The Weirdest Film You May Not See This Year

If you follow me on Twitter (emsuckle), you'll notice that I've been going on about Cosmopolis a lot recently. I'll admit that it first came to my attention due to a certain leading man who regular readers know I'm a big fan of, but I followed the news about it and read the novel it was based on, and the intrigue only grew from then on. I've probably delayed posting this review for so long that it isn't being shown in UK cinemas anymore (not that it had a wide release anyway), but I still think people should know about it. But I must say before we begin, I am NOT being biased when I write this. I've already had accusations of this, but I absolutely cannot stress enough that it isn't true.

28 year old billionaire Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) embarks on a cross-town journey to get a haircut. On the way, he encounters many people, including his wife and colleagues, as he travels in his limo, but a "credible threat" to his life and a deliberate loss of billions of dollars mean Packer is soon re-evaluating and questioning a lot of things in his life.

I can't really give you a lot more plot than that, because it would spoil the film, but it's one hell of a surreal movie to watch.

I've heard a few people complaining about the fact they "didn't get it"and walked out, but in my honest poinion I think that they just didn't give it enough of a chance, or focus enough. It's challenging, especially with the amount of dialogue and the not-so-coherent plot. I don't think it matters if people don't understand it - Robert Pattinson and David Cronenberg have been very open about the fact that they don't really get it. Also, it's Cronenberg, people! He makes strange films and I don't know why people are surprised that this was weird. I didn't see A Dangerous Method, but I've heard that comparitively Cosmopolis is much more his style, not to mention a lot better than A Dangerous Method, which received very lukewarm reviews.

Dialogue is a major aspect of the film, and every word out of the actors' mouths sound like poetry. A lot of people who have seen it have said that the dialogue was nearly incomprehensable, and I kind of see why they would say that - it's very dense, and admittedly there is a lot of it, so if concentrating on speech isn't your cup of tea then this maybe isn't a film you will enjoy very much. I seem to be the only person in my screen who followed it, which probably meant that I didn't get the film at all. But hey ho, I still absolutely loved it; it's so different to what I've come to expect in modern cinema - it feels like a film made for intellects, and not for general wide audiences. Yes, that sounds pretentious and elitist, which to some extent the film in general is, but those who get it will really appreciate it, and it's challenging, which is refreshing. Every sentence is carefully structured so it doesn't really sound like normal speech, it's far more stylised. But this synthetic way of talking only heightens the audience's awareness that nothing is natural, yet at the same time beautiful, just like the dialogue itself. But don't miss the humour. There's a lot of it; it's dark but it's there. I think people missed some of it because of the complexity of the vocabulary and the strangeness of the film, but it's something that should be appreciated about the film. (I apologise for all this analysis - I feel like I'm writing an essay - but these are all the thoughts I had whilst watching it. It's probably something to do with the way an English student's mind works.)

Every member of the cast is brilliant. What has annoyed me a great deal in both my excitement in the build up and the reverence post-viewing is how everyone assumes I'm being biased, but genuinely, Robert Pattinson was brilliant. He's in every scene, which is unusual for a leading actor in films right now, but the charisma he gives off proves he was a fine choice in casting. As Packer, he fantastically pulls off the mean feat of appearing to be cool and aloof to every aspect of his life, but also carefully calculating and energetic under the surface. There are a lot of subtle nuances that may go unnoticed to some people, but they are the difference between looking wooden half the time and actually producing an excellent display of acting ability. The few times he shows strong emotion are actually a bit of a shock, because it's such a contrast to how he is for most of the film, aside from the end where he is clearly full of joy and excitement at having his life threatened. I'm not even joking. From casual twitches to sweeping changes in facial expression, and, later in the film, frenetic energy and carefully placed body movement mean that he totally owns and carries the film. I hope that after seeing this people will stop judging Robert Pattinson solely on his appearances in Twilight, and accept that he actually is not only a very capable actor, but one who has the potential to be brilliant. This is definitely his best performance in a film so far, and I know a lot of you haters will be thinking, "Well, that's not hard," but actually just give him a chance. If people would stop hating and judging him so harshly only because of the franchise that made him famous, they would be able to see that he actually is a very talented actor. And get used to it, because after seeing this I'm thinking he's going to be around for a long time. David Cronenberg clearly thinks so, since he's reportedly cast him in a couple of his upcoming projects and publicly stated how much he enjoyed working with him - Pattinson is basically the next Viggo Mortensen, and that is by no means a bad thing. I spy the beginning of a beautiful partnership.

