|
 |
Another Year (Dir: Mike Leigh) 90/100
Mike Leigh is one of those directors who, if you like his films will be almost certain to not let you down with each new film he makes. This, his eleventh full length feature film is one of his very best. Jim Broadbent and Ruth Sheen give wonderfully natural performances as Tom and Gerri - two aging idealists much of whose lives revolve around helping others. We follow them through the four seasons of one year as friends and family come and go, orbitting their frugal but contented existence. The focal character of the piece is Mary, one of Gerri's co-workers who's young(ish) free and single when we meet her. She imposes herself on Gerri and Tom's time often but is always met with understanding and kindness from the couple. It's fascinating to see these characters evolve naturally over a period of time and observe how their inter-relationships wax and wane as time goes on. When we first meet Mary she seems independent, if a bit scatterbrained, but as we follow her progress it becomes obvious she's very emotionally insecure, lonely and in fact deeply unhappy. Tom's friend Ken, who pops up midway through the film compensates for his loneliness through excessive eating, smoking and drinking. These characters have real depth, and are superbly rendered by each individual performer - Broadbent is always a pleasure to watch, and Leslie Manville, who plays Mary does very well with a character who could so easily have slipped into caricature. Everything is held together brilliantly by Leigh's characteristic restraint and naturalism, and the events unfold just as life unfolds - some of it predictable, most of it mundane, and the occasional unexpected situation arises which people simply deal with the best they can. If you're looking for a slice of real life with the minimum of theatrics then Mike Leigh is your man, and Another Year will not disappoint you. Film of the year. |
 |
Black Swan (Dir: Darren Aronofsky) 70/100
Another interesting project from Darren Aronofsky - a director whose made a career of films ranging from off the wall to downright weird. Black Swan seems at first glance to be a simple tale of a young ballerina's struggle with the rigours of her career and the pressures of competition. Natalie Portman is perfectly cast in the lead role and does a fine job as Nina - the personification of the white swan and front runner for the lead role in the new director's version of the classic Swan Lake. However there's two sides to the part and though Nina is perfect as the white swan a new dancer - Lily - personifies the darker and sensual black swan. Desperate to succeed Nina heads down a dangerous path to develop the darker side of her hitherto undiscovered nature to impress the new director and clinch the coveted role. But the cracks start to appear and gradually her personality starts to unravel before the big day. Will she pull through and triumph on opening night or will her psychological problems doom her to failure and eventual madness? Aronofsky pulls off this fever dream of a film with the assurance of an old hand combined with the vigour of youth and has created a fascinating portrait of the descent into madness or, approaching the film from a different angle, possibly a sly rumination on schizophrenia...does Lily even exist or is she the manifestation of Nina's dormant sexuality? The themes of ambition and conflict, fear of failure, psychological turmoil and sexual awakening are universal and fascinating, and give Black Swan a classical feel, so that despite the contemporary setting and modern mores this film could just as easily be set, for example in France 200 years ago. As an independent film this wouldn't raise many eyebrows, but coming as it does from the heart of Hollywood it deserves a bit more credit. A good effort. |
 |
Buried (Dir: Rodrigo Cortés) 65/100
If I were to sit you down in front of a screen and tell you that I was about to put on a film that lasts ninety minutes about a man in a box you'd probably be looking around the room for the nearest exit. Well, Buried is just such a film and stars one man - Ryan Reynolds - in a box, and the camera never leaves him for the entire running time of the film. That director Rodrigo Cortés was able to sustain anyone's interest given the constricted nature of the setup is fairly remarkable. Even more remarkable is the amount of tension he generates throughout the film which if you think about it for a minute really has very few options at any given time. I mean it's not as if the main (only) character is going to die halfway through the film or anything, so it deserves a lot of credit for being as good as it is. It's not without its flaws though and you may feel a bit aggrieved at the ending - or maybe not; I'll leave it at that for now. Basically throughout the film the only issue you as a viewer have to address in Buried is 'will he get out of this, and if so how'? There are no flashback sequences to flesh out the character or much in the way of fancy camerawork, just a man buried in the desert in a coffin with a lighter and a mobile phone. Reynolds does an excellent job in a very demanding role, and the imaginative editing and clever photography combine to ensure the director can wring every last drop of interest and tension from the viewer for such a sustained period with so little to work with. As far as the sequence of events goes you couldn't really expect any more action than is presented, and although it really pushes the envelope of credibility at times (is there really 90 minutes worth of oxygen available in a coffin?...and that's before you strike up that lighter), you have to give it a lot of credit because in the final analysis this is very creative filmmaking. |
