Rachel Getting Married (2008)

Rachel Getting Married. I saw this at the cinema when it came out and fell in love. Never before had I seen Anne Hathaway so good, and yet she wasn't the reason I liked it, I liked it because it felt like the type of wedding that I would love to have, one filled with joy, music, colours and fun, with family there and friends who know me well enough to know what I will like. The film managed to convey all of this, this joy, with a hard line in family problems and heartache without ever seeming cliched or tired. I enjoyed it so much that I was scared to watch it again, in case the second time the film did feel cliched, old or dull. So it has been 3-4 years and finally, finally I set about watching it again. I was not disappointed.

Kym (Hathaway) is released from her latest stint in rehab to go to her sister Rachel's wedding. She must attend NA meetings for her problem and is going through the steps whilst at the wedding. Her father and step-mum are looking out for her and keeping an eye on her to make sure she's okay, her mum and step-dad are less available. Her sister's friend and maid of honour isn't Kym's biggest fan, and her sister is still holding a grudge from past and current events. It's hard to flesh out the story to anything more than that without giving away a couple of plot points. But essentially the film doesn't have a complete linear story arc as such, it's a snapshot of an event where the characters play out.

The best thing about this film was just how real it felt. The people in this film look like real people, they don't look like movie stars. The camera is handheld throughout giving a sense of reality. The events that occur, whilst never mirroring my life exactly evoked similar events or themes in my life, the father/son in law dishawasher packing argument being one that really made me smile as my dad is often very proud of his ability to load a dishwasher correctly. It's the little things like that which really make the film feel honest and true.

There is always the danger with films focussing on drug addicts and family life that it will descend into a tale that we've seen all too many times before, but this doesn't. It's a family unit trying to achieve normality but knowing it never will, there are all the neuroses that real families have and all of the love and joy that they share too. Then there's the actual wedding, which as I stated earlier, is perfect. Held in their back garden in a tent it's a joyus affair with dancing, interesting music, and it looks like a real treat to film and be a part of, even if it is all make believe.

In short this film is a modern classic in my eyes, I don't think everyone shares that opinion, but the feelings it evoked in me, both times, were real and true and I honestly don't think Anne Hathaway has yet been better. A real treat that will hopefully appeal across the board for those looking for a 'different' take on the wedding tale.

Margaret (2011)

Margaret, delayed for years because of legal disputes over running times. A very ominous piece of information when going into a film. To begin with it says that this film is going to be long, it also indicates that there will be moments where the missing pieces actually tell you something, so to have them missing just confuses you (Like Gangs Of New York), and unfortunately it also indicates that the film will no longer be relevant, as the film is about post 9/11 America. Then I heard that the people who eventually ended up editing the final cut were Thelma Schoonmaker and Martin Scorsese, and my interest levels rise to a stage where I simply have to see this film.

Margaret begins with the young and slightly full of herself Lisa (Anna Paquin) who one day when out buying herself a cowboy hat sees a busdriver (Mark Ruffalo) wearing one, so she runs along side the bus indicating to him, distracting him. He goes straight through a red light and as a result runs over a woman (Allison Janney) who dies in Lisa's arms. When questioned by the police Lisa lies and says that the light was on green and that the bus driver was not in the wrong. What follows is a huge spike in guilt for Lisa, denial from the bus driver and the start of a court case to bring about justice.

The interesting thing is that this film can be read in numerous different ways. Throughout the film, whilst at school, Lisa partakes in lessons on citizenship where they discuss the terror bombings in New York, the Iraq War, and the Bush Administration. This leads to a strong correlation between the events Lisa is going through and the events America was going through. As such I personally like to believe that in the context of the story Lisa was representing America. She's a little bit obnoxious, clearly thinks she is better than everyone else, then after a tragic event she begins looking for someone to blame. It's the bus drivers fault for not stopping, then when she admits some culpability, and he still won't, she launches an attack on him, trying to get him fired from his job. I see a clear parallel with this and the Iraq war, the friends I went to see it with though had different theories. For this reason alone I'd say this film is worth watching.

There was other things going on too, her mother is in the theatre, and just starting to receive recognition for her work, so is very distracted, she has also found a new man in her life (Jean Reno) who seems nice, but he has his own issues too. Her school life is an odd mix too. Matt Damon plays her Maths teacher (imagine what happened to Good Will Hunting when he grew up) who she has a soft spot for, Matthew Broderick is the English teacher who is ridiculed by the kids for not being 'with it', and there's a story with her dad and step mum which is quite well played out too.

All these stories run parallel throughout the film and all tie together very well. At 2 1/2 hours the film is hardly short, but it never feels unduly long either. This could be because of the skilled editing of Schoonmaker and Scorsese, or perhaps the original premise was good enough. Thankfully it also never feels as though information is being held back from us. There is a chance that the missing footage could have made a better film, as the film is certainly flawed, but what we have works well. The film does fall down by being out of date. It's not as though you watch it now and it has no relevance, it's just that you imagine had it been released around the start of the second Bush Administration as intended it would have packed a lot more punch, which is a shame. This is an interesting film. I'd like to see it again, talk about it with some different people and get some different perspectives on it; but it's flawed, you could argue it tries to do too much, and at times the politics of Lisa seem muddled (though if she is America this could be the confusion of the state post-trauma?). But overall I enjoyed it and feel it's a shame it won't reach a wider audience.

Hugo - 3D (2011)

I was torn when Hugo came out. On the one hand I hate 3D Cinema, on the other, I adore Martin Scorsese, and find him to be one of the most exciting film makers working today and for the last 40 years or so. Then there was the trailer, I thought the trailer was weak, and I became concerned that Scorsese had lost it when making his first fully fledged kids film. However, reviews were strong and I was likely to miss out on a Scorsese experience, so I went to see it... in 2D. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience, however after seeing it I read yet more reviews and saw even hardened anti-3D folk saying that Hugo was the most interesting 3D film yet. So I'd always kinda regretted not going to see it in 3D. Then, joy of joys it won some awards and reappeared back at the cinema, for a one off screening in 3D. So I jumped at the chance.

First of all, some background. Hugo is the story of a young boy named Hugo who lives in a train station taking care of the clocks. His father died in a fire and his uncle has disappeared so he is left to his own devises to survive. Before his death his father and he were fixing a machine that when working properly will write a message. Hugo believes that this message will be from his father and put an end to his sadness. In this respect it is like Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close... but not shit. He meets Isabelle who he forms an unlikely friendship with as she is the god daughter of a shop keeper who has caught Hugo stealing from his store. She also has a key which fits into Hugo's machine and makes it work. From this point the film becomes an incredibly poignant love letter to the heroes of early cinema.

This may sound like two different stories being smashed together, but they flow into and out of each other with great execution and really end up moving you by the end of the film. Added to this are the incidental characters, the station guard (played by Sacha Baron Cohen) is both the comic relief, and a moving character in love with a flower girl in the station (Emily Mortimer). You have Christopher Lee as the book store owner, Richard Griffiths and Fraces De La Tour as another prospective couple in the station and more to boot. No character is wasted, and each, despite their relatively little screen time shines and becomes engrained in your mind. This is a testament to both the high calibre acting and the wonderful screenplay.

The film looks beautiful, seeming both dream like and very real world at the same time, as the film never shys away from the cruel realities of the world this is all too fitting. It also plays with the inspiration of early cinema beautifully. Scorsese grew up in the cinema, going there when he was too ill to go and play with the other children or spend time in school. He is a true lover of cinema, the type of cinema nut who makes good films because of their inspirations (see also Woody Allen), and in less skillfull hands I fear this film could have been a mess. There are references here to Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, George Melies, and the Lumiere Brothers, and probably more that I don't know about. It explores what draws us to cinema, and why it leaves such a lasting impression on you, affecting your very soul.

My only concern with this film is the audience. It's billed as a kids film, and whilst I am fortunate to be able to view it through the eyes of a 22 year old film obsessive and view it as a love letter to cinema, I do wonder what children will make of it. I hope that they will see it for the adventure that it is, the adventure that the children go on running in parallel to the adventure that cinema went through to get to the stage it was in. I hope this to be the case, but I fear that the poor box office shows that this was perhaps not the case. For Shame.

