Er was an inventive,realistic and confronting series,showing the day to day of any large ER department in a large hospital. ER was the pioneer in this area of entertainment,no other medical has since measured up,shows like Grey's Anatomy and Private Practice,with their slick characters,unrealistic situations and annoying events can't hold a candle to the gritty,sometimes heartbreaking but always inspiring characters and stories of ER.
The first thing to acknowledge when reviewing Tony Scott's "Man on Fire" is that it's essentially two films. It begins with former CIA operative John Creasy (Washington) taking up a simple bodyguard job for a wealthy family in Mexico City, a city rife with kidnapping where the family's young daughter Pita (Fanning) is an obvious target.
Creasy is a man struggling to live with the heavy conscious his years in the CIA earned him. The horrors he has seen are never shown or explained but it is clear from the offset that he has done things for which he believes he can never be redeemed. This belief leads him to develop a drinking problem and almost drives him to take his own life.
Shortly after a failed attempt to do just that, he begins to from a bond with the young girl he has been assigned to protect and they soon become close as he is once more able to enjoy life seeking redemption through the protection of an innocent child.
I've heard many complain that this half of the film is dull or overly long which seems highly unfair and is perhaps down to viewers expecting an explosion-fest right from the start. The chemistry between Washington and Fanning is outstanding, making the most trivial of conversations between the two a joy to watch. Fanning in particular deserves credit for delivering such a naturalistic and likeable performances at such a young age.
Such an outstanding performance as a child almost makes being in a Twilight film forgiveable. Almost.
The aforementioned viewers who were expecting to see things go boom would perhaps be best advised to tune in just for the second half of the film which certainly delivers on this front.
After a kidnapping gone wrong in Pita is killed and Creasy is labelled a cop-killer as part of the cover-up He vows revenge upon all those responsible for her death and backs up this promise with enough firepower to lay siege to a small nation.
From here things quickly descend into revenge flick territory where the hero can massacre countless goons in as brutal a fashion as possible because, hey, they started it.
Although the lesser o f the film's halves, the second portion is enlivened briefly by two incredibly tense if rather over the top interrogation scenes in which Creasy displays a ruthless determination to avenge Pita as well as a rather creative use for plastic explosives.
The other action scenes are perfectly enjoyable but soon leave the realm of believability as the film tries to up the ante with each one, culminating in Creasy breaking into an elderly couple's flat to fire a rocket launcher out their window. After you've finished laughing at the sheer ridiculousness of this tactic, you will find yourself questioning how Creasy is able to freely walk around town blowing people up.
Although such disregard for logic is commonplace in many action flicks, it's disappointing in a film that took the time to craft believable characters and you can't help but feel the opportunity to make a really great thriller was squandered in favour of cramming in more action set-pieces which, although well executed and enhanced by the effortless cool that Washington brings to all his roles, soon just become absurd.
The film's other major flaw is it's insistence on bringing into play a host of unnecessary minor characters from a journalist determined to uncover what really happened at the kidnapping, to a corrupt cop to..... Mickey Rourke. Seriously, I can barely even remember who his character was supposed to be. He's just there.
This overpopulation issue is especially absurd in a film that is at its finest when the two central characters are just left to play of each other, many of the others fail to serve any purpose other than to push the film's running time to a meaty 146 minutes.
In a such a lengthy film its especially important that when things finally do wrap up and, though many critics have disagreed, I feel "Man on Fire" succeeds on this front with an ending that's conclusive and moving, with an especially pretty final shot.
"Man on Fire" is still a very enjoyable film, the first half makes for an entertaining family drama , Creasy and Pita's relationship is sweet but entirely believable. Once things start exploding any potential for intelligence goes out the window but what remains is an entertaining romp which only occasionally becomes entirely too ridiculous to be taken seriously.
Cars in cinema now seems to be in my eyes cliched pornography for the eyes (example Transformers).
Very rarely does a film come out about cars that isnt crappy cliched trash.
This is undeniably one of those films.
Drive is a beautiful but at times very violent film.
Theres a fantastic amount of effort and character develoment in every single main charatar.
The action is awesome and actually terrfying.
The acting is amazing and there is pure effort in every single character.
My favorate charatar in the film is actually Ron Pearlmans Nino his charatar is really funny but scary at the same time plus Pearlman looks like having lots of fun playing Nino and thats important that the actor or the actress is having a good time playing the charatar and not feeling forced to act due of a paycheck (example everybody in Eragon.)
Every single actor and actress in this film look like thier genuinely enjoying themselves playing the charater knowing theres a heathly paycheck on the otherside.
Nicholas Winding Rfen is a genuis in the world of cinema although this is his only big film hes done I can say that without any doubt.
I saw about 40 - 50 films in 2011 Drive is my 4th favorate on 2011.
Im not suprised though why it wasnt nomated for the oscars because they probably didnt like it.
Its not the best film to out of the 2011 Cannes film festival because my 2nd all time favorate film The Artist.
But it still is a work of art.
yes it might be the arthouse gone in 60 seconds starring Nicholas Cage.
but its still a brilliant,exicting but haunting beautful loveletter of cinema.
If you havent seen Drive rent it just for the experience.
Drive stars Ryan Gosling as Driver who drives for a living.
One day his neibour played by Carry Mulligan husband comes home.
Hes forced to do one last job by Gangster Bernie Rose and the driver helps him.
Sherlock returns to our TV in series 2; after a cliffhanging scene in the end of series 1 with enemy, Moriarty, this continues in the story of Sherlock and his chase of one of the UK's most dangerous criminal. He encounters a number of baffling and heart dropping cases and solves them with his grand intelligence. However Sherlock has now met his his match but will he triumph like his other cases? Or get outdone?
Scorsese saves cinema
Martin Scorsese has had a long and varied career in Hollywood, he has made some of the greatest movies ever seen, but how will his latest outing Hugo fair? I suppose the real question is will Hugo make us show The Colour Of Money or just highlight The Departed?
Before Hugo even started it had several hurdles to climb, not the least of them being that Scorsese was the creator of my film of the year last year in Shutter Island. Going in, I had low hopes and high expectations, the film (as far as I knew) plot was that a little boy fixes clocks in a train station. Not the most gripping of outlines, but then something happened, the film began and so did the magic.
I feel that "Magic" is very much the word to use for Hugo, it's like old witchcraft the way that the movie hooks and engages us, drawing us in and making us empathise with the characters and to make us care as much as we do by the end is a clever game indeed and it could only come from a master like Scorsese. In fact the directing speaks for itself, the opening sequence where we are shown Hugo and a small introduction to all the characters in one long take is both ambitious and imaginative, but it's a shame that you know it's only there because of the 3D.
In Hugo's defence it doesn't often have sequences for 3D's sake, most of the film feels as kinetic and natural as any of Martin's past body of work. The over all feel to the movie from a technical stand point is breathtaking. However it does run into some minor problems.
Number 1 is that the film is set in France, and so as with all films set in France there are French Sticks, Onions and the Eiffel Tower in as many scenes as possible, but then this is in all movies that are based in France so it is quite easy to forgive Hugo for such a small misdemeanour.
Of course some people will no doubt HATE how obvious and forceful the film is with it's message but personally, I just love it all the more for that, because the message of this film is "Films is art", this isn't a surprise as Scorsese himself has long been a champion for the protection and respect for film, he believes we should take greater care of the classic movies and from that steams this film, where everything evolves around films.
When film's are first mentioned in Hugo I winced; presuming (wrongly) that this was just going to be a post modern conversation much in the formula of Quintin Tarantino, but I was wrong.
