A Monster In Paris (2011)

A Monster In Paris is a kids film from France. It's a film that I knew pretty much nothing about before going to watch it, and the fact that I had heard no big fanfare before it came out, and it's biggest star is Adam Goldberg simply intrigued me no end. As such I found myself really enjoying  the film. The story is simple, due to a chemical accident a Flea is grown into a 10 foot tall Flea and scares people around Paris, who then go on the hunt for it. It turns out though that the Flea is just scared itself, and also has a wonderful singing voice (a side effect of the chemical accident). Then those who have taken the flea in must protect it from the city commissioner who in a bid to become mayor is publicly trying to kill the monster and win the public support.

Overall the film is a warm film, it never really gets the laughs going, which is a shame and I think a factor to why it will undoubtedly bomb at the box office, but it provides a lot of heart. I did wonder throughout who the film was aimed at though. There were moments in the film where the monster was really quite scary and I did wonder if that was perhaps a little too much for small children. There are songs in this film too, but not many, and whilst I thought that they were actually quite enjoyable songs, with a Parisian feel to them which really set them apart from other kids songs in films, they aren't what a lot of kids may be after from films at the moment. There aren't the grown up in jokes that the films of Pixar provide either. Instead the film looked at Love, inner Beauty, being brave enough to ask out someone you like, public perception, and had a whole Elephant Man thing going on as well.

Paris is a beautiful city, never more so than in the early 1900s when this film is set. As such it is wonderful to see city landscapes like these, very well animated. The people are quite simply animated, but I can't hold that against the film, as they didn't need to be anything more. The film is flawed in so much as the story isn't new, and like I say, at times it can feel slightly confused about the audience it is trying to attract. But having seen it, and having seen the amount of heart that it displayed I left feeling as though I had seen a really nice film, and if I had children I would definitely be taking them to see films like this one instead of films like Alvin & The Chipmunks or The Smurfs. I wish more kids films were like this one, just a little bit more original and heartfelt.

Oceans Twelve (2004)

So pleased was I with having just watched Oceans Eleven that I decided, for the first time ever to give it's follow up, Oceans Twelve, a go. What a Disappointment. The chemistry between the actors is still there, it's still very well shot... but the entire film feels like one massive in joke between those who made the film.

Let me start with one thing that might just put you off completely. Julia Roberts character is at one stage of the film pretending to be Julia Roberts, as someone points out to her that she looks a lot like her. This is a constant reference and is even mentioned in the credits, indicating that the film makers all thought that this was a really clever and hilarious plot point. It's not, it smacks of being too clever for your own good. It feels tired and frankly you lose all interest in her at that point.

Secondly when you've got Vincent Cassel in your film you provide him with a real role to play, arguably France's greatest actor (sorry Depardieu) he's an actor who can really provide some dramatic wight to a film. Instead he plays a boring arch villain type who at one stage gets through a bunch of lasers by effectively break dancing. Seriously, what the fuck?!

Thirdly the plot doesn't really work. You know how Die Hard With a Vengeance doesn't really work as a Die Hard film, then you find out that it was originally just a film called Simon Says, but when Bruce Willis signed on they decided to make it a Die Hard film, force it to link in with the first film and ultimately make it not really feel right throughout. Well the same is true here. Oceans Twelve began life as simply another story, a story that was rewritten for the Oceans franchise when it was announced they would be making a sequel. As such we get a crow-barred in love interest for Rustie, a confusing opening, a very unsatisfying ending to the heist which raises more questions than it does answers and in general a confusing film.

I don't regret buying the entire trilogy, and there are moments in this film which are pretty nice. It's got the usual Soderbergh trademarks and the cast contains some actors who I find eternally watchable. But ultimately it was a crashing disappointment of a film that really needed an outsider to watch and edit. It smacks of Hollywood through and through, and considering it's Hollywood talking about vast sums of money you find yourself actively not caring.

Oceans Eleven (2001)

Oceans Eleven is probably one of the coolest films ever made. I don't know if they set out to make it that way, the fact that Bruce Willis was set to play Danny Ocean at one point makes me think no. But let's start with the cast. Included in the cast you have George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Andy Garcia, Julia Roberts, Don Cheadle, Bernie Mac, Casey Affleck, Scott Caan and like 100 other cool faces. It's a sort of remake of a Rat Pack film, set in a Casino, Directed by Steven Soderbergh and it's about con men. Seriously, how could this film not be cool.

Without giving too much away the plot follows Danny Ocean (Clooney) who recently released from prison gets a gang of thieves together to pull off the biggest heist is Las Vegas history. There are twists and turns, problems they face, but ultimately they get it done (Not a spoiler because quite frankly it's obvious from the tone that this is a happy film). When you're looking at an ensemble cast like this it's more important that the cast work well together than it is individual players do their parts. Thankfully the cast here all feel like natural friends. I think it helps that many of them are friends off set too, playing pranks on each other at an alarming rate, but the chemistry between pretty much everyone and everyone else just clicks. The only clunker when it comes to acting is Don Cheadle, nothing wrong with his acting at all, except his London accent is probably the worst I've heard since Mary Poppins. It doesn't detract from the film too much as somehow you can ignore it, though I do wonder why he had to be English at all, as besides a joke where he uses Cockney Rhyming slang and confuses the rest of them it's not really important.

Directorial wise it's a very clever film. Soderbergh likes to use close up shots of things happening like someone shuffling cards, reaching for a drink, focusing on their hands as they do so and so on. In a film like this where sleight of hand is key to the events as they unfold it's a very useful tool, and feels completely natural, as we see similar shots during normal scenes also. Some moments, such as the shot above are simply iconic. The film is given a colourful tone too, colours being perhaps exaggerated beyond what they normally would to give the impression of a playful film, whilst they are technically thieves you are rooting for them because you know that it's not real.

Music duties are handled by David Holmes, who has never been better than creating what feels like a completely fresh and original take on the Rat Pack/Vegas themes. It's another just 'cool' thing about the film, finger clicking tracks throughout the film.

Basically everything in this film just works, it's the perfect film to watch to make you happy, it's not too challenging you have to think about what you're watching but by no means braindead entertainment, it's very intelligently shot and very well acted, but it is the type of film that will always get overlooked simply for the reason that it is too 'cool' to be serious.

The Descendants (2012)

The Descendants is the new George Clooney film from the Director of About Schmidy, Sideways and Election. It did very well at the Golden Globes and is tipped to do very well at the Oscars as well, being second favourite to win Best Picture after The Artist. With all the hype around it I suspect it will do very well at the box office as well. I too sort of got caught up in all the hype for the film and my excitement for it grew the closer it came to release.

The story is a sad one, George Clooney plays a husband and father, whose wife hits her head in a boating accident and ends up in a coma. We are then told that she will never wake up from the coma and due to a living will she had drawn up will have the machines keeping her alive turned off. We then find out that she was having an affair before she fell into a coma. This all sounds pretty heavy and depressing no? Well It is, but the film, whilst dealing with these issues sensitively and appropriately, is also injected with some wonderful moments of humour courtesy of a dry and witty script. Clooney is no stranger to this sort of comedy, think Up In The Air, where humour was found in mass layoffs.

The story then revolves around Clooney telling his friends and family about his wifes condition, dealing with the conflicting emotions of her betrayal and her death rolled into one, and sets about trying to find the man who his wife was cheating on him with, to do what? He's not sure. It is still a very sad script, but don't get me wrong, this film will leave you feeling good. You won't leave with a big grin on your face, but you'll feel content when you leave. The main reason for this is the absolutely stunning performance that George Clooney gives. Many people have been talking about how un Clooney it is. That's rubbish, he's still charming, kind and warm, you just don't see him smiling quite so much. He becomes the character, the father to those children, and the most responsible member of his extended family (another plot point is a land sale that he and his cousins are trying to organise).

Another mention must go out to the soundtrack. The film is set in Hawaii, and one of the opening lines in the film talks about how people assume that life must be great because he lives in Hawaii, as though real life doesn't affect them somehow, but that it does. Well the soundtrack presents this idea wonderfully. It's all traditional sounding Hawaiian music, you've got your Ukulele's and what have you. But most of the tracks are also heartbreaking, with voices singing in Hawaiian that are truly beautiful. It really adds another wonderful layer to a really nice film.

So was this film the 'Best Picture' Of the year. No. There have been plenty of other amazing films this year which are technically better than this one. But like the Artist I don't think I'd be too upset if this won the Best Picture gong. I got very involved in the characters of the film, and I left wanting to watch it again. I confess that I will watch anything with George Clooney in it as I think he's a fantastic screen actor, but whilst he shows just how good an actor he is in this film, it is a film that is more than simply him. It's a wonderful tale of tough decisions and life lessons.

