Beyond Infinity Film

Review: Kick-Ass 2

2013-08-15T17:42:00.003+01:00

One of the unexpected hits of 2010 was the off-beat not-so-superhero flick Kick-Ass, which brought the world a fresh and original take on the unstoppable superhero genre that dominates the modern multiplex cinema culture. Speed forward 3 years and with a new writer and director on board, as well as a whole host of new actors joining the cast ensemble, the adventures of amateur superhero Kick-Ass (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and the expletive-screaming, limb-removing 11 turned 15 year old Hit-Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz) go bigger and more ambitious with Kick-Ass 2, as the dynamic duo have to fight off their biggest threat yet: sequel-itus...

There is a lot to enjoy in the follow-up to Kick-Ass, with the same wit and style returning along with the original's key characters, in a story that goes on to progress their stories naturally from the events of the first: Dave Lizewski/Kick-Ass faces the responsibilities of what he has inspired - an army of similarly masked vigilantes, Mindy Macready/Hit-Girl must adjust to living a normal life under the societal conventions of a normal teenage girl (against the conflicting philosophies of her late father in mind), and for Chris D'Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) the call to avenge his father's death sees him becoming the world's first super-villain - The Motherf%&*^r. The film's structure is built around the journeys of these three returning characters, and as a result sees itself dividing into three separate plot-lines shortly after the film starts.

The world's first Superhero faces-off against the world's first supervillain, in Kick-Ass 2.

Through Dave's story and the introduction of the 'Justice Forever' team - headed by prosthetics laden Jim Carrey's Colonel Stars and Stripes - the film takes an interesting path that evokes the strange inventiveness of the film's predecessor. As too does the storyline of Chris D'Amico, who similarly introduces his own team of masked creations. However it is the tale of Hit-Girl this time - the shining star of the first film - that unfortunately lets down the anticipated sequel. There's no denying Moretz's talents as she returns to the role that made her name, but for a majority of the film we see her famous Hit-Girl character take off the mask to focus on a developing a normal life. Though natural progression, this is a big problem as the foul mouthed, 11 year old killing machine that made the film such a well enjoyed and memorable success is not present for a large portion of the film, whilst she gets tangled up into a bizarre high school teen-girl storyline instead. It was a while into this segment that I came to the unfortunate realisation that I was no longer watching Kick-Ass 2, but Mean Girls instead. If I wanted to see Mean Girls again I would have, but I paid to see another Kick-Ass film instead, and this demotion of Hit-Girl is partially what makes it something of a disappointment.

It is this segment as well that hosts perhaps the most horrifying piece of product placement that I have ever seen in a film. During a scene at a teen girl slumber party, the queen bee of the group informs Moretz's Mindy Macready that she is not a real girl without having Twilight, Channing Tatum and Union J in her life, before playing the music video to Union J's single; 'Carry You.' You'd be forgiven for not knowing who Union J actually are (a One Direction inspired boy band from a recent series of The X Factor), and it's clearly apparent that the US market is unaware too, which makes the randomness of this scene stink of cynicism all the more - as it is ridiculous to suggest that Union J are as influential as Twilight and Channing Tatum on this generation. As the song plays, the camera slowly tracks into it the music video until the film literally becomes an advert to allow the band to exploit the One Direction demographic and encourage audiences to make them just as profitable. All the while, we hear the bodily sounds and an ever increasing heartbeat as the 15 year old girls become audibly aroused at the pretty-boy group, with one exclaiming "I'm soaked!" by the end - totally sexualising a group of underaged 15 year old girls. If handled more tastefully, a scene like this could have worked in the film well as a ironic take on the pettiness of certain teen girls, but with the over-exaggerated audio effects playing over the screen engulfing music video (which well outstays its welcome), it become all the more apparent as to what the scene is actually trying to achieve is higher CD sales and mp3 downloads - in a way that is as morally questionable as it is totally out of place in a graphic 15 rated film that will miss the majority of its target market anyway. It may only be a small moment in the grand scale of things, but it took a franchise that I very much admired to a very disappointing low.

Hit-Girl - not your average teenage girl, in Kick-Ass 2.

Kick-Ass 2 certainly aims to go bigger than the original, and through its extended cast and storyline it certainly does. Yet it is widely known that bigger isn't always better, and unfortunately in this case the film struggles to pace itself under the huge weight of the expanded plot and ensemble. With so many new characters (and their alter-egos) being introduced into the franchise, certain characters never get the exposure or development that they need, and particular relationships never get the screen-time necessary to make them feel natural or believable. In the worst case scenario of this, Dave's girlfriend Katie (Lyndsy Fonseca) from the first film - whom is portrayed as the girl of Dave's dreams, and for the attention of whom he strives to gain at any cost - is limited to two brief moments in the film before disappearing entirely after a short spat which we are left to assume causes the end of their relationship. Not that it seems to matter to the emotionless Dave at all, who after pining for her so long seems to forget her in an instant. With so many plot-lines and characters emerging from Kick-Ass 2, the film struggles to gage the right balance in its transition from comic-book to film, which results in the film losing the heart that the original had and benefited from greatly.

It's good to finally see a return to the big screen for Kick-Ass, Hit-Girl, and the franchise's unique and quirky style, but with an overcomplicated plot and too many characters being introduced all at the same time, Kick-Ass 2 struggles to find its feet and reclaim the former glory of the very original first instalment. Through its three intertwining plotlines - including a very unusual Mean Girls inspired segment - Kick-Ass 2 certainly isn't without some enjoyment, especially as it comes to its grand climax, but throughout it is plagued with its own struggle to pace itself as it attempts and fails to best the original. In a rather unmemorable summer of cinema, it's a shame that this follow-up is not able to reclaim or better the enjoyment of the original, as something as original as the first Kick-Ass film feels greatly needed right now. "Try and have a little fun" says Col. Stars and Stripes, "otherwise, what's the point?" - well Jim, I tried, but for a lot of the film I simply was not amused. Oh, and can we all just try to forget that Union J disaster ever happened, please?...

Verdict: ★★★☆☆

Kick-Ass 2 (certificate 15) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Kick-Ass 2? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: The Frozen Ground

2013-07-18T16:42:00.000+01:00

Based on shocking true events, American crime thriller The Frozen Ground follows the police manhunt for Robert Hansen (John Cusack), a man responsible for the raping and murdering of a number of young females in a small and desolate town in Alaska. Led by Sergeant Jack Halcombe (Nicolas Cage), the investigation gains a lot of traction after escaped victim Cindy Paulson (Vanessa Hudgens) provides her witness evidence - but time is ticking fast as Hansen is out to find and finish what he started on the one girl who can prove his guiltiness...

The most remarkable thing about Scott Walker's The Frozen Ground is the wording that fades on and off of the screen in the film's opening moments: 'based on true events.' Cemented by the unbelievable facts presented at the film's conclusion, and the tribute to the victims at the opening of the closing credits, a huge weight is brought to the film with the realisation that the psychotic inhuman mind of Robert Hansen is actually a very real one, and that these unimaginable events did occur. Pair that with the edgy and disturbingly brilliant performance given by Cusack in the role, and it's a strong formula for the stuff of nightmares!

This is however more or less where the film draws the line at unfortunately being anything more than an average police thriller.

John Cusack as the psychotic Robert Hansen in The Frozen Ground.

The Frozen Ground may be a film of great performances - with Cage's down to Earth role providing a satisfying and surprisingly non-meme generating performance, and Hudgens fully shaking off the High School Musical alumni appearance as the strong traumatised escort (the only exception being a small role played by 50 Cent, a man seemingly unable to convey any form of emotion) - but even these aren't enough to cover up the fact that the film is little more than anything you can see in an American crime show such as CSI or Criminal Minds. This is not to say that this is a totally bad thing, but it does however prevent it from becoming anything more than completely generic and average at best. It also doesn't help that at a running time of an hour and three quarters, the film does drag on at times; and as it, I did find my attention span beginning to grow thin on occasion too. As a result of it feeling like an episode of a TV show, I can't help but feel it might have benefited from a shortened running time, as well as a slightly simplified plot that doesn't leave lose ends, as The Frozen Ground did do at times too.

By no means is The Frozen Ground a bad film, but its inability to become anything different or overly cinematic does leave it feeling like something that you have probably seen before. It's leading cast, especially the performances of Cusack and Hudgens, do help to make The Frozen Ground a bit more interesting, and help to present a story that very much deserves to be told; yet especially in the midst of the summer blockbuster season of big cinematic releases, it might be just well to save some money and wait for this one to hit TV and DVD first instead.

Verdict: ★★★☆☆

The Frozen Ground (certificate 15) is released in cinemas across the UK on July 19th.

Are you looking forward to seeing The Frozen Ground? Perhaps you already have? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: Pacific Rim

2013-07-11T22:11:00.000+01:00

Film trailers can be deceptive things, can't they? More often than not they'll make a film look better than it actually is, but occasionally they can even make the film look worse. To watch one of the many trailers released for Guillermo del Toro's Pacific Rim would be akin to taking a trip down memory lane during the times when loud trailers for loud films like Transformers and Battleship polluted multiplexes and made one fear for a mind-numbing future of cinema. Yet, the actual film is far from the horror that you might expect it to be. Take note Michael Bay, the big blockbuster for 2013 has just landed, and it's a force to be reckoned with...

Pacific Rim opens with two definitions appearing on the screen in a retro-futuristic green font: one for the word 'Jaeger' - the giant robot-like, human controlled battle suits - and the other word, 'Kaiju' - the inter-dimensional beings that travel through a rift in the Pacific Ocean and so often threat the future of the human race. And with that information made known from the get go, we have our set up and the action well and truly begins. Connected to their robot exoskeleton and their co-pilot through a mind link that make all three act as one, it is up to the pilots within the giant Jaeger Rock'em Sock'em Robots to battle off category-3 monsters and their own inner-demons to save Earth from a threat that dates back to pre-historic times.

Jaeger pilots bring a physicality and vulnerability to Pacific Rim's ambitions action scenes.

What sets Pacific Rim aside from other recent genre films from the Michael Bay generation of filmmaking is the focus on the film's characters. In a similar vein to a film like Top Gun, the friendships, relationships and brotherhoods between the Jaeger co-pilots who march into battle together brings a depth to the film and its characters, who when joined together through the mind-link process (which allows the pilots to access the inside of the other's mind and access their personal memories and thoughts) only strengthens this depth through an interesting philosophical idea which is there for anyone who wants to consider it.

As a result of this concept, we do not get a film about giant robots - as large metal beings who cannot suffer and feel no pain - but the vulnerable human pilots at the centre of both the suit, and the film; whose presence and personality adds a drama, engagement and sense of peril to the film's large scale fight sequences. Through the premise of the pilots fighting through the suit also comes a large physical element too, as we witness not just a giant battling 'bot hitting the monstrous creatures from the deep, but the puppet-master human pilots themselves simultaneously doing the same moves too. As a rule of thumb, genuine human fight scenes will always be more effective than CGI, so pair that conceit with the various other physical fighting scenes that the film features, and suddenly a film that was initially doubtable is actually a lot more entertaining than you might expect it to be.

Lead Charlie Hunnam in one of Pacific Rim's CGI-free fight scenes.

Yet I'm going into a lot of analysis here, and there is reason to question whether or not this level of critical interpretation is even necessary. To bring it all down to what really matters, Pacific Rim is simply a lot of fun to watch. Very well-paced and by no means overstaying its welcome, the film is an exciting action romp that does the job of keeping its audience both entertained and feeling like a child again (if they are not one already). There is no two ways about this; this film is a guilty-pleasure summer blockbuster indulgence that deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible. The monster movie genre has died away somewhat in recent years, and judging by this and the upcoming Godzilla reboot (by Monsters director Gareth Edwards) this is the start of a fresh, stylish and contemporary yet retro homage to a genre that is currently resurfacing like the monster threats that it features.

You'd be forgiven for having a total lack of interest for Pacific Rim after witnessing the trailers that cry out to the audience that made Michael Bay's Transformers films into a billion dollar franchise. Yet the end result is in fact a highly entertaining adrenaline ride that knows exactly what it needs to do to be a fulfilling summer blockbuster, and achieves it. Of course it has its moments of CGI fighting and destruction - it would be a rubbish monster movie if it didn't - but Pacific Rim proves that despite some particular examples of recent years, this is not always a bad thing. At the film's centre are the people inside the giant metal suits and their stories that drive the narrative and bring drama and engagement to these big blockbuster set pieces, which are as enjoyable as they are ambitious. Indulgently stylish and absolutely epic in every sense of the word, Pacific Rim is every bit as good as you'd hope it is, and not at all as bad as you feared it might be.

Verdict: ★★★★☆

Pacific Rim (certificate 12A) is released in cinemas across the UK on July 12th.

Are you looking forward to seeing Pacific Rim? Perhaps you already have? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: Monsters University

2013-07-05T22:09:00.003+01:00

In 2001, Pixar Animation Studios opened up the bedroom door into the monstrous world of Mike and Sulley, the lovable duo for whom scaring the children of the human world is just the usual 9 to 5, in the instant-classic, animated film Monsters, Inc. Now, 12 years on, the unstoppable Billy Crystal and John Goodman voiced double act are headed back to school to discover where it all began, in prequel Monsters University.

Set well in advance of the original film, Pixar's first prequel sees Mike Wazowski and James P. Sullivan's university days in the School of Scaring at the prestigious Monsters University. The youthful dreams of two ambitious scaring majors are the same, yet their ethos of getting there couldn't be more different, and when the pair meet for the first time these inseparable friends rather surprisingly bring out the worst in one another as their differences cause them to clash. As a fierce rivalry instantly emerges with severe consequences that threaten their prospective futures in scaring, the duo must learn to work together with one another to succeed in the annual Scare Games - competing as part of the underdog fraternity, Oozma Kappa.

Things get off to a rough start between future friends Mike and Sulley in Monsters University.

The difficulty in creating a prequel is quite obviously that going into the film, you already know how it is going to end - and just by reading the above synopsis I'm sure you can gage a good idea of how Monsters University will pan out. Therefore, it is to the credit and creativity of the filmmakers at Pixar that they are able to pull off a prequel that despite this inevitable hurdle is actually able to play the time-setting to its advantage and throw some unexpected curve balls at you along the way too, as Mike's story takes front and centre this time around. It's of course all about the journey rather than the destination, and the film's message of dreams and ambitions going awry, and finding the silver lining in that moment of revelation which resonates with the film is a bold and ambitious one, and has a strong emotional pay-off to it. It won't have you crying into your 3D glasses like the opening of Up or the climax of Toy Story 3, but these engaging and relatable characters, regardless of how monstrous they may appear, have a pure human soul that we can all relate to on some level. Everyone will have had their dreams shattered at some point in their life - where lifelong plans are scuppered in an instant - for those people, this is their film; when the traditional 'work hard and you'll achieve' moral just won't cut it anymore because it just won't happen, the message that something even better come when you accept yourself for who you are is truthful and powerful.

Yet Monsters University is not a film designed to tug at the heart strings. If the conclusion to the original film has taught us anything, it is that laughter is the most powerful form of emotion of all, and for people sitting down to watch Monsters University, prepare yourself for what it quite possibly the funniest film in Pixar's 14 film history. Whilst all of the studio's other films have had a noticeable focus on the humour, from the very first frame right to the end of the credits, Monsters University focuses on the laughter department more so than any other Pixar film to date, and absolutely delivers at each and every opportunity; with it's fantastic dialogue and well-timed slapstick set pieces coming from the comedic mind of fresh-blood director Dan Scanlon.

Mike stands up to the fearsome Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren) in Monsters University.

