The Fall

So Doctor Who finished and another show I had a great interest in started up again, The Fall. It's a BBC Drama, their highest rated which finished it's first series 18 months ago to rapturous applause for all those who love their crime dramas sinister and dark with an intelligent edge. So I thought, why not write about the second series. The quality TV show I watched and loved many months ago is now disintegrating before my very eyes and these reviews will reveal my growing frustration.

Episode One

Episode Two

Episode Three

Doctor Who Series 8

I offered to help an old friend out by writing about Doctor Who for his website. He was going to, but I pulled his ear by convincing him I was a massive Doctor Who fan and had lots of interesting things to say. It started as a preview of what I thought would happen in the new series with the new Doctor, this then grew into weekly reviews. Anyways, that kind of fits my modus operandi round here, so I'll post the links on here for anyone who wants to see. It feels exciting though, someone other than myself posting my ramblings into the world wide web. The reviews are written over the weekend and posted on Wednesdays, I think. They were on the front page of the site for a while which was kind of exciting; that's worn off now but the episodes keep improving so I'm very much enjoying myself.

Preview for Season 8

Deep Breath

Into the Dalek

Robot of Sherwood

Listen

Time Heist 

I was off on my holidays during the week they showed The Caretaker so I did not get to review that episode. Gutted, because it was a good one too.

Kill the Moon

Mummy on the Orient Express

Flatline

In the Forest of the Night

Dark Water

Death in Heaven

Boyhood

I love this, I love it so much, I want to take it behind the middle school and get it pregnant. Oddly enough I will from this point it would seem I can only speak in clichés. I have also apparently stared at this screen two days since seeing the film and still can't construct anything coherent or worthwhile saying apart from endless platitudes about it's magnificence, that's dull, I'm trying to be more critical. Well, in saying critical, I will endeavour to at least define why I like this film, that's where I'll start I reckon.

The very core of Boyhood is that it's a film which took 12 years to make, Richard Linklater gathered up his team and actors when he could at one point for a couple of weeks each year and shot some scenes and then cobbled together this film, the premise being that of following a young boy from the age of 6 through to graduating at 18 and going to college. We essentially drop in on moments in his life and watch him grow and develop and become a young man which is... it's the most intimate experience I've had at a cinema in a while. Perhaps intimate isn't the right word, but with these snapshots into this kid's life you see him and learn about him and how his experiences have shaped him, it feels like you understand him, but as with any other human being, he still surprises you. I feel like I'm using the word intimate wrong but I can't think of anything other which would fit what I'm trying to say and using a thesaurus would feel cheap. Seeing a young boy grow into a man, watching him adjust to his hairstyles, his acne, his limbs stretching out, his voice changing, his behaviour and style grow and finding himself over the years, how is that not intimate?

What feels really magical about Boyhood is that it's essentially a time capsule, starting from 2001 and running through to 2013 - the film doesn't actually tell you when any of it is set but uses signifier like presidents, phones, certain cultural phenomena to keep you pegged into what time it is, but no one ever explicitly says when any of this is going on (obviously it doesn't really feed into natural conversation and that's not what the film was going for.) Anyway the first real indication of when we start the film would be older sister of the main character singing Britney Spears - Oops I did it Again, this is mirrored at a later point when another girl will be singing something from High School Musical in the future which was sweet. They also play tracks popular at the time to give you a feel of the time. Also the fashion is a bit of an indication - the whole gypsy peasant blouse his mum wears at the start was a thing at the turn of the millennium... Coming back to the film in the future it would basically stand as a kind of reminder of what this period was like, not just for the family involved but for everyone, it draws on nostalgia as much as anything else, kind of like a historical novel set in a time just gone by.

The film follows Mason Jr, a kid who by the grace of God actually turned out to be a very convincing actor, but then that could spark a debate of nature/nurture, having spent nearly all of his life acting in this film was it predestined that he would be a good actor or was it the time spent chronicling his existence which made him into a good actor? Could be either but I would guess at the latter to be perfectly honest. The film drew on the lead's experiences and his own growth as a driving force and you could say the character and the actor are inextricably linked, but of course the actor didn't have the same experiences as the character to define him. The film made me think so hard about all this stuff, and to be honest anything that makes my brain whir with activity like this is due my respect. Sticking with the acting, Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette play the kid's parents. Ms Arquette has definitely grown as an actor over the years and by the end of the film she is yanking at my heartstrings and stamping them on the floor, I was so deeply affected by her performance in those later years (early on it's pretty rough going...).

I really can't express how different an experience this film is. What we learn about the main character is subtly expressed, and then as he grows before our eyes and becomes more aware he articulates how his experiences have shaped him, and we know because we've seen them happen, it's just wonderful and rewarding for me at least.

At this point I would just highly recommend and it and tell anyone to see it because it's a worthwhile experience and I loved it.

Method

I have an issue. I keep trying to write scenes in my novel. But I can't actually write a scene in the correct order it would seem. I start with a sketching of an idea, an image, a statement, an outline, then I start to colour in what happened before and what will happen in the future all colouring and detailing the initial image. It's a dreadful habit for me to write like because I despise when a tv show or a book immediately loses me because they are too caught up in their own indelible images, I prefer things unfolding around me gradually and my own mind assisting with the shading and details of the scene as they occur. I just can't seem to write a scene from the beginning to the end in one go. It has to be a slap in the face first then darting back and forth until everything makes sense, in my head and on the page, it's like a painting that gradually builds up with more texture as it goes... I can't keep writing like this, it just doesn't make sense, I'm close to giving up entirely at this point. If I restructure anything I just delete massive tracts of it until it no longer makes sense and that first striking image is forever extinguished. This is what I get for over-thinking things.

X Men - Days of Future Past

I think that's the title, I can't be sure... The more I think about the film the less I want to think about it, does this make sense? This movie didn't make much sense... But what was oddly thrilling was that it didn't feel the need to really explain itself too much, sure there was plenty of expository dialogue but there was a whole mess of things the film expected you to keep up with and be aware of. In many ways I admired this film mostly because of the way it blatantly just went about with it's business and didn't stop to allow you much time to really think, because to be honest, it was so damn entertaining. If I stop now and think about the plot holes, the missed explanations, of which there are many, it may irritate me slightly... But for the most part I enjoyed what was happening on the screen so much I didn't care about the leaps in logic, the glossing over and such. Does that make it a good film? I can't really say, the fact I'm willing to say I enjoyed it even though I usually pick at the details until the whole film unravels and loses it's appeal over time is quite telling.

Stand out parts of the film are the way it utilises it's actors, the characters get some short shrift (Ian McKellen for instance does painfully little) but with what they get, it feels like for the ones that count, they get their moments. The core three from the past, Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy and Jennifer Lawrence, all great actors, get their moments to flex their acting muscles, Fassbender as ever proving he can be intense and menacing without breaking a sweat but also perpetually charming. Then there's the core three of the veterans, McKellen, Stewart and Hugh Jackman, all providing a backbone and some gravitas to proceedings, all the rest are just add colour, some get more than others Nicholas Hoult for instance gets to play Hank McCoy but still have such a slight role, then Halle Berry literally does so little it's embarrassing, Ellen Page turns up too as one of my favourite mutants with her expanding (yet unexplained) powers, and hints at a Shadowcat/Colossus union are stoked ever so slightly, the fact that they are on screen together pleases me.

Not even mentioning the bit part Quicksilver plays in the film, turning up, stealing the show and essentially disappearing. Now for some complex manouvering which will never make sense to me, Aaron Taylor-Johnson will be playing this character in Avengers 2 with his Godzilla wifey Elizabeth Olsen as Scarlet Witch, for some reason I was more excited about seeing the latter's portrayal; with zero expectations I was thoroughly entertained by Evan Peter's performance, as with most of the film, but that kid got some of the loudest laughs in the cinema and had one of the best scenes, rearranging some bullets to hilarious effect. Maybe Mr Johnson will surprise me but after the charisma he brought to Godzilla - an entirely different tone I'll grant, also he'll have a totally different characterisation of course, but at this moment there was a light fun energy to Quicksilver that I don't think can be matched. Basically Aaron has a tough act to follow, no lies, they were inviting comparisons when they both used the same character.

Getting to the film, as I say, the more I write, the more I think about it, the less sense the film made and the more angry I get about the continuity but that's not what the film was about it. It was consistently entertaining and did the whole, let's reset all those past mistakes with a big eraser, rather than just rebooting the whole damn franchise. I admire that, and I also respect that they wished to at least to maintain some semblance of a history as time goes on. Messing with the continuity makes things a bit muddy, but it's satisfying to know as they build this tapestry of films, it's all connected somehow and it feels more organic and more of a franchise than the Marvel Universe that is being built. This has been going on 15 years and it still feels exciting and fun and we are still with the same, core bunch of characters having the same battles, but it's still feeling fresh and entertaining without drastically changing the tone or the message of the series, plus it respects it's audience enough for them to not have to explain itself. I like that, and I'm genuinely surprised by how much I liked this film.

