Thor 2: The Dark World

Expect venom. The biggest insult to this film, I spent the whole film wondering what happened in Hollywood that all the big villains in the comic book, sci-fi universe are pale creepy Prometheus like individuals, they are all too similar, too boring, whoever thought they looked scary or interesting were clearly mistaken, it's been done, think of some interesting creature/bad guy designs, someone somewhere! Then at the end of the film I saw Christopher Eccleston's name pop up on the screen as key bad guy and I felt like hurling my shoe at the screen. That was the most pointless role I've ever seen ever in a film and it was Christopher Eccleston? The ninth doctor? A damn fine actor elevating most material he is given to a higher level of authentic awesome, I didn't recognise him and he was white noise in a film that was mostly explosions and nonsense.

I'm growing fatigued with the comic book universe bleeding into cinema. The Avengers, which I won't lie was a good film, but not the best film ever as most people assume, we spent way too long on that floating fortress... Pacing was a bit off in my eyes, it was a good film, it just wasn't the best. At this point most comic book films aren't even trying to be amazing, it's like they take a bunch of elements, stick them in a blender and churn out nonsense. There is nothing interesting going on! Specifically in Thor 2. There are explosions and fight scenes but... I could wash the plot off in the shower and forget every important plot point, not that there were many significant ones to start with...

There's a bunch of dark elves, they possessed the Aether but then lost it when they tried to use it to destroy all the planes of existence which 'converged' at a point in time, and coincidentally are on the verge of doing so again in this film, so it's handy that the Aether is inadvertently discovered by Natalie Portman who is whisked away by Thor and then the chase ensues... Oh good God! Natalie Portman. I feel so bad for her having this much shit to put up with; the film wants us to believe that her character and Thor have some epic love thing going on, but I don't think I've ever seen less chemistry between two actors in my life, it's painfully awkward watching them together. Also, Chris Hemsworth has very little to do apart from at certain points smile with that effortless charming manner, and say something rousing, and smash things with his hammer... If Chris Hemsworth is topless or charming in a film he is essentially earning his pay, he doesn't need to do anything else, and a lot of the time in this film he barely registers as charming, and there is about twenty seconds of him with his top off for no real reason at all except, hey ladies, there it is, look at those bulging muscles... I want my money back... not that I paid for the tickets at the cinema I work at...

Speaking of which, the entire mediocrity of this film is just painful, who genuinely sat back and thought, as a product, this was the best thing they could produce with what they had? Even London couldn't be bothered to make an effort and have decent weather, it was cloudy and overcast and although I chortled at the fact that it was showing London for it's normal manner, which is dreary wet weather, it just felt limp and wet, like the weather...

Loki, well he just about elevates this movie from utter rubbish to at least remotely watchable for each scene he is involved in, at least there is some level of intrigue going on there. You never can tell where Loki stands and he is such a tricky devil that at least there is something going on under the surface. Apart from moving the plot along, most characters can't even muster any energy than to be simple plot devices. Although, Idris Elba is a pretty damn good mover and shaker, he has some fun scenes, specifically just to show how much of a badass he is. Unfortunately scenes with Tom Hiddleston and Idris Elba are few and far between and there are battles to be fought and nonsense to be spouted, it's all just a stretch too far.

This film was boring.

Gravity

Two films in two days, how crazy is that? They each couldn't be further from one another, this is a big Hollywood, huge budget, high concept, top drawer actors, amazing film. Most importantly it has a much shorter running time than my previous cinematic endeavour, this is too it's credit and a little bit worrisome.

My immediate reaction to Gravity was the fact that the first act of the film is mind-blowing, then it seems to change gears and move on to a still extraordinary film but the set up didn't quite match the pay off. That's just how I feel about it I guess. Don't get me wrong, stylistically it's a beautiful film to watch, the visual flourishes and space-scapes are just amazing, heart in your mouth gorgeous, especially in 3D. But you really can't top the opening sequence of the space craft introducing the astronauts, and then the onslaught of debris smashing everything to kingdom come, then the time spent with Sandra Bullock character as she composes herself from the disaster. It's just a great sequence of events and shot beautifully and I felt genuinely nauseous being spun around in space.

The two core players in the film were George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, the shiniest stars in the sky bobbing about showing us their skill. I doubt I will ever be lost in space, but godamn if I was lost in space with anyone on earth, I would want to be lost in space with George Clooney. Clearly his character has been specifically designed to be a confident affable presence to the less sociable 'deeper' Sandra Bullock, the stoic female with a chip on her shoulder. It's a role that George Clooney is pretty much ideal to play, he's sassy, has a story for every occasion and makes a supreme effort to distract us from impending doom, which is great because we need Clooney to lighten the mood. Sure Clooney is good in some roles, i.e. the stoic cool guy role, but here he works just great and provides some light relief from the terror. We also have Sandra Bullock, we gradually strip down her character to her undies floating around in space, to her core, the film tries to make some effort to make her personal journey touching and revealing and we learn about her as we follow her through her ordeal. I'm not sure if it's her lack of oxygen but she does act quite insane during several moments, barking at some chinese guy over the radio, turning off the oxygen and deciding to pack in all together, she even goes as far as hallucinating, then talking to unseen dead people and referencing the afterlife and prayer, it's all very worrisome at some points but it moves the story along and obviously gives us a point of entry to empathise and understand her as a person. It could have worked but hey, I wasn't feeling it, needless to say Sandra Bullock will most definitely receive an Oscar nomination for her work in the film because it's great, what she does, I wasn't especially blown away by her performance but I can understand that what she did was great and deserves recognition. If that makes sense... plus I love Clooney, he's a great dude in general, I do believe his talent doesn't specifically lie in acting as such but everything else he does always interests me greatly.

Gravity as a whole, a great film. It evoked Space Odyssey 2001, and there was a distinct feel of when FFVIII tried to evoke that same sensation by needlessly setting a chunk of the game in space just so we could to into space and roam around in space suits because there is something about space that really tugs at the imagination in a unique way. Most importantly there is a scene where you just see a suit floating away endlessly in space and I recalled 'losing Rinoa in space forever.' and bellowing at my television screen with rage and fury. I was eleven years old and I couldn't get her to float into my damn arms...

In space, no one can hear you scream! (According to the Alien by-line) And there's much to be afraid of, up there in the big black emptiness with Earth serenely turning below... There's the soundlessness, the fear of dying in space is quite horrifying one, alone, no one to find you, take you home, remember you, be there for you, it's all a very frightening prospect and Gravity does a great job of conveying this. But, as with most Hollywood films, there comes a point where a protagonist can only defy death so many times until it becomes more irritating and than thrilling, if I assume I were a trained cosmonaut, I know I would have died several times... It just sours the whole experience when you're thrown into peril and know you're going to survive. And hell surviving against all odds is a hell of a story to tell, as Bullock states, but it's also incredibly predictable... Did I want everyone to die? No, not really... It wouldn't have been a good film if we weren't faced with endless obstacles to overcome... I guess it's just not my kind of film. I went in with low expectations, I came out with those expectations met, it was a gorgeous film and the set up was great, the last hour was just good. I know it'll be a well talked about film for years to come and Alfonso Cuaron is one hell of a director, so there you have it!

Blue is the Warmest Colour

So, I have failed to write on here in a long while, mostly because the films I have dragged myself to see have been... A mixed bag. I thought Rush, which will most likely pick up Award buzz for a) being directed by Ron Howard b) being historical and c) for being a by the numbers tale of a complex male rivalry (which wasn't all that complex but it made out like it was because of all the shit they went through...) Then I saw Filth which flat out left me speechless. I really desperately wanted to write a blog about it and godamnit given the time I would because it's by far one of the best films I've seen this year but that's for another time.

This brings me to Blue which had an immediate impact on me as I left the cinema which was, 'Oh thank Christ that is over.' It's a French Arthouse film, winner of the Cannes Palm d'Or and is basically a very talked film, why? Lesbians. Also, my place of work was not showing it during the Leeds Film Festival and my curiosity was piqued because, hell, it sounded intriguing. I don't mind foreign films in the slightest, I've watched plenty, I watched Goodbye Lenin! the other night because it's a damn good film and I love seeing Daniel Bruhl be all young and wide eyed...

To my point! Lesbians.

My main complaint through this film, and it's going to make me sound like a right idiot, but I am someone who samples all aspects of culture, so bear with me here. The lead role was Adele played by a lovely French girl called Adele (completely illegible surname.) She spent most of the film either crying or with a half morose half blank face, I really don't want to say gormless but this was the thought I had. What really irritated me was the fact she essentially looked like a slightly prettier Charlotte from Geordie Shore. All of credibility has slipped away I know... But damn, there was the same glazed over expression, the same incapability of shutting her mouth, if she'd started getting completely over the top drunk and pissing in sinks I would have remained completely nonplussed. Fortunately Adele is very much French and is experiencing the trials and tribulations of young love and discovering herself, except we don't really see her discover in so much as, she has a lesbian relationship, she has flirtations with a couple of dudes, but we don't see how the effects of this and where this leaves her at the end of the film. At the end of a three hour film I would expect some godamn closure and not endless shots of her eating spag-bol and feeling sorry for herself. But hey, this is an arthouse film, I know this, I knew what I was letting myself in for...

Her female lover, Lea Seydoux had much more of a screen presence, but she had more to work with, she was an intelligent self-aware artist and was comfortable in her own skin, flirtatious confident and a whole mess of other things which made her far more interesting to watch, but we spend most of our time with the lost little girl, poor Adele.

The film is essentially their relationship, it's a lesbian relationship, it's between two people who have an attraction to each other, fall in love, move in together, immerse lives, and inevitably break up and struggle to move on. I get that everyone goes through the same shit, and I never assumed that lesbians were any different to anyone else when it comes to that, but trying to hang a film around the basic premise is all well and good but there isn't much else holding it up.

