Do You Hear The People Cry?

It was one of the most anticipated movie musical adaptations in recent memory, and has been one of the most successful, recently overtaking Mamma Mia as the highest grossing movie musical in the UK. But does it live up to the hype? I'm personally not a musical fan, and I hadn't seen the West End show but I was still looking forward to seeing it. However, I think people need to calm down about it and stop getting so worked up about a film which they need to accept is flawed.

 

Okay, so a spoiler-free plot synopsis for those of you who, like me, have/had only the vaguest idea of what it was about. Convict Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is granted parole after he served twenty years because he stole a loaf of bread (really!) but skips his parole so that he can live a free life, reinventing himself as mayor of some French town. However, he is soon discovered by police inspector Javert (Russell Crowe) and goes on the run with Cosette, the daughter of factory worker-turned-prostitute Fantine (Anne Hathaway). Then a few years later, there is some political disruption culminating in the June Rebellion of France, led by Marius (Eddie Redmayne), a bunch of students and a young waif. Needless to say, shit proceeds to go down.

Firstly, if you don't like singing, just turn away now. The film is 99% singing - I'm not exaggerating - with only the odd word or phrase spoken normally, which I don't really understand. Like, go all-in or do like most musicals and spontaneously break into song. Right, now that's out of the way, let's begin.

 

There has been a lot of talk about the performances in this film. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway both recently won Golden Globes and are nominated again for Oscars. I'll get onto hers in a minute, but starting with Jackman, it must be said that clearly he is having the time of his life. It's not a cheerful role by any means (hello, the clue is in the title) but he obviously relishes in what he's doing. However, the fact that I recognised this first time round is not necessarily a good thing. I was just very aware a lot of the time that I was watching him acting, rather than getting lost in his performance. It was good, but I've seen better in the last year that I would have preferred to be recognised over him.

And hey, speaking of being overrated, please step forward, Anne Hathaway. I'm not saying she's bad or that I didn't like her performance, but I think when you take a step back and look at the film from a wider perspective, for me she didn't actually stand out from everybody else. Yes, her rendition of I Dreamed A Dream was super emotional and brought a tear to my eye, but I don't feel that anyone deserves an Oscar for that alone. I won't say any more because my personal infuriation with her will come out (*coughblandcough*) but even after seeing it I'm still upset that she's the sure thing this awards season.

I think Russell Crowe has been getting a lot of unnecessary flack for his role. No, he's not a great singer, but he isn't appalling. I went in expecting Pierce Brosnan-in-Mamma Mia-esque screeching and really it wasn't that bad! But maybe that was because my expectations were really that low. Perhaps that should be my advice: expect Brosnan and it won't be awful! The rest of his performance was fine; he does villainy really quite well, probably because he has that sort of face.

But really the best performance of the film was Eddie Redmayne. I can't believe he isn't getting more recognition for his role as Marius, he was so brilliant. There was one song he did a capella where I was nearly on the floor weeping with how emotional it was. I just wasn't expecting to be so overwhelmed by his acting. He and his merry band of rebels (they're not really merry, of course) were engrossing and I wanted to wave a flag and build a barricade of furniture to help them. In particular Gavroche, the wee little street urchin, was a delight, though I think they maybe just borrowed the Artful Dodger from Oliver! that day because there seemed to be no difference in costume, accent or attitude. But I digress. The rest of the supporting cast are on top form too: Isabelle Allan as the young Cosette was just wonderful and she should have a bright career in theatre ahead of her with a voice like that. Amanda Seyfried is more than acceptable as the older Cosette; relative newcomer Samantha Barks plays her role as lovesick Eponine with grace and she delivers a heartbreaking number; and Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen are predictably wonderful as a couple of innkeepers, and bring some much needed comedy to the proceedings.

 

But, as you may have guessed, this is not a happy film. Tom Hooper took the radical decision to record all vocals live to better enhance the performances and ensure the end songs were as raw as they could be. It really works, as for once I actually felt like singing wasn't just random in a film, but that I could feel the emotion and understand it better through song. However, there are some questionable accents, which maybe we should have predicted considering the number of non-Brits who have roles. But really, why did no-one have a word with Hugh Jackman when his singing started to sound a bit Irish... and then got more and more pronounced? And I really have no idea why Sacha Baron Cohen did a French accent when no-one else did. I know that the film is set in France and that they are all French characters but it did sound a bit odd that he was the only one.

And let's not forget, it's long. Coming in at nearly three hours, it's not an easy ride by any means. However, I think it actually adds to the effect: not only will you be emotionally drained, but you'll feel like you literally sat through the seventeeen years presented in the film until you just feel a sense of relief at the end knowing it's over, which adds to the catharsis. I do hope that is what they were going for and that wasn't just my own experience, because I've just made them sound clever for editing a film to nearly three hours, which no-one should do really. Also, they probably did overstretch it and it ended up kind of taking ages to wind down. I kept thinking, "this is the end now... oh wait, this is the end... okay, this is..." etc. It ended up dragging after the rebellion scenes and they could have probably cut it down into neater, slightly more managable size by doing something about that.

