeta-Jones can truly sing and is an absolute highlight in that regard. Brand is funny, although his accent seems to be all over the place. Baldwin is good, as is Giamatti, though both seem wildly out of place in this film. The two youngsters are pretty good – they can sing and definitely dial up the cheese, but they don’t have enough on-screen magnetism to carry the large parts of the film they are required to. The reason for seeing this film, if you still want to, is Tom Cruise. His performance is mixed, but when he gets it right, it’s a beautiful thing to behold. Think Iggy Pop, with a dash of Axl Rose, and a sprinkling of Jon Bon Jovi.

I don’t recommend this film. Although, even if I had a chance to read this and every other bad review before seeing the film (in some crazy time-travel adventure where I go forward in time and have nothing better to do than read my own blog), I still would have still wanted to watch Rock of Ages. Go figure.

----------------------------

Dennis Dupree: This place is about to become a sea of sweat, ear-shattering music and puke.

Prometheus

Michael Fassbender, Noomi Repace, Charlize Theron, Logan Marshall-Green, Idris Elba, Guy Pearce

Dir. Ridley Scott
Scr. Jon Spaihts & Damon Lindelof

If you’re expecting the stark simplicity of Alien or the visceral action of Aliens, you’ll probably be disappointed. Also, please don’t expect a paint-by-numbers prequel – there is at least another one, if not two, instalments needed between Prometheus and Alien. But, you know what, it’s pretty darn good. It’s cerebral, for sure, but also action-packed, beautifully presented and certainly compelling. I’m sure Alien/sci-fi purists will find plenty at fault and, intellectually, it’s a real mash-up of ideas. But I highly recommend nonetheless.

It’s 2090-ish and a team of scientists, aboard the ship Prometheus, journey to a distant planet in search of the origins of humankind. What they find is startling and, ultimately, a threat to the continued existence of all humanity. Enough said (this is, I hope, a spoiler-free zone).

Continuing to shun 3D wherever I can, I saw this film in 2D. Ridley Scott himself said the 2D version was beautiful. And I couldn’t agree more. This movie is a real feast for the eyes – utterly visually arresting. Scott, arguably, helped define the look and feel of this genre and Prometheus is proof that he hasn’t lost his touch.

In terms of the story, there has been much criticism. Without going into too much detail, I agree with some that the messages are laboured and the plot, at times, is flimsy. But the big questions – where did we come from and why – are boldly posed and remain with you well after the credits have rolled. They’re not new questions but, so what? I was challenged and entertained. One has to ask, isn’t that the point of a good film? In terms of scary bits, Prometheus certainly delivers. And, yes, there’s a nice amount of gore and things bursting out of other things.

In terms of acting, it’s all pretty good. Much has been made of Repace’s turn as archaeologist Elizabeth Shaw. And, yeah, she does well. Shaw suffers a great deal in this film, there’s no denying, and maybe I just wanted Repace to be tougher in her portrayal. Like Weaver’s Ripley perhaps. Marshall-Green, who plays Shaw’s partner in both archaeology and love, is a little wooden for my liking. And resembles the far superior Tom Hardy so much that I was continually disappointed he wasn’t actually Tom Hardy. Theron and Elba are both excellent – great characters actors in their own way and both on very fine form here. Pearce’s portrayal of the very elderly Peter Weyland is somewhat of a puzzle. Why not just get an old man to play an old man, rather than coating Pearce in so much make-up he’s largely unrecognisable. It makes me think large chucks of this film ending up on the cutting room floor. Scott will, undoubtedly, release a director’s cut at some point and maybe we’ll see Pearce without the rubber face. There is absolutely no question that Fassbender is the star of the show. As android David, a robot with more feelings than he perhaps knows what to do with, Fassbender is a welcome addition to the alumni of Scott’s synthetic creations. He’s slightly sinister, most definitely arrogant and jealous of all that he lacks. He acts circles around almost all of the rest of the cast and steals every scene he is in. Simply wonderful and, along with visual world Scott has created, well worth the price of admission.

I don’t doubt that Ridley Scott fans will flock to see this film. They will want an experience equal to his earlier work in the science-fiction genre. Maybe a fair few of them will be disappointed. But I wasn’t. Prometheus isn’t a masterpiece, but it’s a masterly work by a master of his trade.

-------------------------

David: How far would you go to get your answers?