So... the 3D. What did I make of it? Well first of all it is definitely the best use of 3D I have seen. Stuff doesn't fly at the screen, you could happily watch it in 2D and not realise that it was supposed to be in 3D (as I did originally). However, the 3D adds a nice layer to the film, it indicates that cinema is always advancing, and perhaps indicates that what was once a sideshow spectacle then became the norm, both with cinema in general and then talkies. So perhaps we should give 3D a chance. I am unconvinced that the film is better in 3D; but for once I didn't feel as though the film was worse in 3D, which is a crowning achievement if ever there was one.

This is a wondeful film that should be viewed in whatever format you can get it in, you won't be disappointed whatever happens. Best Scorsese film in a long time.

27 Dresses (2008)

So you know when sometimes you just want a light hearted film, with little to think about and maybe not even that memorable, well my dad has quite a lot of films like that, they're good fun, and I always try and pick up films like this when I get the chance because I always find the films that are left until later to watch in my collection are the high brow arty films, or the 3 hour epics. So It was with an open mind that I borrowed 27 Dresses to see what the craic was.

Katherine Heigl (cropping up in my viewing again) plays the perpetual bridesmaid, in fact, as you could guess from the title, she has been a bridesmaid 27 times. She is also secretly in love with her Boss. Her sister comes to town and her boss and she hit it off immediately and become engaged to be wed, with Heigl set to be the Bridesmaid... we've all been there. Enter James Marsden, playing a writer for the weddings section of a local newspaper, he's also an annoyance on Heigl; and as such you immediately assume they will end up together.

You see, this film is anything but surprising, and that's not necessarily a terrible thing, because in this case I wasn't expecting to be surprised or shocked, I just wanted a light hearted rom-com with a bit of heart. And that is what you get. You get some nice shots (the last one in the film in particular is a treat), you get some fairly funny moments and you get Heigl one step closer to making funny films like she should be.

So if you want a film with a slight sibling rivalry, a broken heart, some romance, a father not sure what to do with his kids, some drunken singing in a bar and some horrible bridesmaids dresses then this is for you, it probably won't blow your mind, but it won't make you want to kill yourself out of despair either. It's like Ronseal. Does what it says on the tin.

Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977)

So before watching this film I was fairly certain that I had seen it before as a youngster. I thought this because I knew the vague story and remembered key scenes within the film. However, as I was watching it recently I began to doubt that this was actually true. You see, for every scene that seemed familiar, there were about 10 that didn't. So I must suppose that either my memory works in mysterious ways, or that I had in fact seen the film represented in clip shows and magazine articles so much in my life I assumed I simply must have seen it. So yeah, this may have been the first time I have actually seen this film.

The story is simple, aliens are about, some people start to see them, the government denies it, there's a couple of abductions and then it all ends with a meeting by a mountain with the government officials and the alien folk. It's a Spielberg film so I was expecting something special. And in a way I got that. There are moments that are simply inspired. One example of this is the use of headlights, one scene when his car is stopped Richard Dreyfuss waves the car behind him on. Another set of headlights appear behind him later, and he again waves them on. But instead of simply going round him, these headlights rise vertically into the air. It's a very simply shot, but very clever and effective.

There are moments like this scattered throughout Close Encounters that show that Spielberg is simply a wonderful director (if not prone to sentimentalisation) who will hopefully be making films for years to come. However, I think this film is a tad too long, it wasn't that I found the ending drawn out or dull, it was just somewhere in the middle my attention began to die away. I may need to watch it again, I may need to be in a slightly different frame of mind, but this time, for some reason, I found myself distracted a little. I think perhaps that it was because we'd had all the character development, I understood what they all wanted and needed, and then they were still there... just there... hanging around.

The cast are superb, Cary Guffey in particularly showing pretty much every other child actor how it should be done, is superb. Francois Truffaut is a surprisingly good turn in acting (I've not really seen him do this before) and obviously Dreyfuss is great too. I think I would probably watch this film again, if only because it is a very cleverly made film, much like warhorse was, but whilst the sentimentality of warhorse puts me off watching it again, the lack of it here makes me want to go back and see what I missed.

Punishment Park (1971)

Okay, so Punishment Park. I knew absolutely nothing about this film before the recent Blu-Ray release, you could say I hadn't even heard of it... because I hadn't. I don't know why, but I was drawn to it somehow. The reviews had been positive, it had a strong political message that was supposedly still relevant today, and quite frankly I'm intrigued by films I've never heard of that people rave about (see also Two Lane Blacktop which I will probably watch soon). So I splashed out, bought myself a copy to see what's up.

Well the basic thing about this film is that it is a mockumentary, a fake documenatry, it's about a new scheme that the government are running, where you can either choose a jail sentence or spend 4 days at Punishment Park where you must try and reach an American flag before you're tracked down by the police. Whilst this in itself is a relevant topic for a Guantanamo Bay era society, so too are the reasons why they are there. Those on trial are accused of Political Disobedience, they aren't following the norms of society, they are asking awkward questions of their politicians and expecting straight answers, instead they get imprisoned. It's interesting that those most vilified by the media today are not the government attacking our public services, but those people on the streets protesting about that fact.

I may be what some people refer to as a bleeding heart liberal, and as such this film is made for me. It supposes that those imprisoned are imprisoned wrongly and the events that unfold in Punishment Park are unjustified and horrific. The documentary feel is the perfect way to make this film, I can't imagine a character driven story working quite as well, with the sheer number of those involved, and the basic information that is needed, having a voiceover and fact sheet works well, and never feels like a lazy out.

I don't think this film is perhaps quite the classic that some reviews made it out to be, but it is certainly more than a curio. It's well made, well acted (you have to be realistic if you're filming a documentary style film) and it's an interesting concept that due to the lack of specificity of the bill that resulted in this measure still holds relevance today. So yeah, if you're a liberal then this film will appeal to you, if you're a republican then this film will possibly make you quite angry... but check it out anyway, it's good and interesting.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2012)

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is a terrible name for a film, it's a mouthful, it's easy to get confused (incredibly loud and extremely close?!?) and doesn't really say much about the film. The trailer for this film was equally messy, it showed a young boy setting out on a journey of self discovery, touching everyone he meets as they have touched him as he searches for a hidden message from his father who died in the twin tower attacks on 9/11 in 2001. It's not that I have a problem with films about 9/11, some are fantastic, United 93 springs to mind... However, the thing I hate most in films is the over sentimental nature that some have. Some subject matters create their own sentiment, so when you shovel on layers more you end up with something that quite frankly makes me angry.

Take this film. In the foreground you have terrorist attacks and you have the result of those being the death of a father. Then slightly further back you have your main character as someone who almost certainly has autism of some description as he struggles to interact with the people around him. You've got the relationship between a mother and her son getting further apart as the son misses his father so. You've got an estranged grandfather who can't talk because of something he's seen during the Dresden Bombings  coming back to help his grandson, then going away again like he did when his son was a kid. You've got phone messages from the father whilst the towers were being attacked that keep getting played throughout the film. I could go on. All of this is unnecessary; the very fact that his father died in a terrorist attack is surely all the material you need to get emotion from an audience, yet this film feels the need to cram the other events down your throat like it doesn't know what else to do with it.

So I'm sitting in the cinema infuriated by the sheer levels of emotional trickery this film is trying on the audience. I am fully aware that this film is up for an Oscar, so I am slowly learning to hate the Oscars more and more, and then something happens. Max Von Sydow appears. Now whilst the film remained annoying, here was a performance that was interesting. Not uttering a single word in his time on screen, he manages to convey emotion and character in the way that the film as a whole would have benefited from, with subtlety. Also good in the film is Sandra Bullock, an actress who I really like, I think she is both good at the comedy roles and the drama, and I think if she were in better films she'd be one of the biggest stars on the planet.

Bad performances though come from the kid... I know it's all too easy to pick on the kid actors, but this was a pretty high profile film, and this kid was pretty wooden, I feel bad saying it so I won't say much more. Tom Hanks too left me unimpressed, it wasn't so much that his performance was bad... it was more that it felt like it was phoned in, the type of performance that he could do in his sleep.

Come on guys, Mr Hanks, Ms Bullock, you're both great actors, just please... please stop making overly sentimental bollocks like this and make some films with tact and delicacy to their emotion... I know you can do it!

A Dangerous Method (2012)

A Dangerous Method is the new film from David Cronenberg, and his third consecutive film with Viggo Mortensen. Whilst Cronenberg used to make films like The Fly, or Videodrome, or even Crash, films which were different, strange, they dealt with great deals of subtext and imagery. The latest bunch of films though, A History Of Violence, Eastern Promises, and now this, are much more straight forward affairs, telling a story from A-B. Whilst this could appear to be a step backwards, it so happens that the previous two films have been two of the strongest of his career, it proved that he wasn't simply that freaky director. A bit like watching David Lynch's Straight Story, you realised the skill and the craft in his work.

