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.

Breaking Down Breaking Dawn Part 2

Was it seriously a year ago that I posted my review of Breaking Dawn Part 1? I can't believe how quickly this time has gone, it felt like a year was unbearably far away when we left off. And here it is, the final installment of a franchise that, like it or not, has changed the face of cinema. And hell, does it bow out well.



These are the most decent posters out there. I always hate how much they photoshop them, there's nothing wrong with the way any of them look normally!

For the record, I'm going to try my utmost to make this spoiler-free - or as spoiler-free as an adaptation can be - because I'm so happy I didn't know what they had changed. I'd advise anyone who doesn't already know the big twist to really try to not find out before they see it, because the impact will be so much more massive.

For those of you who don't know (i.e. non-fans or those who have been living in a cave), Breaking Dawn Part 2 begins immediately after Part 1 leaves off: Bella has awakened as a vampire and is living happily with her new husband, hybrid baby and the baby's boyfriend, until a big misunderstanding puts the whole family in danger of elimination from the vampire head honchos, the Volturi. They therefore need to gather as many "witnesses" (a slew of new, previously unmentioned vampire characters) to come and fight with them. Then shit goes down, and surprisingly, it's brilliant.

Having seen it now four times, with a further two cinema trips planned, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that this film is the best of the series, and it is my favourite. What is absolutely astonishing is that they were able to make an utter turd of a book into a very enjoyable, engaging and emotional film. Every part of  the film is at the peak of its brilliance, whether it be the acting (impeccable), the effects, the music, and actually, the story. This is one of those very rare occasions where the film is better than the book. Seriously.

We'll start with the acting. The central cast have had five films now with their characters, and the polished performances really shine through. Everyone seems a lot more relaxed, and that's probably because of the more light-hearted nature this film takes. Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart again showcase their chemistry and give their best performances of the series, probably because they're actually allowed a whole range of emotions (happiness, for example). Even Jacob gets to calm down and, excluding the weird paedophilia (try and explain it all you want, it's still not okay), he's actually quite amusing. I can't imagine Team Jacob will be too impressed with his comparitively limited screen time (Jacob's a wolf for a lot of the film), but to be honest, I didn't really care, I'm not a huge fan of his anyway, as you well know. Also, Michael Sheen is back! Yay! And he's even more mental than he was in New Moon. I'm a big fan of his anyway, he always puts so much into his work. He's ridiculously camp and creepy and wonderful, and deserves awards. And that laugh! You thought the one in New Moon was creepy... just wait. All the supporting cast are good too, but no-one really stands out, save for maybe Peter Facinelli (Carlisle). But you can tell everyone is giving their all and making the most out of their small roles. Finally though, I have to give a special mention to Billy Burke, who has played Bella's father, Charlie, so well for five films. He always makes me laugh so much and he can also make me cry, and he's just so lovely in this. I'm just sad we don't get to see more of him.

Without trying to sound pervy, I'd have liked to have seen more sex. It's mentioned a lot in the book, and I just don't understand how anyone can think that one scene would suffice, when they're meant to be at it like rabbits constantly. One scene fifteen minutes in and then tantalising teases throughout disappoints me slightly. And whilst I'm at it, another thing that annoyed me was the complete dismissal of the love triangle that's been going on for four films. I get that Jacob now has something new to obsess over (it's a baby! It's still creepy!) but seriously, there's only one very subtle reference about the fact that not two days ago (in the time of the plot) he was completely in love with his new love-interest's mother! I'm not saying that they had to keep bringing it up, but really, they needed to mention it in some way.