Carnage

Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, John C Reilly

Dir. Roman Polanski
Scr. Roman Polanski & Yasmina Reza (based on her play)

I had a lot of fun watching this movie. Watching civilities break down and manners thrown out the window. Sure, it feels like a play and, at times, is a little stilted and contrived. And Polanski obviously doesn’t feel the need to try too hard to remind us we’re at the cinema rather than the theatre. But, you know what, I simply didn’t mind. When am I going to get the chance to see this play, let alone see it with four such wonderful actors? It’s confrontational, claustrophobic and utterly funny. Highly recommend.

In a park in New York, two young boys get into a bit of push-and-shove, resulting in the swing of a stick and the loss of a couple of front teeth. In order to deal with the altercation, the parents of both the “bully” and the “victim” meet over cobbler and coffee. Strained yet civil conversation swiftly descends into behaviour more grotesque and juvenile than anything done by their respective sons. Hilarity and cringe-worthiness ensues.

Carnage is cleverly shot, in real time, in one location (with the exception of the opening and closing scenes). A movie based on a play that feels like a play. Like I said, this didn’t bother me. Although I concede it may well bother many. This movie hinges on great dialogue, which it has in spades, and actors capable of descending into madness.

And what a great quartet we get to witness descend. Foster takes on a largely unlikeable role, as bleeding-heart judgmental liberal Penelope, and is wonderfully awful. Winslet is a joy to watch also, as the immaculate Nancy. Her unfortunate incident with the apple and pear cobbler is so gloriously out of character and utterly revolting. Reilly, as Penelope’s husband Michael, is on fine form and the first to completely throw off his carefully constructed mask. For my money, Waltz is the highlight as Nancy’s work-obsessed and cynical husband Alan. Waltz plays the only character who is true to himself from the beginning and, perversely, this makes him all the more likeable despite his surly and unfeeling manner. All have great dialogue to work with and each gets multiple chances to shine throughout the movie.

The final scene, back in the park with the boys, is a lovely reminder that kids are kids. Which makes the actions and behaviour of their parents all the more despicable. I guess this isn’t the most uplifting of films, but I was having too much fun to notice. And who’s to say we wouldn’t have behaved in a similar way? A sharp, short, beautifully acted piece of cinema.

-------------------------

Alan: Morally you're supposed to overcome your impulses, but there are times you don't want to overcome them.

Men in Black III

Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Emma Thompson, Jemaine Clement, Bill Hader, Michael Stuhlbarg

Dir. Barry Sonnenfeld
Scr. Etan Cohen

It’s been ten years since Men in Black II and I guess, like most cinema-goers, I wasn’t really expecting a third instalment. Especially after being so disappointed by part two. But here we have it (in 3D of course) and I certainly didn’t have to be too convinced to part with my money yet again to watch Will and Tommy and a whole lot of funky aliens. While I would argue that this film may be slightly better than the one before it, it really does fall very short of being anywhere near as funny or surprising or exciting as the original instalment. The film is saved from complete failure by Smith’s ever-bankable charisma and Brolin’s phenomenal Tommy Lee Jones impersonation.

Agents J (Smith) and K (Jones) are still partners, protecting the earth from the scum of the universe. The particular scum in MiB III is Boris the Animal (Clement, channelling David Bowie), the last remaining Boglodite in the universe, who at the beginning of the film escapes from a lunar prison and is bent on revenge and world domination. As you do. When he travels back in time and kills a younger K (Brolin), J must follow him to 1969 in order to save not only K, but the entire human race.

First things first: it’s not funny enough. The humour often feels forced and contrived. Smith’s timing is as good as ever, but he seems to have much less to work with than he should. There aren’t enough crazy and surprising aliens posing as humans, which is arguably what originally set MiB apart. Brolin is wonderfully funny, but this is due to his spot-on portrayal of a young Jones rather than any sparkling dialogue. Clement’s comic brilliance is woefully underutilised, as Boris is largely a humourless baddie. For me, the funniest scene is between young K and Andy Warhol (Hader), but this was mostly due to a whole lot of pop art-related gags.

The lack of laughs weighed heavily on me. Despite this, I have to say some of the acting is great. Jones, sadly, dials his performance in. But he only features at the beginning and the end, so, whatever. Smith is great, as ever. He is utterly watchable. Hader and Stuhlbarg are welcome surprises and both brilliant. Clement is good, but I think the interpretation of Boris could have been so much better (which, I suspect, is not Clement’s fault). Thompson (as Agent O) seems out of place and pointless. The absolute star of the show is Brolin. You would be forgiven for thinking he’s lip-syncing to a voiceover by Jones. But, no, this is all Brolin’s brilliance. And he’s given quite a lot to work with – imagine Jones’s K before he got all old and grumpy, but still with his quirks and dryness and a dash of emotion. Smith’s charm and Brolin’s performance, I contend, is probably just about worth the price of admission.

