Buena Vista Social Club (1999)

The Buena Vista Social Club started life as an album put together by Ry Cooder. In this project he traveled to Cuba to seek out the musicians who he had seen and heard decades earlier but who had been all but forgotten about since. His aim was to bring them some of the recognition they deserved, as well as work with some of Cuba's greatest ever musicians. The album turned out to be basically the most successful album Ry Cooder has ever worked on as it struck a chord with people the world over. This film looks at the musicians involved in the project and mixes together interviews with those taking part with live footage of the Buena Vista Social Club. Mixed into all of this are some absolutely beautiful shots of Cuba.

I always get the feeling that Documentaries are overlooked as an artform. I often feel that people think that anyone can film real life events and that artistry is left out of the equation. Thank goodness then for Wim Wenders who I have now seen two documentaries by, and both have been shot so beautifully and with a very distinct style that I would like to see anyone argue that they lack any merit. I often find that the best criteria to mark a documentary on is whether it manages to hold your attention when talking about a subject you have no interest in. It's how I knew that Senna was a wonderful film. However this isn't something I can use against this film as I have both an interest in music, as well as Cuba as a country and as a culture. However there are other things to judge this film on.

Firstly Wenders films most of his interviews outdoors, some of them casually walking around the streets of Cuba, and in other instances the interview acts as a voiceover as we observe the narrator exploring the area they are. What I drew from this, correctly or not, was an inherent link between the music and Cuban life. It felt almost as if Wenders were trying to indicate that their music and their life were connected in ways beyond the conscious mind. That Cuba was as much a part of the band as each individual member. Adding to this, the film concentrated so heavily on the music, with little time spent discussing their private lives, or more tellingly, less time spent discussing any of the political or cultural changes which resulted in the closure of the Beuna Vista Social Club as a venue, or how it affected their lives. This is not a sad film about turbulent lives, more a celebration of all that is wonderful about them and their music.

Nobody comes across badly in this film. Each member is an absolute joy and so full of life. With stories about how they got started in music, and their experiences with the project are both moving and full of joy. Ry Cooder comes across as a man with a genuine passion for music and indeed the music of these Cubans rather that someone trying to make a quick buck exploiting another culture, and Cuba itself comes across as a forgotten land. Cuba is an odd place, it feels like a time capsule to another time, and is all the better for it (in a strictly visual way) giving the whole film a nostalgic feel for a project that at the time was very much current.

Overall this film provides an interesting insight into musicians we may not have known much about otherwise, it reminds us that you're never too old to be a great showman and make your mark, and it proves that documentaries can provide as much artistry and integrity as a feature film. My only real criticism would be the final 15 minutes which are spent following the musicians around New York. I guess this is included to provide a backdrop to the modern audience that the band had followed, but it played far too much like a love letter to New York over Cuba and made me feel mildly uncomfortable. However the rest of the film was a joy which more than made up for it.

In Bruges (2008)

So the basic story of In Bruges is this. Ray (Colin Farrell) whilst on his first job as a hired killer, manages to not only kill his target, but also accidently shoots a child dead. He and his colleague and friend Ken (Brendan Gleeson) are then sent to Bruges by their boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes) for reasons that are not made clear until later in the film, but is assumed to be to hide out until the heat from the killing dies down. While in Bruge ray meets a woman he begins to date and befriends a dwarf. This may not sound like the setting for one of the funniest films for the year, but it really is. Indeed when my family walked in whilst I was watching it and I told them it was an Irish comedy, the news was met with raised eyebrows and incredible distrust.

However, due to an incredibly strong script this film never feels disjointed between the comedic elements and the aspects which are deadly serious. I'd never really thought much of Colin Farrell as an actor before watching this film, but he plays Ray with both the cockiness of a young kid after his first job, and the naivity and fragility of someone with deep emotional issues. Brendan Gleeson is of course fantastic and shows us once again that he is one of Ireland's most diverse actors, Even Ralph Fiennes manages to do comedy very well whilst maintaining an intense frightening persona throughout.

This is a film that you will end up quoting endlessly, though I may suggest that you don't do so with people who either don't know you or the film, as hearing someone ordering a 'Gay Beer' or talking about someone's 'Cunt Children' could cause unintended offence. Indeed much of this film could be deemed offensive to the wrong ears. Talks throughout the film about Midgets and Ray recounting the only fact he seems to know about midgets which is that they have a disproportionately high suicide rate are, when in the context of the film, incredibly funny and meant without malice.