The Good German (2006)

I have previously stated that Every Steven Soderbergh film is worth checking out for one reason or another. Whilst I still think that is true, I would like to add that I do not believe that every Steven Soderbergh film will leave you feeling as though you want to check out more of his films. For example The Good German. If this had been the first Soderbergh film I had seen I probably wouldn't watch any more. It's not that it's the worst film I've ever seen, it's not even the worst film I've seen this month, it is however really quite boring.

I get it, I get that the film is being filmed in the exact same way that they made films in the 30s, it's shot with exaggerated lighting, it's got boom mics that follow the actors around, it feels more like a play than a film, and whilst I guess I get that all of this is being done to fit the setting of the film, set shortly after the end of the second world war in Germany, while Russia and America still occupied territory there, but at the same time as getting all this I did spend a lot of the film simply thinking.... Why? When you're a director who is famous for bringing a fresh voice to independent cinema, why would you then go and make a film in the style of someone else, and why would you choose to make it in the style so dull. Also, there are reasons why we moved on from this style. I must again reiterate that I am not against films of the past, I love old films, I also thought that the artist did a similar thing to this film (shot in black and white, silent and with an old fashioned aspect ratio), but it did so without ever seeming dull or derivative and it did so whilst remaining inventive, original and strangely modern.

The story of this film follows classic film noire themes of betrayal, not quite being sure who your friends are, secrets and murder. It does so without any of the style of the films it is trying to pay homage to. It references Casablanca numerous times, some more obvious than others, yet never once comes close to the majesty and brilliance of Casablanca. The performances in this film are all fine. Clooney is his usual great self, Cate Blanchett is fine I guess, though her accent does recall the awful one she put on in the last Indiana Jones film (She's a great actress, but accents may not be her thing), and even Toby Maguire gets away from his boyish image with a character who reveals himself to be quite menacing and mean at times, which came as a pleasant shock.

In short this film was a crashing disappointment, I am a Soderbergh/Clooney/Blanchett fan, and yet I found myself utterly bored through most of this film. It was well staged, well acted, but lacked any spark of intrigue to make it enjoyable. It was just a waste of the talent involved.

Mission Impossible III (2006)

So previously I had seen all the Mission Impossible films bar this one. The first one I enjoyed as a clever piece of cinema, with additional fondness as I used to play the game on the N64 quite a lot. The second one was a pile of shit, so bad that I avoided the third one when it came out. The fourth one I went to see on a whim, and found myself enjoying so much (despite its flaws) that I thought it best to go back and investigate the third one, as I had heard since that it was actually pretty good. Plus the involvement of JJ Abrams intrigued me as I think that he is someone who is actually making some of the more interesting blockbusters in Hollywood at the moment, not to mention his work in TV.

I don't know if it's because I knew the outcome to the story to a certain extent having seen the following film, or whether I would have felt this anyway, but I found myself disappointed. Don't get me wrong, this isn't Mission Impossible 2, God No. But it isn't great. It all feels a little by numbers. You've got the scene with the massive stunt, the impossible chase sequence, masks, you've got Tom Cruise saving people and a bad evil plot that could end the world. But what you don't have is any real sense of danger. The film moves along at a decent pace, it does the job, but it never excels.

As JJ Abrams first feature film I feel as though I should cut him some slack, as he was handed a high profile picture with established characters and a lousy previous film and told to make do, and the film does have some great moments. There are some very nice action sequences, and it has a plot (already better than number 2), but the plot isn't overly strong, and the characters that we are introduced too aren't especially memorable or likable, with the exception of Simon Pegg, which is perhaps the reason why he remained in the cast for the fourth film and none of the others did barr a small cameo.

The inclusion of Ethan Hunt's wife is something which unfortunately, whilst trying to add an element of the unknown to the film, ends up making it feel slightly more cliched, as it isn't exactly something which has never been done before. Also the film is too long, I don't know how else to say that, I don't know if it's just paced badly, but it feels at times as though it is dragging a little. I guess I'm glad I saw it, but it provided me with none of the thrills of the fourth installment, and didn't strike me as clever like the first film. It was simply there, moving the story along. Which is a real shame, because I really wanted to like this film.

Repo Man (1984)

I had no interest in Repo Man until I found out it was getting a Blu Ray release soon. I figured previously that it was a piece of 80s tat, probably quite macho and involved guns and explosions. I assumed this not least because of the DVD cover, which just shows Emilio Estevez looking tough on it (I didn't realise it was Emilio Estevez, or I would have been more interested). The film is however much more interesting than that, it's an unusual mesh of styles and is one of those films that is really hard to catagorize.

It follows Otto (Estevez), a young punk who is fed up of his job in a supermarket so quits in a spectacular fashion. He is then approached by Harry Dean Stanton, asked to move his 'wife's' car as she is pregnant. What transpires is that Otto is being conned into repossessing the car for Stanton, after initial reluctance, he then decides to join the repo men in their profession, working out the best ways to effectively steal cars for a living. Along side this we have a man who is driving something in his boot which at the start of the film evaporates a police officer who is unlucky enough to look in the trunk of his car. For a large portion of the film I was curious how these two stories could possibly be in any way linked. They are tied together through the car that has this mysterious content being a car with a very large reward on it for the repo men, and a girl that Otto is getting to know being a conspiracy nut who believes that their is proof of Alien life in the trunk of the car.

At its helm this film has two often overlooked actors, Emilio Estevez & Harry Dean Stanton. Whilst Estevez has pretty much given up on acting to pursue a career as a director (and a promising one at that) Stanton continues to provide bit parts in a lot of respectable films, neither though seem to have got the recognition commercially that they deserve. This film shows that Emilio Estevez is bigger than the brat pack image too, shunning much of what made him famous in the first place.

It's an unusual film, and it doesn't always make sense in the way that I wish it would. I respect the meshing of genres, I admire the idea that the film should be a little more unusual in what it does, but sometimes I did wish that it would just make a little more sense. But then I don't know if the film was meant in complete earnest. I imagine that the world of repo men is very different to the one portrayed here, whilst the repo men are caught out now and then, beaten up by those that they are repossessing, or chased through the streets, it is also portrayed as a larger than life profession with a proper brotherhood that you see in police movies and such. The whole Alien thing too lends a surreal edge to the film that lets you know that the film isn't entirely serious.

I think that this film is one that deserves the moniker 'Cult Classic'. It's a film that I would be hard pressed to find a designated audience for, and like other unusual films of the time it provides a curious addition to anyones collection. It's also a film that I can see myself recommending to people purely as it is so odd, and perhaps getting people round to watch from time to time. It's by no means a bad film, but a little more cohesion could have made it a great film. As it is it's a cult classic, but one of the better ones.

J. Edgar (2012)

J Edgar is a film that was always going to appeal to me. I find myself perpetually fascinated by American Politics, and I think that American political history is one of the most interesting subjects around. J Edgar Hoover, I knew, was a controversial figure in American History, as head of the FBI he had breached many privacy laws, was known to be heavily anti-communist (In a way that scares me when looking back at the 1950s) and is often joked about as a cross dresser (something that whilst true, is only ever brought up as a joke). What I wasn't as aware of were the positive attributes he possessed. I did not realise, for example, that J Edgar Hoover was arguably the driving force behind the modernisation of policing in America. But herein lies one issue I went into J Edgar with. After The Iron Lady totally paved over any of the controversial aspects of Margaret Thatchers life, I did worry that J Edgar would give Hoover the same treatment.

In a way it does, as the story is told from Hoover's recollection of events, it shows lots of scenes with Hoover battling out his mission with those above him, constantly winning and moving forward. However, the film doesn't totally shy away from his negative aspects, such as his fear of being his true self (indicated through his relationship with Clyde, who it is clear from the beginning is more than simply his right hand man, the two are obviously in love, a fact that Hoover will never admit. It is through Clyde that we get a confrontation with Hoover about his recollection of events, where we have spent the entire film looking at someone who is basically portrayed as always right and misunderstood, toward the end of the film it is revealed that much of what we have witnessed was either a misrepresentation of the truth, or a fallacy in its whole. This raises another problem I had with the film. To include such a revelation right at the end of the film almost feels like a cheat, why bother leading us one way with the character only to reveal that it wasn't all true at the end, and only briefly brush us up on a few of the truths. It was very unsatisfying.

