jafar-iqbal Reviews

White God (2014)

An excellent film with two fantastic lead performances

[9/10 · 18 March 2015]

Try explaining to somebody what White God is about and raised eyebrows tend to be the default response. I know this because I've tried; but, frankly, it's the somewhat absurd nature of the plot that drew me to it in the first place. Well, that, and the fact that this was Hungary's entry for the Oscars. Reason enough to get me into an auditorium on a mild spring evening.

So here's that somewhat absurd plot: when young teenager Lili (Zsofia Psotta) is forcibly separated from Hagen, her pet dog and best friend, the two end up on parallel journeys in search for one another. She defies her dad and pretty much the entire adult world in her search; and he ends up as the leader of a street-dog uprising, terrorising the streets of Budapest. Think of it as The Birds having a baby with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, only for that baby to get vomited on by Watership Down. Pleasant.

The idea of dogs launching an uprising is arguably pure fantasy and the story's biggest obstacle. But the movie gets around it by rooting the whole thing in a very harsh reality. Once Hagen is separated from Lili, we see him move from one despicable owner to another, each one subjecting him to awful acts of cruelty. It really isn't one for the faint-hearted – there are scenes of animal abuse and violence here which are genuinely distressing; but it works because, by the time he breaks free and begins the uprising, we're aching to see him gain some revenge. And, oh yeah, he does.

On the other side, we have Lili (a superb Zsofia Psotta), the heartbroken young girl who desperately wants back the only good thing in her life. Like Hagen, she too flits from one bad experience to another, trying badly to grow up in a lonely world. She doesn't have any other friends, her father (Sandor Zsoter, in another excellent performance) doesn't try to understand her, and nobody else cares. But her resolve stays strong and, like Hagen, we're right there with her to the end.

The film moves back and forth between the two characters, making it quite obvious that their journeys are very much the same. It's character development all the way for those first two thirds, before suddenly morphing into a thriller-cum-horror. I'd say it gets a bit predictable at that point, but I'd also say that doing the predictable thing is sometimes the right thing. We know what's going to happen in that final third, but it's what we want and they deliver. And it all leads up to an ending that is thoroughly satisfying in that it never really ends. It just fades to black.

I'm pretty sure this is the first Hungarian film I've ever seen, and it's a bloody good one to start on. You're not going to see too many films this year that are so strongly anchored by a dog and a 13-year old. But, really, do go in knowing that you're going to see some distressing scenes. It's not easy viewing, but it's powerful and bold and fearless. I couldn't recommend it highly enough.

Oh, and before you ask: no. I have virtually NO idea why it's called White God.

Foxcatcher (2014)

Two excellent performances highlight a great film

[8/10 · 17 January 2015]

Foxcatcher is your typical Oscar contender. It's based on an extraordinary true story. It has a bunch of very accomplished actors, many of whom are performing at the top of their game. It has that central performance which anchors the movie. And, crucially, it's quite fun to watch. Put it next to the other contenders that have just been announced, and this Bennett Miller film fits in very nicely.

The story is definitely extraordinary, and hard to believe that it happened less than thirty years ago. Mark and David Schultz, who both won gold medals in wrestling at the 1984 Olympics, were recruited by reclusive millionaire John DuPont to train the next generation of Olympic wrestlers at his purpose-built training centre. Known as Team Foxcatcher, it was an unlikely alliance with even unlikelier circumstances.

You don't need me to tell you how all of this ended – a quick Google search will do a much better job of that – but I can tell you that a very solid job was done of bringing it to the screen. Bennett Miller is a director with proved success in biopics – Capote and Moneyball are both brilliant – and he continues in that vein with this. He's very good at making sure he doesn't take too many creative liberties, letting the truth of the story take precedence.

But when you look back on Miller's past successes, what he does best is get excellent performances from the unlikeliest of actors and, with Foxcatcher, he gives that privilege to Steve Carell. Arguably one of the best comedy actors of the modern era, Carell was a massive gamble for this role, but he is fantastic. The prosthetic nose and hairpiece already help to strip away any preconceptions, but it is a performance so far removed from his previous work that you can't help but be impressed. DuPont was the richest man in America at the time, but he was also a loner. Living in the shadow of his mother (a small but significant and vicious cameo from Vanessa Redgrave), he saw Team Foxcatcher as his way of getting acceptance. The way he goes about trying to achieve that is funny (in a twisted way), but Carell plays it straight. There's no deliberate attempt to amuse, and neither does it happen accidentally. Every time he appears on screen, Carell makes you uncomfortable, especially as his power increases.

The other two points of this triangle casting are a mixed bag. On the one hand, we have Mark Ruffalo, who is the MVP. While Carell is the one getting all the media attention, it's Ruffalo who quietly steals the show with a very understated and emotional performance. He is the moral compass of the movie and, like so many great performers before him, he manages to express deep, complex emotions just by shrugging his shoulders or laughing nervously. He is definitely up there as one of the best character actors of this generation, and a joy to watch. Channing Tatum, I'm not as sure of. He is a good actor, don't get me wrong, and he isn't bad in this. In fact, he surprised me with the maturity of the performance. But, the truth is, he's a good actor but not a great one; and as Mark Schultz, who the film is following most, it needed somebody who could match Carell and Ruffalo. And he couldn't. I sat there and kept wondering how different the film would have been if it was Tom Hardy up there. Similar builds, similar intensity, but Hardy is far above Tatum when it comes to acting chops. But we got Tatum, and he holds his own, so fair enough.

What people do need to know is that Foxcatcher isn't a film about wrestling; there is, of course, some wrestling in it, but it's there as a narrative device. In fact, one of the best scenes of the film is a wrestling 'match' between the Schultz brothers. It's a five-minute scene where the older brother (Ruffalo) is training the younger one (Tatum), but there is clearly some tension. There are barely more than four or five words spoken, but we pretty much learn everything we need to know about the sibling relationship in that five minutes. Tremendous. At its core, Foxcatcher is about two things. The want and need for power; and the consequences of living in someone else's shadow. Foxcatcher has rightfully got some great press, primarily because of Steve Carell's performance, but I don't think it's quite there as an Oscar-winning movie. Of the three leads, Ruffalo is the one most deserving of an award (and he's nominated for Best Supporting Actor), but there are other actors more deserving. Still, this is a really engaging, dramatic thriller which does justice to an extraordinary true story.

The Theory of Everything (2014)

An excellent film with an astonishingly good transformative lead performance

[9/10 · 9 January 2015]

There was one little moment in 'The Theory Of Everything' that I really didn't like – while on stage in his wheelchair, Stephen Hawkins imagines himself standing up, picking up a pencil off the floor and placing it on a table. It's an odd fantasy sequence in a film that does so much to ground itself in the utmost reality, and I'm taken out of the moment. But why do I start this review straight off with a criticism? Because I figured I should probably note ONE criticism, considering that these thirty uncharacteristic seconds are preceded by two hours of exceptional cinema.

For those who don't know, 'The Theory Of Everything' is the biopic of legendary physicist Stephen Hawking. Told chronologically starting with his time at Cambridge University, the film recounts both the young man's rise to bona fide genius and the physical deterioration caused by Motor Neurone Disease. At the centre of it all is his wife Jane (who's memoir the film is adapted from), the rock that meant Hawking never stopped fulfilling his potential. As much as the film is about Stephen and his extraordinary life, it is just as much about her extraordinary resolve. And, above all, it's about the strength of their love (which is, yes, extraordinary).