If you’re a Will Smith/Men in Black fan, by all means, see this film. It’s not great. At times, it’s not even good. But as long as you don’t expect too much, you’ll probably enjoy yourself.

--------------------------------

Agent J (to Agent K): I am getting too old for this. I can only imagine how YOU feel.

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen

Ewan McGregor, Emily Blunt, Kristin Scott Thomas, Amr Waked, Tom Mison

Dir. Lasse Hallstrom
Scr. Simon Beaufoy (adapted from novel of same name by Paul Torday)

Well, I can’t say I didn’t enjoy this movie. It was, at times, delightful. Both McGregor and Blunt were adorable. And Scott Thomas provided some wonderfully comic (if utterly ridiculous and random) moments. The story is interesting enough to reel you in and keep you hooked. But it was just all a little too contrived, predictable in large parts and somehow uncomfortably disjointed. It’s a lovely film to look at and you will laugh a handful of times, but it doesn’t quite work as the well-rounded romantic comedy I wanted it to be.

A visionary and extremely wealthy sheikh (Waked) has a dream of bringing salmon fly-fishing from his much-loved Scotland to his native Yemen. He employs consultant Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Blunt) to help make his vision a reality. With no small amount of convincing, Harriet is joined by fishing expert and long-time public servant Dr Alfred Jones (McGregor) and the trio strike up a somewhat unlikely friendship. Added to the mix are the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary (Scott Thomas), desperate for a good news story out of the Middle East, a terrorist group intent on raining on the sheikh’s parade, and an army boyfriend missing in action (Mison). We are taken on a journey of faith – in fishing, in religion, in making the impossible, possible. With, as I mentioned, a few laughs along the way.

I’ve seen some pretty hard-going movies of late, so this couple of hours in the cinema was a welcome relief. That’s not to say this is simply fluff, in fact the filmmakers try very hard to make their audience think a bit, cry a bit and be indignant a bit. My major problem with this film was that particular mix, along with the laughs, made for a bitsy and disjointed experience. Apparently the source material is very good indeed and perhaps they were simply trying to chuck as much of it up on screen as possible. But, you know what, I think this movie would work best as a romantic comedy (and was certainly advertised as such) and it wasn’t handled well enough for the political satire and geo-political debate to complement that. As much as I loved Scott Thomas, her role was jarring and, at times, completely misplaced. The kind-of-boyfriend-but-not-really-missing-in-action was distracting and, ultimately, unbelievable. There was too much going on for my liking.

Having said that, when the movie did work, it worked very well indeed. The scenery was simply beautiful. The bureaucracy of the British civil service was nicely played out. I very much enjoyed the relationship between Dr Jones and his distant wife and felt it was perhaps the most realistic portrayal of the lot. McGregor and Blunt were magic together and their burgeoning friendship was the sweetest part of the movie. The whole film was undeniably hokey, but endearingly so.

In terms of acting duties, this film is a mixed bag. There was too much two-dimension for my liking. I won’t fault Scott Thomas, but can fault what she was given to work with – sure, some great one-liners beautifully delivered, but ultimately an out-of-place caricature. Mison too was horribly underdeveloped and was wooden with it. Waked was all soft light and wise words. Again, not necessarily his fault. Blunt was charming, as usual. But I do think the whole boyfriend sub-plot was a hard sell, for any actor. McGregor, for me, was the real stand-out. Perhaps because he had the most to work with – actual character development, for instance. But mostly because he is completely watchable and utterly engaging.

So, yeah. If you fancy a light Sunday afternoon flick, by all means see this movie. But this isn’t a classic British rom-com by any stretch of the imagination. It has its moments and I would certainly watch it again if I stumbled across it on tv.

---------------------------------

Alfred Jones: When things get tricky in my life, I talk to my fish.