 |
Enter The Void (Dir: Gaspar Noe) 80/100
It's been seven years since Gaspar Noe's last full length feature film and that was Irreversible. Maybe it's not too surprising that it's been so long; after all how on earth do you follow up a film like Irreversible? Well Enter The Void' is about as good a follow up as you could hope for really. Nothing is going to be as shocking as Irreversible so why even try? Instead Noe brings us the story of a couple of orphans living aimless lives in Japan. Sounds dull? Well, this is not a film with a typical three act structure with an exciting finale, so if that's what you're after think again before watching. It's really a simple tale; Oscar, a young man from America now relocated to Tokyo, makes ends meet as a small time drug dealer. He lives with his sister whose become a prostitute in the time she's been there with him. Most of the film is shot from the point of view of Oscar who basically wanders round his apartment stoned until he's called out to The Void - the local nightclub - for a drug deal, which inevitably goes horribly wrong. To say more would give the game away but if you're looking for something a bit less traditional and more free-form then this might be just the ticket. And if you're looking for a trippy film then you've hit the jackpot because this contains the trippiest scenes since 2001s famous stargate sequence. The camerawork is frequently breathtaking; it's always on the move - we glide up and down stairs, through walls, over ceilings and weave through the chaos of The Void like a ghost. Most of the film is shot in very long single takes and some of the images are eye-popping - especially during the spacey sequences, of which there are many. Enter The Void is a visual tour de force and for a little cherry on the top you'll be hard pushed to find a better title sequence than the outrageous first two minutes here. |
 |
Inception (Dir: Christopher Nolan) 90/100
If you think of Hollywood as a giant meat grinder, with the meat being a little bit of talent, lots of cash and a few decent ideas going in one end and the generic and uninspiring mush that usually comes out the other end then it's quite remarkable that a film as single-minded, and thought-provoking as Inception managed to squeak through the cracks, as it were. As each year passes there seems to be less and less coming from Hollywood of interest because of the homogenised, lowest common denominator, demographic obsessed nature of the final products they release. Inception impressively bucks that trend and continues Christopher Nolan's almost unblemished track record for making action blockbusters that are also somewhat cerebral in a place not known for such things. One of the reasons for the huge success of this film is that the viewer can invest as much or as little effort in it as they wish and come away hugely entertained either way. It rewards careful analysis as the whole premise is a cool puzzle to ruminate over, and it throws up almost endless possibilities as to its deeper meaning, just as it equally rewards those who want the film with it's beautiful explosions and cgi effects to wash over them without giving much thought to what it all means. It has hip and intelligent people in snazzy suits, intense action sequences, a fantastic score, it's visually stunning and is directed with style, precision and great confidence by a man who knows what works with an audience. And because it's made in Hollywood Nolan has bags of cash to spend on the tricks and toys to make it all come to life in the most spectacular way. You really couldn't ask for much more of a film from the Hollywood meat grinder. |
 |
Robin Hood (Dir: Ridley Scott) 0/100
If there's one thing the world can live without it's another version of Robin Hood. Even so, if this had been the definitive version of the tale then I suppose Scott could be forgiven, however it's anything but. The Robin Hood myth is such a slight tale at the best of times that the deadly serious way this is handled is utterly laughable - give me the Disney version any day or preferably the light-hearted Errol Flynn version - still definitive if you ask me. But this has been given the full Braveheart treatment; it's all bluster and pomp and overblown emotion and it's all so inappropriate for a film billing itself as Robin Hood. I didn't see Robin robbing from the rich and giving to the poor - wasn't that the reason for this tales enduring popularity? Instead this seems to be about the oppression of the masses and the persecution of Robin of Locksley who here has been re-branded as some sort of revolutionary a la Braveheart, and all this is mixed in with some jumbled political posturing about the monarchy and such. Honestly I couldn't summon enough energy to care about any of this stuff after a while - it's not what I signed up for going into the film and I don't believe most people going into a film called Robin Hood would be expecting what this film actually is. The marketeers have sunk to a new low with this one - shame on them, and Ridley Scott needs a slap for taking the lazy option by doing this when with a bit of effort he could have made something original. Worst film of the year - and this is a year that includes his brother's atrocious Unstoppable. |
