Saving Mr. Banks

Saving Mr. Banks

Overall rating: 4.5 stars

As a squeaky clean, nostalgic look at the battle between Walt Disney and P.L. Travers (and indeed between Travers herself), Saving Mr. Banks is droll and charming, with particular strength coming from its two accomplished leads.

It's a simple tale, the wonderfully pompous Emma Thompson plays P.L. Travers, a rather vile and stubborn author, whose books have warmed the hearts of millions. On the other side of the spectrum is Tom Hanks's Walt Disney, an effervescent crowd-pleaser, with a desperate longing to fulfil an old promise that he'd bring Mary Poppins to life. A battle of wits ensues, with Travers turning her nose up at everything Disney throws at her, vetoing the use of songs or "silly cartoons".  Eventually, after days of arguing and a trip to Disneyland, she's worn down (ever so slightly), but it turns out there's a lot more to the characters than meets the eye.

I won't spoil the rest, but the film is enriched with a much deeper and much more personal story than I first realised, intertwining many intimate moments from Travers's childhood with the cynical (and almost pitiful) woman she's become. Thompson's performance packs a lot wallop, with Tom Hanks proving to be an able(if less spectacular) foil. The lack of ugly insight irked me. Only once was Disney's famous smoking habit mentioned, giving the impression that, whilst on the surface it appears very probing, the film is hiding things under its sentimental sheen. Besides that, the attention to detail and production value is top-notch, with a capable supporting cast filling the gaps out nicely.

It's funnier than I expected too, although the slight glimpses of humour are later, rightfully, overridden by Travers's troublesome past, which proves to be the emotional anchor of the film. Indeed, Hanks's Disney, ever affable, has a back story too; which seems to spearhead his campaign for the rights.

It's fluffy in parts, yes, but rarely saccharine or cloying. Director John Lee Hancock utilises the array of tools at his disposal to ensure that what is, essentially, a piece of propaganda, can somehow become a heartwarming and thoughtful look at a sardonic woman and why she's become that way.

At the end of the film, I was pleased to realise that there is true substance under the corporate shine. It's a film so effusive, so sparkling with wit and charm that only the most cold hearted Disney cynics (such as Travers herself) could dislike.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Overall rating: 4.5 stars

Kinetic, (still) too long and considerably darker than the first installment, The Desolation of Smaug is a marked improvement on its predecessor, succeeding in solving some of its pacing problems and introducing one hell of a villain.

Yes! It's Hobbit time again and this one is a richer, more intricate installment than the first. As Bilbo and co. converge on the fabled Lonely Mountain, towards the infamous Smaug (voiced and motion-captured by the fantastically evil Benedict Cumberbatch), the stakes are raised even higher. Gandalf wanders off to face the mysterious Necromancer (also a Cumberbatch villain), leaving Thorin and the dwarves to face the dangerously intelligent elves alone. The elves (notably Orlando Bloom's Legolas, Lee Pace's Thranduil and Evangeline Lily's Tauriel) blur the line between friend and foe, making their journey even harder. Of course, the arrival of many orcs and the troublesome dictatorship of Laketown complicate matters further. All this happens before they even reach the mountain. When they finally do (with it taking over four hours of film between AUJ and TDOS), we meet Smaug, the evil, cunning and beautifully designed dragon, who gives fans what they've been waiting for: one hell of a ride.

The film's great. It's much more similar to the tone of the Lord of the Rings movies, but still maintains a sense of individuality thanks to its legendary source material. Of course, Jackson feels obliged to add some of his own stuff, including the surprisngly interesting Tauriel, who (despite her stupid sub-plot with Kili the dwarf) manages to give reason for Legolas's otherwise unnecessary presence. There are moments where Jackson harkens back to the original trilogy, hence the inclusion of Sauron, Galadriel and Legolas (as well as a small, albeit appropriate mention of Gimli).

Besides the teething troubles of the gimmicky High Frame Rate which I saw it in, the visuals are typically top-notch. Middle-earth looks as glorious as ever, with the set design, make-up and hairstyling as elaborate and detailed as ever. With all the criticism levelled at the new films, the production values remain as impeccable as ever. 