The Grey

Liam Neeson, Dallas Roberts, Frank Grillo, Dermot Mulroney, Nonso Anozie, Joe Anderson

Dir. Joe Carnahan
Scr. Joe Carnahan & Ian Mackenzie Jeffers

The movie in which Liam punches some wolves. Well, I must say I was slightly apprehensive. But I was assured by many critics that it’s not as bad as it sounds. And, you know what, it’s not. In fact, it’s pretty darn good. The Grey does not always work, is mostly utterly predictable and could have lost 20 minutes without anyone noticing. But, boy, when it does work, it’s wild and terrifying. And Liam continues his reign as the number one most rugged and awesome aged action hero. I can’t think of another actor working today that could have pulled off “alpha male” in such a convincing way.

The Grey follows a group of plane crash survivors as they brave the icy and treacherous conditions of the Alaskan wilderness, led by Ottway (Neeson), a mysterious sharp-shooter contracted to keep wolves from attacking his oil-drilling colleagues. They are largely a group of roughnecks, hard men used to working in hard conditions. But nothing prepares them for a pack of wolves intent on picking them off one by one. As you can imagine, things do not go well for the human pack.

So, first of all, let’s address the obvious – this movie requires a great deal of disbelief suspension. Would a pack of wolves really be overly bothered by a handful of men who are likely to be killed by the conditions sooner or later? How likely is it that wolves would kill, but leave the bodies behind? How on earth did they keep that fire going in a blizzard? I don’t know the answer to these questions but none of it sat very easily with me. My advice – just let it go. Let the ridiculousness of the situation just wash over you and move on. And enjoy the scenery. Of course, on another level, the wolves represent so much more than just bloody-thirsty killers – it’s not much of a stretch to see this movie as a mythical struggle of man versus nature, the inhumanity of man, the existence of God, the pointlessness of life, and so on and so forth.

However much you want to read into this film, there is no doubting the brilliance of some of its set-pieces. The plane crash alone was absolutely worth the price of admission. To say it wasn’t easy to watch is a huge understatement – it was utterly terrifying and harrowing. The immediate aftermath is equally compelling and frightening. I also very much enjoyed the completely unbelievable jumping-off-the-cliff scene. I was more than simply on edge though. A couple of scenes had me in tears – the best, without question, involved Ottway helping a man accept his death after the horrific crash. Wow – brilliantly written and beautifully acted.

The acting on offer here is top-notch. There’s no doubt that this is Neeson’s show, but he has some quality support, particularly from Roberts and Grillo. The band of survivors are a varied bunch and there are no weak links, acting-wise. Neeson, unbelievably turning sixty later this year, is perfect. He is pure masculinity.

The Grey is overlong and, at times, kind of silly. But it’s also tense and compelling and frightening. I can’t say I was unhappy it was over. Avoid if you can’t stomach a bit of gore, or scare easy. But I definitely recommend for fans of Neeson and of gripping stories of survival.

------------------------------

Ottway: Don’t move. Stare right back at them.

The Five-Year Engagement

Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, Chris Pratt, Alison Brie, Rhys Ifans

Dir. Nicholas Stoller
Scr. Nicholas Stoller & Jason Segel

I read one review of this film that simply said “make it stop!” And half an hour in, knowing there was still more than ninety minutes left, I couldn’t help but wishing the same thing. I am a movie optimist – I will stick with a film and will always look for the good in it (Black Swan being an obvious recent exception). But, for the first time in many many years, I was almost tempted to walk out. Which saddened me greatly – I love Segel and Blunt, and it features the ever-hilarious Ifans, and the trailer had me itching to see this rom-com. However, this film is neither romantic, nor funny enough. And when it tries to be serious, it’s simply a bore. I suggest you avoid.

The Five-Year Engagement tells the story of Tom (Segel) and Violet (Blunt) and their very long, very troubled path from engagement to marriage. The trouble starts early, with Violet getting a university post that relocates the couple from San Francisco to Michigan. And a couple of years become a couple more. Tom isn’t happy, Violet doesn’t understand, blah blah blah. More stuff happens. Yawn.

The main issue I have with this film is that very little of it rings true. I recognised frustration and mean-spiritedness. But there was so much that was lacking, so little empathy, so little understanding. Violet is a psychology post-doc and yet she doesn’t seem to recognise extreme self-centredness in herself or absolute misery in her fiancé. At one point, she tells him he doesn’t get it – she has worked her whole life for this opportunity and so on and whatnot. I’m sorry, but excuse me??! Tom is a chef and was well on his way to being head chef in his own restaurant – I think he probably washed more than his fair share of dishes in his career! He sacrifices everything for her and she tells him he doesn’t get it – ugh, I just wanted to reach in and punch her in the nose.