One of the things I was most nervous about before I saw this was how they were going to introduce the abundance of new characters in this film. I've never liked that aspect of the book, and seeing all the promotional posters for each individual new character (there are lots) made me wonder how on earth it was going to work. But actually, I was mildly surprised, in a good way. I thought they were all going to be badly underwritten and underdeveloped spare parts, which most of them are, to be fair. But they have some stand-out additions who I'm sad we won't actually get to see more of. In particular Garrett, played by the lovely Lee Pace (can he be in more stuff, thanks), who brought some nice humour and became one of the very (very) few new vampires we actually care about. I see potential for a spin-off with him if Lionsgate decide to actually go ahead and make more Twilight films (please God don't do that). But overall, not a bad job. Yes there are blatant racial stereotypes (the Irish are ginger and wear green, one of the Romanians looks and sounds like the Count from  Sesame Street and the Amazonians are accompanied by tribal music). And no, you won't even remember 90% of their names but actually it doesn't really matter; they're no more than glorified extras. It's just a little frustrating that these people take up screen time that could be spent on others (read: Edward and Bella).

Now, Renesmee. This was going to be tricky however they decided to do it. Stephenie Meyer famously delayed signing over the film rights to the final book because she didn't believe that special effects in films were developed enough to portray the baby realistically. Well, they still aren't. The baby/toddler just didn't look real, and therefore just looked bloody creepy. It's only when Mackenzie Foy actually gets to play her real age that Renesmee doesn't look like a doll or something even I could have whacked out with Photoshop. But on the plus side, she did a good job having to play so many different ages and be somewhat realistic, so kudos to her. And, if you look at Mackenzie, Rob and Kristen all in a row, it's really scary how much she looks like she could actually be their child; they look so similar! And also, Rob and Kristen are super-cute as parents.

I have to talk about the twist, without talking about the twist so as not to give anything away for those of you who still haven't seen it and haven't found out yet (how either of those things is possible is beyond me). It's really very clever how they manage to make a big event out of the notorious non-finale, and yet they still stay faithful to the book. It's the sort of effect I can only imagine working on screen, in text it just wouldn't have been the same. If you've seen the film, you know what I mean. I bet Stephenie Meyer was over the moon when she found out what they were planning to do since she obviously got bored with the story herself when writing it. But it's very shocking - I sat there the first time I saw it with my mouth agape in shock for about ten minutes, and my friend nearly broke my wrist clutching it so hard. Even second time round, when I knew it was coming, it still managed to shock me again. I'll say no more, but you won't see it coming if you don't already know about it. It's a bold move, and it pays off.

Not really important, but I wanted to mention the opening and ending credits, which I thought were very stylish and emotional respectively. The production team have never done opening credits before, but the little montage of freezing nature ws very beautiful and ramped up the anxiety for just a couple more minutes. And the ending credits were very special, letting everyone who has appeared in the films have their little shining moment to take a bow. And leaving the big three until the end and doing something even more extra-special for them was pretty much the twisting knife that lets you know it's really over. Sob.

As ever, I talk about the music. I've always championed the soundtracks and I think that people who don't even watch the films should listen to them because they're brilliant, and I think this one is my favourite. There isn't one song I dislike on it, even the one by Nikki Reed and her husband, who I was livid got on there in the first place. I can actually listen to the soundtrack and picture the scenes and cry because I get so emotional about them ("Ghosts" by James Vincent McMorrow and "Speak Up" by POP ETC are the two that get me every time). And of course, the score. I love it. I'm so happy Carter Burwell, composer of the first film, came back, and he did such a smashing job with it, and also incorporated the New Moon and Eclipse scores in there too even though he wasn't involved in them. I'm just annoyed that the Higher Powers (darn you, Summit Entertainment/Lionsgate!) have delayed releasing it so I can't have it on a loop as I go about my life.

Last time round, I think I said they did the best with what they had. This time, they took what they had and made it so much better than it is on the page. It may be the best film, but it won't convert any non-fans. But then it doesn't need to. It's just had the eighth biggest US opening ever and the biggest UK opening of an American film ever. It's going to be successful and, as the other films have proved, it doesn't need the approval of petulant, arrogant critics and isn't affected by the petty sniping of haters.

I debated a lot about what rating I was going to give this film, and in the end I couldn't decide. My head is telling me four stars, my heart is telling me five. So I'm going to compromise, and for the first time in the history of this blog, I'm giving it four and a half stars. Or nine out of ten, whichever works for you.