What can be critcized, is the pacing and length. While better than AUJ, TDOS still stretches the little book to its limits, hence the inclusion of so many non-Tolkien elements. So work (Gandalf's journey, Tauriel) and others don't (hint: gold). That said, Jackson has clearly taken steps to prevent the film feeling as bloated as the last, with much more action than the previous installment. 

TDOS is pretty much Jackson at his most comfortable, with dazzling imagery, sweeping scope and a fantastic eye for detail, but there's still some length problems to get over before the epic finale.

Mud

Mud 
Overall rating: 4.5 stars

Compelling, sweet and suitably earthy, Mud is heartfelt and features a great cast, with Matthew McConaughey leading the way with another strong performance, and sees director Jeff Nichols as a talent to watch.

Mud tells the story of Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Sam Shepherd), two adventurous kids who, upon meeting Mud (Matthew McConaughey) are compelled to help him find the woman he loves, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). It's a rather sweet little feature, understated and quirky; far from the most mainstream film released this year. It combines a simple story with some complex characters, in particular the title character, who remains relatively unexplained - narratively at least - throughout. Besides the fact that he's on the run for murdering a man, there's little else to Mud's back story, which, in a bizarre way makes him all the more appealing to root for. He doesn't come in the shape of the standard movie murderer: he's sweet, relatively pitiful and has good intentions. Of course, this intricacy is much easier to understand when you watch the film. McConaughey imbues the character with both strength and vulnerability. It is truly Mud's story which carries the film, not Ellis's romance sub-plot - which, whilst heartwarming, is brief. However, that whole affair is crucial to show the audience that Mud is in fact a good guy. I won't go into detail, but the final few shots are rewarding to the audience, especially the last.

I was never moved a great amount during the film, despite the strong cast, but I found myself smiling at the end. It certainly isn't an ending where I thought "wow, what a film" but I was satisfied and slightly touched. It's nothing that's going to set the world alight, but one of those films you could watch on a Sunday afternoon, smile at the end and consider it an afternoon well-spent.

Ultimately, Mud is fresh. Rarely do I find myself satisfied with the ending of a film as much as this. It wasn't clichéd, mysterious, explosive or particularly shocking, but it just felt right.

What more could I ask for?

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Overall rating: 4.5 stars

With a pitch-perfect cast, surprisingly dramatic direction and strong source material at its heart, the second installment in the popular franchise is even better than the first, packing plenty of thrills and a surprisingly hefty emotional wallop.

Let me make myself clear: I've read the books, yes, but I'm not an obsessive fan of the books; I'm not biased in the films favour. Don't scorn the high rating I've given the film: it genuinely is brilliant. 

Catching Fire sees Katniss Everdeen return with all the other familiar faces, as well as some new ones. I won't go into too much detail, but the stakes are much higher this year, with old victors returning to the arena, as it's the Quarter Quell, 75 years of the Hunger Games and they celebrate by upping the ante in their sick games. It's similar to the first movie location wise: District 12 - The Capitol - The Arena, but the entire affair feels a lot more defined as a whole. More detail goes into the creations of the districts, more detail goes into the inner workings of Katniss and Peetas bizarre relationship as well as the fantastic Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks getting an awful lot more screen time. In fact, the entire movie gets a lot more screen time. I've seen many criticise the film's length, but I don't see it as an issue. Plenty of movies have been longer this year (we've still got the phenomenally lengthy affair of The Hobbit to come) and I never felt bored by this film, even if it took a bit too long to get into the arena. This could be attributed to the book, which takes far too long to get going.

I'd like to take a moment to congratulate the casting team for their fantastic work. The actors, both aesthetically and characteristically, resemble the description in the book, with particular credit going to Jennifer Lawrence (as always), Woody Harrelson, Jena Malone and Stanley Tucci. There's nothing Oscar winning there, but it's nice to see strong performances accompany fleshed out characters (not naming any names...). Of course, part of the credit should go to Suzanne Collins for creating these characters in the first place, but equally, Francis Lawrence had a part in bringing them to life on the big screen (sorry for the cliché).

It never feels like a bridge between two installments (that's what Mockingjay Part 1 will be) and the change of director is fresh. Gone are the days of Gary Ross's shaky-cam (which I didn't even mind) and Lawrence's heavy breathing. The world is richly realised with real passion going into it. The villains (Donald Sutherland's cryptic President Snow) feel more threatening, the district scenes grittier and the capitol scenes even more surreal.