Godzilla

If the Halo jump had been the entire film, it would have been the best film I'd ever seen, hands down. As it stands, it was a good film, but the theatrical trailer has outdone it in mood and atmosphere, the two hour film doesn't quite sustain the sheer thrill and exhilaration on that initial viewing of the two minute trailer with Strathairn narrating and the gradual reveal of the beast. How can you genuinely expect to top that? It would appear you can't. What makes the whole thing sore is that the sequence is obviously included in the film but it just didn't have that same impact, perhaps because I'd already seen it a whole bunch of times, perhaps because Strathairn didn't do his voice-over (I hate voice-overs anyway but it felt lacking suddenly...) but also, it just felt slightly out of place. That's my complaint about this movie, the trailer was incredible, the rest was, ok. I could pick at it for a long while.

I admire this film for various reasons and they are particularly good reasons. For instance, it is predominantly set from a human perspective, in fact it just piles on the human impact of the film, it's relentless in trying to make us feel like we're living this film. What kind of fails is the fact that the characters (aside from Bryan Cranston who I'll get to later) are all so slight and hard to care about. They tried to make us care, they gave us such easy people to root for, but they didn't feel like people, just ciphers there to be dropped in on to remind us that there are people about. Other films have done this terribly and Godzilla for it's merits has a good go at making the core set sympathetic, but for such an amazing pedigree of actors, Sally Hawkins, David Strathairn, Ken Wantanabe, Elizabeth Olsen etc, they aren't particularly memorable or noteworthy but they work with what they're given. This is excluding Aaron Johnson who I really want to like (he was great in Kickass...) but is completely stoic throughout the film, call it PTSD, military training, but he is a complete wall with an unchanging expression throughout, he's damn hard to care about, it's actually embarrassing sometimes... Then there's Cranston who genuinely steals every scene he is in, he pours himself into his character and just proves to anyone watching he is a beyond excellent actor, the man chews the scenery like no one's business but he is unmistakeably in an upper stratosphere when it comes to acting.

Going back to the human perspective, not enough films of this ilk actually make us feel like we are part of the action, like there are human lives at stake.All the big set pieces do their utmost to give us the impression that this could be happening in a world not unlike ours. I really admired that about the film, that spent so much time and effort obscuring the beasts in order to add to the confusion and fear. It's clever and not oft done, if we wanted to see giant things punching each other we'd watch a different movie (Pacific Rim because it's awesome...)

There is also a respect for the history of Godzilla and a wide, global scope, as the film stretches across the Pacific spreading the threat and the action. It seems to have a deep respect and understanding of what the original 1954 movie was trying to say, Godzilla at the time being a metaphor for the nuclear threat that loomed over the world after the affects of the atomic bombs being dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It briefly reflects on that, even going as far as having Wantanabe referencing his father, and having the same name as the protagonist from the original. Obviously the film doesn't play up the currently global anxieties of nuclear warfare as they aren't as predominant but I appreciated the respect the film paid to it's own history.

What is worrying is that I was thinking all this during the film; a bad sign I felt as time wore on. The film is neatly structured with the bulk of the monster action taking place in the last half and, as ever, focussing less on the monsters grappling, and more on how people were reacting to it. Godzilla, damn, he was impressive, a labour of love if I ever saw one, he looks truly magnificent, I've gone back and forth on how I felt about the MUTOs, I couldn't determine if they were lame or impressive, I was cycling back and forth, obviously we're rooting for Godzilla and I cared more for him than anyone else in the film, but those two big fellow chaps just weren't as impressive; the fights were, what we saw of them, fun for the brief punches and grapples we were entitled to see.

So there you have it, a film I was genuinely excited to see, that had so much potential and promise summed up in a trailer that gave me literal goosebumps; in the end it just didn't quite cut the mustard, it was a good film, a different film, technically interesting, but as far as balls out entertaining or memorable goes, I can't say it was.

Frank

So here's a new film which is very much worth seeing for many reasons, it's an odd mish-mash but it provides some food for thought and thoroughly entertaining. For one it uses the influence of Frank Sidebottom, a character of popularity during the 80s, my knowledge of him is brief but it was essentially a mancunian man with a plastic head who played keyboard terribly and sang awkwardly and became a cult figure. This film may be called Frank and it may have his recognisable guise as the central figure but this is not a film about Frank Sidebottom, it's a film about a different Frank, a different time and a different person under the plastic head (spoiler, it's Michael Fassbender.) This is important to note going into the film, it may seem like a fun film, with a weird chap making weird music with his buds and acting crazy, it might sound like a comedy but it's not as simple as that, it's more. It's a meditation on talent, media, mental illness, it's derives some humour from that but it's film with an extremely sad and melancholy core. I loved this film.

Some parts, if I were being picky were a bit irksome, it's hard to paint a picture of mental health very delicately on film, but broad strokes are difficult to define such complex issues so the film gives us outlines of these people and their issues but does not strain itself trying to fill in all the minor details. I understand this is a difficult thing to achieve in a film of such a short running time and there is much more going on, the action of the film. A meditation on mental health is not something that would slot neatly into any film, it's there for humour and pathos and drives the film but it all just feels superficial but I won't complain too much. The film is good on so many other levels.

I can't believe I've gotten so far without mentioning the best part of the film, the thing that holds everything together. Domhnall Gleeson, the shining beacon which made About Time not only watchable but on occasion downright delightful, sure he has the beautiful Rachel McAdams standing next to him but it was his film and he was brilliant. He also had a couple of other parts such as Levin (the best character obv) in Joe Wright's Anna Karenina and a bit part in the last Harry Potter Film (which I didn't bother seeing...) but most importantly he piqued my interest starring opposite Hayley Atwell in a heart breaking Black Mirror episode (Be Right Back) and absolutely nailed it. Therefore he has my utmost regard and interest - him along with Dane DeHaan are my ones to watch if anyone gives a shit, obviously I will follow Fassbender to the ends of the earth... He is essentially fronting this film, it's more his film than anyone else's and sure being the straight guy, eyes of the audience, main character, is a tough role to play because to cap it off, not going to lie, the guy is a total dick, but Gleeson has a charm about him that kind of makes his wet blanket loser relate-able. Ok, perhaps I'm being harsh on the guy, to be honest, he's just a normal idiot with no discernible talents but a desire to more than he is. It's a tough one.

Lots of people just coast through life without actually knowing or fulfilling their potential, sure we could all say we want to be famous and recognised and admired for our passions but life never usually works out that way. What the crazy people in this film seem to grasp is that life isn't about the fame and admiration, it's about doing what you love and doing it how you want to do it without pandering to anyone else. It's a human anathema that we wish to be liked, I don't give a shit if you disagree with me, it's the truth, everyone deep down wants to be loved, or liked, that's why we have family, friends, and in this day and age, Facebook, come on, even the word 'like' has become synonymous with some kind of achievement, because being liked is more important than ever in this day and age, not only is it built into our subconscious, now it's built into our society. Frank the film is essentially pointing at media of the modern age and music and talent and smushing them together to make some kind of statement, it's a sad one.

What I've learnt from this film is, talent is something you just have, if you don't have it, you either have to work really hard or you try something else, everything else, until you find something you can do and that you're good at and that makes you happy. And hey if you're not talented but something makes you happy, you just keep plugging away at it - just don't expect any awards. It's a fine line. Being good at something and enjoying something don't have to necessarily be the same thing. If you're bad at something (say for instance, critiquing films on a blog) but you enjoy doing it, just keep doing it, and don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks.

Then there's the media thing which basically, this film just makes out to be generally a bit of a hollow lie for the most part but also has it's uses, which is kind of true. Views on a youtube page don't equate to much, followers on your twitter feed don't mean shit, life is happening around you and it's much more fun than quantifying your popularity on social media! (I say this because if it's not obvious, I have no real presence on social media...) It has it's uses and it comes in handy in the latter half of the film but for the most part, as with everything, take in moderation kids!

As always I've dove straight into the boring stuff, you want to know if the film is actually any good; it is, I loved it. The humour is straight up black served in a line of shots, it can get deliriously awkward but it works for the tone of the film which is about damaged people through the perspective of something who is so straight up normal and boring the clash continues to pay dividends (stocks and shares speak, oh yeah!)