As brilliant as I think Pattinson is in this, he doesn't overshadow the other big names in the film. Samantha Morton was a stand-out for me, I'd like to see her in more things, and the banter between her and Pattinson was endlessly watchable. Sarah Gadon, playing Pattinson's detached wife, was another highlight for me, and I predict good things for her in the future. Again, their conversations were wonderful to watch, and their chemistry was great; they were both very convincing in their roles together. There were others like Juliette Binoche and Mathieu Amalric who were just glorified cameos, but that's not to take away from their performances: every single person who appeared in the film for more than 0.3 seconds contributed to it, and it's one of my favourite ensemble casts in recent times, if you can even call it that considering there are only about three or four characters who appear for more than ten minutes in total. All of the different actors, no matter how brief their appearance, made an impact and had the chance to shine.

I need to give a special mention to Paul Giamatti, who was absolutely superb. I've written about his other work before, and after seeing this I respect him even more as an actor - I think he's seriously underrated and he needs to be in more films, and more people need to be aware of his amazing talent. He and Pattinson are excellent together; they have such a rapport and the last 15 minutes with their one-on-one interaction is definitely the most engaging, helped obviously by the fact that it's the climax of the film and it builds to a massive crescendo. They bounce off each other flawlessly, and watching it, it's even more inconceivable that it was done in only a couple of takes, because that just proves how outstanding they both are in this scene. I shall be watching this scene on repeat a lot when I finally get the dvd.

Considering the novel on which it was based was written twelve years ago, it's quite eerie how well this film reflects modern times, even mirroring one real-life event. During promotion for this, Cronenberg said how one particular pie-throwing scene was filmed around the same time as Rupert Murdoch's pie-in-the-face incident, which was quite amusing. But really, it says a lot that a novel written a relatively long time ago can comment so accurately on our society today. It's a film that asks more questions than it answers, which I understand may annoy people, but it makes a lot of statements about the world we live in and the consumerist lifestyles we lead.

One particular aspect of the film I liked was the fact that 90% of the film took place inside Eric's limo. It made the film very claustrophobic in an almost neo-noir kind of way, and heightened the intensity of what was going on, but also it separated the philosophical conversations going on in the limo with Eric and his various escorts with the chaos and destruction that was going on outside, in society. It also added to how surreal the film was, as the rare times when Eric left his car during the film felt strange, that he didn't belong in society, like some kind of demigod. The film is full of contrasts, and asymmetry especially, and the set of the limo is so effective in bringing out these themes and intensifying the action and dialogue.

I don't write a lot of reviews without mentioning the score, one of my favourite pieces of any film usually, and this is no different. As I write this I'm listening to Howard Shore's (who has worked on every Cronenberg movie for the last thirty years) composition, which I downloaded as soon as I got in from seeing the film. (You should all know by now I have no actual technical knowledge of film scores, I just comment on the way they reflect the film and what they add to it.) It's eerie in a lot of ways, and also succeeds in building up tension, but in a very subtle way. It's obviously synthetic as well, not so much in the way a lot of 80s sci-fis were, but in a way that is clearly reflecting on the film's theme of non-naturalism and the way we live in the electronic era. I really enjoy it; I have some of Shore's other work, but this is among my favourite of his, and one of my favourites of the year so far.

Verdict: This is a film you will either love or hate, and I get that. Personally, I loved it. I think people judged it badly because of the complex dialogue and surreal plot, and didn't give it enough of a chance. But there's a reason it was selected at Cannes this year; people who are disbelieving of Robert Pattinson's acting ability must watch this, and Cronenberg has a fine return to form. I could not recommend this more, but this really is a film for the adventurous movie-goers out there.

*****

Trailer: If I can be bothered, I usually only post one trailer. However, for this, you need to see both. The first 30-second teaser one actually took my breath away the first time I saw it, but I watch the second one occasionally even after seeing the film just to remind myself how much I loved it. But I probably wouldn't watch it if I had epilepsy, just so you know.