One thing that irked me was the timing in the film, it starts with Adele's burgeoning romance in school with a dude, then there's the beginning of her lesbian tendencies, then she's moved in and house-making with Emma and a teacher (which is briefly mentioned earlier would take a master, so that university plus another year, plus the time it takes to fall into a decent job at a school so five years minimum...) then there's the time after that where it's briefly mentioned three years have passed. Don't drag out the old prosthetics just yet, but Adele barely aged a day from nubile 17 year old to depressed/grumpy school teacher. The film doesn't put up any distinct road signs as to how much time has passed but a little help would have been appreciated, especially considering how LONG THE FILM IS! The time spent watching not a whole lot happened could have had some inane conversation like, 'Oh, don't you two girls make a delightful couple, how long have you been going out?' or something like 'Hey, you dyed your hair blonde, when did that happen?' No reason as to why, perhaps she just matured or grew up or whatever, it's just ignored completely, but the colour 'blue' plays a big part in the film, for no other reason than it's the colour of Emma's hair when they meet. Also there's a lot of time spent at school talking about stuff which I assume was supposed to tie in with the story, I picked up on the 'Love at first sight' snippet which was followed by Adele spotting Emma on the street one day but the rest went over my ignorant head. Then there was the party where the silent film in the background was essentially playing out the scene but with funnier actors behind them... Apart from that the cleverness, if there was any in this film was lost on me.

It's the same with heterosexual couples, their love lives are the same but unless it's a high concept rom-com there has to be more going on than just the standard aches and pains we all suffer. Blue tries to incorporate the pains of growing up, the comparisons of repressed families (Adele's) and more open families (Emma's) and then there's the fact that although these two women have an intense sexual relationship (trust me I'm getting to that...) they don't have as much in common as they would like. Adele is young and naive, she doesn't look into anything deeply, she becomes a primary school teacher and spends her days with children who don't have to think past their ABCs and she doesn't try to excel herself to be anything more. Emma is ambitious and ruthless with her vision, surrounds herself with intelligent creative people and tries to encourage Adele to further herself creatively and push herself in more learned pursuits. Emma prioritises her creative pursuits, Adele plays home-maker and teacher and not much else becomes lonely and insecure. She's young so she throws herself at someone who gives her the slightest hint of attention. It all falls apart. These things happen, but there's a lot of sitting around, watching spaghetti bolognese be eaten and pretentious conversations between artsy types, and then just to mix it up, watching five years old act adorable. It's a messy overly long film but at it's heart, I think... I think! It's trying to say that growing up is shit and lesbians go through the same shit as everyone - neither of which were remotely surprising, but hey there aren't many films that put a female/female relationship at the forefront; that in itself should be applauded and I appreciate that the film maker didn't shy from trying to present that on the screen, in the cinema, to essentially be watched by a bunch of artsy film types and people wanting to see some lesbian sex.

Which brings me to the lesbian sex scenes. They were beautifully shot, uhhh, creatively... Nope, I'm done. My main thought whilst watching those beautiful naked women scissor each other was, straight couples don't get this much done in the films I watch, and they don't go on this long unless it's well... Porn... Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate that the film was trying to represent how much chemistry this pair had, how well they connected physically in as many positions as they were capable of, but... Damn... If it was Adele's first time at lesbian sex I was half expecting it to be at least slightly more awkward, I want to say realistic, it's a coming of age film, it was her first time, but nope, they just went for it... It just really felt like very well lit, very well shot, lesbian porn. And it went on for ages! The cinema I was in were collectively fatigued, when you thought they were slowing down, nope they whipped into a 69 position... Oh are they.... nope! Did this provide us with an honest intimate female/female love scene? No, it didn't, it didn't feel authentic or realistic, it just felt like over the top porn, not sex between two lovers for the first time.* Also, there was a moment in the cafe where I was very concerned that, sure they were having their intense moment but, damn, wasn't anyone watching? Not that they were bothered but still. Everyone in the cinema laughed as the camera panned around at the end of the scene and there was a shot of two women watching unimpressed. Well that was the most fun the film had so I had to give it to them.

So there it is... My uneducated unbiased opinion on Blue is the Warmest Colour. A film about a woman coming of age over a few years, loving a lesbian, not quite being sure what she is herself, but thanks to her vacuous expressions and lack of any real storytelling, we'll never quite know who she is, but she doesn't close her mouth when she's sleeping. I genuinely don't care if that makes me an idiot... Go watching Blue Jasmine instead. Or even better, Goodbye Lenin! There's a good foreign film with an interesting premise.

*I feel I should point out that the female actresses were unhappy with the way the film was shot and embarrassed and had received little direction during the sex scene. Although during the rest of the shoot the director shouted and forced them to do scenes over and over until they were emotionally exhausted. After a point I just felt kind of bad for them. In the sex scene they were given little to no direction and to have long filming days simulating sex without any choreography much have been so awkward... plus from what I've heard of the director he sounds like a monster and treated them terribly so I wish them every success in the future and I'm relieved I'm no where near attractive enough or talented enough to be an actor. Huzzah!

Blue Jasmine

How do we identify ourselves? That's a round-about sensation I felt whilst watching Blue Jasmine. Here is a woman who has literally no idea who she is deep down. On the surface she is a beautiful sophisticated lady with impeccable taste and great social skills. As the film unfurls around you, you realise this is a broken character with no direction or comprehension of her life, she clearly has had a mental breakdown since her whole existence was torn to shreds and she is popping pills and drinking Stolichnaya vodka (classy people vodka) obsessively just to keep herself as calm as possible whilst her psyche bursts at the seams bleeding out by ranting in public.

To be honest, my immediate reaction to this film was - 'White people problems, rich people - boo hoo.' To be fair Woody Allen provides a different speed of film nowadays, he is much more interested in white people with money having various types of mental/relationship breakdowns (Midnight in Paris I believe follows this rule, as does any film he has made in the past ten years.) To be honest, there isn't much to comment on.

Is the film well written? Yes. Is it well acted? Cate Blanchett is incredible and the supporting cast is pretty damn good, Sally Hawkins specifically playing her adoptive sister, this woman was perfection in Happy Go Lucky (an oddly optimistic Mike Leigh film,) and here she is just a delight. Also Louis CK makes a sort of cameo appearance in the film, he's only in about two or three scenes and he's used sparingly doing some 'real' acting which means he has very little chance to have any personality or be remotely engaging as a character which is a shame because I really wanted him to be awesome. Peter Sarsgaard also appears playing a rich pompous chap and does so with relative ease and looks dashing in fine clothing, so there is that to be rather pleased about. Alec Baldwin always plays corrupt, philandering dastardly husband without breaking a sweat.

I must reiterate how incredible Cate Blanchett is in this film, she manages to play the middle-aged ignorant woman so well as her life falls apart at the seams. At the end of the day she has no true identity beyond her rich husband, her fine clothes and her money, beyond that she has 'taste' I guess, which means she's highly judgemental of all around her and ignorant of anyone/thing which might prevent her from living her fabulous distracting lifestyle. Because nothing else really matters as long as you are beautiful, healthy and cultured. Deep down though this woman is spiteful and extremely unsympathetic as she manages to push and force everyone around her away with little regard for how it may affect her, she's vicious immature and highly strung. Yet so wrapped up in herself she doesn't make any effort to be any more than the beautiful sophisticated image of a woman she expects the world to see her as. The tragedy of Blue Jasmine is that Jasmine (or Janine? It's not her real name anyways...) has no idea who she truly is because everyone else has projected what they see back onto her, they see a beautiful woman, a well dressed impeccably groomed doll, and they plant in her expectations that is all she ever has to be, because let's face it, with her good looks and charm she managed to manifest a lavish lifestyle with very little effort at all. When this all falls apart she spends the film desperately trying to grasp at what she should be, what she's expected to be, rather than what she wants to be because she has no idea what that truly is. It works for a time but it's a flimsy foundation to rebuild a life on and clearly what is underneath is rotten and unstable anyways. Blanchett plays the character with utter conviction and manages to occasionally show flashes of humanity as Jasmine grapples with her lack of identity and the tattered remains of her existence. It's an interesting character piece and her performance drew me into my clearly in depth thoughts about identity.

As a film, it is edited to gradually reveal the position the main characters have found themselves in, jumping between past and present, giving snippets of interesting details as we go. It's a relatively short film and it's effectively done without overstaying it's welcome. I've heard the critics adore the film, but I have yet to read too much into it. I felt it was important to get my feelings out before I let the chatter of others influence my mind. It's a film about identity as much as anything and how you can only get so far in life on assumptions before you lose yourself. At least that's what I gleaned from it. I feel like my argument would be greatly backed up by Sally Hawkins character, Jasmine's sister, who always knew she was second best, was a normal girl without any thrilling future. She dabbles in a different lifestyle and realises who she is and what she wants and is happy and comfortable with her existence in the end. I think it's an interesting film and it definitely made me think; for that I am glad.

About Time

Richard Curtis, creator of Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, Love Actually, and the writer of that Van Gogh episode of Doctor Who, a British institution, a man capable of spreading warm fuzzies over scones and a pot of tea, serving it up in a couple of hours for joyous film entertainment. Basically, if you're down and feeling a bit glum and you're feeling like the world is a cruel and horrible place, watch anything with Richard Curtis' name attached and you will feel a sudden warm happy feeling.

About Time follows a standard theme, it's a love story, but it's also as much about the people around the core couple, populated with familiar tropes, but as an additional wrinkle there is the added aspect of time travel. Perhaps Curtis was so influenced by his love of Doctor Who (long time fan, great man) and decided to weave this into a story. But time travel isn't so much at the forefront of the story, as much as it is a story telling device, there is a whole load of rules to adhere to, but the time travel never really impedes massively on the story telling. It's a bit saccharine, but as I've previously mentioned, you're not going to see a Richard Curtis film to be challenged or thrilled; although there is a delightful sensation just by seeing things go right.

The film follows a formula, you can almost predict how certain things might unfold, but the film throws curveballs and delights in subverting expectations by tweaking things with the time travel allowing the main character to repeat a scene. Obviously it doesn't outstay it's welcome and the travel thing doesn't solve all his problems, and as time goes on our main character learns to live without such helpful redos.