A Dangerous Method looks at the story of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, the godfathers of analysis, and talking through your problems. It looks at their initial similarities, the things that drew them together, then the differences that drove them apart, it also looks at one particular patient Jung was treating, and the love affair between the two of them. Carl Jung is played by Michael Fassbender (the man who has been in everything these last 12 months), Viggo Mortensen plays Freud, and elsewhere in the cast you have Keira Knightly and Vincent Cassel. So with all this adding together I went in with fairly high hopes for the film.

The film, well it's not a mess in the way some films have ended up being, it's fairly linear, the story flows well, characters develop and all that, it's just lacking a certain spark that you would hope for considering everyone involved. One stand out for me was Keira Knightly. I've never really rated Keira Knightly, she was okay in Bend It Like Beckham, failed to impress in the Pirates of The Caribbean films, then did quite well in Atonement before being typecast. Here though she plays a woman tormented by her own desires and she plays it spot on; with more performances like this I could see Keira Knightly having quite the career.

The main thing I felt about this film was interest. I knew only vague facts about Freud, and less about Jung, and this film definitely added to my knowledge as well as making me thirsty for more knowledge (not because they left it incomplete, just because they whetted the appetite). There is a healthy level of humour in the film, mostly from Mortensen's quite stuffy Freud, and this helps propel the film along. So whilst this film was entertaining, with a great cast all on top form, a story that interested me, it wasn't quite enough, something I really can't put my finger on was missing, and it feels like an unfortunately missed opportunity.

The Vow (2012)

The Vow, the 'true' story of how after a car accident a woman loses 5 years of her life from her memory. This means she doesn't remember her husband, her job, her house, her friends, nothing. You see, it was a little after her memory remembers that she fell out with her parents, dropped out of law school, met her husband and formed her new life. After losing her memory, her husband tries everything he can to help her remember, and when that looks unlikely, he simply tries to win her over once again. The film has Rachel McAdams in it (who I normally don't mind) and Channing Tatum (who I normally do).

The good news is that I don't actually dislike Channing Tatum in this film. This is almost certainly due to the fact that he plays a character who runs a music studio, and when asked what the point is, after all, you can record good quality stuff on your laptop, he launches into a speech about heart, feeling and atmosphere. As someone who used to work in an independent record store, and who now works in a chain record and DVD store, I can attest to the fact that smaller, independently run stores, whilst more expensive perhaps, are infinitely better to shop in, they provide atmosphere, new experiences, and they help develop you socially in ways you simply don't realise. So because of this I could identify with him, felt bad for him and actually liked him too.

The film itself is quite MOR, it didn't offend me enough to feel much of anything about it, but it failed to charm me or win me over much either. The biggest problem is that the Rachel McAdams character, who starts off as a slightly kooky (perhaps a little too kooky) likeable character, suddenly becomes a bit of a bitch after the accident. This makes the main character quite unlikeable, which means you really don't care much about what happens to her. I don't think it's much of a spoiler to say that as the film progresses she becomes more likeable, and more like her old (though really new) self, but it's too little too late.

I know this is based on a true story, so I can't really fault it much there, it may not seem believable, but it is real, however, I do doubt the amount of cliches that the real life couple went through, the fall outs and the make ups almost in perfectly timed places. I don't know. The film just didn't hit the right buttons for me. I wanted a good romance film, and instead I got an average one, nothing really else to say, can't strum up enough emotion either way.

One For The Money (2012)

I like Katherine Heigl, I really do. I want her to succeed; I think she has good comedy chops, and is pretty charming on scree. Why Oh Why then does she insist on making films like this? Come to think of it, what is Debbie Reynolds doing here as well; when I saw her name in the credits I wondered if it was a different Debbie Reynolds. Surely this can't be the same woman who starred in Singin' In The Rain, one of the greatest films ever made? Apparently yes, it is. Damn

So this is a story about a woman, who upon being fired from her job at Macys decides to make a living as a Bounty Hunter, her first case she bullies off her boss is an old flame, worth quite a bit of money, she wants to get him as he took her virginity and never called her back, except in the process she reignites old feelings, and there's a chance he may be innocent so hey, it could all work out after all....

This film is basically lazy. It's a film that says hey look... Women can do shit too. Except this is the worst example for that, as I noticed quite a lot of women in the crew, and quite frankly they're letting the side down producing shit like this. It's as though Hollywood execs are sitting around thinking that if you put a woman in a traditionally male role, make her wise cracking, that that somehow is enough to constitute a joke. It's not, and you could have done with writing some better ones for this film.

The film has a few saving graces, Heigl is very likeable, like I say, I think she's a good comedy actress, she just needs some better material. There are a couple of halfway decent jokes, not that I recall them now of course, and... well I'm struggling to think of anything else. I would say avoid this film, because it's not good at all. Comedies suffer a little here, because a bad action film, or a bad horror film can still be highly entertaining simply because it is bad, because let's face it, watching an unrealistic shark eat a man on a jetski is funny. However, with comedies, if you have a bad comedy, it's just dull, you can't be amusing in the fact that you're not funny. It doesn't work like that. So unfortunately this is one for the bin.

The Muppets (2011)

So here we have it, the first new Muppets film for a while, and the first to receive near universal praise in a while too. My anticipation for this film could not have been higher going in, which worried me, as I didn't particularly want the only thing spoiling the film to be my own ridiculous standards. Well some facts. The film does not star Frank Oz (Miss Piggy and others) as he felt the script strayed too far from the original Jim Henson Muppets. The film was written by Jason Segel, writer of 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and star of TVs How I Met Your Mother. It stars Jason Segel and Amy Adams (of 3 times Oscar nominated fame) and has a whole slew of guest stars also including some great turns from Chris Cooper, Jack Black and Rashida Jones.

The story of this Muppets film is sadly familiar, Sad in that it reflects real life far too closely. The Muppets are disbanded, they've not done a show together for years and their studios are being sold off. Whilst they think that they are being sold off to create a Muppet museum, they are in fact being sold off to an oil tycoon to be destroyed to create an oil refinery. Jason Segel and Amy Adams play Gary and Mary, who visit LA with Garys friend Walter (himself a Muppet) and discover this plot, so they go in search of the Muppets to try and persuade them to perform one last show to raise the money to save the theatre. It's a really heart warming portrayal.

All the old Muppet gang are here, from Fozzy Bear (found performing in the tribute band the Moopets with some rough looking stand ins (and a funny cameo too), Miss Piggy (editing vogue in Paris), Kermit (being Kermit), Swedish Chef, Gonzo, Sweetums, well... pretty much everyone is back. The film itself plays tribute to the legacy of the Muppets, with very knowing references to the show and previous films. Where the old films were very Meta (before Meta was really a thing) constantly referencing the fact they were in a movie, the new one does that too, at least to an extent. There are songs here too, whilst they are definitely a lot more modern than a lot of Muppet songs, they aren't crudely modern, ripping off current trends, instead, with the help of Brett McKenzie (of Flight Of The Conchords fame), we have something that sounds fresh, is very funny and will hopefully prove to be as timeless as the songs in the early movies.

As the film progresses you find yourself more involved with the characters, they completely hook you in, you want them to succeed more than you've wanted a character in a movie to do anything. It's remarkable, and really a testament to the puppeteers who control the Muppets, as quite frankly, you instantly forget that you are watching a bunch of cloth on screen, these are real characters. By the end of the film, tears were forming in my eyes, both through emotions of nostalgia, and happiness. This happened both times I saw it, as I loved it so much the first time I went to see it again the night after.

This film is a true delight. I heard one customer at work complain that he didn't feel it was aimed at children, and taking his kids to see it left him a little disappointed, and maybe he's right, but I think that there is enough to keep children entertained, as well as heaps of stuff to make older viewers fall in love once again with the Muppets. Besides the original Muppets Movie, this is my favourite Muppets film. It filled me with joy, and any film that can do that is worthwhile in my eyes.