As the film opens onto the very first shot, we are instantly reminded of the richly creative world that we are returning to - and Monstropolis has never looked better. Expanding the world to venture into the university environment feels like a very natural move, as we stay in the brilliant concept of the 'everyday' working life that made the concept of the original so wonderfully unique: if the first saw the monsters going to the factory for the 9 to 5, then it makes sense to focus on another career-based institution such as the schooling system. With that concept instantly comes a fresh twist on a recognisable world, and whilst the usual college movie antics are obviously toned down a bit for the family market - there are no monsters doing Jäger shots, although most of them do walk around naked - it still has the natural feeling of a university environment, and all of the recognisable individual types that you would come to expect from it too. It's the world's first family college movie, and it's every bit as funny as you want it to be.

Naturally, with the original film being so well loved by people all over the world, the question is often asked as to whether University is an equal or worthwhile follow-up to Inc. Of course we don't need a follow-up, especially not with the original being the classic, fully-closed story that it is, but instinctively there is the concern that returning to the franchise unnecessarily can sour the memory of a well loved film (just ask the adults who grew up with the original Star Wars films as a child) - but when do we ever need a film? What the prequel element of Monsters University allows the filmmakers to do is to return to some familiar faces, and at the same time have some fun with your memory of them by twisting your expectations, or just by simply having fun with their youthful appearances. There are so many little nods and winks towards the original, allowing the film to actually improve your appreciation and understanding of the monster world and its inhabitants in many ways - you'll certainly never look at Steve Buscemi's Radall the same way again. However it is naturally the friendship between Mike and Sulley that benefits the most from the prequel, as watching the inseparable pair becoming the unbeatable team that we know them to be by setting aside their differences - and in fact using them to their own advantage - really makes you understand and appreciate their story from the original film on another level. Regardless of how it compares to the original, as a stand-alone film, it is nothing short of a complete joy to see the pair back on the big screen together in a film that focuses on further exploring these characters - the original film's two greatest assets.

How will underdog fraternity Oozma Kappa fare in the Scare Games of Monsters University?

So to answer the question on everyone's lips: it's tough to say if Monsters University is as good as the original, as it is very different film, and they both have strengths in different areas. What it does do is absolutely stand-up alongside it; perhaps some of the originality has worn off (as you'd expect from returning to a franchise, you've seen this world before), and it may not have a set-piece as extraordinary and unforgettable as the door chase sequence of the first (although what film does!?), it's a laugh out loud hilarious film that will have audiences members of all ages roaring with laughter from start to finish, with an engaging and heart-warming story that packs a bold and valuable message at the same time.

If nothing else, Monsters University is a testament to the lasting brilliance of the original film and to Pixar's ability to create great characters and stories that people of all ages will adore and invest in emotionally for generations to come. With humour and heart in abundance, this may not be another Pixar tearjerker, but it might just be their funniest film to date. 12 years after Monsters, Inc. first wowed audiences, the world may not have been crying out for another instalment, but it got one - and rest assured the world will sure be glad it got it! Welcome back Mike and Sulley, it's a pleasure to see you both again my old friends. Now I guess the 12 year wait to Monsters Retirement Centre starts right here...

Verdict: ★★★★★

Monsters University (certificate U) is released in cinemas across the UK on July 12th.

Are you looking forward to enrolling into Monsters University? Perhaps you already have? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Mini-Review: This Is The End

2013-06-27T23:15:00.000+01:00

Released in cinemas across the UK tomorrow, Hollywood apocalypse comedy This Is The End sees a group of current comedy A-listers and actors (including but not limited to James Franco, Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill) playing fictionalised versions of themselves (or so they say...) at the end of days.

James Franco, Danny McBride, Craig Robinson, Jay Baruchel, Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill ("from Moneyball" - not pictured) lead the A-List celebrity cast of This Is The End.

It's easy to go into a film like this with low expectations, as so often these types of films from the school of Judd Apatow-style comedy filmmaking fail to deliver on their promise of humour, but despite a few flat moments here and there, This Is The End actually prevails in bringing the laughs throughout a number of very funny and memorable set pieces. The story is simple but fun, all building up to a big and satisfying finale that will leave you on a high note and leaving with an unexpected smile. With the self-referential celebrity ensemble twist bringing a lot of the gags to the table, it is to the merit of the cast that they have the good humour to mock their own careers and personas as they do throughout, as this helps to lift a lot of fairly uneventful moments to consistently enjoyable entertainment; be it the James Franco's unrequited bromance with Seth Rogen, a low budget sequel trailer that the group shoot to pass time, or the confessionals shot on Franco's stolen 127 Hours camera prop. Cameos come thick and fast throughout as the celebrity nature of the characters allows a lot of their famous friends to pop-up, with the likes of Harry Potter alumni Emma Watson and Scott Pilgrim star Michael Cera changing the way you'll likely look at them forever.

This Is The End of Hermione's good-girl image...

Consistently funny and mindlessly entertaining, throw away any initial expectations that you may have towards this type of film as This Is The End more than delivers throughout. It won't blow your mind or change your life, but nor does it set out. What you see is what you get with This Is The End; a satisfying and highly enjoyable Hollywood comedy that will do exactly what it sets out to achieve - entertain.

Verdict: ★★★★☆

This Is The End (certificate 15) is released in cinemas across the UK on June 28th.

Are you looking forward to seeing This Is The End? Perhaps you already have? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: Man of Steel

2013-06-22T21:55:00.003+01:00

Anyone over the age of 18 (and a few naughty fake I.D. holders under 18) will have probably experienced this at some point in their lives: the feeling that accompanies stepping out of a nightclub at 3am in the morning. It's a feeling that oh so many of us will have experienced from the later years of our youth: returning to the outside world having just experienced a barrage of flashing lights, images and fleeting moments, through a constant and unrelenting series of loud noises and bass-heavy tunes that have left your poor ears hearing everything as a distant muffled echo. As the distorted memories from what was probably a rather empty and difficult to follow evening of events begins to settle, it is at this point that we find ourselves asking that all important question: was that actually an experience that I enjoyed, and was it all really worth it? Sure you may have had a few moments of fun with some familiar faces along the way, but it's ultimately a question that is more often than not followed by a crushing feeling of disappointment and regret.

Stepping out of Man of Steel was like stepping out of that proverbial nightclub.

After the huge critical and financial successful of the most recent Warner Bros./DC Comics film collaboration - Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy - Man of Steel follows closely in the footsteps of the recent Bat-franchise by giving Clark Kent, alias Superman (Henry Cavill), a Batman Begins style origin story set on a dark and more contemporary version of Earth. Yet with 'Supes' being born into his superpowers and getting used to them through childhood, the film features very little in the way of the character learning and adjusting to his new-found superhuman abilities that you might expect from most superhero origin films. Instead we have a tale of self-discovery: it's not about who Clark Kent was and what he's now become, it is about discovering who he has always been all along, and why. It is these parts of Man of Steel that are the most interesting and engaging to watch. Simple moments with Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Clark's adopted Earth parents are subtle, touching and emotionally endearing, and apparitions of Russell Crowe as his biological Kryptonian father help to further Kent's understanding of who he is and how he must choose to live his life. Presented here through a non-linear Nolan-esque telling of a story that fans will already know more or less through the original Christopher Reeve film series, the film's narrative feels fresh and engaging, and the film as a whole benefits greatly for it.

Subtlety is key: simple scenes between Clark and his adopted parents justify Man of Steel.

Yet to some extent, the focus on characters that makes Man of Steel so interesting also forms part of the film's undoing - namely in the relationship between Clark Kent and Lois Lane. Although Amy Adams does a great job of re-imagining the iconic Superman love interest, news reporter Lois Lane, and Henry Cavill absolutely has the visual presence of a perfect Superman, it is the rushed character development of the film's screenplay that truly lets down what could have been the beginnings of an appealing relationship. Instead of saving any time to allow the relationship to slowly blossom in a natural way, the screenplay chooses to thrust the two characters together rapidly; seemingly because they have to, rather than because it is the appropriate time to do so. As a result, any early signs of the fantastic chemistry and banterous dialogue that occur between the two (especially during an interrogation scene) are cut short by the need to forward the plot as quickly as possible in order to get to the big budget action sequences - and when the film presents an on-screen kiss towards its climax, the moment does not feel at all natural or necessary, but instead rushed into the film just for the sake of having it there. With an inevitable plan for more films to come (with MOS2 already in the works), there really is no reason why Zack Snyder and co. could not have slowed down such major character developments like this for potential follow-ups.

Alongside these issues in the screenplay is Man of Steel's complete lack of humour throughout. It's clear that Snyder is trying hard to avoid the camp humour style of the Marvel Avengers universe with its heightened gritty realism, yet even the comparable Dark Knight Trilogy which the film is trying to match is able to have some laughs at itself throughout. With just a few moments of very subtle humour featuring in a film about a man in a skin-tight blue costume with a bright red cape flapping at the rear, fighting a group of people wearing blackened Buzz Lightyear suits, it is clear that the film is taking itself far too seriously. I'm not looking for the comedy of the year, but a few more laughs and lighthearted moments certainly would have made Man of Steel a far more enjoyable film to watch, and may have even allowed for a greater engagement and likeability towards the film's character ensemble. But perhaps establishing characters and their emotional developments doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, for as soon as the film reaches its final forty minutes the concept of characters gets thrown straight out of the window: both figuratively and - unfortunately, far too often - literally.

When the lead in a humourless film wears this, you know it needs to lighten up a bit...

As soon as the film's lead villain, the kryptonian General Zod (Michael Shannon), touches down on Earth with his dastardly team who threaten the safety of the planet in order to track down the Man of Steel himself, the film turns from the intriguing Nolan-style Hollywood art film character-drama into a Zack Snyder/Michael Bay CGI action wet dream. I'd be lying if I said I could totally follow what happened for the final forty minutes of Man of Steel, but it's almost incomprehensible: an endless series of explosions, noise, large scale destruction, and people flying through buildings. It all suddenly becomes very difficult to follow, and even more difficult to care. Constant, repetitive, nonsensical action between seemingly invisible characters (who appear to be unable to feel any form of pain or suffering at all) naturally drags on far too long, proving nothing more than the fact that people punching each other for forty minutes does in fact get boring; very, very quickly. And it seems that no-one else can be hurt either, as even the majority of the millions of Metropolis city inhabitants appear to flee collapsing buildings and exploding vehicles without even as much as a scratch - it's comparable to a darker adult version of The Avengers' final battle in New York, just with less interesting characters, and a lot less enjoyment. It's at this point where Man of Steel becomes its own worst enemy - what starts off as a promising film ultimately becomes everything you fear it could possibly be; a headache-educing hollow Hollywood corporate box-office machine.

Supremely stylish but unsatisfyingly empty, Man of Steel kicks off what could have been a promising Super-franchise, but a lack of humour and a seemingly endless finale of loud and unrelenting CGI destruction ultimately leaves a sense of disappointment that unfortunately looms over any positivity that you may initially have towards the film; leaving you to walk out of the cinema with an distasteful memory of 40 minutes of boredom and confusion. Not without merit, Man of Steel is by no means as good as it should have been with the name of The Dark Knight's Christopher Nolan attached to it. As the set-up to many inevitable sequels to come - and the on/off Justice League film that's still on everybody's lips - we can only hope that the already confirmed follow-up will be the film that we deserve, but it's almost certainly not the one we need right now.

Verdict: ★★★☆☆

Man of Steel (certificate 12A) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Man of Steel? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

2013-05-11T22:26:00.003+01:00

Confession time: I am not a Trekker! There, I said it - I haven't seen any of the television series', and as far the films go I have only seen the very enjoyable 2009 reboot Star Trek (bet they took a while thinking that name up...), and as of last night, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (the fan heralded 'best Star Trek film ever'). Wait; what!? I know what you're thinking, I bet you were expecting me to say Star Trek Into Darkness there - the latest film and sequel to the 2009 blockbuster - but I didn't see that last night, in fact I actually saw it on Thursday, opening day in the UK. So, as I'm sure you can imagine, this new film must be something fantastic to convince me to dip my toes further into Trekker territory through watching one of the original films just one day later, mustn't it?...

Set after the events of 2009s franchise rebooting prequel-come-sequel (it's a long story...), Into Darkness opens on a distant planet as we find the intrepid crew of the U.S.S Enterprise mid-mission - thrusting the audience straight into the middle of the action in a way that felt reminiscent of the opening sequence on Hoth in The Empire Strikes Back. Of course, as you can probably imagine, it doesn't take long before things very quickly go out of control, forcing the infamous Captain Kirk (Chris Pine), and his expert team boasting the unforgettable Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Salanda), Bones McCoy (Karl Urban, the chin of Dredd himself), and Scotty (Simon Pegg) to make some rash decisions to get out alive - not without consequences of course. As the team head back home to the Starfleet headquarters, news comes in that the London branch has been the victim of a large terrorist attack, helmed by the mysterious John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) who has a large vendetta against the intergalactic Peace Corps that he seeks to settle.

Zachary Quinto's Spock amidst a volcanic visual spectacle.

Instantly, the first thing to be said about Into Darkness as the film opens to shots of an alien world - filled with a forest of red trees, ancient temples and an erupting volcano - is that the impressive visual aesthetic of the franchise has been retained from its predecessor. Once again, the slick stylistic flair (and trademark Abrams lens-flare) of the Star Trek universe is brought to life beautifully, bringing an engaging depth and majestic wonder to the worlds that are explored, including a futuristic version of Earth. The CGI effects are truly second to none, but of course that is all secondary to the plot; give me a film with rubbish visual effects any day as long as it has a captivating storyline, over one without. Fortunately, Into Darkness features the best of both.

Based on the television series created in the 60s, Star Trek Into Darkness stays true enough to its source material's characters and ethos whilst infusing a modern spin through its updated visuals, which in doing so creates a loving old fashioned science-fiction story for a new generation. Perhaps more impressive is that fact that it does so without feeling at all outdated, as fantasies of space-exploration are still alive and strong today as they were during the decade that first put man on the moon. More than that, the film simply nurtures the human lust for adventure, and nothing quite delivers that like Into Darkness' enthralling action sequences. Fast paced and on a large scale, the film features a number of scenes that are as exciting and satisfying as they are ambitious. However it is the character-driven storyline that really allows the audience to engage in an alien universe, through its richly-written human characters that bring a genuine emotional heart to the film as well.

Cumberbatch's villain role takes centre stage amongst Into Darkness' returning cast.

Pitting the crew of the U.S.S Enterprise up against their toughest adversary yet, Into Darkness tests relationships between the characters to the limits. The love-to-hate friendship between Spock and Kirk gets a natural evolution which continues on from the first film, as the two become closer to a fully understanding one another. And if times weren't tough enough for poor ol' Mr. Spock, he also has to deal with love interest Uhura who, quite understandably, isn't too happy about some of his selfless actions in the film's opening. The rest of the cast's diverse ensemble also gets their moment in the spotlight, but it is Benedict Cumberbatch who naturally steals the show with his villainous portrayal of a vengeful adversary who alone poses an intimidating physical and intellectual threat. Cumberbatch effortlessly creates a screen presence that creates a constantly shifting power struggle amongst characters, as he gives the sinister smirk of a man two steps ahead. Balancing a wide range of impressive action sequences with an engaging character-driven storyline, Abrams' direction - from production through post-production - pieces together a well-paced, fast-flowing film that, despite a few scenes of exposition-heavy dialogue that slow the pace for just a fraction too long, is difficult not to enjoy.

With stunning visuals, superb action, and a great story, even the occasional lags of heavy exposition dialogue cannot stop Star Trek Into Darkness setting audiences to stun. Whether you are a lifelong Trekker, or an absolute newcomer to the franchise, perhaps the film's greatest strength is that it will entertain both sides: respecting its fans and converting the new. Of course, with director J.J. Abrams now turning his direction to the ways of the force, and with my earlier comparison to Empire Strikes Back I think that it's fair to say that if Into Darkness does anything it is to prove that he well and truly is the man for the Star Wars job; even if it does put the future of his Trektacular reboot on the ice (I only hope that it is not for long). Mr. Abrams: 'may the force be with you' as you undoubtedly 'live long and prosper'...

