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.

The Fairest Of Them All

There have been two adaptations of The Grimm's brothers' Snow White this year, and from the moment those two trailers were released everyone knew which one was going to be the better. And I'm very pleased to say that Snow White and the Huntsman more than lives up to the expectations. Yes, there's blood-red lips, snow white skin and raven black hair, there's an evil queen, a mirror, a prince and an apple, but this is genuinely not Snow White as you've ever seen it done before.

In this re-imagining, the evil Queen Ravenna (played wonderfully by Charlize Theron) tricks the newly bereaved king, kills him on their wedding night and imprisons his daughter in a tower for years. Now, with her powers waning, her magic mirror tells her to consume the heart of the one fairer than her, Snow White (Kristen Stewart). Except, of course, she escapes her prison into the Dark Forest, so Ravenna recruits a widowed alcoholic Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) to bring her back. But Snow White's good heart and pure nature make the Huntsman reconsider, and instead helps her lead a rebellion including eight dwarves and Snow's childhood friend, Prince William (Sam Claflin) to bring down the evil tyranny of the Queen...

It must be said that it's a very beautifully shot film, very artfully done. Director Rupert Sanders, previously a well-respected director of video game commercials, makes his feature-film debut in stunning style, and at times this almost overshadows everything else about the film. The special effects are dazzling, but also imaginative, and so detailed as well, it actually feels like a different world. It's clear to see the influence of other directors on Sanders, especially Guillermo del Toro - the comparisons are easy to make between this and Pan's Labyrinth in terms of style, and as that is also one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen that is by no means a bad thing.

In terms of performances, it's a little bit of a mixed bag. Charlize Theron basically steals the show - and quite rightly. She is absolutely perfect as the Queen obsessed with aging, power and beauty, and she's very chilling. She's scary, but at the same time she isn't a one-dimensional villain; her backstory actually makes her very believable and it's easy to see why she is the way she is. She's manic and terrifying, and does a lot of screaming at people, but never goes to the point of melodramatic. Even her possible insanity (where did that mirror man come from?) doesn't feel contrived or staged, but completely understandable once you grasp what's gone on in her life. I'm trying not to dwell too much on the borderline incestuous relationship she has with her brother (why is he watching her take a naked milk bath?!), but even that just effectively adds to how creepy the character is. Theron displays a performance here that reminds the audience of what a fantastic actress she is. She is my new queen.

I was a little concerned about Kristen Stewart, wondering whether she may not become a little annoying as the film goes on, but I'm very pleased to report that she does a fantastic job as the titular heroine. Having heard interviews with Kristen talking about the character, it's nice to actually see her dedication to the development of Snow, and to see that no, she isn't a perfect person as we all believe, and she isn't just a damsel in distress. I was also worried she wasn't going to be believable as a leader in battle, but seeing her journey and what she goes through does make it convincing (as is her accent, I might add!).

I do have a little bit of a problem with Chris Hemsworth, regretably. I adore him, I do, but he could have done better. It's nice to see his character journey, but I feel like the Huntsman could have been written better. He's definitely a role that could be developed further if the rumoured sequels do happen (more on that in a bit). But he does bring some comedy to the film in his early drunken state, and the relationship between him and Snow White is enjoyable to see unfold, for the most part. Where I have an issue is in the sudden development of a romantic relationship between the two, which feels really random. He says she reminds him of his deceased wife, and she doesn't say anything about her feelings towards him at all, but it keeps being hinted at in the last section of the film and it doesn't really fit. It's much better if they stick with the mentor-student type relationship, or an older brother kind of thing. Also, his accent just barely passable. I know they made him Scottish because they wanted to emphasise difference between him and the nobility of the Queen, Snow White and Prince William, but it just didn't work. Nobody would have questioned why he also had an English accent, they should have just stuck with that since we know he can do it from Thor.