In terms of structure the film is weak, Clint Eastwood is usually a strong director, though his last few films haven't been his strongest, Hereafter was a complete mess saved only by its central performances. Whilst J Edgar isn't anywhere near as bad as that, it does suffer from similar flaws, sometimes the sequencing in the film can get a little confusing, and some scenes don't really need to exist. However, the central performances again, save this film, as Leonardo DiCaprio proves once again that he is one of the finest actors working in Hollywood today. I used to dismiss him as a pretty boy, however, since he started to work with Scorsese I have seen a huge change in DiCaprio, and he is very talented indeed, this role arguably being one of his strongest. A supporting cast which compliments his performance is also here, with Judi Dench as his mother really standing out.

I feel as though from this film I learned a lot about the man J Edgar Hoover, rather than simply the myth of the man. I don't know just how much of it was accurate, and perhaps the film was a little too sympathetic toward a man who betrayed the very thing he was trying to protect in his quest to save America, a man who persecuted all left wing leaning people with the same brush as those who were violent, a trend you can worryingly see in American right wing groups with their victimisation of Islamic institutions. But I enjoyed this film, despite my misgivings. It's deeply flawed in structure, but the acting is superb, and the story just good enough.

Radio On (1980)

Radio On is a film that I had wanted to watch ever first reading a review of it. I seem to remember the review being fairly positive, but that two things in particular intrigued me. Firstly it was described as a British Road Movie... And whilst the American road movie has a great tradition, I don't think I can think of a single other British road movie, possibly due to the fact that in Britain you could drive the entire length of the country in a day, whereas other countries you only get from one city to the next. Secondly I was intrigued by the soundtrack, which was described as an amazing New Wave Soundtrack, promising songs from the likes of Bowie, Devo, Kraftwerk and many other great bands. I was hooked. However, for years the film always remained far too expensive for me to take a punt on it. However, one day I found it as a more than reasonable price and snapped it up. I only got round to watching it the other day though.

There isn't much of a story to speak of, the driving motivation of the road trip is our protagonist Robert's brother dies, and he travels across the country to try and find out what happened to him, there's also a side plot involving a German lady he meets who is trying to find her husband who has run off with their daughter, but like I say, neither story is particularly important in the grand scheme of the film. The real purpose for the film, or at least the way I read it, was a film that addressed where we were as a nation when the film was made. Whilst driving through the countryside, comments are made about the pylons that were springing up in fields, we have shots of characters starring out of separate windows (despite being in the same room) watching as the traffic passes them by on the newly built highway. It's almost as if it's trying to say that although all these technological advancements and modernisation of Britain are supposed to be improving our society, they are in fact adding to a great sense of disillusion with the country and a greater sense of lonliness.

These could just be my own modern interpretations of the film, but in being able to find modern relevant theories surrounding the meaning behind many of the films scenes I realised that the film was still as important a voice about modern society now as it was when it was made. The film certainly feels wistful for a time before... a time when things were better. One of the moments when Robert seems most at ease and happy is when he meets Sting's character (Sting actually putting in a fairly decent performance, and not annoying me like Sting usually does) and the two of them end up singing an Eddie Cochran song together. It's an unusually uplifting moment in this film.

A Word of warning, this film doesn't follow a linear plot, nor is it filled with action, indeed, in the wrong mood I may easily have found this film incredibly dull, as I can find any film that is described as dealing with the existential. However, if you're in the mood for a thoughtful film, that is beautifully shot, as I don't think Britain in the 1970s ever looked this good before, then you can't go too far wrong with Radio On. It's interesting film making, well shot, well acted and will linger with you long after the film ends, just make sure you enter with an open mind and not too looking for spoon feeding cinema.

Another Year (2010)

This film is a massive bummer. I don't know why I expected other wise, this is after all a Mike Leigh film, Social Realism etc etc... I think it's the fact that the characters are smiling on the front of the DVD, but then again Sally Hawkins has a massive grin on her face on the cover for Happy-Go-Lucky, and that's also a big downer of a film. So yes, this film surprised me, and as gripes go, it's a minor one, as it's really my own fault for having unrealistic expectations...

So now I've got the criticism out the way, let's just say that this is a fantastic film. Yes, it's not a happy film, and it definitely left me feeling pretty down about everything, but the fact that it evoked such a response in me simply goes to show the power of the performances in the film and the story they played out. The plot is simple, it follows Tom and Gerri, a middle class married couple in London, and their Son, friends and other family, in particular Mary, who is seemingly in a perpetual state of confusion about her circumstances. As a film that's not really about very much it relies pretty heavily on the performances of the main cast, thankfully they are all fantastic. The level headed Ruth Sheen as Gerri, a counselor who finds herself acting as both a friend and a counselor to Mary, and others, and Jim Broadbent as Tom, a man who lives for his job, and seems like the perfect husband. In fact the two of them show amazing chemistry, while never really doing the lovey dovey thing, they encapsulate at least my idea of a perfect couple, playing off each other, comfortable in each others silence, and just blending together as one throughout the film.

The character with all the emotional baggage is Mary, who through the course of the year shown here, goes from someone with much bad luck who deals with it with a positive attitude and fresh plans, to someone with lots of bad luck who is struggling to cope with things as her problems pile up, and even her fantasy relationships get shattered. It's with Mary that much of the sadness lies, and whilst much of the attention lies with Ruth Sheen and Jim Broadbent, Lesley Manville deserves just as much attention for her performance, as you can physically see her emotional journey through the film.

Mike Leigh's method of film making is an interesting one. In order to get realism in his films he trusts in the actors improvisations, based on their time spent researching the types of people they are going to be playing he isn't precious about a script, instead letting the actors find the voices for their characters and lets the plot develop itself. It's both an interesting and seems to be effective method as this film is indeed filled with a realism that isn't normally seen in films. The dialogue doesn't always flow perfectly, characters sometimes speak over each other, and there are other flaws too. But this isn't to the detriment of the film, In the same way that I found the realistic fight scenes in Haywire refreshing, so too is it refreshing for people in a film to be speaking in a way that you and your friends may be speaking.

In short this is a very strong film, it's a film that shows that Britain is still making great films and that even with Harry Potter gone from our screens our great actors will still be able to find good work as long as people like Mike Leigh continue to make films. Yes, the depressing ending took me off guard, but then it's like life, things aren't always as they seem, and sometimes, what looks like a wonderful opportunity can suddenly become a nightmare, and people who appear cheerful and full of hope are sometimes deeply hurting inside. Any film that can truly capture aspects of life like those is alright by me.

The Sitter (2012)

The Sitter is a Jonah Hill film. Now Jonah Hill is someone that at first I found annoying, unfunny and quite frankly got in the way of some other better, funnier actors. Then something strange happened, I started to warm to him, I started to find his charm amongst the cock jokes, and yes, I even found him funny. It was this reason why I approached The Sitter with caution. It's from director David Gordon Green, who made the very patchy Pineapple Express, and the utterly awfully shit Your Highness, a film that even the presence of Zooey Deschanel couldn't save from my hatred. So I went to see it, but I expected very little.

On the plus side, it's the best film I've seen yet from David Gordon Green, it worked the story together much better than Pineapple Express, and well... wasn't Your Highness in any respect, which was nice. However, it didn't stray too far from his comfort zone, with the stories of Drug Dealers and unlikely heroes rearing its head from the Pineapple Express lot. In essence this film is about a bad babysitter, played by Jonah Hill, who is left in charge of 3 young kids, all of whom exemplify a stereotype often associated with children. The nervous fragile kid, the brat obsessed by makeup and being grown up NOW, and the little troublemaker, not quite fitting in with his adopted family, and causing trouble to get attention. At the promise of Sex Jonah Hill's babysitter takes these three children on a very dangerous trip to a drug den, robbing a jewelers, and through gun infused car chases, all for a little bit of nookie. It's the very definition of unbelievable.

The film is therefore saved from utter depravity by a very warm performance from Jonah Hill, whose character is shown to love his mum above all else, after all, the only reason he took the Babysitting job in the first place was to help his mum go on a date and find happiness. He also ends up teaching the kids a valuable lesson, whether it's that it's okay to be who you are, and that if other people can't accept that then that is something that they need to worry about, not you. Or whether it's that you need to be a kid for as long as you can, growing up sucks and to aspire to that is just silly, and finally that people do care about you, you just need to stop driving them away or they might not for much longer. They aren't the most original of messages, but they do the trick, and the warmth of Hill's performance makes for a more enjoyable experience.