And just another fun fact for you: they filmed every scene in the limo almost in chronological order, which is almost unheard of nowadays.

Bromance To The Extreme

It's the mother of all ensemble films, and a fangirl's wet dream: throw together four of the world's greatest heroes, put them in a confined space together and send them off on a mission to destroy a mighty supervillain capable of bringing about the end of the world as we know it. It had the potential to be either a massive disaster or a stunning hit, and I'm pleased to report that Avengers Assemble is most certainly the latter.

(Side note - do you realise how hard this was to write and keep free of spoilers? Incredibly, that's how hard. But I think I did a pretty good job, if I do say so myself. It was expecially difficult to keep one big thing a secret, but I did it!)

I won't go into huge detail over the plot, because it would take me bloody ages, but here's the basics for those who didn't already know. The ever egotistic Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), the newly-unfrozen Captain America (Chris Evans) and the reclusive Dr Banner, aka the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) are recruited by S.H.I.E.L.D. to retrieve the Tesseract (a shiny cube thing from Asgard - that's Thor's home planet to the uneducated - which contains unlimited amounts of energy... blah blah blah) which has been stolen by the nefarious Loki (Tom Hiddleston) as part of his plot to take over the world and rule as its king. Well, as you can imagine, there are ups and downs from the get-go, and a lot of butting heads over how to deal with Loki and the brainwashed Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner). But hang on, isn't there one missing? Oh yes, as if things couldn't get more complicated, in flies the aesthetically-pleasing Thor (we forgive the hair, Chris Hemsworth) to take his brother back to Asgard, and the situation becomes more action-packed - and hilarious. Just FYI, it's a lot more complicated than it looks in the trailers, which suggests that a lot of the film is spent in the increasingly apocalyptic-looking Manhatten but actually is mostly spent on board a "helicarrier" (which is essentially a big flying aircraft carrier-slash-strategy base-slash-prison-slash-laboratory). Quite rightly, the fighting all comes to a head in an action-heavy finale which maybe feels slightly too long and drawn out but is pleasing all the same.

Ok, where to begin? A lot of people were concerned that this was going to be 'The Iron Man Show featuring other Avengers', but I'm very pleased to report that this really isn't the case; they all really get their moments to shine, even those who would be considered more supporting roles such as Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (can we please see an origins film for these two?). The humour in this film defies belief, and again everyone gets their comic moment, even the lovely Marvel stalwart, Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg). As ever, Robert Downey Jr. is brilliantly charismatic and delivers all his lines with wonderful dryness that undercuts everything and everyone. Chris Evans may be slightly stiff, but plays the "man from a different time" very well, and since he's the one who gets exasperated with everyone easiest, we also relate to that when we want to bang everyone's heads together and shout "JUST PLAY NICELY, CHILDREN!" Chris Hemsworth is likewise very good at playing his part of someone who doesn't really fit in with the rest, and maintains his "I am a God" swagger whilst working out some sibling rivalry issues and trying to protect the Earth. Naww. The revelation is Mark Ruffalo, who finally manages to prove to the world that the Hulk can be a success! He brings such an endearing, sweet and sensitive vulnerability to Bruce Banner that audiences should like him very quickly and very easily, as well as also having great banter with the rest of the team. I would gladly go and see a Hulk film if he were to star in it again.

As for the "supporting" cast members (I use inverted commas because really they all play such a large role that they are more than just supporting), they too also bring great depth and layers to the film. Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury gets to do more than turn up at the end of a film, swish his coat and ramble about "The Initiative" as he has done in all the prequel films, and audiences will either like him or dislike him a lot more after seeing the film - I was the latter, because really I saw him as just a smug prick in this, though some would say he proved himself finally by getting it together and not just standing there. Whatever your opinion, he's still no more interesting, really. Note to Marvel: don't make a Nick Fury origins film, please. As for Black Widow and Hawkeye, they are lovely, and it would be wonderful to see more of them in the future. Natasha Romanoff, aka Black Widow, redeems herself after her mediocre performance in Iron Man 2 by integrating some actual emotion into her character, and she's actually really likeable. Her chemistry with Hawkeye is also really nice - I could sit there and watch them for hours (read: make a film!). And as for Hawkeye himself, it's nice that we finally get to see him in action, since all he had before was an uncredited cameo in Thor. He is so unbelievably cool with a bow-and-arrow, even better than Katniss. There's one particular shot, and you'll know when you see it, that I felt like applauding. I wanted to cry with envy at how cool he was. But the one who actually made me cry and stole every seen he was in was Agent Phil Coulson. If you've seen the other films you know how amazing he is anyway, but here he really shines. Whether it's being a total fanboy over Captain America (so adorable) or standing up to Loki, he gives a really wonderful performance that makes him one of the best characters in this whole franchise.