Many will probably feel that the second installment improves on the first, as I do, and it shows. Katniss is the new Harry, bold, confident and strong, willing to carry the burden some daren't bear. Bring on the next part.

Tick tock Katniss Everdeen, tick tock.

My Favourite Movie Posters - Part 1

The Exorcist

1973

Now, all of you who have read my review of The Exorcist on this very blog, know how terrifying I found it. Through all the vomit, memorable scares and profanity, when I saw this iconic image in the actual film, a chill ran down my spine. Beautifully selected, this poster has become iconic, eerie and suitably dark, featuring several key elements from the film itself. Much like the film , this poster has the ability to get under your skin. And stay there.

Gravity

2013

Although I think it would be more effective without the chunky paragraph at the bottom, this poster for Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity - enhanced by the chilling tagline - is beautiful. Desolate and harrowing, you can tell that this movie is going to be thrilling and different to anything you've ever seen before. The lone figure reaching out helplessly against a black background is simple, but one of the most memorable posters I've seen all year.

Jaws 

1975

Almost as iconic as the film itself, Jaws' terrifying poster is - like most of the other ones on this list - very simple. Simply the shark and a lone, oblivious swimmer, with the title in a simple, sans serif font and block capitals. The shark alone would have certainly been scary enough, but adding the swimmer adds a bit of real fear to it. 

Toy Story 3

2010

Of course, my favourite film ever has to appear on this list. This is a cramped poster in comparison to some, but it really works. With just a 3 in the middle (note that the style and characters are recognisable enough that a full title isn't necessary)  and all of those beloved characters crowding it, this poster radiates warmth and colour, much like the film. I just love how we get to see so many characters in such a small space and so effectively too. Bravo.

Ratatouille

2007

 I love this poster. It's witty, beautifully designed and a clear reprensentation of what you'll see on the big screen. It shows off one of my favourite protagonists out of all of Pixar's films and it's symbolic of the quirky humour of the entire feature.

 The Dark Knight

2008

Lastly, we come to this. Artistic, creepy and gleefully symbolic of Ledger's legendary performance, this is a poster I only discovered quite recently, but it has been stamped firmly in my memory. This translucent glass heightens the mystery around the Joker and writing his famous catchphrase in one of his signature colours was genius.

World War Z

World War Z

Overall rating: 4 stars

Chaotic, dark and unashamedly vast, but thrilling and intelligent nonetheless, World War z is a unique take on the tiresome zombie genre, with a strong performance from Brad Pitt to boot. 

The Good

It's scope is grand, but Pitt's character has a compelling story behind him, giving it much more personal focus than I imagined. Of course the story is pretty generic (a good guy saving the world to protect his family blah blah...) but Pitt is reassuringly charismatic and backed by a decent supporting cast.

It helps, with movies like these, that the source material is strong, with a smart plot and lots of potential. Whilst I haven't actually read the book, I understand that the film takes some different creative directions for both better and worst. This is controversial with fans and the author (Max Brooks), but a film which sticks to the book can be dull. For instance, the first instalment of the Harry Potter series is my least favourite, because it adheres to the source so rigidly. I see it as the film's strength, as the result is a tense and enthralling adventure.

The Bad

It's uneven. I also dislike the lack of build up. We get about five minutes at home with Pitt's family and then BOOM: zombie apocalypse. I'm not asking for hours of it (like The Hobbit) but the start feels rushed.

I didn't like the ending much, it was soft, but the solution to the apocalypse was highly creative: credit goes to Max Brooks for that.

To Conclude

Whilst uneven and long, World War Z still manages to be tense and captivating, using the strength of the source and Brad Pitt's star power to succeed.

The Heat

The Heat

Overall Rating: 4 stars.

Mightily crude and at times mildly offensive, The Heat will nevertheless prove to be a funny journey, mostly thanks to it's promising director and well-matched leads.

The Good

It's damn funny. This is mainly due to Bullock and McCarthy. Their chemistry is astounding, which is obviously a key success in a buddy-cop film. Their comic stylings in the film are pretty much polar opposites, but that brings out more of the humour. The script is tight enough to entertain most people, even if it doesn't stretch to making the entire film a blast, like The World's End or Airplane! However, I found the majority of the jokes funny and enjoyed participating in the running gags.