Some of the jokes do fall flat in this film, it's far from perfect, but there are also many reasons to watch it. It's not a film you buy, it's not even a film you make an extra effort to watch, it's a film you catch on TV and you find yourself enjoying quite a lot, but with little desire to go back and revisit. It's solid enough to make me say I enjoyed it, but flawed enough to warrant some scorn. It's average, and Jonah Hill is the reason it's not terrible, that being said, the kids do a good job with what they are given, and I hope to see more of them in the future.

The Change Up (2011)

The Change up is a film that I avoided at the cinema. I did this not for any moral outrage or vindictive motives, I simply thought that it didn't look very good, and whilst yes, I went to see much worse films at earlier times, there was a lot out at the time and I simply never got that bored. It's a shame really because I think that Jason Bateman is a great actor, and I tend to enjoy his performance in most things, not lease because of his role as Michael Bluthe in the fantastic Arrested Development TV Show which is thankfully making a return. This film also, however, stars Ryan Reynolds, a man who has impressed me in one film, Buried, where he proved that he actually can act, so why does he insist on playing roles like these all the time when he is capable of much more.

Anyway, the film is a tired old concept of body switching, we've seen it before in things like Freaky Friday, but this is aimed at a whole different audience, the teenage boy. It's not that the film is juvenile, or that juvenile is necessarily a bad thing, but it's more that the film doesn't always pull it off. For example, toward the start of the film a baby projectile poos into Jason Bateman's face. It, I can only assume, is supposed to be a comedy highlight of the film, but is instead unnecessarily gross for no particular reason. Anyway, through peeing in a fountain together Bateman and Reynolds swap bodies, and lives. The two of them having wildly differing lives, one a high flying lawyer, and the other an actor whose big break is in soft core pornos. The two being friends is explained only by the fact that they've known each other for years.

The film goes along a perfectly predictable path, the two firstly hate their new lives, trying to find a way out of them, one hates hard work, the other hates being away from work and family. However, as the film goes on they realise that not only are they starting to like their new lives, but that their old lives were too extreme. By this I mean that the lesson they learn is that everything is good in moderation. Whilst working hard has rewards, you must find time to relax or you will drive away your friends and family. YAWN. Seriously, it's as though the plot was devised by a plot machine who looked at bad TV and used it as a basis for new screenplays. It's a tired concept that quite frankly was the worst thing about the film, however true it may be.

The film is not without its moments, there are some moments which are quite amusing, some of them are the juvenile moments which appealed the young boy in me, others showed genuine heart, however, these moments were few and far between and ultimately ended up showing us what the film could have been, making the rest of the film seem even less clever by comparison. It's not a film I am proud to have watched and it is not a film I will ever be watching again, it's a film that passed a couple of lunch breaks away at work and nothing more. Avoid if you can.

When We Were Kings (1996)

When We Were Kings is a documentary that looks at the famous 'Rumble In The Jungle' between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. Muhammad Ali is well known as one of the greatest boxers in the world, if not the greatest, a position that was seemingly cemented by this fight where he beat an opponent not through his usual fast paced skills, but through tactical boxing which showed that he was much much more than a one trick pony, but in fact worthy of the titles he received, and an inspirational character to all.

The film itself follows both the run up to, and the fight in a fairly linear fashion, starting with why the fight occurred (both parties agreed to fight for $5million each, and the king of Zaire put up the money for the fight himself to see it. This was just one of many insights into aspects of the fight which had nothing to do with the boxing side of things. The King of Zaire put up the money in an attempt to put Zaire on the map, and increase trade and tourism in the process. Whilst this may not sound like a bad thing, when the people of Zaire were being treated as badly as they were by someone who was essentially a dictator, the fact that many people were living in poverty, yet $10million of public money was being spent on putting on a boxing match is quite frankly staggering.

Ali was however a sportsman who transcends their respective sport. As a boxer he was fantastic, as a personality he was second to none. The footage shown here of a man outside the ring is very telling, he plays up for the cameras, constantly darting around, play fighting with the children of Zaire and it sometimes seems like everything he says is instantly quotable. He makes people like me, who have relatively little interest in sport, and even less interest in boxing, excited about watching a match. In comparison George Foreman is quiet, seemingly quite shy, focused on the fight and well disciplined, and whilst that may make him a better sportsman, it makes him much less interesting to the public, and indeed the people watching this film. Whilst I am certain that Foreman is a nice man, I must say I would be surprised if anyone is watching this film because of him.

So we get footage of Ali talking about the upcoming fight, rallying the local people all of whom support him in his endeavor, this is interspersed with talking heads from the people who were around him at the time, alongside people who simply have an interest in what was happening at the time. This provides a nice look at how Ali may have been feeling outside of the spotlight. For example we get Norman Mailer talking about the punching bag after Foreman had been training having a large dent in the side, and Ali's refusal to look at it, as if he had there was the worry that he would suddenly realise that he couldn't win.

Then we come to the fight itself. We aren't shown the entire fight, more that we are shown the key aspects of it. The opening round where Ali jabs at Foreman with his right (helpfully for those like me who know nothing about the sport it is explained that this is a rare move as it leaves you very vulnerable) and taking him off guard, then it shows us that Foreman, getting angrier with each round just starts laying into Ali, who spends most of the match on the ropes, confusing many spectators who assumed he would be dancing Foreman around the ring. However, as Foreman tires himself out it becomes evident what Ali is doing, and then the moment when Foreman is knocked out is replayed again and again, with different analysis of the event told by various people. It's quite a release to the viewer.

This is one of the great sports documentaries, like Senna last year, it made a sport I had no interest in suddenly fascinating, gave me a valuable insight into the tactics of the sport and kept me truly enthralled throughout. So much so I spent the next couple of days boring everyone I know with the things I learned from this film. Well worth a watch, so you too can bore your friends and family with stuff that is genuinely interesting.

The Company (2003)

The Company is a Robert Altman film. It's a film that Neve Campbell helped develop and always had Altman in mind to direct, but never really believed he would do it, however, through perseverance she got her man, and it through his involvement that I became interested in this film. You see Robert Altman is one of those directors who I feel I should know more about. I first became aware of him whilst I was at college when a tutor of mine made us study scenes from both Gosford Park, as well as the opening shot of The Player. Until this moment I don't even think I had heard of Altman before, yet after that moment suddenly I was seeing references to him everywhere, my dad introduced me to MASH, people were describing things as Altmanesque, and I thought that I wanted to get in on the action. Since then I've still only seen a handful of Robert Altman films, but each one has shown a director who was at the top of his game, very original in his style and always interesting.

Now what is most interesting, in my opinion, about this film is that it intersperses scenes of the dramatic goings on of a dance company in their personal lives and behind the scenes, with scenes of the ballets as they unfold on stage. I read that Altman actually filmed over 10 full ballets to use in this film. This adds another dimension to the film, as when the camera is looking at the characters lives it feels very much like a documentary. This I mean in the highest praise possible, every character feels real, the interactions between them all seem natural and it definitely feels like you are a fly on the wall. It doesn't hurt that in the arts community you often have quite extrovert figures, meaning that what may seem peculiar in other situations feels perfectly at home here. However, whilst the real world is filmed with realistic staging, when the camera turns to the stage we see art. Whether it is the opening ballet where ribbons play a large part, the simply dance Neve Campbell and her partner perform in the park, or the dance of the Blue Snake which dominates the end of the film, each dance is both choreographed and shot beautifully, each one complimenting the next.

Though whilst you would hope that the dancing in a film about ballet would be good, it is also true that the story is engaging, after all, would the film be worth watching otherwise. Well I guess the basic plot is a simple tale of a young girl who is in a dance company, who finally gets her big break when new directors come in and like her style, meets a chef who she falls in love with and dances quite a lot. Knowing Neve Campbell pretty much exclusively from the Scream films it is refreshing to see that she really thrives when in a much more minimal setting, her performance shone through in its quietness. Quiet too was the relationship she had with James Franco's Chef, the two barely speaking to each other, giving the impression that whilst her work life was so full of movement and drama, she liked to be able to go home to peace and quiet reflection. It's a nice comparison between the two, and it's this relationship which kind of grounds the film, and makes it more relateable for those outside of the arts community.

This is an interesting film, it's not a major film, it never feels like a film which would be a commercial hit, but it is interesting, and enjoyable, shining a light into a world that is often portrayed in the brightest most extrovert way, but this film feels much more honest and true, never relying simply on cliches to get by. I think that perhaps had it not been for Altmans involvement it could have been a bore, but as it stands it is yet another strong addition to the Altman catalogue.