It's a beautiful film though; the cinematography really makes it feel like you're there, either nearly drowning as you try to haul a ship into dock or wading through a sewer or it gets you so close to the gunfights that you can almost smell the gunpowder. And the attention to detail is stunning, not just in sets but also in the costumes and make-up, and this is something that should be recognised. After seeing the film, where they had the budget and the time etc to do all that, I just don't understand how it could be a theatre production and have the same effect; certainly I don't see how it could be as grand and lavish, but maybe I'll just have to go to the West End and see for myself.

Verdict: As much as I enjoyed it and got very emotional, I was never 100% absorbed in it. It's like the cinematic equivalent of a teenage boy losing his virginity: it gets overexcited, it climaxes too early and too quickly and spends the remainder of the film dragging out a not-quite satisfying ending. It grabs you by the throat and emotionally punches you repeatedly for nearly three hours until you feel like you need a long lie-down to recover. And my final thought: give Eddie Redmayne some damn awards!

****

Trailer:

Verdict: Oscar Nominations 2013

I'm annoyed for many reasons right now. The first, most obvious, is to do with my disgust at a lot of the nominations this year, which I'll come onto. But secondly, and most personally, because my first post of 2013 has to be a bitter, angry one about why the Academy has let me down this year, so much so that I'm not even going to watch the ceremony because I just don't care about any of them.

The Academy has in recent years descended into somewhat of a farce, becoming predictable and sterile and celebrating only a certain selection of films rather than diversifying a bit more. In other words, they're playing it safe, and it's boring.

So many films and performances have been overlooked this year it's unbelievable. Major unexpected snubs were Ben Affleck's work on Argo, who was omitted from both Acting and Directing awards despite the film itself being up for the big one.

On the other hand, people were unnecessarily surprised about some of the categories, expecting films to be included that weren't. Mostly I'm talking about Skyfall, which I never even entertained as to get a nomination in any of the major categories. For one thing, the Academy are probably too scared to do something as "out there" as put a Bond film up for major Oscars. But also, the BAFTA nominations were announced the day before, and if Skyfall was not up for Best Film at the BRITISH film awards then why would the American film awards include it? The same goes for Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig for Best Director and Actor respectively.

Two of my favourite films starring two of my favourite people should have been up. I can't believe that On The Road isn't up for any acting nominations. I know that the film in general divided critics so I wasn't hopeful that it would get any major nods, but whatever you thought about the film, the performances were brilliant. The main trio of Sam Riley, Garrett Hedlund and Kristen Stewart deserve recognition, as well as Viggo Mortensen and Kirsten Dunst. It's ridiculous that it was overlooked. Also the cinematography was stunning and that should have been up for something too.

And also Cosmopolis should have been up for, in my opinion, Best Actor for Robert Pattinson, Best Director for David Cronenberg, Best Supporting Actor for Paul Giamatti, Best Supporting Actress fr Sarah Gadon, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Original Score. The fact that this film was so overlooked not just in awards season but throughout the whole year makes me unspeakably sad, because it was genuinely incredible, one of the most intelligent, complex films of this year. I should actually do my own awards this year just to honour it, because I can't actually give it enough praise.

I was also quite surprised at the lack of recognition for Hitchcock, which I thought would be mingling up there with the rest of them. This isn't just the Academy, I admit - there's nothing at the BAFTAs either and hardly anything at the Golden Globes - but from what I've heard it's meant to be very good. I thought Helen Mirren would get a Best Actress nod, and maybe the film itself. The same goes for The Sessions, which did in fact get Helen Hunt a nomination but I thought would have got more, but that's probably because it wasn't prolific enough. And also The Hunt, which got rave reception at Cannes this year and I thought was a real contender for nods at the Oscars, but apparently they're ignoring most films that aren't major Hollywood blockbusters. I would have liked real recognition for Mads Mikkelsen who I think is brilliant, and also I think it would have done The Academy a favour to acknowledge a film with such sensitive material. The Master wasn't up for nearly as much as I thought it would be, with exclusions on the Best Director (Paul Thomas Anderson) and Best Film lists, which was again surprising from the amount of buzz around it and the rave reviews it got from critics.

Anyway, I'll crack on with discussing the major awards and pointing out why they're wrong and spoiling the ceremony by revealing the the obvious winners for you all.

Best Film

It will go to either Les Miserables or Zero Dark Thirty because they are the obvious choice. Les Mis is the sort of stylish tragic story the Academy love, though admittedly they haven't held favour with musicals for quite some time. Zero Dark Thirty is the gritty, real-life drama they also appreciate, and you can't overlook the similarities the film has to The Hurt Locker, which of course was also directed by Kathryn Bigelow and about recent wars. However, recent controversy surrounding the film may put it out of favour with the voters, so we'll have to see. I have yet to see any of the nominees (but I plan on seeing Les Mis, Django and Lincoln in the next couple of weeks so look out for reviews of them!) but at the moment I'm just really disappointed at the shortlist.