Best place to start? Domhall Gleeson, to be from here, known as Ginger Hugh Grant. This guy is a great actor, and bless him, he is doing some great work here, but from the accent, to the social awkwardness, to the slightly squinty eyes, it's just all something a certain Hugh Grant gained fame for a couple decades ago in previous Curtis films. I adore this man, Gleeson (not Hugh Grant), he played Levin in the recent adaptation of Anna Karenina and was painfully underused (I understand why Levin's part wasn't as massive as it could have been, they basically used all of his essential moments but there was just never enough time...) and was also in Black Mirror earlier this year which was heartbreaking. As a romantic lead? He worked great, he was loveable sweet and just all around adorable... I think I'm in love.

Rachel McAdams, you are adorable, you are sweet, you possibly are the most beautiful creature on this planet, the exact lovely lady every man would want to take home to meet his mother. She just effuses warmth that woman, and is a perfect fit in this film. As for the rest of the cast? Well it's a line up of what is essentially a Curtis character countdown!

Tom Hollander is the curmudgeonly angry chap who is a standard misanthropic genius man, he hate everything but he goes along with everything and plays happy with people regardless because he's a softie underneath, obviously.
There is the main guy's sister, she's a bit batty, a bit mad and happy and quirky, a catalyst when things get a bit slow, also in a happy healthy brother/sister loving relationship, it's all good. Then there are the main character's friends, the ginger kid from Skins third generation (I nearly fell off the sofa wondering when the hell did he grow up?) and some dweeby chap he works with at the lawyer firm or something who is so criminally dumb I wonder how he is a lawyer, and most importantly if they hiring insanely idiotic people like him then either I a) have a chance as a lawyer finally using my history degree for good and not ... absolutely nothing, or b) my theory about nepotism ruling the entire universe stands tall and I should just give up.

Other thoughts? Uhhh... It's just a great film. Why? Because even though I really hate voiceovers. I loathe them... but Curtis seems to rely so heavily on them with his affable male leads - Hugh Grant usually, narrating the main themes of the story being told, just to make sure the people with even the lowest attention spans can grasp what it is the film is about. About Time? It's about appreciating what you have, living every day by just being a nice person and spreading good feelings wherever you go. Basically, be nice and happy and everything will turn out alright? Such a cliche, but people forget to just be nice nowadays it's just so pleasant to be in the company of a film which wants everyone to just smile and be happy.

About Time is a standard British film, and everything about it, from the scenery, to the people, to the situations, are all achingly charming and delightful. It's set in an ideal beautiful world where people learn from their lessons and gradually grow and become better people, it wants you to do the same, it wants to take your hand and say, be the better person! What's wrong with that? Let's all be nicer and happier! I felt so much happier after seeing this film. Sure, you could say, it's all manipulation, but it comes from a man who honestly just wants everyone to just smile and be loved, because it's the entire body of his work which says this over and over, I don't think he is manipulating me, he's just trying to share his life view. There aren't many films like this nowadays, brimming with optimism and love, and it's just really nice to know that I can rely on someone to keep providing me with them, and keep me smiling. Cheers Curtis.

The Way Way Back

Films with Sam Rockwell are 80% better, fact. Every now and again a film comes along which infinitely lifted to a higher plane by the inclusion of Sam Rockwell, nothing has ever been more true than with this film, although Seven Psychopaths comes to mind too... Right so I have no real indication of what I should say about this film apart from, every second of Sam Rockwell is pure electricity. Well actually a person at work the other day say they saw it and declared they had no idea who a certain someone was and were impressed by the way he essentially stole every scene. So what else do you need to know?

Well, Jim Rash and Nat Faxon wrote and directed the film about a teenage boy's summer of emotions. Mum is with a jackass played by Steve Carrell, there was just so little acting involved in this role, he wasn't doing anything, it was such a lame role, easy man to loathe, nothing interesting to take away from it, boring. Then there is Toni Collette being harried and emotional, to be fair she has always excelled at this since Muriel's Wedding; I've never forgiven her for making my feelings so sad. Then there is the kids, totally non-descript, the girl who now plays younger Carrie. Most importantly Jim Rash and Nat Faxon make appearances in their own film, Jim Rash plays socially awkward pain in the bum member of staff, everyone takes great joy in mocking him, we all get a good laugh. Nat Faxon is best bud and all around nice guy and gets to do a nice Ben from Ben and Kate style list of dance moves, damn memories... Obviously it's only interesting to me that Nat Faxon's co-star Dakota Johnson who played Kate in Ben and Kate (a show I did not want to be cancelled.) has been cast as Anastasia Steele in the 50 Shades of Grey film opposite the delectable Charlie Hunman, not that I would go see that trash... Oh and I would be remiss if I didn't mention that Jim Rash is Dean Pelton from Community but everyone in the entire universe knows this. Maya Rudolph is the most hard working member of staff at the water park and she bounces off Sam Rockwell delightfully. Alison Janney is playing the best female role being a fantastically terrible person who for all their insane faults is still likeable. Then there's the kid with the lazy eye who is great.

This is a film which encapsulates that summer feeling and brings us a reminder that Water Parks are essentially awesome, but then when you actually drag your bum around one all day it's in actuality the biggest load of awkward rubbish ever... Then this is combined with hanging around adults who are all essentially all drunk randy fools, and about as idiotic at teenagers but with worse manners. It's great that the socially uncertain kid with the broken home can find some joy in this world considering his life is an omnishambles at this particular moment. Sadly enough even though it's September this is a distinctly summer film. Then there is the amount of shots of the kid sitting in the car looking stoically emotional...

As far as characters go everyone comes as either bland or simplistic. Which is fine but when you've got bottled fireworks in the form of Sam Rockwell with his magical charisma and awesome glittering through every scene it's so hard for anyone else to compare. Once again, I can't stress this enough, Sam Rockwell is a force of nature. I adore him. I implore you to see this film just for him alone, I know I see most films with Sam Rockwell in just because his name is attached to it, he is perfection. It's a pleasant way to spend an afternoon, and puts a smile on your face sure. Sure it's predictable, but it's fun and sweet and I enjoyed it.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

Now there is one reason I went to see this film, and I should probably be ashamed to say this; I have a ridiculously inappropriate girl-crush on Lily Collins. She is literally the most beautiful thing in this world at the minute, Lord knows how Phil Collins of all people managed to spawn such a delightfully gorgeous little nymph.

If there was anything worth saying about this film, well I would have said it by now, and I've been sitting on this blog all week waiting to figure out what exactly I want to say. Obviously Miss Collins would not even be acknowledged weren't it for her prestigious parentage, but hey, the whole eyebrow sensation and the impeccable fashion sense are doing her favours. I can't say she's a dreadful actress, in fact she's good at beguiling looks and pained expressions, there is a distinct lack of charisma, but when she looks so damn good, well it doesn't really matter does it. Considering a good chunk of the film is spent basically just looking at her, and getting her to dress up in various outfits and looking damn good regardless of how gothic things get I think she does quite well. She even acknowledges how ridiculous the outfit they put her in as she yanks off those crazy thigh high boots at one point, but then she has to put them back on again, for safety's sake, in case she steps on something sharp, like a stiletto heel... Apart from that she is just pretty... And that's all films are about lately, casting extremely pretty people in pointless roles.

What was I even talking about? Oh right! The film! This film is so boring... I forgot sleeping was an option after paying for the ticket. There are certain segments where I was so bored with what was going on I was just looking at film errors, like the blatant green screen seam, or the fact that Lily Collins has red hair dye staining her forehead from recent touch ups to keep that unnatural shade vibrant. Is gothic culture that intriguing? Do we all need to be clad in leather with garish tattoos to hunt demons? Is that necessary? Why don't people just dress normally?

The only normal thing about the film was Robert Sheehan, and he was given, unrequited best bud role which just made him look emasculated and lame. Plus he clearly has a vampire bite and doesn't need his glasses later on in this film, do we get any resolution on that? Also speaking of problems with the plot. Incest? Really? Lane Pryce made a point of telling gothic, never convincing, Henry VIII to just flat out lie to the kids about their parentage, but that whole turning the ring around so the W was an M or whatever, well that was just damn convincing. Obviously it's a thread that is completely ignored at the end, they'll have their forbidden love regardless. It just made me feel uncomfortable for the rest of the film because it's just thrown in there as a complication for them to overcome, but it's just... Well, it just didn't work on any level. I'm not that squeamish when it comes to these things, I fricking love The Borgias, but this just failed on so many levels.

I really have little else to say about this film except it's been done. Love Triangle, check, teenage girl discovering supernatural powers, check, girl discovering her natural abilities far surpass that of anyone who has trained their whole lives just to piss off everyone, check, gay for flavour, check, gothic everything, check, Aidan Turner as a werewolf, check (damn hot one at that...)

Bored. I'll be off...

Alpha Papa

Alan Partridge has, and will forever, hold the title of most British comedy character ever. Perhaps it's my skewed vision of the world, but the middle aged, self-obsessed, despicably obtuse, high and mighty caricature is just perfection. You're now going to assume I loved this film, because I love garish knits and sharp humour, you'd not be far off. I have few complaints about this film aside from the fact that it doesn't outstay it's welcome, at 90 minutes you might not be getting your money's worth but they squeeze every minute with as much fun as they can. To be honest it gets a bit ridiculous after a certain point and the material could have probably been condensed into an hour long TV special, but hey it's still got some quality jokes in there. I could just watch this all day to be honest, I love a bit of Alan Partridge, especially when Michael the Geordie is around, and let's be perfectly honest, the laugh per minute ratio is greatly increased when there is a northern accent anywhere in British comedy, not that I'm personally biased or anything.

Anything with Armando Iannucci's name within spitting distance of it is usually guaranteed slick black humour of the highest nature, skewering those with the biggest of egos and none have bigger egos than the behemoth of Alan Partridge. Iannucci has been busy making Veep over the water (which is beyond fantastic) so it's nice to see him coming back to something so good, you know, now that The Thick of It is officially over and Malcolm Tucker has received the keys to the TARDIS and whatnot...