I'll admit, I had my doubts about the casting of this film. Both Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones are undoubtedly very talented, but I wasn't sure they could pull off such complex characters. Man, was I wrong! The two actors are astonishingly good, and have a fantastic chemistry on screen. Even their scenes as young lovers, before the tough stuff, is great. We really believe that they were made for each other, despite the obvious faith and science conflict, and it's beautiful to watch. But it's when that tough stuff starts, when Hawking begins to break down physically, that the chemistry is electric.

As Jane, Felicity Jones proves a revelation. Her transformation from sweet young girl to steely-souled wife is brilliant, as she battles to keep herself together. Even when she finally breaks, we don't hate her – quite the opposite, in fact. Screenwriter Anthony McCarten makes sure to never paint her as a bad person – instead, she comes across as a woman who has reached the end of her tether, justifying her eventual decisions. Jones, to her credit, expresses that brilliantly. It's what she doesn't say that is most striking about her performance, with those tired eyes and awkward silences.

But let's cut to the chase; the real star of this movie is Eddie Redmayne. I should probably explain why I didn't like those thirty second at the end of the movie. Such is the magnificence of Redmayne's transformation that I forget it's him. At no point does it feel like I'm watching an actor play a role – this is Stephen Hawking – until he picks up the pencil and looks like Redmayne again. There is an everyman quality about Redmayne which makes him perfect for the character – yes, Hawking was a genius, but it never corrupted him. He was humble, charming, funny, innocent in his own way, and Redmayne captures that with his goofy grins and cheeky wry smiles. Even when he is at the point that he can't talk or move his body, when almost everything has shut down, he never stops trying. There is a wonderful scene where he meets his new nurse (Maxine Peake in a small but excellent cameo), which is both laugh-out-loud funny and tragic at the same time. Hawking is a man who had to fight everything - literally death itself – to achieve his potential. And he does. When you look back on previous Oscar winners – Charlize Theron in 'Monster', for example – the awards lot like to see those physical transformations. Well, you might not get a better one than Eddie Redmayne this time round.

Kudos also needs to be given to director James Marsh. Well, he got those performance out of the leads, so the plaudits are obvious, but he also does wonders with a strong supporting cast that includes David Thewlis, Harry Lloyd and a really lively Charlie Cox (though Emily Watson, a personal favourite of mine, is in it for what seems like a cup of coffee!). But his method of direction is brilliant. The film's style reflects Hawking's state – the first third is a lot of quick cuts and moving shots, almost overemphasising the natural agility and physical prowess Hawking had. Then, once he is diagnosed, the cinematography changes. The camera moves closer to the characters, right up close to Hawking's face and his body, almost unnervingly. It's a great tool, solidly executed.

A word commonly being thrown about when people talk about this film is celebration. I wish I could be original and think of something else, but a celebration is exactly what 'The Theory Of Everything' is. A celebration of humanity, of faith, of science, of love, of life. The fact that Stephen Hawking is still alive today, after having been given just two years left to live, is a testament to his greatness. If you don't want to watch it for how inspirational it is, though, just watch it for Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones' transformative performances. They deserve it.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

A technical and creative masterpiece

[10/10 · 6 January 2015]

Take my advice and go see 'Birdman'. Maybe even watch it a second or a third time. Because, chances are, you're not going to see a film like this again for a very long time. Sure, there will be other great films, other magnificent films that are essential viewing, but films like this don't get made very often. So refreshing to see, in this age of cinema where everything is adapted or reimagined or sequelled, a film that is so utterly original.

On the surface, it isn't too different from your standard independent dramedy – twenty years after playing an iconic superhero, washed-up actor Riggan Thomas is writing, directing and starring in a Broadway play. It's the last chance he has to rejuvenate his career, but everything around him is falling apart. His cast; his family; his sanity; it's all going wrong. As opening night draws closer, Riggan teeters closer and closer to the edge.

You only need to scratch beneath that surface a tiny little bit to see that 'Birdman' is far from standard. Very ambitiously and very successfully, writer/director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu edits the entire film as though it is one continuous shot. The camera tilts, swivels and slides along in one seamless motion, either chasing after its actors or panning across rooms and storeys. This is not just a technical achievement (a ridiculously big technical achievement, mind) but a creative one. Ensuring it was a success meant the cast essentially working through pages and pages of script, requiring the highest levels of concentration and acting finesse.

But don't let all that fool you, this isn't just some fancy party trick – the cinematography does more to enhance the hysteria seen backstage at a theatre production than any montage ever could, and the constant movement of the camera is reflective of the central character's own ever-frenetic mind. Driven by fear, anxiety and pride, Riggan Thomas cannot stop. And the camera moves with him every step of the way.

As Riggan, Michael Keaton is simply superb. It's ridiculous to think that it's been four years since he last headlined a movie, and even longer since he got a role as meaty as this. To say he makes the most of the opportunity is beyond an understatement. This was a role made for him, and the metaphysical in-jokes (George Clooney's chin is a lovely reference) only add to the nuances. Riggan Thomas is a man driven by the fear of losing everything, and Keaton expresses it all brilliantly. The sharp script obviously helps, but Keaton's ability to emote just with his eyes, or a twitch, is beautiful to watch. Just like McConaughey, this could see the beginning of Ketaon's resurgence. I sincerely hope so.

Everyone else pitches in too, though. Zach Galifianakis' long-suffering producer; Naomi Watts' insecure young actress; Andrea Riseborough's frustrated girlfriend; Amy Ryan's exhausted ex-wife; they're all excellent in relatively small but significant roles. But of the supporting cast, Emma Stone and Edward Norton are a cut above. Norton is hilarious as the Broadway veteran, difficult to work with in his undying effort to find 'truth' on stage (mirroring Norton's own storied behavioural issues). Emma Stone, too, is just incredible. It's a character that starts off looking quite generic – young daughter out of rehab who doesn't give a crap about anyone – but she comes into her own in a big way. Stealing every scene she's in, including a fantastic final few seconds, Stone shows once again why she is one of the best actresses out there right now.

There are a lot of big movies coming out this year – your Stars Wars and your Marvels – but this is already a frontrunner for movie of the year. Technically and creatively, 'Birdman' is a cinematic triumph, and a brilliant way to start the year. If this is the calibre of cinema we have to look forward to, we're in for a ride.

So please. Go and watch 'Birdman'. And then think about watching it again.

Human Traffic (1999)

A love letter to the nineties club scene

[7/10 · 12 December 2013]

It is Cardiff in the late nineties; five friends head out for a weekend of drugs, alcohol, sex and clubbing. Through the Ecstacy-induced high to the alcohol-assisted comedown to the feelings of the morning after, their lives are on the brink of changing forever When 'Human Traffic' was released, many critics claimed that this was the last great British film of the nineties – and how right they were. This film is so inherently a nineties movie, it's like opening a time capsule. To be young was to be a clubber; to be living for the weekend, when mixing alcohol with drugs was a given. Writer-director Justin Kerrigan captures that oxymoronic feeling of immortality and insecurity beautifully, through five characters that complement each other so well.