Verdict: ★★★★☆

Star Trek Into Darkness (certificate 12A) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Star Trek Into Darkness? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: Iron Man 3

2013-04-29T21:25:00.000+01:00

Iron Man may be a globally recognised superhero, but Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) - the man inside the metal suit - is just a man. He may be the 'genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist' that the not so shy and retiring character let's on, but even those credentials could not prepare Mr. Stark for revelations of Gods, aliens and wormholes to other dimensions in the battle for New York in 2012's Avengers Assemble. This is why Tony Stark cannot sleep...

Following on from the events of the hugely entertaining global success story of last year, Avengers Assemble, the team at Marvel Studios face two huge problems in following-up the franchise: how to match or top a film that huge, and how to make a stand alone film that doesn't cause spectators to ask "why doesn't Iron Man just call in The Avengers for help!?" Everything considered, these are two huge obstacles to overcome, and fortunately for director Shane Black and the rest of the team behind Iron Man 3, they have successfully cleared both hurdles with ease.

Ben Kingsley - fiendishly fantastic as The Mandarin in Iron Man 3.

To solve both of these problems, the filmmakers have pulled the focus onto the character of Tony Stark, in an ambitious and bold move that sees him facing his own personal demons as he fights anxiety, night terrors and panic attacks in the wake of The Avengers - clearly no amount of shawarma is ever going to overcome the trauma of plummeting through a wormhole! Iron Man 3 is very much about Tony Stark as the man inside the suit, and the effects that this (literally) heavy burden is having on someone who is, at the end of the day, only human. Sent off into the middle of nowhere after a terrorist attack by the film's villain, the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), destroys his Malibu home, Tony Stark - with a broken Iron Man suit in tow - must use his intelligence and technical ability alone to get his life back on track and face off with a villain with whom Stark has a very personal vendetta. This isn't a fight for Iron Man's 'super-friends' (aptly named so by John Favreau's body guard character, Happy); the stakes are higher than ever in Stark's most personal challenge yet.

Yet unfortunately, whilst Tony's story does seem to wrap up tidily (throwing question over the need for further Iron Man films), the film's fascinating premise of Stark's anxiety attacks never seems to find a resolve. At the end of it all, Iron Man 3 turns into a large action blockbuster that seems to forget the heart and soul of the film somewhat - perhaps unsurprisingly so. Fortunately for Downey Jr.'s egotistical character the panic attacks seem to simply stop, unfortunately for us we lose the satisfaction of him overcoming his inner demons. Yet this is not to sound negative for the blockbuster nature of the film; the action set pieces for which are often incredibly exciting and entertaining to watch - it is just a shame that the fascinating and exciting conceit at the centre of the film gets lost and forgotten somewhat amongst the large 3D CGI explosions.

Things get very personal for Tony Stark in Iron Man 3.

A mention must not be forgotten either for the film's humour, with the comedic dialogue expected from an Iron Man film turned up to 11 to create one of the funniest film of the year so far, and perhaps the most enjoyable Iron Man outing of the franchise yet. Quick one-liners (occasionally very edgy ones at that), some great slapstick humour and moments of misdirection create some big laughs throughout the film - balancing the film's serious, dark and dramatic moments with some genuinely funny comedy to create a fun and ever-so camp superhero film to match the likes of the studio's Avenger predecessor. And as mentioned briefly, misdirection is a huge theme of the film, and a massive plot twist demonstrates this perfectly; in fact it is this that makes Iron Man 3 stand out somewhat amongst other films of this type, with a very, very brave and totally unforeseeable twist that well and truly alters your perception of what is going on, and of what this film is capable of. Naturally, I will not mention what it actually is and urge you not to look it up either; I guarantee that no-one will anticipate it coming, and it's worth the wait...

The film's cast is strong, and for a change Robert Downey Jr. doesn't rely entirely upon his fast quips and large ego to demonstrate some moments of genuine and very good acting. Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle have fantastic supporting roles which are expanded substantially from the previous outings. Perhaps rather problematically however, whilst Pepper Potts does gets herself some strong female action moments in the film for a change, she does so after acting as a damsel in distress and whilst wearing only her underwear (it's set at Christmas too - does she not get cold!?) - who said misogyny was dead? Above and beyond the rest of the ensemble however is franchise newcomer Ben Kingsley who steals the show with a fantastically devious performance as ~~Osama bin Laden~~ the Mandarin that is worth the price of admission alone

Through strong character development, Pepper Potts gets the chance to kicks ass - but why is she naked!?

Iron Man was a very good and strong film, Iron Man 2 was a bit of a mess, and Avengers Assemble was something else entirely; but with a bold concept, an ambitious twist, large scale action and a lot of laughs, Iron Man 3 may just be Tony Stark's most enjoyable moment yet. Let down somewhat by the fact that the fascinating conceit of Stark dealing with anxiety attacks seems to get misplaced and forgotten amongst the large scale action set pieces, Iron Man 3 is still a very strong film to kick off Marvel's road to The Avengers 2 - and with Downey Jr.'s contract with Marvel up, and the films conclusive ending, if this is the last solo outing for Tony Stark, then he certainly goes out on a high.

Verdict: ★★★★☆

Iron Man 3 (certificate 12A) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Iron Man 3? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

The Great Review Revue!

2013-03-21T12:02:00.003+00:00

Any eager readers may have noticed that there hasn't been an awful lot of activity here on Beyond Infinity Film for quite a while (over a month!) and for that I sincerely apologise - University work and adventures to New York, New York may have kept me occupied of late; but fear not, for as the great and powerful Schwarzenegger would say: "I'm back!"

Since my last article, a lot has happened within the world of film, most notably of course being the Academy Awards, in which Ben Affleck's Argo of course took the Oscar for Best Picture (rightly or wrongly, who am I to say... but it's wrongly!), and with it came the last wave of awards season film releases trying to win the hearts of awards season voters. I was fortunate enough to be able to see most of the best picture nominees in the lead up to the big night (sorry Beast of the Southern Wild, I did miss ye!), as you are about to see. If you are still wondering what this article is all about, this essentially a catch-up of the films I caught, and the reviews I missed, hence the title - The Great Review Revue! It's like that old joke about buses, when you wait for one to show up and two show up at the same time, except this time six have shown up, very, very late... (sorry, better late than never!)

Lincoln (Certificate 12A)
I don't think that anyone was surprised when Daniel Day Lewis picked up his record breaking third leading actor Oscar for his remarkable performance as former US President Abraham Lincoln in Steven Spielberg's magnificent biopic; quite frankly it's just a shame that the film didn't pick up many more awards than that! One of my favourites of this years big contenders (alongside Ang Lee's Life of Pi), the film focuses in great depth on the final defining years of Lincoln's presidency, with great drama, emotion and authenticity. Spielberg's direction and talent for large scale drama (especially in war time America), paired with a solid cast of performances (none more impressive than that of the lead) made Lincoln a well and truly authentic feeling piece of cinema, bringing the people and era to life like never before. A masterful, triumphant and unmissable piece of filmmaking by the world's most iconic director.
Verdict: ★★★★★

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zero Dark Thirty (Certificate 15)
Katherine Bigelow's follow-up to Oscar winning The Hurt Locker saw the director returning to modern warfare with the controversial film about the search and capture mission of Osama bin Laden. Zero Dark Thirty is very bold move for the director, but one that more than paid off. ZDT is a very edgy, tense thriller that gives its spectators a lot to consider. What is particularly excellent about the film is that it creates the basis for further discussion on the many (and there are many) controversial real life events that occurred in the hunt for bin Laden, in particular the scenes of torture that sparked big reactions in the media, some of which look like they've been lifted straight out of a Saw film! Brave is certainly the appropriate word to sum up Bigelow's latest film, especially so soon after the events themselves actually happened, but regardless of the arguments in the media Zero Dark Thirty provides an interesting commentary of recent years, and is not to be missed.
Verdict: ★★★★★

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Django Unchained (Certificate 18)
The release of Django Unchained alongside the aforementioned Lincoln created an unusual brief trend of slave films in cinemas, but Tarantino's latest couldn't be more different if it tried (provoking an interesting point of comparison for a 6 hour double bill). The usual Tarantino shtick can often be a little hit 'n' miss for me, but perhaps the thing that I admire most about Django is it's reinvention of the old Western genre that reinvigorated it for a modern contemporary audience with huge success. Personally I could have done with a little less of the extreme violence in the film (cue the usual "but it's a Tarantino film!" response) as it wasn't necessarily unnecessary, just not what I want to see - slightly tip-toeing past the line of taste and decency a couple of times. Aside from that, and a few songs that felt too modern and out of place, Django Unchained was an enjoyable - if not a little long - film, with a strong award winning screenplay written by its often fascinating and always quirky director.
Verdict: ★★★★☆

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amour (Certificate 12A)
Michael Haneke is not famously known for being a nice and cutesy film director (his film Funny Games - either the original or the US remake, they're both essentially the same - is perhaps one of the few films that has shaken me up the most), therefore a film about the loving relationship of an elderly couple, the female half of which is slowly deteriorating as her time runs out (played in an extraordinary performance by Emmanuelle Riva), doesn't really sound like his kind of thing. So it is slightly ironic that this could well and truly be Haneke's masterpiece. From the film's description it certainly sounds like it would be quite a tear jerker, but rather surprisingly I actually sat through the film dry eyed, which is no bad thing, in fact I applaud the film for it. The filming style, the fantastic performances and perhaps most importantly of all the complete absence of non-diegetic music through the film make the film feel very, very real as opposed to a fictional piece (it is only the edits through greater periods of time that reminded me that it was a film). Had Hankeke wanted me to sob like a baby he could have, but instead of abiding to mainstream conventions of layering schmaltzy music over the film to tell the audience what to feel, he does the opposite, and what comes as a result is a highly engaging and remarkable piece of filmmaking.
Verdict: ★★★★★

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cloud Atlas (Certificate 15)
It's a bit of an enigma this one, but as with everything you take as much from it as you put in - so invest, because it's worth your time if you do. Based on the book by David Mitchell (no, not that one), Cloud Atlas is a multi-narrative story that tells the tales of many different groups of people from many different periods of time (played by the same actors, yet avoiding becoming a game of 'Where's Tom Hanks?'), presented cleverly through some superb editing to allow the viewer to see the links that join everyone together. For most of the film it may be hard to tell where everything is actually going (after a quick toilet break I asked my dad who I went with if I had missed anything important, to which he replied "no... or maybe you've missed the whole thing - I don't know!"), but for a film that is short of 3 hours long, it never got uninteresting, inaccessible or boring. It's a film that you could study to no-end, but at the end of it all I got a great sense of humanity, and what makes us as a human race all unified as one, and it takes a very impressive film to pull that off! All things considering, it is a shame that not many people actually went to see Cloud Atlas, it could have really benefited from a few deserved Oscar nominations to drive up the ticket sales...
Verdict: ★★★★★

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top Gun 3D (Certificate 12A)
Consider this a little bonus review; firstly because it's a 27 year old film, secondly because it's a 3D/IMAX re-release, and thirdly because it hasn't actually got a UK release date (not yet at least!). Nevertheless, during my trip to New York I had a free night and decided to give the American cinema experience a go (25 screen AMC multiplex at Times Square), and as I decided that nothing else was really worth watching (25 screens and nothing on...) I was saved by one of the final performances of the limited 3D re-release of Top Gun. I'm not a 3D fan, but truth be told it was done pretty well for Top Gun, especially impressive considering its age. Of course it was the aerial training/fighting shots that worked the best (I don't need to see Tom Cruise's changing room/sex scenes in 3D), but truthfully the best bit was just the experience of seeing the blockbuster classic on the big screen. The 80s-tastic, action-packed, banter-filled and genuinely heartfelt, unashamed popcorn blockbuster flick (not to mention its kick-ass soundtrack) is and will remain the great reminder of the late Tony Scott's cinematic legacy, and long may it last.
Verdict: ★★★★☆

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of these films may have come and gone from the cinemas (and in the case of Top Gun 3D may never even arrive!), but if you get a chance to catch any, or pick up the inevitable DVD release that will soon be here then I certainly recommend that you do. We're only a few months in, and 2013 has already shown a promising start for what is already shaping up to be another great year of cinema...

Review: Wreck-It Ralph

2013-02-07T22:45:00.000+00:00

Let's make one thing clear from the get go; this is NOT a Pixar film - although I wouldn't blame you for getting confused, especially in a year where Pixar released a Disney-style film with princess flick Brave. Now it's Disney's turn, and funnily enough they're following it up by releasing a Pixar-style film with their latest animated picture Wreck-it Ralph - has the world turned upside down!?

It's probably fair to say that it's been a bumpy road for Disney animation through recent years. The rise of Pixar, while phenomenal for the animation industry and other studios, did send the mouse-eared monopoly tumbling, and the traditional hand-drawn animation/fairytale musical formulae with it (rather ironically, now that Pixar is a Disney owned property). As a result the studio struggled to create their own competing contemporary computer-animated tales such as box-office flops Chicken Little and Meet the Robinsons. In recent years however the studio has found its feet once more through a recent string of critical hits from The Princess and the Frog (although it's poor financial performance practically forced hand-drawn animation back into storage), Tangled, and now Wreck-it Ralph.

Wreck-it Ralph and Fix-it Felix Jr. in their 8-bit arcade game world.

Set inside the video game worlds of a small town arcade, titular character Ralph (voice of John C. Reilly) is a villain in an old school arcade game called Fix-it Felix Jr. As you'd expect, life as a villain isn't always peachy - who really likes the bad-guy!? But even if his fellow video game villains tell him that being a bad-guy doesn't make him a bad guy, Ralph still longs for the perks of being a hero. Once an opportunity opens for Ralph to prove his worth, he seizes it by game-jumping into the Call of Duty style first person shooter Hero's Duty and the candy land of Mario Kart style racing game Sugar Rush, where Ralph will discover whether or not he really does have what it takes to become a much adored hero.

So from that synopsis, it's easy to see how this is being confused with a Pixar studio film - it's Toy Story for video games! With the lack of a fairytale/musical narrative being replaced by a contemporary tale which features pop-culture characters, set in a computer graphic world in a film made of computer graphics, the film imitates a move made by Pixar back in 1995; as the Pixar team made Toy Story they used these very techniques to differentiate themselves from Disney and to establish themselves as something new, and as the technology wasn't perfect and resulted in plastic looking results, they opted for a largely plastic world! Now as Disney struggle to clasp onto the animation market they once owned in a modern world that's moved on, the studio has been forced into a re-birth to meet demand. Cue Wreck-it Ralph.

Ralph game-jumps into the first-person shooter game Hero's Duty.

Easily stronger than any Disney film in recent decades, better than most offerings from competitors such as DreamWorks, and even equal to some of the works of Pixar, Wreck-it Ralph is a very cleverly constructed, creatively created, entertaining and engaging piece of work. The world that the filmmakers have created is genius, from the game central station hub in the mains power supply through to the different game portals which allows for the game-jumping plot element to steal the show. Scenes of Ralph venturing into Hero's Duty for the first time are for me the highlight of the film, and executed perfectly with incredibly entertaining results. Each of the specially designed worlds, and the editing styles and music that accompany them, are pulled off perfectly to make their contrasting environments a lot of fun to explore (hello sequel!). For any video game fans watching the film, a vast number of cameos and references that are found throughout add an extra layer to the enjoyment of the film (the Pac-Man ghost cameo is my fantastic), but this cleverly executed comedy adventure is simply for everyone, and even those who haven't touched a games console in their life will still be able to enjoy the film. The reason why: well conceived characters such as Ralph and Vanellope (voice of Sarah Silverman) and the journey they embark on to find recognition and acceptance in a world that looks down on them is both heart warming and deeply human.