As far as Characters go, while not all are used to their full potential there is enough sub plot to keep us from getting bored with a handful of extra ideas to increase Hugo's success rate.
In regard to the cast they are all strong with Sacha Baron Cohen bringing just the right amount of humour and ridiculousness to stop him from being a "Child Catcher" villain, and Asa Butterfield is impressive as Hugo, with particular talent in showing inner turmoil and conflict at the loss of his father. All the supporting cast are wonderful with no one person spending so much time on screen that they outstay their welcome; but each being on long enough to justify their contribution.
It's late in the year, and an odd thing to say, but I truly think Hugo is in my top 5 films of the year, it is a true family film and is nothing short of beautiful.
a wonderful documentary about Springburn Loco Works in Glasgow (now gone forever), and the world changing production made there. The final scenes of 3 trains racing accompanied by Mahler@ 4th syphony is absolutely mid boggling
the REAL story of springburn loco works
Today, Orson Welles is regarded as the Shakespeare of cinema, topping both the critics and directors top ten directors lists in a Sight & Sound poll conducted in 2002. However, Welles' career was far from rosy and the only one of the five films he directed in Hollywood where he had creative control over the final cut is, perhaps not coincidentally the "official greatest film of all time", Citizen Kane. Of the others, by far the best is Touch of Evil, one of the last and greatest examples of film noir, starring Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh and Welles himself.
Welles was originally slated to only star in the film but due to a miscommunication with Heston, Universal scrambled to sign him up as the director as well. Welles was eager to work in Hollywood again after spending some time in Europe, despite the fact that the studio system had resulted in the bastardisation of much of his work, most famously The Magnificent Ambersons which was cut down from 148 minutes in length to the mere 88 minutes that survive today. Nevertheless, Welles had high regard for Hollywood, praising the American technical arsenal as "a grandiose thing" but once again on Touch of Evil, the studio altered Welles' work without his permission. Thankfully, the cut footage wasn't lost like it was on Ambersons and in 1998 his vision was restored with the help of a detailed 58-page memo.
The film opens with terrifically suspenseful scene where we see a mysterious individual place a bomb in a car. A couple enter the car and Welles almost suspends time by utilising a crane shot that tracks the car across the city - occasionally losing it before yet again picking it up. As the scene goes on the tension builds as we expect an explosion that seemingly will never happen, maybe the bomb was a dud? Until, finally, boom. So the scene is set for a typical detective story, where a good, honest cop tries to track down the shadowy killer? Almost. However, Touch of Evil turns out to be much more than that.
The film is primarily a bitter, captivating psychological war between Vargas (Heston), a Mexican drug enforcement officers who involves himself in the case and Hank Quinlan, a long-serving American police Captain with a very impressive record. Quinlan is more than xenophobic, his racism frequently bubbling to the surface of his monstrous physique which represents his personality just as much as his hateful words. Welles always was a master of lighting and in Touch of Evil the cinematography conveys Quinlan's abhorrent views by utilising high contrast imagery and displaying the Mexican cast in typically much darker lighting than their American counterparts. Vargas suspects that Quinlan plants evidence in order to convict his suspects, in retaliation the power-abusing Quinlan attempts to frame Vargas and his wife for crimes they didn't commit. Quinlan has become the embodiment of the 'corrupt Mexican' stereotype that he so despises, adding an element of irony to the film's racial subtext.
Welles depicts Quinlan with a detestability that matches Harry Lime, a character Welles iconically played in Carol Reed's The Third Man but Quinlan is an altogether more human character, despite his more obscene physical attributes. Unlike Lime, Quinlan is a sympathetic character - a monster created by circumstance rather than the pursuit of wealth - his wife was murdered years earlier by a "half-breed" whom Quinlan was unable to convict due to lack of evidence.
Touch of Evil is perhaps the greatest example of Welles' unparalleled talent for cinema - besides directing and starring in the picture he also wrote the screenplay just from the basic premise of the "very bad" script that was originally given to him. In actual fact, the film is based on the novel Badge of Evil written by Whit Masterson that Welles would later claim he never even read until after he directed the film. Whether or not the claim is true, the film is an outstanding work - a dark, atmospheric noir masterpiece that displays Welles' artistic innovation just as much as the earlier Citizen Kane and reminded Hollywood of his brilliance. However, as is always the case, Hollywood didn't quite like art as much as it liked money and Welles would never direct there again. In the film, a fortune teller tells Quinlan that his future "is all used up". Now, the prophecy has more poignancy.
Spider-Man 3 isn't the greatest superhero film ever made. It isn't even the greatest Spider-Man film ever made. However, it's a lot better than its middling reputation might suggest, and now that the hype of its original release has died down, it's possible to examine it without the weight of impossible expectation that led to disappointment for so many viewers.
Crucial to the success of the three Spidey movies so far is the approach taken by their director. Sam Raimi clearly 'gets' Spider-Man, and he treats the character with a care and respect that you'd expect from a fan. Not only does Raimi clearly understand Spidey, but he understands how to bring his world to the screen effectively, too: which elements of the comic-book characterisation to retain and which to reinvent, what modifications to make to the various story strands to bring them together cohesively, and how to put it together for a mainstream audience. However, Raimi isn't so respectful that he's afraid to do anything new or to take chances with him (as Superman Returns proved, an overly reverential attitude to the subject can scupper a superhero film), and it's perhaps Raimi's more daring and unusual (if superficial) choices which turned off some of comicdom's more conservative fans, many of whom thought that 'dark' Peter's geeky dancing was ridiculous or that the new Goblin costume looked even sillier than the last one.
However, that's not to say that there aren't more fundamental problems with the film, because there are - and where the film really falls down is in its attempt to cram far an excess of material into its story. Spider-Man 3 is a film which deals with some fairly straightforward themes: responsiblity, the darker side of human nature, revenge, and forgiveness. Unfortunately, these themes are muddied by all sorts of elements which feel out of place and unnecessary: there's a revisitation of Uncle Ben's murder which risks negating the very reason that Peter became Spider-Man; there are superfluous complications with the various love triangles of the story (with Gwen Stacy included for no apparent reason other than fan service); and there's at least one too many villains.
However, whereas many people cite the inclusion of Venom as the decision which ultimately unbalanced the film, it's actually the Sandman who feels like a third wheel here. His character is so under-developed and two-dimensional (a common criminal, given motivation and definition only by the cliché of his sick daughter) that Thomas Hayden Church's acting abilities feel completely wasted. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a far more complete version of the character in the initial script than ended up on screen, because I can't believe that Raimi would have conceived his Sandman in such a half-baked manner.
Indeed, during the cast commentary on this DVD Raimi and other cast members talk about how much the final script for Spider-Man 3 differs from the original drafts (in which the villains were originally Sandman and the Vulture), and how the late decision to include Venom meant that the entire plot had to be rewritten in order to introduce the black costume and to push Peter in a darker direction. As it turns out, this was a great decision, as it bolsters the drama of the characters' inter-personal relationships with a strong central storyline which plays into the conventions of the superhero genre at the same time as it gives the central character a meaty, meaningful arc of development.
The importance of taking responsibilty for your actions has always been a key aspect of Spider-Man, and the manner in which the black suit gives him more power (but at a personal cost) is a great way to represent his internal conflict between the desire to do good and the temptation to unleash a darker side. It's the most compelling aspect of the film, and Raimi gives it enough time and attention that it feels organic and faithful to the character rather than seeming rushed and forced. The motif of duality is also subtly underlined by Raimi through the film's visuals, with frequent snatches of Peter's reflection in mirrored surfaces reinforcing the idea of there being two conflicting aspects of Peter's personality at play.