 

Best Actor

Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln) seems to be the best bet at the moment, with the closest contender probably Joaquin Phoenix for The Master based on the rave reviews he got (but again, the Academy may be a bit peeved with him after his recent comments about them - he basically told them to shove their egotistic ceremony). The curveball here was probably including Denzel Washington (Flight) where one might have expected Jamie Foxx (Django), Mads Mikkelsen (The Hunt) or Ben Affleck (Argo).

Best Actress

Jennifer. Bloody. Lawrence. People need to stop going crazy about her. The inclusion of her on this list made me so angry the other day I had a massive rant on Twitter for about 8 hours. I like The Hunger Games, okay? I just don't like her, and I think she's a massively overrated actress. If she wins, I'll never watch the Oscars again and the Academy will have lost all respect from me. I would like to see Jessica Chastain get it for Zero Dark Thirty, but we'll have to see. It's pretty much between those two, though. Well done too to Emmanuelle Riva (Amour) and Quvenzhane Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild) for being the oldest and youngest nominees respectively in this category, that's quite an achievement. Wallis especially makes me question what I've done with my life if she's nine and has been nominated for an Oscar.

Best Director

Affleck. Bigelow. Tarantino. Hooper. Where are they on this list? I understand that with five to ten Best Film nominees and only five Director slots, some people are going to miss out, but really, the wrong ones did. I don't understand this at all. David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook), really? I can't even say anything else because I'm so surprised and annoyed about the inclusions and exclusions on this list. Affleck has just won a Golden Globe! I would have put money on Bigelow and Tarantino being up. And Tom Hooper has famously been revolutionary with Les Mis by making his cast sing live, apparently with good results. The outcome of this strange list is harder to call than some other categories this year, but I'll go for Spielberg (Lincoln) or Michael Haneke (Amour).

Best Supporting Actor

I do like the line-up in this category (I know, I'm giving praise!) and I also like the fact that every nominee has already won this award. I don't know why, since maybe some newcomers should have been included, but anyway. The smart money is on Phillip Seymour Hoffman (The Master) but I wouldn't rule any of the contenders out this year. I was expecting Leo DiCaprio to be nominated over Christoph Waltz if one of them was going to be up from Django, but I'll have to reserve judgement on that until I see it. I also personally think Garrett Hedlund should be up for On The Road, or Paul Giamatti for Cosmopolis, but hey, apparently the Academy and I are not on the same wavelength here.

Best Supporting Actress

It will go to Anne Hathaway. It's the most obvious result in recent Oscar memory, I don't even know why they bothered to nominate anyone else when they're all going to get overlooked anyway. It's another classic Academy view that actresses should suffer for their work (if losing weight and cutting off your hair is "suffering") and that they like tragic stories more than anything else. At least now maybe Hathaway will stop being so unbelievably desperate for recognition. And hey, maybe it will make her more interesting, because right now I find her to be the human equivalent of beige, i.e. so incredibly dull it makes me want to hurt myself to not look at or listen to her. Apparently, it should go to Amy Adams for The Master (but I'm just parroting what other people are saying, I haven't actually seen for myself), but really it's irrelevant, because it's not going to happen.

Best Adapted Screenplay

Not too sure about this one, because it depends what the Academy members are thinking when they're voting. It could go to Lincoln if they're feeling patriotic, or Life of Pi, which was the supposedly "unfilmable film", or Silver Linings Playbook because apparently they're in love with that. I don't think Argo is in with a chance because they seem to be ignoring this, sadly. Personally I think Perks of Being a Wallflower should be there, because I did not see a better page-to-screen adaptation this year. I think the problem with both screenplay awards is that they forget it's about the script and focus on the finished movie, which really kind of rejects a lot of films which may actually have better scripts than those nominated.

Best Original Screenplay

I thought for sure this was going to Zero Dark Thirty, but now based on all the incoming reviews and the fact that it won the Golden Globe last Sunday, I'd have to say now it's going to Django Unchained. Which I'm happy about, because any nod for Tarantino is a bonus in my eyes. He is the best writer/director of his generation and I'm glad he's still getting credit where it's due. Again though, a lot of these I can't comment on because I haven't actually seen them, but since the Academy seem to be celebrating the prolific films this year, I think Django's got this.

Danny Leigh of  BBC Film 2013 basically summed up the main points here, give him a watch. His hatred of Silver Linings Playbook is particularly apparent and he makes an interesting point about Kathryn Bigelow too. Also what he says about the inclusion of foreign and indie films is completely true. Ranting starts around the 13:25 mark (he's just wrapping up talking about The Sessions):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pz82d/Film_2013_Episode_2/

So the question is, will you be tuning in? I know I certainly won't be staying up to watch something I really don't care that much about. If there's a highlight show I might flick over to that but honestly, this "hooray for Hollywood" attitude they have going on right now is getting on my nerves too much to tolerate.