Another problem with this film is that it’s very very very long, especially for a comedy. Now, that’s not fatal in and of itself. But, with a saggy middle and a lack of compelling narrative cohesion, I simply couldn’t believe how much it dragged on. When, finally, the happy couple live happily ever after (sorry, but it’s not really a spoiler when it’s so obvious), I simply didn’t care anymore.

The film is not devoid of laughs. I laughed out loud a handful of times. In fact, there are a couple of very funny scenes (when Violet and her sister argue using Elmo and Cookie Monster voices, I snorted). But a few laughs does not a movie make. And there were plenty of times I knew I was supposed to be laughing, but I just couldn’t. It’s not that the film is too crass, although it certainly has its moments, or too dark. It’s just not very funny.

I really don’t think the acting is all that bad. Segel and Blunt do have an easy chemistry. Ifans has some great moments. The supporting cast is full of funny, talented people. I just think they weren’t given the right things to say or the right ways to act.

Some might say this film is wacky and raw and poignant. Or that it tells the story of a perfect couple who become less perfect as time goes by. That it’s a light and dark look at a real relationship. Well, those people can bite me. Do not see this film.

----------------------------

Suzie: This is supposed to be exciting. This is your wedding. You only get a few of these.

Martha Marcy May Marlene

Elizabeth Olsen, Sarah Paulson, John Hawkes, Hugh Dancy

Dir & Scr. Sean Durkin

So, another day, another movie that was excellent but I really wouldn’t want to see again. It’s my perverse goal, for 2012, to see as many of these movies as possible. Which makes a recommendation very difficult – I’m completely conflicted. It’s very well acted, interesting, thoughtfully shot and beautifully paced. But it’s also creepy and disturbing and unsettling and, at times, icky. So, yeah – see this film, just don’t blame it on me!

Martha Marcy May Marlene (the most challenging film title to remember when asking for your ticket) is a psychological drama about a young woman, Martha (Olsen), who seeks help from her estranged sister (Paulson) to escape a sticky situation and her attempts to reintegrate, mostly unsuccessfully, into normal life. Err, that’s vague, I know. I don’t really want to give too much away – I would argue the less you know going in, the better the movie probably is. Many reviews and descriptions give away the whole ballgame and that bugs me immensely. There’s no great twist or reveal here. But the drama that comes from Martha’s memories and flashbacks really does creep up on the audience, becoming more and more disturbing.

This feature is Durkin’s directorial debut and, boy, what a debut. The movie really does feel likes it’s in the hands of a much more seasoned operator. It’s smart and watchable (despite the subject matter) and incredibly well played out. It’s being called a thriller by many, but I think that label is a little misleading – it conjures up more action than this film possesses. Chiller would be a more fitting genre, if it was actually a proper genre and not one I just made up. I found the end a tad unsatisfying at the time, but I think it’s less of a problem after the movie has sat with you and festered for a couple of days.

The acting on offer here is truly excellent. This is only Olsen’s second feature and she is expected to carry the film, which she does with absolute ease. She may well be the younger sister of the truly awful Olsen twins, but please don’t let that put you off – she obviously received all the talent genes in the Olsen clan. Martha is a complicated lass, for reasons that will become clear, and Olsen plays all aspects of her fractured and troubled personality with wonderful honesty, vulnerability and edge. Hawkes, who plays the charismatic and sinister Patrick, is outstanding, as ever. Paulson, as Martha’s older sister Lucy, is also excellent. The argument on the stairs between Martha and Lucy towards the end of the film, when their relationship is truly becoming untenable, is heart-breakingly brilliant.

Martha Marcy May Marlene is not the film I expected it to be – it’s a heck of a lot better. It’s an unsettling look at psychological manipulation and the scars that remain. It’s unnerving and disturbing, perhaps too much for some. But I’m very glad I saw it – Olsen’s performance alone is well worth the outing.

---------------------------

Martha: I am a teacher and a leader.

A Separation

Peyman Moadi, Leila Hatami, Sareh Bayat, Shahab Hosseini, Sarina Farhadi

Dir & Scr. Asghar Farhadi

A Separation is a heavy, compelling, thriller-esque drama about the dissolution of a marriage, an act of aggression and so much more. Winner of best foreign film at this year’s Oscars, this film is not an easy watch. But not because it’s violent or brutal or gory – the moral ambiguity and hard grind of life will be too much for some who are looking for cinematic escapism. Sure, this is a film set in a foreign land, but these people could be your neighbours or, indeed, yourself. And what might you do in the situations that arise in this film? That question will have your head spinning.