I think perhaps one of the reasons that this film didn't cause more of a stir when it was released was the simple reason that it managed to slip under the radar somehow, perhaps because of the confusion about what genre it was supposed to be, or perhaps for whatever reason, but this film completely passed me by when it was released, only to be picked up later on DVD. It's a crying shame though because this film is incredibly well shot too. Whilst most comedies focus more on their script and ignore any artistic filmmaking, In Bruges, perhaps due to the fact that it is more of an action drama with very funny moments rather than a full on comedy, manages to hold its own artistically. Most notably in the final sequences with characters running through the streets of Bruges, it looks fantastic, and it would have been wonderful to see this on the big screen. 

Writer/Director Martin McDonagh has a new film out next year called Seven Psychopaths. It, along with the New Andrew Dominik film, are on my radar as must see films. If it's anywhere near as good as this it'll be awesome.

Pickpocket (1959)

Pickpocket is a film which I only quite recently became aware of, yet the more I learned about it the more I could see its influence on modern cinema just in the few brief shots I had seen of it. I decided to seek it out and give it a go, it was made at a time when French cinema was changing the way people thought about how films were made, and its standing among critics is superb, so why not give it a go?

The story is simple enough, Michel is at a racetrack when he decides to steal some money from a spectator. He is caught as he is leaving the race, yet without sufficient evidence the police are forced to free him, though they remain suspicious of him throughout. From here Michel decides to continue his life of thievery and meets fellow pickpockets and hones his skills. During this his mother, who he has been avoiding seeing, is very ill and ultimately dies, he forms a close connection with one of his mothers neighbour, a morally sound woman who knows nothing of his criminal activities. When the police are getting close to proving that he is a thief he leaves the country, only to return a few years later and attempt stealing at a racetrack again where he is caught and imprisoned for good this time.

Firstly, the film is wonderful, there isn't a wasted second, which at a mere 73 minutes long you would hope not. On the surface it's a very simple film, but it leaves so much open to your own interpretation without being annoyingly ambiguous. For instance the relationship between Michel and his mother is never fully explained. All we know is that Michel does not want to see her, but that he obviously cares for her, leaving money with her neighbour to give to her. The reasons for his distance, whether they are shame for having stolen off her in the past, or simply not wanting to see his mother looking so frail, are never explained, and they do not need to be. In fact, much in the same way that the protagonist in Albert Camus' The Outsider is a fairly blank slate, so too is Michel, allowing the viewer to assign their own views of him into the film, whether you believe his view that he has a right to steal, or whether you find him to be completely wrong, your own projection can only be the right one, a stance that I rather like.

Technically the film works wonderfully too. The soundtrack is incredibly restricted, only really used during the sequences where we see Michel writing a letter about his experiences, the rest of the film taking place with real world sounds which only add to his sense of isolation. There is also a marvelous sequence around two thirds of the way through where he and his cohorts execute a mass pickpocket scheme at a train station. After so many years of seeing a stylish view of pickpocketing through modern hollywood films, whether it's Catch Me If You Can, or Oceans Eleven (both of which I really enjoyed), it is interesting to see a much more stripped back affair, with lots of waist high shots where you can see in great detail how they are pulling off these steals. Somehow, with a less showy approach, much more stripped back and infinitely slower you get a greater sense of the skill and style that has to go into the theft itself.

The film could be translated in many ways. You could discuss the allure of the material world perhaps, or about obsession, and how the thrill of danger is just as addictive as any drug. You could talk about the isolation of the modern world (which in 1959 was starting to creep into the post war world with mass consumerism truly starting to take hold) and through the lengths people will go to to make a connection with another person. These are just some of the things that I have read into this film, and I'm sure there is much more you could see, and indeed much more detail that those who are much more intelligent than I could see also. All I know is that this was a wonderful film, both technically brilliant as well as thought provoking and still relevant after 52 years.

Tamara Drewe (2010)

After watching the incredibly bleak Girl with the Dragon Tattoo I decided that I was in need of a light and fluffy film, so onto the BBC iPlayer I went and saw Tamara Drewe. Perfect I thought, a romantic comedy of sorts directed by Stephen Frears. I have a soft spot for Frears after hearing John Cusack talking about him on the set of High Fidelty (both an amazing book and film), and he also made Dirty Pretty Things, not quite so funny, but just as good. So, Tamara Drewe, this'll be cheery right? Well kind of. 

This film deals with love in many different ways, it looks at teenage infatuation, adult infatuation, marriage, adultery, childhood love coming back, passion taking over etc. However, for a film that deals with matters of the heart, it is very much lacking in any of its own. Tamara Drewe returns back to her home village after moving away when she was younger in order to do up and sell her mums old house. With her she brings her new nose and her new attitude. The premise is that as a young woman she was an 'ugly duckling' not least because she had a large nose. Now she's got rid of it and replaced it with a more conventional one she's getting more male attention than she's used to and doesn't quite seem to know what to do with it. So she decides to sleep with it.