Sweet Smell Of Success (1957)

The Sweet Smell of Success was introduced to me by Martin Scorsese (not personally), the man who introduced me to the glorious world of Powell and Pressburger, and for that fact alone I am willing to trust any film that he throws my way. This is film Noir in the sense that it deals with the underbelly of society. It deals with the Press and Press Agents, and deception and manipulation. Tony Curtis plays a Press Agent who seems to be a bit down on his luck, and spends the entire film conning his way to get new clients, as well as rekindle old ones. Burt Lancaster is one of those clients, who is reluctant to give him business so long as he hasn't fulfilled his promise of splitting up his sister with a Jazz Guitarist who he has taken a dislike too. The problem is that the two have recently become engaged. So Between them, Curtis and Lancaster try and split them up in a devious and nasty way, spreading bad rumours and using force if need be.

This isn't a very nice story as you can probably tell. It's not a very nice film about people who aren't very nice, and whilst that may put some people off, it interested me just as much as it repulsed me. I like to consider myself as a nice person, so to see the depths that some people would sink to in order to get what they wanted is shocking and interesting. The characters don't really care how their actions affect other people, only how they will help them progress toward their goal.

This film is great though, the dialogue zips along, characters that you only meet for a moment or two are fully rounded people (all deeply troubled of course). Now at only 22, I have no first hand knowledge of the fifties, my parents were just children then so they too don't really know much, however, if it was like it is portrayed here, it wasn't a particularly nice time. On the surface you have glitz and glamour, you have the birth of celebrity culture, movie stars, men wearing suits all day long. But you don't have to look too deep to see that there are problems, that could be a reflection of the politics of the time, the repressed attitude of the 50s, people not expressing themselves and so on. I don't know. For all I know the fifties could have been completely different. But if they were like this, they would have been a thrilling, if slightly scary time. Much like the film. 

Oh and the cast are superb, I only really knew Tony Curtis from Some Like It Hot, and the difference here is magnificent. Highly recommended.

Safe House (2012)

So with Safe House we return to my old friend Ryan Reynolds. I grew to hate Ryan Reynolds as I watched The Green Lantern, the film that taught me that whilst it can be good to watch a film free of the weight of reviews... sometimes reviews can stop you from wasting 2 hours of your life and stop you wanting to claw your eyes out. He lacks charisma and quite frankly was the perfect fit for the massive flop that was the Green Lantern. That being said, Denzel Washington is in this film... and he's good... so this film must have some worth right? Well.. kind of but not really. What we have is a fairly predictable film, which tells you everything you need to know in the trailer, and leaves little plot open for you to think about it, because everything is painted in 8 foot high letters with arrows in case you missed the point.

So what's the story? Well Denzel plays Tobin Frost, ex CIA, the best they had, who turned rogue and began selling state secrets to the highest bidder. He's been unobtainable for years, and suddenly he crops back up on the radar when he walks into an American Consulate while being pursued by highly trained gunmen. The information he has now is game changing, and those who want it will stop at nothing to get at it. So he is transferred to a safe house for questioning, the safe house where rookie Matt Weston (Reynolds) is housed, desperate to prove himself to the bosses. When the house is raided the two then go on the run and begin working together. So has Weston turned, or was Frost actually not all that bad after all... Guess...

The action is fairly well played out, I particularly liked the rooftop chase in the shanty town, but other than that there is nothing very impressive about this film. The story is formulaic, Denzel Washington is good enough, but he doesn't really seem to be trying all that much, this is just another action blockbuster paycheque for those involved. It won't offend you, and it will be diverting for a couple of hours. Just do yourself a favour and watch a better action film, something like Die Hard... Brains and Brawn.

The Skin I Live In (2011)

Okay, so the less I tell you about this film, the better. I'll briefly explain what happens at the start, then leave it there. Antonio Banderas plays a doctor who has one patient locked in a room in his house where he monitors her. She appears to be there against her will, and he's working on her skin to produce flame retardant and strong smooth skin. The only other person in the house is his maid who also seems to know about it. From there the plot unfolds as new characters and situations are added and it all ties together beautifully.

So yes, this was one of my favourite films of last year, Banderas gives the performance of his career, after a long break from working with Almodovar, he's back, and it seems to have brought out the best in him. So yes, this is a Pedro Almodovar film, so we have the familiar themes of Sex and sexuality, some stuff about maternity in there and even some religious stuff too. So in that respect it's familiar territory, however, this is by far my favourite of his films (though admittedly I am limited in what I have watched). It's a messed up story, and one of the few films to genuinely shock me in the cinema, jaw dropped and all.

I really don't want to say too much, just watch it, it's superb. The soundtrack is great, the visual imagery is fantastic and it's both outlandish and believable in equal measure. I couldn't recommend it more. In the words of my friend who I took to see it... "fabulous".

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World (2010)

Scott Pilgrim, the third feature from Edgar Wright, and his first away from Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. If you were at all curious who relies more on whom in that relationship, just compare this film with Pegg & Frost's Paul. Both are filled with really geeky references, however, whilst Paul is good fun, it's not what I would call a classic film, though it did very well I believe due to the star power involved. Scott Pilgrim is superb, I fell in love with it at the cinema and I've seen it a few times since then, and it is brilliant, however it underperformed at the box office. So I think it's clear that Edgar Wright reigns in Pegg & Frost from their more indulgent moments, but they add the commercialness.

Scott Pilgrim is the story of well... Scott Pilgrim, who is in a band who 'aren't very good' (yet are actually great) and who is going out with a girl who's quite young and gets teased for it. Then at a party he meets Ramona Flowers and instantly falls for her, making awkward conversation then eventually getting her to agree to a date with him. The two hit it off after a spell and all is well. Except that Scott must then fight Ramona's 7 Evil ex partners in order to be able to go out with her. He's also taking part in a battle of the bands competition which if he wins he will get a record contract and a whole heap of fame.

So when I was writing that down I realised that it sounds a bit shit. It's not. The film is based on a series of comics, and is filled with comic book references; more than that though, and perhaps more significantly, the film is filled with gaming references. Scott is very much a geek, he plays the final fantasy bassline at one point, and goes to the arcade with his girlfriend knives. As such, the people rooting for him, and the main audience for this film are probably geeks too. So you get some lovely touches in the film such as whenever he defeats an evil Ex they disappear, replaced by coins, or the introduction of 1ups and power ups. Again, on paper it doesn't really sound like it works, but it is very well constructed and fits together perfectly.

I think it has been said before, but it bears repeating. Whilst there have been arguably no good films based on games (Super Mario Brothers anyone?) this is a film that is based on not one game, but on the gaming world, and I think it benefits superbly from it, and shows that it is entirely possible to make a film from gaming. The main strength here is the story and the characters. There are many memorable characters to choose from, but I think my favourite is Scott's Gay Roomate (played by one of the Culkin clan) who provides a lot of humour and is both a cliche and a fresh approach all at once. You've also got the slightly bitter ex, the gossipy and disapproving sister and the young kid who wants to be in the band. All are wonderful characters who add extra layers to the film.

The film is a whole bunch of fun, and you don't have to be a geek to enjoy it (though I think you definitely appreciate it more if you are). It's Michael Cera's best performance, and shows the inventive streak from Edgar Wright probably not as well executed since TV's spaced. This is a superb film, and I understand why it perhaps underperformed, it's not for everyone, but if you like it, you'll really like it. A must see in my eyes, and destined to become a cult classic in years to come.

Lolita (1962)

I first saw Kubrick's version of Lolita a couple of years back. I'd not read the book and I thoroughly enjoyed it, or as much as you can enjoy a film about a paedophile and his infatuation with his step daughter. Recently though, upon the recommendation of a friend of mine I decided to read the book. The book is wonderful, it's creepy, the language used is wonderful, it's funny and it paints a vulgar yet endearing picture of poor old Humbert Humbert. So it was with my new found knowledge of the source material that I decided to set sail down the rivers of Lolita once more and see how the film rated now I could compare it to something other than the later (and in my opinion lesser) Jeremy Irons version.

In case you didn't know, as I found when telling people about the book, many people aren't familiar with the story, Lolita is the tale of a professor who has a predilection for young girls. When he moves into a family home lodging there whilst teaching and writing, he encounters young Lolita, just 14 years old (12 in the book), he then sets about fantasising about this 'nymphet' who has caught his attention so, he marries the mother and eventually embarks on a love affair with the young daughter. It's not particularly easy to tell people this without them looking at you like you're a deviant yourself. However, whilst he is a sympathetic character, he's never the hero.