I could go on for ages about this film, I won't bore you though. I loved it and I didn't even mention how Michael Fassbender is essentially a walking Adonis even with a fibre glass head. Also boy can he sing... Maybe I was enticed too much by the film but I thought his music was fucking great, I would listen to that album! Fassbender has the ability to look like a world of sorrow is crushing him, he can pull that face off like no one's business, he can just look like sorrow personified and it's amazing, I almost feel like applauding and yell ACTING (in appreciation not mockery) whenever he does (he deserves all the awards.) But this might be one of my favourite roles of his predominantly because he is actually amazingly good at acting with a big round head on top of his head. I will stop now though. This film is great. Go see it. Now.

Under the Skin

I have so much I really want to say about this film but I'm also concious that I really don't want to spoil the impact of watching it would have on someone. I doubt a title has ever been so apt for a film as I genuinely can't get it out my head, it's literally one of the most mind-bogglingly amazing films I've ever seen. I highly doubted cinema could shock me any more but I stand firmly corrected.

What makes this film so beyond any expectation is just how confident and aloof it presents itself, much like it's protagonist. It's has elements of serious sci-fi to it but then a lot of it is shot in real life Glasgow almost candidly with real life members of the public making up the majority of the faces in the film. It has reality to it which is so familiar but then it plunges us into horrifying yet visually mesmerising unknown. I am genuinely beyond impressed by the presentation of the film. Even the candid scenes with members of the public have a filmic quality to them, it seems like a cheap film to have made but everything feels and looks much more, the music and sound effects enhance it all, sure the soundtrack may come off a bit heavy on the retro sci-fi sounds but it all works so well.

I am anxious to go into detail about this but I'll start with the most magnetic element. Scarlett Johansson, her performance has been cited as iconic, I think that pretty much sums it up. If you go in knowing the basic premise of the film like I did, I think it might have lost some of it's sheen but knowing and understanding where this character is coming from feels important. Scarlett is trussed up in a black wig, cheap fur and red lipstick, she still manages to look otherworldly attractive with a core aspect of this film, she is meant to appear this way even in her tacky ensemble, she still looks devastatingly attractive. This beauty combined with the candid shots of her driving around Glasgow in a white van asking men for directions gives the film a strange anchor in reality.

I really feel somewhat protective of this film, like I don't want to ruin it's alluring mystique... An aspect I adored, was the fact the film has zero exposition, it never stops to explain why and yet it covers all the burning questions I have in my mind. This is all hinged upon Scarlett's performance which is, as I've mentioned greatly helped by her alien-like beauty, but also her ability to convey emotions without even the capability of expressing herself, learning as she goes. She is simply magnetic.

It's probably worth saying now, the core plot of the film, obviously look away if you want to enter the film with zero knowledge of the plot.

The plot of the film is that Scarlett is an alien, as far as I can tell, she seduces men, whilst driving around Glasgow in her white van, and takes them to be essentially farmed for their meat. At a certain point in the film (a heartbreaking part among several...) she breaks away from her role and tries to discover her humanity, if she has any. This is all set in Scotland, which is experiencing it's own identity crisis at the minute which the film light touches on by having a brief radio report mention the referendum taking place this year, I thought it was a nice touch. The film shows us the realities and beauty of modern Scotland, it feels so much like my back-yard it's unnerving... Then Scarlett has a guy on a motorcycle who I'm assuming is her guard/watcher who's purpose is to bring her to being and make sure her job is done properly and unimpeded. There's so much that is left unsaid but it feels like a completely coherent and chilling. There were points in the film where I genuinely was scared, I don't get that nowadays. Funnily enough the film was based on a book written by a 14 year old boy, when it's based it seems so loose because from what I heard of the book I doubt it could ever match the visceral intensity of this film.

This film is simply amazing, iconic, unforgettable.

Philomena

Oh man this was a strange one, it's the most middle-class film I've seen in the longest time but it stirred some strange emotions within me, worryingly not all of them were good, not in a, 'Oh that's sad.' sensation as I do like that, but it was more indignant, anger, it kind of curdled what was a pleasant film.

First and first most, I have endless respect for Steve Coogan, I think he's an excellent talented man and I love this film for many reasons, but there are some aspects I understand that were emphasised for dramatic purposes; it's based off the real life story of Philomena Lee and her search for her son with the help of Henry Sixsmith. I get it, lord do I get the importance of making a movie of real life more enthralling than the rigours of reality, the joy of Philomena is that it does quite wonderfully with broad strokes even if some of them feel a little bit cheap.

I highly doubt anyone else in the whole world could have brought as much warmth and joy to a character as Judi Dench, the film essentially hinges on her being wholly sympathetic and she manages it so well even whilst she is clearly grappling with some difficult emotions. But hell, you can't just go about giving Judi Dench all the awards all the time, it just wouldn't be fair on anyone else. In my head though I just kept thinking of her most recent high profile role, M in the James Bond series, it was boggling my mind, 'It's the same woman!' That badass who wouldn't take non of Bond's shit is now reciting the plot to what I can only assume is the latest Mills & Boon, I can't say I wouldn't love to listen to her doing that all day, it's strangely pleasant, plus she sounds so thrilled by the formulaic twists. Now some would say that they are simply using Philomena's naivete at her expense but I think it was just a neat way of depicting how she still finds joy in the world even at her age, and it's there to be a stark comparison to Sixsmith who is essentially a dick-head throughout most of the film with flashes of humanity; I'll let him off, after all he is the catalyst for all this. Speaking of which, it's probably unpopular opinion but this is my favourite of Coogan's performances in a long time (yup that includes Alan Partride) mostly because he manages to make me feel sympathetic for his character, only slightly but it's there, he has good intentions, he just has a few bad habits which middle-aged upper middle class British men seem to all have imbued within them - this doesn't make him a stereotype, it makes him familiar. Plus the film makes a great attempt at putting the two at odds with eachother teasing the best out of them and acknowledging their wholly human frailties. It's a lovely character piece to say the least and it moves along at a healthy clip managing to be both time efficient and heart warming, what more could you want?

Where the film inevitably falls down is it's handling of religion. Oh yes, that hot topic, the one that most people as far I'm aware, in our civilised clued up land of post-modernity, acknowledge as archaic and unimportant in the world, the vestige of a world of thought long extinct. Yet of course religion is the driving force behind some of the worst sins in this world, the hypocrisy of the Catholic church and it's clergy, the assumption that Muslims are all suicide bombers, fanatics who use the Qu'ran to legitimise their violence, the use of the Christian Bibles to prevent women from civil rights such as abortion and birth control,  people thanking God for their good fortune and blaming the same power for destruction and pain in this world. Atheism is as much a religion as anything else if you are to believe Dawkins and his ilk. Most people day to day that I spend my time with disregard religion, it's something that's not spoken of, just derided above all. It's probably indecent of me to even mention this, but my belief or search for God is a long story, not particularly exciting or unique. As with most people, when all hope is lost, I turned to religion to try and fill a hole in my life that had been there since being educated in a Roman Catholic environment, I was indoctrinated from a young age. I know my New Testament, I know the hymns and believe me when I say this, there is a feeling unparalleled when singing along to words written by long dead believers citing historical fables as the key to salvation, it has a kind of fervour to it but it feels like it's mining a seam of something deeper, some feeling that is often forgotten, spirituality.

Oh, I sound all hokey, next I'll believe in homoeopathy and witchcraft. Nope, I'm a rational human being I like to think, I don't disregard science, I accept it and the necessities of evil in this world along with all that happens by chance, particles randomly ramming into each other etc. In my mind the Bible can be summed up in a simple statement, in fact all of the core religions in this world, the big six, have one unifying rule I believe we should all follow, the golden rule: 'Do unto others as you have them do unto you.' If people just did that and ignored the rest, well I reckon the world would be much easier, and that's a rule religion has long since the dawn of time championed, among other more specific stuff at the time they were written... But many scholars over the years have spent years reading and writing and thinking and writing and reading and meditating on biblical texts and have written reams on the core meaning of it all, and that's what a lot of them decided upon. Here's where I stand on my soap box and declare something even more inappropriate, I think there is a God, at least in some way. I stand by the belief that may seem quite atheistic but it nonetheless accurate, 'God made man and man made God.' That was a necessity in the past, people were plugging gaps in their knowledge, creating myths to follow to give reason to a world of chaos, making rituals to follow to maintain order. I think deep down, all humans, whether it's biological or evolution, have something inside them, something that's not necessarily seen with the eye, as much as they have the ability to acknowledge their existence, their propensity to live and die, they also have the ability to question the existence of a soul, deep deep down there is something inside them that makes them believe in the possibility of the divine. Is this even making sense? I'm not saying everyone is born deep down with a religious fervour, although it could be that, it could be the willingness to believe in the unknown, to feel something more is out there. I'll grant a lot of us have the knowledge that we are mounds of dust on a rock hanging in endless ether, not that most people let that bother them, some might not have a deep down spiritual sensation, perhaps that too is becoming extinct, perhaps it'll be bred out of us as less and less of us believe, or maybe young children are forced to believe from a young age and know no better (I'm aware that's the most likely option)... But I think that ability to believe in God, in the unknown, the breast beating sensation I experience when singing hymns and look at high vaulted ceilings and stained glass windows, I think that in itself is God. Sure that doesn't sound very convincing, a quirk of the brain, an unsubstantiated belief in the divine, or something implanted into our subconscious from a young age, that's God? That's just stupid. Well you never asked for my opinion, and I never asked for you to read it, it just is what it is; another one of those things in this world that exists, my belief in something somewhere in this world that is more than a sum of it's parts. It means something to me. I spent years looking for an answer trying to puzzle out that sensation of God and maybe that's my wound to cauterise but it's something I will most likely never stop searching for or at least believing in on some level, a mostly hidden unspoken of belief.