Elsewhere we've got a married couple where the man is utterly detestable, constantly lying to his wife about the affairs he has as well as being a pretentious fool. You've got Andy, who is Tamara's childhood sweetheart who, it seems, is still in love with her. Rockstar Ben provides a bit of pazzazz to this village town after winning over Tamara after just breaking up with his bandmate both romantically and musically. Best of all though are the two 15 year old girls who hang around the bus stop smoking, throwing eggs at cars and generally being pests because, well... because they're bored. They provide most of the laughs in the film and become the most likeable characters in it by the end, despite their massive flaws. Possibly because we all remember being young and so flawed... or possibly because none of the other characters feel like real people.

I mean to say that despite having real names and being in real situations, all the characters feel a little flat, I don't know anything about them and therefore I don't care about them. This is a problem which I feel really lets the film down and send it down from being an enjoyable lazy afternoon film to a forgettable piece of filler.

I wanted to like Tamara Drewe, I really did, but it left me feeling empty and I doubt I'll remember it in a years time. Nevermind.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Just to clarify, this is the brand spanking new David Fincher, English language version, not the original Swedish Language version which was made just 2 years ago. I say this because I was initially uninterested in this picture, and then incredibly interested due to the input of David Fincher as Director. The initial disinterest sprang from the fact that it felt very much like a Hollywood cash in. The original Swedish films were becoming incredibly popular, as were the books, and it was almost as though Hollywood could smell the cash. However with the film being incredibly dark and filled with rape, murder, torture, libel cases, and investigative journalism, it didn't really seem like blockbuster fare. In crept doubts, doubts that it would be too toned down, that it would gloss over much of the dreariness and add a Hollywood sheen and maybe a few more explosions to guarantee success.

However then you get David Fincher, a man who built his reputation on Seven and Fight Club, two superb films which are bleak in their view on human nature at the best of times. This news filled me with glee, not only would the original darkness remain intact, but David Fincher was making another film. But there is still the issue that this is a Hollywood remake of a popular foreign film. Hell, even Scorsese couldn't make a film as good as the original. Well let me just say that whilst this is a fine attempt, it is a flawed picture.

I should clarify here that the flaws I am talking about though do not necessarily make it worse than the original film. The flaws as I see them are the plot, or rather the pacing of the plot. I felt as though there was too much time passing before the two main protagonists actually meet, although the character of Lisbeth is wonderfully set up. I also felt that the investigation into the family all unravels rather quickly toward the end (not something that you would expect from a film of this length) and finally that the parts of the film that happen after the case is solved just don't gel all that well, after devoting so much of the film to solving a murder, to suddenly go into corporate finances at the end just feels a little wrong footed. However these are not the fault of Fincher or indeed of Steven Zaillian (whose previous writing credits include Schindlers list and Moneyball). They unfortunately lie with the source material. I seem to remember a similar problem with the original film. Though the books are intended as part of a series which I imagine would be what this is setting up.

But despite this the films holds up very well. The toughest job has to be Rooney Mara, taking on the role of Lisbeth who was so iconically played by Noomi Rapace in the previous trilogy. I felt that she not only pulled it off, but that she really made it her own. Whilst my first thought when she came on screen was of Rapace, by the end of the film I only had eyes for Rooney Mara. This is not to say that she is better, but that she is just as good in the role, and that she plays it with the conviction needed to pull it off. Daniel Craig too does a great job in the role he is given, looking like both a heartthrob and a distressed writer in equal measure.

Fincher does a wonderful job with directing this film as it zooms along at a great pace, never feeling quite as long as it is, intercutting between the events of the past and the present and letting the case unravel on screen as it does for those looking into it. Thankfully he doesn't shy away from some of the stories more brutal moments. They are shocking here as they were in the original, whilst you could argue that they have been toned down a little, you could not say that this is to the detriment of the film.

If I'm honest with you I have to say that this is one of the best adaptations of its kind that I have seen. It stays true to the original and creates its own identity. A mention must go out to the music too, what Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor have created is a tense pulsating soundtrack which truly helps set the mood for the film.

Whilst the question may remain whether a remake was needed, particularly so soon after the original, I doubt people will be shunning it as it sits alongside the original in terms of quality and tone.

A Prophet (2009)

A Prophet is the story of Malik, a young offender who is placed in Prison for 6 years for assaulting a Police officer. He begins his time in Prison as a naive young man who appears to be both afraid and unsure of himself. This soon changes as shortly after his start he is asked to murder another prisoner. He commits this act not exactly voluntarily, despite the promises of protection and benefits, as like any sane human murder is not on his mind. However the threat that if he does not commit the act that he himself will be killed soon changes his mind, and after the realisation that the Corsicans who have asked him to kill run the prison, as opposed to the guards, he nervously goes ahead with the assassination.