Micmacs (2009)

Micmacs is a film from Jean-Pierre Jeunet, the director who will probably always be associated with Amelie, but who has actually made some wonderful other films, a Very Long Engagement was the first of his other films I saw, and it showed a great diversity in the types of fims he could make. Micmacs goes backwards slightly in so much as that it is about an unusual rag tag group of people much as Amelie was. However, the story couldn't be more different. Dany Boon plays a man called Bazil, who gets shot in the head, survives, and due to a flip of a coin, has the bullet left in his head as the doctor decides that it is better to let him live with the chance of death, than leaving him braindead but with a long life. As he is in hospital Basil ends up losing his job and ends up living in a junkyard with a bunch of other people from various walks of life.

Basil manages to track down the company that made the bullet that is lodged into his brain, as well as the company who produced the land mine that killed his father, and decides to play the two companies off one another and destroy them for their crimes. I wasn't entirely sure how I would enjoy how the film played out when I was presented with this premise, whilst I agree with the sentiment, I am always wary of films that have a 'message' if you like, not least due to the film Crash (the one that won the Oscars) which I thought simply rammed its message down the audiences throats so badly that it made me want to gag. What joy it was then seeing that this film dealt with the issue of warmongers and arms dealers with intelligence and humour, keeping the preaching of its message down to a minimum.

The characters that Basil ends up living with are an eccentric bunch, you've got a contortionist, a mechanical engineer, a woman who can do complicated calculations in her head in seconds, the matriarch of the group and numerous other unusual people, these add a slightly surreal edge to the film. I think one of the reasons I enjoyed this film so much was because it was detached from reality whilst somehow remaining grounded, never being eccentric for eccentricities sake. Micmacs was a film I remember not getting amazing write ups, and with a name that I don't think is particularly intriguing or well... good... I put off watching this for ages until one day it turned up in the post and my hand was kind of forced. Whilst I am glad to have seen this film,  and whilst I believe that it contains some great charms, I also feel as though it is a film that I won't return to very often, it's very enjoyable, but it lacks the longevity of some of Jeunet's other films such as Amelie, Delicatessen or a Very Long Engagement. One thing's for sure though, it's bucket loads better than Alien Resurrection  and that is something to be thankful for that's for sure.

Matador (1986)

I don't quite know what to say about Matador. I knew it was going to be messed up by the very fact that it was made by Pedro Almodovar, the man who made The Skin I Live in, Tie me up tie me down, and Bad Education. I was fascinated by the plot, a young matador in training admits to murders that he did not commit because he is filled with guilt from trying to rape a girl who then wouldn't press charges, even when he turned himself in, as she seems to pity him more than anything. However, the opening 5 minutes of the film sees two things, a man masturbating whilst watching video footage of women being tortured, killed and body parts chopped off, the second thing we see is a woman having sex with a man, only to kill him by sticking a needle down his neck, then continuing her love making with the corpse. It's a pretty intense opening to a pretty dark and twisted film. But if nothing else it kind of makes you want to watch the rest in order to see just how any of that could be at all relevant to anything at all.

Whilst this same sense of sexual unease continues throughout the film, you also see a more conventional story, and themes arise, such as guilt, religious pressures, the matriarchal role in society, love, lust, the desire to do something different with your life. This is a very original film, from a film maker who could only be called original. It is revealed to the audience fairly early who is actually responsible for the murders that young Angel (played by an impossibly young Antonio Bandaras) is admitting to. It's unusual seeing an actor who I have for so long associated with Hollywood playing a role which is essentially so daring and unusual. Whilst The Skin I Live In saw him returning more to this sort of field, it was slightly tame in so much as the character he played was more conventional, even if the film was just as unusual. As Angel we see a young man tormented by guilt laid in to him by his mother and his priest, guilt which has repressed his sexual desires (which are suspected to be homosexual) which is one reason why he appears to try and rape his neighbour, in a bizarre attempt to prove that he is not Gay, that he is a real man, and not just a boy. Whilst never explicitly stated, I believe that his intensely conservative religious upbringing  was indirectly responsible for his crimes, yet it is also responsible for his remorse afterwards, his inner conflict driving him throughout the film.

The rest of the cast are equally intense and fantastic in their roles, the lawyer with an ulterior motive, the police officer who isn't certain of his convictions, the young model in love with the wrong man, and the mother who's seen it all before. Each character is played wonderfully and convincingly, and everyone deserves praise.

I don't want to say too much about this film, because I think that the best way to view it is to be taken by surprise, and shocked by what you see. I don't mean that you will be outraged, this isn't shock as in the human centipede, playing with disgust and passing it off as art. This is shocking in the way it makes you think, the way it questions your morals whilst never ignoring them. It's shock cinema at its best, never exploiting the themes, but always pushing the boundaries. It's a film that is best viewed with just a vague knowledge of what you are about to see, as the journey is an interesting one, and one that makes me want to watch yet more Almodovar films yet.

Haywire (2012)

Okay, so Haywire is the latest film from Steven Soderbergh, Director of the Oceans trilogy, Che 1 &2 and numerous other films. He's a director who I will always say is worth watching, besides a couple of exceptions his films always have something interesting about them that makes them worth spending 2 hours of your life following them. Haywire is no exception.

The basic premise of the film is that there is an agency of essentially hired killers, who act as contractors for the US Government, doing the work that the government cannot officially do. Mallory (played by newcomer Gina Carano) is said to be one of the best agents they have working for them, but on one job she is sent on an attempt is made on her life, an attempt that was organised by the group that she works for, and the film follows her on her quest to find out why she has been targeted and to stop those after her. The plot is the least original thing about this film, it's a plot we've seen many times before, but it doesn't matter as this film is a bunch of fun to boot. It's not being billed as a serious awards contender, and at this time of year it is a breath of fresh air to watch a film that is much more concerned with providing a good time for it's audience than trying to impress a panel of judges.

Gina Carano is an MMA professional who Soderbergh saw fighting once and decided to find a project to work with her as an actress in. I have to be honest with you, it was only after the film ended that I discovered that she had minimal acting experience, as she does a really terrific job with this role. It is true that a large portion of her time on screen is spent fighting, running away or shooting guns, but that is not to say that the rest of the time should be ignored. Which I guess brings me to my next point, the film is the very definition of action packed. It rarely slows down, and that is part of what makes it such good fun, when you hire a professional fighter as your lead you have to expect a certain level of action in the film. What is interesting too though is just how realistic the fighting is, at times it genuinely feels as though could be watching an actual scrap. This too is an unusual break from generations of exaggerated or stylistic fighting, it feels much more natural and organic and therefore lends a greater realism to a film which is pretty unrealistic.

Of course a film that is all action and no substance would quite frankly be shit... or Crank 2 (which whilst I know is terrible, I did find guiltily fun) and the script of this film, whilst slightly unoriginal, is also very well written, dialogue flows naturally and relationships feel real. Although when you look at the rest of the cast you have to understand that whilst one of them may occasionally choose a bad script, for all of them to pick the same one would be unheard of.  With a lead who is unknown, you've got supporting her Antonio Bandaras, Michael Douglas, Ewan McGregor, Michael Fassbender (In His gazzilionth film of the last 12 months), Channing Tatum and Bill Paxton, all of whom could, and have carry films on their own, some directors manage to bring together casts like this from time to time, Steven Soderbergh seems to do it all the time.

In short this isn't a serious film, it's a B movie at it's heart, but then again, some of the best films are, Drive was a B Movie, yet turned out to be one of the best films of last year. It's a film that will take you on a thrill ride, it's action packed, but never macho or full of posturing, it's well scripted, well acted and brilliantly shot. It's incredibly enjoyable and I can see myself sticking this on from time to time when I'm after a good bit of fun, I know it's been getting a bit of stick lately, but I personally thought that it was great fun. Go watch it now!

The Darkest Hour (2011)

I almost didn't go and see this film. The trailers made it look like an interesting concept (not the end of the world bit, that's been done to death), but the invisible aliens, with unusual, inventive ways to seek them out, that intrigued me. After initially being skeptical of Attack The Block I found myself impressed by the way that film worked on a budget to create essentially invisible aliens that became instantly recognisable and not laughable. However, in the end I decided that the whole end of the world schtick had been done too often and too badly, and that this would probably be mildly entertaining, but I had a better way to spend 2 hours of my life. Then I read a 1 star review of this film. Now, some people will be reading this and thinking, what on earth are you on about, a  1 star review should surely be the kiss of death for a film. However, whilst I agree with you, some of you will hopefully be thinking what I thought, which was... Wow... that bad? The review talked about how large portions of the film didn't make sense, how the aliens themselves when we see them (which we eventually do) looked so bad it was barely believable that any money had been spent on them at all, and that in general it was shit, but that the last 30 minutes of so were a blast of stupidity. This I gotta see I thought.

