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.

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.