There is little new with the main story of this film. After killing the first victim in prison he hangs around with the Corsicans, acting as their servant for the most part, though not getting into the inner circle due to the fact that he is an Arab. After most of the Corsicans are released from prison he becomes a close associate of the chief of the crime syndicate and begins working his own criminal enterprises alongside those of his boss. Added to this he begins straddling the worlds between the Corsicans and the Arabs, both of whom cannot accept him fully as they believe he is a member of the opposite clan. These are stories that in one sense or another have been tried and tested. This is not to say though that this film lacks originality. In fact I am struggling to think of a gangster/crime film that has both excited and engaged me at quite the level that this one did.

Part of this is down to the cast who are universally superb. Tahar Rahim probably deserves a special mention, not least because he is the lead in the film, and he perfectly transports you on the journey of the young man going through enormous changes to his personality. He is a very smart character, and you can see the comparisons that are often made between him and Michael Corleone from the Godfather, the initial reluctance toward the life of crime leading to being more successful than those who got you into it simply by playing the game better than they.

Musically this film has it bang on. With a mixture of a composed soundtrack as well as songs from popular culture, whether it's the subtle bass of Talk Talk or the booming blues Rap from Nas the music fits the picture to a tee and elevates certain scenes into greatness. This film arrived into my lap with little expectations, I knew not what the plot was nor anything about the cast or crew, and perhaps because I had no expectations of it, it left me filled with joy and a strong desire to watch it again. Like I say, not an original story, but pulled off in a way that felt fresh and new. Very Strong cinema.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011)

First of all, a confession. I have not seen Mission Impossible 3. I intended to, both at the time, and in the last few weeks to prep me for the new film, however I was reluctant. The main reason for this is probably Mission Impossible 2. The first Mission Impossible film is fantastic, it's a taught thriller with great performances and showed what you could do with a good TV adaptation. Then years later a trailer emerged for Mission Impossible 2, a film I didn't expect them to make. The trailer showed Tom Cruise hanging off a cliff, I remember the trailer really well because it was superb. The film however I am struggling to remember. I remember something about a boat and a missile and the rest I don't really care about. The reason? the film was tedious and left me cold at the end of it.

So then along comes Mission Impossible 3, with another great looking trailer, and it even has good reviews, but my survival instincts kick in and tell me not to fall for it again, so I avoided it, and continued to do so right up until even now. With Mission Impossible 4 though, again there was the impressive looking trailer, but you also had an important ingredient that you didn't have last time. Brad Bird. Now I know that JJ Abrams did the last one, and I like JJ Abrams, but Brad Bird is Simpsons alumni, from the classic era, the era of Greg Daniels, John Swartzwelder and so on, basically when the Simpsons was the best TV show around, or arguably ever. He also directed the first Pixar film which I would consider 'grown up' if you like. The Incredibles was the first Pixar film that I felt move away from children, and whilst every Pixar film had adult elements in them, the Incredibles seemed to thrive off them more. It also had kick ass action sequences which were filmed with inventiveness abound. So the prospect of him directing a big budget action film proved to be too intriguing to miss.

The film itself is basically what I wanted. It's not trying to be too clever, which isn't to say it's dumb, it's not trying to be gritty, which isn't to say it's light hearted, and it does the big action thing very well. The basic plot is that someone blows up the Kremlin and the steals the Russian nuclear launch codes, and the blame is placed on the IMF and America, so the IMF are dissavowed and have to try and stop a rogue nuclear attack which would start world war III without the help of the US government. This is also the film which introduces us to Jeremy Renner's character who is supposedly Tom Cruise's replacement when he decides he's had enough. I quite like the idea of introducing the character this early on, gives us a chance to warm to him before letting him loose on his own franchise.

I can't really ignore the best scene in the film, because quite frankly it's what everyone will remember from the film. Yes it's that bit in the trailer where Tom Cruise (because it was actually him)  climbs the tallest building in the world, and then swings down and through an open window. It is a very impressive piece of cinema that made me feel very uncomfortable, with every new challenge along the way I felt tense and nervous, some of it has to be seen to be believed. There are some very nice moments in the film too, for example when the film has two identical meetings occurring at the same time, with certain members of the team pretending to be the opposite sides of the meeting for the real people who were supposed to be meeting (if I've put that at all clearly), with earpieces linking the two up and some nice cutting between the two it played out really nicely.

The film is a great deal of fun. It's not brilliant, the story isn't particularly fleshed out, and some of the sub plots such as Jeremy Renner's past feel a little rushed, and perhaps slightly contrived to link everything neatly. There is also one chase which personally I would have liked to have seen cut by about 30 seconds. It's hardly groundbreaking cinema, but Brad Bird has shown that he can create wonderful live action scene's with just as much flare as his animated ones, Tom Cruise has shown that he can still do some wonderful stunts, and Simon Pegg (who I must mention as he provides many of the light hearted moments which make the film so enjoyable) shows that he can do hollywood, after some dodgy roles he's found a role which he fits really rather well. Anyone going to see a Mission Impossible sequel and expecting a masterpiece is deluded, however this isn't going to disappoint anyone going in expecting a fun piece of cinema over this holiday period.