What I found most interesting about watching this for a second time was the fact that it was only upon second viewing that I noticed that there is never any mention of paedophilia or any real firm mention that Lolita and Humbert are embarking on an affair, it is all told through suggestion and word play, the fact that I did not notice this is a testament to Kubrick's skill. Yet despite this it receives a 15 rating and caused a stir when it was released. Anyway, what does the film lack. The film misses out Humbert's back story, you don't need to know it, and with a 150 minute running time, adding it would be pointless. You also miss out a lot of the humour, this was the biggest shame I thought about the film. The book is darkly funny, and had me in fits of giggles whilst reading it (humour that is hard to translate out of context) and a bit more humour in the film could have been a welcome break from the melodrama.

The cast are perfect in their roles. James Mason as the slightly sweaty, always charming and always stressed Humbert is exactly as described in the novel. Lolita changes her hair colour, but Sue Lyon captures the essence of the role perfectly, both manipulative and innocent in equal measure. Elsewhere Shelley Winters as Lolita's infatuated mother plays the part with gusto and you really feel for her by the end of it. Peter Sellers I'm not 100% convinced about as Clare Quilty. I imaged he would be slightly more serious, but as an actor and a playboy Sellers does a fantastic job, and within the context of the film he works well.

The thing that comes across best in this film is Humbert's sense of despair, nothing ever really seems to go his way, you see his pain and you genuinely feel for him. It's an odd feeling, but this is a great film, and when you watch it you will understand his pain, as taken out of the creepy context of paedophilia it's his heart that ultimately gets broken. Highly recommended, but check out the book too, as it is truly wonderful.

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace - 3D (1999)

So if you're interested in Star Wars but haven't seen any, I must begin by saying, don't bother starting with Episode 1, you'll not see what all the fuss was about, please start with number 4 (the first film made) and you'll be much happier for it.

This was the 3D conversion for the Phantom Menace; presumably he's starting with Episode 1 because he knows that if he started with Episode 4 no-one would bother with the prequels when they came out. I went to see this in the full knowledge that the film isn't very good, and not really being a fan of 3D cinema, so like many other things I end up disliking, I do wonder why I do it to myself. First of all, this is a 2 and a half hour kids film about taxation. You know it's a kids film because you've got stupid characters like Jar Jar (should be shot) Binks, with annoying catchphrases and slapstick comedy for the younguns. You've also got silly droids who say stupid things, seem to be ineffective and only there because if the Jedi were fighting Stormtroopers or indeed just plain humans, the amount that they slaughter would make this film an 18, as it is, chopping up machinery is fine.

Acting wise you've got a great cast, Natalie Portman, Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, That guy from Casualty... Warwick Davis even makes a fairly unnecessary cameo. However, their acting talent doesn't really seem to be utilised all that well; much in the same way that Woody Allen somehow got Ewan McGregors worst performance ever in Cassandras Dream, George Lucas seems to find wooden stagey acting from some pretty damn fine talent. Indeed, me and my friend began counting the number of times that Liam Neeson would stand and look into middle distance meaningfully whilst striking a pose, such as hands on hips. It's quite amusing, but you simply expect better from this cast.

Next the story, it's a mess, you've got loads of information being thrown at you about metachlorians and other things you didn't know about before, yet didn't need to know. You know what? you still don't need to know them, it's confusing. Also confusing is the fact that this film is so obviously aimed at children, yet has a main story that involves complicated economic sanctions that even I, having studied Economics and Politics at various times don't fully comprehend, what was George Lucas thinking? The film has some highlights, action pieces are quite nicely done, and there are some great moments, but ultimately this is a stinker.

But I suppose the main reason I went back was to see if finally someone had done something useful with 3D cinema.. The short answer? They haven't. You see, when films are filmed in 3D you either get things flying at the screen the entire time (or as I like to call it; shit 3D) or you get nicely rounded figures and shots through tunnels and the like (or as I like to call it... not quite so shit 3D). This was filmed in 2D and converted into 3D, so what you get is... well not a lot really. You only really notice the 3D on a couple of ocassions, and only one of them impressed me (when the doors open to reveal Darth Maul... that was quite cool), However I remain entirely unconvinced by 3D cinema, and think that the conversion process is a waste of time and money.

The only reason why this 3D conversion is in any way redeeming is that it brings Star Wars back to the big screen, and in 3 years we'll get the Originals back, for the first time in nearly 20 years; so that is something to be thankful for, unfortunately we'll have to put up with 3D for it.

Man On A Ledge (2012)

Another year and another disappointing film based on a high concept title. Yes, unfortunately this film is simply about a man on a ledge, they've tried to spice it up by adding a layer of conspiracy causing him to be there, with a side plot where his brother and brother's girlfriend attempt to break into a vault to prove his innocence, but ultimately a lot of the action consists of the will he won't he jump question, which of course we all know he won't, as that would make the film very short indeed. Sam Worthington, Jamie Bell and Elizabeth Banks star, and to be honest, with that cast I don't really know why I was expecting more. Elizabeth Banks is good comedy actress, and whilst she isn't dreadful here, she's hardly mind blowing as the troubled agent. Jamie Bell started his career on a high with the wonderful Billy Elliott, had a couple of interesting roles like that in Chumscrubber, but then started making films like Jumper and The Eagle, and unfortunately was probably the worst thing about Tintin (though Tintin was always the least likeable character in the books so that may not be his fault), so this feels like another let down in a promising career. Sam Worthington I struggle with, he just doesn't really seem to have much personality really.

Anyway, we also have Ed Harris being the big bad, and Edward Burns, who is probably the best character in this film. It's not that the film is terrible, it's not The Darkest Hour for example.. It is however, quite dull. When you restrict the action to a window ledge for large portions of the film, you need to make what's happening, or at least the characters emotions interesting. Instead we get the same themes rehashed in numerous different ways, in a predictable script and with very little character development for you to care about.

You may argue that the cut aways to Jamie Bell and co are where the real action lies, but what you get there is admittedly better than watching a man stand on a ledge, but is fairly standard action stuff, with unnecessary women in their underwear and tension between the two characters to make it seem like something deeper is going on. It's not.

Unfortunately Man On a Ledge is a Bore, it should be a taught action thriller, but I seriously doubt if this film would thrill anyone.

Chronicle (2012)

Chronicle, the new big hit film, filmed on a relatively low budget, and shot as though it were being filmed entirely either by the characters in the film or things like security cameras/police helicopters etc. and receiving some pretty damn good reviews all 'round. The only thing putting me off was a fairly average looking trailer. In the trailer some kids discover something in an underground cave whilst at a party and they develop super powers, one of them turns bad, the others must stop him. Doesn't sound particularly interesting or original. But as a whole I came out of the film feeling I'd seen something a little different and perhaps a relatively fresh take on an old genre. That being said, I don't feel the need to shout about it, and I'd be surprised if I ever saw this film again.

You see, any film that is filmed as though it is being filmed by the characters in the film I find that the rewatching value falls. I don't know exactly why, but I am struggling to think of any that I've felt strong positive emotions about. So maybe this film is actually a masterpiece like some publications are saying, and maybe I've just missed the point. Or maybe I haven't and the film is what it is, an interesting little film, but nothing special. The story is basically what the trailer lies out, there's a bit more about one of the characters abusive parents, this being one of the main causes of his violent outbursts with his powers, and a few fallings out between characters to keep things interesting, but other than that it's pretty basic stuff. The characters are pretty well laid out, and one of the great segments of this film is watching the kids learn to use their powers and explore them as best they can.

It's here that I praise the film for the simple reason that it is here that I found the characters reactions most interesting and honest. Whereas normally when a character learns of super powers they initially struggle with them and then suddenly they understand everything, here the characters all develop at different rates, have different methods and indeed excel in different areas like anyone would in real life. They also do what you would expect kids of their age to do, which is use them for mischief initially, until they realise what damage can be done.

After this the film gets a little predictable, with the abused kid turning bad and his cousin sorting him out. The fight is pulled off very well and the use of other cameras after the kids is destroyed is inventive and fun to see. However, on the whole the film left me a little cold, I didn't really care much about these characters, and the 'real world' feel it was trying to evoke, whilst working on some levels, just never felt like a real life experience. I guess after the reviews I was expecting more. So yeah, it's not terrible, it's not amazing, it is what it is.

The Magnificent Seven (1960)

The Magnificent Seven, another of my guilty Secrets in that this was the first and only time I have ever seen it. It's on every year, yet I always missed the start or forgot. Then when I probably could watch it I'd recently seen Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai (the film that this is based on) and quite frankly I fell in love with it. Not really being all that keen on Samurai films, or (at the time) three hour foreign films, I found myself quickly engaged and enthralled by the film. How on earth could this Western (another genre I wasn't too keen on, and indeed have only recently begun to explore) possibly be as good as that. What is the point of watching it? Well; the simple answer is that it doesn't even come close to the dizzying heights of The Seven Samurai, but watching it this long after that film It does reveal a few charms of its own that stop it from being entirely pointless.