To be honest, I saw this about a week ago and whilst I laughed raucously at many of the painfully inappropriate statements made, and one fantastic jingle, it hasn't stayed with me as much as I'd have liked. I want to be quoting the damn thing, I want to want to see it again and cry laughing with each rewatch - but Iannucci and Alan Patridge aren't those kind of comics. They don't spout catchphrases or make easy to repeat jokes, they have biting retorts and precision timing at hand which I lack in the day to day. I'm not desperate to watch the film again, there are sections that are not to my brand of humour, a nudity scene springs immediately to mind, but the jokes that made me laugh did so quite loudly in the cinema. Mainly from Michael the Geordie, and there was a couple of shit jokes in there too (pun intended.)

It's a funny film, and it's great to see Steve Coogan effortlessly portray such a brilliant character, but it's not a particularly memorable outing, which is a shame.

The World's End

Part three of the infamous 'Cornetto Trilogy' the final act following the tough to follow, timeless Shaun of the Dead and the delightfully demented Hot Fuzz, it was never going to be an easy ride. Oh man, why was I so excited, why did I feel so disappointed. I'll level with you, it wasn't as good the previous entries to the 'Trilogy' of 'Blood and Ice Cream'. It would probably be enough to leave my blog right there, but I'll go into detail, largely because babbling on here is the most fun I can have sometimes.

Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were flat out genius, how the hell do you compare to that exactly?
You quite simply can't it would seem because World's End just doesn't, but it's still a decent film, a slice of fried gold so to speak, but still when you're slapping it on the end of two excellent pieces of cinemas you're going to be sorely disappointed. The creators themselves invite the comparisons and therefore it's incredibly difficult not to see them and acknowledge them.

It's a funny film but it has the issue of telling most of it's funny jokes in the trailers and giving away the biggest conceit in the film. Shaun of the Dead - Zombies, Hot Fuzz - police/mad conspiracy, The World's End - Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Except... I'm not 100% on any motive. Zombies don't ask for motive, Hot Fuzz is one of the best written films without a doubt in years, and it also has the added bonus of Timothy Dalton overseeing proceedings.

Speaking of actors, there are so many damn cameos in this film! Mark Heap is barely in it, but there he is! Plus Rafe Spall has the tiniest of head nods and there are obviously the main players as Martin Freeman is bumped up to lead role position, as is Paddy Considine, so there's a few helpful nods from the past, not least a flash of a Cornetto wrapper. Except there are a few differences this time round, most of the characters are thinly drawn individuals, but the best character by and large is Simon Pegg's Gary King, the rest are just along for the ride, which is basically the main plot of the film. In fact, there is very little else going on in this film apart from one deluded man and his quest to reshape the past.

You can't just build a film around Gary King, although I'm sure Gary King would bloody love that idea. A good chunk of all of the film's jokes come solely from him, which is fine, he's funny, not laugh out loud funny but he more than gives us enough to work with by being an arsehole and holy hell is Simon Pegg absolutely killing it in that role. But the rest of the characters get short shrift, poor Martin Freeman, I almost feel bad for him... Then there is Nick Frost, who in this instance is forced to play the straight man to Pegg's maniac, usually it's the other way around but this time Frost is devoid of anything interesting to do aside from use some bar stools creatively in a brawl - sure the bromance and their lover's quarrel is somewhat expected but it doesn't feel particularly earned. Luckily the ineffable Paddy Considine fares better as the epitome of 'the good looking one' - which is fine, he's damn good looking, and talented. In fact I'm glad he was taken along for most of the ride just so I could observe his beyond gorgeous face and a flash of bum ('very nice'), he also gets some of the better ensemble jokes, specifically one about a misspelled Gary King. Eddie Marsan is the quiet meek rich kid that grew up to be the meek silly quiet guy. Then we also have a female just because, well there has to be a female surely? Rosamund Pike fills the role and does... Well not a whole damn lot apart from be something for the boys to argue over, I don't think this film would pass the Bechdel Test, but it's a blokey film and I was more than prepared for that. Plus, I spent most of my time objectifying Paddy Considine... I am blatantly turning into a dirty old woman. I apologise.

There could be something interesting going on here but it's all a bit muddled. The film feels like pointing out that the robots aren't robots, there are just replacements, for the most polite invasion ever, except they chase people around attack them and try to force them to convert, well it lost me... It's also heavily emphasised that Gary King is a messed up man with delusions far beyond anyone's comprehension, he can't be trusted and he is above all else a raging alcoholic, and YET the characters follow him around, acknowledging that it's beyond ridiculous but it keeps the plot on the rail-road tracks. The film tries to hammer home the malaise of returning to a place called home and discovering it doesn't hold that same feeling, nor will it ever again. It has a crack at the troubles with growing up but then it also throws in, we're all fuck-ups and even into middle age should be allowed to have a good time and mess around, but then the end kind of just messes around with that and makes it seem less of a good idea. To be perfectly honest it's just a bloody mess! Which is a shame after the incredibly tightly scripted Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead. There is a lot of plates whirring but nothing really to care about and the end, oh god the end... It's just a mish-mash and it doesn't seem to care that it's not making any sense, in fact it acknowledges that, but it's more bothered about sinking another pint at the next pub.

In speaking to many people about this film it's apparent out of the Cornetto Trilogy, or the 'Blood and Ice Cream' films, everyone has their particular favourite, and some say The World's End surpasses it's predecessors, well I wouldn't say that, but some people think so. But my argument stands that the point of the previous films were loving homages to specific genres skewering them with a particularly British brand of humour, but The World's End doesn't really do that, not to my knowledge anyway, the core idea is flimsier, the story isn't as good and the references are if anything lost on me which is a shame.

But my main feeling from watching this film was that a lot of the jokes were based around nostalgia, the whole film in fact in steeped in nostalgia and there is a joy of picking out little notes from the previous films and seeing familiar faces, and similar jokes (as ever Simon Pegg has to jump over a fence), but it just wasn't the same, it didn't feel as good or as amazing as before. If anything that makes the film a work of sheer genius, making a film about returning to your home town where things are the same but just don't feel quite right and things just end up being disappointing - people go to see The World's End expecting it to be as good and amazing as the previous films, and it feels like them, but there's something missing, it doesn't quite click, things feel different in a bad way... If that is exactly what Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright were aiming to do, then 'Bravo' is all I can say. The whole film is a metaphor! I've blown this whole thing wide open, I figured it out! Still doesn't mean this film is the best they've ever made, but perfection isn't easy, and this is a good example, they've delivered up to this point and just stumbled at the finishing line.

I'm being so harsh because I know what these guys are capable of, and this just isn't their best. Damn, it's good, it's funny, but it's not as good as it could have been, although I wouldn't know what else to do with it or where to go... So hey, if you want a laugh it's still the funniest comedy I've seen this year so that's something, frankly I'll be watching Hot Fuzz/Shaun of the Dead on ITV2, ta very much.

Emmys - 2013 Nominations

I just want to join the masses and voice my outrage that neither Hannibal or Orphan Black received any recognition. I get that Orphan Black is a less prolific show on a less acknowledged network but Tatiana Maslany should and must be recognised for her remarkable achievement, damnit she made that show not only watchable but outstanding! Then Hannibal, there are no words, neither Hugh Dancy or Mads Mikkelsen being nominated and then the cinematography, it was simply mindblowingly good!

Also a small shout out to New Girl and it's second year, building on a set of characters, the writers have crafted realistic and loveable people to root for, as well as the acting being top notch. Also Emmy Rossum has once again been snubbed for being the lifeblood that still keeps the US version of Shameless actually interesting.

But then again, I don't honestly know what I was expecting... The stalwarts and David Fincher pretty much took all the spaces. Also shout outs for Vera Farmiga and Jason Bateman for their nods, good times. I also hope Breaking Bad sweeps in it's final year, unless the second half of the season counts for next year?

Pacific Rim

Let me tell you something immediately, why the hell is this film called Pacific Rim? I get it, there's a rift on the ocean floor of the Pacific Ocean, but in Britain, we use the word 'rim' for other purposes. It's a known fact that the English language can be melded into any kind of innuendo, everybody I've ever known has been a variation of the Todd from Scrubs, literally everyone can turn any given statement into something rude with enough thought and sniggering, if not, well they just aren't trying hard enough. Minds in the gutter. So here we are, Pacific Rim, it was literally just too easy. I mean come on. (See also: Snatch, Hurt Locker, Golden Eye, more may come to mind later...)

This was a halfway decent film. I would go as far as to say I actually enjoyed it. Guillermo Del Toro is one of those special people I would describe as an auteur, his fingerprints are all over this project and he has such massive creative control, it's so easy to collar this as one of his films, but there's a distinct difference, there's a huge massive crazy blockbuster budget! There are flashes of brilliance shining through the bellicose insanity taking place in this film. It's the biggest project Del Toro has had to date and clearly the most money he has had to play with and there is fight sequence slap-bang in the middle of this film which is sheer entertainment, it's jaw-dropping, it's thrilling, sure it makes no sense out of context, but the whole scene is so damn good I would let it off and pay for the ticket price alone just to watch that particular scene again. Unfortunately the rest of the film doesn't quite match up to that particular twenty minutes, which is a shame because when it's firing on all cylinders and we see such a good sequence which galvanises everything to this point and pulls us to the final act, it's quite disheartening to see the rest not quite match up.

Pacific Rim is big hulking concept, but who cares when all you have to understand is that there are giant robots scrapping with big bulbous crazy monsters from under the sea. According to my sources there is a whole wealth of exposition that was left out even from the well paced introduction, but hey overloading people with this stuff wouldn't be very thrilling. I described it to a customer as a big action film, much like Godzilla meets Transformers, she let out a loud squeal and said 'Oh no, not for me.' I think the very concept made her want to run away screaming, well she did let out a little scream and then tottered away. Oh right, just to add to that, Kanye West has declared it his favourite film, of course from his aesthetic, he would love something with neon colours and destruction; does this tarnish the film for me? Would I be that petty? Would you? Food for thought.

My point being, this film won't appeal to everyone, and for the most part it almost didn't really appeal to me, but hey Guillermo Del Toro did such a damn good job with Hellboy, and Pan's Labyrinth was such a dark delight, I trusted his judgement. But the lesson here is, bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. The magic of Pan's Labyrinth was how genuinely terrified the scene with the Pale Man made me feel, it was essentially a skinny bald guy chasing a girl down a corridor, it was so much cheaper but my god was it gloriously effective. Not once did I react as strongly Pacific Rim.