 

 



P.S. If you're a fan, bring tissues. The end is super emotional.

 

Trailer:



 

Also, for those interested, here are two interesting articles.

 

This one explores the aforementioned impact Twilight has had on cinema.

http://www.empireonline.com/features/the-twilight-legacy

 

And this one, by the wonderful Mark Kermode (who I met at the premiere!), tries to defend Twilight from all you haters out there, and he makes some very interesting points.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/nov/10/twilight-breaking-dawn-better-than-star-wars?intcmp=ILCMUSTXT9386

 

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.

Mon Dieu!

Last night, I went to a preview screening of Bel Ami at the Soho Hotel in London. After waiting two years since the filming for its release, I was quite looking forward to it, though based on the not-so-overwhelming critical response to it my hopes weren't up exceedingly high, and that turned out to be quite a good thing. Also, as readers know, I make no secret of the fact I'm quite the Robert Pattinson fan, but I'm at least trying to be unbiased.

In 1890s Paris, penniless ex-soldier Georges Duroy (Pattinson) has a chance encounter with Charles Forestiere (Philip Glenister), a fellow ex-soldier who sets him up writing articles about his time in Algeria despite him being barely literate. He soon begins a career as a journalist and slowly he begins to climb the social ladder via the seduction of the wives of powerful men (including Uma Thurman, Christina Ricci and Kristen Scott Thomas), and begins his quest for wealth and notoriety, at whatever cost.

I'll start off with my main issue with the film, which is why it wasn't French. It was based on a French book by a French author with French characters and set in Paris, so it didn't really make sense to me why they made it with a British/American cast and crew whilst keeping all the same French elements. The British accents with French pronunciations became quite grating rather quickly which put a dampener on things, and really you just forget the film is meant to be set in Paris.

Saying that, the acting wasn't terrible; most of the cast gave acceptable if not stellar performances. I have to say that I'm disappointed that this wasn't released before Pattinson's previous work, Water for Elephants, which was filmed afterwards, released sooner and showed a much better performance from him. I'm afraid that this makes it seem like his acting talent has gone downhill, whereas in fact if his work is seen in chronological order of filming it is easy to see the improvement in his skills. Still, he was convincing as a ruthless womaniser, and successfully made the character detestable, which I think was the aim at least, and he has proved that he can play a complex character well. Even though this wasn't his best performance, it gives a taste of what he is capable of, even if he did go a bit overboard with the facial expressions at times. I'm looking forward to seeing him in David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis, his next post-Twilight attempt, to see what he can do under the guidance of a well-respected and established director.

The supporting cast were also mostly good. Uma Thurman gave a credible if dismissable performance as Duroy's love interest and later-wife, a woman who is the brains behind her husband, and her British accent is very believable. It's Christina Ricci who is the surprise talent here, giving her best performance for years (as long as you ignore the shrill giggling). Her character Clotilde's relationship with Duroy is one of the best things in the whole film, and she becomes one of the most interesting characters as ultimately she is the only person Duroy actually cares about. Their scenes together are fun and the chemistry is great, and Ricci plays the part stunningly well.

But there were also problems with the cast. Kristen Scott Thomas, usually a reliable actress, was convincing only for the first half in which she didn't really feature heavily, but as soon as Duroy captures the attention of her vulnerable aging socialite Virginie, she turns into a complete mess, and it's not entirely clear if her clingy and pathetic behaviour is supposed to be that ridiculous or whether it just comes across that way. The uncertainty annoyed me more than if it was a straight-up bad performance, but it actually became hysterical, if not for the right reasons. Philip Glenister, though, I can safely say was terrible. I've not seen huge amounts of his other work, but from what I have seen he's given no indication that he has any talent whatsoever, and this performance just cements that opinion. His character was also horrid, and I actually forgave Duroy for his despicable behaviour towards him because of this. Natalia Tena (Harry Potter) was also forgettable, and her prostitute character served merely as a catalyst for an argument between Clotilde and Duroy. (Side note, if anyone saw her on the Sky Movies Oscars coverage this year you'll understand why I struggled to contain laughter every time she popped up on screen.) And Holliday Grainger was beyond irritating. She contributed nothing to the film at all except as a plot device, and really the little she did act was not convincing at all.