If I have any complaints about the film though it is that it does run a bit long during the Sugar Rush scenes in the second-act, with the characters staying in the world for slightly too long and marginally breaking the flow. Alongside this, some of the story, dialogue and jokes do play to a slightly younger audienceon the odd occasion rather than engaging the entire family audience as a Pixar classic like Toy Story, The Incredibles and Monsters, Inc. would. Speaking of Pixar, whilst Wreck-it Ralph may resemble a Pixar film, it very much isn't one, and certainly lacks the special timeless quality that the Pixar films have; partly thanks to the use of one or two contemporary pop-songs, and the inclusion of established pop-culture characters (for comparison, whilst Toy Story uses Mr. Potato Head as a recognised character but develops a unique personality for him, Sonic the Hedgehog appears as Sonic the Hedgehog already does in his own games), both of which may cause the film to age quickly. It's difficult to say whether or not this film will be as loved 20 years from now, but for the time being it's difficult not to enjoy Disney's efforts with Wreck-it Ralph - and the fact that I am comparing it largely to the works of Pixar is hardly a bad thing!

Son of a Glitch! Vanellope's troubled life adds to the humanity of the film.

Attached to and played before the main film is a brand new Disney short film: the Oscar nominated Paperman. You may have already seen the short after it surfaced on YouTube a few days ago, but I feel it also deserves a quick mention. The story is sweet and simple, and offers a lot of heart, but what really grabbed me about the short is the groundbreaking technology it demonstrates. It's 2D and 3D, it's hand-drawn and computer-animated; it's simply mind-blowing! I've already spoken a lot about the past and the present of Disney animation, and I definitely feel that this could (and should) be the future of Disney Animation Studios: a technique that represents and shows the history and iconic style of hand-drawn Disney, whilst keeping up with current market trends and expectations in computer animation. It's a match made in heaven, and needs to be seen to be believed...

A film about an old fashioned arcade game character entering the world of the newer state-of-the-art computer graphic video games and trying to survive; sound familiar? Perhaps you could even say it's almost a metaphor for the studio itself - it's Disney Animation venturing into the modern market. Although I doubt the filmmakers had this in mind when making the film, the comparison is certainly there. This is what Wreck-it Ralph is for Disney Animation Studios: a necessary journey into a new advanced world, in which they must compete to survive - and one that is tremendously good fun at that! The creative world developed for the video game characters is done very cleverly, and the game-jumping element provides for most of the fun in the film, even if the second act does feel lost in Sugar Rush for a bit too long. Overall, Wreck-it Ralph a film that will please people of all ages immensely, and with the likelihood of a sequel already in the works, the next few years at Disney Animation Studios will very interesting to watch indeed...

P.s. To prepare you in advance, the Sugar Rush theme tune may, and almost certainly will, end up stuck in your head. Maybe forever...

Verdict: ★★★★☆

Wreck-it Ralph (certificate U) is released in cinemas across the UK on February 8th.

Are you looking forward to Wreck-it Ralph? Have you already seen it? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: Les Misérables

2013-01-22T22:49:00.001+00:00

Based on the world renowned West End musical, which in turn is based on the novel by Victor Hugo, based upon the events of the 19th Century French Revolution, the inspired and inspiring film adaptation of Les Misérables has made quite an impact on cinema audiences since its release. Undoubtedly you'll be aware of the film which stars the acting and musical talents of Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Amanda Seyfried, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen and Eddie Redmayne; in particular the tear inducing effect that it has had on vast numbers of its spell-bound cinema audiences, and understandably so...

The posters all define the film as 'the musical phenomenon' and boy they weren't kidding. The music, as anyone familiar with the musical will already know, is the film's biggest asset, with a lot of the numbers being incredibly powerful and moving; 'I Dreamed a Dream' particularly so. Anne Hathaway, who steals the show and buys herself an Oscar, is absolutely mesmerising and heart-wrenching in every scene that she is in, and the simple one shot rendition of the iconic 'Dreamed a Dream' song epitomises this and is far and away the defining scene of the film. After watching him play Wolverine for the best part of thirteen years, Hugh Jackman when thrust into the leading man role reminds us just how much of a musical talent he really as Jean Valjean, and Russell Crowe who makes up the other part of this two man rivalry, Javert, remarkably manages to defy all expectations and hold his own impressively well up against the heavy weight singing talents of the film - especially when in duet. Whilst it may be easy to dismiss them in a film that is supposed to be so, well, 'Misérable,' Bonham Carter and Baron Cohen deserve as much recognition for their parts as the comic relief, with their main song 'Master of the House' also being one of the highlights for me.

Not to be overlooked: Helena Bonham Carter brings a much needed comic relief to a Misérable film.

Having not seen the musical or having a huge amount of knowledge about it prior to seeing the film, I was unaware of just how musical the film was - I just expected the usual musical format of the occasional song and dance. In fact the film is essentially one giant song, with each song flowing into the next and all dialogue being delivered lyrically. It really is an impressive feat, and this combined with the epic scale of the story creating the feeling that the film you are watching really is something extraordinary and a real cinematic event. It's unlike any musical that I have ever seen before, and certainly puts in a strong case for 'the musical phenomenon' title that the film has awarded itself.

But there's a problem; clearly I have a lot of admiration for the film, why then is it that I didn't find myself sobbing at it like the rest of the audience?

My big problem with Les Misérables can be summed down to just one word: theatricality. There are a number of elements of the film that evoke a sense of theatricality, including the melodrama of the musical element, although as this is a musical film that isn't the issue here; in fact it is the film's greatest asset, although it does help to highlight this problem as you are watching what is essentially a near 3 hour long song! Whilst I still believe that Hooper is a very good and promising film director, his decision to focus on the faces of the characters a lot (including shots that track them face-on as they move and sing) evokes a sense of the stage show with the characters always singing out into the crowd. This paired with the heavy use hand-held camera shots gives the film a sense of realism that doesn't make you feel like you're in real-world 19th century France, rather more like a high budget filming of the stage show itself (just with a fully realised environment).

Even in such a melodramatic film, the sublime Anne Hathaway never gets carried away - well, except here...

Production design also adds to this issue, with some of the albeit amazing set designs feeling like the stylised sets of false wonky building designs that you would in fact see as the backdrop of a stage musical - watching the barricade scenes feels closer to being in the courtyard of the Dickens World attraction than a French town itself. I wasn't transported to the real 19th Century France; I was transported to a stylised fibreglass set piece. The problem with the production design isn't aided by its own inconsistency, with the reality of the on-location shot scenes, the non-reality of the occasional CGI heavy shot (and often blatant CGI backdrops), and the theatricality of the set designs never gelling together to create a coherent, immersive world. This also goes the same somewhat for the make-up that make the grimy prostitutes look more like pantomime dames!

Taking up the best part of 3 hours (with its 157 minute run time), I will also argue that the film is too long (Although truth be told I'm just thankful that Peter Jackson didn't direct it as it would have taken two films to get through!). Although it is difficult to condense a film that is on such an epic scale, it could have been tightened up at parts to adapt it to the big screen. This in turn ties nicely back into my problem with the film's theatricality, as if you were to watch Les Misérables on the west end stage you would have an interval mid-way through, which you no longer get when watching a film at the cinema. Apart from the lack of an interval though, the film does naturally follow a stage show structure, with typical stage ploys such as the two comic relief characters appearing on cue just as they might as a large set change happens behind the curtains on the stage version. It's minor things like this that subconsciously evoke the feeling of watching a stage show performance.

Russell Crowe on location at Dickens World - no, wait a minute...

Now these are minor issues, some of which may not even be considered an issue at all, however it all works towards a strong sense that all I was watching was just the musical on the big screen - which for fans of the musical may sound like a dream I dreamed come true, however in being adapted to the big screen I want to see Les Misérables the film, not Les Misérables the stage show. Regardless, the main issue hasn't even come to light yet! The sum is greater than the parts of the whole, and all of these small elements combined to create this notion of theatricality that had me constantly thinking of the film as a performance. Despite the fact I was sat thinking 'blimey, this is a ruddy amazing performance,' the fact of the matter remains that I was thinking of it as a performance nonetheless, rather than being enveloped in the drama of it all. Even though I loved the performances, I never felt that I was watching Jean Valjean, it was always Hugh Jackman playing Jean Valjean, albeit incredibly well, but it's a feeling that takes the edge of the drama and emotion off of the film through a loss of immersion and believability. And in a film called Les Misérables I think you can imagine why that sense of drama is an important one. Unfortunately, Anne Hathaway's Fantine aside, I never felt the full extent of this 'Misérable' element.

Despite feeling like I was watching something really epic and special whilst watching Les Misérables, with the exception of the show-stealing scenes with Anne Hathaway I simply struggled to get as misty eyed as everyone else did after failing to completely connect with the story and its characters. When all was done and the final shot cut to black, the entire sobbing audience of the filled theatre went up in a round of applause, and I felt the urge to do so as well, but not in emotional admiration at what I had seen. The theatrical elements and structure that made the film feel like a large budget shooting of the stage show made me feel the compulsion to clap as one would at the end of a stage performance; if I had wanted that I would have just gone to see it on stage instead! Les Misérables is still a remarkable piece of filmmaking, and is certainly a must see, but for me at least it is let down by a sense of performance and artificiality that prevents it from being the masterpiece that it could have, and perhaps even should have been.

Verdict: ★★★★☆

Les Misérables (certificate 12A) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Les Misérables? What did you think of 'The Musical Phenomenon!?' Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

12 of '12! Part 2.

2013-01-10T20:39:00.001+00:00

Welcome back to my list of the top 12 films that I saw in 2012! So far I've counted down from 12 to 6, which leaves us with just five more to go - my favourite films of 2012. So let's not waste any more time, cue the Top of the Pops jingle because here are my top five films of 2012...

Pioneers of cinema itself, and previous Best Picture winner at the BAFTAs and Oscars last year (for my favourite film of 2011, The Artist), the French are at it again, with touching comedy Untouchable (original title: Intouchables). The film, which after becoming the second highest grossing film in the French box office experienced a warm reception overseas too, tells the story of a wealthy paraplegic who decides to hire a less well-off young man to be his carer, as he is the only person to show him the one thing he desires: no sympathy. There isn't an awful lot to not like about Untouchable; it is effortlessly the funniest comedy of the year, has a touching and thoughtful story at its centre, the beautiful setting of France, and a close buddy movie relationship at its heart that makes the film a real feel-good treat. It may be predictable from the outset to see how each of the characters will learn from one another as their relationship blooms, but any flaws become significantly less problematic as the film is such a joy to watch. When placed next to a mainstream comedy such as Ted which is equally predictable, the laughs in Untouchable feel honest and genuine when compared to a film that in comparison seems to try too hard to make its audience laugh. Once again the French prove that they really are the fathers of film!

Michael Fassbender proves that he has the balls (literally) to take on a very challenging film in Steve McQueen's hauntingly beautiful film Shame. This harrowing art film about sex addiction tackles a very difficult subject matter and makes it accessible to all through the undeniably human them of addiction as a whole. With its flawless cinematography, stunning performances from Fassbender and Mulligan, and superb direction, Shame allows you to step inside the mind of a man battling his inner demons, in a mesmerising and powerful way. Heavily snubbed at last year's awards ceremonies, this is a tour de force piece of filmmaking that blew me away. Click here to read the full review.

Easily the most inventive and unique films of the year, Berberian Sound Studio was also one of my personal favourites! Toby Jones proves how he is one of the best and perhaps overlooked British acting talents, in a film about the creation of horror sound effects in film itself. Whilst the first half of the film gives us an insight into the construction of film (rest in pieces melons and cabbages), the second half turns art house as the film then goes on to deconstruct itself, as the lines between ours, Gilderoy's and the horror film's diegeses begin to blur as reality and film merge. A remarkable piece of filmmaking that will leave you thinking, but more importantly entertained as what starts out as a normal drama soon turns into a very unique horror.

Sam Mendes Took a stab at the tried and tested 50 year old Bond formulae and well and truly proved that nobody does it better! Reinvented for a newer generation of cinema goers, Skyfall took the classic conventions of every Bond film, all of the elements that made them so enjoyable, and updated them to create an instant Bond classic... and then some! With a narrative that storms along at a pace like nothing else, some of the most extraordinary action set pieces in recent film history, stunning settings, skilful cinematography, a classic Bond song, and a modern and engaging character driven narrative, Skyfall was much more than just a good Bond film, it was a fantastic film full stop, and one that dared to offer more to those looking for it. Immensely fun, enjoyable and tirelessly exciting, Skyfall was one of the most satisfying films that I saw this year, and more than ticked all of the boxes. Click here to read the full review.

There's a great irony to the fact that I am posting this article on the day that the 2013 Oscar nominations were announced, as my film of the year rather shockingly garnered a total of 0 nominations (and just 1 for the BAFTAs yesterday), despite vast critical acclaim, approval from waves of cinema goers and fans alike, and for concluding one of the greatest film trilogies of all time. I am of course talking about Christopher Nolan's epic Bat-Finale, The Dark Knight Rises. This sudden backlash of accolade for the film comes as a shock to me, as I am in nothing short of complete admiration for Nolan's work in this remarkable film. Where to begin? It's a comic book action film, that's intelligent and engaging, relevant and poignant, entertaining and moving - a Hollywood blockbuster of art house quality. It has a tremendous cast playing deep characters in a film which is in essence a character piece that focusses not on Batman, but on the broken shadow of a man behind the mask. It contains some of the best moments of cinema of all time within a film that I discover more and more within every time I see it. It is traditionally shot on film (which holds a certain special quality to me compared to digital), and more impressively on IMAX, which in my eyes remains the most impressive technical advancement in film - and seeing the entire IMAX print on the grand canvas of an IMAX screen made for one of, if not the single greatest cinema experiences that I have ever seen. Heavy use of CGI is put aside (and see if you can notice when it's used anyway!) in favour for real visual effects, creating a more impressive aesthetic experience for us cinema goers. All of which Nolan implements in most of his films, and to which I admire greatly, but what makes The Dark Knight Rises stand out is the epic scale that it encompasses within all of these areas, really pushing the limits in what can be done in film - they dropped an actual plane out of the sky in the film's opening scene for Pete's sake! I adored Nolan's work on this incredible finale of a film and the entire Dark Knight Trilogy as a whole, and whilst the Oscars may refuse to acknowledge it, I give it the title of my film of 2012. Click here to read the full review.

Of course it wouldn't be a best of list without a few honourable mentions, and 2012 gave us so many good films that I just couldn't fit them all into my top 12 list. In fact I could probably even do an honourable mentions list for my honourable mentions with so many enjoyable releases! So are just a few of the films that narrowly missed out on places in my 12 of '12:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: A fun outing that made for a much welcome return to the realms of Middle Earth, yet without the rose tinted glasses the over long running time (and we're only a third of the way through!) meant that the film was Baggins at times, resulting in it being more ummin' and aahin' than Balin and Dwalin; less Thorin and more borin' and snorin'! Yet as soon as Gollum steps onto the scene, everything suddenly comes alive, and the film well and truly begun. (Full Review)
Lawless: a great modern gangster film that I enjoyed immensely. Shia LaBeouf was actually good in the role, and Tom Hardy (along with his role as Bane in The Dark Knight Rises) proved that he can convey the raw animalistic intensity of a character with just his eyes and a grunt! A fun film that I struggled to keep out of my list.
Brave: Pixar's latest offering was a visual treat that had a touching mother/daughter story at the centre of it. Whilst it wasn't the studio's best piece due to the strict confines of the fairytale genre, it was certainly a lot of fun, with a refreshing female lead, and the clans and the triplets bringing a great comic relief to the animated proceedings. (Full Review)
Prometheus: fair to say that this was a film that divided people; I actually very much enjoyed Sir Ridley's return to the Alien universe, and even almost gave it a spot in my top 12! Perhaps it did ask more questions than it did answer, but is that really such a bad thing? Whilst I admire the stylistic qualities of the old fashioned sci-fi immensely, each time I watch it I find more and more thing to think about within the narrative, which leaves me enjoying it all the more. (Full Review)
Frankenweenie: Tim Burton returned to classic stop-motion animation in great style with his pastiche of the monster movie genre. Not only was it crammed with references and a lot of fun, it was also the only film that I have seen that seemed to purposefully use its 3D effect to add to its narrative. Yes that's right folks; it made me fleetingly believe in 3D! What more can I say!? (Full Review)
The Descendants: A big contender for awards season last year, the George Clooney starring film was mostly just an alright film, which elevated itself to a very emotional and poignant piece at times. There is nothing more heartbreaking than a shot of a young girl being told that she will never get to see her dying mother again - I haven't teared up this much since Toy Story 3!