I don't want to call Pacific Rim mediocre because it's still a much more interesting concept than the standard popcorn fodder I've deigned to sit through the past few weeks. In fact out of the big blockbusters I would say it was the most interesting and visually immersing than anything wearing a cape I have watched of late.

There are too many spinning wheels too many cogs turning for Pacific Rim to be a fully realised experience, the main characters cause me a bit of a headache, there is the whole science-y part, there's the tentative but ultimately weak romance, there's emotional scars all the characters are trying to carry, there's the fact that the Kaijus are mostly indistinguishable and for giant monsters to not really see much of a difference can confusing, sometimes it's hard to determine just what is taking place on screen, but let's take all that and admit; you can't deny it's ambition.

Idris Elba, king of 'Don't you ever touch me again, oh and one more thing, don't ever touch me again.' Luther* excels at giving the film a level of gravitas that the giant rock-em sock-em robots don't quite manage, the man can literally fill the screen with his presence, he is something else and I'm so glad he's been given something meaty to work with after a scant role in the dreadful Prometheus. Obviously apart from him and the much loved Charlie Day from Always Sunny in Philadelphia, there is nothing exciting about the roles on offer in this film. The lead male is played by Charlie Hunman, he's actually a local lad from Newcastle which feels like home to me at least, I have great respect for anyone with Northern roots (see: Gina McKee), unfortunately all of that is stripped away and replaced with a gravelly standard American accent, that's fine, but he suffers the same fate as Emma Watson with her accent-changes, he literally cannot emote for the life of him with the voice. Which is fine, he's a standard heroic type with a deep pain to tackle and a knack for kicking people in. Then there is his romantic interest, she was in Babel, and as far as romances go this one is straining for credibility. Sure there is a wisp of chemistry between the pair but let's just back up a second.

A unique aspect of powering up the giant robots to contend with the big ole beasties smashing the Earth to pieces, they need two pilots who need to be connected by the brain to control the giant mechs, this is used satisfactorily to tie up the 'getting rid of the monsters for good' conceit and it's just overall a pretty nifty idea which is mostly well executed; it comes with a set of rules. One of the rules is that the two people combining their minds have to have a strong connection 'the stronger the connection the better the fighter' or something to that effect. The two leads barely have any contact apart from the walk and talk, the gaping at each other in a corridor flirting and whacking at one another with sticks, does that a strong connection make? Since when? Was there not enough time to throw in a tiny bit of body contact with out, ahem, wooden sticks? I know it's not that kind of a film, and hey getting horizontal does not a romance make, but I couldn't really see their connection very well, and for their partnership to work there had to be something more to grasp onto surely? There are brother et brother, father et son, a bunch of basketball chums (I think...) two old Ruskie chums, but the presumably most proficient machine is being manned by two people who barely know one another, sure, as it turns out they are pretty damn efficient in the end but godamn, the amount of time spent with them, we don't see much of their 'strong' connection, the film tries pretty hard to set it up, but it doesn't really work... Possibly because the material given to the actors wasn't enough, or perhaps the actors had so little chemistry it was just assumed we'd accept it. I just don't get it, call me idiotic. Never mind...

Then there is the whole science-y part, I'm not going to go into great detail about it but stock scientist archetypes working through their theories to provide a decent plan was just a bit bleh... Funny to a degree but still achingly standard.

Pacific Rim as a film certainly has it's problems, there are some timing issues which is hampered by a pretty much failed attempt at fleshing out some of the characters which mostly just falls apart. Then there is the fact that out of the action sequences the best one is in the middle of the film, we see all four Jaegers taking to the field and watch as two quite interesting monsters shred through them, then it goes from the ocean to the city, just basically the whole sequence was awesome, the film before that was set up, the film after that was just a bit disappointing. It also mostly set at night in the rain, it's a film that's desperate to be seen in 3D (which I avoided) and for once I was a bit disappointed I didn't see it in that form because I can imagine the added depth to certain sequences might have aided it, because damn it's a beautiful film, my brain will be filled with images of neon brightly coloured streets glowing in the midnight rain, as giant mechs attack indistinguishable squishy monsters. But hey just to change it up a tiny bit, why not see a sequence in the daylight? Or would that be more difficult...?

Del Toro's personality shines through in each shot, visually it's a stunning film and it's sometimes quite breathtaking to observe, but it's also a film, lest we forget, about giant robots punching giant monsters, and that's all it will be remembered for, because for the most part, that's what it did best. I do believe we have learned that in this regard bigger isn't always better, but I would warrant that this is a learning curve for Del Toro, and he can only get better, it feels like he literally went mad with the amount of money he had to make this film and he enjoyed every second, and that beams through the screens, he's having a damn good time. Sure most people won't really see what all the excitement is about, but letting this man loose can only mean good things, and perhaps this is a step in a direction that could lead to great things. Pacific Rim has made me optimistic for the future, and it's just good to know that Del Toro has an infinite imagination and a good sense of humour, it'll serve him well because I really think this could lead to something very interesting.

*What do you mean you've never watched Luther, I implore you to go forth now and watch it!

Triple

I decided to react to three different films today, I went and see them and three failed blogs have been written, rewritten and scrapped. Even without any internet to distract I failed miserably at writing anything substantial, so I simply converted a singular entry into a dumping ground for the films I have little to say for in one easy to observe place.

It would seem that in my never-ending quest to find a perfectly crafted film, I have forgotten that films aren't there to be challenging, perfect examples of humanity and entertainment; instead cinema is about simply entertaining and, well, getting people to part with their disposable income and make shitloads of money. So here is a slew of films which are essentially easy-going and... Fun? None of them blew my mind, or made me say 'Wow! That was AWESOME.' But few films succeed in that regard, anyhoo, what are you going to do.

This is the End

James Franco is having a houseparty, everyone is invited, then the world ends, and well, all hell breaks loose. - wait, I think this might have been the tag-line.

The best part of this film is the fact that actors are essentially playing skewed versions of their public selves, just ruder and more obtuse than usual. James Franco could provide laughs a plenty by just essentially being his presumed self. Fine, I have a weird affection for James Franco, it's tempered with an eye-rolling irritation at his talent, but damn is he pretty... Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel are along for the ride having a bro-lover's tiff. There is a tension between the three of them obviously because Seth and James starred in Judd Apatow's beloved Freaks and Geeks together, then Rogen went on to star in Apatow's follow-up Undeclared which also starred Baruchel. Bleh I know these things, and goes a lot towards explaining the kind of bro-love triangle. As I know very little about the intricacies of men and their bro-mances, I just determined all of their bickering and tension was basically because they essentially had a deep sexual longing for one another, because most men hope the same from women whenever they are having their arguments. I don't know what version of sexism I am consigning to with these thoughts. I just wanted James Franco to simply sigh and start kissing someone, anyone would do, in fact him and Danny McBride had some serious chemistry, that would have worked just fine. These are the things that concern me when I'm supposed to not be thinking and simply enjoying mindless action/comedy. Also along for the ride are Jonah Hill (I hate you the most) and Craig Robinson. Basically they all bicker and bounce of each other being generally idiotic, inappropriate and all around useless when it comes to survival.

Oh and mentioning the Freaks and Geeks history, Franco actually has some paintings of the old freaks and the geeks on his walls, they aren't addressed like his other artwork, (giant ceramic penis anyone?) but they are there and it made me feel warm and fuzzy. Another acknowledgement of previous collaborations would be the much needed, home/high-made version of Pineapple Express 2 with Paper Planes playing extremely loudly over famous actors dicking about and acting terribly. By far the funniest sequence in the film. Everyone loves reference humour, it's the new thing clearly, and this film is brimming with them, plus people love those who are happy to poke fun at themselves, I can see why this has been well received.

The film had some laughs, if laughs are wrung from people taking drugs and being extremely rude to one another. This is also with life-threatening circumstances and the bunch of actors reasoning out their purpose for existence is far more important than most others, they bring joy to people! They act like it's hot when it's cold, or cold when it's hot! They have to remember lines! They are the most important people in the world! So we all get some laughs out of their self-awareness, and the ridiculousness of the situation.

Any of the other jokes fall a bit flat in my mind, mainly because dick jokes are not the pinnacle of good humour - as amusing as it is to watch Franco and McBride argue about ejaculation it's not as funny as they think it is, the drug jokes and rape jokes just don't land, along with most of the film... I sniggered but I never actually laughed, apart from the bit with Pineapple Express 2, but that was just fun; the film tries to riff on The Exorcist but it fails miserably, the same joke twice is never a good idea especially when the second time round it's just rubbish. As with any film of this ilk, it goes on about thirty minutes too long for no reason, the material always starts to outstay it's welcome after a while and this is no exception.

The whole bit about it being the Rapture and the Hollywood gang don't get into Heaven because, well they are horrible people, means the end really rings hollow for me personally because, well they don't prove to be very deserving when it comes down to it, it's not particularly earned in my book. Perhaps my bleak outlook has led me to believe that low-beat endings are better, but I hate unearned happy endings, I don't like Forrest Gump either (see: history graduate). Just call me crazy but wouldn't it be funnier for everyone to be doomed to hell forever? HAHAHAHA! No...? Just me.

It had about fifteen minutes of funny material, the premise was a good one in theory, but it was long and stupid, and the testosterone was just suffocating, then again what was I expecting?

Oh! Apparently Backstreet's back, again.

Now You See Me

Someone asked me what this film was about the other day and I just waved my arms at my sides and hissed 'magic'. Surprisingly this was the most dense of my three film party, and it has been the best received out of the three. I say this, it's more public opinion at the cinema, everyone was really surprised by how much they liked it, how well the twist worked (it didn't really...) and it was entertaining, slick and interesting enough to waste an hour or two. So the general feeling is that it was good? My opinion, completely unfazed by this film.