My Fair Lady (1964)

My Fair Lady is another of those films which I both feel like I should have watched a long time ago, and feel like I did watch a long time ago. Like, for example, 'The Great Escape', the story of My Fair Lady, or rather the story of Pygmalion, is one that has been referenced in pretty much everything so much that it has become part of the national consciousness. Perhaps that is why it's taken so long for me to watch it. Also the fact it's a 3 hour musical kinda put me off. It's not that I have anything against musicals, I rather enjoy them, but the last 3 hour musical I watched was 'O' Lucky Man', which despite being an interesting film full of things to enjoy, is also pretty hard going at times. 

So with the story already in my subconscious the film must have basically unfolded as I thought right? Not quite. First of all nothing could have prepared me for just how terrible Eliza Doolittle's voice is at the start of the film, it's not often I wince at a film, but seriously, it's painful. Secondly I wasn't prepared for the overall tone of the film which left me quite unsettled. The way I understood it the film was a story of a transformation from common flower girl to a proper 'lady'. I knew there was a bet element to the film, but the fact I'd seen this story represented in one way or another a few times in other films (always with happy results) and that it was a musical (which are usually quite joyful) made me think this would be an enjoyable romp. 

Let me preface this part of what I am about to write by saying if you've not seen the film you may not want to read on... The story, as I saw it, is far from a happy one. Eliza is basically supporting her father, who leeches money off her to support his drinking habit, when she decides to try and change her life by asking for speech lessons, and indeed offering to pay for them she is effectively laughed out of the room for no other reason than her idea of what constitutes a lot of money is a pittance to the two wealthy men she is approaching. Then a bet is made that she can be turned into a lady of high society (the idea being that one of them thinks that it is impossible... and he's supposedly the nice one). Then when things are looking up, she's learned to talk in a way that doesn't make my ears bleed, and a young man named Freddy falls in love with her, well that's when things get even worse. 

When Higgins and Pickering have finished their bet and Higgins has won they congratulate themselves on a job well done, with complete disregard to the emotional journey that Eliza has been though, a disregard which is evident in the entire film. This is addressed to a degree in the film, and whilst Pickering seems to feel some remorse for his actions, Higgins doesn't seem to care one bit. Then just as she asserts herself and stands up to Higgins (with the help of his mother who turns out to be the one character I can abide by the end of the film) that's when Higgins uses the excuse that he's nasty to everyone to excuse his actions. But do you know what the absolute worst thing is.... It works! and at the end of the film Eliza goes back to Higgins to live with him. This seems to be billed as a happy ending and all! I just didn't buy it. And if you're not convinced on a human level, the films attitudes toward women is pretty horrible too. For example Eliza's father sells Eliza to Higgins (who later claims he owns her) for £5 and the film contains a song called 'why can't a woman be more like a man'. So yeah, a little off.

Overall the film has its charms, the songs are memorable and the basic idea for the plot is a good one, which is why it has lasted so long and been used so many times over the years. But the film left me sour on so many  emotional levels by the end of it, I disliked most of the characters and lost all respect for Eliza in the final scene, which left me feeling no empathy of fondness for anyone in the film, so I ended up not caring about them. I would say everyone should watch this film once, as it is interesting to see the origins of so many plot devices, however I can't say I care to watch it again... ever.

Flawless (1999)

I'm not really sure what drew me to this film initially. I don't really have any interest in drag queens, nor has Joel Schumacher done enough to warrant my undivided attention. I can only assume I got this film based on the strength of the cast. Now I know that Robert DeNiro hasn't made a truly great film in a very long time, however Phillip Seymour Hoffman has, and not only that, but around the time of this movie, he was making films like Happiness and Magnolia (two wonderful performances in two wonderful films), so I figure it must have been that.

Now Joel Schumacher is a directer I tend to avoid. This is a completely unjustified move based pretty much on the fact that when I was first really getting deeply into film I knew Joel Schumacher for two things, for putting nipples on the batsuit, and for Phantom of the Opera, two things which I think are basically unforgivable. however I must recognise that this is the man who made St Elmos Fire and The Lost Boys, so he's not all bad, yet in my mind I feel a distance is needed. Yet Flawless kind of won me over by the end. The plot is very basic, it's your traditional odd couple arrangement, with a bigoted ex cop living next door to a drag queen, whose lifestyle he seems to find offensive. After suffering a Stroke, DeNiro must take up singing lessons with Hoffman's Drag Queen in order to help him regain his speech. There are a couple of side stories involving love interests, a Flawless competition (which seems to be like a beauty pageant for the Gay Drag Queen community), and a slightly more integral criminal element which serves to ultimately bring the two closer together. 