They're chemistry is efficient enough to disguise the worn plot points, particularly during the final act.

The Bad

Both McCarthy's sweary, crude Mullins and Bullock's goody-goody Ashburn go through predictable narrative arcs, which are nothing new to the genre. They're redeemed slightly just because they bring so much humour to the film in the first place.

The humour won't appeal to everyone too. There are some funny bits which aren't crude, but a lot of the humour relies on McCarthy swearing like a trooper and Bullock being reliably disgusted. Perhaps a bit more comic variety would enhance the film.

To Conclude

The Heat is funny, predictable and slightly over the top at times, but it's great cast and decent script compensate. It also shows that director Paul Feig is able to replicate the success of his previous efforts, particularly when working with experienced leads.

The Magic of Horror Movies

I'm a novice when it comes to horror movies. To be truthful I've only ever seen a handful of proper horror film. I didn't really ease myself in either. The only horror films I've ever really seen are Jaws, The Birds and, worst of all, The Exorcist.
It was a bold move when I decided to rent the DVD for The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen. Yup, I even watched the extended edition, featuring the digitally remastered spider-walk scene (seen below). 

 

I didn't want to start slowly and work my way up the pantheon of horror films. I was under the impression that I couldn't be scared easily, therefore I set the bar high for myself.
"Torture porn" as it has been branded has never really appealed to me, or seemed scary, so that eliminated films like Saw and Hostel from my list.
Zombie films have always seemed cliché too, so I crossed Night of the Living Dead off.
That left what were supposedly the scariest films of them all, the atmospheric films. I was left with the likes of The Blair Witch Project, Psycho and Nosferatu.
I chose The Exorcist because of the mystery surrounding it, whilst I knew the basics of Psycho, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street, I didn't know what to expect from The Exorcist.

In short, I think the word terrifying sums up my experience. I was haunted for weeks after and I'm still apprehensive even now. If you've seen it  you'll understand, it's an elemental gem of cinema, but I don't plan to watch it again. It was too scary to watch again.
However, even since, I've been drawn in my what I call the magic of horror films. To me there's something darkly alluring about them. Ever since, I've been reading about The Evil Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween. I've been absorbed into that strange culture, learning about Freddy Krueger, Leatherface, Jason Vorhees and Michael Myers (all four portrayed neatly in the below image). 

Horror films continue to be popular to this day, as The Conjuring, Saw and The Last Exorcism can prove. This is simply because a lot of people enjoy being scared. Whether it be from a horrific slasher scene, or the nerve-wracking combination of music, lighting and atmosphere. 

It is of course a very saturated genre, ruined with derivative sequels and middling reboots. But they can be some of the most successful films ever if crafted well, for instance, The Exorcist is the highest-grossing R rated film in the world - quite a feat for a horror film.

Much of the mystery which lingers around horror films comes from the unknown, which is exhibited at it's best in Jaws and The Blair Witch Project, where the threats remain offscreen most of the time. Both of these films have changed what it means to step into the sea and woods for a lot of people.

So in general we can conclude that there are about 3 main types of horror film, each with endless sub-genres. There's splatter/slasher/gore films, where blood and guts is what scares us. This is the "torture porn" route and it's popular amongst the public, less so amongst critics. Saw is the main flag-bearer for gory films these days, but Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th have used the technique in the past.

 

The other two have murkier definitions and could be merged, but for the purpose of this blog I'll split them. Some of the best horror films as I mentioned earlier rely on atmosphere for scares (a very effective technique from my limited experience). Hitchcock used the atmosphere to thrill and scare his audience in most of his films, including the likes of The Birds. The Exorcist uses a similar technique, the build-up is the scariest part. All of those scenes pacing the corridors of the Macneil house make your heart beat faster and faster. 

Finally we come to the unknown. Sure it can use the same techniques as atmospheric films, but it's a vital sub-genre. In these films darkness proves to be of vital importance, as does music. What would Jaws be without the famous score from John Williams? And the screeching violins in Psycho heighten the mystery behind the shower scene.