Well there you have it folks, my cinematic highlights of 2012 (out of the films that I actually managed to see); I hope that you enjoyed this read, and now it's your turn to get involved too! I'd love to hear what your top films of the year were too, so be sure to let me know in the comments section below. Or perhaps you want to give me a telling off for forgetting one of your favourite films of the year; maybe you just cannot stand my taste in film!? Whatever it maybe I always love to hear from you guys too, so make sure to leave a message below.

Here's to 2013 being just as good a year for film!

12 of '12! Part 1.

2013-01-08T21:47:00.001+00:00

2012 was an incredible year in cinema, making it one of the most successful years on record! Of course that'll come as no surprise in a year when Avengers assembled, skies fell, Dark Knights rose, games were hungry, Pixar were Brave, journeys were unexpected and the folks at Disney were a bunch of Muppets! The other day I looked back over the year in my list of the worst 10 films that I (rather unfortunately) saw, but now it's time to be a bit more positive at the past year in film, as I begin my look back over my top 12 films of 2012 (that I managed to see!)...

Not necessarily a film that was lapped up by the masses, The Cabin in the Wood was certainly one that film and horror lovers enjoyed immensely. A unique horror comedy that combined the two genres expertly to create a film for cinephiles the world over, The Cabin in the Woods was simply a lot of fun from start to finish, with its Scream-like post-modern concept that attempted to explain why the clichés of the horror genre exist through its somewhat self-aware narrative. A lot of the best films recently have been films about cinema and film itself (take a look back to The Artist and Hugo just last awards season), and this hilariously fun film continues that trend and compliments them perfectly. Click here to read the full review.

It's the film the put the 'AAARGH' into Aardman - and if you thought that was a pun too far, you must have missed this film! The humour of The Pirates is a rich as the detailed stop-motion animated models and sets are themselves. Half of the fun in fact comes from looking at the signs in the background, for stores such as 'Man Ke Laundry' and 'D.K.Ying Dentistry,' one shop even claimed to have their 'Biggest Ever Sail!' As with all of the Bristol based Aardman studio pieces, the film epitomises that unique British sense of humour that may not have gone down as well overseas, but leaves all the more for us to enjoy. Enormously witty and filled with charm, The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists is a film for all, and another clay gem in Aardman's chest of cinematic treasures. It has to be said that meeting some of The Pirates themselves was a pretty awesome experience too - those clay puppets are amazing!

Heavily tipped for awards season glory, I initially didn't quite get what all of the hype surrounding Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master was all about. The performances were fantastic, the characters fascinating, each shot beautifully presented like a 1950s postcard, and the story was an interesting one, but I wasn't blown away by it by any means. Yet the film slowly began to sink in after leaving the theatre, and after a while I found myself wanting more over time, in a similar way to how I felt the first time I saw Scorsese's Taxi Driver - and let's face it if I'm comparing the film to that then it's hardly a bad thing! It's the extraordinary characters played by Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams and Philip Seymour Hoffman that truly make the film what it is: addictive. As one character accuses Hoffman's Master of hypnotising his followers, I too feel almost entranced by the film itself, as if I too have been inducted into its cult. A mesmerising and fascinating piece of modern cinema.

Putting this film ahead of The Master might be a controversial decision, but it's my list so I can do what I like with it! They really are two very different ends of the spectrum, but Marvel's Avengers Assemble does deserve some recognition for its achievements. Not only was it the years highest grossing film (which doesn't say anything in terms of quality), but it marked the first of what I like to call the mega-franchise. For the first time, four individual established film franchises came together to make one Goliath blockbuster, and a lot of fun. The likes of Hulk and Loki well and truly stole the show in a big budget blockbuster that took the time to focus on its characters. The film had its fair share of problems, and is by no means perfect, but some ambitious and exciting action set-pieces and a load of well-scripted humour made Avengers Assemble a film for all to enjoy, and I for one just wanted to go back in and watch it again! Click here to read the full review.

There's always the risk with Wes Anderson that his overly stylistic sensibility and 'unique' sense of humor can come across as self-indulgent and rather too smart-ass (and we'll soon see if a certain Mr. Tarantino does the same with Django Unchained...), but Moonrise Kingdom was a simple delight. Anderson's stripped down innocent tale about two young misfits finding one another and their place in a world that doesn't fully understand them is full of heart, charm and wit, with his sense of humour and narrative both engaging and entertaining. The unique Anderson sense of style is here used to add to the narrative setting, making this fantasy-like world feel like a painting perhaps created by a character within the film itself. The cast is solid, and the second Edward Norton steps into the film it fully kicks into the high gear. Moonrise Kingdom proves that in a world of grand cinematic events that are as epic as their overblown budgets, it's the simpler things that affect us the most.

Yup, at number 7 it's 'that film with the tiger in a boat' - Life of Pi. Whilst I'm certain some people will not be overly fussed about this film (the same kind of people that weren't all that bothered about The Artist last year), I can't help but admire what Ang Lee has created with this wonderful piece of filmmaking. It's a grand, ambitious, expensive CGI fuelled epic film, depicting a very simple story. At its heart is the tale of a confused young man trying to discover the meaning to life and the answers to his confused way of looking at the many differing and contradicting religions. At the same time the film tells a story about storytelling itself and asks how much one can and should believe; perhaps you can see the link developing between the two already? Many of the heavily computer generated shots look like works of art that I could just admire for hours, and really work together to create a grand, mystical and inspiring world that is much more rewarding than your average big budget blockbuster. Click here to read the full review.

Disney threw open the year with the return of everyone's favourite puppets, those oh so loveable misfits The Muppets. Anyone who knows me will know that I love the Muppets, and what was not to love about their big return to the big screen. More in line with the original Henson era Muppet films and The Muppet Show itself, this reboot for a new generation saw the Muppets return to their roots whilst reinventing themselves for a new generation, making one of the best films of the year in the process. The humour was right up my street, the cameos were fresh, the characters were as good as us older fans could remember, and the music was absolutely genius! It was a film event that everyone of every gender and age could sit and laugh along with, all together at the same time - and not every family film can actually achieve that. Yes folks, watching a family film never felt so good. Click here to read the full review.

- TO BE CONTINUED! -

Oh I'm just too cruel aren't I, ending my list here like that? Well if Peter Jackson can have three films for The Hobbit, then I can have two articles for my top 12! Besides you're all probably tired from reading through the first seven entries anyway. So keep your eyes peeled on Beyond Infinity Film over the next few days for the concluding article in this two part extravaganza of 2012's finest - who will come top? You'll just have to wait to find out...

- Read Part 2 Right Here, Right Now! -

Oh, and as always I love to hear your thoughts and opinions, so be sure to leave a message in the comments section below. What have been your favourite films of 2012? Perhaps some of your least favourites have made my list so far? Whatever it may be, leave it below.

Review: Gangster Squad

2013-01-06T22:00:00.004+00:00

The 1940's Avengers Assemble in a Classic Warner Brothers Gangster film for a new generation!

In 1949, as Mafia Crime Lord Mickey Cohen's (Sean Penn) wave of terror continues to grow throughout Los Angeles, a special unit of L.A.P.D's finest, lead by Sgt. John O'Mara (Josh Brolin), are assembled to end Cohen's reign once and for all. Can the newly conceived 'Gangster Squad' get the job done by cleansing the streets of the criminal underworld and all making it out alive?

Many moons ago, the folks at Warner Bros. Studios were well known for their output of Gangster films, through the 1930s especially with the films that helped to make the likes of James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart stars. Based on true crime stories of speakeasies and Capone Era Gangster movements that were happening at the time (as well as working as a deterrent to stop people committing the crimes), the studio's Gangster cycle became less significant and ultimately ended with the age of the gangster, bar the odd exception, like... oh I dunno... Gangster Squad! Yes folks, those iconic men in long coats, fedora hats, smoky rooms, exotic nightclubs and big shoot-outs are back! The question remains, is it a welcome return?...

Mickey Cohen handing himself over to the police? If only it were that simple...

As someone who loves watching those old black and white films featuring the sharp talking and even sharper shooting gangsters, it's a mixed bag for me. There is a nagging part of the back of my mind saying that this isn't what I want to see, mainly because of the modern filmmaking techniques used; It's odd seeing this very familiar world through the lens of a dynamic moving camera and the occassional Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes inspired slow motion shots. It also feels a lot less authentic being shown through a digital projector rather than on film, and strangely enough, in colour! Being shot in 3D would have been a big nail in the coffin for me, so I'm very glad that the filmmakers and the studio chose not to do that. Apart from that though the film gets it pretty much right, delivering exactly what I wanted to see (although I have a few mixed feelings about the ending, I'll leave them out to avoid spoilers).

With the focus being on good ol' fashioned characters, the cast also does a fantastic job, with an ensemble of modern acting greats taking on the classic style approach and pulling it off. Sean Penn gives a menacing performance as Mickey Cohen, a man who through Penn comes across as a very wild and dangerous presence. Josh Brolin leads the squad very well and feels very much at home in this environment, as if he were from the era himself. The ever-wonderful Emma Stone looks the part as the stunning female presence, but it's not a character that is explored too much, understandably so within the time frame of the film however (albeit a lot more developed and significant than you may expect). Heartthrob Ryan Gosling continues to break hearts as the quintessential pretty-faced cool guy, playing a character somewhere between his roles in Crazy, Stupid Love and Drive - an expert in women and violence! He plays the role well and provides a great screen presence, but would have benefited if he only had a bit more Drive to his performance, especially for in this sort of film.

Ryan Gosling charms the pants off of Emma Stone, and everyone else (admit it men, even you!).

Speaking of not having enough Drive, the film on the whole does play it a bit too safe for my liking, especially in terms of the narrative - the story on the whole is too simple and generic. I'd have perhaps liked something a bit more ambitious to really make the film stand out as something special, however having said that, sometimes there is nothing wrong with being completely average! In being a film that is so generic, Gangster Squad does become a loving tribute to those gangster films, and the fact of the matter is that that is what I wanted to see. Had the film strayed away from that then I'd have probably felt even more disappointed, because what I really wanted to see was those 1940s men, in their 1940s cars, with their 1940s suits, in their 1940s world! From that perspective the film delivers in being very aesthetically pleasing big time, and spending time in that world is just a pleasure and a hell of a lot of fun. At the end of the day the film is nothing new, and it certainly won't change your world, but it's not trying to; it's a very enjoyable romp, and for those who love this period and genre they will love it even more-so for it.

What's very interesting about this film's historical context aside from it's 1940s 'based on true events' story, is the more recent history of the film itself that makes it a significant piece of our time. For those who don't already know, Gangster Squad was initially set for release last September, with a pivotal scene featuring a shoot-out in a cinema. However being a Warner Brothers film, as was The Dark Knight Rises, in the wake of the tragic cinema shooting in Colorado, America last summer the scene was cut and rewrote, with all trailers featuring footage from the scene immediately retracted. It's a sad piece of history that won't soon be forgotten, and this film will last as a reminder of it. The scene re-shot in question is now set in Chinatown instead, and provides one of the more cinematic and extravagant settings of the film - in fact if I wasn't any the wiser I'd have mistaken it for a scene intended to be there from the start. The sad truth of it all is that Gangster Squad will go down in cinema history, but for all the wrong reasons.

The Chinatown scene won't soon be forgotten in the greater context.

Gangster Squad takes the old Warner Brothers classic Gangster film formulae and reinvents and updates it for a new generation. It may not be a perfect film but it is certainly a lot of fun, and what the film lacks originality it more than makes up for in satisfying expectations by delivering everything that you'd possibly want and expect from the Gangster piece. 1940's sounds and surroundings, a great ensemble of actors, Thompson submachine guns, shoot-outs, dancing girls, booze, cars, suits, fedoras, gangsters and squads - what more could you possibly ask for in a film like this!?

Verdict: ★★★☆☆

Gangster Squad (certificate 15) is released in cinemas across the UK on January 10th.

Are you looking forward to Gangster Squad? Have you already seen it? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

2012's Cinema Nightmares!

2013-01-01T18:57:00.000+00:00

2012 has come and gone, and as we welcome in 2013 and build up to my imminent Top 12 of '12 list, as well as the First Annual Beyond Infinity Film Awards later in the month, here's something a little bit different. There's no denying the 2012 was a great year for film, but there were a number of releases that were a little less satisfying; in short, that sucked! So here it is, my 10 least favourite films of 2012 out of the all of the films that I had the displeasure of watching - brace yourself folks, here we go...

Daniel Radcliffe's first big screen project since the end of the gargantuan Harry Potter franchise set the actor his biggest challenge yet; shaking off the weight of the franchise that made his name and to break away from it before becoming stereotyped into the part. So did he do it? No, of course not. I know this may sound like I'm just bullying Radcliffe by badmouthing his career, yet it is this performance that drags down what could have been a special horror film that opted for a more traditional style instead of the tiring Paranormal Activity and Saw films that have plagued the cinema in recent years. Not only did I never believe that the young actor was a widowed father and a successful lawyer, the big problem was that I never saw a character at all, just a performance - or rather an attempt at one. Failing to get behind the lead character meant that the film failed to get an emotional response from me, making The Woman in Black lose all sense of peril and credibility as a result. Click here to read the full review.

I've actually been a strong defender of John Carter, making it known that I believe that the film is no-where near as bad as all of the negative press surrounding it made it out to be - there are far worse films out there that deserve such bad publicity a lot more. In fact John Carter was actually a rather interesting film in context, just as long as you consider the fact that it is adapted from a book published in 1917, then you can see how it was such a strong source of inspiration for most science fiction pieces since, including the likes of Star Wars and Avatar. Yet the film certainly isn't perfect - the performances and storytelling aren't groundbreaking, and I often find the heavy use of CGI somewhat off-putting - but it certainly isn't the worst film released this year... Click here to read the full review.

Despite Meryl Streep's much deserved award winning performance, The Iron Lady was a film that didn't quite get it all right. Whilst the scenes set in the past were engaging and well done, the constant jumps back to the present day Thatcher became a nuisance to me, destroying the flow and the entertainment of the whole film in order to attempt an emotional punch, which I hardly felt as a result. Had the film opted for a simpler narrative looking at Thatcher's incredible historic story - rather than focussing so much on the rather controversial and uncomfortable themes of the dementia of a woman who is still alive and suffering today - the film would have been a much better product as a result. Click here to read the full review.

This one might turn a few heads as Seth MacFarlane's Ted was one of the most popular films of the Summer for a lot of people, but I really didn't think it was all that it is cracked up to be. A new film by the creator of hit TV show Family Guy promised a fresh new inventive comedy, but failed to deliver - there was nothing new or interesting about the film at all. That's not the problem though, the problem is that bar a few moments of great humour, the film wasn't even that funny, which was not helped either by the completely predictable and unengaging plot, and the two-dimensional characters that I just didn't care about at all. The gag is that the teddy bear is alive, and is grown up so swears, does drugs and drinks, etc; the problem is that the joke lasts for 105 minutes longer than it needs to (and yes, the running time was 106 minutes long). In all honesty Ted bored me more than it entertained me, which is a real shame because someone like MacFarlane has got the talent to create something a lot better than this. Click here to read the full review.