The dwarves are kind of underused, even if they are brilliant in what we see of them. With the likes of Nick Frost, Ray Winstone and Toby Jones, among others, they bring a large part of the film's comedy in their interactions with each other and the Huntsman, but because they don't come into the film until about half way through, they don't really have time to develop properly; it seems like all the effort the actors exerted to play the roles - going to "dwarf camp" and having small actors teach them the movements - was almost wasted as they weren't really given their chance to shine. To be fair, there are moments when they really engage the audience, in particular Brian Gleeson, who plays Gus, who is so adorable. Now I don't like to say this, because he's a brillaint actor usually, but the one dwarf I didn't like was Bob Hoskins, whose only role seemed to be to repeat "she will end the darkness" and variations thereof constantly every time he's on screen. It didn't need to be said the other 357 times after Chris Hemsworth had got the message.

As for the more supporting cast, again it's a little mixed. Sam Claflin as Prince William is lovely, breaking the mould of fairy-tale princes and actually getting stuck into the action. His relationship with Snow is adorable and I still root for them to be together; it's helped, I think, by showing them as children, which is so cute and does tie in nicely to some of the stuff that happens later in the film. As for Lily Cole though, I don't know why they made a big deal about her being in it - I'm not a fan of hers really anyway, but she's in all of three scenes and one of those is where she gets the youth sucked out of her by the Queen anyway - she's really very forgettable, and actually not a character I want to be expanded if/when they make the next one.

Yes, it's a predictable outcome even before the film begins, but the only true rebellion against the original story is to have the Queen win, and that's just a little bleak (although actually there are times when I did root for Ravenna, but that's down to Charlize Theron's fantastic performance really). The ending could have been better - without trying to spoil too much, the "Messiah" comparisons were a little annoying, and the fact that nobody questions how Snow White had suddenly risen from the dead irked me. It was obviously left open for a sequel, but I don't actually know what they could do with it; there's still room for the characters to be developed further, but I don't know what a believable compelling storyline would be - it's all about the Queen really, isn't it?

Saying that, there were moments which were really special. Parts of the film that were unexpected, such as the encounter with the village of women were surprisingly enjoyable and I liked the way they were embedded into the storyline. The prologue part of the film, in which all the backstory is explained, is a particular highlight, as it's so detailed and perfect to fully understand the rest of the film. The changes in the characters are also welcomed - Snow White is not a damsel in distress, but also she keeps her femininity rather than just becoming a woman-being-a-man action hero. The Queen has such depth that it's hard not to empathise with her at least a little bit; even the prince isn't your ordinary run-of-the-mill fairy tale prince who swans in and saves the day but is actually just the most blah character in history, but he too has proper balls. It's dark stuff, too: Snow White has a mental magic mushroom-enduced trip in the dark forest, the Queen ages rapidly and repulsively and is clearly very mentally unstable, and it doesn't shy away from death and violence (keeping it at 12 levels, though, obviously - though it could have been pushed slightly more, I feel). I also liked the way they redefined all the traditional moments of the story, such as the poisoned apple and the magic mirror; it was refreshing, and it actually resulted in the film deserving to say it's a reimaging, and not just another average adaptation.

What's really good about this version of the tale is that it's really timeless. There are themes that can be related to modern day life, mostly in terms of feminism and the effect of what a child is told in their youth. Ravenna, having been told by her mother that a woman will only succeed if she is beautiful and young, is shaped into this power-hungry women because she believes that all women are used by men and then discarded - this could not be more relevant in today's society, where women are still valued for their looks and youth. Obviously they are trying to then promote the contrasting upbringing of Snow White, who is told that a good heart will lead you to good places, but both of these really stand out as themes which make what feels on the surface to be a very medieval tale into a timeless message regarding the perception of women.

In terms of the technical parts of the film, it really is brilliant. The costumes are gorgeous, and the detail they went into on Ravenna's outfits is exceptional - I love how every costume she wears has some sort of dead thing on it, whether it be feathers, fur or bones, to reflect her character bringing death and despair to everything. The sets were all spectacular, with the English coast being transformed perfectly into a battle ground, and the castles giving a striking feel of despair. But also the outdoor settings in the forests are beautiful, with the contrasting dark and blooming environments just emphasising how special both of them are (there's a lot of contrasts in the film, in case you haven't already gathered. I'm pretty sure it's intentional). The score (you know I love the scores!) is simply superb. I'm a big fan of James Newton Howard anyway, and his style really fits this film. It's probably the best score I've heard so far this year, and I will listen to it constantly for about the next month (I'm listening to it as I'm writing this). It matches the mood of each scene perfectly, and really is just triumphant. And it's so sad to know that it probably will not be in contention for any proper awards because of the type of film it is, and will be overlooked when it really is sublime and deserves proper recognition.