Set in contemporary Iran, on the surface this film is about the separation of a husband and wife – Simin (Hatami) wants to leave Iran but her husband Nader (Moadi) is less keen. Their situation is complicated by Nader’s live-in, Alzheimer’s afflicted father and their teenage daughter Termeh (Farhadi), who is desperate to keep her parents together. A turn of events (which I will not describe for fear of spoiling the story), involving a maid hired by Nader and her troubled husband (Bayat and Hosseini), sees much more put at risk than merely a marriage.

At times, this is indeed a very foreign film – in a foreign land and language and religion, for me anyways. The foreignness keeps you on our toes and often sneaks up on you – when the newly hired maid, Razieh, rings a religious “hotline” to check whether cleaning a man who is not her husband is a sin, I was suddenly aware of another level of complexity that started making my head hurt. But as we ease into the story, the struggles and questions these people face are breathtakingly universal. Although I shudder at the thought of ever having to grapple with such issues.

The performances in A Separation are all very good. The two husbands particularly shine, especially in their scenes together – two such different men, both brought to breaking point. This movie is truly an indepth character study and the strength of the acting is an essential element to making this work. The fine quality acting avoids any danger of caricature. There are no obvious good guys or bad guys – it is left to the audience to make such judgments, if you dare. Indeed, the open nature of the film’s ending, allows the audience to draw their own conclusions about what happened next for this family.

I didn’t necessarily enjoy A Separation. The forces at work are a little too heavy and, at times, draining to truly sit back and let the film wash over you. This film may remain with you for days. But I certainly recommend A Separation, just except a little moral ambiguity and outrage and, ultimately, bewilderment.

--------------------------

Nader: What is wrong is wrong, no matter who said it or where it's written.

A Dangerous Method

Michael Fassbender, Viggo Mortensen, Keira Knightley, Vincent Cassel, Sarah Gadon

Dir. David Cronenberg
Scr. Christopher Hampton

Viggo Mortensen, talking on a movie review show, said this was the film Cronenberg should have got some sort of Oscar recognition for. I don’t think I agree with Viggo, but this film is certainly one of Cronenberg’s most accessible. Don’t be sucked in by the poor marketing – this is not an historic love triangle, with some hysteria thrown in. Instead, this film is a conversation, over many years, between two great minds. It might be a little tedious for those who don’t much care for the history of psychoanalysis, but I recommend it very much for those who do. And, at its core, are three very fine performances which are well worth the price of admission.

Jung (Fassbender) and Freud (Mortensen) are largely accredited with the birth and development of the technique of psychoanalysis, or the talking cure. This film follows the early days of Jung’s interest and adoption of the cure, and the patient that he transforms and that transforms him – Sabina Spielrein (Knightley) – as well as his ultimately fraught relationship with his mentor, Sigmund Freud. Told over a dozen or so years, we accompany Jung on an intellectual and emotional journey, as his ideas and relationships both enlighten and destroy his mind.

Cronenberg treats us to a lush and authentic early 20th century – in the mountains of Zurich, in the city of Vienna, in the harbour of New York. This film looks mighty good. When you have Viggo on board you can also be assured of authenticity to a sometimes ridiculous point – he spent months in Vienna and sourced many of the books you see around him on screen, to make sure they were the same titles and of the same vintage as Freud himself owned. Knightley made sure to get Sabina’s hysterical ticks and mannerisms (which are disturbing indeed) exactly right. This all adds up to an immersive experience for the audience.

This is not, though, necessarily an easy watch. The sessions between Jung and Sabina are unsettling, as was her life and her illness. Their other, more intimate “sessions” are equally disturbing and graphic, though I would argue definitely not gratuitously so. Cronenberg is not one to shy away from such discomfort for the audience and, in this particular film, rightly so. But I would argue he does show restraint and a wisdom in this story-telling than he perhaps would have a decade or two ago.