And last but certainly not least, is the one, the only, the Asgardian reject, Loki! My first question is: why would anyone oppose a world ruled by Loki? I'm definitely on his side in this one, I would welcome this, but I may be biased because I absolutely adore him. He's developed further in his emotional and injust situation of being the illigitimate brother, though maybe trying to take the world by force wasn't necessarily such a good idea - I'm sure everyone would have come round if he explained his plight nicely. Yes, he apparently hasn't cut his hair since the Thor and he looks ill most of the time, but his mischievious ways are still so charming, and I still held out a tiny bit of hope that he would win in the end. Funnily enough, when his plan comes to fruition and the Chitauri (some form of aliens to you and I) come to Earth through the magic portal (don't ask), it's actually then that he becomes most... dull, for lack of a better word - he's obviously not dull, because it's Loki, but his spark has kind of gone by the time his plan is in motion. Loki is much better at ranting manically and riling up every character he comes across rather than putting any plan into action.

Really what is great about this film is the interaction between the four heroes. There's a lot of bickering which often results in hilarious one-liners and one hero making a jab at another, escalating into fights some of the time (the Thor and Iron Man one is both great action and comic genuis at the same time). And really, Total Film were right when they said that it isn't the best superhero film ever (duh, Christopher Nolan's Batman films, anyone?) but may well be the funniest, and not just in dialogue but also in action - see: Loki and the Hulk... actually a lot of Hulk moments. It had me in stitches an insane amount. But also the bromance between the characters when they finally come together as a team is really something special. Bruce and Tony have a very touching moment where the two genius minds come together and form an endearing bond - and watch them at the end, it's almost enough to make you go "awwwww" (I actually did, silently). Even the relationship between Black Widow and the Hulk is nice. It's so heartwarming to see them working together when they finally pull it off.

There are only two small things wrong with the film: I don't particularly care for Cobie Smulders' Maria Hill, who doesn't do anything really except strut around in a catsuit and be Nick Fury's lackie. And secondly, Loki's alien army are threatening, I suppose, as a whole, but are kind of forgettable and seem to be taken out very easily. It's only the giant... flying... creature... things that you've all seen in the trailer, that seem like they could actually cause quite a bit of damage.

The film redeems itself from these small niggles by doing something that most films can't, which is to make the clichéd moments fun and to twist them into the unconventional. There's a particular sign on the side of a particular building at the end, which instead of being cheesy is just cool, and moments like Loki bringing forth a deep, dark moment in Black Widow's past is turned on its head to become something entirely different than angsty. Even the jokes that come after Bruce being discovered naked in a barn after a round as "the other guy", as he likes to call him, are funny rather than done-to-the-death.

It could have gone so wrong to have four big characters like this all in one film, but it did so well to pull off being an actual ensemble cast, with each character getting their deserved amount of screen time and nobody (read: Tony Stark) hogging the limelight. And nobody is made to feel unimportant or unnecessary; they all have a role to play and writer/director Joss Whedon hits the nail dead on the head in getting it so right. All of the different backstories are hinted at and the different plots fit together seamlessly where it could have been disastrous otherwise. It's also not just a showcase for the heroes' talents, as we also get to see their weaknesses and vulnerabilities - there's a revelatory moment when Tony is talking to Bruce that makes us see him in a different light than we might have in his other two outings, and we also get to see Steve "Captain America" Rogers trying to adjust to a new life he is so unfamiliar with, among other moments. It's clever, and though it's been compared with the Transformers films for the levels of destruction it causes, it isn't daft and bland like that particular franchise - this actually has brains and uses them. There's a lot more talking that one would expect, but that's really a good thing, as we get to know each and every character better than we did before. This feels like just the beginning.