Obviously, the success of the characters hinges entirely on the success of the actors, and what 'Human Traffic' also gives you is a snapshot into what would (and could) become the future of British cinema. Top of the pile is John Simm, who went on to achieve well-deserved acclaim for Life On Mars. This is arguably his breakthrough performance, and he's a joy to watch.

But, in my honest opinion, the plaudits need to go to Danny Dyer. For those with a decent knowledge of Dyer will know that he is mostly known now for playing really rubbish characters in really rubbish films. But in 'Human Traffic', he is brilliant. The character of Moff isn't the nicest – he is hooked on drugs, isn't overly intelligent, and is desperate for friends – but Dyer imbues that unlikeable character with a childlike innocence which you warm to. It's by far the best performance I've ever seen from him, and makes me realise why he managed to keep a career going. The rest of the cast is made up of actors who have since faded into the distance; which, to be honest, isn't surprising as the performance levels don't match up to Simm and Dyer. While everyone has moments of good work, it is never quite as consistent. I feel like there were better young actors at the time who could have done a better job.

You could argue that the film is a bit dated, and it's not a bad argument to make. Obviously, the youth of the nineties is a lot different from the youth of today. But for those who were part of the nineties generation, 'Human Traffic' provides the same feeling of nostalgia that 'Trainspotting'. Both are films stuck in time, but not in a way that hurts them. 'Human Traffic' is a love letter to the nineties, and well worth a watch.

Capturing the Friedmans (2003)

A compelling and disturbing documentary

[8/10 · 12 December 2013]

A controversial documentary about the Friedman family, a seemingly typical, upper-class Jewish family living in Long Island, New York. Their very normal and somewhat happy world was turned upside down when the father and his youngest son were arrested and charged with some very shocking and disturbing crimes.

'Capturing The Friedmans' is a film of which 95% was watched with a very bemused expression on my face. It's one of those stories you'd happily accept as a work of bold and slightly twisted fiction; the fact that it's all reality is awful. It won't be a spoiler to reveal that the crimes in question were all related to the sexual abuse of children, and the description of those supposed crimes is horrific.

Supposed though, because what the film does so well is point out that the actual truth still really isn't known. It's hard to doubt the evidence against Arnold Friedman, the patriarch and alleged main abuser, but it's the involvement of son Jesse that raises the most doubts. Only seventeen himself when the allegations were made, it is difficult to believe that he could be involved. However, it is very plainly shown that he was one of three sons that had a deep affection for their father, but could it really extend as far as agreeing to assist in his sordid acts? That is one of the conundrums of the movie.

What really fascinates me about the documentary is the portrayal of Elaine Friedman, the victimised wife and mother. Not victimised just by the outside world, but by her own family. Unlike the rest of the family, she doesn't blindly trust her husband, which leads to some heated arguments and an eventual alienation from everyone. Her testimony is possibly the most impactful, being the woman who has known Arnold the longest and could cite moments which gave credence to his guilt.

Director Andrew Jarecki is fantastic at making sure he stays as neutral as he possibly can, given the circumstances. It would have been very easy to turn it into a biased look at an evil family; but Jarecki makes sure to not go down that route. Through the use of home video footage and interviews, we are made to look at the story from every perspective. The ending of the movie is a very emotional and, somehow, happy one, giving a level of sympathy we probably didn't want.

'Capturing The Friedmans' is a very good documentary, but it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. However, get past the fact that this is people who potentially committed heinous crimes against innocent children, and what you get is a story about family and loyalty. Excellent.

My Left Foot (1989)

It's the Daniel Day-Lewis show!!

[10/10 · 11 December 2013]

'My Left Foot' is the remarkable story of Christy Brown, born into a working-class Irish family with cerebral palsy. Growing up in a life full of poverty and extreme prejudice, Christy defied everyone's expectations. Using his left foot, the only part of his body he had proper control over, the young man learned to write and paint.

I could spend this review talking about the film's excellent portrayal of working class Ireland, and the working class Irish family specifically. I could talk about how the film does a good job of showing how the attitudes towards Christy Brown changed as Ireland's own political landscape changed. I could probably also talk about the role of women in Christy's life, from his mother and sisters, to the loves in his life. All of these things are worthy of mention.

However, when talking about 'My Left Foot', there is one thing that stands out above everything else; that being Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis had already proved his acting chops in the excellent 'My Beautiful Laundrette, but it was this movie that put him on the map globally. And rightly so: he is absolutely fantastic as Christy Brown.

Acting is difficult at the best of times, when you're playing a fully-functioning human being. What Day-Lewis achieves, therefore, is even more admirable. It is an extremely effective and realistic portrayal of someone suffering from cerebral palsy, and the actor goes gung-ho with both the physicality expressiveness required for the role. It is a joy to watch.

An honourable mention also needs to go to Hugh O'Conor, who plays the younger Brown. I can only assume that it is even harder for a child to go through the rigours that the role requires, but O'Conor is brilliant. What makes the character difficult to play is that, in trying to make it look real physically, the emotion required can be lost. Both actors avoid that problem with what seems like relative ease: at no point does the efficacy or emotion of the moments falter.

All the other stuff mentioned above are worthy of talking about, if I intended to write a longer review. But for this small thing, I think it is more than enough to say that 'My Left Foot' deserves to be seen just for this landmark Daniel Day-Lewis performance. Whatever you may think of the film as a whole, or whether you care about the story of Christy Brown or not, it is secondary to the simple appreciation for an actor at the top of his game.

Naked Lunch (1991)

Cronenberg does Burroughs, and does it well

[8/10 · 28 November 2013]

An exterminator becomes addicted to the substance that he uses to kill bugs, and accidentally ends up murdering his own wife. This leads to him becoming involved in a secret government plot in a port town in North Africa, seemingly orchestrated by giant bugs.

William S. Burroughs is one of those three influential writers known collectively as the Beat Generation (the other two being Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac), and this film – and the book its adapted from – is one of the reasons why. Partly autobiographical, partly the absurdity of Burroughs imagination, 'Naked Lunch' is an excellent film.

As you watch the film, it's difficult not to be taken aback by its sheer zaniness and surreal nature; however, it's fascinating to find out that, under those layers of fantasy, Burroughs is recounting stories from his own life. Drug addiction; the accidental murder of his wife; the need to escape from the glare of city life – these were all things that Burroughs endured himself and subsequently penned down. But in pure Burroughs fashion, the author adds some mutant bugs and a crazy plot to spice it up.

And then you add Cronenberg to the equation, who himself is famed for his outrageous and sometimes ridiculous films. Cronenberg manages to bring Burroughs' vision to life in a very strong way, keeping the film moving at a frenetic pace and never really letting the viewer feel like they finally have a grasp of what is going on. At each turn, the film takes a new, unexpected twist, and we're all the better for it.

But the best thing about the film is Paul Weller. Between typewriter-shaped cockroaches and insane hallucinogenic experiences, Weller somehow instils a level of gravitas. Maybe it's his everyman good looks, or his ability to seemingly move through every scene with a quiet presence, but Weller (as lead character Bill) makes you believe in the world. Through everything that he does, you stay on his side, and that gives this strange film it's emotional core.

This is not Cronenberg's best film, I think, but 'Naked Lunch' definitely ranks up there as one of the better ones. The absurdity of it all had the potential to be off-putting; but bring together the intimacy of Burroughs' writing, the imaginative Cronenberg direction, and Weller's grounded performance, and you have a brilliantly made movie. Watch it.