What could have been a wonderful family film adaptation of a book from the genius of Dr. Suess in fact turned out to miss the demographic by a long shot, featuring a ton of entertainment for anyone under five, and very little for anyone else. It is commendable for trying to push its environmental message to the young audience; I just wish that it did it a little more subtly rather than clubbing me around the head with it for the duration of the running time. The songs were pretty fun though. Click here to read the full review.

Just as many people loved Ted, a lot of critics seemed to go wild for the Charlize Theron starring film Young Adult. Yet there is a lot that is fundamentally wrong with the film. Theron's character, an adult still acting as if she's in her teens, is entirely unlikable and although it is arguable that she is not meant to be, the point still stands that I just cannot sympathise with her; especially when the film goes no-where by the end of it! There is no character development, nor any conclusion to her story, by the film's climax she simply fails in her warped plan, sleeps with someone for pity and then uses those who she continues to look down upon for an ego-boost, before going back to what she was doing at the start. Completely anti-climatic and not nearly as funny or clever as it thinks it is, Young Adult is not as good as some critics make it out to be.

While the original was fun, The Expendable 2 is mostly anything but. Tedious, loud, and void of any plot or characters, the explosive sequel goes bigger, but by no means better. Whilst it is redeemed slightly by the big finale which manages to hit the nail on the head and provide the tongue in cheek action fun promised by the packed cast, it is not worth watching the previous hour and a half of the film that takes itself far too seriously to get there. Click here to read the full review.

If John Carter and The Expendables 2 had a baby, it might look like Wrath of the Titans. Soulless and even more two dimensional than the film's 3D effects, watching Wrath of the Titans is about as much fun as smashing your own face in with a large rock. A lot of the expensive CGI-heavy budget is put towards creating not a lot of action at all, as nothing really actually happens in the film. Even the great Liam Neeson spends his time in the film standing there and doing nothing, literally! To think that the film features two of the leading actors from Schindler's List and completely wastes them says an awful lot about this awful film. Whilst Clash of the Titans infamously featured no Titans clashing, this sequel does feature a Titan, but nothing in the way of any wrath, nor enjoyment, excitement or entertainment. Click here to read the full review.

Tom Hardy is a very talented actor, and has starred in two fantastic films this year in two fantastic, menacing, brilliant roles. These films are The Dark Knight Rises and Lawless, because unfortunately even someone as great as Hardy couldn't save the abysmal This Means War. I don't even know where to begin, the film is just stupid. Two spies using their tech and skill to spy on a girl that they are both seeing, and to sabotage each other's dates with her, whilst at the same time the evil villain that they are meant to be stopping is completely forgotten about just like that - ya know, 'cause this is way more important! It's a film that tells people that it's alright to cheat on others and go behind their backs. Formulaic, unfunny, bland, tedious, irritating and terribly cynical, the feeling that you get when watching this film is not unlike the vile after-taste of vomit at the back of your throat. Tom Hardy can do better films than this, and judging by the expression void of any enthusiasm that he shows throughout the film, he knows it too.

I love film. I think that's pretty clear to everyone who knows me or reads this blog. I can't get enough of film, so much so that I'm currently dedicating my life to it. But on a very rare occasion I do have wonder why, especially if I see a film so repugnant and horrible as The Watch. I can't remember ever walking out of a film that was genuinely so bad that it actually gave me a headache! It's ridiculous, stupid, vulgar and not even slightly funny or enjoyable at all. I sat in a screening full of teenagers (who the film is targeting) and I don't remember the film getting a single laugh from anyone. The cast are irritating beyond belief; Ben Stiller is void of humour as the straight man, Vince Vaughn is one of the most unbearable screen presences in film, the recently Oscar nominated Jonah Hill plays an imitation of Zach Galifianakis in The Hangover (and seemingly every other one of his films), and the talents of Richard Ayoade are completely wasted as he gets pushed to the back. This film is a soulless, money grabbing machine designed only to take the money out of your pocket rather than to entertain even slightly - I guarantee that no-one making The Watch thought that it was a good idea, and no-one involved will be proud of it. A film so horrifyingly bad that, The Watch made me so angry that I almost lost faith in film - avoid it like the plague, even if you have to catch the plague to avoid it! Click here to read the full review.

So there it is, my 10 least favourite films of the 2012, but what were yours? Perhaps some of your favourites are even in my list? Leave your thoughts and lists in the comments section below, as always I'd love to hear what you think. Oh, and Happy New Year everyone - let's hope that 2013 doesn't have many films as bad as these!

Review: Life of Pi

2012-12-24T19:47:00.000+00:00

I've never been to see a film before in the hope that it would be completely and utterly average, but I did for Life of Pi, just for the sake of the cheap gag of giving the film 3.14 out of 5. Unfortunately for me however, the film was simply wonderful!

Based on the novel of the same name, director Ang Lee's Life of Pi tells the remarkable story of Pi (Suraj Sharma), a young man whose family owns a zoo in India. When the family decide to move the zoo around the world, a disastrous storm that hits their ship leaves young Pi stranded overboard in a small life boat, all alone. Or so he thought, and as the realisation hits that a tiger is also aboard the boat, Pi's difficult challenge to survive becomes that little bit less likely...

Life of Pi: That film with the tiger in a boat!

Undoubtedly you will be aware of Life of Pi as to say that the marketing campaign for it has been extensive would be an understatement - the film is everywhere! Adverts have been playing on TV for weeks, just about every film for the last half of the year has had the trailer attached to it, most of the buses driving around the country are plasters with posters, and even the film itself starts with a small advert telling the audience to spread the word after experiencing what they defined as 'the phenomenon' via facebook and #lifeofpi! The marketing truly has been remarkable for this film, and it's easy to understand why; two words - 'The Hobbit.' With such a big franchise film released just one week earlier, a film like this is easy to miss; but quite frankly it really shouldn't be.

One of the quotes that you will have probably seen written everywhere on all of the advertising calls the film 'the next Avatar,' and it's not difficult to see why. The visual effect are nothing short of breathtakingly beautiful, with a lot of the film implementing a largely CGI environment flawlessly. One problem that I often find with films that depend on the use of CGI too heavily is that I can become very aware that it is in fact just a load of computer graphics as the technology tends to age quickly and stick out like a sore thumb, losing a sense of attachment and taking me out of the film as it reminds me that I am watching just that - a film. This is often a very big off-put for me, yet the CGI used in Life of Pi, bar a few animals that did look like computer animations, was flawless. The almost fantasy-like world created by the special effects team is nothing short of breathtaking, and a well deserved pat on the back is certainly in order. But it's not all about impressive CGI effects - who really goes to a film for that!? The effects in Life of Pi are so beautiful however that they actually made me more engaged within the world of the film. Particular shots are so incredibly beautiful that they created a strong emotional response just looking at them. The film is like a piece of art work; not an art film, it's still very much a mainstream piece, but it really is breathtaking to look at - and although it hasn't been released in IMAX, this would have been the perfect film for it.

One of my favourite shots from the beautiful film: Life of Pi.

But perhaps more importantly, let us not forget the tiger! As Pi and the comically named tiger (I shan't spoil the gag for those who don't know) are essentially the two leading characters, it is important that the tiger is created well with the CGI (for obvious reasons using a real tiger was out of the question) so that the audience can experience an emotional response to the relationship and peril that the film explores. What comes as a result is perhaps the most convincing piece of CGI that I have ever seen in film. The tiger is brought to life so well, that I actually forgot that it was CGI, and although I knew that it obviously was, I even at times had to question whether or not they actually used a real tiger. If the film wins anything this awards season, it'll certainly be for these technical achievements.

The story itself is like a spiritual version of Cast Away on a life boat with a tiger! That may not be what they'll print on the posters, but who doesn't want to see that film!? Pi's story is extraordinary - the film is engaging, captivating, magical and moving - it's nothing short of wonderful. It isn't based on any true events, but a big theme of the film asks the question of just how much can you believe, and what you should believe, bringing in big ideas, themes and questions about spirituality and religion. Life of Pi is very much at its heart a spiritual coming of age tale about a boy, confused by the many different religions and their multiple ideas and teachings, becoming a man and finding the answers that he is searching for. Perhaps that isn't your thing, and if it isn't then you still have a tiger in a boat, but for those who care to look a little deeper, the film will give you a fair bit to think about. This is where it suddenly loses the 'next Avatar' title, by becoming something far greater than just pretty special effects.

Pi (Suraj Sharma) has a spiritual search for his maker in Life of Pi.

The effects are extraordinary, the story is captivating, and the film is well paced and at a good length (it's not too short, it's not too long, it ends exactly when it needs to), but I do have one nagging problem with the film in amongst all of this praise. Life of Pi has been released in 3D (as I'm sure will come as no shock to you), with the advertisements for it putting a lot of emphasis on that fact to make you go and see it for a higher premium (hence 'the next Avatar' quote). However I chose to see it in 2D in order to appreciate the great attention to detail and vivid colour that the film clearly boasts but would lose a lot of behind a pair of 3D glasses. As I was happily watching the film, mid way through the aspect ratio suddenly changed from filling the entire screen to wide-screen letterbox for one particular sequence, then again later to an even smaller size from another shot. Whilst Ang Lee replied in an interview on NashvilleScene.com that he chose to do this because "I've always wanted to do that... since film school, and no one allowed me to," I just feel that it is a bad move (although fair play to the guy for giving it a shot). What it does, perhaps even more so for 2D audiences, is to take you out of the film. The sudden change of the aspect ratio makes you question whether perhaps something has gone wrong with the projector as it's so abnormal and sudden, thereby reminding you that it's only a film and taking you out of the moment as a result. It's nothing more than a cheap 3D gimmick (in this case to make something look like it is jumping out of the screen), and personally I couldn't care less about it - hence watching the film in 2D. No-one else does Mr. Lee, and perhaps for good reason too; why bring an imperfection to such a wonderful film?

Ang Lee's beautiful adventure Life of Pi is a true spectacle of cinema. It will make you laugh, smile, jump, think, and maybe even cry a little as you watch a stunningly visual piece of modern cinema. Call it 'the next Avatar' if you will, but the film brings a lot more depth than that, and I'm not talking about the cheap 3D gimmicks that slightly dampen what is otherwise a fantastic piece. I'm not sure if it has what it takes to bag the best picture awards come awards season, but of the films released in the build up to it, Life of Pi certainly has a fair shot - but regardless, it's a wonderful family film and my pick of the Christmas Holiday releases this year.

Verdict: 5/5

Life of Pi (certificate PG) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Life of Pi? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

2012-12-16T16:41:00.000+00:00

Fans may have been waiting nearly ten years for The Hobbit to finally be adapted for the big screen, but this prequel to The Lord of the Rings is never late, nor is it early, it has arrived precisely when it meant to - well almost! The road for the filmmakers and the fans has been nearly as long as the one Bilbo Baggins is just about to embark upon himself, with changing directors and studio crises aplenty, but now that it's finally here the big question will be answered: was it all worth the wait?

The first instalment of Peter Jackson's LOTR prequel trilogy, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, sees familiar Hobbit face Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) embark on an adventure with wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and a group of Dwarves to reclaim an ancient treasure taken from the Dwarves by the dragon Smaug. Along the way, the fellowship must encounter numerous creatures, challenges and threats, as well as a familiar face or two from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, including a certain motion-captured Gollum (Andy Serkis), who just so happens to be in possession of a certain ring of power! The journey will be long and perilous, and it has only just begun...

Home, Sweet Home.

This one is going to be a bit trickier than most of my reviews, for as you'd probably expect it's difficult to review a film that you've only seen 1/3 of! Of course I did see the whole of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - I didn't get annoyed and walk out an hour in or anything - but in the grand scheme of things this is just the first of three films that will make up the film adaptation of The Hobbit, and much like The Lord of the Rings Trilogy I expect that the whole will be greater than the sum of the parts. Unlike other great film trilogies, like Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy for instance, the three films form the beginning, middle and end to Bruce Wayne's story, but each film is its own individual piece that can be watched without necessarily needing the others. Whereas in the case of The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings the tree parts form just one continuous story, making it difficult to fully appreciate just one of the films as a standalone piece. So for those asking the popular question 'is it as good as The Lord of Rings?' - come back and ask me summer 2014!

As for part one of The Hobbit, fans of Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy should feel what I felt; a sense of coming home. Returning to the world of Middle-Earth is nothing short of a nostalgic pleasure, jumping back down the Hobbit hole into the shire brought back the warm sense of homeliness established over a decade ago - I was back where I wanted to be, I was back home. Peter Jackson continues his cinematic argument that New Zealand is the most beautiful place in the world, with stunning vistas of wide fields, streams, mountains, forests and the like bringing the adventure well and truly to life. It all seems so familiar, with thanks in part to Peter Jackson returning to the helm to give the a film stylistic consistency with LOTR (whilst I'd have been fascinated to have seen how Guillermo Del Toro would have handled The Hobbit when he was set to direct it, I am glad to see Jackson back for this reason), and also with the return of a number of key members of the original cast too. I shan't give away all of the returning characters for those who don't know, but as you'll probably already be aware Ian McKellen returns in fine form as the lovable wizard Gandalf the Grey, and Andy Serkis steals the entire film with his reprisal of the iconic character Gollum in the best sequence of the entire film. But let us not forget the newer members of the cast too, with Martin Freeman effortlessly bringing life to Bilbo Baggins, and the ensemble of Dwarves forming a similar pleasure to be around too.

Andy Serkis steals the show once again by reprising his 'precious' role as Gollum

However, all is not well down in Middle-Earth. Whilst a Hobbit may be short, The Hobbit is not, in fact just like the epic trilogy that it is a precursor to, An Unexpected Journey is just short of a 3 hour running time. The film is very long, and at a number of points it does take it's time, which is good in some respects as it allows the us to fully explore the characters and plots of the film, but at times it is drawn out far too much to become unnecessary and a little tedious. This is where the maths doesn't quite add up: The Lord of the Rings is 3 books and 1077 pages long, where as The Hobbit is just 1 book and 255 pages long. So if there are 3 LOTR films each approximately 3 hours long, logically there should not be 3 Hobbit films at the same length if the tale is that much shorter. The Hobbit would benefit from a much shorter running time, as the film does not need as much time as the much bigger, more eventful Lord of the Rings Trilogy needs. They may be linked by certain characters, locations and events, but these are two very different stories. The Hobbit is a much more family based tale (with characters like Radagast the Brown and his cute woodland friends illustrating that point precisely), and the question needs to be asked: how many children can sit through such a long film?

This point extends further into the film's classification of a 12A, with some very dark moments and creatures that may not appropriate for the younger potential audience members. In this sense the film seems confused between deciding what it wants to be: the separate and more family orientated tale of The Hobbit, or the dark and foreboding precursor to The Lord of the Rings. However as I touched upon earlier, it was the prequel nature of the film that made it so enjoyable for me. As you'd expect the film ends on the cliff-hanger of the further journey ahead, and with certain elements of the LOTR trilogy already in place, I left the cinema in anticipatory excitement not only for the next chapter of The Hobbit story, but also to see how this will further lead into the events of The Lord of the Rings. The film ends on an exciting high note that will make the year long wait for The Desolation of Smaug a painful one.

Bilbo and the Dwarves face their greatest challenge yet - the long wait for the sequel!