Which brings me to Philomena's somewhat guileless handling of the nunnery Philomena's son was taken from. I don't know the whole story so I don't pretend to know what it was that happened but the way the story pretty much flat out depicted the nuns as straight up 'evil' just seemed really unnecessary. I understand the film is poking fun at the fact that a story, a good one that grabs people's interest at least, has good and evil. The film needs a villain and it finds that in the Catholic church, big surprise; it was horrific what they did but sometimes in life, things just happen, life just trundles along and there are no reasons or explanations, life is just cruel like that. It works thematically for the film to have Philomena and Sixsmith to have their big emotional moment with something to put them at odds and present a comparison of their characters, it couldn't just be life being it usual intransigent self... I just didn't like the way they handled the nuns.

So after my big rambling intercourse on my own feelings behind God and the divine, what have I taken from this movie apart from my soap box? Uhmmm. I really liked how truly unparalleled Judi Dench is an actress and how Steve Coogan continues to impress me in his less comedic roles. Also the writing was good and it worked it just didn't need evil nuns, it could have done anything but had evil nuns; it's too easy to have evil religious types in this day and age, think outside the box chaps. It essentially ruined what could have been a heart warming interesting 'human interest' tale.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Wes Anderson films always provide me with an unparalleled sense of joy. Not just because they are meticulously crafted, visually stunning, heart-warming and quirky, but because without a doubt they are always damn good films. I know I was late to see Moonrise Kingdom and for my sins that was rectified by multiple viewings... But I have to say, out of Anderson's work The Grand Budapest Hotel seems to have eked out all that have come before it just by being flat out dazzling the time round. Rushmore is my favourite Anderson film (mostly because Bill Murray is pretty much perfect in it I could write essays about why) but that took a long time to appreciate, multiple viewings to truly understand the depth and attention to detail imbued within the film. Where the underlying aspects of TGBH might take more viewings, at this moment, for sheer entertainment, it is joyful.

I doubt Anderson has ever been so outright funny, which is tempered by the melancholy of the fact the core story is set in the past and the outcome is presented to us from the very start. A Wes Anderson film is never just one thing, I could describe it as a caper, but it could also be a mystery (although it's kind of obvious who has done what...) it could also be the closest Wes Anderson may ever get to a 'thriller', it's ostensibly a comedy but it's so many things all rolled into one with homages I probably couldn't even begin to recognise because as is usual, they are all so elegant.

If we were to stand by the assumption the film is first and foremost a comedy then most of the humour comes from Ralph Fiennes unbelievably outstanding performance as M. Gustave, essentially the main and most important character. As an actor his most famous roles are Voldemort, Amon Goeth and M in the latest Bond film as well as his Shakespeare roles for which he has earned heaps of praise. Why has this man not done more comedy? He is sublime in this role, it works so well for him? Sure I spent half the film laughing every time he said 'fuck' or any other swear word, or mentioned his sexual exploits or basically said anything, even his poetry is deliciously demented; I'll grant the film may almost over-abuse the hilarity of having Ralph Fiennes breaking his upper-crust exterior and swearing like a posh sailor a little too often but it just works so delightfully well and it just never gets old.

I wouldn't want to go into how much I love this film through fear of basically recounting every scene, and I must stress every single shot of this film is beautifully thought out and symmetrical, and perfect to observe. Every colour, every second has had so much thought and care lavished upon it and it's just so lovely to watch.

There is a distinct lack of innocence in the film and it's the most overtly sexual/violent of Anderson's work which makes it all the more shocking and unpredictable as events spiral out of control. There is murder, intrigue, a slew of familiar faces turning up - all of the usual suspects from Anderson's world, but also a few new faces who fit seamlessly into this universe, such as the young Zero, Gustave's protege and the beating heart of the story, special shout out to Lea Seydoux as the anxious French maid with a mincing little run, I hope she turns up again in a bigger role, she seems to be a perfect fit in Anderson's world. Then there is also the prison break (which was ridiculously elaborate and hilarious throughout) which was incredibly brilliant, not least because the brains behind the operation was a particularly intimidating inmate who was also a master artist who drew a perfect map but his prison tattoos (which covered his bare chest) looked like they'd been doodled by a thirteen year old girl; I don't know why but it's small unspoken flourishes like that which make Wes Anderson's world that much more fun to be in than reality... Whether the characters are breaking into poetry or insulting one another or stating the most dubious things or just flirting, it's all just so delightful.

With The Grand Budapest Hotel, if you can't find humour, warmth, excitement or a familiar melancholy, then you clearly aren't looking hard enough. This is film as is as close to perfection any form of entertainment could ever be; it transports you to a fictional beautiful world that is so like our own but just so much better, you won't ever want to leave.

Her

Disappointed. I can't even begin to describe the depths of such a let down like this but I figured I may as well try, who knows, it could be therapeutic in some way.

Getting the obvious out of the way, Being John Malkovich is one of the greatest films ever made, because it's so deliciously insane but so effortlessly done it is essentially cinematic perfection. Spike Jonze, without the pen of Charlie Kaufman (who is my favourite in the world.) guiding you things just don't seem to work as well. Where the Wild Things are was a beautiful film but it wasn't perfect, it took a simplistic children's tale and added layers to it (some would say were unnecessary) but I'm more than willing to let it off for being ambitious and wider in it's scope, I think it worked adequately, it just wasn't mind-blowing.

Turning the tables Her is the opposite of Jonze's last endeavour, this time around it's a complicated idea with a much wider scope, it doesn't have the same structure, the same train tracks guiding things along, like an excellent screenplay or a book. The idea was borne from Jonze interest in creating a love story around the ever growing and present Artificial Intelligence, in short, 'Let's fall in love with Siri.' It's a simple idea but it ruminates on the realities of relationships and the feelings of love and inevitable decline. I think they were shooting for bittersweet but somewhat missed the mark.

The essential thing that anchors a love story is the two people involved, learning about them, getting an idea of what makes them tick, why they belong together, what makes them good, their weaknesses, how this could come between them, how they would overcome this; you know really exploring what makes a relationship between two people work, so you know we can invest in them and believe in them.

Her feels like a failure for completely failing on every level to make me sympathise with the main character. Olivia Wilde pops up for five minutes and declares he's really creepy, from that moment onwards I couldn't get that out of my head, he actually is genuinely creepy. I would say I try my hardest not to judge people, and I was willing to let this whole 'falling in love with my computer' thing not completely throw me off, if they could convince me it could work then I would be impressed! But they just didn't.

The thing that drives me insane about hearing about love is how selfish people are when it comes to finding that special person they wish to spend their life with. 'I want this, I want that, my perfect person has to be this that... They are great but they just aren't perfect. The spark isn't there!' Why do people do this to each other? Whittle each other down, demanding those fireworks, demanding each other be the ideal version of who they want them to be. If love at first sight is falling in love with the way someone looks alone, do you see what you want in someone and then spend the time you have with them trying to manifest that image of them you first saw? Are you simply trying to make something out of someone that doesn't exist? Most importantly, why... why... are people so adamant that no one is good enough for them. Everyone has their fears, their faults, they anxieties, issues, baggage so to speak, and yet if you're with someone don't you have to share all that including the great stuff? I know, I know it's easier said than done but still, it's part and parcel of life.

This brings me to Joaquin Phoenix's character once again. A guy who manufactures other people's feelings because people just get to the point in the future where they don't even bother trying to express themselves any more and get some sad sack in chinos with a moustache to do it for them. The irony of course is that this guy, with all his eloquent expression can't even fathom how he feels. The guy is just a mess, and coincidentally there are alarmingly few redeeming qualities that I can parse out of his character. Why does he fall in love with his computer? Because she's free of human weakness, no issues, no past, no problems, just a funny, warm, witty, and interesting sexily voiced lady (Scarlett Johansson essentially knocking it out of the park) and this damp squib of a human being manages to drag her into the mire with his human weakness. Silly humans, they are given something pure and they mess it up with their personalities.