Tarnation (2003)

A schizophrenic film

[6/10 · 27 November 2013]

Using a mixture of photographs, Super-8 footage, short films, answering machine messages and video diaries, filmmaker Jonathan Capouette documents the struggle he had growing up with his schizophrenic mother, and seeks to find out if more could have been done to protect her.

Jonathan Capouette is never going to be regarded as a successful filmmaker – he was the brainchild behind 'Tarnation', which is essentially a documentary about his own life, and has done very little since. But if this movie is his only legacy, then it's not the worst legacy in the world because 'Tarnation' is actually quite a good film.

But let me clarify: this is only a good film in parts. In fact, when it's good, it's very good; and when it's bad, it's pretty awful. The documentary is a very personal one, and I always struggle to hate something which is made with such intimacy and self-deprecation. The best scenes in the movie are the home footage clips of Jonathan with his mother, Renee. We see her both when she's entirely lucid and aware of herself, and at her lowest, struggling to function properly. It is heartbreaking to see this change as the documentary progresses, and the fact that the people who could have helped her are also present in these clips makes it all the more powerful.

Where the movie really falls flat is when we see Caouette 'expressing' himself, either through short films or video diaries. The fact is that he's not the most overly talented actor or filmmaker out there. What we end up with is a series of clips which are quite boring and often extremely pretentious. It's when trying to be too clever that the film is at it's worst. When the camera is just rolling, and we see the individuals for who they really are, it is a thoroughly engaging piece of film.

By the end of the movie, though, there is less of the pretension and more of the raw stuff. This seems to coincide with everyone growing older, and that is definitely a positive thing. It's a bittersweet climax to the film, and one which gave me a level of satisfaction I didn't think I'd get at the beginning.

'Tarnation' is an ambitious documentary, made by a young man who did his very best to fuse together the stark reality of his home life and his own creativity. The result is an (ironically) schizophrenic film, but a powerful one.

The Sweetest Thing (2002)

I feel like I've lost a few braincells

[2/10 · 25 November 2013]

Christina has always gone through life looking for Mr Right Now, perfectly happy with her single life and never looking for more than a fun night. But when she finally meets Mr Right, she is forced to re-evaluate her entire philosophy on relationships and the art of wooing, and ends up on a road trip to pursue him.

Well. That was a waste of time.

'The Sweetest Thing' came out a year or so after 'Charlies Angels', which had reinvigorated the idea of actresses in ensemble casts, and was clearly trying to cash in on that fad. As cheesy and girly as 'Charlies Angels' is, it's actually not a bad film and has some genuinely funny moments. 'The Sweetest Thing'? Bloody terrible.

There is genuinely no redeeming feature in this film. The story is boring and so blatantly predictable, the script was uninspired and without any laughs, the cast were wasted, and the fact that three sexy women could not engage me tells you everything you need to know.

Cameron Diaz and Christina Applegate disappointed me the most in the movie. She's a bit of a Marmite actor, but I've always liked Diaz; and Applegate is one of the best comic actors of recent times. But as best friends Christina and Courtney, the two women are rubbish. Christina is meant to be the 'modern woman', independent and self-serving; but instead of making that a character we warm to, Diaz makes her cold and whiny. Applegate is even worse – her portrayal of Courtney made me wonder why I should show any interest in her whatsoever. Selma Blair has barely any importance in the movie, so I don't even need to mention her.

I didn't enjoy watching this movie, so I'm not enjoying writing this review. It won't go on much longer, don't worry. But I'll say this – when you have a cast full of genuinely funny actors (Diaz, Applegate, and an unbelievably awful Jason Bateman), the least you should expect is some humour. Films can be terrible and still provide a few laughs. But 'The Sweetest Thing' has nothing to smile about, let alone laugh. It's just a bad film.

Oh, and spoiler alert – she gets the guy at the end. Who woulda thought? Ugh.

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Not as good as the first film, but fun nonetheless

[7/10 · 24 November 2013]

Phase 1 of the Marvel Project is all done and dusted, a phase which started on a massive high with the first Iron Man (arguably the best solo Marvel superhero film to date), and ended on one with Avengers Assemble (the best Marvel film, in my opinion). Marvel Films did what was seemingly impossible, and did it unbelievably well. So, like millions of others, I waited with bated bread for Phase 2 to kick off. Iron Man 3 rolled around and…heh. It wasn't an awful film and the Tony Stark character took an interesting turn, but it didn't live up to the success of his first two outings and the Marvel standard as a whole.

Which brings us on to the next step of Phase 2 – Thor. The first film was one of the big surprises of the genre. While his other superhero friends are steeped in some level of reality, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is from an entirely different world, so the task of bringing him into 'our' world and making it believable was a tough one. But they did it, and the result was a thoroughly entertaining film that took advantage of the character's supernatural elements. With the sequel, directors Alan Taylor and James Gunn (taking over from Kenneth Branagh) decided to amp the supernatural side up even more.

While the first movie introduces us to Asgard, Thor's home planet, The Dark World is set almost entirely in the alien world. This time, Asgard is under threat from an even darker foe hell-bent on literally destroying the entire universe. The epic plot allows the film to explore Asgard with much more detail, and we gain a better understanding of how the world works. Expectedly, we're treated to some gorgeous CGI and special effects, making it fun to watch. The fish-out-of-water formula is also subverted as Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) is now in Asgard, essentially playing our eyes and ears. Unfortunately, that formula isn't as successful as it was in the first movie. Watching Thor try to make sense of Earth is genuinely hilarious, but we don't quite get that with Foster. Funnier than that is seeing Foster's Earth friends go about their business (Kat Dennings, in particular, is very funny).In fact, the scenes in Asgard, as a whole, aren't overly amusing. That is, until, one Tom Hiddleston enters the fray.

As Loki, Hiddleston is once again sublime. That scathing sarcasm, the wry smiles, his excellent diction and tone; everything about the performance is a pleasure to experience. It is by no means an exaggeration to suggest that he steals every scene he is in. My favourite scenes were the ones that he was in – just waiting for him to say something, and knowing it was going to be gold. And it pretty much always was. The character's journey in the film is also very gripping, and sets us up nicely for whatever might come next. Loki is to Thor what Iago is to Othello: he is the actual main character, he is the one we want to see. And just like people have argued that Shakespeare's play should be called Iago, I would strongly argue that the film should have been named after Loki.

Where we have a problem is that, when Loki isn't on screen (and his screen time is crucial but limited), the film just never seems as engaging. I found myself missing the character, and wishing he was ever-present. I won't reveal any spoilers but will say the ending makes up for that longing, but that doesn't stop the film suffering because of it.

This is, overall, why the sequel just doesn't work as well as the first film. And it isn't just the lack of Loki's presence; other characters I wanted to see more of were used sparingly. Kat Dennings, as mentioned before, was one of those characters; and Stellan Skarsgard was another. Instead, we saw a lot more of Anthony Hopkins (boring and uninspiring), Idris Elba (strong presence but also boring) and Christopher Ecclestone (who is completely unrecognisable but actually quite good).

Don't get me wrong, The Dark World is not a bad film. It's much better than Iron Man 3, and there is enough excitement and good action to stop you getting bored. It just isn't as engaging as the first one, that's all. Sadly, Phase 2 of the Avengers Project has started with a bit of a whimper; we can only hope it gets better from here.