3x5

I'm very behind on my reviews, I know. I've been insanely busy with work recently, and then I had to deal with the amazing Breaking Dawn week, so I've had hardly any time to do anything. But, I did see three five-star films within the space of five days last month and I feel the need to write about them, so I'm squishing them all into one post. I may expand these reviews some time, but I can't promise anything.

On The Road

Firstly, I saw the much-anticipated On The Road. I've been waiting a ridiculously long time to see this, because for some reason they released it two years after filming. After hearing mixed/average reviews from Cannes, I had to lower my previously very high expectations of this film, but as a result, I was very pleasantly surprised.

This film has been a hell of a long time in the making, over three decades, and a lot of people, including myself, were a bit skeptical about how anyone could adapt an almost plotless 120 foot scroll of narrative onto the screen, and yes, in some ways it fails. But it's bloody difficult to transfer this writing to the screen and still maintain that Beat vibe. Yes, it could have been more wild, more extreme, but really, if it had to be adapted, at least they did a really good job of it.

The acting is amazing. Just looking at the cast you can understand that statement. The three main stars are perfect in their roles. Sam Riley surprised me, since the last thing I saw him in was the appalling Brighton Rock, and it was very nice to see him in something that actually showcased his ability and didn't make me want to kick the tv at the end of the film. He plays Sal with the perfect naivety, vulnerable with a rebellious streak within, and is someone I think the audience will see themselves in. Kristen Stewart also proves again that she is judged far too harshly just because of her association with the Twilight films; here, she relishes in the character of Marylou, someone who could not be more different from Bella Swan, playing her with wild abandon that really shows her talent. After watching this, and knowing about her absolute commitment to the role, I can't imagine anyone else doing a better job of it. And, for the record, she was cast in this when she was sixteen, before she did Twilight, so shush please haters. It's also great news to hear that they're going to be lobbying for her to get nominated in awards season next year, and she fully deserves that recognition. But really, the real star of this film is Dean, played perfectly by Garrett Hedlund. He is probably the best thing about the film, encapsulating the rebellious and charming character, which I think the film probably hinged on. An actor has to be seriously charismatic and almost overwhelmingly charming to pull this role off, and Hedlund absolutely succeeds, constantly drawing our attention to him whenever he's on screen. The "Beat Camp" that the cast went on for three weeks before the shoot really pays off as well, as the three have great chemistry together and every interaction between them feels very natural.

The cinematography is amazing - visually, the film is stunning and absolutely transports the audience to an array of locations; you actually feel like you're there, writhing and sweating at a New Year's party, or cold and wet during a stop by the side of a road in the middle of nowhere. I didn't really know of Eric Gautier before this film, but I have massive amounts of respect for him as a cinematographer for what he achieves here.

The supporting cast are excellent. In some ways, the film reminded me of Cosmopolis with its conveyer-belt of cameos and bit parts - however, like Cosmopolis, everyone here manages to make their mark, whether it's Amy Adams' struggling mother or Steve Buscemi's salesman-with-a-secret-interest - they all stand out. It's lovely to see Tom Sturridge in this, I think he has real potential as an actor and I want to see him do more than just being Sienna Miller's babydaddy. But the biggest highlight was probably Viggo Mortensen, who steals the few small scenes he's in and absolutely dominates the screen when he's actually on it. Kirsten Dunst is another highlight; she brings Camille's character to the audience's attention and underlines the detrimental effects Dean has on himself and others, whereas we might otherwise be too charmed by him to notice. I'd like to see her in more serious roles, she's been a bit absent recently and this proves that she really shouldn't be.

In terms of sexuality... well, there's a lot. It was a litle disappointing that it didn't bring the undertones of homosexuality up a little more, but therein lies the problems of an adaptation - you just can't fit everything in. I'd also recommend buying the French dvd of this and turning the subtitles off, because the English version was cut (who knows why) and therefore there's more in the French version.

The question that remains is why Hedlund, Riley and Sturridge haven't been getting acting offers left, right and centre. They all give brilliant performances and I think they're being wasted at the moment.

Verdict: It's not going to be for everyone, but if you "get" this type of film, you'll absolutely love it. Watch it just for the acting and the beauty of the film itself if nothing else.

*****

The Perks Of Being A Wallflower

After seeing the film, this book is now at the top of my "to-read-for-pleasure" list. This film absolutely blew me away and I wasn't expecting to be touched by it as much as I was, since I didn't really know much about it and it hadn't been that widely publicised. It's probably the best coming-of-age film I've ever seen, and although there isn't a huge amount of plot and nothing much is resolved at the end, the journey is definitely worth taking.