This internal conflict isn't confined to Peter Parker, either: Harry Osborn, Flint Marko and Eddie Brock all experience similar dilemmas, and it helps to unify the film under a common theme. The other major themes which underpin the movie are those of forgiveness and revenge, but unfortunately those aren't quite as well-developed: of all the characters, it's only Harry Osborn's arc that really succeeds, reaching a satisfying climax which feels like a deserved payoff for his long, tortured character history. Even then, though, he's able to fall back on the previous 2 movies' worth of characterisation and audience goodwill to give his scenes some weight.
Tobey Maguire has made Peter Parker his own to such an extent that I couldn't imagine anyone else in the role. He nails the character's geeky charm, his silly humour and the emotional highs and lows that he experiences throughout the film. Some may find his performance as 'emo' Parker a little over-the-top or cheesy, and much has been made of his goofy dancing under the influence of the black costume, but it's to Maguire's credit that it all feels perfectly in-character. Kirsten Dunst is far more impressive here than in the first two movies, and that's probably due to the more complex and mature material that she's given to work with. She plays a dejected MJ well, and her frustration at Peter's fall into arrogance and lack of consideration for her feelings is played perfectly, feeling wholly sympathetic, and adding to the change in the audience's perception of Spidey as a result. After the will-they won't-they soap-opera of the first two movies, the couple's complicated web of misunderstanding provides a more intelligent, true-to-life piece of drama.
The villains are also well-cast: Topher Grace does particularly well as Eddie Brock Jr., a character who is played as similar to Peter Parker but with a slightly more sinister and self-deluding edge. There's a certain amount of charisma, but it's tempered with an unlikeable quality which makes him impossible to get too atttached to. Equally, Thomas Hayden Church does his best with what he has to work with, but the character is so thin that he can only sketch the Sandman in the broadest possible strokes.
James Franco is probably the greatest success, though - he's given a fully-rounded character arc and he makes the most of what is likely to be his swansong in the series, playing the loyal friend and the bitter enemy with equal confidence, and never veering too close to the kind of pantomime antics than can turn a villain from scary to ridiculous. There's a real edge and a sinister sense of danger to his performance, and it makes the New Goblin the most compelling of the three villains any time he's on-screen.
Bryce Dallas Howard's inclusion as Gwen Stacy is the only real head-scratcher. After watching the film a few times, I'm still struggling to work out why she was thrown into the mix, as she doesn't really add anything to the story. Howard plays the character sweetly enough, but I simply can't understand why she was included - other than to give a little variation to the damsel-in-distress scenes that have been the sole purview of Mary Jane in the last two films.
Finally, I have to mention the most faithfully-realised character in the all three Spider-Man movies: J. Jonah Jameson. J.K. Simmons plays the character to perfection, and even if he doesn't seem to have quite as much time to shine here as in Spider-Man 2, his appearances are so enjoyable that he really raises the level of entertainment every time he appears on screen.
Visually, the film improves upon both of the previous instalments, with far more convincing CGI doubles, and fight scenes which are more intricate and detailed than ever before. However, the standout sequence isn't a fight or a display of Spidey's acrobatic abilities: it's the far quieter and more considered scene which depicts the birth of the Sandman. Not only is it a triumph of visual effects, but it's a beautifully-conceived, wordless, poetic sequence in which the emotional content is perfectly conveyed through the visuals and through Christopher Young's evocative score. Thomas Hayden Church's performance is mapped onto the sand-creature seamlessly, and the craft with which the scene is executed makes the character an artistic achievement to rank alongside Terminator 2's T-1000, or Gollum from The Lord of the Rings.
When it comes to action, this is probably the most ambitious of all three of the Spider-Man films, but it pulls it off admirably, with a far grander scale than the previous two films. The four-way battle royale which closes the movie is one of the only ones in the history of superhero movies to truly convey the giddy visual excitement of the comic book page, and the larger-than-life nature of a big superhero smackdown: even the train sequence from Spider-Man 2 is put to shame.
However, the most impressive fight isn't the final free-for-all, but the dirty, rough tussle between Peter and Harry in his penthouse apartment. As in the first two films, Raimi ties Spider-Man's fights with Sandman, Venom and the New Goblin to an emotional core, giving Peter Parker a personal conflict with each of the villains which strengthens the impact of their battles, and the fight between the two schoolfriends is a perfect example of how this deeper connection can raise the stakes for an otherwise straightforward fight scene. My only complaint is that the fight sequences are occasionally so fast and furious that it's difficult to get a sense of what's going on (the opening airborne battle between an out-of-costume Spider-Man and the New Goblin is so frenetic that it's sometimes hard to get a fix on the characters or their actions), but that's only a minor flaw in an otherwise very impressive production.
Spider-Man 3, then, is a flawed and imperfect movie which is more satisfying and dense than the first film, but which doesn't quite achieve the perfect mix of action, character development, humour and spectacle that made the second film such a perfect superhero movie. It's still one of the better superhero films to have come out of Hollywood in recent years, and doesn't deserve the weak reputation that it gained in the first few weeks of release, but it ultimately feels too crowded and unfocused to stand as a truly great entry in the Spider-Man canon.
The DVD extras take the form of two commentaries on the first disc, and several featurettes on the second disc, which cover various aspects of the film's production. It's the standard package for movies like this (and is very similar to the package put together for Spider-Man 2), and it's a shame to see that the featurettes don't really go into a lot of detail about the film's troubled production history, and the reports that Venom was forced on Raimi by Avi Arad and the studio.
However, the director and cast commentary is slightly more revealing, dropping a few interesting hints as to how the movie was originally envisioned and admitting that the film began shooting without a full script in place. For the most part, though, it's an excuse for the actors to congratulate each other on their performances and to talk about the general themes of the movie. Topher Grace deserves some credit for his surprisingly solid knowledge of the Spider-Man comics (either he's a fan, or he's really done his homework), but much of the commentary is pretty unremarkable stuff. The set is rounded out with a gag reel, some trailers, some photo galleries, and a Snow Patrol music video.
I won't begin my review by relating to you the global significance of Darth Vader's character, telling you where I was when I first saw Episode IV: A New Hope, or being evangelical about how Star Wars has changed my life - it hasn't. But like many people with a healthy interest in fantasy and sci-fi, I'm a pretty big fan of Star Wars who felt that the first two films of the prequel trilogy didn't quite live up to the promise that they could have fulfilled.
As such, Revenge of the Sith had quite a job to do in making me care about Anakin Skywalker's fall to the Dark Side - an element of the overall plot which is so crucial that to fluff it could have a terrible impact on the whole saga. Happily, with Episode III of his Star Wars six-parter, George Lucas produced a better film than his two previous efforts, and in doing so has - just about - justified the existence of three films of backstory to one of the most revered film trilogies ever created.
Lucas has a gift in story terms with Revenge of the Sith, in that all of the necessary elements have been moved into place by episodes I and II, and enough groundwork has been done that he can cut loose and give the fans everything they've been wanting to see since the prequel trilogy was announced.
Key scenes to the story of all six films quickly begin to stack up - The Clone Wars, the downfall of the Jedi order, the birth of Luke and Leia, the exile of Yoda and (of course) the fall of Anakin Skywalker - and anyone with more than a passing interest in the films will be thrilled that all of these moments have finally been realised.