Room 237 (I) (2012)

Very interesting look at an iconic movie

[7/10 · 22 November 2013]

There are of course rivals for the crown, but 'The Shining' is widely regarded as one of the greatest horror movies of all time, and arguably director Stanley Kubricks' finest. Here, a group of superfans put forward their interpretations of the movie, exploring the film in entirely different ways.

I wouldn't personally consider 'The Shining' Kubricks' best movie – I think I'd give that accolade to 'A Clockwork Orange' – but it is still an absolutely fantastic film. Genuinely frightening, it boasts what I think is Jack Nicholson's greatest performance and a great climactic sequence. What 'Room 237' does is take the themes of the film and picks at them constantly, sometimes with good effect.

All of the theories put forward in the documentary are very interesting, and it's clear to see that a lot of time and effort has gone into developing them. However, at times, I wondered just why all that time and effort was spent. One of the theorists discusses how, based on where the characters move around, the hotel is not architecturally accurate. Somewhat interesting, yes, but is it really that important? Another theorist explains how he has taken to watching the movie in reverse, back to front, reverse back to front, etc. as watching the movie in these different ways reveals new things about the film. Again, it seems unimportant and preposterous.

But there is also some very engaging exploration too. One of the great mysteries of cinema is the rumour that Stanley Kubrick directed the Moon landing, and many people believe we see allusions to this in 'The Shining'. Similarly, a lot of people believe that the film is actually an allegory on real-life problems, such as the plight of the Native Americans and the Nazis. While it still feels like the theorists are clutching at straws at times, I found it fascinating how they connected moments in the film to their supposedly real-life parallels.

Whether you agree with the stuff being said in this documentary or not, what you can't fault is the passion of the theorists. What stuck with me was just how much these people believed in what they discussed, and there's an admirable quality to that. But I still do believe that the film required too much from me, and it was a suspension of disbelief I wasn't able to have.

Hysteria (2011)

Not a bad film, not a great film

[6/10 · 21 November 2013]

In 1880's London an ambitious doctor called Mortimer Granville gets a job with Dr Dalrymple, who has the unique skill of relieving his female patients' frustrations with pelvic massaging. Building on this concept, Granville turns a feather duster into an instrument of pleasure, essentially creating the world's first vibrator.

It's pretty unusual that a film is based entirely around the creation of the vibrator, but we are talking about quite possibly THE most popular sex-toy in the world. The story is actually quite an interesting one, albeit an amusing one. How director Tanya Wexler chose to tell the story would determine the success of the movie.

Maybe it's because she's a woman, but Wexler has ended up telling the story exactly as it needed to be told – with tongue firmly in cheek. Using Stephen and Jonah Lisa Dyer's solid script, Wexler has crafted a light-hearted and amusing piece of cinema that understands the joke and doesn't try to shy away from it.

It's because the film has such a tongue-in-cheek nature that the inclusion of a love triangle irks me a little bit. Perhaps the tale of the two sisters vying for Granville's (Hugh Dancy) heart is a part of the true story, but it feels very forced, as if put in there to make it more cinematic. It takes away from the main story as a result, lessening it's appeal.

The silver lining of the love triangle, though, is that it allows us to get some very good performances from Felicity Jones and Maggie Gyllenhaal. Jones and Dancy are good in their roles, there's no argument there, but Gyllenhaal is the MVP of the film. Doing an incredibly realistic London accent, she steals the show as the rebellious and impulsive Charlotte Dalrymple, more interested in womens' rights than the honour and respect of her family. This is in contrast to sister Emily (Jones), who is the perfect English rose, but a tad boring. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out who Granville chooses in the end, but at least we get some good acting out of it.

'Hysteria' pretty much stayed under the radar on it's release, and it's easy to see why. It doesn't break any major boundaries, and doesn't boast any fantastic performances or memorable moments. It's just a very sweet, albeit slightly cheeky, film that could be better and could be worse. A film you could watch on a quiet night in, if you get bored of the dildo.

St. Trinian's (2007)

So awful, it's actually quite fun

[5/10 · 21 November 2013]

Annabelle Fritton joins St Trinian's, a school for 'young ladies' that prides itself on the anarchic doctrine of free expression. Fritton struggles to fit in at first, but manages to win them over as all the girls band together to try and save the school from bankruptcy.

Okay, so 'St Trinian's' is a pretty awful film, nobody is going to argue that. It's unashamedly predictable, full of stereotypical characters and clichéd scenes and sequences. At every turn, the film gets more and more absurd, and I found myself shaking my head continuously.

But here's the thing: as awful as it is, there's something about the film which stopped me from hating it. Because, to be fair, it was made to be awful. 'St Trinian's' is a good old-fashioned British pantomime on the big screen. You have the man in drag, you have the overly-stereotyped characters, you have the completely ridiculous story where nothing makes sense. Perhaps the only thing missing were songs but, other than that, this may as well have been a panto.

More than that, though, what endears me about the movie is just how much British talent is on offer. It's like a who's who of young British actors – Talulah Riley, Tamsin Egerton, Lily Cole, Juno Temple and Gemma Arteton to name just a few – all given their time to shine and doing a good job. Egerton, in particular, is excellent as the stupid blonde, getting by with her sex appeal and sheer good luck. It's also nice to see actors like Colin Firth, Stephen Fry and Rupert Everett especially make fun of themselves.

Like I say, this is a really awful film, but it's a movie so rubbish that it's actually quite good. I'll never voluntarily choose to watch 'St Trinian's'; but get me drunk enough the night before, and this is a more than adequate Sunday hangover movie.

Gravity (2013)

One of the best films of the year....

[9/10 · 20 November 2013]

Me and 3D have never really got along. There isn't a lot of love there. When choosing between watching a film in 2D and 3D, I've always chosen the former, and always will do. But, sometimes, films come along that force you to choose 3D. Avatar for one – I fell asleep halfway through. Life Of Pi – pretty but needless. In short, I've never been blown away by it. IMAX is the future, in my opinion, but bloody expensive. 3D? it's a fad that will go away, just give it a few years.

But, I implore you. Go and watch Gravity. And make sure you watch it in glorious 3D.

Gravity, for those that don't know, is the new film from Mexican director Alfonso Cuaron. Truth be told, I wasn't too aware of the name, but he has made some fantastic films in the past (Y Tu Mama Tambien; Children Of Men; Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban, to name a few). All of his best films have the same thing in common – visually, they're a treat to watch. One of the most powerful moments of Children Of Men, for example, is when blood splatters across the screen and just stays there on the lens. With this new film, though, Cuaron takes that talent to a whole new level.

The film is unlike any other I have ever seen. Visually and viscerally, from the very first scene, it's a stunning watch. Very many excellent films have been made in the past about space, but Gravity is the first time that a movie actually takes advantage of the sheer distance and nothingness that space provides. It's full of beautiful long-shots, moving over the Earth, the stars, the space stations and debris around the place, and the people themselves. It's jawdropping; but as beautiful as it is, it's amazing just how terrifying it also becomes. As Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) hurtles helplessly through space, spinning uncontrollably and screaming for help, I was frightened. That fright was heightened by the use of 3D; this wasn't just objects needlessly flying off the screen at me; the 3D tricks were in context and meant something.