Verdict: Yes, there are parts that are to be expected from a fairy tale adaptation, but the way Snow White and the Huntsman so wonderfully revolutionises the story means that this isn't a standard film. It's genuinely one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen, and I'm looking forward to seeing what Rupert Sanders has to show us next, if this is only his first offering. A dedicated cast and crew must be commended for what they have managed to produce, and strong central performances from the leading ladies are what really make this film a must-see.

****

(I don't normally plug stuff like this, but the behind-the-scenes stuff and interviews from this film are really good, so check out the official Youtube channel for all their videos. Though don't if you want to avoid spoilers, because there's lots there.)

http://www.youtube.com/user/SnowWhiteHuntsman/videos

And The Award For Most Misleading Trailer Goes To...

Dark Shadows! The latest collaboration between Tim Burton and Johnny Depp (and Helena Bonham Carter too, of course) shows nothing more than the typical Burton style and the fact that this feels more like the 118th time they've worked together rather than the 8th. I've actually delayed writing this review because I don't actually want to think too much about the film because it disappointed me so (and also I've been sunbathing). The film failed to meet the expectations of the trailer which made it look so enjoyable and hilarious.

In 1776, wealthy playboy Barnabus Collins (Depp) spurns the advances of one of his servants, the witch Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), in favour of the vapid Josette. In a jealous rage, Angelique kills his parents and bewitches Josette so she jumps of a cliff to her death, and changes Barnabus into a vampire, and then proceeds to bury him alive with the aid of the townsfolk. Two hundred years later, his casket is discovered and he awakes to a world he is completely unfamiliar with - the early seventies. He returns to his family home to find the family business going under, the house in disrepair and a number of dysfunctional relatives. Whilst adjusting to his new life, Barnabus must also salvage the family's wealth and reputation, and also deal with a familiar face who is out to destroy him.

It is not only the most disappointing film I've seen in a very long time, but the film is also so falsely advertised in the trailers. The film seems to be confused about what type of film it actually is - it seemed from all the footage released to be a typical fish-out-of-water comedy, but there's family drama added in, there's a supernatural love triangle, there's action, and a little bit of horror, and all in all it seems terribly confused and unfocused. The different plot strands are all over the place because there's just far too much going on; it's like Burton has tried to cram five different films into one, and it's all rather chaotic.

The performances are all rather so-so as well, disappointingly. Depp's portrayal of the 18th century playboy-turned-vampire living in modern times feels rather restrained compared to what we know he's capable of - at times, it feels like he was filming at the same time as thinking "Why am I actually doing this?" - and that's probably down to the script again - despite having been asleep for two hundred years, he seems to accept all the modern day changes rather easily. Yes, there's the little things we've all seen like him being all confused about the television, and another bit where he gingerly steps onto tarmac, but overall he seems very well adjusted very quickly. Eva Green is actually rather good, and despite being the villain I actually sympathised with her, but that may be because actually all of the other characters were somewhat ghastly. She does do an annoying amount of showing off her looks and attempting to force Barnabus to love her, but compared to the rest of the cast she's probably the most engaging. Michelle Pfeiffer doesn't really do much more than drawl snarky comments occasionally, and her incessant eye-rolling could be down to the fact that she has realised she has absolutely nothing to sink her teeth into here. Jonny Lee Miller is just a horrible representation of a bad father to his poor son, a (slightly irritating) little boy who is seeing a therapist and thinks he can communicate with dead people (don't even ask, it's all moot). All the characters are basically under-developed and though you can see they've tried, it's just impossible to care for any of the characters at all. Whereas in the trailer it looked like Chloe Moretz was going to be an entertaining snarky teen, she ends up just being a whiny and very annoying one instead. She's one of those teenagers you want to slap for taking their angsty moods too far. And don't get me started on Bella Heathcote. She has two characters to play and she's still barely memorable. Both of them are vapid, as I said earlier, and bring absolutely nothing to the table except to be plot catalysts. You could tell she was supposed to be the likeable character in this, and you were supposed to root for her, but she just ended up being irritating and redundant. And of course, there's Helena Bonham Carter, aka, Mrs Burton. I'm pretty sure she's contractually obliged to appear in every film her partner makes - maybe they had that in lieu of a marriage certificate? Who knows, but even she here lacks that special something she so often brings to the screen.