The film brims with Jonze's typical visual flair, it's set in a world where everyone dresses out of the Uniqlo catalogue and walk around in world dipped in a bright cream/beige hue. The music is particularly low key and it's got Arcade Fire and Karen O; it's so pretty and laid back and by far the coolest soundtrack I've heard in a while. Special shout out for Owen Pallet nominated for an Oscar for his Original Score who presided over the music in the film, I have his Final Fantasy albums on my computer (I accidentally downloaded an album called He Poos Clouds one day, it was pretty good and my musical education began) and to be honest, I think the soundtrack is lovely. But a good soundtrack, a good does not make. All style and no substance is an error in my eyes.

It's a shame too because Her tries it's best to grapple with the future of how we interact with each other, how we perceive love and how it could grow. It asks big questions and explores a world that we should be really intrigued in. It just doesn't have the skill to pull all these big ideas in any particularly convincing way. What should feel authentic and real, instead feels manufactured and limp, and it's a shame because I've never wanted something to work more.

What is this film trying to do? Well, I think it's trying to answer a simple question. What is love? It's having someone there to catch you when you fall, and that's hard if they don't have arms.

Oscars 2014

I do this every year, expect on some mystical level that the Oscars might mean something... something more than a commercial gathering of film makers essentially lauding the types of films that mostly created for the sole purpose of plaudits. Don't tell me they aren't, it's not about the best films of the year, it's about the most shrewdly marketed and the correct people with the correct positioning. Of course I'm not a complete cynic as I continue to partake religiously in watching the award nominated films and usually they are pretty good!  But I just wish the Academy would surprise me with their choices sometimes... It's all so predictable! So in light of that, here we go:

Best Actor
So, blatantly obvious but Matthew McConaughey is going to moonwalk that one. Lost a load of weight, played someone with a terminal illness in a true life story about redemption? All those boxes are ticked and accounted for - insta-win, and as it stands it's been working pretty well for him so far scooping most of the big awards. I know he deserves it, MM has been gradually building up a portfolio of 'serious' more 'difficult' roles making him a 'real' actor, all I can say at this point is it's his to lose.

Chiwetel Ejiofor on the other hand scooped the BAFTA so perhaps that might tick the odds in his favour, I highly doubt it though. Ejiofor's performance was soulful and heartbreaking but wasn't nearly bombastic enough to garner more votes.

What really hurts is the lack of attention James McAvoy has received for what I do declare, was the best male performance of the year in Filth. The fact that he hasn't picked up more plaudits genuinely astounds me, even the BAFTAs completely snubbed him. Absolute travesty.

Best Actress
Cate Blanchett, without a doubt.

Sorely inexplicably overlooked, Julie Delply. How could that woman not being showered with praise and glory for Before Midnight and why in the hell has that film not been nominated for every award going?

Supporting Actor
Jared Leto starring alongside McConaughey as a HIV transgender lady. Well that would do it...

I know I probably say this every year but Michael Fassbender is in spitting distance of the Oscar he so desperately deserves, if wasn't for Shame it had to be for his conflicted powerful disturbing portrayal of a plantation owner in 12 Years a Slave. It's easy to play the evil characters they say, but how about playing them as wrecked human shells? How about playing someone who blatantly goes against what we in modern society would call right and justifying it through the power of ACTING. Fassbender is the only man I will shout 'ACTING' at and truly mean it, because I don't think there are many who are better than him.

Supporting Actress
It's probably an unpopular opinion but I really want Sally Hawkins to get this (no chance whatsoever...) because she was simply wonderful standing toe to toe with Cate Blanchett. Obviously this is a two horse race between Lupita N'yongo, a lady who's name I see in print so often now I've memorised it, she is humble and witty and incredibly sweet and her performance is truly heartbreaking in 12 Years a Slave, every cry she emits was torture for me... But then Jennifer Lawrence was charisma through and through playing the bored psychotic housewife in American Hustle, clearly she was having the time of her life being ridiculous over the top insane, it suited her so well, plus her rendition of Live and Let Die with the marigolds was worth the ticket price alone...

Damn it's a tough category...

Best Director

Alfonso Cuaron. I wouldn't dare argue with that undeniable fact.

Best Film
Inevitably it'll go to Gravity for giving me the most bizarre sense of sea-sickness in a cinema, or at least the closest you can get to it whilst floating in space. At the time I wasn't wildly impressed with the story-telling devices that were used to frame the beautiful panoramic tracking shots of space and to best honest that hasn't changed. It was innovative in it's visuals but the things I see a film for was not really all there with Gravity, I passionately love films that evoke a strong emotional response, hence most of my blogs are about how I personally feel about films... Gravity was a shrug and a shower and gone. 12 Years a Slave was also... Not as powerful as I had anticipated and left me cold in a way I did not expect.

So. My best film, because it's in the category and I simply adored it will be Nebraska. But! If we were picking films that were not nominated and sorely overlooked my best film of last year without a doubt was Before Midnight.

Nebraska

I had a bumper special of Oscar-bait viewing today, I watched Her and Nebraska, out of the two, unsurprisingly for my delectation for sobbing over the ageing population meant that the latter had the deeper affect on me. We've probably been over this before, but there is a litany of things that make me cry in this world, ranging from emotional trauma to a slight breeze on my face, I just seem to have an over-active set of tear-ducts. I made my peace with my penchant for sobbing long ago. There are few films on this planet that make me cry like a baby, obviously Titanic but that was because everyone else was and it the shot of the old couple lying on their together as the room filled with water that truly set me off without fail.

I could say that it was most likely my grandmother's habit of sitting down me on the couch when I stayed over and describing her funeral to me, what jewellery she would be leaving for me, how it's inevitable that she would die, it got to a point where I was terrified of her dying at any given moment, she was frail and indescribably sad, something which was odd for me as a child because she never explicitly said it but I could feel it and I couldn't understand what would make her feel better. Then there was the fact I grew into an ignorant teenager and saw less and less of her and felt guilt and shame when she passed away for not making my unwavering love and affection for her more known. Old people always me feel so sad; not so much because of their proximity to death, although that definitely hurts, it's because they have lived for so long, gathered so much experience and memories, and then they begin to lose everything. I feel like I'm generalising but with the older, more wrinkled generation, they are largely overlooked, forgotten, they gradually lose their functions, things aren't as easy as they used to be, people don't notice them, don't care about them, ignore them, they are no longer important. I just hate that along with your ability to hear, walk and remember, you lose the respect of others, perhaps not in the most obvious of ways but younger people look at you and say 'Awww, look at the little old dear.' This little old dear has more life experience in her thumb than you have in your whole body, don't talk down to her!

Nebraska is a film about a man who has sunk into old age and is grappling with the prospect of his demise by clinging to some bizarre belief that he has won one million dollars. Straight off the bat, it's clearly a scam, but his belief and his unwavering desire to obtain his winnings make the core of the film. As the film unfurls around you, you find, he's either forgotten or he never really cared about much to start with, it would seem odd that he was so obsessed with getting this money; particularly as his main concerns are simply buying a new truck and an air condenser (no idea....) As it goes the whole film is about his journey to get the money which means stopping off at his home town after a minor accident to recuperate and see his past paraded in front of him and everyone wanting a piece of his non-existent winnings.

The film itself is anchored by Will Forte (who is simply wonderful) playing the part of doting son who can't really say no to his old dad,  and Bruce Dern anchoring the film as Woody, an ageing man who's 'easily confused' convincing himself and pretty much everyone around him that he's a newly minted millionaire. Bob Odenkirk also turns up having a brief breather before Saul Goodman goes back in time and back in business. June Squibb essentially walks in and steals the show for me playing Woody's beleaguered wife Kate, she just feels so familiar but so much like her own cutting cold but brilliant character, plus she'll rant forever about how useless her husband is and how he'll outlive them all but I swear there is some affection there even after everything he's put her through, it was a beautiful performance.

Tellingly it's shot entirely in black and white, could be an homage to older simpler times, which are alluded to frequently as we learn more about Woody's past, but then again things aren't ever that simple. The music is typically old style movie music, it has that indie-vibe about it but it never feels out of place as the film trundles along. The whole middle-America, small town everyone knowing eachothers business, nothing having changed much since the 70s, it had a distinct style and definitely one of Alexander Payne's best films since Sideways, if not infinitely better in my humblest of opinions; probably because of the weepy emotional reaction it got from me...