But whilst the story is pretty basic, the real winning factor is the two leads. I don't have a great deal of experience with Stroke Victims, but I have seen Edwyn Collins live a couple of times since his strokes, and many of the mannerisms that were on display with his performances, DeNiro put across pretty much spot on, whether it's the way he talks, or the way he moves around, he truly encapsulated the little I understood about Stroke Victims. Again, my experience of Drag Queens is limited, but Philip Seymour Hoffman is superb in the role and left me utterly convinced of his role.

This isn't a film that I would ever go back to I don't think, but to see a relatively late on DeNiro on his A game again was a treat, and it reminded me of a time when Philip Seymour Hoffman took more risks with the roles he would play... He's still a fantastic actor, I just wish he'd go back to playing a few more varied or risky roles once in a while.

The Greatest Show On Earth (1952)

I became intrigued with 'The Greatest Show On Earth' for two reasons, firstly I'd heard that Jimmy Stewart played a Clown with a dark past (I've only ever seen him play nice guys) and secondly this is supposedly the film that made Steven Spielberg fall in love with cinema. Despite my quibbles with some aspects of Spielberg's films (which I won't go into here, but may if I watch them again), the man is obviously a very talented film maker and one of the most important filmmakers in recent history, so to see where he gets all his inspiration from (in the initial sense) would surely be a treat. Later research told me that the film had been awarded with the Oscar for Best Picture and Cecil B DeMille at the helm it promised to be a worthy spectacle.

Well the film is definitely epic in the way that you would expect a Cecil B DeMille film to be, scenes of the construction of a circus tent, and some of the acts are impressive in their scale, as is the train crash at the finale. However, much of the film fell flat for me. I must say that I have never been to the circus myself, so I don't know if it's lack of experience, or perhaps growing up in a different era, but when the audience seemed to be in hysterics or amazement at the scenes they were viewing I just didn't get it. The one area where my own reactions mirrored those of the on screen audience were during the trapeze acts, where, swinging without a net, higher risks were being taken as the two main trapeze artists competed for audiences attention. 

At two and a half hours long the film has numerous shots of similar looking situations during the acts, which whilst impressive on a technical level, I felt detracted from the film on occasion. The film worked best for me when operating on a human level. Even then though most of the characters seemed to be highly exaggerated versions of the people they were portraying, whether it was Charlton Heston's overly stern looking circus obsessed circus manager (I'm not really a Heston fan, and this film did little to warm me to his acting ability), or Cornel Wilde playing The Great Sebastian who was just a little too free with his heart, it all felt a little melodramatic for what it was. James Stewart, however, felt like a real person, he had emotions that I could make sense of, and actual motives for his actions.

This film is neither a total failure of success. It works on a cinematic level that it is larger than life and at the time bought spectacle many wouldn't have seen on screen before. It has aged badly though and feels more like a footnote in film history, an interesting experiment rather than a bonefide classic. It tries too much, and therefore falls short in most areas.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows (2011)

When the first of Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes films came out, I missed it at the cinema. I was at uni at the time and the local cinema was quite pricey, added to my lack of wealth and complete lack of confidence in Guy Ritchie's ability to successfully translate Sherlock Holmes to the screen I simply didn't see the point. However, earlier this year I borrowed the DVD off my sister after hearing off a couple of people that it was actually pretty good. You know what, I found myself enjoying the film despite my concerns early on. Robert Downey Jr Makes a wonderful Holmes, adding charm, wit and a great ability to exude confidence in what he is saying.]

After a lifetime of disappointing Hollywood sequels I approached this with trepidation. I was concerned because quite often when a film is a success those who make it will decide that the only way that they can make a better film is to make it bigger, more bombastic and quite often this process makes it lose much of its charm and makes you forget why you liked it in the first place. I'm thinking here of things like Mission Impossible 2, which just took the initial concept and buried it among action packed set pieces. Sherlock 2 though manages to be both bigger and more action packed whilst retaining its knowledge of what it is.

The plot revolves around Holme's nemesis Moriarty, played by Jared Harris, who through shadowy means is trying to organise a major conflict throughout Europe, something which is later cleverly linked into the future world wars. Sherlock and Watson join up with Madam Simza Heron (played by Noomi Rapace of the Millenium trilogy fame), a gypsy, whose brother seems to be linked to the whole affair.

The film is tightly plotted, the action pieces don't seem out of place, and it retains the humour of the first one, mostly through the love/hate relationship of Holmes and Watson. I wasn't expecting much from this film, but with a nice plot, some good acting and a good dollop of humour Hollywood has made a blockbuster sequel to be proud of. Not perfect, but a good fun piece of cinema that isn't pretending to be anything else.