There is a worrying lack of humour here: all the decent gags were given away in the trailer (and I meant literally all of them). This could even be excused if they made up for it in other ways, but the horror was clearly toned down (though there is one comparitively nasty moment with a blood bag being sucked dry through its user). It's not a love story, really, as the central romance gets overshadowed by too much else going on, and even the sexytimes feel a little too staged and surreal to be enjoyable. Even the end action scene is actually borderline dull, and I found my mind wandering during what I'm sure was actually meant to be the pivotal moment of the film. Where the tension appears to be ramping up, the audience's interest has surely already slipped to far beyond redemption. It's all thrown together so shambolically it's dizzying, and actually ends up feeling like you've stepped into the mind of Tim Burton on acid. Rather concerning, really.

There were a lot of things hat  just never explained. Not to ruin too much, but there's more supernatural beings that just a vampire and a witch, but they seem very random in the grand scheme of things, like they've just been chucked into the film last minute. One of these appearances was actually laughable, it was so ridiculously bad. And it's just frustrating. If some things had been left out, there wouldn't have been any difference really to the plot but other things could have been explained instead. Everything just feels like it's been touched on because so much has been crammed in, and I think that's probably it's major flaw.

There are some good points I should make clear. The retro style of the film was actually really good, with set, hair and costume actually making me feel rather nostalgic at some points, and that's not to mention the ace songs they embedded in there too. Throwing in a bit of T-Rex and Barry White (actually technically wrong, since "You're the First, My Last, My Everything" was written two years after it was set) really did improve the film, and livened it up somewhat, which it constantly needed. Essentially, it looked good, with a pretty cast and pretty sets and pretty costumes. However, with the seventies feel also comes Burton's own unique style that frankly, is getting a little old. It was absolutely nothing we haven't already seen before from him, with the extreme make up, vivid and contrasting colours and constant gothic feel.

Also, I'm not sure if you can call this a good thing or not, but there's so many twists and turns and random things thrown in that it isn't actually predictable. Well, the outcome is, but not what actually happens along the way. Ok, I've just read that back, and actually that isn't a good thing. I'd much rather it was predictable and entertaining than... this.

It was left open for a sequel (the final shot felt very gratuitous of Burton... you'll see what I mean), but I emplore anyone who worked on that film to reject that idea. I strongly urge that they leave this alone to rot where it belongs.

Verdict: It's just shoddy work from people we all know can do better. I watched Sweeney Todd the day before I went to see it, and there was just no comparison. Instead of watching this film, I'd recommend just watching some of Burton's older works, where he was actually fresh and a visionary, and watch the trailer for this over and over again. It would be more enjoyable, trust me. All in all it feels like a very half-hearted, slap-dash film. Burton, where has your sparkle gone?

**

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isjg9O7ifwM

Bromance To The Extreme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

Get Your Rods Out

Last week I attended an advance screening of Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, an adaptation of the 2007 satirical book of the same name.

I haven't read the book - hell, before I saw the film I didn't even know it was a book - but apparently if you have read it the film doesn't really live up to it (which of course is true for 98.9% of book-to-film adaptations). However, if like me you haven't read the book then the film really is a treat; this review will  be based solely on the film, since, duh, like I just said, I have nothing else to base it on, so don't get all hissy with me if you have indeed read the book and disagree with everything I say: just disregard it, I'm used to that.

Government fishing expert Fred Jones (Ewan McGregor) is approached by consultant Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Emily Blunt - I had to look up how to spell her character's name, it was tricky) on behalf of a wealthy sheikh who wants to introduce salmon fishing to the Yemen (see, the film does what it says on the tin). At first dismissing it as impossible, Fred is forced into working on the project by the government, and specifically, Patricia Maxwell, the Prime Minister's Press Secretary (a wonderful Kristen Scott Thomas) who is looking for a good news story to boost Anglo-Arab relations and to counteract the ongoings of the action in Afghanistan, conveniently where Harriet's soldier boyfriend has just been reported as missing.