Of course some people might prefer a bloody movie to one that utilises old school scares. Some films, like the recent reboot, Evil Dead, use both, although I haven't seen/heard of a film which has done so with great success (some may argue that The Exorcist does to an extent).
Whilst the genre has great moments and iconic villains - which have been soaked up into popular culture - it is riddled with more sequels and reboots than any other genre. Halloween and Saw has an endless amount of sequels and Leatherface, Freddy Krueger and Jason Vorhees are overused far too much in spinoffs, sequels and re-makes. This destroys the magic and threat which made the original films so successful in the first placem which is why critics generally detest horror sequels (there are some exceptions - e.g. The Evil Dead 2 and the first two Frankenstein sequels)

The lesson to be learnt? On the whole, film studios should leave their great horror creations alone. Sequels make the characters wearisome and tarnish their shock-value. Can you name a successful horror film which doesn't have a sequel/reboot to it's name? Jaws, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Friday 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Saw, The Exorcist, Night of the Living Dead, Dracula, Frankenstein, Psycho. The list goes on and on. Hollywood is becoming more about money-grabbing and less about making quality horror, which saddens even me, a horror film novice.

Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa

Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa

Overall Rating: 5 stars.

A triumph of British comedy, capturing the spirit and quirky charm of the ever popular sitcom, Alpha Papa is hilarious, mostly thanks to a sharp script and an appalling yet appealing performance from Coogan as Partridge.

The Good

To quote Empire: "Ruddy hilarious".  It's immensely British in nature (not sure if some of the jokes will translate very well across the pond) but it's such a typically Partridge style of humour, bizarre and slightly surreal.

The humour succeeds mostly thanks to Steve Coogan, who has mastered his creation. Every small look or expression is worth a laugh, combine that with a series of great one liners (particularly towards the end, where the absurd plot reaches it's peak) and a funny premise, you'll find it hard to keep a straight face if you're British or a fan of the show.
The plot is ludicrous but still (just about) believable. Best of all, it doesn't see Alan fly off to some exotic country - like the majority of sitcom film adaptations. His feet are planted firmly in the beautifully grim Norwich, just as with the sitcom.

The Bad
All I could say is that it's too British. The sitcom is similar, so I cannot dissuade you from seeing this if you're not English. Just try to enjoy it.

To Conclude
Funny, well-written, nicely acted and splendidly silly, it's hard to argue with the fun Coogan is having during his romp on the big screen.

The World's End

The World's End

Overall rating: 5 stars

Consistent, action-packed and jovially hilarious, The World's End benefits greatly from it's talented cast and tight direction. It's a profane parody, far from droll, but highly amusing. 

The Good

It's so great. It shares traits with Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, the best traits and an adequately small amount at that. Pegg is a hilarious lead, backed by a terrific supporting cast (Freeman, Pike etc.) and inspired by his and Wright's solid writing. 

The plot is suitably ludicrous, but The World's End is a parody! It can be as stupidly silly as it wants, which it is, particularly the ending. 

It manages to make people laugh with so many different elements, whether it be a funny line, a visual gag, a quirk of one of the characters or a twist in the story. It is very British in nature (I'm not sure others won't get some of the humour), but it suits my taste in every way. Others won't feel the same, undoubtedly, but comedy films are very hard to critique broadly. 

The Bad

It isn't bad, but the ending is slightly weird. It's not how I would've done it for sure, but it was satisfying and humourous enough.

To Conclude
Raucous, dark and well cast, the last installment of Wright, Pegg and Frost's Three Cornetto trilogy is the best of the lot, featuring the same humour but with plenty of great characters and twists to keep it fresh. British at heart, The World's End is a comedy gem.

10 of the Best Film Villains in Cinema - Part 1

Over the years, Hollywood has supplied us with quite a few memorable villains. Obviously I can't talk about all of the best ones here, but I think I can cover the best ones over a series of articles.
Please note, this isn't the villains being ranked - such a task seems impossible to me - it's just a collection of some of the best (or worst, depending on your perspective) villains.

Harry Potter (Franchise)

Voldermort

A more contemporary villain, Ralph Fiennes' chilling Voldermort is one of the most famous villains in the world, thanks to the global success of the Harry Potter novels and the films. He's undeniably threatening, thanks to his power (his magical abilities are second only to the mighty Dumbledore) and his bizarre physical appearance. The pale skin and virtually non-existent nose are all crucial to making him as scary as he is - as well as Ralph Fienne's suitably scary performance. 