Lucas also manages to make some of the story elements far more interesting than anticipated, with the doomed young lovers' romance feeling a lot more genuine this time around, and Anakin's inevitable submission to the Emperor being a far more emotionally complex scene than a simple sudden switch to the dark side. You also have to give the director credit for allowing the requisite darkness to seep through the film, as this episode is unquestionably the most violent, despairing and scary of the entire saga, and fully deserves the higher classification rating which it received in many quarters.
Unfortunately, the most crucial problem with Sith is the same flaw that can be levelled at Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones: George Lucas' overly clinical direction. It seems apparent that despite all the visual flair and advances in special effects and film technology that accompanied the appearance of the prequel trilogy, Lucas has again neglected to give his film enough soul, as there are some moments where the audience would be forgiven for feeling that more could have been made of some dramatically important moments than is offered up. That's a frustration, especially considering some other moments (particularly the execution of "order 66") definitely do carry such emotional weight.
However, John Williams' score, both orchestral and choral, is rousingly effective at filling these gaps: beautiful and tragic, determinedly sinister yet with pangs of hope, Williams' music conveys at least as much emotion as the slick visuals, and is possible his finest work of the last three Star Wars films.
Luckily for Lucas, the level of acting is also at a new high for the prequel trilogy: Ian McDiarmid deservedly received high praise among critics for his portrayal of Palpatine, infusing his appearances with a dramatic weight which makes it impossible to take your eyes off him whenever he's on screen. His opera scene with Hayden Christensen was the film's highlight, and proves that the heart of the Star Wars story can be more keenly felt in a simple scene of one man telling another man a simple story than in a hundred lightsaber battles.
Christensen also surprised me with his layered, conflicted portrayal of Anakin in this film, with the clumsy romance of two young lovers feeling far truer here than in the meadows of Attack of the Clones.
And Ewan McGregor also does well with the material he's given, evoking real passion and a tragic conflictedness in his final showdown with the troubled Anakin.
It's these three actors who elevate the material to a higher plain this time around, and save the film from becoming the monotonous, hollow soap opera that plagued episodes I and II. Other scenes featuring more minor characters fall far short of this standard, however, and serve only as empty plot-driven scenes that barely sate us until we come back to the main three players of the movie. It's an uneven mix, but one that at least keeps us interested in the key points of the film even when others fall by the wayside.
It's difficult to sum up my feelings about this particular film without sounding a little schizophrenic, as Revenge of the Sith sticks firmly to the Star Wars prequel tradition of having some amazing moments which will blow the audience away, but mixing them with some howlers. As gripped as I was during the opening space battle, the later confrontation between Obi-Wan and General Grievous, the big reveal of the Emperor's grotesque visage, or the duel, there were little touches at each point which contrived to undermine some otherwise effective sequences (the slapstick battle droids; Grievous' bizarre coughing and chicken-walking idiosyncracies; the poorly-executed and over-exposed Emperor make-up; the intereference of silly flying lava-droids).
However, as the end of episode III bleeds into the opening of episode IV, a real sense of Star Wars magic is evoked. The final ten minutes of the film come closer to recapturing the spirit of A New Hope than any of the other prequels, and leaves you on such a high that the entire Revenge of the Sith experience is somehow improved by it.
The best thing that can probably be said about these three newer films is that the original trilogy is not subverted by them, or its impact lessened: in fact, there is more depth added to certain elements that make them far more interesting as part of a larger story. Lucas has not topped episodes IV-VI with his prequel trilogy, but he has at least contributed many new ideas (the arrogant fallibility of the Jedi; the conflicted and occasionally emotional nature of Vader; the all-to-real transition from republic to Empire) which enrich the entire story and make the 6 films a truly satisfying whole.
Everyone likes Johnny Depp. Even the people who don't like him, sort of like him; and I'm no exception, for Johnny Depp has been an actor I've admired since 'Platoon': Gradually won over by his memorable and idiosyncratic performances in 'Edward Scissorhands', 'Benny & Joon' and 'Arizona Dream'. Up until he became one of my favorite actors with five classic films that made him the respected artist he is today: 'Ed Wood', 'Dead Man', 'The Brave', 'Donnie Brasco' and 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas'. By the time 'Pirates of the Caribbean' sailed into view, Hollywood's collective timbers were still shivering in the wake of 'Cutthroat Island' (1995) with the swashbuckling pirate genre effectively thrown overboard to drown, few expected Disney's theme park ride inspired movie to become the global phenomenon it is today. Initially created as a vehicle for popular newcomers Kiera Knightley and Orlando Bloom, Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow stole the show, went onto headline three sequels and remains one of the most unlikely movie icons of all time.
'Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides' is the forth, and by no means final, installment of a saga that began in 2003. Having closed the chapter on the first three film's principal protagonists; Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom, trilogy director Gore Vibenksi dismounts the vessel as Rob Marshall ('Chicago') climbs aboard, hoists the anchor and plots a new course. Marshall isn't one of my favorite directors and I haven't seen many of his films yet based on the strength of 'Memoirs of a Geisha' (2005), it'd be unfair to label him a hack at this stage. 'POTC 4' allows him to do what the studios have wanted since the sequel and make it all about Jack Sparrow, "...that's Captain Jack Sparrow to you". And so it is: 'The British Empire' a.k.a. 'The East India Company' still prowl the high seas at war with freelance pirates who pose a threat to the corporate piracy of the crown. New allies and old adversaries clash in a quest to find the fountain of youth as Jack, not one to rest on his laurels after the Pirate Brotherhood's spectacular victory over the Empire 'At World's End', crosses paths with the dangerous Angelica Teach (Penelope Cruz), her father; the infamous Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and pirate turncoat (or is he?) Barbarossa (Geoffrey Rush) who's now sailing under The Union Jack. Add killer mermaids, imperial intrigue and a mildly amusing cameo by Judi Dench and you have what amounts to another enjoyable, albeit unjustifiably long, addition to the Pirates cannon.
Penelope Cruz is brilliant as the scheming Angelica and it was great to see Cruz and Depp back on screen together, a decade after they played husband and wife in the movie 'Blow'. Everyone else puts in a reasonably good performance and as hard as it may be to believe, you do occasionally miss Bloom and Knightley. On a par with 'POTC 3: At World's End' (the most accomplished and coherent film of the franchise) 'On Stranger Tides' has enough thrills and spills to keep you watching till the end, and with the now obligatory sequel set up and post credits scene, you can bet all your pieces of eight that the Skull & Crossbones will be raised again.
Excellent in all aspects recreating horror of day to day life in the death camp, slowly revealing true horror of what goes on there. From opening scene at the railway station 'welcoming' jewish guests to nazi reprisals for escapes, to final scenes in which highly organised escape takes place, a gripping but horrifying account of man's inhumanity to man. Even final credits poignant as they reveal fate of the various characters seen after the escape. Every one should see this film.
true story of largest escape from nazi death camp by jews.
A few years ago, it might have been hard to imagine Captain America making it to the big screen, let alone being the subject of the kind of big-budget superhero blockbuster that director Joe Johnston's take on the character has turned out to be.
For one thing, Captain America comes off as a pretty silly concept these days: a young, kind-hearted but gangly Brooklyn kid called Steve Rogers wants to serve for the US in World War Two, but is rejected from the armed forces because he's too skinny and too short. So, he volunteers to become the subject of a top-secret military experiment to create "super soldiers" through developing a magical serum that boosts physical strength and agility. Compared to some of the more complex and conflicted personalities we've seen in superhero films lately, that sort of simplicity could seem outdated and naïve.
For another thing, the character is one of the most nationalistic and jingoistic comic-book characters ever created, with an unwavering commitment to his country and a costume that effectively drapes him in the stars and stripes. Whilst that kind of thing might play well in the USA, it which could potentially make him a hard sell elsewhere in the world - especially in these politically-sensitive times.