Thankfully, what Cuaron manages to do very well is supplement the visuals with a very solid and emotional story. Bullock's character has gotten literally lost in space and is desperate to get home. But this is not just your usual sci-fi adventure flick – this is an emotional tale about hope, faith and (beyond all) the idea of letting go. Whether it's letting go of a traumatic experience, or simply letting go of a wire, it's a theme that runs throughout the movie and eventually sets us up for the exciting final third.

At the heart of it is Sandra Bullock herself – as Ryan Stone, the veteran actress provides yet another excellent performance. You quickly forget that it's Bullock, so immersed she becomes in the role. Once again, the 3D plays a big part here; as she floats through space, we become her eyes, therefore creating a bigger bond between actor and audience.

But while one actor enhances the film, the other one did a helluva job trying to bring it down. That's right – George Clooney. Now, I love Clooney, I think he's a wonderful actor and you can't help loving that Hollywood charm. Gravity, however, was not the vehicle for this charm. I found the character irritating and completely out of place. I understood the need for the role of Matt Kowalski, but perhaps with a different personality.

The one-dimensional supporting character was made even more irritable because of the unintelligent script. A lot of the dialogue here was hokey and full of cliché, which was a little bit annoying. It wouldn't have been so annoying, had the other facets of the film not been so brilliant. They were, though, and I wish the script had been too.

However, overall, Gravity is still a fantastic film. Clooney's performance really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, and you're not going to watch this film for the great script. You should be watching Gravity for its ground-breaking use of special effects, it's changing of the way science fiction and 3D will be viewed in the future, and it's engaging story and strong central performance.

Gravity is one of the best films of the year, and one of the best sci-fi movies in the last five years. Watch it. In 3D.

The Babysitters (2007)

Boring, predictable, and full of uninspired performances

[4/10 · 19 November 2013]

After she ends up having sex with one of her customers, a teenager decides to turn her babysitting job into an illicit escort agency, with herself and her friends as the call-girls. Things are great at first, but the reality of the situation she has put herself and her friends in starts to take its toll.

I'll be honest – even before I started to watch 'The Babysitters', I wasn't feeling great about it. A decent cast of good but unimpressive actors; a handful of sexy girls there to just be sexy; and a play on that lovely babysitter fantasy. It was destined to be failure.

And, well, it's a failure.

It's a failure mainly because it's so predictable. It was clear to see where it was going, and writer/director David Ross never really challenges our expectations – if anything, he goes out of his way to make sure everything goes as we imagined it would. Very boring.

Another problem is that Katherine Waterston (playing central character Shirley), as gorgeous as she is, just isn't a very good actor. If you're going to base your film around a young actor, that actor better be good, and we didn't get that here. She's not absolutely awful, she has her moments, but nothing sustained enough to make it a performance worth investing in. The big name in the film is John Leguizamo. I liked his character, and the man is obviously a fantastic actor, but he's wasted here. Similarly, Cynthia Nixon is barely there, and doesn't have a lot to do.

I feel I should balance this out with a positive from the movie, but I'm at a loss as to what that might be. If I would praise anything, it would be the performance of Lauren Birkell, as Shirley's best friend Melissa. She is the kooky, quirky one, and does it very well. It's a spirited performance, the kind of performance someone gives when they're doing best to get noticed. But it's one shining light in a badly-made film.

'The Babysitters' is watchable, but you're not going to enjoy it too much. If you're happy to put up with a boring script if it means you get some lovely eye candy, please do watch this, as you get a healthy dose of both things. If you like your films, y'know, good, avoid it.

The Machinist (2004)

Frail Bale enhances a somewhat average movie

[6/10 · 18 November 2013]

Having not slept for over a year, industrial worker Trevor Reznik begins to interact with people and see things that are out of the ordinary. While trying to prove that the mysterious Ivan is real, he begins to question his own sanity. What is real, and what is a figment of his sleep-deprived imagination starts to become unclear.

'The Machinist' has become famous for being THAT Christian Bale film where he's dangerously thin. And, guys, Christian Bale is dangerously thin in this film; scarily so. That's literally the only reason I had for wanting to see the movie, as I had no idea what the film was about, or what it's critical and commercial standing was.

And yes, Bale's performance is immense. As the insomniac Trevor Reznik, he is a livewire on screen, stealing every scene he's in. You forget quite quickly that it's a Hollywood superstar, and get lost in the character. Reznik is a man in constant suffering – the lack of sleep, the breakdown of his sanity, his helplessness, his lack of trust – and Bale every emotion with class. His very thin physique adds to the aura of the character, and the star deserves huge kudos for the dedication.

But truth be told, it's a very good performance in only a decent movie. While I was fully engaged by the Trevor Reznik character, and thoroughly enjoyed seeing Bale's performance, I didn't have as much enthusiasm for the rest of the film. None of the other characters (except maybe Jennifer Jason Leigh's character Stevie) really resonated, with the chief antagonist Ivan (John Sharian) more annoying than anything else.

At the heart of it, the film is a mystery thriller full of twists and turns. Again, just like the characters themselves, I was never really blown away by the changes in the narrative. Because I didn't engage with the characters, I didn't engage with the action either. The ending was also extremely anticlimactic, leaving me quite unsatisfied.

I think 'The Machinist' is a movie which gets by on the appeal of Christian Bale's acting performance, and he is perhaps strong enough to make the film watchable. The fact he lived on just a can of tuna and an apple for so long is ridiculous, and it's worth seeing the movie just to experience the result of that dedication. But don't be fooled that this is an amazing film. The comparisons to 'Memento' and 'Shutter Island' are obvious, but 'Memento' this is not. It's a decent film, anchored by an excellent lead performance, that's all.

The Sessions (2012)

A thoroughly enjoyable movie

[7/10 · 17 November 2013]

Having suffered from polio as a young child, journalist and poet Mark O'Brien spends his entire life in an iron lung. But when he decides that he wants to lose his virginity, he enlists the help of a sex surrogate to make his wish come true, with the guidance of his carer and a priest.

'The Sessions' is a wonderful film, told with beautiful sincerity and a very wry sense of humour. Exploring the themes of physical disability and sexual desire is a very sensitive undertaking, and could so easily have been bastardised in the wrong hands. Thankfully, Ben Lewin had the right hands to place it in, and the result is a well-told, engaging film.

In my opinion, why it works so well is that Lewin manages to get a stunning (and Oscar-nominated) performance out of John Hawkes, as the physically-impaired Mark O'Brien. Hawkes is probably more famous for his darker, creepier roles in films like 'Winter's Bone' and 'Martha Marcy Mae Marlene', and this is an entire shift from those characters. O'Brien is witty, charming and utterly lovable, but he's unable to express his love because of the disability holding him back. It is such a complex character full of melancholy and frustration, and Hawkes handles it superbly. The fact that he immerses himself in the role physically, living the way O'Brien did, only adds to the strength of the performance.

It isn't just Hawkes, though. Helen Hunt as the sex surrogate is excellent, and I do think she's severely underrated as an actor. Her film roles seem to be quite few and far between, but she always delivers, as she does here. The constant full frontal nudity was also a shocker. Moon Bloodgood and William H Macy are also very good as characters which serve as background cast, but are very well-rounded.

The film wasn't hyped that much when it came out, which is a bit of a shame because I think it's excellent. I don't think there's much to dislike about the movie, and probably it's only let-down is that it didn't have a glamorous cast. But, to be fair, it's that lack of big stars which probably makes the film so good, as it becomes easier to engage with the characters. Give this film a watch if you haven't already, you won't be disappointed.