While the conversational and sometimes overly measured nature of this film may bore some, what cannot be ignored are the performances of the three top-billed actors. Each are phenomenally good and, in the case of Knightley, surprisingly so. I am not a Knightley fan at all – much of her acting in the past has consisted of varying degrees of pouting. If she doesn’t ruin a film, I mark it as a success. But this film (as well as Never Let Me Go, which I saw on dvd recently) has really made me reconsider. She is wonderfully feral and vulnerable and insightful – I think it really does help that she doesn’t have to carry this film as a conventional romantic interest. Mortensen is equally good – his role is relatively small in terms of time on screen, but his persona hangs over every scene as the all-knowing Freud. The real star for me, though, is Fassbender. His Jung is at times quite naive and almost comical, at times hopelessly burdened, at times wonderfully idealistic and optimistic, at times utterly tortured by his own demons. Fassbender plays it all to perfection. I don’t doubt that he could read the phonebook on screen and I would be transfixed.

You’ll need to have your wits about you if you go to see this film. This isn’t escapist cinema – this is pay attention and think about it cinema. It’s very talky. If it doesn’t sound like your cup of tea, don’t go. But if it does, even a little, pay your money and take your seat. You’ll at the very least be treated to some lovely sets and costumes, three brilliant performances and a very interesting history lesson.

-----------------------------

Carl Jung: Sometimes you have to do something unforgivable... just to be able to go on living.

The Avengers

Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Samuel L Jackson, Stellan Skarsgard

Dir & Scr. Joss Whedon

Five minutes into this movie, I turned to my partner in viewing, held up my clenched fist, he bumped it with his in true ultra-cool (ie geek) style and we grinned. And I challenge any action film fanatic to not grin throughout this entire film. Whedon has taken on a beast; in fact, he has taken on several. And thank the movie gods for the safe hands of Whedon – he has managed to not only tackle what is arguably the most highly anticipated superhero movie in years (if not decades) and not only not ruin it, but actually produce awesomeness.

The plot of The Avengers is pleasingly simple: Colonel Nick Fury (Jackson) of S.H.I.E.L.D – the fictional agency Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement, and Logistics Division, or some such thing – must bring together a team of superheroes and assassins to help save the Earth from the Norse god Loki (Hiddleston), who seeks to raise a supernatural army and bring humanity to its knees. As you’d imagine, there is much action, fight scenes, things blowing up and witty repartee. And a whole lot of comic book heroes – Tony Stark aka Iron Man (Downey Jr), Bruce Banner aka The Hulk (Ruffalo), Steve Rogers aka Captain America (Evans), Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow (Johansson), Clint Barton aka Hawkeye (Renner), and, of course, Loki’s brother and Earth’s defender, Thor (Hemsworth).

My praise for this film will flow freely, even though I saw it in 3D – the worst thing to happen to cinema since, well, the last time 3D was so prolific. I fully intend to see this film again in 2D and do not doubt that I will probably enjoy it even more. In my opinion, 3D alienates the audience from the movie-going experience, putting a manipulative barrier between us and the film. I don’t buy that it’s the future of cinema. Almost always, it is gimmicky and pointless. Here, Whedon doesn’t overuse the medium and I found it mostly immersive (like in Avatar) rather than distracting (like in every other 3D movie). End of rant, on with review.

This movie works for many reasons. The first is the cast – with the exception of Ruffalo, all these actors have spent time with their characters before, and it shows. They seem comfortable in their crazy skins. And in the case of Downey Jr, not only comfortable but downright transformed. Furthermore, I would argue Ruffalo is by far the best Banner/Hulk of the three actors to have played him in recent cinematic incarnations (Eric Bana and Edward Norton being the other two) – finally we have a Hulk with nuance and humour. All the acting is absolutely pitch-perfect. The second reason this movie works is balance – Whedon has given us a beautifully compelling and well-paced action film, while also delving just enough into each character in order to give them all time to shine and develop. There isn’t a point I can recall in which I felt that the plot was dragging or I was stifling a yawn. He has managed to bring humour and humanity into a crazy, action-packed concept, without either suffering. Being a huge fan of Whedon’s body of work, I was confident that he could pull this off. But his sublime handling of a complex cast of characters surprised and delighted even me. The last major reason this film succeeds is that it looks amazing. It’s like the best carnival ride you’ve ever been on, times a million. It’s slick and shiny and so very cool.


You will gasp and grin. You will laugh out loud. You will want to see it again. Without question, this is one of the best superhero movies ever to have been made. Whedon, you are the man.

---------------------------

Tony Stark (to Loki): There is no throne, there is no version of this where you come out on top. Maybe your army will come, maybe it’s too much for us, but it’s all on you. Because if we can’t protect the Earth, you can be damn sure we’ll avenge it!