Verdict: A film which is visually stunning, intelligent, endearing, hilarious and, at times, heartbreaking. It more than lived up to my expectations. You really have to see the other films before this to properly appreciate it, but for fans, it doesn't get much better. On behalf of fans everywhere I can only say one thing: Thank you, Joss Whedon. Please come again.

*****

Happy Hunger Games!

The anticipation for this film was ridiculous, with people making statements that it was the new must-see teen franchise. Already having a wide fanbase due to the popularity of the books, the film had a lot to live up to, and it's safe to say it more than met expectations.

In a futuristic, post-apocalyptic world, the nation of Panem, the remains of North America, is divided up into twelve districts who each offer to the controlling Capitol city one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 to compete in the annual Hunger Games, a reminder of the Capitol's dictatorial control over the nation after a rebellion by the districts. In these Games, the twenty-four "tributes" are placed into an arena to fight to the death, until one victor remains. It's the 74th Games, and Katniss Everdeen of the poverty-stricken District 12 has volunteered to take the place of her sister. Despite being a skilled hunter (that girl is mighty handy with a bow and arrow), she must fight bloodthirsty teenagers and the Capitol, whilst also battling with her feelings for fellow competitor Peeta.

Firstly, I do apologise for the delay in publishing this post; I was busy reading the last book and then I had work to do, so... yeah, anyway. It also gave me time to go and see it for a second time, which I think always helps before properly forming an opinion about a film. Anyway, I commence.

I've openly discussed my disdain at Jennifer Lawrence; although I haven't seen her in her Oscar nominated role in Winter's Bone she did not impress me in X-Men: First Class and I've never understood the hype about her. When I first read the book I was outraged that she had been cast, but I take back every bad thing I've said about her casting in this because really she was brilliant. I overlook the fact that she's really too old to be playing 16 year old Katniss, because I couldn't imagine anyone embodying the character better really.

As for the other of the three young leads, I can't say I was hugely impressed with their casting either, but they both made the most of their roles. Josh Hutcherson, despite looking gormless for the first third of the film because of his gaping mouth, redeems himself with being unbelievably sweet as Peeta. I quite like the fact he's shorter than Lawrence (even if it does make me laugh a little) because it's true that the traditional role of boy-saves-girl is reversed in this, and it's nice to have a strong female lead;  the differences in their stature really only emphasise this. Liam Hemsworth's Gale doesn't play a huge part in this film (though his role is expanded in the future) but his chemistry with Lawrence makes me think he'll have promise for the future.

The supporting cast was also really incredible; all the older cast members were so perfect for their roles: Donald Sutherland as the sinister President Snow was so inspired the character could have been written with him in mind. The same goes for Woody Harrelson's alcoholic mentor, Haymitch (who I would have liked to see more of), Stanley Tucci's Hunger Games host, Caeser Flickerman, and Elizabeth Banks as Katniss and Peeta's escort, Effie Trinket; the latter two in particular should be applauded because they play their characters in such an extreme way that they are very nearly going overboard, but just stopping short of that so they are just perfectly eccentric. I also want Katniss' stylist Cinna, played by Lenny Kravitz, to be my friend and just dress me all the time; he was wonderful, and refreshing as seemingly the only normal person from the Capitol. I have to say though, I don't really understand why Toby Jones' co-commentator Claudius Templesmith was there, considering he had about four words in the entire film; I suppose he was just there to make Stanley Tucci seem as though he's not talking to himself. Harsh, but true.

In terms of being a film adaptation, it's superb. It IS the book, almost exactly as it's written; the parts that are taken out or changed are so miniscule that really it doesn't have any impact whatsoever on the film. It does help, I suppose, that Suzanne Collins (author of the books) wrote the screenplay; it will be a challenge to continue the brilliance if she doesn't write for the sequels. It is one of the best ever book adaptations I've seen, which is really saying something considering how many there are to choose from. It's challenging, both to reality television, corrupt governments and to teenage violence; it is a violent film, but that's the point: the shock of seeing children killing each other is at the heart of the story, and creates the events for the next two films.