The primary trio of actors were amazing. The film received quite a lot of attention because it was the first film Emma Watson did post-Potter, and she could not have picked a better film to break away from that franchise. She sheds Hermione within the first minute of being on screen, being able to let go in a way that was always restricted before, being flirtatious and wild but also showing tenderness and vulnerability perfectly. And also, I got so sucked into her performance that I forgot she wasn't actually American, though in hindsight it probably wasn't the best accent in the world. Ezra Miller, previously known as the titular psychopath in We Need To Talk About Kevin, plays basically the complete opposite character and does it just as well. As the giddy and camp Patrick, he steals every scene he's in and I want a best friend like him. And also Logan Lerman, previously of Percy Jackson fame, was wonderfully sweet and naive, likeable and vulnerable. And I checked, he's 20, it's okay to have a little thing for him. And all three are just the right amount of understated - they could have been ridiculously cliched and over the top, but they play their roles with just the correct level of charm and, in Patrick's case especially, flamboyancy. I think a special mention also needs to go out to Paul Rudd, who is refreshingly good in a dramatic role, deviating from comedy but proving that he can do both well. He's gives a likeable and thoughtful performance and I'd love to see him do more dramatic work in the future. And I'd also like it on record how much I think Joan Cusack is an underrated actress. She completely shines through in her two minutes of screen time and she's just wonderful. Hollywood, why are you not employing her more? Get on that.

I think what makes it so special is the fact that the screenplay was written and the film directed by Stephen Chbosky, the author of the book. You can tell it's been created with such care and precision and every facet is just right. Apparently it's a brilliant adaptation, which I don't doubt, but I'll let you know for sure after I finally get around to reading the book.

Someday, somewhere, somehow, I'm doing this.

In the time it's set, it's completely up my street. The film references are great, the multiple performances of The Rocky Horror Show throughout are really entertaining and the soundtrack is amazing; I had it on repeat for days. If you like that late-80s/early-90s feel about a film, I can't recommend this enough.

Verdict: Yes, it will probably only connect with a certain audience, but that's purely because of the plot and themes it deals with, not because of the quality of the film. It could have been completely cliche, and appeared to be a product of the overworked imagination of an angsty fifteen-year-old girl because of it's subject matter and themes including social isolation, bulimia, sexual and domestic abuse, homophobia and unrequited love, to name a few, but it gets the tone just right so that it's emotionally raw rather than emotionally overdone. And also, be infinite.

*****

Skyfall

Bond's 26th outing was hyped up from the word "go", with the world and it's mother touting it as the "best one yet" before it even went into production. The secrecy and mystery surrounding the plot and what the title meant and who the new cast were playing and all the rest of it didn't help, with speculation rife about every aspect of the film. I was so worried that it was going to be overhyped for me and that I'd just end up being slightly let down, but I can safely say that it not only met those expectations, but exceeded them beyond belief.

I'll try not to spoil it for any of you who have been living in a cave and have yet to see it, but there are some truly epic moments in it.

The cast are exceptional: Daniel Craig, returning for his third stint as 007, gives his best performance so far. There isn't really a lot else to say about it; if you've seen his other two outings, it's more of the same, in a good way. He's charming, debonair, deadly, and every other trait you've come to expect from Bond. What's really great in this one is the interaction he has with Dame Judi Dench's M, and we see a lot more of their relationship. Their closeness is really touching. She's the real Bond girl of this film, and I'm so happy she got a really dense part to get her teeth into, and of course she delivers with perfection, as you would expect. Again, I don't want to spoil anything so I won't say much else, but their performances are very special. The best new addition has to be Javier Bardem's villain, Silva, a creepy, camp, obsessive maniac (sounds like me) with terrible hair (not like me at all). There hasn't ever been a Bond villain like him, but he's one of the best yet. Not hellbent on world domination or anything like we've seen in the past, his vendetta is a personal grudge against M, exposing a lot of her secrets and drawing worrying parallels to Bond. I think the best scene in the whole film is Silva's interrogation of Bond, where both men showcase their fantastic acting talent. The chemistry between the three of them (and no, it's not sexual, that would be wrong - though Silva... well, you'll see) is electric, and though it is approaching two and a half hours, they make it go by so quickly that you don't even notice time passing.

One complaint I do have is about Bérénice Marlohe. I have nothing against her, I just don't understand why her part was advertised so much when she's only in the film for a total of about five minutes. Other additions aren't as disappointing, and include Naomi Harris' field agent Eve, Ralph Fiennes' government pen pusher Mallory and Ben Whishaw's new, young Q, who are particular highlights. What I think will excite true Bond fans is the fact that, without giving too much away, they'll all be back in the future, and that this is going back to classic Bond films, but with a cool, modern-day edge. There are even jokes about it between Bond and Q.

And that's the other thing - though it's very serious for a lot of the film, it's also very funny, mostly because of the one-liners and conversations between Bond and the bumbling Q. One other stand-out moment is Bond's reaction to (VERY MILD SPOILER) the destruction of his precious Aston Martin DB5 (also a hilarious moment when you see it in a screen full of die-hard male Bond fans - their gasps of horror and outrage made me laugh for about ten minutes). And also there's a bit of sexual tension between Bond and Eve, though I can't see anything ever coming of that if they stick to Bond canon.