Lord of the Rings (Franchise)

 Sauron

He takes two forms throughout Peter Jackson's epic trilogy. The first is a tall, metallic monster, wiping out anything in its path. The second is a bright, burning eye, menacingly watching over his desolated lands. Both equally powerful and frightening, although the second truly gets to me. It's the mental capabilities he has which make him properly scary.

Toy Story 3

 Lotso

Ugh. This guy. Yeah. I hate him too. On the outside, he's plush. He's pink. He's a hugger. He smells of strawberries. He is in fact, one of the most hideous individuals to ever grace cinema screens. His final moment of tyranny is the worst. He effectively stops Woody and the rest of the toys from surviving, a truly villainous feat. He gets his comeuppance though, thankfully...

Jaws (Franchise)

The Shark

Nicknamed "Bruce" on set, the monster of Steven Spielberg's 1975 thriller had a massive impact on society at the time. First off, Spielberg is a master of suspense. Combine that with a genuine premise and a previously unseen threat, you can see why people were so damn scared of Jaws. Although it packs less of a punch these days, it's still pretty scary. And the shark isn't even real.

Star Wars (Franchise)

Darth Vader

Despite turning good in the end, Darth Vader is one of the two antagonists in four (including his spell as Anakin in Revenge of the Sith) of the Star Wars films. Those four films are commonly considered the better films of the franchise too, rightfully so. His powers are scary. His demeanour is scary. His outfit is scary. Damn, even his breathing is scary. It was a brilliant creation by George Lucas, even if his final scene in Revenge of the Sith was slightly... awful.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Nurse Ratched

Have you seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? If you haven't, you will not understand what makes Nurse Ratched such a good villain. It isn't necessarily her personality, but her actions. She is cold, spiteful and cruel and, as we see towards the end of the film, vengeful. She too is given a taste of her own medicine, but her powerful grasp over the inmates of the asylum is dangerous enough.

The Exorcist

Regan MacNeil/Pazuzu

Firstly, I am very sorry for inflicting the above image on you (it's not even the worst one), but the possessed antagonist of The Exorcist is absolutely abhorrent. It's without a doubt the scariest film I've ever seen (check the blog archive - to the right - for my review), this is mainly due to the demonic possession of the young girl by Pazuzu, a foul mouthed, powerful devil. The image is scary, but the film is haunting.

Batman (Franchise)

 The Joker

You may prefer one or the other, but both Jack Nicholson's Joker and Heath Ledger's Joker are equally brilliant, merciless and chaotic. Nicholson's is a colourful, delirious maniac, who would like nothing more than ruthless, pointless murder. Ledger's joker is darker, more sinister, with the same satanic motives. I can't chose between the two of them, but they're both darkly amazing.

The Shining

 Jack Torrance

We all know that Jack Nicholson is a master at portraying the most delirious and mental characters around, partly because the man himself has a few screws loose. He's a genius though, one of the most intelligent men alive, which allows him to become such crazy characters. From Randall McMurphy to the Joker, to Jack Torrance. The villain of Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of is insane, scary and harrowing. Watch if you dare.

Dracula (Franchise)

Dracula

There have been so many Dracula films. Christopher Lee was a good Dracula, but the best vampire is certainly the one played by the brilliant Bela Lugosi in the early 30s Universal horror films (some of which - by the way - are immense, Frankenstein and the first two sequels especially). His performance is something not seen previously, different from other monsters, different from even Nosferatu. It's a boundless performance.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Overall Rating: 5 stars

Dramatic, personal and perfectly cast, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is perhaps one of the defining moments of two great actors' careers, elevated by a great supporting cast and sharp narrative.

The Good

Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher. I've never seen dramatic interplay like this on film before. They best even Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster in The Silence of the Lambs. Yeah, they're that good. The film would be good without its astounding leads, but with them, it's superb.

The supporting cast are similarly fantastic. Danny DeVito (yes, Danny DeVito) is a standout amongs them all. Although that should not diminish the achievements of the others.

None of this would have been possible without the story. A story which is certainly unique, something not seen before or since. I love he simple setting and the fleshing out of the narrative of even the minor characters, particularly during Nurse Ratched's meetings.

Nicholson is deliriously funny in parts too. Although the humour is dark, it's replaced with drama towards the uplifting, albeit sad, ending. To understand what I mean, you have to see it. Believe me.

The Bad

Nurse Ratched's a bitch.