Like when you go to a really bad takeaway because 'what's the worst that could happen?' I ended up regretting my decision to see this film. Everything the review said about it was correct, except the part about the final third being enjoyable. The acting is actually decent compared to the rest of the film, and it's a real shame to see Emile Hirsch, who I had so enjoyed in 'Into The Wild' & 'Milk' in such dross, but even Max Minghella & Olivia Thurlby have previously shown that they are much much better than a film like this. First of all the plot. Two young men are going to Russia for a business meeting about an App they have designed. This is mentioned for two reasons: 1) to give them a reason to be in Russia 2) to give them a reason to be talking to the two girls they meet. After that their business venture is all but forgotten, same too for character development. We are basically told that Emile Hirsch's job is to go out and visit clubs and such, finding the best ones for his app, whilst Max Minghella does everything else. Yet somehow (I guess because he's the bigger name star) Emile Hirsch seems to be the one coming up with all the good ideas about what to do in this film. There are some factual errors, like when they are in what is known as a Faraday cage (A device which means that they can use electrical equipment without the Aliens seeing them) they are somehow able to use their mobiles and radios, neither of which would work at all in such circumstances. Again, the writers seem to ignore the laws of Physics, as well as the characters they have created as long as it helps them get the story moving.

One other thing that doesn't make sense, near the end when they are on a boat, and they can see the submarine that they are trying to reach not 100 yards away, they are forced to abandon the boat, they all swim the short distance downstream to the sub, except one character, who somehow thinks that the better option would be to get on land, walk a few hundred yards across alien infested areas to hide in a tram... It doesn't make any sense, unless that is you are struggling to finish your script and realise that one more action sequence will stretch out the film for 20 more minutes. Oh and the Aliens, I have seen better computer graphics on Playstation 1 Games. Seriously, it's abysmal.

This film is worse than any other Alien end of days story I have seen recently, I caught bits of Skyline and Battle: Los Angeles, both of which were terrible, but this was something else, it wasn't enjoyable in the way some bad action films can be, it was confusing, and it made me hope that all the actors involved can get back on track with their careers and get back to making the films that we know they can make.

Shadows And Fog (1991)

As I have already made clear, I am a huge Woody Allen fan. What is less known on here (but will probably become evident as the years go on) is that I am also a huge John Cusack fan. Imagine my joy when I first found out that the two had actually made a film together. This was only the second time I have seen Shadows and Fog, and whilst the first time was filled with expectations from both the Director and the Actor, this time I sat down to watch it completely forgetting this happy marriage until I saw it in the credits. In fact this film has a cast that, considering that it's a fairly low key affair, is really very impressive. Jodie Foster, John Malkovitch, Mia Farrow, Julie Kavner, Lily Tomlin, and even Madonna makes an appearance (but don't hold that against the film).

The film is the story of Kleinman, a man who is woken up in the middle of the night by a vigilante mob and told that in order to catch a killer who has struck again, they must enact the plan, the only problem is that Kleinman has no idea what his role in the plan is, and whenever he tries to ask he is merely criticised for not knowing. It is loosely based on the works of Franz Kafka, and in particular 'The Trial' Where a man is put on trial for something he is not aware what. In what begins as a separate story we also follow Irmy, a sword swallowing wife of a clown, who unhappy at catching her husband trying to coerce another woman into sleeping with him she flees the circus and ends up in a whorehouse, which is sort of how she comes to meet Kleinman. As the film progresses the mystery of the plan is never unveiled, and the audience is left in the same state of confusion as Kleinman.

Woody Allen used to be a film maker who whilst mostly sticking to his tried and tested formula (not a criticism when the formula was as good as his) would occasionally take a detour and make an unusual film. One of these films is Shadows and fog. Sure we have the standard Woody Allen humour infiltrating the script, but with Woody Allen on the screen it would seem unnatural not too, we also have some of the same themes of Love, Sex and Death. However, with this film Woody Allen really seemed to explore his own talents as a film maker. I have made the point before that Woody Allen is a fantastically adventurous Director, In Annie Hall he broke the Fourth Wall in Annie Hall, introduced haphazard cutting that jumped around in time yet remained cohesive to the story and many other wonderful things, but besides Manhattan he wasn't ever really known for creating beautiful shots. Don't get me wrong, personally I think that some of the Shots in Annie Hall where he begins the shot with no-one in frame, just voices, only for the characters to enter, I think these are beautiful, but in terms of those shots like the two characters sitting on the bench overlooking the river with the bridge in the background, he didn't do many. Thankfully Shadows and Fog is filled with these, taking influence perhaps from films like The Third Man, with a great use of the darkness of Black and White cinema, he creates one of his most visually arresting films.

This film isn't perfect, some people may find its lack of story or conclusion frustrating, but that is in essence the point of this film, it's a film about the things in life that confuse us, you could even argue that it is a pacifist film, arguing that the intentions of those entering into a war, (represented here by the vigilante mob) are confused and unknown to those who are forced to take part (such as those in the military). Whether this was Woody Allen's intention is unknown, but the fact this film isn't about anything in particular makes it more interesting, as it could be about anything. An underrated gem in a very shiny back catalogue.

The Guard (2011)

The Guard is an Irish comedy written and directed by John Michael McDonagh, the brother of the writer/director of In Bruges. You know how you can sometimes see similarities in the mannerisms of siblings or just relations in general, similar yet different, well the same seems to be true of the writing style of these two brothers. I don't mean to do the Guard a disservice in any way, I think it is an individual film, and one of my favourite films of last year without a shadow of a doubt, but I also think that the comparison between this and In Bruges is inevitable and justified.

The Guard follows Sgt Boyle, a Galway police officer. Things are relatively calm in Glaway, and Sgt Boyle is definitely not a traditional police officer. Indeed the film begins with his dropping a tab of LSD whilst staring into the sea after disposing of the rest of the drugs from a corpse so as not to upset the dead kids parents. This ultimately sums up Sgt Boyle; he's a very flawed man, but has a good heart that is essentially why you end up loving him. The story really kicks off when Agent Everett (played by Don Cheadle) arrives from the FBI to investigate drug smuggling that he suspects will occur by boat on the coast of Ireland. One of the suspects he is after had just shown up a corpse on Sgt Boyle's beat, so the two become an unlikely duo in a quest to stop the drugs entering the country. I'm struggling not to make this sound like a generic and quite frankly shit cop buddy movie, but trust me, this film is so much more than that.

The humour in this film feels very Irish (which shouldn't come as a surprise considering the Irish cast/writer/director/setting, and adds credence to the idea that the Irish are a naturally funny people. Brendan Gleeson is once again wonderful in his role as the 'either really fucking dumb or really fucking smart' Sgt Boyle, and has a supporting cast, from the young kid who helps him, to his elderly dying mother, everyone in this film fits in perfectly. I don't think I've stressed enough here just how funny this film is. Written on paper many of the jokes may raise a chuckle, but delivered in the film they are truely wonderful. Whether it's Sgt Boyle declaring to Agent Everett that he thought that 'only black fellas were drug dealers', then declaring 'I'm Irish, racism's part of my culture' or the three drug smugglers sitting in a car discussing their favourite philosophers - or one of them declaring that he's not a psychopath... he's a sociopath, though he doesn't really know the difference. You will find yourself quoting this film long after it's over, and chuckling to yourself or amongst friends who have seen it at whichever bits tickle you the most.

A couple of warnings, it's a very sweary film, so don't go into it if you're not comfortable with that sort of thing, it's also not politically correct, I do not mean that the film is racist of devoid of morals, instead that it plays with the conventions of what is acceptable, Sgt Boyle is very much old school, doesn't believe in PC, whereas Agent Everett is the opposite. In the same way that some of the best comedy treads a thin line between what is acceptable and what is not (look at any of Armando Iannucci's stuff), the Guard too treads that line at times, and always wins. This was one of the funniest films I've seen in a long while, and one of the best films of 2011, check it out if you can, it's well worth it.

Billy Liar (1963)

It's not that I avoided Billy Liar for all these years, it's more that I was very wary of it for a long time. It is described on the cover as an important film in New wave cinema. Now in my opinion New Wave cinema can either be beautifully constructed interesting films with little plot but lots of feeling (for example Jean Luc Godard), or they can also be pretentious bollocks with little entertainment value besides a mild curiosity how it ever got made as a film (for example.. Jean Luc Godard). But with so many people calling this a classic I thought it only fair that I give it a shot.