 

Plot-wise, I understand now why Craig said he was even more excited after reading this script than he was about Casino Royale, which was previously my favourite. It's tense, and captivating, and most importantly, it doesn't feel like there are any redundant parts to it (well, maybe the whole fight with Ola Rapace which feels only very very slightly unnecessary). The whole film is very polished but it's still raw, especially when they get up to Scotland and there's none of this usual technology to help them out.

Verdict: I wish I could think of more to say but it's now been a month since I saw it and I've forgotten most of the points I had to make about it. But essentially, all you need to know is that it's amazing and even if you aren't a Bond fan you should see it. It's brilliant, and I hope Sam Mendes does come back to direct the next installment because he did such a fantastic job of it. Anyone who knows my film tastes well enough knows that it's a big deal for me to say that I prefer this to Casino Royale, and it's even more emotional, but it truly does deserve all the hype it got. Go see it now or I'll set Silva on you (some of you might not mind that wink wink). Seriously, go.

*****

Some Films I've Seen Recently...

I know I've been silent for a long time, but I've been away on holiday and been generally busy, so I can only apologise. But I've seen a few films recently, not new, but that deserve a review, so I'm going to do a few short ones in this post.

Attack The Block

I watched this film a few weeks ago and I still crack up when I think about it. It was refreshingly funny; the one-liners were superb, and based on this I think first time writer/director Joe Cornish has a bright future in this industry, and I'm excited to see what he's going to do next.

It was fresh and appealing to a wider range of modern youth, an audience which I don't think is targeted enough. Yes, you have all the franchises and comedies etc, which are supposed to draw in that sort of crowd, but I think a lot of teenagers will actually relate more to this film, mostly due to the fabulous cast and the dialogue, which uses more of the common teenage vernacular, and this use of slang is what is going to make teenagers sit up and take note of films being made if more are done like this.

I'd have liked it to have been scarier, but the original plot and the look of the aliens more than makes up for that slight disappointment. It is a nice revamp of alien invasion flicks, so much so that it sounds actually believable.

As for the cast, I think it was a good idea to have a young, relatively unknown cast, and the biggest name was Nick Frost, who isn't in it a great deal, which is good because I having seen it I'm glad that nothing detracted from the main youth cast. John Boyega (who portrayed Moses, the leader of the gang of yoofs), could have a very nice career if he keeps giving performances like this. (Side note: I feel like I should give a special mention to my good friend and regular commentor on the blog, Garen, who is followed on Twitter by John Boyega. She's immensely proud of this fact.)

****

Trailer:

Young Adult

I watched this on the plane to Florida recently, and had to try really hard to control myself so I didn't burst out in uncontrollable fits of laughter. It's very very dark humour, which suits me fine, but Juno writer Diablo Cody delivers another fine script. It's an interesting premise - what happens to that Queen Bee when she grows up? The answer, according to Cody, is a super-bitchy, self-centred immature creature - essentially an older version of the teenage thing.

Charlize Theron deserved more recognition for her performance as the narcissistic teen-lit author whose writings reflect her own life. I mentioned in a post earlier this year that a lot of people in the industry were confused as to why she hadn't been nominated for awards, and now I can see why - it's probably the best performance I've seen of hers (admittedly, I haven't seen them all, including her Oscar-winning role in Monster). But she gave a better performance than 99% of the other female leads I've seen, and certainly better than at least three of the Oscar-nominated performances this year.

I like as well that this film isn't predictable. I thought I was able to tell what was going to happen from early on, but it has a surprising ending which isn't necessarily pleasant, but it's certainly a good thing that it didn't go down the obvious route and become another superficial flick.

****

Trailer:

We Need To Talk About Kevin

Another of the female performances that was overlooked this year was Tilda Swinton's in this, which is even more of a travesty than Charlize Theron. But not just that, every aspect of this film deserved much, much more recognition than it got; it was virtually flawless.

It is a truly brutal and horrific film, but the subject matter is handled well, considering how dark it is. I hadn't read the book so I didn't know beforehand what was going to happen, though I was able to guess the general climax of the story.

Tilda Swinton has never been better, in my opinion, and that is saying a lot considering what a fantastic actress she is. But she was completely convincing and conveyed her character so well. Her supporting cast were also commendable, including John C. Reilly as her husband, who should do more serious roles, as he was a revelation; also, the two actors who played her son at different ages - Jasper Newell as young Kevin gave one of the best child performances I've seen for some time, and Ezra Miller is suitably sinister as the teenage Kevin.

Essentially, the film is perfect, and it's an absolute travesty that not only was it virtually ignored at the awards this year, but also that it hasn't reached a wider audience. I highly recommend that everyone sees this. It's by no means a cheerful film, but it has stayed with me for a long time.