To Conclude

It's funny, it's moving, it's dramatic. A cinematic masterpiece, famous for the iconic performances of Louise Fletcher and Jack Nicholson, but perhaps most notable for being something unique.

Silver Linings Playbook

Silver Linings Playbook

Overall rating: 5 stars.

Immpecably crafted, sharply acted and beautiful direction, Silver Linings Playbook is sure-footed, pure cinema, taking a suitable number of risks to heighten the drama even more.

The Good

Acting is crucial in films like this. I have not seen a film with such talent in a long time. Bradley Cooper, Jacki Weaver and Roberto De Niro are all superb, but Jennifer Lawrence's performance as recovering sex-addict Tiffany is marvellous, certainly worthy of its Oscar. 

The great actors, teamed with a well written script and assured direction from David O'Russel create sharp narrative, to the extent where you feel that you've known these characters for years.

I can't sell this film enough, it's well mounted, beautifully shot and executed with charm and charisma. Even Chris Tucker is good...

The Bad

Nope. Can't find anything...

To Conclude

Undeniably engrossing, nothing short of absorbing, Silver Linings Playbook is my favourite film of 2012, it's moving and truly effortless, a dazzling spectacle, for all  to enjoy. 

Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek Into Darkness

Overall rating: 4.5 stars

Intriguing, action-packed, engaging and well cast, J.J Abrams' latest venture into the world one of Hollywood's sci-fi titans is highly entertaining, even stronger than its predecessor.

The Good

This is a rather common opinion, but I definitely felt that Eric Bana's Nero was a rather lacklustre villain in the 2009 film, especially when you look at the digital scope of the film. This time, Benedict Cumberbatch (known famously for his role on BBC One's brilliant Sherlock) takes the position of villain. This time, the villain is dark, sinister, posing a great threat and supremely well acted. The rest of the cast act well enough, but none of them match Cumberbatch's.

The effects and production values are great too. The Enterprise has never looked so modern, with crisp sets and, yes, sufficient lens flare.

The script is solid as you'd expect, with a story far more engrossing and typically more Star Trek than the previous. There are plenty of action movie lines and a bit of humour too, provided mostly by Karl Urban's humourous "Bones, as with the last film. You feel like you're watching a Star Trek for the new age, not just a rehashing of previous stories.

The Bad

It's pretty long and the bombastic finale is exciting, but exhausting. Besides that, I can criticise nothing.

To Conclude

It's funny, exciting, featuring lots of great plot and character development. There's plenty of enjoyable nostalgia, including cameos from Leonard Nimoy as old Spock and plenty of thrilling action sequences. You leave the cinema exhilarated and perhaps even excited for another installment.

Trekkies will love it and newcomers will love it. Abrams' Star Trek is modern, fluid and as far from  as superflous as my mother imagines. It's glorious sci-fi entertainment, absorbing and well crafted.

A treat.

Oz The Great and Powerful

Oz the Great and Powerful

Overall rating: 3.5 stars

It may not have the charm and dazzle of the wonderful original, but Oz the Great and Powerful is funny, visually potent (besides the green screen) and the power of the source material carries it through nicely.

The Good

This is an adaptation of one of L. Frank Baum's glorious Oz novels. They're great to read, particularly if you can stomach fourteen of them. Although this one doesn't translate to the screen as well as the previous 1939 adaptation, it's still a joy to look at and the costumes and world are well designed, both practically and graphically.

There's also a bit of humour and charm too, provided mostly by two key characters: Finlay the monkey (voiced excellently by Zack Braff) and China Girl, a brilliant piece of design. 

Sam Raimi provides decent direction too. I loved the transition from black and white to colour and the change of screen ratios when Oscar enters Oz.

The Bad

I love Rachel Weisz's Evanora and Michelle William's Glinda, but casting Mila Kunis as Theodora was a tragic mistake. Kunis has never been particularly great as an actress and she exhibits that here. As does Franco, who delivers cheesy grin after cheesy grin and delivers his dialogue poorly. 

Then the biggest problem is the green screen. It's pretty bad. There's a clear problem there. Maybe it's the outrageous design of Oz, or a technical fault, but it bugged me throughout the whole movie. It made the characters feel less real and a lot more distance, a big problem for a family movie.