It's to Johnston's credit, then, that he manages to overcomes these obstacles not by side-stepping them, but by addressing them head-on.
Firstly, the film is leant immeasurable depth by the casting of Chris Evans in the title role. Whilst the actor is no stranger to comic-book movies - having played major roles in fairly two-dimensional films like Fantastic Four and The Losers - Evans seems to really raise his game here, playing the part of Rogers with the kind of total sincerity and conviction that's necessary if we're really to buy into the idea that he's such a good-hearted soul. Not only does Evans sell the reality of the character, but he even manages to encourage us to sympathise with him, giving him an utterly convincing selfless attitude, a believable friendship with his brother-in-arms James 'Bucky' Barnes, a touching relationship with the super-soldier project's lead scientist, Abraham Erskine (played by Stanley Tucci, who turns in a surprisingly moving performance), and a compelling romantic interest in female British agent Peggy Carter.
Secondly, the inherent jingoism of Captain America as a concept is made an important part of the story itself, as Rogers is initially given a starring role in a morale-building USO entertainment show for the American troops. This gives the film the chance to acknowledge the camper elements of the character (particularly of his first costume, floppy boots, impractical outfit and all) as well as to pay homage to iconic moments from the comic (notably the cover of the very first issue, which featured Captain America punching Hitler - who is represented here by one of Rogers' fellow actors).
Having acknowledged and effectively addressed both of these potential concerns, Johnston is then free to progress to the main part of the story, which propels Rogers into an altogether more compelling and serious role, pitting him against an occultist Nazi leader called the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) who has harnessed the power of a mysterious energy source that could help him achieve world domination.
Yes, it's a little cheesy, but the tone is light enough to support the more far-fetched elements of the plot, coming off as similar to the knockabout fun of Indiana Jones (a franchise that even gets a sly acknowledgement in one of this film's earliest scenes). It's also a little reminiscent of the Rocketeer movie - also directed by Johnston - in the way that it applies a retro feel to a traditional swashbuckling story whilst also providing enough in the way of cutting-edge effects and action that modern audiences won't be disappointed.
By the time the exciting finale rolls around, viewers might find themselves surprised by just how much they've emotionally invested in a character who essentially boils down to a goody-two-shoes draped in an American flag - and how much they've found themselves affected by the more bittersweet elements of the film's plot.
Furthermore, "Captain America: The First Avenger" (to give the film its full title) is also a part of the burgeoning Marvel Movie Universe, which means that it subtly builds on ideas already established in films like Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and Thor and forms part of the build-up to this summer's mega-superhero-team-blockbuster, The Avengers. These build-up elements aren't as distracting as they were in Iron Man 2 - instead, they serve to stir up a little interest in the forthcoming attraction (and what role Captain America might play in it) without ever compromising the main story being told here.
And buyers of the Blu-ray will be able to enjoy even more pointers towards the Avengers, as the high-definition disc also includes a special exclusive short film that tells a side-story involving SHIELD Agent Coulson (as seen in the Iron Man and Thor movies).
Whilst Captain America might not be the most out-and-out entertaining of the Marvel Studios movies to have been released so far - that honour still goes to the original Iron Man - it's certainly the most heartfelt and sincere. Its retro setting and wartime backdrop also offer a very different flavour to the majority of superhero movies to have been released so far, and in Chris Evans the studio seems to have found a lead actor who's not only able to carry this film on his shoulders, but who will also be capable of supporting the entire Avengers franchise.
First off, let it be known that this film was quite widely disliked, with the acting and long running time coming up for intense criticism by the cinematic and arts press generally. But I think we might have a case of sense of humour loss on our hands. Going to a film with the word 'Transformers' in it surely entails a different expectation to that accompanies a visit to the RSC to see William Hurt. Both have their place of course, but the realised pleasures are inevitably different. Transformers: Dark of the Moon showcases what Hollywood really does do rather well, that is action, breathtaking effects, beautiful people and a save-the-world script. So why not have over two hours of it?
The plot itself, though not strictly important in this genre, is actually a little more imaginative than you might have thought and without wanting to spoil things, begins with an alternative explanation to the end of the Apollo moon missions. This theme seems to be arousing quite a bit of interest from film-makers these days, per Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego's recent Apollo 18 effort. Anyway, we then cut to an unemployed Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) who cannot work with the benevolent Autobots and whose life we are told is generally on a downer despite having the stunning Carly Spencer for a girlfriend (played by Rosie Huntingdon-Whiteley). Now I know how Andy Murray feels. Needless to say, Sam is soon pressed back into service in order to save the world and mayhem ensues.
What makes Transformers: Dark of the Moon stand out is its jaw-dropping special effects and action scenes. A car chase sequence early in the movie begins on a wide, sand coloured US freeway and you just know you're in for a treat along the lines of the better modern-era chases such as in Terminator 2 and The Matrix Reloaded. Similarly stand-out sequences come later, with the visceral building scene in Chicago providing a reminder ten years on from 9/11 of quite what a nightmare it must be to be trapped in a building which is under attack. Other highlights include a prolonged hold-your-breath moment of silence when our heroes are stuck and praying that a Decepticon robot doesn't notice them hiding. Spielberg's The War of the Worlds immediately comes to mind (think the tentacle part) in what must surely have been a deliberate act of homage by director Michael Bay.
All these comparisons with other movies probably beg the question whether Transformers: Dark of the Moon is particularly original or ground-breaking. The answer is that conceptually it almost certainly isn't, but the execution is flawless and the effects look completely realistic with no hint of evident CGI whatsoever. So seeing buildings falling down and helicopters swatted out of the sky becomes utterly believable - and as such, all the more thrilling. It is true that this is not Shia LaBeouf 's best vehicle and his announcement that this would be his last installment in the franchise ties in with his by-the-numbers delivery here. Rosie Huntingdon-Whiteley undoubtedly has the looks and the physique for this sort of caper but her acting and the forced aristocratic English voice both need work. But all this is to miss the point. Transformers: Dark of the Moon provides a great two and a half hour escape from the world's many troubles and, if you calibrate your expectations dial correctly before watching, you will have fun I assure you.
Get in the right frame of mind and Michael Bay's latest Transformers installment will be all the action film you could want.
A smug, womanising pharmaceutical sales rep and a melodramatic, self-obsessed sufferer of Parkinson's Disease might not sound like the most appealing leads for a romantic comedy. And on paper, setting such a romance against the backdrop of Big-Pharma blockbuster-drug-development in the 1990s might not sound like the most compelling subject matter.
However, if you were to give Love and Other Drugs a miss on the basis of that bare-bones description, you'd be doing yourself a disservice, because it's one of the most refreshingly adult, honest and endearing rom-coms to have come along in quite some time.
Undoubtedly, the two lead actors - Jake Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko; Source Code) and Anne Hathaway (The Devil Wears Prada; The Dark Knight Rises) - elevate their roles from what could have risked being fairly unsympathetic characters to something far more interesting. Both Jamie Randall and Maggie Murdock feel like genuine, three-dimensional personalities who go through real growth and change over the course of the story, and who can't be pigeonholed into the usual set of standard character conventions - and this immediately makes the film far more interesting than your average rom-com fare.
The film is also fairly uncompromising when it comes to the realities of adult relationships: namely, sex. There's plenty in the way of nudity and sexual scenes here, but none of it feels gratuitous, and it all serves to add depth to the characters and to enrich the story, rather than coming off as an excuse to see a couple of beautiful people with no clothes on.