The film is structured around - as readers of the book may already be familiar with - a series of mini-adventures that Bilbo and the gang encounter on their grand adventure to rescue the lost treasure. My main criticism toward this is that it does feel like something more appropriate for a television mini-series than to a film, with an episodic structure that would work on the smaller screen similar to something like Band of Brothers (with 10 1 hour episodes that make up the whole story) - breaking up the long run-time and making it more accessible to the family audience. It is also worth mentioning with all the hype and controversy surrounding the film being shot at 48 frames per second (rather than the standard 24fps) that I did see the film in 24fps 3D so cannot comment upon this matter, but I have heard several people saying that watching it at 48 gives the film a television feel (as TV is broadcast at a higher frame rate), further adding to that idea. (If I get the chance to view the film at 48fps as I hope to at some point, I shall update this section.)

EDIT: Debate 48. Well I had the opportunity to see the film again the other day in HFR (High Frame Rate) 3D and it's an odd experience I have to say. First of all the fluidity and the sense of higher definition hit me straight away as the Warner Bros. logo flew onto the screen at the very start of the film. However from the very first shots of the film problems very quickly began to appear for me. I personally found through watching The Hobbit that in some cases the effect of seeing 48fps made things look like they were moving at double speed, in particular dynamic moving shots, close-up shots, short shots, and shots with a lot going on in them. As other people have said it can also give the effect as if you're watching live TV too, and I also felt this, as well as some shots (often unsteady ones) looking like home video footage. For a lot of the film it wasn't too bad, but quite often the same side effects would return to haunt me throughout. Perhaps this was just me, if you saw it at 48fps too then I'd love to hear your thoughts and experiences in the comments below - nonetheless, I've yet to be won over by HFR films...

It has been a long wait for fans of Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and readers of J.R.R. Tolkien's classic novel, but finally The Hobbit has arrived. Despite some problems with the film's running time and plots that cause it to drag at times, fans should feel a sense of pleasure in returning to the wonderful visual worlds and inhabitants of Middle-Earth after such a long time. Perhaps not as masterful as the LOTR Trilogy, An Unexpected Journey gets off to a bumpy but promising start for the rest of the films with scene stealing moments with Gollum and a foreboding cliff-hanger, but we'll have to wait until Summer 2014 when the final piece is released before we can see the bigger picture and decide just how good this prequel trilogy really is. One thing is for sure though: this Christmas, it'll be the film that everyone is Tolkien about...

Verdict: 4/5

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (certificate 12A) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen the first instalment of The Hobbit Trilogy? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

VOTE NOW! For the 2013 Beyond Infinities...

2012-12-15T18:27:00.002+00:00

As the end of 2012 quickly approaches, and the film world is gearing up for the impending awards season, a new awards ceremony is about to arrive. Forget the Oscars, I'm of course talking about The First Annual Beyond Infinity Film Awards - otherwise know as The 2013 Beyond Infinities!* The Beyond Infinities will take place sometime early next January, and will commemorate the achievements in films released in the UK between January 1st and December 31st 2012 (or rather, the ones that I actually managed to see). But until then, I need your help...

I have decided to give you - the beautiful, smart and talented Beyond Infinity Film readers - a chance to get your voice heard for one of the categories. Ooh, how exciting!? The category in question is for Most Anticipated Film of 2013, and there are 10 nominees for you to choose from. Simply scroll down to the poll below, make your choice, and submit it - it couldn't be simpler! You have until Monday 31st December to cast your votes, and then the winner shall be announced on the day of the awards itself (date to be confirmed).

So what are you waiting for? It's time to get voting, and may the best film win...

*Poll Closed. Thank you for voting.*

(*The BIFAs acronym was already taken by the British Independent Film Awards - oops!)

Keep your eyes peeled for the for the First Annual Beyond Infinity Film Awards early next January, where all the award winners will be announced...

Review: End Of Watch

2012-12-06T23:28:00.002+00:00

End of Watch follows the story of two L.A. Police officers (Gyllenhaal and Peña) as they face the day to day trials and responsibilities of their job. Whilst the two guys are just carrying out routine, some local criminal gangs have however formed a grudge against the two cops after they stick their nose into their business one time too many, and set out to rid of the duo for good.

Watching the trailer for End of Watch (embedded below) may leave you expecting a fully blown-out action spectacle that focuses of guns, fights, chases and drug gangs more than anything else (which, don’t get me wrong, are most definitely present throughout the film). Yet the film is in fact more than just that. The focus on the film – which forms the driving force and the heart and soul of it all - lies within the idea of the adopted brotherhood between the two police officers. The casting of Gyllenhaal and Peña is a brilliant one, with the actors providing two very good performances as two men who are culturally very different, but are connected by a unique central relationship that comes through the roles and pressures of their job: the strong theme of brotherhood in the service, and the responsibilities of looking after another man's life whilst venturing together into the dangers of the world. The film takes its time to explore this relationship in depth in order to create a moving emotional core as you become very quickly attached to the two men and both the ordinary and extraordinary sides of their lives. This also forms the basis of the element of humour that pulses through the film (which makes scenes of the pair simply driving around the city highlights of the film), and a definite homoerotic undercurrent that brings the film closer to being a buddy movie/bromance than the advertised crime action thriller.

The heart and soul of the film lies in these simpler moments.

Yet as enjoyable as it is to watch the relationship between these two actors develop and respond to the surroundings, the film is more than slightly flawed: it's all over the place!

Stylistically, End of Watch never seems to quite decide what it actually wants to be. The film opens with Gyllenhaal's character breaking the fourth wall by talking to the camera, establishing the idea that the film is being shot by him (with a handheld camcorder and other supporting cameras hidden on shirts and in the car) for a college project in his spare time; promising a found footage film. This idea is extended with the occasional footage from gang members being shot on home video cameras too. It doesn't take long, however, for that notion to unravel as more types of shots that can't possibly have been shot by the characters start to appear through a conventional documentary style approach that creates a mockumentary feel. Then there are moments throughout the film that seem to forget both of these ideas and adopt the standard Hollywood fiction style of shooting. And as if that wasn't enough, certain scenes - especially toward the film's climax - implement POV video game style shots from the firing end of a gun (resembling something that you'd see in a Call of Duty game): confused? Exactly!

The found footage idea provides an interesting concept, that quickly descends into a confused and annoying mess.

All of this goes on to further unravel the realistic approach that the filmmakers clearly intended to achieve with End of Watch. The idea of realism is crucial to the film as it makes the emotional connection that we establish with the two male protagonists even stronger. It is the use of the found footage/mockumentary approach that allows us as the audience to feel closer to the characters and understand them more as we gain full access to the personal lives of fictional beings that are presented as real life people. However, the opposite effect is often evoked as a result of the found footage shots. The fact that we see some of the gang members inexplicably filming their criminal activities through town on a camcorder (the footage of which was obtained how exactly?), and the fact that Gyllenhaal's video project seems to go on for months, if not years, makes you realise through these unrealistic moments that you are in fact just watching a fictional film. To further that point, the POV video game shots in fact undermine the entire point of the film by putting you into the two cops' shoes; placing you into the moment, as opposed to focusing intimately on the relationship between the two cop characters that the film should have achieved instead.

End of Watch promises a police action thriller, surprises and pleases with an intimate character study between two male L.A.P.D cops, but ultimately disappoints with both style and substance that's all over the place. The problem lies within the film's divide between the real and unbelievable; a documentary style built up considerably by found footage shots allow us to get up close and personal within the lives of the characters, but often reminds you that you are merely watching a fictional piece with the unrealistic explanations for the shots found within the narrative. In the end, End of Watch becomes confused with its unrealistic and forced over-the-top action set pieces (put in to please the masses) being placed next to the slower tempo realistic shots which in turn feel unbelievable as a result. Despite an entertaining and emotive performance from two strong leads, End of Watch wants and attempts to be many things, but ultimately suffers for trying to be all of them at the same time.

Verdict: 3/5

End of Watch (certificate 15) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen End of Watch? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: Argo

2012-11-25T21:25:00.003+00:00

Ben Affleck directs and stars as CIA agent Tony Mendez in his latest film Argo. Based on the true life events surrounding the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, Argo tells the remarkable story of the joint mission between the CIA and the Canadian Government to rescue 6 US diplomats from Iran before they get found by the Iranian militants who are pursuing them after escaping from the attacked embassy. After an intense period of brainstorming, the team realise that no idea is a good idea, and the best worst idea that they have is to set up a fake Hollywood production for a fake sci-fi movie in order to get the stranded Americans out of Iran - but will such an outlandish plan be enough to safely rescue and return the endangered diplomats?

The most remarkable thing about Argo is the story itself; which based on real events is truly unbelievable. This true life element is the real driving force of the entire film. It is therefore important that the film is able to convey a sense of believability so that this comes across as strong as possible, and to a great extent Argo succeeds in doing so. The film itself - despite its fast paced, quick edit trailer - is actually a slow paced thriller that takes its time during the film’s major scenes and doesn’t deviate very far away from the events that actually occurred. Yet this is certainly not to be confused with a criticism of the film (although I did feel that there was a bit of a lull in the film’s second act where my attention began to drift slightly), in fact it was often the slower and less eventful scenes that actually stood out and stayed with me for being incredibly tense. This isn’t a film that appears to have been fictionalised to make it more exciting - there are no major action scenes thrown in to please the masses – this is a film that knows its source material and respects both it and the audience watching. And if there is any doubt in your mind about the film’s validity, moments during the end credit sequence that place screenshots from the film side by side with photos from the actual events show remarkable accuracy and really help to drive the point home.

Affleck's adaptation of 'Where's Wally' was controversial to say the least...

Obviously there is the danger that Argo could become a rather controversial piece considering the heavy Iranian presence – yet the film handles the subject matter very tastefully. Being an American film that follows a mostly American group of people, it is inevitable that the film will come from an American perspective, which is something that is often criticised in certain films (war films in particular) but something that I do not have a problem with – it merely reflects that element of the country and their national cinema, as would any number of other films from around the world. That’s not to say that the film wasn’t without a certain layer of Hollywood Schmaltz from time to time though. What I did however fear could happen was the potential for an unjust depiction of the entire Iranian population by forcing them into being portrayed inappropriately or insultingly as completely unrelatable villains, when actually I didn’t have a problem with that. The Iranians are of course depicted as the opposing side, but never entirely as ‘the bad guys’ though. This may however be because the film does divide its time with another area of the narrative – the Hollywood half of the plot.

What Argo does, and has been heralded by some for doing, is to combine comedy and thriller together into one film. Whilst the political thriller elements of the hostage situation are incredible tense, the scenes set largely in Hollywood as Affleck’s character attempts to stage a fake film production for a fake and very cheesy sci-fi film called ‘Argo’ are in fact the opposite and very funny (particularly so thanks to supporting roles from John Goodman and Alan Arkin). What did let this down however is the fact that the two never really gel together entirely; the film is either slow, tense and brooding in the Iranian sequences, or fast paced, funny and entertaining in the Hollywood sequences. Very rarely did I feel that the film was able to successfully incorporate the two tones together at the same time, which made the film feel almost like two completely different films happening at the same time, resulting in both of them feeling incomplete for being just half a film. This did have a negative effect on my feeling towards the film as a hole, as I never fully felt completely satisfied with the end result; a somewhat mish-mash film that couldn’t seem to decide what it really wanted to be.

Goodman and Arkin toast with their director to stealing the show!

Ben Affleck continues to create a solid directorial oeuvre with his latest film Argo, which tells a rather remarkable story that is partially let down by the film itself. Whilst it is certainly worth a watch to learn about the true events that inspired it - which are both tastefully and accurately brought to the big screen to create a believable, un-Hollywood-ised piece – the film’s unique mix of comedy and tension makes it an enjoyable watch but one that may leave you feeling a little underwhelmed considering the potential that such a film has. A very solid cast provide a very solid watch, but for a film that could have been heading towards awards season gold, it does feel a little under par.

Verdict: 4/5

Argo (certificate 15) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Argo? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: Silver Linings Playbook

2012-11-23T20:27:00.000+00:00

When Crazy Met Crazy...

Quirky indie rom-com Silver Linings Playbook sees Bradley Cooper playing Pat; a man recently freed from a mental hospital after attempting to overcome the undiagnosed bipolar disorder that came to light after catching his wife cheating on him. Living with his parents (played by Jacki Weaver and Robert De Niro), Pat tries to get by in life without letting his illness stop him along the way; but when his world collides with Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) - a young woman also suffering from mental illness after the death of her husband - the two kindle a new friendship that allow each other to overcome their disorders and fit back into the world.

Of course he's wearing a bin bag; it's a quirky rom-com, duh...

This latest film from director David O. Russell is about as bipolar from his previous film The Fighter as Cooper's character is within it; and is also just as much unlikely to win the coveted Oscar awards that it is predicted to be nominated for. That is not to say that the film is bad by any means, it just isn't award winning material, and it won't change your life - which is by no means a criticism! Silver Linings Playbook is a perfectly harmless piece of cinematic rom-com material that will suitably fill the appetite of those who are looking for that sort of film. Yet the often prestigious Weinstein production title and the awards season release do little to push the film into the realms of the extraordinary. This is a film that could see nominations coming its way early next year, but ultimately it's highly unlikely that the film will walk away with any awards at all.

But is that really a problem? No, not at all. Whilst the film isn't a game changer, it is certainly a refreshing release within the genre which adds a respectable layer to the film by dealing with the emotional hardships of two good-looking people suffering from mental illness; as opposed to just the emotional hardships of two good-looking people! Although the film doesn't delve quite as far into dealing with and examining the illnesses as much as I'd have liked it to, the film does tastefully approach them as to not offend anyone; and from time to time effective camera movements cleverly create uncomfortable and claustrophobic moments that allow you to momentarily jump inside the minds of these two lost souls as they try to confront the seemingly overwhelming world surrounding them. It's also important to point out that the film is funny too, and does inject a satisfying sense of humour into a tough subject matter in order to make it a satisfying watch.

Lawrence and Cooper rehearsing for the big dance - yes, it has a big dance too!

A solid cast do a sufficient job to bring the story to life, with Lawrence coming fresh out of very successful adaptation of The Hunger Games (of which I was reminded as she makes an intertextual quip about Lord of the Flies) stealing the show. Cooper does a satisfying job with a character who - after pissing around in two Hangover films (the third set for release next summer) - allows him to take on a more challenging role, although as the leading man I'd have liked to have seen him challenge the character even further (a fault, albeit, of the script partially). Robert De Niro provides a pleasant presence in the film, although equally disappointing with the film simultaneously reminding us that his glory days are well behind him now. Chris Tucker - who is supposedly being eyed up for the already rumoured Hollywood remake of this year's remarkable French film Untouchable - gives a glimmer of hope for the film with the actor effortless breathing life into his minor supporting character who also suffers from mental illness.

Despite the push for its awards season release date, Silver Linings Playbook is not a film that will set the world on fire, but one that provides a satisfyingly feel good rom-com experience that does delve into a slightly deeper realm by dealing with the challenging issues of mental illness. Yet whilst the film may leave you with a slight smile on your face and skip in your step, it would have been a far more fulfilling experience if it had been ballsy enough to take a much more challenging look into the life of those suffering from mental illness, which in turn would have made the film's pay off much more rewarding. For the fact that it avoids this, the film that could have been extraordinary falls disappointingly short; but Silver Linings Playbook should satisfy those who do like a good bit of feel good romantic fluff and go in expecting just that.

Verdict: 3/5

Silver Linings Playbook (certificate 15) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Silver Linings Playbook? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Review: Skyfall

2012-10-27T17:08:00.002+01:00

Welcome Back Mr. Bond.

50 years. 23 films. 007. Skyfall - the newest outing for the world's most iconic secret agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) - marks a landmark achievement in film history, with the franchise spanning over five decades and still going strong; so no pressure then Mr. Bond! In Skyfall, Bond's loyalty to M (Dame Judy Dench) is tested as her past comes back to haunt her. As MI6 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost.