Planet of the Apes (1968)

A sci-fi classic

[8/10 · 16 November 2013]

A crew of astronauts crash-lands on a planet in the distant future, where the dominant species are intelligent, talking apes. The leader of the astronauts is treated like a caged slave (like the other humans on the planet) but he tries to escape, in the hope to return home.

'Planet Of The Apes' is one of those movies that I knew everything about, without actually ever having seen it. I knew the characters, the narrative, THAT iconic ending – I knew the whole lot. So, admittedly, I was a bit worried that it wouldn't live up to my imagination. Thankfully, it was as good as I had hoped. With an excellent premise, good writing, and strong special effects for the time, the movie really is a sci-fi classic.

The best thing about the film is the premise – turning the evolution theory upside down is an extremely intelligent idea, and it's handled brilliantly by the writers. It's a script full of wit and irony, with the right level of satire to make the film work. I won't spoil the ending, but it's a brilliant one, rightfully regarded as one of the best endings in cinema history.

The use of make-up and costumes is also commendable, especially considering it was the late-sixties. Sure, the apes don't look amazing; but, somehow, it works. As the film goes on, you forget that these are people wearing somewhat mediocre ape costumes – you're so heavily invested in the characters by this point that how they look becomes an afterthought. That being said, Kim Hunter is brilliant as Zira, doing a great job of emoting with her eyes.

The let-down, for me, was Charlton Heston. Heston has always had the moniker of being a hammy actor, and he's really, really hammed it up for this film. It's excruciating at times to see him overacting so much, and a miracle that it didn't end up hurting the movie. At the end, he does just enough to keep the film engaging and watchful, and we should all be thankful that the supporting cast are so excellent around him.

This really is a brilliant film, and one I thoroughly enjoyed watching. Whatever you may think of the movie, and whatever your opinion of Charlton Heston's acting, nothing can be taken away from it's final couple of minutes. The film is worth watching just for that.

Philomena (2013)

Does what it says on the tin...

[6/10 · 16 November 2013]

The problem I have with a lot of trailers these days is that the movie tends to get given away in those measly three minutes. Not as much fun taking a trip to the cinema when you already know how it's going to end. Granted, most films these days are predictable anyway, but some level of mystery is always nice. Annoyingly, there's very little mystery in the trailer of Philomena; the entire movie is summed up with three simple words: human interest story.

Let's be fair, though. When you've got Stephen Frears, Judi Dench and Coogan working on the same film together, it would be ridiculous to expect anything else. Philomena is an out-and-out human interest story, seeped in sentimentality and designed purely to tug at the heartstrings and send the audience home with a smile on their face and a tear in their eye. And, for the most part, it's relatively successful.

It's difficult not to be moved by the story of Philomena Lee (Dench), the middle-aged woman searching for the son taken away from her because she was pregnant out of wedlock. It's an emotional story, requiring the sort of emotional performance that someone like Judi Dench is brilliant at giving. She doesn't disappoint, either, obviously. Able to move between melancholy and humour seamlessly, Dench is a joy to watch. Her comic timing has always been impeccable, and she gets ample opportunity to showcase that here.

But there's a slight problem – everyone else in the film is just a little bit too boring. Coogan's the main disappointment. I really like him, and think that he's still under-appreciated as a serious actor. Philomena, though, isn't his greatest showcase. It's not that he's bad in it, because he's not; he's actually quite good. It's the character of journalist Martin Sixsmith which lets him down – Coogan does the best he can, but it's so utterly one-dimensional. The character doesn't really change much over the course of the film, beyond evolving from 'caring a little bit' to 'caring quite a bit'. Hardly the stuff of scripting genius.

The writing as a whole is pretty average and, funnily enough, Coogan was responsible for that too. It has its moments (the jokes are good, as you'd expect from a Coogan script), but it relies on overdone cliché and sentiment instead of trying something new. Again, it's not awful. It's just...okay. I didn't find myself emotionally engaged enough, though it does pick up in the final third. The climax of the movie is genuinely moving, and the sweet little twist at the end was just good enough to leave me satisfied.

Philomena is, by and large, a good film. A great story, a fantastic central performance, and an ending which does bring that smile and that tear. I only wish that the rest of the film was more emotionally engaging, and the rest of the cast better-developed. Jim Loach's Oranges And Sunshine explores very similar themes, and is a far better watch, in my opinion. But, hey, it doesn't have Alan Partridge and M in that.

Watchmen (2009)

A long film, but a faithful and excellent one

[8/10 · 30 October 2013]

In an alternative reality, America in 1985 is home to a group of former superheroes who have now moved on. But when one of their members is killed in suspicious circumstances, the group is drawn back together; what they uncover could change the course of history as they know it.

For those how haven't read it, 'Watchmen' is a fantastic graphic novel, the first I ever read. From the excellent concept and story, to the beautiful artistry, the novel ranks rightfully as one of the best ever written. The film had a lot to live up to, and I came in with slight reservations. So rather than chop and change it too much, director Zack Snyder smartly does his best to stay true to the text. Now, this works both to his advantage and to his detriment.

The bad first, and it is one major criticism: 'Watchmen' is far too long. There are a few versions out there, and the one I watched clocked in at about two hours and forty minutes. Yes, it's engaging, and so much of the novel is retained in the book, but it requires a great deal of investment. And because the film is so closely adapted from the text, there are long periods where there is essentially a lull. For me, watching a near-three hour film, those lulls were a bit difficult to get through.

However, if you're able to get through the sheer length of the movie, what you're treated to is an extremely faithful and visceral adaptation. The film is violent and unflinching, with some fantastic casting choices. Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian) and Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach) are the standout performers – the latter steals every scene he is in. In particular, Rorschach's scenes in the prison are great to watch, and he is exactly as I imagined he would be in the comic.

'Watchmen' also benefits from a very good soundtrack. The use of Bob Dylan's 'The Times They Are A'Changing' in the introductory sequence is the one that everyone raves about, and it is great (it's the perfect accompaniment as the film's place, time and atmosphere is established); however, there are also great songs from the likes of Simon & Garfunkel and Leonard Cohen littered in there, all adding to the spectacle. Snyder also uses the same colour and light tricks he did in '300', giving the visual quality a nice little sheen.

You don't really need to have read the graphic novel to enjoy the film, but I'd argue that knowing the source text will probably make you appreciate just how good the film is. You're going to see some excellent performances, and the story is thoroughly engaging; but as good as it is, it should not need to be close to three hours long.

Tekkonkinkreet (2006)

Am I the only person not blown away by this?

[6/10 · 24 October 2013]

Black and White, two brothers, claim to own Treasure Town, the city where they live. Life is both peaceful and violent here, ruled by the stray Cats who act as they please. But things spiral out of control for Black and White when they are forced to defend themselves (and their city) from not only the Yakuza but a dark, more sinister and supernatural evil.

A lot was said about 'Tekkonkinkreet', which is why I thought it would be a good movie to see. My knowledge of Japanese animation is limited (Studio Ghibli is as far as it stretches, really), so this was meant to be an opportunity to expand my horizons.