Into my technical opinion of the film, I have to say that the production design on this film is beautiful. From poverty-stricken District 12's ramshackle houses and dilapidated Hob (the black market where Katniss gets her iconic Mockingjay pin towards the start of the film), to the weird and wonderful excessive luxury of the Capitol, every set is perfect. The costumes are brilliant, especially those of the Capitol's residents who dress so eccentrically and brightly that it's almost painful to look at; because they are so strange and colourful we share Katniss' feelings of being in a completely different world. The score also fits the film very well; James Newton Howard gets the mood just right in each scene. It's nice as well that not every scene has music in, as this really emphasises certain moments and often creates the tension needed in the arena.

One thing I don't understand is all the comparisons to The Twilight Saga - as Danny Leigh of Film 2012 said, the comparison just doesn't hold. Aside from the fact there's a developing love-triangle and it's aimed at the teen market, there are no other similarities. It doesn't even really have the same audience - everyone knows that Twilight's audience is over 80% female, but the people in my first viewing of this film were very mixed, from elderly ladies to groups of young guys; I was expecting mainly girls there, but it was refreshing to see such a varied audience. Yes, Twilight is a massive franchise with an overly-devout fanbase, and I feel that The Hunger Games is going to go the same way, but really the supposed "rivalry" between them is nonsense; as if either of them cares how the other does? They are both major money spinners, they don't need to ramp up rivalry for publicity. And believe it or not, people can like both! I do! It's one of the biggest irritants to me, when people say that you can only really like one or the other, or that you're "betraying" one by liking the other. There was the same issue with Harry Potter and Twilight, where fans of one were slating fans of the other - it's not illegal to be a fan of both! Please, people, stop this. Let them both stand on their own and be individually successful, as they obviously will be.

Another thing that has confused me is the major backlash about the supposed extreme levels of gore and violence in the film. I don't really understand the big fuss about cutting out seven seconds of footage and digitally removing gore from the film to keep to its 12A rating; it could have been quite a bit worse before it became questionable. The warnings are sufficient enough, and if parents don't look at them properly before allowing younger children to go and see it then that's their fault, not the film's. Lord knows what they're going to do in the future films, which, if they stick well to the book, will only become more violent and gory. But I like that; to take that away would take away the brutality of the situation, which is essentially what the story is about. I really pray that the filmmakers don't make any stupid decisions with how they make the films just to gain a bigger audience.

Verdict: the most perfect adaptation of the book possible. Even if you aren't a fan of the books (why the hell aren't you?!), it would still be an extremely enjoyable film even if there may be some slightly confusing parts. I definitely recommend everyone sees it immediately. The sequel cannot come quick enough, and since the film broke box office records on its opening weekend (it brought in $155 million in America alone - the third biggest opening for a film ever behind The Dark Knight and Deathly Hallows part 2, and biggest opening for a non-sequel film), be assured that a sequel will indeed happen. As Humphrey Bogart said, "this could be the start of a beautiful franchise." Or something like that.

*****

Everyone's Talking About It

I've made it quite public that I had my reservations about The Artist. I wasn't a huge fan of silent films, and I had an irrational dislike of the fact that it's won big at every awards show so far (except the SAG Awards... but I'll come to that in a different post because that's a whole different issue). But I thought since there was so much hype about it that it probably needed to be watched, so off Kathryn and I went to the cinema this weekend to see it. And I am so glad we did.

The plot is one of those ones which is mostly lighthearted when played out on screen, but has some quite serious undertones to it. In Hollywood, 1927, silent film star George Valentin (Jean Dujarin) is the most sought-after and successful actor out there, until the birth of the talkies puts a stop to his career. Meanwhile, upcoming actress Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo, wife of director Michel Hazanavicius) becomes a household name whilst riding the wave of this new generation of film, but still finds time to provide support for Valentin, who has become financially ruined trying to make his own silent films to compete with the talkies, and consequently sinking into a deep depression.