I didn't really have any expectations going into it, and it turned out I was really very pleasantly surprised by it. Ewan McGregor and Emily Blunt actually make a really lovely couple, and coming out of it I'm slightly sad that they aren't together in real life. The film is a lot more complex than it looks in the trailer, but no less enjoyable, which is good, so I definitely wasn't disappointed in it.

Kristen Scott Thomas is without a shadow of a doubt the best part of the film, with the most hilarious lines - whether she's shouting at her son for treating her "like one of his hoes", flirting with the sheikh's security, or typing hilarious putdowns to the PM, she gets it pitch-perfect.. When the film starts to take a dip around the half-way point, she is the one to pick it back up again. Considering the last review I gave of her acting was less than favourable, I can safely say she is forgiven for her wrongdoings and I am happily reminded of what a fabulous comic actress she is - I hope to see more of this soon; it's made me want to watch Four Weddings and a Funeral again just to see her in action.

Ewan McGregor, too, was a wonderful surprise, and I finally see why people like him as an actor. I've never been impressed with him really before this, and I don't think I'll ever fully forgive him for Moulin Rouge, but he won me over very quickly in this. His cynical view of the plan for the first chunk of the film is so funny, and one of the highlights of the film is him drawing little (very good) pictures whilst explaining how badly he thinks the plan will fail (it's in the trailer, but somehow seeing it in the context of the rest of the film makes it even funnier). You end up rooting for him when he finally escapes his marriage and comes out of his shell, and his chemistry with Blunt is excellent; they bounce off each other really well.

Blunt is also very good, and like Scott Thomas, I'm reminded of her brilliance in this, even if she doesn't fully shine like she does in, say, The Devil Wears Prada. Aside from the annoying segment of the film where she inexplicably has a complete breakdown (more on that below), she is really lovely, and she appears to be the obvious choice for Fred over his bitch of a wife, even if they don't actually have much in common other than their attachment to the project. She slips between comedy and tragedy very well for the most part, and I think that has to be applauded. Altogether, though they are the two main roles, McGregor and Blunt give very subtle performances that will entertain more mature audiences, but that's what they're going for (I think. It's quite hard to tell who this is aimed at, actually. I'd say older audiences, definitely).

There are some flaws with the film. The treatment of Fred's marriage breakdown (which you will hope for, because his wife is a mega-bitch who doesn't appreciate him at all) and Harriet's boyfriend's disappearance are never really treated with the depth and seriousness they require to be entirely believable. Even though Fred's separation from his wife is inevitable, it feels very muted, and he seems to get over it entirely too quickly. And yes, Emily Blunt spends ten minutes of the film crying and moping around her designer flat, but as soon as she gets on a plane to Yemen she seems to have forgotten all about her missing boyfriend. You question why she even has such an extreme reaction, considering they were only going out for a month; she acts like a grieving widow when his parents didn't even know she existed.

I also think the sub-plot of the local militants' sabotage plan of the project was kind of unnecessary; there were enough other obstacles to overcome without the added threat of a group of men trying to destroy their work. Um, I suppose I should say that this is a big SPOILER, but you feel let down and unfulfilled at the end as all of their work kind of goes up in smoke and they have to start all over again, even if it is kind of supposed to be uplifting and hopeful.

I didn't really know what sort of film it was trying to be, as it has defining elements of comedy, drama, and romance whilst dealing with issues like the crisis in the Middle East and the breakdown of marriages, but somehow it mostlyworks. I think if they had cut the whole sabotage bit out, they could have dedicated more time to dealing with the issues I think got overlooked somewhat - it's like there was a bit too much going on to fully get stuck in ro one particular bit.

Saying that, it is a lovely, feel-good film that brightened my week, and I'd still recommend it. It hasn't made me desperate to read the book, and I don't have hugely strong urges to go and see it again straight away, but it still was lovely to watch and I'm very glad I did see it, even if to only have discovered a new-found love for Ewan McGregor.

Verdict: a genuinely very sweet film that, although is predictable, is a wonderful piece of light entertainment that will cheer you up on a cloudy day. And make you want a holiday. I'm not feeling generous today, so I'll stick with the three stars, but there were definitely five-star moments in there; it just never packs the punch I think it needed to truly make it brilliant.

***

Happy Hunger Games!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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.
***