The film is about William Fisher, who works as a clerk, lives at home and is generally very unhappy with his life. To combat his unhappiness he delves into his psyche and creates an alternate universe where he is the ruler of a nation and his life means something. He is also engaged. To two women, neither of whom know about the other, whilst Billy himself isn't really in love with either of them, instead he has feelings for Liz (played by Julie Christie) who is a wild adventurous spirit. In essence it is a story about growing up, about the decisions you make in life, and how to balance your responsibilities with your desires.

After an initial unsure feeling about the film I grew to really like it. This was based mostly on a liking for Billy himself, who despite being a compulsive liar, is actually a very identifiable character. After all, most people have been young and searching for a path. I don't think I know a single person who hasn't at one point in their lives been stuck in a job they cared little for, someone who was fed up of the monotony of their lives and wished for excitement. Liz encapsulates that excitement for Billy, for she has managed to get out of their small town not just once, but multiple times. She explores the world at her own will and isn't tied down in any one place, she lives the life that Billy wants to lead. In the end Billy must make a choice between pursuing his dreams and leaving town to explore on his own, or stay at home and help his parents out, look after the family business and care for his elderly grandparents. It's a tough decision and whilst the circumstances will vary, the fundamental choice between responsibility and freedom will occur in most peoples lives. This being made on the brink of the 60s cultural revolution makes the whole film even more relevant and interesting.

As a film it holds up very well, the dialogue buzzes along with a great mixture of realism and slightly off the wall-ness (much like the wild flights of fancy we go through when we cut to Billy's daydreams), the plot is a mixture of social realism mixed with a more lighthearted spin (again, through Billy's daydreams and interactions with his friends) and is generally a well constructed piece of art. It is a film that is very British without complying to the regulations of what you would normally call a British film. Recently the government has issued advice that if the British film industry is to prosper then it needs to fund films that are going to make money. I imagine that this means following the template of what has made successful British films lately, whether it is The Kings Speech, The Queen, Pride and Prejudice, Atonement etc, it seems that the British government wants to play it safe and make films of a certain nature. However if that advice were to be followed I fear that films like Billy Liar would never be made. At the moment of writing, the British film industry is still producing vibrant and interesting films, films like Tyrannosaur (which I have yet to see but I heard was amazing), and Shame (which is most certainly amazing). Billy Liar feels like an early example of British film making talent, and hopefully the path it opened up won't be closed by an interfering government.

The Bridge (2006)

Okay, so let's get this out there, The Bridge is a film about Suicide, it is not a cheery film, in fact at times it is a deeply depressing and disturbing film, that is not to say that it is a nasty film or unenjoyable (though I don't know if enjoyable is the right word). In this film, documentarian Eric Steel filmed the Golden Gate Bridge for a year, his intention being to capture people taking their own lives in what is supposedly the most popular suicide destination in the world. The idea of the film isn't that of a sick interest in the macabre, more so it is a film that looks at the nature of suicide, what can drive people to that stage in their lives, the thoughts that people have before they jump, and what draws them to a particular spot where they do so.

Many ethical questions arise when presented with a film like this. Suicide must surely be one of the most personal things you can do, so to have someone film it and present it to the rest of the world somehow feels a little off, however Steel counters this with interviews with very willing family and friends of the deceased who talk about their loved ones, and what they were like, in these moments the film feels like a celebration of life, only to make the event you see all the more poignant when it occurs. Another question I had when I read the back of the DVD was, Why didn't they stop it if they were filming it!? It seemed crazy to simply let over 20 people kill themselves when you were in a position to stop it. Apparently the film makers, however, would call the authorities whenever they saw someone climbing the barrier, by doing so they prevented some, though obviously not all, of the attempts that year, we can only hope those people went on to seek help instead of simply returning.

So with some of my moral dilemmas answered I viewed the film feeling a little more at ease with the idea. Despite the fact that many of the deaths are filmed at a distance, and are in no way graphic, it still makes shocking and disturbing viewing from the start. The film talks to the relatives, asking them not only about the person, but about the difficulties that they were facing, and about their mental history. Also interviewed is a young man who attempted to kill himself only to change himself on the fall. This makes for one of the most engaging interviews in the film, as he describes in great detail the thoughts he went through and the process he went through to get to the barrier on the bridge and over it. He seemed relatively at ease during the interview (which is intercut with an interview with his dad, adding to the story in a way that only a parent can).

I can't say much more about this film, as it is what it is. It is not exploitative (or at least I didn't feel so), it does try and raise awareness of the issue of suicide, an issue which needs to be raised, and it is both tasteful and beautiful (in a very morbid way). It will haunt you after you watch it, but I also feel that it is a film that is definitely worth watching, as it is fascinating, and you will probably see a little of yourself in one of those people featured, making the whole thing more relevant, eerie and thought provoking. Disturbing doesn't always have to be a bad thing.

War Horse (2012)

I was initially put off watching War Horse for a few reasons. First of all it's a film that could only be sentimental, and secondly it is directed by Steven Spielberg. Now Spielberg is obviously one of the best directors of all time, however he does have an annoying tendency to make his films overly sentimental in parts. For example I think that Saving Private Ryan is a near perfect film, near perfect because of the ending, we've just seen the experiences of the soldiers, so to see an old man crying adds nothing at all, it merely rams the point down our throats. Other examples of my dislike are the ending to AI, The Ending to War of The Worlds, and then aspects of some other films that it would take too long for me to go into. Where Spielberg gets it completely right is where he either levels his sentimentality with cynicism, or just ignores it altogether. So when I started hearing reports of 'not a dry eye in the house' my cynical brain told me to stay away.

But I soldiered through my prejudices and I went to see War Horse regardless. Overall I would say I enjoyed it too, and that it was worth going to watch it. This doesn't mean that I think that the film is without fault, far from it. The film has a very episodic feel too it. I guess when you're following your main character as a horse, there can sometimes be some things left out. The very fact that this horse manages to go through no less than 5 different owners in the space of the film is perhaps one of the reasons for this. The horse begins life being sold to the father of Albert, a young man who spent a lot of time watching this particular horse when it was young, he is therefore naturally ecstatic to discover his fathers purchase and forms the strongest connection of any of the owners with the horse. Then the horse is taken away to war with a captain in the British army. This is probably the most natural of the changes in scene, war had already been brewing behind all the main story so the connection was fluid.

However the next change in ownership feels a lot more jarring. I won't go into specifics here as I don't want to ruin anything, but the horse changes hands fairly quickly, never really allowing the story to develop, with characters that I felt were underused for how they were developed. He then gets free and ends up on a French farm with a young girl and her father, then goes back into fighting, then freedom again (but still in a warzone), then reuniting once again with Albert and back to a life outside of war. The premise of the film is all about how this one horse changes the lives of everyone he meets. My problem with this is that the very idea of the film, the basic principal that drives it is one that already makes me angry with sentiment, however, if it had been tied together nicely it would be almost forgivable. Unfortunately it isn't always the case.

Thank God then that it is Spielberg behind the camera then, because what could have been a complete mess of a film actually has some moments which are breathtaking, some of the shots are simply wonderful in this, and in the same way that Tintin (despite being a disappointing film in my opinion) had some beautifully inventive moments, so too does War Horse, proving that even being in the business for 40+ years can't get rid of your creativity. However, whilst the direction is superb, and the acting spot on, the basic story of this film just failed to engage me in the way that it seems to be doing with other people. I understand why people go and see sad films, and whilst I may never have cried in a film I don't find the idea repulsive in the slightest. I do have a problem when that sentiment is rammed down your throat, in this instance I don't feel the fault lies with the director, but with the script, it has moments of brotherhood that defies class boundaries and even (at one point) the fact that your on opposite sides of a war. This is a film that plays into every convention going story wise, and for that reason it fails to be a great film. It is skillfully made, so go and watch it for that, but I wouldn't expect to be blown away, and come awards season if this wins many awards I won't be surprised, but I will be disappointed.

The Iron Lady (2012)

Okay, so full disclosure, I really don't like Margaret Thatcher. I think that her policies during her time as our Prime Minister set in motion a change in the country which is evident today, in our consumerist nature, and I think that she, and her government, are responsible for many of the worst aspects of the world we live in at the moment. That being said I also believe that it is perfectly possible to enjoy a film about someone that you do not agree with or indeed, someone that you dislike. I know, for example, that 'Birth of a Nation' is held in incredibly high regard, despite the glorification of the Ku Klux Klan in the film. So there it is, complete neutrality where the film is concerned.