It's so wonderfully done. Not having lots of experience with silent films, I was unsure as to whether maybe I'd be bored or perhaps unable to follow it with the lack of dialogue (and indeed, colour), but the intertitles are frequent enough to help the audience without appearing so often that it feels like a subtitled film. The two scenes which aren't silent - Valentin's dream scene where everything around him is making noise, yet he cannot speak, and the very last 20 seconds or so of the film - only highlight how wonderful the silent film is. The musical accompaniment is a delight to listen to, reflecting, like a good score should, the emotion and action of the scenes.

The acting is superb. With a silent film, I imagine most actors would tend to exaggerate their physical performances to compensate for the lack of dialogue, but then overdo it and make it look ridiculous. Obviously it's slightly melodramatic because it's all physical performance and facial expressions, but Dujardin and Bejo, as well as the other big-name stars such as James Cromwell, John Goodman and Missi Pyle, don't make it look contrived at all. There's still subtlety about their acting, which from an audience's perspective is a positive because it still seems realistic and therefore still hooks you, whereas if you were constantly looking at someone making grand gestures throughout the film I know I personally would not be able to either take it seriously or even focus on what was actually going on. I also think it's a testament to Dujardin and Bejo for being nominated for a lot of acting awards, considering he only says two words in the whole film and she doesn't speak at all. I think maybe all actors should make a silent film to hone their own acting skills and learn not to rely on a good, wordy script to get them through a film.

If you've read anything about this film, you'll know that the performance of the dog steals the show. I didn't really understand how this could be before I saw it, and kept wondering how an animal could overshadow the human actors - did the other actors lack that much presence or skill that they were outdone by a dog? Well, no, as I've said the actors all give outstanding performances in their own right and should be proud of what they brought to the film, no matter how big their role. But seriously, Uggie the dog is excellent. He got some of the biggest laughs from the audience, and is so talented it makes me feel like I've achieved nothing in my life. I think maybe animals are better suited to silent films since they can't talk anyway, and therefore none of their performance is really lost with the lack of dialogue. That's not to say I'm taking anything away from Uggie, he is splendid and an absolute joy to watch - he's truly one of the most talented actors I've seen in a long time, and the fact he isn't Academy Awards eligable is a crime. It's just nice to know that I'm not the only one who feels this way, as there has been general outcry from the public about his lack of Oscar recognition, but this brings all the more appreciation to his talent, which is a good thing anyway.

I thought before I saw this that Hollywood were getting all dewy-eyed over this because it's nostalgic, much like they did with My Week With Marilyn, I think. I still think this, but I now understand how incredibly charming it is too. Every aspect of the film is exceptional. It's refreshing to see a film that doesn't need to resort to violence, graphic scenes, swearing or any other lower-level techniques to get people's attention and adoration. It's a PG, and it's a real feel-good film, which the Academy don't have a great track record of properly acknowedging, preferring grittier and more challenging material. But really, this is a film that the whole family can see - which usually makes me avoid films, but in this case is a good thing because it can get as wide an audience as possible - and is pretty much flawless.

The one thing I would say, and it's not a criticism of the film really, is don't watch it with other people. Not because it's awkward or embarassing, but because other people can put you off. With a silent film, even with the music, you hear a lot of what's going on around you that you wouldn't necessarily hear otherwise. When people in front of you are rustling a food wrapper loudly, or the old biddies behind you are clucking every two minutes about how glorious it is (which I agree with, but don't voice it during the film!), it can get quite distracting, especially in the scenes where there is no sound at all. One or two other people is fine, as long as you have an agreement not to make noise unless you're laughing/crying/other general reactions to the film.

Actually, another not-so-positive thing I have to say, and again, I'm not taking anything away from the film (well, maybe slightly) is that the novelty of it has probably helped it be as successful as it has been, not just financially but with it's reception. And this makes me wonder whether there can be more like this. As much as I'd love to spend a whole week watching new-age silent films like this one, will any of them do as well as The Artist? Look at Avatar: that was revolutionary in terms of cinema, and so well received, yet 3D films that have followed haven't fared nearly as well, with critics and audiences already turning against it. If they tried to have a wave of silent films, which now I'm thinking they shouldn't, how long would it be before people were complaining about them and longing for "the good old days" of the talkies? Novelty does win people over, but when that novelty wears off, where does it leave the film? Just something to think about.