Top Five Movie Scenes (aka Five Cinematic Moments That Changed My Life and Burned Into My Brain)

It’s the school holidays and well-post-Oscar season, hence the lack of reviews. The dire movie viewing options (for me, anyway) has left me with a writing itch I just had to scratch. So, to tide me over until The Avengers is released later this week, here are my five favourite movie scenes, ever ... in no particular order:

Empire of the Sun (1987)

The Cadillac of the Sky scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02BBtN-P0lc

One of my favourite films, this Spielberg epic is rarely cited as one of his best. I simply don’t know why. Based on JG Ballard’s semi-autobiographical novel of the same name, Empire of the Sun tells the story of Jim, an English boy surviving in Japanese-occupied China during WWII. In this scene, the Americans attack the Japanese with their mighty impressive planes. Take a moment to remember this film is 25 years old – the effects are seamless. John Williams’ score soars. But what truly gets me is ‘I can’t remember what my parents look like.’ Sob. I have probably watched this movie around two dozen times and I always cry at this moment. The first time, when I was 11, and every time since. Every. Single. Time.


When Harry Met Sally ... (1989)

The New Year Revelation scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_M3GHJckv8 (spoiler alert)

Another favourite film, another I have watched too many times for my own good. For many many many years, this movie represented everything I wanted in a relationship. I’m a sap, what can I say. I still contend this is the best rom-com ever. It’s the basic boy meets girl, girl hates boy, boy meets girl again, boy and girl become friends, boy and girl fall in love, awwwww. Genuinely funny with a stellar cast, this film is a classic. And this particular scene – the big ‘I love you’ speech – is adorable and funny and simply ace.


There Will Be Blood (2007)

I Drink Your Milkshake scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_hFTR6qyEo (spoiler alert and language warning)

Hmm, another favourite film (there seems to be a pattern here), There Will Be Blood is truly a modern classic with one of the finest lead performances you will ever see. There are three or four scenes in this film I could have picked – the relationship between oil drilling guru Daniel Plainview and evangelical preacher Eli Sunday is wonderfully antagonistic and provides most of the highlights of the story. The one I chose is simply majestic in its meanness and intensity and darkly comic tinge. You can’t help but love a character like Plainview – given so many chances to redeem himself, he fervently shuns every one.


The Usual Suspects (1995)

The Twist to End All Twists scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_6560AW1zQ (MAJOR spoiler alert and language warning)

If you haven’t seen this film, do NOT view the video – go out immediately and hire the dvd instead. The Usual Suspects is the first film I remember seeing at the cinema with such an amazing twist that I actually gasped out loud. A stellar cast and the vehicle that truly made mainstream audiences sit up and take notice of Kevin Spacey, The Usual Suspects is by no means a flawless film. But for me, sitting in the dark, I will never forget this moment and the feeling of having the rug pulled out from under me. Other films have thrilled me in the same way since, but I definitely lost my cherry on this particular twist.


High Society (1956)

Ultimate Bing and Frank scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kq1JQUhwVQ (musical warning!)

I absolutely and utterly adore musicals. And I have a particular soft spot for the classic films I remember watching on tv on lazy Sunday afternoons – films in which manly men sang and danced, lyrics were cheesy poetry and nuns sang about the hills being alive. High Society is a very early memory and this song – Well, Did You Evah? – is simply sublime. A duet between two legends, one a little drunk, both in love with the same woman (Grace Kelly – how could you not love her?), this is cinematic magic. And when Frank drunkenly sings ‘naaah, let’s drink to your wealth’, I giggle every time.


The Matrix (1999)

The Most Mind-Blowing Opening scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u31OjOPF-ZI

Yes, I can count. This is scene number six. But I simply could not get the list down to five – let’s call this scene a tie with The Usual Suspects ending and just move on ... So, The Matrix. What a great flick. It’s about, errr, who knows really? But, at the time, it was simply the coolest thing to touch down at the cinema and certainly in my life. I remember distinctly watching this opening scene, turning to the person next to me and saying ‘I have no idea what’s going on, but I love it!’ Sure, it looks so clichéd now (largely because it has been copied so shamelessly subsequently), but I had certainly never seen anything like it – the slow-mo, the camera angles, the outfits, the comic book feel. I was buzzing and I always get a little of that feeling back when I watch it again.

What are some of your favourites?