To Conclude

It's great to see Oz on screen again, with lots of visual sparkle and plenty of humour and likeable characters, but a few casting problems and the green screen limit the praise this film can get. It's enjoyable enough, but there's a few issues to sort out for the inevitable sequel.

The Exorcist

The Exorcist

Overall Rating: 5 stars

Terrifying, horrifying, abhorrent, disgusting, vile, scary, chilling, nightmarish, brilliant. Just some of the words I could think of to summarise this film, off the top of my head. Call it what you will, The Exorcist is an absolute masterclass in the art of horror and, in my opinion, it is peerless.

The Good

It manages to be gruesome, garish and scary at the same time. Partly because of the fantastic special effects (strictly no CGI, it was filmed in1973 - making it seem even more realistic) and partly because of its horrifying "true" story. 

I won't spoil the story, but it's bloody horrific. Bloody being immensely apt. There are so many moments when the eerie atmosphere make you want to run away from your screen. NEVER watch this film alone. If you absolutely have to, watch it at midday, with the blinds open and with your entire family. You will be scarred otherwise.

You have been warned.

The Bad

Perhaps it's too scary? 

To Conclude

It's dark. It's scary. It's real. It's absolutely brilliant. Well acted, great effects, scary (I've run out of synonyms) and just generally an amazing example of Hollywood horror at it's finest.

P.S - Good luck...

Monsters Univeristy

Monsters University - Spoiler Free!

Overall rating: 4.5 stars

This year's Pixar flick is a hilarious and colourful romp with a couple of our childhood heroes, enhanced by joyful characters, traditional heart and gleeful nostalgia. It brilliantly captures the verve of the original, making it the best animation of the year so far (and looking at the rest of the main animated films slated for release this year -Turbo, Cloudy 2, Planes, Frozen - it will probably stay that way!)

The Good 

I'd like to start with the amount of grafting that goes on in the creation of a Pixar film. So many people forget how much work goes into animated films, Pixar especially. You've got to think of the story, storyboard it, pitch it, design settings and characters, animate, render, add lighting and shadows, finalise story details and ensure it hits theatres on time. The ignorance of these people irritates me, so whenever I go to watch a Pixar film, I always ensure whoever I go with pays great attention to the details. This is more evident than ever in Pixar's films, this one in particularly. There are hundreds of background characters with scales, fur, shiny skin etc. Monsters University looks as amazing as you'd expect, I even saw tiny dust particles floating in the air during one scene, testimony to how much Pixar's animation has advanced in recent years. Similarly, I love the way Pixar give such great stories to their characters, including minor characters.

  Then there's the story. It's good, if not groundbreaking. Of course we know how it will end, but director Dan Scanlon takes us there in a way which I certainly didn't expect. I enjoyed the surprising depth which came in the third act, as well as the conclusion of the story line. Plenty of humour was injected too. It's not Pixar's funniest (for me that title goes to "Up") but there's plenty of things that will make you chuckle (I still laugh most of the gags, having seen it four times now). These gags suceed mostly thanks to the great characters some of which we already know: Sulley, Mike, Randall etc. and then there are new ones, which I already feel strongly attached to: Terri, Terry, SQUISHY, Art, Don, Mrs Squibbles etc. Squishy and Art are my particular favourites, but for me the funniest gag is Art standing out in the open during Mike's hiding exercise! I still laugh at the mere thought. I cannot forget to mention Helen Mirren's excllent Dean Hardscrabble, chillingly voiced and excellently designed. Finally, Randy Newman's score is excellent as always, the new tune is memorable and creative.

The Bad

The one bad thing I could pick out was that a few of the jokes fell slightly flat. I'm not sure if this was the audience (being British I don't think all of the jokes registered with the younger, foreign audience), or just the script trying too hard. The main examples were the slow slug, funny briefly but it went on too long and Art's extra toe, which was met by blank faces all round.

To Conclude

Monsters University will charm and entertain everyone, with hilarious nods to the first film and lots of fresh new jokes. You'll enjoy the antics of Mike and Sulley, maybe not quite as much as Inc., but it's gloriously Pixar anyway.

Special mention to

Saschka Unseld's The Blue Umbrella, a cute short which debuts before MU. Whilst the story isn't anything especially new, the animation is peerless (you'll believe me when you see it), the scoring is beautiful and it is an enjoyable, touching few minutes to add anyone's day.