For those who've not seen it, the film revolved around Seven Individuals who are thrown together through organisation and circumstance, and are tasked with protecting a poor village from a gang who take all their crops and prevent them from making a living or even eating properly. They do this not for money (in most cases), but because it is the right thing to do. I guess it is this honour that makes them magnificent rather than simply just The Seven...

For the seven, you probably couldn't have asked for a better cast. Steve McQueen, Yul Brynner, Charles Bronson, Robert Vaughn. and James Coburn among others, and the main bad egg being played by Eli Wallach; you've got yourself a movie. All of them do their things very well, and without descending into caricature they manage to convey their characters main flaws and attributes with little effort or screen time, With seven main characters there is a danger of confusion as to whom is doing what, but luckily the cast are superb and are the main reason for watching this film.

As for the rest of it, it's fine enough, never gets boring, but never really excited me either. Like I say, I would recommend the Seven Samurai to anyone willing to listen, but this one I would say that the times it is on TV should be plenty, it's usually a Sunday afternoon, so if you're in a normal job and don't work retail like me then catch it then, otherwise I'd hunt down the original.

Muppet Treasure Island (1996)

It was with great excitement that I began watching The Muppet Treasure Island. Many people I know and respect had said it was great, and I had vague memories of watching and enjoying it as a much younger man. So I thought I'd buy it and give it a whirl. However, I am sorry to say I was disappointed. Don't worry if you are one of those people who love this film, I am probably wrong (like I say, many of my friends have chastised me for my view), but I just didn't think that it was executed in quite as skilful manner as the other Muppet films. Indeed I think my main problem with it was that Kermit whilst being the captain of the ship, just didn't do enough, and he's (in my opinion) the heart and soul of the show.

The story follows that of Treasure Island, Long John Silver, Buried Treasure, betrayal, a young mate called Jim with a treasure map and Pirates; but you know, with a rat cruise holiday thrown in for fun. I said in my summary of The Great Muppet Caper that my issue with the film was the focus shifting from the Muppets to the human characters, well I think that this film suffers a similar fate, the two main characters being Long John Silver, and young Jim, neither of whom are Muppets. As previously stated I thought Kermit was incredibly downplayed also. He's the ships captain, and after his initial (admittedly very funny) introduction, he's reduced to simply being there rather than actually leading the crew to their destiny. One character who truly shines in this film though is Sam the Eagle, with his grim attitude to life and mean demeanour providing some early and hearty laughs.

Whilst we are introduced to Jim early on, and though he is paired with Gonzo and rizzo, it is a fair way into the film before we meet any more Muppets (namely Fozzy as an idiot son of a ship merchant). Thinking about it now,  I think that all the Muppets actually have pretty great introductions, that are then squandered with later incidents. I think that somewhere here there is a really great film looking to come out, indeed there are some great ideas. The fact that Rizzo organises the treasure expedition as a cruise liner for rats is a funny recurring joke that works very well. I just think with far too much focus on the treasure island side of the story and not enough on the Muppets this is a wasted opportunity, and unfortunately it will be quite some time before I revisit this film I think.

The Great Muppet Caper (1981)

So after watching The Muppet Movie I decided that yes, I was well and truly in love with the Muppets and that I needed to watch more, more of the delightful antics of these furry not quite puppets, not quite mops. So it was with that that I came to the great Muppet Caper. It begins and all is well, Fozzy and Kermit are playing brothers that people often get confused ("is that a bear?, don't be silly, bears wear hats"). The premise of this one is that Kermit and Fozzy are hunting down a diamond thief who is targeting Lady Holiday, who initially is thought to be Miss Piggy (as Kermit falls in love with her, as you would expect). It brings them to England, which is shown through the traditional tourist shots, but with perhaps more of a knowing wink to this than we are accustomed to from American films. There are cases of mistaken identity and there are indeed capers about. Unfortunately though I felt the film fell a little flat.

It's not that it's a bad film, it really isn't, there is still much love and tenderness to be found in this film, however, it can at times feel a little excessive, as though they knew that they'd had a hit the first time 'round, and thought that to top it they needed more singing, more dancing and more guest stars. Whilst the first film had its fair share, it fit perfectly into the story and flowed smoothly, at times it can jar the film a little and stop the flow of the story that is being told.

As usual all the cast are superb, somehow the muppets nearly always seem more human, and more sympathetic than the humans in their films (a praise of the muppets rather than a criticism of the actors), and that is down to some superb puppetry from Jim Henson and Frank Oz. Come to think of it, I think one of the faults of this film is that there simply aren't enough Muppets. Whilst the other Muppets films try and incorporate as many Muppets as possible into the script, they simply aren't given enough screen time here unfortunately.

So In conclusion, this isn't a bad film, it's enjoyable, as any Muppets film will be, however it does fall a little flat at times, if this were the first Muppets film you saw you may be slightly confused as to what all the fuss was about, however, it is far from the worst Muppets movie, and still has the charm and style of the original series, which is always a winner, so go grab a copy if it's cheap, but don't expect a masterpiece and you'll have yourself a good time.

A Matter Of Life And Death (1946)

A Matter of life and death is a film that I had heard was good, It crops up in best film lists and is always mentioned in the right circles. However I simply wasn't prepared for how good it would be. First of all the story; a pilot whose plane has been shot down, knowing his impending fate makes all his crew escape with the remaining parachutes then calls in to base where he talks to a young American woman, the two connect with each other on a deep level. Ejecting from the plane before it crashes (a preferable way to die it is claimed) the young soldier then finds himself washing up on shore, initially assuming he is in heaven he is surprised and delighted to learn that he is in England and only a short distance away from the woman he was talking to. The two fall in love and everything seems well. However in the afterlife the mistake is realised and an angel comes to earth to try and convince the young pilot to join him and return to the afterlife with him. The pilot demands a trial with higher powers, which he is granted. He must then prove that he has fallen in love and that he has a right and a reason to stay alive that he would not have had when he was prepared to die earlier.

Firstly this is the type of film that you would be surprised to see being made today, let alone in 1946, the story is original (and surprisingly still so 66 years later) and the ideas of love, destiny, not fully recognising your homeland and mortality are themes which are universal and will remain so for a long time. The acting is superb here too, the two main characters work off each other very well and you immediately feel the connection between them. What really impressed me though was the way the film was made. First of all the decision to have part of the film in Colour, and part in black and white. I've seen this done in a couple of films before, but I think the only film that does it better is The Wizard of Oz. Basically real life is played in colour, the afterlife in Black & White (the basic message being that life is rich and colourful, and not to be tossed aside arbitrarily).

More than simply changing colour schemes, the film uses techniques such as freezing the image when the angle stops time in order to speak to the young pilot. This is most impressively done through the course of a table tennis match where the match freezes mid game and the young pilot walks around the otherwise frozen players and struggles to comprehend what he is seeing. It's impressive today as it was then too. The scenes in the afterlife are grand affairs, whether it's a near infinite moving stairway that leads the characters to the afterlife, the shot of numerous offices where new arrivals are being admitted (this being mid war, they all seem sadly busy), or the eventual trial, where it seems everyone who ever died has turned up to see the events unfold, it all looks spectacular.

I've only seen this film once (and believe me I will be watching it again), and I have not read much around it, but I get the impression that it deals with lots of different themes and ideals as well as being a lovely story too. In fact the thing that strikes you initially is whether or not you can take the events at face value. On the one hand you've got a man being lost in the fog from those taking him to the afterlife, on the other a man who escaped death and is luck to be alive. Later in the film you've got the trial going underway in the afterlife, whilst the soldier is being operated on for a head injury, a risky procedure which, like the trial, could go either way for the young soldier. This alone adds another layer of intrigue on the film, is the soldier mad, or is it all happening to him.

I think I've made my point that this is a very interesting, very enjoyable film. If you simply want a love story you'll get a lot from it, but if you're after more meanings and theories about life's big questions then you'll get that too for sure. Just an utterly fantastic film in every way, one that sticks in the mind and will make you want to run around telling everyone about it!