 |
The Town (Dir: Ben Affleck) 70/100
Ben Affleck's sophomore directorial effort (after the very good Gone Baby Gone) is another solid outing. He's turning out to be a good director and could carve out an impressive career if he sticks with it. This is a film about bank robbers in Charlestown, Boston - apparently the bank robbing capital of America - and it's a gritty but slick effort which portrays the seamier side of life among the working class in the less affluent suburbs. Affleck himself stars as Doug MacRay - the more thoughtful head of a successful gang of bank robbers who get embroiled in some sticky situations throughout the film involving murder, kidnapping and giving the FBI (headed by Mad Men's Jon Hamm) the runaround. Affleck actually puts in a decent performance here. Now I've never been to Boston or been even peripherally involved in any sort of bank robbing but everything here seems pretty authentic and the characterisation seem well done. All credit to Affleck here - he does a fine job of directing, acting and writing in a film that is more akin to a seventies actioner than todays glossy products and is much better for it. All the performances here are good in fact, especially Jeremy Renner as MacRay's volatile friend and the late great Pete Postelthwaite as a sinister IRA type gangster at the root of all the robberies. He's only in the film for a couple of scenes but you're left in no doubt as to how ruthless and vicious he is. This is assured filmmaking that proves Gone Baby Gone was no fluke. |
 |
Unstoppable (Dir: Tony Scott) 0/100
Well, I've seen my fair share of idiotic drivel in my time but this abomination really pushes the boat out. Where to start? Well, let's see now: It's boring - the one thing an action movie should never be. It's monumentally stupid. Every character is unlikeable. The camerawork is extremely irritating; ultra-quick snap-zooms for no discernible reason a speciality. It's incredibly slipshod - it just seems like everyone's stuck on autopilot and just can't be bothered to try to lift things up a notch. The whole production smacks of laziness and a cynical belief that the talent attached to it automatically guarantees success - it's as if the producers are laughing right at you for being stupid enough to buy the tripe their dishing you up and being invested in the movie at all. I can't remember the last time I saw such a high profile Hollywood film with so much money spent on it exhibit such a complete lack of care and attention. And don't even get me started on the absurdities and inconsistencies of the 'plot'. Honestly it's like watching a completely straight-faced and totally unfunny version of 'Airplane!'. Even the title is ridiculous. Why can't the train be stopped? The answer of course is that it can - you just have to wait until near the end of the movie - when they'll stop the train just in the nick of time by doing something they could have done in the first half hour. The brothers Scott should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves this year - with this and Robin Hood they've managed to produce two of the most objectionably cynical films in recent memory. |
 |
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (Dir: Oliver Stone) 50/100
I was never a huge fan of the original Wall Street film although there were good things about it - Michael Douglas's performance for one thing, and it did capture a time and place very well - it was the era of the yuppies and day traders with their new-found corporate aggressiveness and lack of shame about flaunting their wealth. While that attitude has been buried somewhat under a veneer of efficiency or hidden behind the coattails of lobbyists it still exists and Oliver Stone, ever the crusader, wants us to be very clear about that. Once again, just as with the first film, that lack of subtlety is one of the movie's major problems - a failing common to all of Stone's films. This sequel is much the same deal as the first film and Michael Douglas is still good as the wylie old Gekko, freshly released from jail and hungry to get back in the game. However, whereas in the original film the young buck starting his career in the world of high finance was a sympathetic and very watchable Charlie Sheen who was something of an innocent learning the harsh realities of Wall Street, here we have an unlikeable, cocksure character who thinks he knows everything already, and this character is played by Shia Lebeouf - an actor many find cocksure and unlikeable at the best of times. The upshot of this is that I was willing the worst to happen to this little sleazeball for the entire film. Maybe that was Stone's intention - to show us a character who's so unlikeable that Gekko becomes sympathetic - but the problem here remains that we're stuck with a protagonist for whom we have no sympathy because as underhanded as Gekko is he's at least charismatic and has a world-view we can identify with for the most part, which is far preferable to the brash avirice demonstrated by LeBeouf's Jake Moore. Sadly Gekko is not the main focus here - had he been it would have been a much more interesting film. |
|