Speaking of which it was the last sequence of scenes that set me off on my blubbering frenzy, if you're not up for spoilers look away now.

When Woody asks his son if the prize people got back to them I literally began bawling as his son shows him his new truck. Then he lets his Dad drive down the main street through town in his new truck, his Dad makes him hide as he goes, the characters we met through the film see Woody driving triumphantly through the town in his new truck, independent and capable, with something to show for his journey, a winner. I was literally wailing at this point as I realised that's how Woody wanted it, after all, this was, in his eyes the last time he'd be in that old town of his, that's the last time those people would see him and he wanted it to be on his terms with his triumph; and hey there's his son beaming up at him from his crouching position having given his father this moment of pride. Well shit man, I was a mess.

I genuinely couldn't care less what anyone else thought of this film, I simply thought it was excellent, because it told me a story that I felt invested in, it evoked a strong emotional reaction from me and hey, that's what art is supposed to do. What more can I say?

Wolf of Wall Street

Money can buy you anything, love, a great damn time, and hey what do you know, even if your reputation is in tatters, your life is a sorry old mess, money can still ensure you get away without suffering much consequence at all, in fact you still have your freedom and a steady income, and hey those delirious memories of landing your helicopter whilst high as a kite and the joys of throwing dwarves at dart boards whilst shagging prostitutes or undeniable beauteous woman and imbibing all manner of intoxicating substances.

This is a film which is designed in essence to be a no-holds barred biopic about a man with an insane amount of money and balls who pulled off multi-million pound scams every day, but the film refuses to judge this man, it just bombards us with his constant terrible behaviour, it's a rise and fall tale of a man obsessed with excess and thrill. What sticks is that we spend most of the time laughing at the insanity of the events unfurling before our eyes, most of the film is played for laughs, it's all one big joke! It's so hilarious! Everyone just laughs, let's all just laugh because it's so funny!

Of course, I felt the sour taste curdle in my mouth as I walked away from the cinema but as it stands, a lot of people take the film at face value, because the face is so exciting and so damn fun and hey Leonardo Dicaprio is proselytizing with his big microphone. What a lot of people saw was essentially bankers conning people out of masses of money and having a great time living the high life - as such there have been articles about how people are dressing like the Wall Street lot, reminiscing about the good times when people blindly trusted bankers and lost tons of money making idiotic deals.

In my desperate bid to avoid being entrapped within the hospitality industry for the rest of my life I made a big decision to hand out as many CVs as I could, contact as many employment agencies as possible and basically make it my life's mission to be anything but a waitress. The only interested parties appeared to be banks who wanted me to sit on a phone and take phone calls from irate people who really hate using telephones but hate computers more - predominantly the elderly. In the end after various failed interviews and soul-crushing hoops to trip over, I am now working in a bank as an execution only stock broker. I essentially farm calls from people who wish to engage in the stock market and handle their accounts, do deals for them, help with password resets - all very rote but extensive stuff. What this does mean is I was given two weeks training which mostly introduced me to the world of stocks and shares. Not that I'm an expert or anything but as it stands I entered this film with a working knowledge of the stock market, as I now work in an office not unlike the ones displayed on film... Well... Minus the obvious.

Did I go into this film expecting a searing insight to the world of stocks and shares? Well, no, but I was hoping for something more substantial than say... substances abuse? The film gives the briefest of explanations via Leo's camera talking, but as soon as he starts to explain the particulars he cuts himself off, that's too boring! Let's go snort some more cocaine! The particulars being that Jordan Belfourt took advantage of 50% commission on the Penny Market - which is essentially an unregulated pittance poor market which lets just about anyone join it as long as they have enough paper to print off certificates. The point being Belfourt cons wealthy clients into buying into these dubious companies by flat out lying to them about their 'potential' and strong arming wealthy clients into buying masses into worthless shares and pocketing the 50% commission - that's the simplest way of describing things, obviously there are other more devious plans at play but that's the skinny of it. As the stock-brokers are all capable of giving advice and are completely unregulated by their conscience or the FSA (who turn up and are sent away without much issue) and are coached by the 'sales-genius' of Belfourt, they basically made a shit ton of money.

As I say, the film goes to great lengths to show you what they were doing, it doesn't focus on the how or why, you are simply shown enough to give you the gist of it then you're laughing at an overdose or Jonah Hill being blatantly gay whilst trying to disguise that fact to everyone including himself. Oh yeah, so Jonah Hill is here for, I think comic relief, or to continue his role as sidekick in big films and being lauded for it. As for Leo, he's on top form, I don't think I've ever seen him this expressive (although his turn in Django Unchained was incredible) and fully invested in a role, it worked on him and hopefully he'll receive some sort of recognition which he craves. Then there's Margot Robbie who plays Belfourt's second wife who is genuinely stunning but has beyond little to do aside from look gorgeous and bewildered in equal measures as the film focusses on cranking out laugh after empty laugh.

Scorcese is one of the greatest directing talents and here he once again shows his inability to blink, he displays the debauchery and horrors that such things bring without casting judgement. The film ends with Belfourt free to roam and engage in seminars teaching people his secret to success, what did all this cost him? Well to be honest, he had what he had, the big mansion, the helicopter, the yacht, the women, the drugs, he had it all, and for him that's probably never enough because he'll always want more and for it all to last forever; but he had all that which people can only dream of given the chance, he had that and no amount of looking pathetic whilst skipping jail is going to erase the facts, he got away with it, he lost nothing but his dignity, but he still has his ability to walk and breathe and go on in this world. But hey at least we all had a good laugh.

Films of 2013 Round-up

And to thee, world, I dump all the films I had little to say about and lumped together in one long post.

Don Jon

My main reaction to this film was a simple raise of the eyebrows and 'Hey good for you.' This sentiment pretty much sums up my feelings towards this film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's first feature film with writer/director credits, it's about a 20-something year old guy, popular with the ladies, addicted to pornography, gets to have (cinema) sex with Scarlett Johansson and Julianne Moore, two of my personal favourite ladies in Hollywood and stunningly attractive ones at that, he's a smart cookie that boy... Unfortunately the film doesn't quite hang much purpose around the whole, sex with the amazing women bit. It tries, and it's kind of sweet in a way, watching a caricature of a man-child with no real responsibilities or pain in his life, grappling with the difficulties of seeing women as human connections rather than disposable sex-toys which lose their appeal compared to the simulated pornographic videos he prefers. I realise that many men's views of women are severely warped by pornography, and there are people in this world which are actually that shallow... But as a character Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Jon is just plain boring. He likes his routine, his way of things, never considers looking outside because routine is just too comforting and hey, when life is that easy! Scarlett Johansson never really excels beyond, beautiful woman with a beautiful woman view of the world, similarly a way that society has warped women into believing that being beautiful will get you everything you'd ever need or want in life or from people and therefore making allowances for people never seemed viable when someone else would be more than willing to applaud her beauty and give her anything she wants. I really wanted something more for her, for there to be a shred of depth, but it was just an odious uninteresting character. Julianne Moore was amazing but then again she always is, and although it's usually the characters who are older, wiser, experienced more pain, which are interesting and therefore have more to work with, she was still an wonderfully acted caricature... So as I sat and picked holes in the story-telling, predominantly the characters... I still found myself vaguely impressed by the end. Some stylistic flourishes were eye-raisingly good, the pace was swift and the cameos were pleasant enough, plus I just can't get enough of JGL's handsome features especially when he finally starts to almost register emotions... But yeah, it was a good effort for first time and I was vaguely pleased for Jon at the end of it all so it's not quite a shrug... I'll tilt my head and smile fondly at the memories I might retain, but that aside it won't be staying with me much longer than a night's sleep I reckon...

Filth

I couldn't praise this film enough if I actually had the energy to do so. As it stands, I have Irvine Welsh's original novel - Filth, on my bookcase but never enough time to actually read it, the first three pages made me feel slightly nauseous and disturbed, but I'll assume that's what the book intends to do, inflict it's awful character onto the world. My basic understanding was that the book was narrated by it's main character Bruce, and also by the tapeworm existing within Bruce, the irony being that the tapeworm was more sympathetic than Bruce himself. The film delightfully touches on the existence of the tapeworm with some demented interludes from Jim Broadbent but for the most part creates a truly loathsome terrible character for James McAvoy to play. I've been wondering if Mr Beautiful Blue Eyes could play a truly awful character, it's been an ongoing wonder as he stars next Michael Fassbender who could play sinister without breaking a sweat, he tried in Trance to play a complex/unlike-able/unreliable lead but it didn't seem to work very well as all the effort placed into making him seem like the innocent undid the plot twist of him being darker in the end. Filth is an amazing film in the fact that it takes time and care into perfectly de-constructing Bruce and his awful behaviour and James McAvoy keeps up with every step; it's effectively done and as he unravels McAvoy's acting improves wondrously. The entire film is swimming in pitch black humour and insane mind boggling visuals to boot, there are sequences from Bruce's wife which we can safely assume are his imagined perfect version of his wife and not the reality of the situation which in the end come to light with a truly well executed plot twist. It's a damn good film and worthy of recognition, especially if anyone is going to be lobbing awards in McAvoy's direction they would be fully deserved, it was one of the best performances I've seen in a long time. As it stands though, aside from receiving The British Independent Film Award for Best Actor, McAvoy has received no further nominations or accolades for his star turn; it's a travesty! One of my favourite films of last year by a long distance.