The Woman In Black (2012)

The woman in black is a film of particular intrigue as it is the first big movie that young Daniel Radcliffe has done since the Harry Potter franchise has ended. I call him young but he is more or less my age, which I guess is why I found it particularly odd that he had a child in this film, a child of about 4/5 years old. Indeed I feel sorry for Radcliffe, as in both my mind and the minds of many others he will always be the boy wizard, a child. It's not that it's a stretch to see him in another role, it's that it's currently a stretch to see him as a different age band. Luckily for him, this will pass as he gets older. It is unfair to criticise him for this, as it was unfair of me to criticise Days of Heaven as Richard Gere was unbelievable playing such a young man (he was young at the time, I'm just used to him being old, and he's aged particularly well). So I have tried to ignore this fact in my thoughts on the film.

The film itself is actually very frightening, it's easily the most frightening 12 I've seen since the others. It's been commented on many times in the past, but this is a reversal back to old style scares, none of this paranormal activity jump from your seat nonsense, nor the torture porn that has become so popular lately (a genre I find more amusing than frightening). So here we have it, a 12 which shows the adults how it's done. The best way I can describe it is that whilst I never screamed, the bottle of coke I was holding throughout became misshapen due to the intensity that I was clinging to it.

The story is that struggling with the death of his wife during childbirth, trying to keep up with his work, Radcliffe is given one last chance by the law firm that he works at to save his job, he must go North, and settle the estate of a recently deceased client. In their house they left numerous documents that he must go through to determine whether the will they had was in fact the last will and testament. However, when he arrives up North he is met with much suspicion and it is fair to say that he is far from welcomed with open arms. Warned to keep away from the house he ignores the warnings and sets off there anyway, it is here that he begins to see visions of the woman in black and learn more of the curse that is supposedly on the village.

As I've mentioned before, the scares in this film are effective, this is done mainly through a combination of having old Victorian toys (which are just creepy on their own), prolonged shots of seemingly normal things which allow your eyes time to focus on the thing that shouldn't be there and send a chill down your spine and creepy kids. It's a nice mix, and whilst there are a couple of cheap shocks, the majority deals with creating a mood, unsettling the audience and therefore leaving a lasting impression. The story is well told and unfolds at a natural pace, never feeling too rushed once the secrets are revealed (as can happen with some horror films). Radcliffe had a lot to prove with this film, he gets a lot of criticism for his acting, and whilst he's not amazing in this film he does show a marked improvement and range that he started to show toward the end of the Harry Potter franchise. I think that with time and some decent collaborations with some great directors he could build himself a very respectable following (think Leonardo DiCaprio moving from being annoying in Titanic, then with Scorsese's help becoming one of the finest actors in America... but not quite as big)

This is well worth seeing. It's suitable for most people, and will hopefully show a generation that you don't need to be very violent or have things thrown at the screen to chill people to the bone. Horror needs a decent revival, and hopefully this is the start of it.

Crazy Stupid Love (2011)

Crazy, Stupid Love; or the other Ryan Gosling film released that week (both on DVD and in the cinemas). Whilst Drive played on stylistic 80s films, Crazy, Stupid Love seemed to be coming in at a more traditional angle of the modern rom-com, a fact that initially put me off the film. What put me on the film, if you will, is the cast. Emma Stone impressed me so much with Easy A (and made me fall a little in love with her) that she's always a name which makes me more likely to watch a film, Steve Carrell hasn't always made the best film decisions, but in the office, and in general, he seems like a very funny and affable man and therefore I will always give him the benefit of the doubt, and then we have Ryan Gosling, a man whose career went from making popular love stories for teenage girls to making films about crack addicted teachers or playing a man who falls in love with a sex doll (and somehow making it seem normal and sweet), well a man like that simply has to be good (the answer in this case is yes.

The film has lots of stories going on, chiefly the breakdown of the marriage between Carrell and Julianne Moore (proving that she's just as good at comedy as drama), and Carrell being helped out, after a meeting in a bar, by Ryan Gosling who is coaching him on how to be charming and pick up women. If the film were merely about this then it would probably be mildly enjoyable but nowhere near as much fun. Okay, so honesty time; I'm a cynic, but I'm also a cynic who believes in love (does that make me a contradiction?) so this film worked perfectly for me. Whilst films such as Valentines day (bear with me) looked at love and concluded that everything always works out perfectly for everyone with very little heartbreak along the way (I want to throw up just thinking about it); Crazy, stupid love opens with a wife admitting to sleeping with another man and saying she wants a divorce. For most of the film the husband is then left reeling at this event, evidently heartbroken. You've got lots of unrequited love too, whether it's the love of an older man who you can never have, or the babysitter who you really shouldn't like, things don't always end up in the way you want them too.

Of course you've got some happiness, this is after all a rom-com, and I don't hold that against it. I found this film to be perfectly sweet, by which I mean it didn't make me want to throw up, but did make me warm inside, and it is also very very funny. It's a clever film that plays with convention, quietly mocking it whilst fully embracing it at the same time, and it's a film that relies on subtle laughs rather than a man falling over again and again whilst someone shouts bad catchphrases. In short this is the best rom-com I've seen for ages, probably since Easy A (though I do have an awful memory). It's the type of film that you could happily sit down and watch if you fancied a bit of nonsense, but also if you wanted a bit more. It reminded me of Easy A (sorry, I loved that film) and (500) Days Of Summer, both of which bucked the trend and showed how a rom-com blockbuster should be made. I hope this film finds an audience, the pre-valentines release will hopefully mean it will, Highly recommended, even for movie snobs, might just change your mind a little.

Meet Me In St Louis (1944)

This film registered on my conscious in the same way most of the things I know about do; through the Simpsons. As soon as I saw Martin walking down the street singing the trolly song I became intrigued, where was that song from, what did it mean. However, this intrigue did not manifest itself for years as it was only this month that I finally decided to sit down and watch Meet Me In St Louis. The film centres on Esther Smith (Judy Garland) and her family, the sisters love lives, the fathers work life and their reluctance at moving to New York City away from the life, and men, that they've learned to love so well. Set at the start of the 20th century this is very much a period piece, and as such lost a certain amount of interest for me, as I found it very hard to relate to these woman whose main complaint was that their neighbour didn't look at them when they were talking very loudly trying to attract his attention.

However, this aside the film on a technical level is all very proficient. Judy Garland is an actress I had basically only seen in The Wizard Of Oz (a film I cherish and love) and showed here that she could again do the naive young girl, but also a more feisty side to her character that I'd not seen before. Vocally too she showed a great singing voice that also bizarrely sounds almost identical to her daughter (whose father directed this film). She's the younger sister and daughter (though not the youngest) but seems to know better than anyone else how to manipulate her family into her way of thinking. She's also a decent person, when she finds out that a girl she thought had wronged her brother was in fact not as bad as she thought, she accepts the trickery that she'd planned on her for herself, sticking herself with the worst dancing partners for the evening.

The songs are memorable and catchy (though the Trolly song was easily the highlight of the film, supposedly recorded in one take it's a very impressive number both musically and visually. Overall this is the type of film that I have problems criticising for anything other than the general story, which I found I had very little interest in. Not necessarily adverse to romance or musicals, or indeed period films, it was the combination of all three, and the fairly standard story of people struggling with love (despite the fact that they all had people who loved them pretty much from the offset) that got to me. I couldn't relate. However, if you're a fan of these types of films then this is a strong one in the genre.

Young Adult (2012)

I was excited about Young Adult. This is the new film from both Diablo Cody and Jason Reitman. Now Before seeing Young Adult I was under the impression that Diablo Cody had a 50% Hit rate. With Juno she wrote a warm, engaging film that captured the minds and hearts of my generation. With Jennifers body however she let everyone down and made a mess of a film. However, writing Juno buys her a couple of mis steps in my eyes. Jason Reitman however had a 100% hit rate. With Thank You for Smoking he raised some serious issues about freedom wrapped in a witty and fairly light hearted way, Juno did the same for teenage pregnancy and Up In The Air did the same for unemployment and the recession. What all did also was give us a lead character who we may not normally have liked, the guy supporting the cigarette industry, the teenage mother, or the guy who fires you, and turned them into both likeable and identifiable people, as well as often the people who made the most sense out of anyone in the film.

So Young Adult reunites the two, and things like this are both exciting and worrying. It is entirely plausible that they will pick up where they left off, like old lovers picking up where their whirlwind romance left off, rekindling passions they thought they would never feel again and creating something beautiful. Or it could have been an awkward meeting with an ex in a supermarket where conversation doesn't come naturally and neither can wait to get away from the other. What ultimately transpires is that it is neither of these things.