*****

Trailer:

The Descendants

So after all that positivity in my other mini-reviews, I'm closing with highly acclaimed The Descendants, which I did not enjoy by any stretch of the imagination. I went into watching this thinking it must be moderately good based on all the critical acclaim it got, but really, I was incredibly bored after three minutes and it didn't pick up as time dragged on. Yes, it's the hideously pretentious film the academies love, but really, nothing happens. It's slow, without a lot going on, and there's nothing to really engage the audience. The characters are not likeable, the plot is dull as dishwater, and George Clooney is very overrated, as is the whole film.

I can't believe it won Best Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars this year over films such as Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, and films not even nominated such as We Need To Talk About Kevin and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, both of which deserved it more. And as for Clooney winning many awards and nominations for his role, well, it's not surprising since the Academy do like him a fair amount, but a lot of other more deserving actors were left out.

I didn't enjoy it, and personally I thought it was very overrated. I'm glad I didn't spend money going to see it, put it that way, but I'm annoyed I've now lost two hours of my life on this film which I could quite happily have gone the rest of my life without seeing.

**

Trailer:

Ok, that's it for now, but since I'm poor and my social life seems to have dried up I'm pretty much constantly watching films, so expect some more posts soon.

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!

*****

My Top 11 Films of '11

Happy new year to all my wonderful followers and readers!

At this time of year, critics tend to post their lists of their favourite films from the last year, and I thought I'd hop on this bandwagon now that I have an appropriate outlet for this. So without further ado, my top 11 films of 2011 (apparently also known as "films most overlooked in 2011").

11. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

As a Gary 'G-Man' Oldman lover, I was anticipating this film because his performance had been so hyped up in it, with many people calling this the role that will finally give him that long overdue Oscar nomination. Suffice to say, I was very impressed with him. He may not win the Academy Award, and possibly won't even be nominated (he's almost guaranteed to win the BAFTA though, because they are the most biased organisation I've seen in the film industry), but it was good. The cast was amazing, and I think actually Benedict Cumberbatch stole it for me, with his incredibly underrated performance. Overall, it was a little disappointing considering all the hype and anticipation, but definitely still worth a watch for anyone who hasn't already seen it.

10. Source Code

This could quite easily have gone either way in how I reacted to this film. A Groundhog Day-esque narrative with a female lead who I wasn't keen on wasn't getting me overly excited for this before I saw it, but damn was it good. Duncan 'Moon' Jones proves again that he is the sci-fi director of the moment, and Jake Gyllenhaal gives a wonderfully moving turn as a confused army pilot forced to ride the same exploding train over and over again to find the bomber. It's one of the smartest action sci-fi thrillers I've seen in a long time.

9. Thor

Easily the second-best superhero film offered this year (see number 7 for my favourite), Thor gave Chris Hemsworth his first proper leading man role, and he does it perfectly. The film blends comedy, action, family fueds and drama wonderfully, and the special effects are mesmerising. But really, the reason this made my top 11 films of this year is because of Tom Hiddleston's Loki, who steals the entire show, and is the loveliest, most misunderstood supervillain ever. The fact he is returning for The Avengers makes me so excited I could bounce around. And I think I did when I found that out. The odd choice of Kenneth Brannagh as director pays off, and I'm a little disappointed he isn't returning for the sequel. But still, enjoy this one, and watch as a very enjoyable prequel to The Avengers in the spring.

8. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2

Surely everyone's most anticipated film of 2011, there was so much pressure on this film to be good, and it mostly didn't disappoint. I've already written a lengthy blog post containing my thoughts on this, so just refer back to that to see what my verdict was. But still, having grown up with Harry, I couldn't wait for this film, and to use the much-overused-but-very-appropriate-phrase, it was the end of an era. There were tears. There were laughs. There was an unwanted amount of disbelief. But I think it would be doing it a discredit to say it wasn't a great way to say goodbye, and for that reason, it made my list.

7. X-Men: First Class

The number 1 superhero movie of the year goes to X-Men: First Class. Absolutely superb acting from the two leads, James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender (we forgive the accent) made it compelling to watch, and it was lovely to see the return of strength to this franchise which had been diminshed somewhat by the previous two offerings. It earned my first five-star review on my blog, with good reason. The plot is engaging, Kevin Bacon clearly relishes in playing a hideous villain, but really it is the chemistry and bromance between McAvoy and Fassbender that seal the deal.

6. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

I haven't done a blog post on this yet and I don't know whether I'll actually get around to doing it, so I'll put my general thoughts here now. Lots of people, including myself, were a bit skeptical when the Hollywood remake of the cult Swedish thriller was announced to be in production, but as more information came through I began to get a little optimistic that maybe it wouldn't be a remake that completely destroys the foreign original and gets completely slated. David Fincher is one of my favourite directors, so that was the first promising tidbit, and then the cast was announced, it was revealed that it was staying true to the books, and it was being filmed and set in Sweden, as the novels state. It's a very dark film that deals with subject matters that made me feel quite uncomfortable at times, and was clearly given an 18-rating here for a reason. But the whole cast are terrific, Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara in particular, and the plot was very engaging. Yes, anyone who's read the book and/or seen the original film (which I must point out, I haven't yet done either) before knows the outcome of the mystery, and actually it was rather predictable once it got to a certain point within the film, but it was very stylish and I hope they do make the sequels, with the original cast and crew. The titles alone - which were very Bond-esque in the fact that they were put at the start of the film overlaid with a cracking song (Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who actually deserve an Oscar for the soundtrack this time, did a great remix of Led Zeppelin's 'Immigration Song') and weird silhouettes of contortionists - deserve a place on the list.

5. True Grit

One of the most overlooked films of this year, especially when awards season approached last January, was this one. Like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I'd never seen the original, but as a big fan of the Coen brothers I was excited to see their latest offering, which was brilliant. Jeff Bridges was outstanding as Marshal Rooster Cogburn, and I actually think Hailee Steinfeld deserved the Best Supporting Actress awards over Melissa Leo, but hey, I seem to be one of the only people giving this film the attention it deserves. Unorthodox casting of Matt Damon was pulled off completely, and he was another one who didn't get the recognition he deserved this year, with The Adjustment Bureau also getting overlooked. It's definitely awarded my "Most Underrated Film of 2011" award (that I just made up. The King's Speech probably gets the most overrated award).

4. Black Swan

Yes, the "lesbian ballet film" earns a space in my top 11 this year. Watching it first time round, I was impressed, especially by Natalie Portman who completely deserved her awards for this, but it didn't strike me as being absolutely amazing. After watching it again (and again and again...) though, it was brilliant. Darren Aronofsky should have won all the best director awards for this. The cinematography and special effects are stunning, but really it's the engaging, original script of a mentally unstable athlete striving for glory, which Aronofsky of course has previous experience with, having directed The Wrestler, that really sells the film. It's dark, disturbing, but beautifully made and with an amazing score that I'm actually listening to as I write this. Just don't watch it with your family. Especially your mother.

3. The Fighter

Another film about an athlete striving to succeed! Except of course, this is completely different to Black Swan, and not just in terms of their athletic fields. This is much more of a drama focusing on the complexity of family life and the conflicts between the family members. Mark Wahlberg was snubbed after not getting nominated for this role, though I think his quiet voice of reason in this gets overshadowed by loud, brash but wonderful performances by the supporing cast of Christian 'Jesus' Bale, Amy Adams (in a career-best, I think) and Melissa Leo, with the former and latter of course walking away with many awards. Truly an amazing film to watch; if you haven't seen it yet, do it.

2. Water for Elephants

No, this was not the best film of the year, on my list or many other people's. But it makes number 2 on my list because it really was very special to me. It was based on one of my all-time favourite books, starring some of my all-time favourite actors, and subsequently containing one of my all-time favourite scores. It was my first ever review on this blog, and if that wasn't enough, I also got tickets to the premiere, to walk the red carpet and see it before anybody else. But aside from that, it's the most visually stylish film I've seen this year, and certainly my favourite period-piece. The acting was superb, with Robert Pattinson in particular shining in his first big role since Twilight began. It's no secret that I'm a fan of his, and I was so pleased that he was able to properly showcase his acting ability in this. Also, I think it has been overlooked in the 2012 awards season in terms of the technical side of it: the cinematography is beautiful and the costumes are splendid. I also think I felt every emotion it's possible to feel during a film during this, and I've never cried so much inexplicably watching a film before. I honestly can't even explain why, but the ending sets me off every time I watch this. Kathryn and I were weeping for about half an hour after it finished, and that isn't even an exaggeration; they were cleaning the theatre around us. So, because it was so personal to me, it's ranks as my number two film of the year.

And number one?

1. Super 8

It was the most flawless film of the year. I cannot fault it at all. The acting is amazing, the special effects are stunning, the banter between the young characters is a highlight, and it's so refreshing to have a truly brilliant original script from Hollywood. And what have they done? OVERLOOKED IT. I cannot comprehend how this isn't sweeping the boards. Everything about it is perfect. This is a prime example of the hatred that academies seem to have for sci-fi films. But you forget it's even catagorised as that, because for the most part it's a mystery, a suspense, and a comedy, with a side of tween love-triangle thrown in there. Writer/director JJ Abrams (Lost, Star Trek) is fast becoming one of my favourite directors, and his creativity and originality is incredible. Filled with fantastic one-liners as well, it's suitable for pretty much everyone over the age of 10, and everyone should see it. The fact that I cannot find a fault in it at all, and that it's one of my absolute favourite films ever now, is why it clinches the top spot on my list.

Do you agree? Drop me a comment below and share your thoughts.

See you in 12 months for this year's summary!