So how about it then. The film begins with an elderly Margaret Thatcher in a cornershop buying milk and looking shocked at the price of it. I imagine this reference to milk was supposed to be a nod to her nickname 'milk snatcher', it ended up feeling a little clunky and too self knowing. But anyway, she then makes it home where we discover that she managed to get around her guards to get out alone and that she isn't too well, indeed she is seeing visions of Denis Thatcher, her late husband, who she talks to throughout the film. The film consists of the elderly Thatcher looking back at events that have happened in her life mainly during her political life, many of them triggered by events of the modern day.

First off, Meryl Streep looks and sounds like Margaret Thatcher, that much is pretty much certain. There was much awards buzz around her performance in this film, and I like Meryl Streep, so I will go ahead and say that she's very good in the part. In fact the acting is generally very strong, Jim Broadbent as Denis Thatcher acting the clown, Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe (as I really like Anthony Head this is the most sympathetic Howe has ever been), Richard E Grant as the criminally underused Heseltine and many more to boot. This film, however, falls down in nearly every other respect.

I had been hearing fairly average things about this film in the press prior to going to see it, but the night before I went I learned that one of the writers who wrote Shame also wrote the screenplay for this. Shame was magnificent, in every respect, with a script and story that simply worked and felt real. So I thought that perhaps The Iron Lady would also have some of the same honesty and sense of realism about it.... It doesn't. Instead the film was a mess, all over the place. I think that one of the reasons that I found it so confusing was the tirade of factual inaccuracies throughout the film. To begin with, in the entire duration of the film  we neither see, nor hear about a single other female MP. I understand that the reason for this is to try and exemplify Thatcher as being a woman in a male dominated world, but it simply wasn't true. What was true is that there were very few female MPs when Thatcher took office (around 19), and when she left office there were around 66. Now I understand the reasons, but I also feel as though the rise in female MPs could have had something to do with a prominent female MP (in this case PM), and don't see why that couldn't have been an equally important part of the film as the lie which they included.

Another incredibly offputting part of the film was the depiction of the Labour opposition. Now I'm not going to go into the politics, the simple reason being that there were in effect no politics in this film. But I will say that during the entire film we are only ever presented with one Labour Leader, Michael Foot. I suspect that this was for the simple reason that his appearance is easy to imitate and also recognise, therefore it would be something for the audience to distinguish him by, but the reality is that Foot for leader only during the period of 1980-83, and that after the defeat of the Labour party in 83 he stepped down to let Neil Kinnock have a go, Kinnock then lead the party until 1992. As well as annoying the politics student in me, this also meant that the timeline felt confused, at moments when things later in Thatchers government were happening we also had cuts to Michael Foot, which made me constantly question when the things we were seeing happen were happening. This, I understand, may not be of similar importance to most people, but it is one of the reasons I failed to enjoy this film.

Next there is the fact that the film is devoid of any serious political content. Like I say, I am not a fan of Thatcher, but she also has her many supporters, in fact I would argue that she is the most divisive Prime Minister of the 20th century, this wasn't anything to do with the fact that she was a woman, that she had a winey voice, or the fact she wore pearls, it was to do with her politics and the policies that she introduced into the country. What we see in the film is her sending ships into battle in the Faulklands (including one moment when she orders the attack of the Blagrano when someone utters something along the lines of"when escalating a situation, it is better to be the first one to do so", which is given as a noble and insightful line, but which I thought was just a little bit despicable). We also see Margaret Thatcher being bombed by the IRA, it is indicated that before she came to power there were problems in the country (shown through piles of rubbish in the streets), and we also get a brief mention of the Poll Tax (with no real explanation of what it is).

I believe the film makers are suggesting that this is a film about age, and memory, rather than the film about Margaret Thatcher, but that raises the question, why not just make a film about another old lady remembering her  life, her struggles and indeed her dead husband, why did that woman have to be Margaret Thatcher? I actually don't think the film even works that well as a discussion of age, and I think that it is a topic which has been covered in a much better way in other films. I think that had this film been a more political film, an actual film about the life of Margaret Thatcher, then I would have enjoyed it a lot more. As it is I felt entirely underwhelmed, as the film felt vacuous of any real purpose, and besides a good performance from Meryl Streep, who couldn't give a bad show if she tried, is utterly forgettable.

Shame (2012)

Shame is the new film from British artist Steve McQueen (no not that one). His first film 'Hunger' I must confess to having not seen. I heard it was very good off numerous sources and it is one that I will certainly be checking out after seeing Shame. Shame is the story of Brandon (played by Michael Fassbender) who is a sex addict. Brandon works a relatively successful job, has everyday friends, and has his rituals just like everyone else. The wild card in his life in this film is his sister Sissy (played by Carey Mulligan), who comes to visit him and stay with him, breaking his cycle and seeming to bring back memories of a past he would rather forget.

Sex addiction is something I have only seen represented on screen once before, in the movie Choke. Whilst choke played sex addiction down as something which didn't really affect your life very much, almost more as an amusement than anything else, Shame feels much more honest and affecting about the subject matter. The film acts almost as a snapshot into Brandon's life. We aren't shown, or told for that matter, about the events of his childhood, we aren't told of a trigger to his sexual addiction, we aren't told a lot. This isn't a film with clear narrative structure, it's not a film where you can lay out the plot on a piece of paper, showing how A leads to B leads to C. This is a structure that I personally found very involving and interesting, but also that the friend I went to see it with found mildly frustrating at times.

The film is set in New York, a city that almost seems to be perfectly designed for film makers, whether it's Woody Allen's beautiful shots of the city in, well everything he's ever made, or Scorsese exploiting the streets in many of his films. As someone who is not a native to New York, it is surprising that he manages to avoid many of the cliches of filming in New York, whilst retaining a strong link to the city at the same time. One of the more remarkable shots in the film is where we follow Brandon as he goes for a jog. In a single take we follow him along many blocks, simply running along the sidewalk at night. The city looks both beautiful and damaged (perhaps like Brandon himself). Another aspect of the film that I loved was the use of lighting. Much of the film takes place at night, and whilst the temptation may be to make sure that lighting is in place so that as the characters are walking the streets we can see their faces, their reactions and emotions, the lighting used here is very natural. At times the characters are barely visible for brief periods of time as they walk between street lights. Again, the film feels natural and real, whilst remaining slightly beyond reality.

In a Q&A after the film, McQueen and his writing partner Abi Morgan discussed the meetings they had with numerous sex addicts in America, about how they found that they could relate to many aspects of the routines of the sex addicts, that unlike Alcohol or Drug addiction, Sex addiction remained a stigma in society, yet also the addiction that most people can relate to on one level or another. Much of this is portrayed in the film. Brandon is a normal person, he's not a pervert, in fact one of his friends is shown to be much more of a creep than Brandon ever is. It also implies the shame that Brandon feels about the lengths he will go to to get what he needs in his daily life, without ever having the breakdown that would be all too tempting to put in if the film had a clearer narrative. 

The cast are superb, each and every one of them. But as the two leads special mentions much go to Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan, who are two actors who have been in a lot of things lately, and have shown themselves to be two of the best actors around at the moment, arguably never more so than in this film.

I don't want to tell you too much about this film, as i don't want to ruin the effect of anything that you may want to discover for yourself. A few things. There is a lot of sex in this film. I wouldn't recommend it for viewing with your family. That being said the film never feels sexy, perhaps a conscious decision to show the distance that you feel between the sex you have to satisfy your addiction and the sex you have for fun. This is also an incredibly bleak film, the ending could be interpreted however you like, but the bulk of the film is a massive downer. There are however moments of hilarity, one scene involving a waiter had the whole audience laughing, giving you a refreshing break from the rest of the film.

In short I loved this film. Afterwards I was having a discussion about the distinctions between film for art and film for popular consumption, and whilst I know not everyone agrees with me I think that the line between the two is much less defined now than it ever has been in the past. This is evidently a film made by an artist, but that doesn't make it a film that only artists will understand, I thought that, like art, it left a lot open to your own thoughts and interpretations, an aspect I really liked, I also thought that visually it was stunning. I found it very hard to fault this film. It's probably not going to get the recognition it deserves come award season because of the subject matter, I could be wrong, I hope I am wrong, but this was one of the best films I've seen this season, and it's a film that I feel will linger with me for a long time to come.