The story: Mavis (Charlize Theron) gets an email from her high school boyfriend about the birth of his new baby. It's the type of email you imagine was simply sent to his entire address book in a moment of unbridled joy at the birth of his child, but Mavis takes it all too personally and can't stop thinking about it. So she decides to go back to the town she grew up in and try and win Buddy back, despite his wife and child. Mavis' life consists of drinking quite heavily, writing teen fiction which is on the way out, and meeting random men in bars. It's safe to say from the get go that she's not happy.

When she moves back she not only latches onto Buddy, but also becomes friends with Matt, a guy who she didn't have the time of day for in school, and who due to an unprovoked attack as a youth from jocks, now walks with a cane. Mavis is remembered as a prom queen bitch, and isn't very popular among the local women, and even her own parents don't seem to take her cries for help seriously. Ultimately she comes to the realisation that she's not happy and goes out to seek help.

Like other Jason Reitman films you shouldn't like Mavis, she's mean, manipulative, and spends the majority of the film trying to steal a man away from his wife and child. However you also feel sorry for her, and she's ultimately not an awful person. She moved away from her home town because it was small, and she felt trapped (something I am sure that many people can identify with) and she's just trying anything she can to find happiness for herself.

The writing is very nicely executed here too, it's a tender script that deals with high school grudges and adult life very skilfully, It makes me want to watch The United States of Tara and see how issues are dealt with there. The acting is superb throughout, Charlize Theron deserves more recognition than she's been getting for this role, because I think she's rarely been better. People noticed her in Monster because there was a lot of press about how she'd 'gone ugly' for the role, but it is performances like these, playing self obsessed bitchy depressives that always get overlooked. Special mention too to Patton Oswalt, who despite my always getting confused with Oliver Platt is really excellent as the mentally and physically scarred Matt who also provided me with one of the biggest laughs in the film.

This film is funny and thoughtful and another tick in the right boxes for all those involved. My only criticism is an odd one, because despite all this I did think the film was missing something, something that I am struggling to put my finger on. Maybe that will be resolved next time I watch it, but rest assured, this is a smart and entertaining film, and there should be more like it.

The Muppet Movie (1979)

This was the first Muppet Movie I watched in preparation for the new Muppets film, it is also the best. It is everything that the Muppets should be, sweet, funny, heartwarming and entirely entertaining. It charts the story of how the muppets made their way to Hollywood and became the stars that they were at the time. The whole thing of course isn't actually true, at least not about them, but is in fact the tale of their creator, Jim Henson.

So the film begins and we see Kermit sitting on a log with a banjo singing a song about rainbows, along comes a man in a boat, he's lost and pulls over to Kermit's log to ask him for directions. Whilst there he happens to mention to Kermit that there is an add in Variety for talented frogs and that Kermit could make it big in Hollywood if he wanted. Despite initially being unsure of the prospect, insisting that he is perfectly happy where he is, in the swamp on his log, he decides instead to make his way to Hollywood and take a chance and try and make his name. Off he sets only to discover the big bad world which includes a KFC type restaurant that specialises in frogs legs. The owner spends the film chasing Kermit, not for his legs, but because he could do with a talented frog to front his advertising campaign for the restaurant - For obvious reasons Kermit is reluctant.

First on his route he comes across Fozzy Bear in a club, then Gonzo on the road and then they end up meeting other muppets favourites like Sweetums, Animal, Floyd and Janice, until they finally pull up and meet Miss Piggy. Romance obviously ensues. The rest of the film then is them all agreeing to go to Hollywood together and become rich and famous, whilst avoiding the dangers that lie in the way.

Made at the end of the 70s, the only thing dated about this film is perhaps the guest stars, though many of them are still just as famous today as they were then, like Steve Martin, Mel Brooks, Bob Hope or Orson Welles. What the time period does give it is a sweet naivety, very much one of Kermit's best attributes. Whereas you suspect that if this film were being made today it would feature garish spectacles, high powered car chases and more sinister bad guys, this film is dealt with a subtle hand which adds to the whimsy and charm.

The Muppets aren't just sweetness and light though, they are also very funny, including jokes that would later go on to become known as 'meta' before 'meta' was really a big thing, knowing, but not too knowing, and aware that it appeals to both adults and children in the way that Pixar capitalises so well on these days.

This is a superb film, with memorable music, a great talented cast and a really engaging story. Arguably the best Muppets film, but certainly fantastic whichever way you look at it, this is a film all generations should learn about and discover at any age. Just wonderful.

Tyrannosaur (2011)

Tyrannosaur is a deeply upsetting film, which is why I am not going to write much about it, as I fear that if I do it will put people off watching it, when in fact I urge everyone to do the opposite, because this is one of the finest films of last year, and a marvellous début from Paddy Considine who proves that he isn't just a talented Actor, but also a director to keep your eye on as well.

It's a simply story really, Peter Mullen plays a man who has anger issues, he's easily aggravated, he's consumed with guilt for former actions and generally not a nice man on the surface, with clear issues below the surface. One day when he has had enough he seeks comfort and hides from the world in a local charity shop where devout Christian Hannah (played by Olivia Coleman) works. Initially things are awkward between them as Joseph resorts to his usual abusive self and pushes her away, whilst we learn that Hannah is being abused at home by her husband (played by Eddie Marsan). Joseph and Hannah strike up a tenuous and unlikely friendship as the film explores abuse in all forms and the path to redemption, whether those who commit the acts feel remorse and such.

Olivia Coleman is stunning in this film, and I was quite taken aback, knowing her pretty much exclusively for Peep Show where she is a bubbly warm character, to see her as a victim came as a shock, I feel bad for her that more award nods haven't come her way, as her performance is genuinely heartbreaking. But I guess the film is pretty dark, and awards shows tend to shy away from that type of thing at times.

I don't want to give much away, as the main story unfolds in a perfectly timed way, everything slotting into place. There are some lovely side stories involving Joseph's neighbours and also a dying friend, but ultimately it is the central story and the relationship between our two main characters which really makes this film work. It's a simple story, told in a simple manner. Anything else wouldn't work. It's upsetting for certain, but it's a brilliant film that if you're in the right mood will pay dividends. I whole heartedly recommend it, and hope that the fact that it's depressing doesn't put anyone off, because it's simply a testament to the skill in the film making that the film has affected pretty much everyone who has watched it.

The Grey (2012)

Everything about the Grey told me to stay away. The trailer which had Liam Neeson organising a battle against wolves, the poster where Liam Neeson looked ragged and tough in icy conditions and the name, which means very little at all. You see a funny thing has happened since Taken was released in 2008; Liam Neeson has become an action star. Taken itself wasn't amazing film making, but it was damn good fun, and had a great trailer which is probably the reason it did as well as it did. Following that we had the pretty dull Unknown, and The A-Team, and now The Grey. However, the reviews for The Grey seemed unusually strong, and not just from Nuts and Loaded and other traditionally unreliable sources. So I threw caution to the wind and decided to go for it.

The Grey turned out to be quite an interesting film. Rather than opening with some bombastic scene of carnage or macho antics Liam Neeson is instead seen writing a letter to a lost loved one, and then going out the back of a bar and putting his rifle into his mouth. As you can imagine he doesn't actually go through with the act as, well it would make for a damn short film. Instead he is distracted by the sound of an approaching wolf, and his instincts kick in and instead of shooting himself, he goes for the wolf. Then on a journey home, his plane hits a storm and goes down in the middle of a snowy plane, and with the sound of wolf cries in the distance, Neeson and the other survivors of the crash (all of whom worked with him) must try and find a way to civilisation and away from the attack of the wolves.

Now, without giving too much away, it's safe to say that there are injuries along the way, that the group bond together, and overcome some pretty extreme odds to aid their chances of survival. Whilst most of this sounds like pretty inane, generic stuff. The film does all of this with a strong cast of relatively unknown players, who work very well as a group. It also does very well with a limited budget, with some wonderful shots of the wilderness which really seem like the middle of nowhere. There are greater themes too, such as loss, alienation, what makes someone tough or brave, and dealing with our own mortality. Liam Neeson's character begins the film with an apparent eagerness to leave this world, but when push comes to shove he chooses to fight till the bitter end for his own survival.

It's got flaws sure, but with some lovely wilderness shots, and a few layers of meaning to work through, The Grey is a film that is done no justice by the ad campaign which capitalises on Neeson's action man status. This is a shame because this film should be more than simply the film where a man punches a wolf in the face, it's a god example of an independent film fighting with the big boys and ultimately giving us a much more rewarding experience as a result.