Out of the three films it took itself the most seriously, and it tried so hard to be clever and interesting but it was pretty damn dumb. Also, the whole magician's conceit is a great idea, having magician's robbing banks is a good one, but when the film takes ten minutes to explain how they went about it, well my eyes nearly rolled into the back of my skull. The film goes to great lengths to make it seem like it's all happening in real time, but it's clear to anyone who has ever watched any film in the past twenty years, it's just part of the illusion or has an iota of scepticism in their system... This immediately soured the film for me as I realised the film didn't want to treat me like someone with half a brain, it just wanted to have some loud crazy fun.

Fine, I figured, let's have some pointless fun.

I hate big stage productions, scripted arena madness, crowd pleasing, theatrics, scripts! Blah, piss the crowd off with your incompetence and go home. Play a different song that no one knows and watch the audience shrink as they rush to the bar or queue for the loos. Forget the numbers, fumble the cards, let out a swear word when you stub your toe, get stage fright and look bewildered and in awe in the space of a few seconds then bolt. Fuck it up! Failing that, dress in drag and sing Viva Las Vegas. That's entertainment! Just me?

What was I talking about...?

Oh right, poor Woody Harrelson... They gave him nothing, NOTHING! I have serious deep seated desire for Woody Harrelson and they gave him criminally little to do, in fact every line he said I could add up on my fingers, and most of them were cheap jokes. Then there was Jesse Eisenberg, hello young man, you are still playing the wise-ass, well done, it's working for you, as is that shirt/jumper combo, bravo, Oscar in the bag! Franco's little brother, being little and having a decent action sequence to show off his flexibility, good show! Isla Fisher, you look smoking hot... That's all. Melanie Laurent, french and beguiling. Mark Ruffalo... Oh Mark Ruffalo... Buff as a ... hulk-man thing... We never really spent enough time with any character to mark them as actual people, Laurent is a no nonsense Interpol agent but also has some weird belief that simply believing in some things is just... Fine? Ruffalo has a grumpy FBI agent to play, and does plenty of grumpy desperate FBI things as he becomes more harried and frustrated throughout, then he just suddenly flips a switch and becomes all Zen about all things. The four core magicians are basically sketched individuals but have little depth or time spent with them to make them actually interesting, the time spent with them give us nothing to actually care about. Actually there was nothing to care about, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are there too, neither look like they actually give a shit, which is never more obvious when they are in a scene together, two of the greatest actors alive and not one shit is given, it's amazing! That aside...

It was far too up it's own deceit to care about the audience. It pulled certain threads, left others bewilderingly hanging, it didn't really explain some points, but puts masses of energy into exploring other irritatingly small parts which people could have figured out themselves. The twist at the end was as contrived as anything. As I say, it was trying to be really clever but only for some parts, others it was really dumb, there was no real consistency. It was dumb fun, polished until glossy and forgettable.

Despicable Me 2 

A sequel takes what we love about the first instalment and expands and explores new dynamics in order to add a fresh look at the characters we have come to adore. Or, there's the Hollywood standard, the old adage, if it ain't broke don't fix it, don't change too much, make it bigger more explosive, but retread old tracks so as not to alienate the audience and make as much money as possible. I will grant that Despicable Me 2 does try to add more, do something different without drastically changing the status quo that everyone loved about the original but... Well it was just light on anything else really... It added a new element, it increased the exposure of the best part of the previous film (the minions) and tries to shoe horn some emotional beats in there; for the most part it works, but it's also incredibly formulaic and lacking in the 'freshness' department.

Single man raising three young girls, relatively adequately, alone? Not on your life. Introduce a female to complete the fictional family immediately! Kristen Wiig, well isn't she great, and her character is a lot of fun, she's sweet and funny, she wears a scarf too! Good times!

Obviously it's painfully formulaic, the jokes and story-lines leave threads open for nothing to be surprising. This is even more noticeable when you are at a late night staff showing for cinema staff only, there is free booze, everyone is a bit tipsy and we all have our shoes off and stretched out on the sofas shouting at the screen what is going to happen next. The accuracy was alarming considering how bloody tired we all were and how much beer had been consumed.

Ah, you say, 'It's a kid's film, it's not supposed to be challenging!' But come on! That's bull. Despicable Me was fun because it was unpredictable and fun, the best Pixar films are the ones where you literally couldn't guess what the hell was going to happen next - hence why since Toy Story 3 they have ushered their way quietly out of the Golden Era into a kind of creative slump as their stories become more and more standard...

The best kids films are ones that entertain adults as well as the children, and in this case a bunch of mid-twenties cinema workers, it didn't really make any  when the best joke in the film is a little yellow tic-tac in dungarees sniggering at the name Ramsbottom* well you have a problem!

Sure it's funny, it's accessible, the minions get way more to do, and boy do that lot know how to throw a great party. A good test for a film is to acknowledge where the best material is, and that's either in the first twenty minutes or the trailer, it's a painful but true fact.

It was just ok, it was a good laugh, and I'm sure the kids will enjoy it, or even multiple times a day until the DVD is snapped in half by an irate older family member one afternoon after the fiftieth time in a row of watching it.

So revisiting these films took a lot more effort than I anticipated, I apologise for my lacklustre opinions. I promise to try harder next time.

* I knew a girl with that surname at a previous job, it took lots of self-control not to giggle, the amount of rudey surnames in the world astound even me.

Bling Ring

Shallow, that is my main complaint about this film, and it's ironic because that's the point, I know. My inclination is to worm towards thinking perhaps it's brilliant in that regard, for literally having a bunch of youthful airheads spewing obtuse horrifying statements whilst maintaining expressions of complete obliviousness.

No idea where to start so, starting with the good.

A great soundtrack does not a good film make. The songs are achingly cool and apt in this film and I couldn't praise it enough. In fact just watch the trailer over and over with the soundtrack running in the background for an hour and you'll get the perfect vibe of the film without feeling short-changed at the cinema.

Along with the classy soundtrack I have to admit the film is cut together quite beautifully. Use of Facebook and some party sequences are a whole lot of fun, there is a well shot sequence of Audrina Patridge's home being burgled. There is a flair and daring to some sequences I found myself enjoying. But then this is just undercut by some sections in which interview clips are used at various points for voice overs to hammer home the points the film is trying to make. But wait? Wasn't this supposed to flesh out the story a little bit? Well, how much can we trust coming out of these people's mouths? An interview has certain constraints, and there is no honesty to anything these people are saying, they are just spouting the same crap. Sure it gives a little bit of insight but I just found it so difficult to engage with such vacuous shells? Plus voice-overs are pet peeves of mine when it comes to any kind of film in general.

Apart from our brief insights from controlled interviews all we really see is their inane conversations. This is where the film falls apart for me, the characters are so idiotic and two-dimensional it's alarming how little I cared about... well anything. Which brings me to the seemingly infallible Emma Watson; once again I find myself, distractingly underwhelmed. She's a beautiful girl, and she had so much less to work with here, she's got that American accent nailed and I can appreciate how hard it is to be airheaded and shallow when in reality you're a thoughtful and caring talented young woman, but it's not a performance I would rate. From the scant few things I've heard about this film everyone has raved about Emma Watson, from what I can see she simply got a plum role, she was given more fun stuff to work with, but any other actress could have probably done a pretty decent job -  she had a few more interesting scenes and had to say obtuse things with a straight face. I just always feel like screaming at the screen 'EMOTE GODAMNIT!' Perhaps there are subtleties to her acting that I simply cannot see, or maybe this just wasn't a role which demanded any strong emotions besides the ocassional perfunctory statement and acting like a brat.

As for the rest of the cast there was about as much charisma among them as I would find simply standing next to line of lampposts*. Not the brightest bulbs it would seem and as their star-power combined couldn't compare to Emma Wattage, it would seem there's not much more to say than, they also failed to make any impact. It's a shame too because after much reflection I think the two main players had a chance to make a real go of it with the material; Marc for example is a unique character and we get the bare bones of his motivations but perhaps the constraints of moving the plot along and taking photos of themselves with their phones got in the way. He does a couple interesting things but it doesn't require any serious heavy lifting on the actors part apart from dicking about mostly...

Sofia Coppola is director famed for allowing the plot to take place and simply following through with the sequence of events, she doesn't get too involved in trying to make any statement, she simply allows what is happening to speak for itself; she's non-judgemental and therefore doesn't make a point of condemning or celebrating the actions of the Bling Ring. Is this fair? It would be fair to say, we spend a lot more time with the gang when they are robbing and living vicariously, rather than the fallout of their actions, but it's not a cautionary tale, Coppola simply is telling the story and the effective end is the gang being sentenced for their crimes and going their separate ways. (It's not a spoiler, watch the news.) In this regard it's quite a simple story, but one that hasn't really done like this before and for the most part it works in a kind of flashy Hollywood version of events, with those flourishes and awesome tunes playing. But hey for it to work for me as a good film it had to be more, more thought through, more interesting, more to chew over, and for what it was, it was pretty lean.

There is a stand-out scene for me, in which the girls, having just looted Paris Hilton's house for what would seem like the fifth time, they discover she has the same dress twice. Later we're at the club having a good old party, Emma Watson is throwing some moves on the dance-floor in a natty dress and her mate is pounding the tiles with her in the exact same dress. There is no giant arrow pointing this out, it's subtly done, but it spoke volumes to me. Hey all the money in the world isn't going to make you an individual, all these beautiful things exist and there are copies of them everywhere, because someone else has it you value it more, etc etc. It was a sly well done few seconds visual humour. There was also a funny aside in which Marc steals some pink Paris Hilton shoes and they make some reappearances through the film. These little flourishes made Bling Ring seem smarter than I would have initially given it credit for but then again, as Coppola isn't doing much more than showing us what happened rather than casting judgement, there isn't really much else going on beneath the surface.

The interest in this film lies in seeing what's happening in these celebrities homes, which all, apart from Paris Hilton's house, look like actual normal homes. What is quite befuddling is that with all the money in the world, people still forget to lock all their doors, or invest in better security, but hey when there Rolexes in the cupboard and Prada in the walk-in closet let's leave the back porch open! Also Megan Fox with a gun under the bed is just frankly alarming, especially when these people are rooting through her drawers... The good sport Hilton is, she actually let the crew film in her real house, with her real cushions with her face and her walls covered in her picture, clearly she has no issue with exposing herself to people, or her idiocy of leaving her keys under the mat.