The Hunger Games - Catching Fire

I re-read my initial review for the first Hunger Games film and my main issues with the film were, the lack of blood and convincing violence and the lack of big flying helicopters scooping up the fallen tributes from the arena. This film vastly improved on the previous by addressing my main two issues directly, sure the scooping up bit wasn't how I imagined it and was to aid a powerful moment near the end, but it was there! As a whole the second film vastly improves in all aspects on what the first film set up. It creates more coherent characters to root for with the inclusion of previous tributes being put forward for the 75th Hunger Games to put Katniss back in the arena. I've read the books, the twists and turns were of little surprise but the execution worked better. Although it was damn long it still worked for the most part and included all the essential moments. As a plus it also seemed that Katniss had more to work with this time round, I felt Jennifer Lawrence settle into the role with more ease and her work was superior because the script gave her more to do and express with her beautiful face... So all I can really say is, it's a vast improvement. I don't think Mockingjay is going to be any good though so this, I predict, will be the high watermark for the series.

The Counsellor

Loathed by most, I was entranced by this one, mostly because Cameron Diaz was something else in this... I admire a film where the women have more agency than the men, not because it's supposed to invert our expectations, but because as in this case, no other character could simply come out on top, they are all just too out of their depth and ignorant. Cameron Diaz's character doesn't succeed because she's a woman and that'll be a surprise for the audience (ho-ho-ho woman is bad, who'd have thought) but because she plays the game the best, also she is psychotic on many levels... But it works. For those this film does not work for would include Javier Bardem (has a good time and most likeable but such a silly character) Michael Fassbender (out of his depth and playing an essentially straight man, much my to chagrin, I want him to be complex but this guy is just so straight forward and dull) Penelope Cruz (after all my praise for Diaz, poor Penelope is treated abominably in this film, two main women characters, one is amazing, the other, completely disposable, shocking...) Brad Pitt (he just turns up with his scruffy hair and a cowboy hat and doesn't do much else...) Dean Norris (essentially being Hank Schrader in a movie, doing exactly what I love to see him do and nothing more) and Goran Visnjic (I just love him since ER... He doesn't do anything...) The film's structure was almost inscrutable at various points at it jumped about without any intention of giving the viewer a vague understanding of who was what, why this was happening, when it was taking place and how such people knew each other, it just simply sped along expecting you to keep up, god help you if you weren't sure or simply didn't care. It moved along at a decent pace and then would stop for long scenes in which there was a monologue which felt completely detached and bizarre... Most people chose to despise this film for it's dense impenetrable manner, I liked it for it's audacity.

Kill Your Darlings

Harry Potter plays Allen Ginsberg and in turn manages to look more like Harry Potter when he's playing Allen Ginsberg. Got it? Well, Daniel Radcliffe stars as Allen Ginsberg in what is a biopic taking place in Ginsberg's formative years at college. There he meets one of my latest favourite people Dane Dehaan (Chronicle, Place Beyond the Pines, the new Harry Osborne in the upcoming Amazing Spiderman 2) then the whole film essentially falls apart. People have called Radcliffe's performance 'generous' which is a nice way of saying, he playing a reserved uncertain subtle character, and Dehaan is playing a larger than life (far more interesting) charismatic chap, put them in a scene together and Dehaan essentially subsumes all. I've not genuinely been so excited about an actor like this in... I can't even specify how long... Point being, the billing might have you assume this is Radcliffe's film, stepping out of the shadows of Harry Potter and forging a grown-up real adult acting career, and for the most part he is pretty damn good in this film, in fact I would say his performance was more than 'generous'; plus he's doing far better than his core associates (Ron and Hermione I'm looking at you!) But Dehaan is simply astounding, I love him. The film? It's serviceable, interesting enough, some fun scenes, others completely ruined by anachronistic music choices. Actually my main complaint about the film was the use of TV on the Radio and Bloc Party in otherwise interesting/exciting sequences, it completely takes me out of the moment and more than anything was irritating. It's a film about youth and experimentation and Ginsberg's burgeoning exploration of his sexuality, and the issues with obsession and generally pushing the boundaries of the norm, breaking rules, youthful exuberance all that jazz. Hence I can understand the music choices, it's a youthful experimental film, but it's also pretty straight forward and... standard. I adore Dane Dehaan though.

The Hobbit - The Desolation of Smaug

Main complaints about The Hobbit? Stretching out a short novel to three epic films, how Hollywood, how pointless, how irksome. Well, in some ways I appreciate Peter Jackson's ambitious attempt to stretch out and colour in Tolkein's universe and create a world and history that incorporates not just The Hobbit but parts of The Silmarillion and to create a more comprehensive look into Tolkein's world. Apart from those somewhat lofty ambitions, Jackson has decided to expand the story and colour in the characters of the dwarves and elves adding more than just Tolkein's inclusions but his own additions; this includes a love story between a dwarf (Kili played by the ebullient Aidan Turner) and an added female elf (Tauriel played by the gorgeous Evageline Lily.) Is this necessary? Nope... But it's kinda pleasant... Which how I generally feel about this series, it's pleasant, it doesn't demand much thought, it's exciting, the cast is incredibly likeable and it has enough interesting set pieces to keep things entertaining rather than boring. My only issue with this instalment is the fact that it really did feel like we were spinning wheels, the added scenes stuck out more and there were scenes lifted from the book which didn't seem to match the rest of the story-telling but had to be included because obviously they are in the book rather than they move the story along or make any sense... On the plus side, there's the dragon! Benedict Cumberbatch gradually taking over the world with his sonorous tones, he fits perfectly with the dragon and the introduction was incredible, but unfortunately attacking a dragon living in a mountain of gold with molten gold was a rubbish attempt by any standards, silly film. Still it was enjoyable and worth the cinema ticket for being a welcome distraction to a humdrum existence.

Frozen

I'll say it now, better than Tangled, better than any animated film I've seen in forever. The songs are amazing (Idina Menzel should have all the awards...) the graphics and details are astounding, the story is immersing and has logical steps and decent twists and real depth and emotion and the humour is just on the right side of warm and sharp rather than overly dependent on snark. It was a genuinely touching film with typical Disney princesses but most importantly it's their sisterly bond/relationship which is the core of the film and the most important aspect of the story. Rather than the women finding men to complete them and save them, it's the girl's relationship with each other which saves the day! Disney needs more films like this! But I digress, it's a delightful beautifully scripted and designed film, not one second was wasted and everything from the comedy mascot, to the trusty steed, to handsome suitor, all have their moments which make them interesting and fun and likeable! I adored this film.

The Hunt

This was recommended to my solely for the performance of a particular Mads Mikkelsen, on the strength of that alone this is an excellent film (he is mesmerising and wholly sympathetic and has a brief but thoroughly enjoyable sex scene) but it has so much more going on. It's a Danish film (subtitles for those who don't like concentrating) which has been nominated for this years Best Foreign Film Academy Award, it's pretty close in the running at the minute. Mikkelsen is a kindergarten teacher who enjoys playing with the kids and being an all around nice friendly affable chap, seriously a stand up guy, shame about the divorce and the wife taking the kid, the kid who really wants to actually live with his dad. Unfortunately a small blonde girl seems to become attached to our Mads (who wouldn't though?) and falls a little bit in love with him going as far as giving him a big ole kiss on the mouth and a love note, he rejects her kindly and does his best to be gentle with her but hurting her feelings. As it is her nasty brother showed her a picture of an erect penis before and she's vaguely aware of what this but not what it means, she then in her rejected state insinuates Mads showed her his erect penis; the head teacher (I'm assuming of the Kindergarten or the equivalent thereof...) takes the allegation radically seriously under the erroneous belief that children do not lie. She has a scary police man with a pleasant manner interrogate the girl into a position where she's too ashamed to admit it was a lie as she knows it's a big deal, and the girl basically agrees to all his assumptions. The parents wouldn't dare to believe their precious child would lie about something so horrific, the brother never once assumes he's at fault for exposing her to the image because no one has an explicit or honest conversation about the events and even when the child tries lamely to admit her lie it's too far to accept the truth. She's an innocent child so then it must be someone else's fault, be it her family for not taking better care of her, the school for not following the correct procedure (which they most certainly did not, raising hysteria, blindly believing a child without investigating the facts) Mads himself for being too affectionate to a lonely child (although I feel his whole personality/behaviour is charming and lovely and ruined by the accusations...) or the whole town for immediately jumping to the worst conclusions about someone who is essentially a stranger... The film never places blame or judgement, it simply runs the events through in a horrifyingly natural realistic manner and as things escalate it never feels like it's playing it for shocks, it feels achingly human for people to blithely follow everyone else especially when there's a presumed moral high ground. It's a frustrating, upsetting, painfully sad film but it paints a realistic unexplored picture of humanity, people don't like to see a mirror held up to their failings (for example most of the people in the film) it's hard to see unfold but it feels important... It's a reflection we should all observe, the anger and hatred that people spawn is unavoidable in this life and it's important just to see and feel the pain of how it can destroy someone from a vantage point, if only so we can avoid making the same mistakes. This film is not only haunting (I can't get it out of my head) but necessary.