So I was a little let down. I was really wanting this film to blow my mind; instead, it was somewhat average and nothing else. It's not a bad film by any means. The story is a strong one, and I liked how the supernatural elements of the film were integrated with the gritty reality. That was never jarring and, frankly, animated films allow you to suspend disbelief with so much more ease. My problem was with the story – I was just never that engaged. I liked the dynamic between the two central characters (even with their ridiculously obvious names), but not enough to carry me through the two hours. By the end, I was just waiting for it to end. Which isn't good.

But here's why the film is still worth watching – the animation. The art is spectacular, with a superb attention to detail in everything, from wrinkled faces to individual faces in crowds. I watched it in Blu-Ray too, so it was that much more sharper and the colours were so striking and beautiful. It had the same effect on me that Avatar did – I was in awe of the visuals, but fell asleep once the novelty wore off. Yep, I ended up having to watch the second half the next day, simply because I just couldn't enjoy the movie enough to stay awake.

'Tekkonkinkreet' suffers from a story that maybe can't be condensed into a screenplay, and I will safely presume that the original comic is probably fantastic. But as a film, it just doesn't work. Try and see it for the sheer brilliance of the animation but, personally, not much else is must-see here.

Clerks (1994)

Funny, yes; but over-rated and over-hyped

[6/10 · 20 October 2013]

'Clerks' follows the lives of two convenience store clerks named Dante (Brian O'Halloran) and Randal (Jeff Anderson), as they struggle through a Saturday shift. Throughout the course of the day, they meet some strange customers and endure some crazy experiences. And things get even crazier for Dante when problems with his current girlfriend coincide with a renewed relationship with his ex.

Kevin Smith is an extremely divisive personality in the film world – he is either lovingly (and sometimes obsessively) revered, or treated with a lot of disdain. I fall somewhere in between, mainly because I thought 'Chasing Amy' was just alright and really enjoyed 'Dogma'. And, truth be told, I decided to watch 'Clerks' because this was seen as the quintessential Kevin Smith movie. If you like 'Clerks', you'll probably be a Kevin Smith fan.

Well, I did not like 'Clerks'.

Now let me preface this by saying that, at times, this movie is very funny. Kevin Smith is very good at writing dialogue, something he proved in his later films but had nailed from the beginning. Some of the conversations in the film are so fun to listen to, mainly for their zippy nature and outrageous subject matter. Pretty much everyone working on the movie are Smith's friends, and that chemistry is so evident in the scenes. You can feel the fun on screen.

But that's also the inherent problem with 'Clerks' – it's so ridiculously self-indulgent. A lot of Smith's friends aren't very good actors. Jason Mewes is a cult legend but he's not very good. Same goes for Jeff Anderson. The Randal character is a great one, don't get me wrong; but someone with better acting abilities could have really made it spectacular. Tellingly, the two best actors in the film (O'Halloran and Ghigliotti) are not part of that friendship group.

Another issue with 'Clerks' is that it's written for a particular generation. Smith was writing about himself and his friends, those young people living in 1990s New Jersey. So if you were young at that time, 'Clerks' was extremely relatable. But, in 2013, maybe not so much, especially if you're from England. While I'm able to appreciate that films can be good without necessarily speaking to me, the films need to be good.

As a blueprint for what came later in Kevin Smith's filmography, this was a perfectly acceptable movie. You can see how the experiences on 'Clerks' has inspired what he does now. But as a film in its own right, the film is nowhere near as good as some people make it out to be. It's also definitely not the legendary cult movie it has seemingly become. I wouldn't say watching 'Clerks' was a waste of time; it was a disappointment though.

Shadow Dancer (2012)

An engaging, albeit not a great, look at the Troubles

[6/10 · 20 October 2013]

Set during the start of the 90s Irish peace process, an active member of the IRA is forced to become an informant for the MI5 after they use her young son as bait. She moves back home to Belfast and reimmerses herself into the world of violence and terrorism, all the while worried for her – and her son's – safety, in case she gets found out.

Movies about the IRA, and The Troubles in general, always interest me. I think it's because that whole period is based in a country so close to me, about a time so close to me, that it resonates. So I was quite pleased when 'Shadow Dancer' arrived on my desk. And, for the most, I was quite impressed by this British movie.

Problem is that it's not the actual story I was impressed by. It's not bad, to be fair of it. This is set at a time when the Troubles were coming to an end, so the portrayal of how this causes fractions in an Irish family is an intelligent and somewhat fresh one. However, despite the very good actors playing the family (Riseborough, Gillen, Gleeson, Brennan), I just never feel emotionally attached to them. The ending is a very powerful one, but it's more the visceral impact than the emotional one which stuck with me.

What actually impressed me was Andrea Riseborough's performance. As she demonstrated in Madonna's 'W.E.', Riseborough has the ability to be brilliant in average films. Okay, 'Shadow Dancer' is a bit better than average, but she was so much better than the film deserved. From her very first scene, where the camera follows her along a train journey, the silence of it all permeated by a very expressive face, she commands the show. Clive Owen tries hard to keep up and, while he's also very good, he's no match for her. Everyone else has too undeveloped a role to really get invested in, which is a shame.

'Shadow Dancer' is a great movie for those of you who love meaty characters, power shifts and twists and turns. The execution isn't perfect, but this film has all of that. But why you should really want to watch this is if you like seeing a powerhouse performance from one of the best British actresses of recent times.

Taxi Driver (1976)

A masterclass in filmmaking and acting

[10/10 · 10 October 2013]

Unhinged and unable to sleep, Vietnam War veteran Travis Bickle (Robert DeNiro) takes up a job as night-time New York City cab driver. Amongst the filth and depravity of the night-time New York streets, Travis comes across a twelve-year old prostitute called Iris (Jodie Foster). Feeling like it is his duty to protect his preadolescent, Travis begins to succumb to a previously-suppressed urge for violence within him.

'Taxi Driver' easily ranks amongst the greatest films ever made, and is arguably also Martin Scorsese and Robert DeNiro's best film (though there are other valid contenders too). What makes the film so good is that it's the perfect snapshot of the time – late seventies, an America that is still reeling from the horrors of Vietnam, with that disillusionment and depravity so beautifully portrayed. But, despite the film being so rooted in time, it manages to remain relevant today almost 40 years later. This could be watched in 2013, and still resonate with the viewer as much as it would have done in the seventies.

Obviously, the main draw of the movie is Mr DeNiro. And, yes, he is incredible. From the very first shot, he is sublime. The film has often been described as a horror movie and, if you go with that line of thinking, then DeNiro is easily the monster. His cheeky grins and boyish looks are hiding a sinister side – as the film goes on, and the façade slips, Bickle becomes frightening. It's amazing to see DeNiro make that transformation.

In the deserved praise heaped on DeNiro, I think the power of Jodie Foster's performance is somewhat underrated. At only twelve years, having to play the role she does, Foster is amazing. Not many kids that age would play a prostitute, but she does it, and does it brilliantly. I've never been a massive fan of Foster's work, but she certainly does a stellar job in this movie.

Another great aspect of the movie is the score. Again, the horror movie theory is backed up by the downright frightening theme music. More than an actual tune, it is almost a warning drone. Rising brass instruments, loud and brash, it is haunting and creates the perfect ambiance for the film.

I could go on and on about all the other good things about the movie (Cybill Shepherd, Scorsese's cameo, the aesthetic violence, the visceral nature of the film, the script), but I'd be here forever. If you haven't seen it already, shame on you. See it now. It's an education in cinema.