So there are fun and games to be had. I won't deny the film has a good crack at trying to make a point as to why these people are how they are, with the interview voice-over work and some Leslie Mann school of crazy scenes, but it's so hard to care when the performances are flat and the trajectory of the plot becomes tedious.

I will probably always have this problem with Sofia Coppola's films, they simply don't have charisma. Lost in Translation, her best film by a mile was elevated to a different plane simply by having Bill Murray. Obviously Bill Murray is one of the greatest actors that ever lived and it's hard to cap the kind of quality he brings to proceedings, but even with a minimalist plot and a meandering sense of meaninglessness, Murray just brought so much to so little, he just effervesces charisma. Ever since Coppola has tried to recapture this, specifically with Somewhere, which was just awful. Bling Ring is witty in it's own way, it has those visual flourishes and there is food for thought there, but it's all buried beneath the fact that the actors/characters are nothing to get excited about, nothing to be interested in.

It's a shallow world we live in, it's a shallow bunch of people we are with, so it's only fair that I find myself disconnected from this particular lifestyle and sequence of events, there is no personal interest in there for me. Sure I like to read the gossip magazines, know who's with who, what beautiful dresses they are wearing, but I acknowledge the disconnect between that world and my own. The characters are Bling Ring are trying desperately to be a part of that world, but it's just so pointless, I can't begin to sympathise with them. This is of course unfair to all films everywhere as the rich tapestry of life and the film industry begs me to view other people's lives and views removing myself from my own assumptions - but in this case I find the disconnect from this world and my own too frustrating, it's so close yet so alien at the same time... It's fame money hungry youngsters wanting more from life, it's so easy to understand, and yet I intensely dislike the whole bunch of them. Coppola clearly doesn't want me to like the bunch of them but still. I want to understand, otherwise what's the point of basing this on real events? It might as well be fantasy; which is what these people are trying to attain, their own fantasies... I'm just talking myself into circles here. To me if there was something more there, perhaps better actors, better scripting, some better way of conveying the story to make it really pop out of the screen... I don't know what that is though and usually I have a vague idea what is missing from a film.

The soundtrack is cool, the editing is nifty, there are flashes of brilliance, but overall I can't find myself loving this film because there is nothing to galvanise this all together to make it great, it's just missing something, something special... And no it's not Bill Murray, although all films are made infinitely better with his presence, it's just something more transcendental, it just didn't click for me.

*It would seem when words fail me I just go with lamppost. It seemed apt here, they are all skinny bright young things...

Puzzling

People are puzzles, once they are solved they are easier to observe as a whole and easier to deal with. Various pieces fall into place immediately upon first impressions, others take a while to discover but make perfect sense, time decays pieces, others reveal themselves at the oddest moments; for the most part I work people out or I give up trying long before they notice my interest. My aim in life is to be an inscrutable puzzle, to not be understood, to be a mystery, to be a lost relic hidden in plain sight, precious but ignored (being noticed is too much effort). So far I am most of the above (ignored), but to be precious would involve being wanted. My much vaunted desire to be wanted is impeded by the fact that I have no idea about how I am perceived, do people see me anything more than a nonentity? Perhaps I'm not even a puzzle, perhaps I'm as dull as dishwater, all my facets of self bobbing around the surface, people see me and notice I am nothing special, just dirty.

Before Midnight

'This is how people start breaking up.'

Life is one long compromise, don't ask me why, that's just how it is, don't pretend that it isn't. My pessimistic view on everything is that life forces you into situations where you find yourself making decisions you didn't expect; time then erodes all those plans and ambitions you thought you had forever to attain. Nothing speeds up this process than being in a relationship, then you have two lives and ideals to contend with, then comes the children, the baggage of this mortal coil, and compromises multiply like a disease until time turns you into the exact thing you didn't expect to be; old and full of regret. Well, I'm 22, I have no major ambition, and my expectation of life is essentially that it will be full of occurrences that don't mean anything, I'm aware that I'm unoriginal even in my malaise.

I have strong memories of my Dad turning to me, tears in his eyes, alcohol flowing through his system, telling me his life isn't what he expected, it just seemed to me that an inexplicable fatigue was all that was stopping him from doing anything about his dissatisfaction, because doing something, changing something, was just too much effort and life had already moulded him into what he didn't want to be; old and full of regret.
What is essentially the most heartbreaking thing about Before Midnight is that the magical romance of Jesse and Celine isn't as mystical and perfect as I had hoped, how can I be hopeful in a world where even my favourite cinema couple are saddled with the same problems and regrets that the rest of the world suffer? How can I go on knowing that their unique and beautiful love is as decayed and unstable as everything else in this world? Now I know that life is exactly what I anticipate it to be, I have unequivocal proof that everyone grows to be the same, old and full of regret.

But that doesn't necessarily make life bad, it just makes the good aspects more important, taking what we can from our experiences and grasping what makes us happy and never letting go. Before Midnight was a hard film to watch because of it's realism, the arguments were standard ones that couples have and I didn't expect or want this from Jesse and Celine. I am so used to this pair being so openly honest with each other and that leading to more and more intimate knowledge being revealed and their love growing and their connection strengthening; in direct contrast with the previous Before films, the more the pair talk the more the fractures show and the more frustrated they become with one another and their endless talking instead of bringing them closer together seems to drive them apart; it's heartbreaking!

Perhaps I should give a little bit more information. Richard Linklater created a lovely romance film in 1994 about a pair of young, bright strangers meeting on a train and spending an evening in Vienna exploring the city and each other. The whole concept hinges on the fact that the pair don't expect to see each other again and therefore their rambling becomes more intense as they feel free to open up and let themselves be honest about everything, up to and including their feelings; Before Sunrise!

Then nine years later we have Before Sunset, arguably the better film for a couple of reasons, first and foremost the time-frame is smaller, a couple of hours wandering around Paris, thus the conversation moves better and with that we are literally seeing every second of the pairs reunion. Then there is the fact that Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy (the stars) had a greater hand in the script and the production of the film, Delpy sings her own song, Hawke was going through a divorce from Uma Thurman at the time, and the dialogue was mostly written by the actors; it was more personal.
We see the pair rekindle their romance in a way but it is left ambiguous as to whether they ended up together, but the end of the film was so painfully beautiful I'll let them off.

Yet another nine years later Linklater and the lovely cinema couple, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy returned and from the trailers endlessly repeated at the cinema I work at, it's apparent they are together now over the peak of forty, with their own children and, God help us all, baggage. Before Midnight takes the formula of the previous two films and plays about with the rules. The rules are the pair are out of their element, in a foreign country (I know Celine lived in Paris in Before Sunset but Jesse didn't, and it's still a different country...) and they spend most the film merely talking with only brief interludes from other minor characters. Previously the pair spent the majority of the film alone and in each other's company talking openly and honestly with little or knowledge of any history they had before.

Before Midnight places the pair in Greece with a set of twins and Jesse's stepson leaving to return to America after spending the Summer with his Dad. Some intervention from a friend means the pair are plonked alone in a hotel room for their verbal spar, we do have a lot of walking and talking as before, but it's the couple's history and their lives together which become the core subject of their conversation. The first section of the film weaves a picture of the makeshift family for the viewer, the pair have a set of twins (I feel strangely joyful about that particular fact), they aren't married, Jesse only sees his son from his first marriage during holidays, and his ex-wife isn't particularly happy with the situation, Celine is in the process of changing jobs, and Jesse is still writing books. He wrote a second one based around events from the second film and afterwards, luckily my assumptions that he stayed with her were true, and there was lots of sexy times, good on them! They interact with other people in Greece and we see them on their own and at a little dinner party, before we manacle them together for the other two thirds of film and we have classic Jesse and Celine discussion. But it's not classic, because there's so much more history, and so much less joy to be had, they are older and wiser and there's more going on than just getting to know each other.

The crux of this film is how life and all that comes with it wears on a relationship, even a seemingly perfect one like that of Jesse and Celine. Time waits for no man and it has slipped away from this pair and they don't know what to do with the dissatisfaction that comes with it. Decisions have been made, actions taken, compromises made, and time has hurtled onwards leaving behind regret and resentment. It's so true to life but it hurts to see the pair suffering the same fate the rest of the world must face; I have no doubt in my mind that Jesse and Celine make each other happy but they seem to be grasping at what exactly that is, what makes them happy has evolved and they are trying to adjust to that.

What really resonates about all of the Before films is how the characters talk like real people, sure all of their comebacks and quips are devilishly clever and quicker than you'd imagine, but they actually talk to each other. It's not just a series of monologues about how their life has come to this point, the key is in the dialogue. They dissect and dodge certain aspects and statements and worm their way through and around the issues at hand, their relationship problems. They tackle them head on, but also aren't above walking away from each other when they dislike how things are going, just like real people would. There are some well placed moments of brevity, and explosive bombs lobbed either way, it's just so hard not to be invested in the couple, even if you haven't seen the previous films. (but I would ask why not?) The pairs interactions resonate with everyone I would assume in any kind of long term relationship, but then theirs are strongly personal issues that are specific to their own situation, it's a great thing to see something so specific and yet so all encompassing.

It's a masterful wonderfully written film and although darker than previous entries, it's still achingly realistic and beautiful. I can't compliment the film enough. Just to cap it off, because I feel so invested in the characters, I laughed and cried along with every beat, every exchange. It's hard to feel sometimes and this pair bring out of the best in me, I felt everything and that is significant to me in a film. I just hope we can watch the pair grow old together and see another film in nine years time, I'd be so happy to watch them talking forever.

Man of Steel

Superman is an icon, not because of his pants over spandex revolution, not because of his super-duper powers, but because as a man, he is all powerful and he stands for what is right. Now that's not down to where he is born or his genetics or anything like that, it's all down to his environment and well... some super powers to help him along the way. That environment? Well the guy was raised in small-town USA (Smallville - duh-doi!) and he is a product of what it is to be a hard-working, honest and good ole American, with all the values and plaid shirts that come with it. This is what makes Superman just so super, he is the best of America, replete with flying and indestructibility. Man of Steel works hard to create this impression for us, it almost just about rams it down our throats but it has other business too, cultivating Clark Kent's alien lineage.