Also interesting is the subplot that deals with Jamie working as a sales rep for Pfizer whilst the company launches its Viagra sex-enhancing drug. Whilst there are plenty of occasions on which this element of the story is played for laughs - including an amusingly embarrassing trip to Accident & Emergency, and an over-the-top pool party aimed at winning over prescribing doctors - there are also several points at which the story is brave enough to examine the morality of pharmaceutical companies choosing to prioritise money-making over trying to help patients in genuine need.
In particular, a scene in which Maggie attends a support group for Parkinsons's sufferers provides some of the most heartfelt - and heartbreakingly honest - explorations of terminal illness that I've seen on film, and it's a this point that you start to realise that Love and Other Drugs is far more than just your run-of-the-mill rom-com. But all this is achieved without the film ever becoming too self-regarding or worthy, and without ever sacrificing its core character development for the sake of promoting its message.
Happily, the movie isn't dour and serious all of the time. As the relationship between Jamie and Maggie blooms, there are some beautiful scenes of convincing happiness and joy that accurately reflect that honeymoon period of being in love with someone for the first time. There's also a standout supporting turn from Josh Gad as Jamie's brother, who provides most of the movie's laugh-out-loud moments (even if there's a nagging sense that the filmmakers would have preferred to get Jack Black to play the role instead).
By the time the final scenes roll around, the movie has wrong-footed you enough times that there's a genuine sense of jeopardy in seeing how Jamie and Maggie's relationship plays out - and without spoiling things, it's fair to say that it goes in a direction that some viewers might not necessarily be expecting. However, it's a completely satisfying ending for a film that manages to tick off a lot of the core requirements of a romantic movie - without ever feeling as though it's doing so, and without forcing itself into boxes in which it doesn't belong - and which has a lot more heart and soul than most of the cookie-cutter rom-coms that Hollywood tends to churn out.
Science-fiction and fantasy films are always at their best when they have something to say that goes beyond the usual genre conventions. Director Joe Cornish (he of "Adam & Joe" fame) seems to have been acutely aware of this whilst crafting his debut feature, Attack the Block: a film which has as much to say about community, identity and morality as it does about the extra-terrestrial threat that underpins the story.
Set in and around a single block of flats in South London, the film deals with an apparent alien invasion on Bonfire Night, and the efforts of a small gang of teenage thugs to repel an onslaught of snarling, black, furry creatures from outer space (which fall somewhere between dogs, apes and bears. But with glow-in-the-dark teeth. Seriously).
The largely unknown cast is led by John Boyega as Moses, an intelligent but misguided young criminal who grows into something quite different over the course of the film, and whose confident, assured and dignified performance carries the emotional heart of the movie.
Without Boyega's solid performance, that interesting subtext that I mentioned earlier wouldn't have felt half as powerful. But he manages to strike a keen balance between projecting the kind of false bravado and swagger that you'd expect of a council estate gang leader, and hinting at the sense of vulnerability and hopelessness that also plays a significant role in the close-knit community he inhabits.
The importance of community and local identity are reinforced with constant allusions to the importance of "the Block", to the extent that the titular block of flats almost feels like a character in the movie itself. As well as serving as the battleground for the kids' attempt to repel the aliens, the Block is also what holds the characters together and gives them a sense of unity. Particularly interesting is the change that occurs in the gang's attitude towards a woman they mugged earlier, once they realise that she also lives in the tower block and is "one of them". It's only a minor shift, but it's one that hints at the wider themes that Cornish is trying to explore here.
It's also surely no accident that the movie chooses to render its villains as indistinct, black masses of fur and teeth that feel like a literal embodiment of the abstract concept of the alien 'other', against which the gang has to react in order to define itself. This lack of distinctiveness for the aliens helps to focus the film squarely on the kids rather than on the beasties, placing an emphasis on the human qualities that the kids possess, rather than the inhuman attributes of their foes.
Given its status as a relatively low-budget British film, Attack the Block also manages to pull off some impressive action sequences, arming its heroes only with ruthlessly realistic - and sometimes laughably mundane - household objects and weapons to see off the invading hordes (think fireworks, water pistols and wheelie-bins). There are several fairly gruesome and gory scenes, but the film never crosses the line into out-and-out horror, preferring to err on the side of comedy when the opportunity presents itself.
It's in this respect that secondary characters like drug dealer Ron (Nick Frost, of Shaun of the Dead fame) and Brewis (Luke Treadaway) come into their own, reacting in a deadpan manner to the craziness of what's going on around them and providing some levity that helps to offset the darkness of some of the other performances - particularly that of Jumayn Hunter, whose turn as increasingly deranged drug baron Hi-Hatz feels almost too scary to belong in the movie. Happily, there's always a funny aside or an amusingly-staged action scene to puncture the atmosphere when it threatens to get too oppressive, even when Cornish starts to ratchet up the tension (and bodycount) in the final reel of the film.
The only real criticism that I have of Attack the Block is that I'm not sure it ever manages to fully redeem the characters that we see involved in the mugging that takes place right at the beginning of the film. However, I wonder whether this moral ambiguity is what Cornish was aiming for. His movie seems to take inspiration from Neill Blomkamp's "District 9" by giving audiences a superficially straightforward alien-invasion film that also works on a far deeper level, encouraging us to examine the morality of our own actions and our relationships with our fellow human beings.
But don't worry, lots of stuff gets blown up too.
Has any film contributed more to the cultural lexicon than Pulp Fiction? If hearing phrases such as "a Royale with cheese", "Zed's dead, baby", "This is a tasty burger!", or listening to Chuck Berry's "You Never Can Tell" doesn't instantly transport you to the world of low-rent hitmen Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson), then I can only assume you haven't ever sampled Quentin Tarantino's masterpiece. If that's the case, then I'd advise that you remedy that omission immediately, because you're missing out on one of the most entertaining, original and generation-defining pieces of cinema of the last 20 years.
It's not just the sharp script, with its snappy back-and-forth banter and glorious use of obscenity and violence, that makes the movie so much fun to watch. However, on a surface level, it's hard to deny that Tarantino's distinctive voice as a writer is one of the things that first grabs you about the movie.
As paradoxical as it may seem, Pulp Fiction feels new and old at the same time: Tarantino seems to have populated the movie with handfuls of classic gangster tropes and clichéd characters (the Boss's seductive wife; the corrupt boxer whose career has hit the skids; the contract killers), picking and choosing his favourite elements like a magpie, before putting them all together in a way that somehow makes everything feel fresh and new.
Characters who feel like they sprung from the 1940s drive cars made in the 1980s, wear 1990s fashions, and go out to dinner in restaurants themed around the 1950s and 1960s. It's a glorious mixture of influences that could have seemed indulgent or incoherent under a less confident director, but which feels completely cohesive when aligned as part of Tarantino's singular vision.
Perhaps it's the charming banality of some of the more mundane conversations or the gradual onslaught of a thousand casual pop-culture references that endears us to the film, grounding these decidedly unreal characters - rendered here as bold, larger-than-life comic-book archetypes - in a reality that we can understand and relate to.
Undoubtedly, the many great acting performances also win over our affections, whether it's the career-resurrecting turn by Travolta; the career-defining performance by Jackson; the iconic appearance of Uma Thurman as the beguiling yet untouchable Mia Wallace; or the scene-stealing cameos by the likes of Harvey Keitel and Christopher Walken, who elevate what could be minor secondary characters to something altogether more special.
Finally, there's just so much pleasure to be had from rewatching the film and figuring out how its disjointed chronology all fits together. It's fair to say that after watching it for the first time, you'll immediately want to see it again - and the more you watch it, the more you appreciate all of the subtle connections and interplay between the three vignettes that comprise the film's central narrative.