American Hustle

After getting up to the leave the cinema I heard several people declare this was 'the fucking worst film they've ever seen.' An incredibly harsh criticism. Sure everyone hates David O Russell, it's a general known fact that his attitude stinks and he rubs up his actors the wrong way, Lily Tomlin essentially screamed at him in the back of a car whilst filming I Heart Huckabees (I loathe that film passionately...) and apparently he even ruffled the feathers of the unflappable Mr Clooney; most recently his statement about Jennifer Lawrence being signed up for '12 years of slavery' whilst involved in the Hunger Games Trilogy (Quadrology?) because actresses who are paid millions of pounds to star in films and are dressed and trotted out around the world making inane conversation with people and smiling lots is exactly the same as slavery according to David O Russell, the man is an utter idiot. Everyone hates David O Russell! Well, apart from the Academy? What? The people in the cinema probably didn't give a stuff about the director? Probably didn't know his name? Well... You're probably right random voice in my head... But since I Heart Huckabees he has been making much better films, in fact The Fighter, Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle have all been pretty damn decent films and because he's David O Russell he has somewhat strong armed the Academy's affection and garnered heaps of critical praise. Now American Hustle and Silver Linings Playbook were for me personally were both immensely enjoyable films, I actually really enjoyed as I peeled them away after my pleasant time spent watching them. The thing about American Hustle is that it's not a particularly deep/emotional film, it's just an enjoyable piece of fluff masquerading as something more, distinctly disposable! So, I enjoyed watching Jennifer Lawrence behaving ridiculously as a malicious ignorant housewife, I adored Jeremy Renner's wig, Christian Bale was simply incredible, Amy Adams... Boobs... Bradley Cooper, ridiculous perm... It was the 60s, if anything the costume design was incredible and the soundtrack was sing-along style awesome. It was all a bit of fun, stupid pointless fun, just rational enough to follow, complex enough to keep you guessing but silly enough to be humorous. I enjoyed it! But I wouldn't say it was the best film of the year by any stretch of the imagination.

Inside Llewyn Davis

I have tried on multiple occasions to write a blog that describes the most recent slew of films I've seen but for the most part it's been an unmitigated disaster, I will make that list soon, but it'll be terrible and uninspired. Anyways, speaking of failures, I went to see a film which provoked a strong emotional reaction, so I was inspired to write this blog.

The fact that Inside Llewyn Davis perfectly depicts the malaise of creativity and success is most likely a coincidence, but it brought me here so for that I am glad. For every success story in the world, there are thousands of people who simply didn't make it. The pain of this reality is not one often explored in cinema, there are always elements of how success causes more trouble than good, how the inevitable decline and pains of this are well documented within cinema but it's not oft we see the struggles of someone who is adequately talented but doomed to insignificance due to his own misfortune and failings. It seems to be a typical Coen Brothers film in which nihilism is rampant and hope and retribution are fleeting, if impossible. It sounds typical but there's a softer edge to this film, the comedy is more restrained (aside from a toe-tappingly catchy folk song with awkward yelping inclusions) and it's clear there's a fatigue and melancholy that runs throughout the film which is achingly affecting. It's probably worth pointing out now, I adored this film.

It may seem youthful and naive to say this but I am of the erroneous belief that there is a distinct beauty that can be found in sorrow. This film is so sad! There are moments of levity and beauty (for all it's grey wintery palette the film is beautifully shot thanks to the cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel - of Amelie fame) but for the most part this is a typically Coen film with a protagonist who is increasingly out of his depth and entrapped in helpless crappy situations. Also it's worth pointing out that although there a bunch of old folk songs used in this film, 'never new and never get old', the soundtrack is truly worth noting as wonderful (big Bob Dylan fan I am though...) and I'll definitely be listening to it lots more. It creates a melancholy bitter sweet sensation which is beautiful in my mind.

There are so many aspects of this film which enamoured me to it, from the misadventures of Llewyn trying to retain and return his friends cat which has a habit of fleeing for freedom, the sight of Carey Mulligan in a dark wig bellowing expletives, Justin Timberlake being affable and singing a jaunty folk song (I can't express how good that scene was...), the awkward reality of Llewyn's lack of fixed abode as he hops from couch to couch in the cold winter without the benefit of a suitable coat, John Goodman chewing the scenery in the back seat of a car whilst napping most of his screen time, Garrett Hedlund looking might fine and saying practically nothing chomping on cigarettes and wearing a leather jacket with a quiff and grim expression, or the understated yet incredibly affecting performance of Oscar Isaac.

I read some complaints about the fact that the film wasn't a particularly realistic or interesting interpretation of the folk-singer scene in the Greenwich Village in the early 60s and that for the most part Llewyn Davis is essentially a less charismatic feckless version of Dave Van Ronk. To these complaints I simply say that this was not what the story was about it. It felt more like the struggles of a man who was suffering deeply trying to maintain his artistic integrity and be more than anything and struggling with the pains of life in a very personal manner. If so I would argue that I doubt every woman in that era was capable of applying their eyeliner in perfect flicks above their eyes and didn't all have the same make-up artist but that would what took me personally out of the film if anything - pure envy on my part because I can not apply eyeliner like that and it became somewhat distracting...

My point being, the film's intention is to place you in a different time and place, not an exact representation of that world, it's simply just showing us a distinct world which feels like reality but is distinctly separate. It may feel like the Coens are simply playing one big cosmic joke on Llewyn Davis giving him the hardest possible time they can concoct but in that regard I felt the film made an honest attempt to depict a man in an endless (almost authentic) spiral of misfortune and depression. Llewyn Davis, although somewhat hard to understand, is a painfully real person, at least in my mind. My favourite kind of films are ones that gradually unfurl around you providing you with all the information you need to gain insight into the character's lives without explicitly having them tell you how they feel, or why are they doing something. Love means never having to explain yourself, and I love a good movie that doesn't feel the need to explain itself, it's simply there to be observed and admired. Inside Llewyn Davis doesn't demand you sympathise or even understand it's protagonist, it just gives you a window into his world.

There are several moments that made me really feel for the guy, but then throughout the film it's made equally impossible to sympathise or understand why he makes certain decisions. He consistently makes short-sighted impulsive decisions which are infuriating but also saddening. The main decision being he didn't accept royalties for recording the record 'Please Mr Kennedy' because he was in desperate need of the $200 cash that day to continue his survival, but it's made abundantly clear (because the song is so catchy and pretty much a guaranteed hit) if he'd waited a couple of days he could have lived happily off the much larger income. The fact he doesn't have a winter coat is another one! That he told his sister to chuck out all of his old stuff without specifying that which he might need later. Signing back up for the marines without knowing for sure if he had the paperwork. Sleeping with his friends girl is another. When asked to sing a song from Inside Llewyn Davis he chooses an old folk song about Henry VIII and Queen Jane, he sings it beautifully but why didn't he sing a song that was more personal? Why didn't he show his own song? Why didn't he give something of himself, something deeper, something unique to him? It felt like he was squandering the opportunity, especially when the man tells him the army guy was more personable.

Then there is the end sequence, Jean tells him a previous scene she got the spot for him and there'll be some people from the Times there, it could be his big break. He (from as far as I can tell) sings his damn heart out and it's amazing, he then leaves the stage and a young Bob Dylan takes his place and sings a song with distinctly similar lyrics. Well, it was just never meant to be for him, was it? I think my heart broke at that moment because of course, as Llewyn ends the film beaten and crumpled in a heap, it's simply never going to happen for him; that's just how life is sometimes... It's painful and it's sad but from my angle it's unmistakeably beautiful.