If this had been a film just about Superman coming to be an all American man with an incredible gift working out his identity; throw in a threat which he can just about overcome by being the honest hardworking lovely guy he is, well we'd probably say it was boring and go home. To be honest this overblown piece of space ridiculousness was boring to me. This is supposed to be an origins story, throwing the biggest threat you can straight at Superman just seems like a waste and just too much, either have the biggest threat and concentrate on that, or let the origins story do the talking and break us in gently, doing both is... Well it's idiotic, but the way this is entire film went, it's not surprising. It spends a great chunk of it's time dispatching with any storytelling and just gives us mindless action sequences to yawn over - yup, what an origins story that is.

I feel like I know what Snyder and Nolan were trying to do, they had a core idea, part of that was mine, he's all American alien out to save the world from those who originated from the same birthplace. It was a good idea but the execution was... A mess. Oh Zack Snyder, I really keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming your delectation for overblown action setpieces can be reigned in, especially when you have the likes of Christopher Nolan guiding you, but alas, senseless violence is what you truly seem to love above all else, and it might distract some people from the glaring dullness of your film, but not me. I did not enjoy this film, this disappoints me immensely. It's quite something to sigh and wonder if the next spray of smashing glass will be your last? Will it? Of course not! Will the fact that not one but two cities, probably more, are levelled in the space of the two hours phase you even slightly? It won't.

Nolan's hands are on this project and I will defend him in saying that Superman is a completely different kettle of fish to the Batman. Just to define it, Superman had a relatively healthy if traumatic upbringing with loving parents, he also has a shitload of superpowers, he is also an alien from another planet, but a corn-fed farm-boy, the comparisons are manifold, this is an entirely different set of foundations to work with than Batman, tortured billionaire playboy with an uncontrollable rage and a healthy bank balance to fund saving his corrupted city. But what was Nolan doing? Did he decide that sense had to go out of the window as well as any real plot? As far as origin stories go, this is one of the least coherent I have ever seen, not just because the film throws in random out of sequence flashbacks into the mix for kicks at any point it fancies. Where is Clark's emotional journey? Answer, there isn't one, not really, we just get a bunch of sequences telling us how he got to the point where General Zod arrives, but we don't see him grow, we just see bits and pieces of him reaching a certain point. It's just such a mess.

Don't get me started on the supporting characters. Lois Lane? Complete cipher, apart from her seeming loyalty to Superman because he helps people, or does things for the right reasons, she has no other reason to have any emotional attachment to him, the whole romance is a complete joke, putting two people within kissing distance of one another at several points does not a legitimate love story make! In fact, I still don't know why they kissed! Although, looking at him... But still! Perry White, now there's a character who needed absolutely no fleshing out, could have actually lasted the entire film without him but he's there just to remind us that people might actually be in a bit danger while everywhere is getting blown to shit, but only for about five minutes out of what feels like an hour of explosions. The Kents, well they are there to give Clark emotional bursts of energy it would seem, Martha should have been seriously injured but we'll let her off because she prompts a Superman rage fit. The Els? Lara, farewell to thee mother, you looked and sounded like a mother should... Jor-El? I have no idea what the hell you were doing at all in this film. Literally no discernible clue, you hurl yourself through Avatar/Gallifrey world and then you die and then... Well you just keep appearing for no reason other than to magically move the plot along, a walking deus ex machina. General Zod, I hate your beard.

Now the bile is gone, I feel I must mention something I did like in this film. The cape. The flying sequence was strangely a nice one for me, if only because I felt strangely happy watching it. More to the point it was just a nice simple sequence demanding nothing more than my enjoyment, nothing was blown to shit (much) and no one looked helplessly on, it was, dare I say, almost harmless fun. Also I now must invest in a long red cape and run around with my arms straight in front of me and my fists clenched, this will cheer me immensely...

Otherwise Man of Steel, what an absolute waste of my time. I felt like I had something important to say about this film but I suppose I did not. The action sequences went on far too long, any semblance of a plot made literally no impact, or sense, the fact that I didn't care what happened made the whole thing ring so hollow. Whatever message the film was trying to convey it failed when it just smashed and obliterated it's way through scene after scene of pointless bloodless violence. It was pointless draining nonsense. Nothing, not even Cavill's glorious cheekbones, can save this film from being soulless garbage.

Behind the Candelabra

Working at a cinema sometimes fills me with a unique sense of despair. A lady told me the other day, 'I heard they were making that Great Gatsby into a book.' My immediate reaction was to yell 'ARE YOU KIDDING ME?' but instead I went with the sobre response 'Yeah, it might be like that one they brought out in the 1920s.' Another person felt compelled to tell me our sign for a film called 'Populaire' was spelt wrong, 'You need to get that checked.' Then, to my horror a member of staff described Behind the Candelabra to a customer as a film about someone called 'Lib-er-ace' like the ace of spades. Speaking of which, Ace of Spades totally gets shit done, like writing a blog entry... Not really, I keep getting distracted.

So Behind the Candelabra charts the love affair between Michael Douglas and Matt Damon - I never thought those two would be so compatible! Here's where it gets kind of awkward, Matt Damon plays for most of the film, a teenager, ouch, that is a stretch. Are we supposed to believe that Matt Damon is a teenager sleeping with a flamboyant pianist in the madness of the 70s? Well... It's odd, because my main issue with big actors is that their work precedes them and influences how I see them in each new role. Hence why Tom Cruise/Brad Pitt/Cloonster/Di Caprio et al, seem to have the unfortunate issue of their Hollywood personas bruising their acting roles. Don't get me wrong, they are all great actors, the best by some standards, but they have a lot of noise distorting the purity of their performances. So imagine my surprise when, not only did Matt Damon pull off the youthful role of Scott Thorson, but also, even with the horrifying facial prosthetics, managed to make me believe in the reality of the person. Also, regardless of the fact the man is clearly past the 40 benchmark, he still manages to look young and innocent, which is... Well intriguing more than anything, and his past performances don't detract from what is a jolly good crack at being a gay lover, sorry, bisexual lover of a man nearly three times his age, mistake!

Michael Douglas probably also needs a pat on the back, playing a big old queen with the gusto and exuberance that really just shines through, he looks like he's enjoying himself, and hey good for him, it shows, and it's impressive. I can't critique his performance, because there is such a knowingness and a vulnerability to him, an honesty, clearly this man has had a bizarre and incredibly unusual life going from his overbearing mother (played by Debbie Reynolds of all people!) having him play piano every day to insane superstardom, that would damage just about anyone and it's telling that the film plays out the usual gripes of the rich and famous but still manages to create something believably honest and almost touching. I do want to smack Liberace's over-surgically enhanced face several times in the film but to be honest if made me feel something. I was following the story, I felt invested in the love affair and felt genuinely saddened, elated, touched, all those feelings while watching. I don't usually feel much watching anything nowadays apart from slightly bored as I predict what's happening in front of me. Sure the story is a predictable one, relationships all go through a similar cycle, although this one had flourishes of drug addiction, plastic surgery and the fact that it's a biz called show. Everything decays and this follows suit with familiar beats but it doesn't stop it from hurting, even after how insanely emotionally attached the pair become.

The whole story is a one which is hard to believe if it weren't for the fact that for the most part it's true, there are arguments that Liberace didn't force Thorston to have plastic surgery to resemble a younger self, but the whole drugs and the purported adoption part seem to be true. These salient details all make it all the more intriguing, and darkly humorous - there is a lot of black humour in this film, that suited me just fine, I can sit and giggle away for hours at jokes that aren't particularly funny to the rest of the audience which consisted mostly of over 50s.

Behind the Candelabra does a lot of things, it juggles a biopic with some knowing humour, outrageous outfits and set pieces, with some frankly hilarious visuals. One thing I really have to point out is Rob Lowe. Godamnit man. I love you. I love you so much even with your face that way, every scene he is in just illicits laughs from the fact he literally can't move his face and people are just totally unphased. I could watch the whole damn thing again just to see Rob Lowe, in fact why aren't there more scenes with him in? Well that descended into me laughing at someone with overtly obvious plastic surgery... Why don't I just look at Joan Rivers more often?

I really can't describe this film in too much detail as I feel I have already let slip the most important aspects inadvertently... Will you like this film? (Are you there God? It's me, Nicola.)  Well, do you love big old gays having a gay old time? Do you like watching intensely overdependent relationships disintegrate before your very eyes? Sure you've seen it a thousand times before, but not like this. This is something else! Plus it's a really well made film, there are visual representations of Liberace's manner with his youthful lovers as we see at the start of the film and watch as Scott falls into such patterns. As Liberace tries to free himself but control Scott as he exerts himself, as they have domestics just like real people. It's just a fascinating insight if anything, all bolstered by the excellent acting of the main players.

Obviously as a footnote to this whole adoration for the in-depth look at the relationship between Liberace and his gay lover, I feel I must stress this, it's not so much a film about Liberace as it is a film about his relationship. An old couple were intrigued by it and asked me to describe it, I told them there were a few scenes with Liberace playing piano but to be honest the core of the film was a love story. The pair rolled their eyes and sighed and seemed suddenly disinterested in this possibility, they didn't want to know about Liberace's love affairs, as discrete as they were at the time and a legacy all by themselves. It's an insight into what was going on behind closed doors but... Well, let's just say I'm not sure big fans of Liberace would particularly find themselves particularly enamoured by the direction of the film. Just a feeling more than anything, as I described the plot to two older people who clearly had a taste for Liberace they didn't seem at all impressed by it even though I was very complimentary of the film. 'Oh no, we don't want to see gay sex.' For a film about Liberace's secret private life, gay sex is a no-no. Go figure.

It's really not that often I am genuinely surprised by a film and this was a spur of the moment decision that I just walked into out of curiosity rather than interest. I think I must be in an emotional agreeable state, because I felt incredibly strongly that I liked this film upon walking out of the screen. It's not often my immediate inclination is so strong or positive, usually I'll have found a loose thread to tug on as my dissatisfaction grows - expect this to happen with Man of Steel which I intend to see in the coming week. So yeah, unexpected but extremely enjoyable, seek it out, find out for yourself.