On Blu-Ray, the movie seems to have found a format that can match its iconic status. It isn't just a case of being able to see everything just that little bit more sharply - although the high-definition format and the brand new Tarantino-approved transfer certainly allows you to more fully appreciate meticulous set design like the retro chic of the Jack Rabbit Slim diner, or the grubby clutter of the drug-dealer's den in which one of the film's most nerve-shredding sequences takes place.
It's also the wealth of extra material contained on this single disc that should make fans of the movie happy that it has been given a package that does it justice. Along with a host of deleted scenes (with commentary from Tarantino), there's also a critical roundtable discussion of the movie; a US TV special explaining the film's special place in recent cinema history; retrospective cast interviews; two montages of behind-the-scenes footage; a feature on the movie's breakout success at the Cannes film festival; a gallery of production and promotional images; and a pop-up trivia feature that runs alongside the movie.
It's a fittingly comprehensive treatment for one of the most distinctive, original and downright quotable films of the last 20 years, and I can't recommend it more highly to both fans and newcomers alike.
Surprisingly decent, covert-ops caper based on a true story and adapted from the book by ex-'SAS' member Ranulph Fiennes (Ralph & Joe Fiennes cousin). Set in 1980, 'The Killer Elite' features that staple scenario of most gangster, hit man and heist movies: the retired gangster, hit man or thief who returns for that often fatal 'one last job'. Here; former assassin Jason Statham is coerced into accepting an assignment from an exiled Sheik in Oman, whose looking to avenge the murder of his sons by the British; who invaded the Arab sultanate to protect their oil interests and used the 'SAS' to help Oman's Western backed dictator put down a popular revolution in 1975. The Sheik detains Statham's former Master-Sergeant and fellow assassin; Robert Deniro as collateral, and explains the mission: Statham has to track down, get confessions and eliminate the 'SAS' members responsible for murdering the Sheik's sons. He's more than up to the task, but the arrival of Clive Owen, as a shady ex-'SAS' man who gets wind of the operation and decides to intervene, complicates matters no end.
'The Killer Elite', directed by first timer Gary McKendry, boats a sterling cast, some well choreographed action sequences and even makes a few good points about the vicious circle of conflict and exploitation: "You SAS types; always looking for action, never stopping to think of the bigger picture", sneers a government spook. And Statham's poignant summary of the perverse system that trains killers, sends them to war on a lie and has to keep coming up with new wars to justify their existence and prevent revolts: "You don't know what to do with yourself, and they don't know what to do with you". But the film is still flawed in places, somewhat shoddily put together with a few plot points that make no sense at all. Now I tend not to nitpick on every detail and rarely spot movie mistakes, but 'The Killer Elite' does contain some howlers e.g. these men have to be the most unobservant bunch of Special-Ops killers ever; for none of them seem to realize when they're being followed. And there's an exceptionally bad oversight involving Statham's crew staking out a target area, only for Clive Owen to simply walk by and not notice the vehicle he'd been chasing or the guy he'd fought in an epic punch up only moments ago!
The acting is OK; Robert DeNiro isn't really in it and is more of a MacGuffin than an actual character. Clive Owen sports a killer Des Lynam moustache and does as well as the script allows whilst Statham carries the bulk of the picture with his trademark tough guy persona and understated cool. But 'The Oman-Dhofar Rebellion' itself was a dirty war mired in convoluted political machinations and dodgy deals cut by suspect characters across the globe; far too complex an issue to cover in an action movie. When it works, 'The Killer Elite' is an entertaining throwback to old school thrillers like Frederick Forsyth's 'The Dogs of War' and 'The Hunter' and ought to appeal to Statham fans. Hit and miss.
Say what you like about Terrence Malick, but he certainly takes great care in his art. The Tree of Life is only his fifth feature in a career spanning 40 years, and is undoubtedly the film he has been trying to make throughout his life. Looking at the themes of the universe, life and religion all wrapped up in some of the most glorious cinematography I have ever seen, it is not an understatement to say that The Tree of Life is the most ambitious film made since 2001: A Space Odyssey.
The story follows the life of Jack O'Brien (Sean Penn) looking back on his life in 1950's Texas, following the death of his brother at the age of 19 (a tragedy unfortunately shared with Malick's life as well). It looks at the conflicts in his childhood between his mother (Jessica Chastain), who embodies the spirit of grace (gentle, nurturing, and authoritative), and his father (Brad Pitt), who embodies the spirit of nature (strict, authoritarian, and quick to lose his temper). It shows how Jack struggles to come to terms with a mother who wants her son to treat the world like a place of wonder, and his father who sees the world as a cruel place, which he needs to protect his sons from. It's a simple story in its essence dealing with issues we can all relate to the conflicts of family, the questioning of religion, the cruelness of death, and a struggle of existentialism over our place in the universe.
Yet, Malick does not stop there this is a movie that wants to put the issues we face in our lives into perspective, by showing the birth of the universe in a sequence of 20 minutes that could only be described as mesmerising. Encompassing images of planets been formed, leading to volcanoes exploding on the earth, microbes beginning to form, and then glimpses of dinosaurs before an asteroid comes crashing into the Earth. All the while being set to the classical piece 'Lacrimosa', it is awe-inspiring cinema that shares a lot with a similar sequence from the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey, in that it is so grand that it makes everything feel so insignificant. It's not just this sequence though that is visually spectacular; the entire movie is beautiful, Malick and his cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (Children of Men) have a talent for finding unbelievable beauty in the simplest of things, the trees in a forest, cracks in a canyon where the light shimmers through, even the surprising affectedness of a close-up of a newborn's foot. It's a movie that captures the true beauty of the world in every single shot, and the use of hand-held cameras for most of the film give it a personal quality which allows the beauty to resonate even more. Finally, the experience is completed with some wondrous uses of music, again taking its cues from 2001 with a wide variety of classical music to add scope to the many images Malick throws at you, but it also has an original score from Alexandre Desplat (The King's Speech) that wonderfully complements the film as well.
Let's have a look at the performances because there are some truly outstanding bits of work done here by Chastain and Pitt. Chastain brings this wonderful childish glee to her role, coupling this small girl-like astonishment about the world around her, with this deep-rooted frustration with her husband who cannot get past his own failings and is polluting the minds of her children. It's Pitt though who really shines in this movie, taking a very stereotypical role such as the authoritarian father and infusing it with this deep sense of longing. He plays the role with the perfect amount of frustration at his own failings, whilst continuing to hope to achieve his dreams, but moreover make sure that his boys can achieve theirs. Whilst Pitt was undoubtedly excellent in Moneyball, it would be no disservice if he were to get an Oscar nomination for this film instead.
Ultimately then The Tree of Life is one of those movies that you just don't see enough of in this day and age, a movie that demands you give it full attention and leaves you with questions to ponder at the end. In many ways The Tree of Life is not a film, but an experience. You allow yourself to be dragged along into a world lovingly crafted by a director whose reclusive nature makes this an autobiography of sorts, and is a movie that everybody should experience.