I will definitely say that the producers know how to cater for their audience. They clearly knew that this would appeal to the older Twilight fans, and they delivered on the extensive use of Robert Pattinson. He's in every scene and... shall we say, does things we haven't seen from him yet: within the first ten minutes there's a shot of his naked backside and the whole of the first third of the film is basically him whoring around. Still, it's nice to see him diversifying in his acting and taking on a challenge, and it's lovely to hear him acting with his English accent for the first time in a very long time. That being said, this isn't for Twilight fans. He's a villain who Robert Pattinson himself described as "amoral", which really couldn't sum up the character better. He's manipulative, merciless and definitely not a hero in any sense of the word. People who are essentially watching this to see what we didn't see in Breaking Dawn (i.e. any actual sex) will be disappointed if they are expecting any romance, because these are emotionally cold encounters even if they physically smoulder.

The film is good though with its mix of drama and comedy, even if the intentionally funny moments are overshadowed by the unintentional parts, which become more frequent towards the end of the film. However, I think the problems essentially lie in the actual production side. The screenplay was drab, which is a major issue. This film could have been so relevant to today's issues with the newspapers and journalists, as it's supposed to deal with the backhand dealings of politics and the media, but really it just isn't as hard-hitting as it could be and that means the film lacks any real impact; it basically just chooses to focus instead on the romantic relationships between the characters rather than exploring the impact of these interactions. The direction wasn't great either. It seemed that Nick Ormerod and Declan Donnellan didn't have a lot of control over the performances, and because they don't appear to have reigned any of them in when the majority needed to be, they did descend almost into the ridiculous towards the end. If they perhaps had directed the actors better then the subtlety would have made for a better film. I can probably count on one hand how many films have been well-received that have been directed by two people, it doesn't tend to end well. On the other hand, the costumes by Odile Dicks-Mireaux were beautiful, as were the sets, and they gave the film an authenticity that it perhaps lacked in other aspects. Also to be praised is the score, which reflected the film perfectly and was just right, enough to notice it and its contribution to certain scenes, but not enough to distract from the action. It's one I shall definitely be downloading when it finally gets released.

Now I have to say this, and it's hard for me to do. Robert Pattinson was not attractive in this. I'm not sure if it was deliberately to reflect Duroy's poverty and the way he rose to fame, or to show his ugly personality, but despite his looks, he appears dirty and greasy a lot of the time, even when he's rich and well dressed. The poster is the best he looks as his character, and even that has been doctored. However, his character was interesting enough though that I overlook this. Duroy's complete lack of remorse, his greediness and selfishness, and the fact he gets no comeuppance add to the complexity of his character, and it's refreshing to see a character in film that is so dastardly and doesn't get justice. It's nice to see something other than a predictable storyline where the character has an epiphany and is changed, or is ruined and loses everything so that balance is restored. This is one of the only parts that I feel reflects the book and tells the story of a man who will do anything to get power and gets away with it.

Verdict: All in all, it was a disappointment. A stellar cast is let down by poor direction and a less-than-worthy script, even though most of them do the best with what they have. Considering I am a fan of Rob, and because I've waited for two years for this film to be released, it was an anticlimax. My suggestion is to go into this film with low expectations and it turns out ot be much more enjoyable. I'd recommend seeing it becase it is an interesting storyline, even if it's not as challenging as it has the potential to be, but I don't think any of the aspects of this film were as good as they could be, and if they were then it would have been much better overall. Christina Ricci gives her best performance for years and we do get to a glimpse at what Robert Pattinson can do even if he isn't fulfilling his whole potential here and ends up going a bit overboard in his attempt to showcase his talent.
***

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!