Maniac Cop (1988)

So It's been a little while since I've watched a film of any sorts, the main reason being long hours and early mornings at work. So tonight I thought I'd make an effort to watch a film, but the fact remains that I am shattered, so I decided to go for a film that, and I can't lie about this, I bought pretty much solely on the tag line - 'You have the right to remain silent... Forever'. This struck me as so brilliantly dreadful that surely the film must follow suit....

I was pleasantly surprised to find out that Bruce Campbell stars in this film, from the Evil Dead Films, through to cameos in Spiderman Bruce Campbell is always a joy to watch on screen so I knew I was going to enjoy this film. Judging by the Blu ray case, the fact it's an 18 and that it is part of the same series of releases that includes a load of Argento, Romero and other quite gory filmmakers I was expecting this to be quite graphic and shlocky 80s fun. However it was actually quite a well plotted and paced Horror film about a Cop who's seemingly back from the dead to go on a killing spree.

To clarify, it's not a good film, it's not a film that people will study in years to come, looking back on its impact on modern cinema or anything like that. However, it served its purpose to me brilliantly. It wasn't a demanding film that required me to think too much, It was silly and didn't really make any sense, and it had the occasional splattering of action. Considering how tired I am right now, the very fact that I didn't simply fall asleep watching this is a recommendation in itself. But seriously, if you're a fan of silly 80s films that aren't very good, but are very enjoyable (which I am) then I would say check this out. I understand there are a couple of sequels too... I may have to try and source them somehow as I am intrigued how much further this could go.

Annie Hall (1977)

I must begin this by saying that Annie Hall has for quite some time now been my default answer when people ask me what my all time favourite film is. I decided upon this as my choice for the simple reason that at the end of the film, every time I watch it I feel warm inside, I feel as though life is once again worth living. As it turns out, with multiple viewings over the years I have come to see Annie Hall as not just a feel good film, but also a technically brilliant film deserving of all the praise it receives in all areas.

First of all for those of you have not seen it, Annie Hall is a semi-autobiographical tale of the relationship between Woody Allen and Dianne Keaton, their chemistry on screen feels like something that could not be acted but a real true life love that the two share for each other. It follows them in various stages of their relationship, from their first meeting, to their eventual break up and even a little after that.

I can't remember precisely but I think this was the first Woody Allen film I ever saw, and it is quite some introduction to one of the finest filmmakers of the last century. In this film Woody Allen produced his most mature work to date, focussing on both the intimate details of specific people whilst also touching upon the foibles of life in general. It is touching, personal and feels honest. In fact I am struggling to think of any on screen relationship that has felt more true to life (or perhaps your memory of a relationship) than this one. Much is made of Diane Keaton in this film, and she is indeed superb, but people often overlook Woody himself, whilst he tends to play similar characters in his films, the subtle nuances in his performances prove that he is actually an incredibly talented actor, and as many people tend to struggle when asked to play a version of themselves, the fact that Woody Allen does it instinctively is to be admired.

The direction is very inventive throughout, for example the decision to jump around in time so freely, assuming that the audience will keep up with no subtitles to tell you timeframe of the events you are watching. This gives the whole film the feel of a fond memory, this is amplified by Woody's constant breaking of the 4th wall and talking to the audience, inviting us into his thoughts and feelings without any other character noticing one bit. Little things such as the subtitles provided whilst the characters are talking about photography giving the audience an insight into what the characters are actually thinking about as opposed to what they're actually saying. Or perhaps the flights of fancy that Woody Allen goes off on, whether it's talking to the cartoon evil witch from Snow White, or having his parents talking to Annie's parents across the split screen this film is full of wonderful invention that is lacking from so many comedies.

It is things like these that have made Annie Hall stand the test of time, and become a shining example of what a comedy can achieve, because this film is funny, it's very funny. I could give you a long list of quotes (if I wanted to bore you perhaps) which if said to anyone who had seen the film, would have them in stitches in moments. This film is a true classic that encapsulates every idea I ever had about love and looks at them fondly. Nearly perfect.

Ratcatcher (1999)

Ratcatcher was the debut feature film from Director Lynne Ramsay, who this year released the sublime 'We Need To Talk About Kevin'. 'Kevin' was indeed so good that I immediately sought out Ramsay's other films, her visual style won me over so much. Ratcatcher doesn't feel like the first film from anyone, it is a fully rounded mature piece of work with inventive imagery and warmth amidst an incredibly grim story (the film begins with the death of a child.)

The film follows James, played by William Eadie in his first feature film, a young lad trying to cope with the grief of having killed another child by accident. His home life is troubled by his alcoholic father and an apartment which is barely big enough to fit the whole family in, let alone anything else. Set during the Winter of Discontent, the streets are lined with garbage, and there are rats everywhere, in short, Life is pretty grim for James. However he finds friendship with a girl he meets on the riverside, and an odd boy who lives in the same building as him who has a strong love of animals.