Now at this stage most reviews would end, after all The Tree of Life has become a critical darling and has been free from most criticism, but I felt watching The Tree of Life that this was a movie with as many flaws as strengths. Let's look at the most fundamental failing that being that the narrative isn't strong enough to carry a film of this weight. That's not to say that the story is bad, but it's not developed enough to really make you feel like you've grown along with the characters, this is partly to do with the unconventional structure that Malick employs. The Tree of Life is happy to jump around from point to point in Jack's life at a moments notice, but this can make the movie unduly tricky to follow and worse yet it impacts upon the effect that moments in the movie have upon the characters. Also the use of Sean Penn in this movie is woefully under-developed, Penn spends most of his time moping around some beautiful scenery dropping philosophical statements like they're going out of fashion. A bit more time exploring the development of Jack from troubled youth, to the middle-aged Sean Penn we see would have given these moments a form of clarity and deservedness rather than the shallow auras surrounding them as they stand. This is one thing 2001 did so much better than The Tree of Life, 2001 infused its narrative with a sense of direction that made the payoff at the end all the more mind-blowing. The Tree of Life on the other hand never gets that moment; it spends so much time posing philosophical questions that it never really tries to offer an opinion on them, and this to me is a shame I would loved to have seen more of Malick's views on spirituality and religion than more sequences of Sean Penn looking sad and spilling out some over-wrought dialogue.
These are fairly big problems that stop The Tree of Life being the classic many people are professing it to be, but don't let that deter you from seeing this movie even with its flaws The Tree of Life is so visually compelling you will always be content to let it meander its way slowly to its open-ended conclusion. Cinema needs filmmakers like Terrence Malick, those directors who are so focused in their vision that they don't care how slow or pretentious the movie can appear, only whether the vision in their mind is been projected onto the screen and the vision in Malick's mind is a beautiful one indeed.
The Tree of Life is a visually stunning movie, but is lacking in narrative depth to make it a classic.
Drive's nameless protagonist is a man of few words, if it wasn't for the late arrival of a certain pencil-moustached Frenchman, he would certainly have been 2011's definitive silent hero.
In his very first line clearly sets out the terms at which he offers his services as a getaway driver: "Tell me where we start, where we're going and where we're going afterwards, I give you five minutes when you get there. Anything happens in that five minutes and I'm yours, no matter what. Anything a minute either side of that and you're on your own. I don't sit in while you're running it down. I don't carry a gun. I drive."
This beautifully succinct opening speech immediately eliminates the need for further discussion; driving is what he does, all he does and all he has any interest in doing.
That applies not just to his role in the criminal world but to his way of life as a whole, he drives as a movie stuntman during the day and a getaway driver at night, spending the time in between fixing up cars at a garage. The apartment he lives in is almost empty, acting as a place for him to sleep and further tinker with engine parts. Driving defines him, he has no life outside of it.
He doesn't even need a name, he's just the driver.
Interestingly, he seems practically a-moral, apparently recognising no difference between driving for movie stars and criminals. When his neighbour and eventual love interest Irene asks him what he does for a living, he ambiguously answers "I drive", unable to see how who he does so for should matter.
He also seems entirely unmotivated by anything other than the enjoyment he gets from driving. Money seems to be of no interest to him; his employer at the garage admits to grossly underpaying him and when he happens upon a large sum of mafia money, the thought of running off with it never even seems to occur to him.
In his first foray into Hollywood, director Nicolas Winding Refn makes watching him do his thing one of the purest cinematic experiences to be had last year. "Cool" is a massively overused word, thrown at dozens of undeserving films every year but it is hard to talk about Drive without falling back on it. The streets of LA at night combined with the eerie techno sounds of Kavinsky and College give Drive a unique neo-noir vibe whilst Ryan Gosling does cool better, albeit much more quietly than just about any other action hero.
Throughout the film Gosling's performances is truly enthralling, convincingly portraying a man with no real emotional outlet other than driving, creating interesting and believable dynamics with other characters and doing so with enough nuance to allow almost everything happening between them to go unsaid.
Carey Mulligan is equally well cast, bringing a quiet, slightly awkward charm and air of vulnerability to the character that immediately makes the viewer empathise with the driver's determination to protect her.
As the driver suddenly finds himself caring for Irene, his desire to protect her sees him suddenly displaying a previously unimaginable capacity for violence, transforming himself into a kind of self-styled vigilante. Both Refn and Gosling have described the driver as someone who has watched too many movies, his view of the world is fairytale-esque in its simplicity: he has a damsel to protect, nothing else matters.
This transformation also carries many of the trappings of a comic book superhero, the scorpion emblazoned upon his jacket is as striking a symbol as those of DC and Marvel's finest, his hammer makes for an equally distinctive weapon and by the end he has even donned a mask to hide his true identity as he takes down gangsters to protect the innocent.
His almost childlike sense of morality allows for him to engage in displays of violence that are shocking both for their utter brutality as well as there suddenness. The elevator scene perfectly embodies both, switching instantly from the most tender moment he and Irene share to a ruthless murder, all within the same short elevator ride.
Refn seems in his element with this sort of sudden change in tone, using violence relatively sparingly but doing so in an incredibly visceral and sudden manner. The film's first moment of explicit violence doesn't occur until near the halfway mark, giving it the kind of impact lost in many of the mindless modern blockbusters that seem to feel uneasy if more than half a minute goes by with out something exploding.
The action scenes in Drive are some of the most stylishly executed around, from the desperate hotel-room struggle for survival to the heart-stopping car chases, all are ludicrously entertaining, beautifully shot and accompanied by one of the coolest soundtracks in recent movie history.
This also allows Drive to use violence in a more mature fashion, exploring the way different characters react to violence; Irene is horrified at witnessing it first-hand whereas mobster Bernie Rose approaches it with the of pragmatism of a man simply carrying out a necessary, if slightly unpleasant part of his job.
Bullets don't fly freely in Drive, scenery doesn't continually explode and there aren't armies of nameless henchman to dispatch: every act of violence that occurs has an impact on the story and a clear purpose beyond ensuring the film has enough fight scenes.
We're also given more reason to sympathise with the driver; the film devotes most of the first half to portraying the driver as a likeable, if deeply introverted and rather abnormal character and slowly and quietly developing the relationship between him and Irene. As a result of this, by the time the first gunshot goes off we're given a genuine reason to care who the next one hits.
Drive won nothing at the recent Golden Globe Awards and it's likely that this is the start of a pattern that will continue throughout awards season; a great shame in my mind as it was easily one of the most entertaining films of 2011 and one of the most stylish films of the last decade. It would be worth buying for the soundtrack alone, the fact that you're getting a five-star film into the bargain makes it an absolute must-buy.
Ridiculous, but entertaining, Jason Statham movie which sees the hard-as-nails hard man as a Dirty Harry-esque policeman on the trail of a serial cop killer in London: Statham has pretty much cornered the market with these B-style action movies. Films that tend to deliver the goods more often than not and make for decent fodder if you're not averse to an hour and a half of scowling, brutal violence and mildly amusing one liners e.g. after beating up a gang of yobs with a Hurling stick, Statham casually remarks: "A word of advice, girls. If you're picking the wrong fight...at least pick the right weapon".
'Blitz' rolls along at a bearable pace but is saddled with a variety of pointless subplots that look like blatant fillers for a lack of story. Watch in bewilderment as we're treated to the entire back-story for officer Falls (promising newcomer Zawe Ashton) an undercover cop who became hooked on drugs. Now I didn't mind that particular diversion since Ashton gives a raw and affecting performance as a woman on the edge, but are we really supposed to care about how she tries to keep some chav thug out of trouble for assault?
The film does ultimately get back on track with Staham being Staham and everyone else just grateful that it's over. 'Blitz' isn't the best movie ever made, or indeed the best police procedural ever made. But if, like me, you're a Jason Staham fan, then 'Blitz' is a watchable time waster that does the bare minimum and just about gets away with it.
This site uses cookies.
More details in our privacy policy