Verdict: If you haven't seen this yet, you must. It's the most charming film I've seen in a long time, it's absolutely delightful, and adorable, and, as I've proved, will win over even the most skeptical of audiences. Top marks!

*****

Really Super 8

I wasn't sure if one of the most anticipated films of the summer could live up to the expectations that have been created through the film industry, but Super 8 more than exceeds the hype.

(The usual spoiler warning... yeah yeah yeah. Though saying that, this time I'm not going to say much, because part of the film is a mystery and not knowing is what makes it so intense.)

Set in 1979, the story follows a group of children as they innocently try to film a low-budget zombie movie for a local competition. However, whilst at a late night shoot at an old railway station, our protagonist, 13 year old Joe sees a truck drive onto the tracks just as a freight train is going by, causing a massive derailment. Soon after, their little town in Ohio is plagued by inexplicable occurrences, such as disappearing people and dogs, as well as machinery going missing. The mysterious presence that has been released into the town has something to do with the crash, and footage from the kids' discarded camera at the scene may hold answers...

I have to say from the beginning that I found this film basically flawless, and that it is my favourite film of the year so far, so don't expect much criticism at all in this blog.

I think the main success of this film is down to its young actors. The performances are amazing, even more so when you realise that this the debut feature for most of them, and the chemistry between them is brilliant to watch - they spark off each other so naturally it's as though they really have been friends their whole lives. Particular highlights of the film are when we are merely observing their banter and the camaraderie between them. But what's really good about them is that they don't let us forget that they are young children, not big action heroes (at one point, Charles, the director of the would-be film, shouts out "I don't want to die!", something which you would of course expect a thirteen year old to say). They act like children, not adults, as is so often portrayed in modern cinema, and it's refreshing.

Another brilliant aspect of the film is that although it is essentially a sci-fi, there are moments of absolute humour that had the whole screen in stitches when I saw it. This is again down to the kids, who deliver the one-liners ("Drugs are SO bad!") so well that again we forget that they are just acting and we are not just watching a documentary about a day in the lives of some kids. The dialogue, even when it's not particularly trying to be funny, makes us laugh because of the time setting. Just saying "Mint!" takes us back to an earlier time and makes us smile. It's extraordinary.

I should also say that this is the most tense I have ever been in a film. The sense of anticipation and tension that builds up for the first two-thirds or so is surely down to the fact that although we see the destruction caused by this presence, it goes unseen for a long time, and when we first see it it's only glimpsed and out of focus. There are genuine moments where you forget to breathe because you are there in the action, with the kids, and you don't know what's coming either.

SPOILERS IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH! SKIP IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THE SUSPENSE WHEN YOU SEE IT.

The special effects in this film must too be applauded. It shows what surely must be the most detailed train crash in the history of film, one which lasts for minutes and literally leaves you breathless, as you too feel like you are running with the kids away from the carnage. There's also the "monster", which is one alien I approve of. It's not the sort of alien you often see in films nowadays, which just look like humans but green, or a little distorted. It doesn't look like anything I've ever seen, which gets a huge thumbs-up from me. But this also brings me to my one and only quibble: the eyes of the alien. I won't spoil it too much, but the eyes distract from what is otherwise one of the best aliens in recent cinema.

But it's the human moments that really make this film shine. As well as the humour that often occurs in the film, there are also genuinely sad bits that made me cry, such as when Elle Fanning's Alice and Joel Courtney's Joe have a conversation about the death of his mother and the neglect of her father. I even cried at the end, just because it was cathartic, and I haven't done that in a really long time. There's also the love-triangle between Joe, Alice and Charles ("Production value!"), which is just the right amount of angsty to be realistic for thirteen year old boys fighting over a girl. It's moments like this that make the film so special, and reflect real life enough to make you forget it's a sci-fi at times.

Verdict: In my opinion, it's the best film I've seen so far this year. I want to see it get Oscars. JJ Abrams is one of my new film heroes and, bearing in mind he wrote it, produced it and directed it, I want to see him get the acclaim he deserves and I look forward to seeing his future work. It's original, could not have been better executed, has a brilliant cast and crew, and outshines anything else this year so far. If you see one film this year, make sure it's this one.

*****

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCRQQCKS7go