This is not a film where a lot happens, it will not appeal to people who like a strong structured narative, it tends more toward observing and seeing what happens than actively guiding the story along, but this is where the strength of the film lies, through simply observing the young James, we get a film that feels honest and true, coupled with some very strong performances from some very young actors and some fantastic shots and you've got a gem which will hopefully find a wider audience as 'We Need To Talk About Kevin' gains traction through awards season, which if it doesn't, something has gone horribly wrong. I really enjoyed this film.

Top Hat (1935)

Okay so we've all got some cinema Secrets right? Whether you've never seen Star Wars, heard of Paul Newman or whatever it is, we've all got a few skeletons in our closets. Until today one of mine was that I'd never seen a Fred Astair film. This wasn't due to any particular disdain for Astair himself, nor was it a shun of the musical genre, I am quite partial to the works of both Bob Fosse and Gene Kelly, among others. Just somehow I'd never quite got round to seeking out a film from one of the legends of the genre. Top Hat is a film that tends to crop up in 'best films' lists from time to time so I figured I'd give it a shot. 

I was expecting a film filled with romance and dancing, which to some extent I got, but what I was not expecting was the level of humour in this film also. This is not a criticism of the film, far from it, the film was amusing, engaging and fun to watch, with Astair coming off as charming throughout. The basic premise of the amusement comes from a series of mistaken identities in romance, a situation they exploit to it's fullest amusement capabilities. The singing and dancing fit into the film strangely well, where some musicals it can feel jarring of out of place, Astair is set up as a dancer from the start and it is explained to us that he enjoys to dance when he is feeling jovial, as such when he spontaneously breaks into song in response to a question it doesn't so much feel out of place. Elsewhere dancing is done at parties or wedding ceremonies, and is therefore expected. 

This is a wonderful film that is sure to light the hearts of even the most cold hearted Bastard, such as myself. It is also a great example of how to pull of  a Top and Tails combo. Give it a go!

Puss In Boots (2011)

Puss In Boots is a spin off of the Shrek franchise. Now I went into this film with very low expectations. I enjoyed Shrek, and I enjoyed Shrek 2... However, Shrek 3 was one of the worst animated films I've ever seen, and Shrek 4 was only slightly better, and spin offs being what they are I fully expected this to be a massive pile of steaming shit. This could perhaps be why I found myself won over by this film. Now I'm not going to go as far as to say that it's a great film, but I certainly enjoyed some of it. The story is simple enough, Puss teams up with his old friend Humpty Dumpty in an attempt to steal the golden eggs from the top of a beanstalk in order to repay an old debt. It plays out with a good amount of twists and turns which will keep both children and their accompanying adults entertained. For a while the film passed and whilst it was neither offensively bad, it did little to truely excite me either, but then Chris Miller starts to get a little inventive with his shots, using split screen with great effect, including offering one of my favourite jokes in the film. It's hard to believe that it's made by the same person who was at the helm for Shrek the Third.

Whether or not diminished expectations were to blame for my enjoyment of this relatively straight forward film will only be seen upon repeat viewings, but for now I would say that without pushing itself too much, Puss In Boots, whilst not an essential film, is enjoyable, and if you're looking for a good film to take your kids too at the moment you couldn't go too far wrong with this.

The Thing (2011)

The Thing is not a remake, it is a prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter classic. As far as I can tell, the need for this film was minimal to non existent. Never was there a moment in my life where my mind wandered to the events of the Norwegian camp in The Thing. Yet here we are 29 years later and Universal have decided to give us an insight we never knew we needed or wanted. So I guess the real question is is it any good. Well there have been a spate of recent remakes/reboots/sequels/prequels, of varying quality. Footloose for example managed to be both unoriginal and enjoyable simply because of the ridiculous nature of the film. Whilst being enjoyable it was also unnecessary, but you kind of forgive it. Unfortunately The Thing does not get this privilege also. It is unoriginal, unnecessary and In no way enjoyable. It's not that there's anything glaringly bad about this film (though the special effects leave a lot to be desired). The acting is good, Joel Edgerton is once again showing that he is a solid actor (but never reaches the heights of his turn in Warrior), and Mary Elizabeth Winstead does very well playing scared but strong. However watching this film just feels like a chore, it makes me wonder whether, had this film come out in 1982, whether The Thing would have lasted in peoples memories as fondly, or indeed at all.

A quick note to Hollywood, stop remaking films that don't need remaking, which is basically anything. Please focus your time, money and efforts on new adaptations, original scripts, and new and interesting filmmakers, as that is what people will remember in years to come, not fodder like this.