After 50 years of film history, what is about Bond that makes him so well renowned and enjoyed globally? How is the franchise as relevant today as it was back when Sean Connery first donned the iconic tuxedo in Dr. No? At the centre of each and every Bond film lays the heart and soul of what makes essential mainstream cinema. It's the excitement of escaping into extraordinary world of action and adventure that breaks away from the everyday norm. It's the exotic locations that allow us to see the world's most inspiring locations that we ourselves can't see. It's the glamour and elegance of the expensive cars, gadgets, suits and dresses that allow us to peak into the high life. It's the taboo of having a brief erotic relationship. It's about dreaming of a life that whilst unrealistic isn't entirely implausible, and being able to experience the things that you've always dreamt of. Whilst cinema and the Bond franchise have evolved and changed over time to meet contemporary themes, issues, fears and desires, the essence of every Bond film is timeless, and the pure essence of escapist mainstream cinema. That's why it worked 50 years ago, and that's why it still works today, as the 23rd Bond film Skyfall proves...

Skyfall - celebrating 50 years of 007.

What director Sam Mendes has done with Skyfall, and the reason that it works so well, is take the original formula that made the franchise so iconic, and bring it back to life. Where the last few Daniel Craig Bond films (Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace) completely reinvented the franchise from scratch, setting them prior to all of the previous Bond films, Skyfall takes this new style and brings it together with the franchise's origins to bridge the divide between the two; returning to and reusing, whilst reinventing and revitalising the franchise. It's modern and relevant, but a Bond film that could have been made 50 years ago. Skyfall uses all of the best bits of the last 22 Bond films and crafts the ultimate Bond film; a love letter and the perfect birthday present to a franchise that has entertained generations of people.

Sam Mendes, newcomer to the Bond family, has proved that he was in fact the right man for the job, by crafting a beautifully shot film in which the cinematography is flawless. Exotic locations such as Turkey, Shanghai, and even London and Scotland are presented spectacularly and are immersed into the plot through incredibly impressive and non-stop action set pieces that make the film an adrenaline pumping romp of a ride. The sets of Shanghai in particular, with their vivid colours and bright lights are truly remarkable and I imagine almost unbeatable on IMAX. With these scenes shot on location, including through the streets and tubes of London, and part of the opening fight which takes place atop an actual moving train through Turkey (no stunt double - fair play Mr. Craig), filming Skyfall is an incredibly impressive technical feat of filmmaking and more than deserves that recognition.

Beautiful cinematography and impressive action set pieces bring London to life - Bond Style.

Daniel Craig leads the cast once again as 007, an actor who I've always enjoyed in the role and this time if anything he actually feels more comfortable and at home in the role than ever before. This time round he's joined by a mostly new and very impressive cast of British talents who make up the rest of the ensemble in this very character driven film. Dame Judy Dench reprises her role as M in her most influential and involving role in a Bond film to date, and one that largely drives the narrative and emotional core of the film. Young talent Ben Whishaw brings the role of Q - 007's gadget specialising quartermaster - back to the franchise, providing a refreshing performance that helps to bring film back to its roots; as too does Ralph Fiennes who plays government official Gareth Mallory.

When it comes to the Bond girls, Skyfall impressively boasts two; Bérénice Marlohe who portrays the traditional glamorous sex icon in her part as Sévérine, and Naomie Harris who steals a number of scenes as the hard hitting, strong female agent Eve - bringing a nice contrast to the film with both the old and the new representations of women being present as we celebrate 007 in cinema. And of course, perhaps the most important supporting role of all is that of the villain's, who in this case is portrayed superbly by Hispanic actor Javier Bardem who plays Silva. Unlike the disappointing villain in the previous Bond film Quantum of Solace, Bardem's Silva works brilliantly as the unpredictable, haunting, and above all else camp terrorist villain who is as entertaining as he is edgy; a sort of combination of Heath Ledger's Joker (The Dark Knight) and Norman Bates (Psycho), with a little bit of 'the only gay in the village' thrown in for good measure!

Javier Bardem as the camp and villainous Silva.

It's fair to say that there has been an elated sense of national pride in Britain this year, with the Queen's Jubilee early on in the year, then the London Olympics captivating the Summer (at which 007 himself was in attendance), and now you can add a third reason to that list as we celebrate 50 years of 'Bond, James Bond' in the Birthday present tribute that is one of the most entertaining and satisfying films of the year: Skyfall. With a stellar cast of acting talents including a show stealing performance by Javier Bardem, Skyfall is an exciting and entertaining romp that has more laugh out loud moments than some of this year's comedies, a series of incredible action set pieces, impressive and exotic locations, beautifully shot cinematography and a character driven plot that left me shaken and stirred - it was both everything that I wanted it be, and everything that it needed to be. Skyfall travels back to the roots of the franchise to find the heart and soul of the Bond films and in doing so simultaneously discovers the definition and appeal of escapism and mainstream cinema. Skyfall closes an ongoing theme from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, in which Daniel Craig's Bond searches for himself to define who he is and become the man we know and love - ladies and gentlemen, Bond is back!

Verdict: 5/5

Skyfall (certificate 12A) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Skyfall? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!

Trailer Park: Iron Man 3

2012-10-23T11:48:00.003+01:00

The Journey to The Avengers 2 Begins...

"Marvel Studios’ Iron Man 3 pits brash-but-brilliant industrialist Tony Stark/Iron Man against an enemy whose reach knows no bounds. When Stark finds his personal world destroyed at his enemy’s hands, he embarks on a harrowing quest to find those responsible. This journey, at every turn, will test his mettle*. With his back against the wall, Stark is left to survive by his own devices, relying on his ingenuity and instincts to protect those closest to him. As he fights his way back, Stark discovers the answer to the question that has secretly haunted him: does the man make the suit or does the suit make the man? Starring Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Rebecca Hall, Stephanie Szostak, James Badge Dale with Jon Favreau and Ben Kingsley, Iron Man 3 is directed by Shane Black." (*So much love for the use of this pun in the studio's official synopsis!)

It has only been a few months since Robert Downey Jr. last put on his most famous suit by gracing the big screen in Marvel's mega-franchise Avengers Assemble, and just one year on; he's back! As the synopsis and the new trailer released this morning suggest, this seems to be Tony Stark's most personal challenge yet (don't count on him giving his Avengers pals a quick call for help in this one), setting up a film which should be more along the lines of the original Iron Man and deliberately steering away from Iron Man 2; the overcrowded nature of which didn't know whether it wanted to be an Iron Man sequel or an Avengers prequel - sounds good to me!

It looks like the trailer is confirming the rumours about the use of the comic book's Extremis storyline with Stark and the Suit starting to become one - something which should prove to make an interesting twist and really push the character to the limits; which probably explains those foreboding and bleak, snow-ridden shots at the start and end of the trailer. With Ben Kingsley playing comic book villain the Mandarin - who is already resembling something of a Bane-like terrorist in this trailer - this third instalment looks like it should be a solid addition to the Iron Man franchise, and rather promisingly not unlike certain themes and tones from Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy; with a new director, a new style and a new tone, Iron Man 3 is already looking set to kick off Marvel's Phase 2 plan with a bang as it ventures its way down the long road to The Avengers 2...

What do you think? Check out the new trailer below and leave your thoughts in the comments section.

Iron Man 3 is set for release in cinemas across the UK on April 26th 2013.

Are you looking forward to Tony Stark's third installment, or is this iron starting to rust? Will it be a blockbuster or lacklustre? Leave your comments below!

Review: Frankenweenie

2012-10-14T22:09:00.001+01:00

Spoiler Alert: the dog dies...

In the small American town of New-Holland, a lonely young boy called Victor Frankenstein (voice of Charlie Tahan) lives happily with his parents (voices of Catherine O'Hara and Martin Short) and his canine companion Sparky; that is until Sparky is tragically killed in an untimely accident, leaving Victor alone without his best friend. But inspired by his new science teacher Mr. Rzykruski (voice of Martin Landau), Victor tests the arguments of nature versus science when he brings his pet dog back to life. With is four-legged friend back, all seems well for Victor, but how will everyone respond to the young boy's actions? And when Victor's classmates are inspired to do the same, could the results turn out to be much more horrific than the inhabitants of New-Holland could ever imagine?...

It's been 7 years since Tim Burton last ventured into stop-motion film making with his 2005 film Corpse Bride, but now he returns to the much-loved medium with Frankenweenie. Adapted from his 1984 short film of the same name, this family horror is a very personal project for Burton; being both something that he's wanted to make for years, and a film that is very close to actually being a biographical piece on Burton's childhood (minus the un-dead dogs and giant monsters of course!). So does it live up to his other stop-motion films? No, not exactly, but it's difficult to compare it to the likes of The Nightmare Before Christmas (perhaps his most iconic work), which has far more of a fantasy feel whilst Frankenweenie, which is set in a more realistic human-inhabited world, feels a lot more contemporary. But let's be fair, that's not really a criticism; it'd take a lot to beat The Nightmare Before Christmas...

This retro poster perfectly encapsulates the B Movie Monster Film style that the film evokes.

What we get as an end result from Frankenweenie is a fantastically fun piece of family entertainment that is at times quite scary considering its market (good on ya Burton, kids do need a few scares too from time to time; something that most studios shy away from) - which is a very important factor as the film itself actually works brilliantly as a pastiche of classic monster movies. It's unbelievable how many classic horror films and monster B movies that the film is able to pay homage to within its 87 minute run time - the obvious of course being Mary Shelley's classic gothic story Frankenstein, upon which the main story is inspired. But then there are nods to Dracula, The Mummy, The Wolfman, The Bride of Frankenstein, Igor, Van Helsing, Gremlins, Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Invisible Man, Godzilla, and many, many more - part of the fun is trying to find them all! This genre pastiche is executed superbly throughout the entire film, which itself feels like one of the B movie monster films that it is referencing; thanks to the choice to make the film black and white (a brave and highly commendable choice), the stop-motion animation that I'm a huge supporter of (which feels appropriate concerning the monster characters which were often Ray Harryhousen-esque clay creations in the referenced films), and even the use of font which is not unlike that incredibly clichéd font that you'd likely recognise from all of those old B movie horror films and their trailers and posters.

With a name like 'Weird Girl' it's pretty obvious that her parents hated her...

The story itself is a lot of fun, with a number of uniquely Burton-esque characters who are quirky but somewhat relatable to too. One of the stand out characters who is aptly named 'Weird Girl' got a lot of laughs from me and others in the audience, not only because as her name would suggest she's weird, but also because we all know one person from our school classes who was like her (and if you didn't know anyone like her, then I have some bad news for you...). It's also interesting to watch the film in a double bill with the original live-action short film that Burton made in 1984 (which you can watch here), especially to see how Burton has kept a lot of the original film (including many shots which appear identicle) and adapted it for the feature length version which is roughly triple the run time; I do recommend watching this either before or after seeing the film, consider this your homework class...

It's not something that I usually do in my reviews, but in this case I'd like to talk a little bit about 3D for a change! Usually I avoid the matter in all of my reviews as my opinion on the cheap glasses gimmick is always the same: don't bother! I've never found the cheap effect to ever add anything to any films - only to take away, primarily from your wallet - and I actually think that if the big 3D king Avatar was released today in the midst of the 3D run that people wouldn't actually care about it that much, and that it was only a big deal because it was most people's first digital 3D release (watching it through rose tinted glasses - well, grey polarized glasses); and the 3D films are almost always available to watch in 2D anyway. However I feel compelled to mention 3D in this case because you know what; it actually added something this time around. Yes, you heard that correctly; I just said something positive about the inclusion of 3D in a film!

Can Frankenweenie change the way we see 3D? No, you still need those stupid glasses to see it...

Now let's get this cleared up straight off - the 3D effects still don't work, but funnily enough that's why the 3D does actually work in this case! Confused? Bare with me; Frankenweenie is a huge pastiche to the classic horror and B movie monster flicks that Burton grew up with, many of which through their releases, re-releases and numerous sequels actually used the gimmicky blue and red 3D glasses back in the day. You can probably imagine the cheap style monster movie posters and trailers that I'm talking about, and a great deal of effort is put into the film to make Frankenweenie feel like one of those films that it's paying homage to. With that in mind, the fact that I was watching it darkened, ghosting and with very little 3D effect actually felt appropriate; and considering that the first thing that you see in the film is Victor showing his parents a low-budget 3D monster movie that he had made with his toys and Sparky, the addition of those cheap glasses actually felt like they were intended rather than being a studio forced gimmick - working as a Brechtian alienation device to make you realise that you are in fact watching a film that is just like those old 3D B movies. Having said that, without the glasses you do get that perfect 2D black and white image which is just as good, and you can also really appreciate the little touches that the glasses-led darkening shadows; but ultimately, the 3D actually feels somewhat justified this time around (consider this a one-off though...)

Earlier this year we saw Joss Whedon pay tribute to the modern horror film for adults in The Cabin in the Woods, now Tim Burton has created a lovely companion that is a pastiche to the early horror genre and B Movie Monster films that Burton adored as a child. Frankenweenie is a lovingly crafted stop-motion animation that may not be the next Nightmare Before Christmas, but certainly is up there. A lot of fun and with a scare or two thrown in for good measure, this is a film that everyone can watch and enjoy together as a family (even one that parents and film-lovers might actually enjoy more); and one of the best things I can say about the film is that it actually changed my mind on 3D if only briefly, with the effect - or rather the lack of any significant one - actually adding something to the narrative of Burton's wonderful film!

But then again, 3D is still rubbish...

Verdict: 4/5

Frankenweenie (certificate PG) is released in cinemas across the UK on October 17th 2012.

Is Burton onto another winner here, or is Frankenweenie destined for the dog house? If you've seen it what did you think? Leave your comments below!

Review: Looper

2012-10-07T16:55:00.002+01:00

I wonder if the DVD will have a bLooper reel...

"Time travel has not yet been invented. But thirty years from now, it will have been" narrates young Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), "I work as a specialized assassin, in an outfit called the Loopers. When my organization from the future wants someone to die, they zap them back to me and I eliminate the target from the future. The only rule is: never let your target escape... even if your target is you." Of course I'm sure you can gage the general plot for Director Rian Johnson's Looper from this quote alone: when his future self is sent back from the year 2072 to be executed, young Joe is suddenly confronted by the image of himself 30 years older (Bruce Willis). But after his target escapes, young Joe must stop his older self at any cost before he can do anything drastic enough to paradoxically alter time-lines, as well as to save his own life from the very organisation that he works for.

Imagine picking up your A Level exam results; you open up that brown paper envelope and pull out your results, and look at that: you got an A! How fantastic, that's absolutely brilliant. But then you realise you were just 1 mark off of an A* grade. A brilliant mark nonetheless, but one that is so painfully close to being perfect. This is how I felt after I had finished watching the new sci-fi thriller Looper: a brilliant piece of filmmaking but one that is flawed in a few minor places, frustratingly preventing it from being something really, really remarkable.

Willis and Gordon-Levitt's next project: 'Dude, Where's my Hair?'

Let's back track a little bit first off though and take a look at why the film is brilliant in the first place before I start abusing it! Boasting a well written script, Looper is an original, entertaining and intelligent modern sci-fi that follows nicely in the footsteps of Christopher Nolan's 2010 blockbuster Inception and Duncan Jones' 2011 time travel film Source Code. With a budget that sits somewhere in-between the gargantuan Inception and relatively small-budget of Source Code, Looper results in being a very stylish and very slickly executed piece, with any and all uses of CGI elements being used tastefully and not at all overbearing as they can often result in being in some films today (something that I find can often make a film less timeless as a result of dated looking CGI effects). In particular, this is perfectly seen in Joseph Gordon-Levitt's face, which is very impressively made to resemble Bruce Willis' through a perfect combination of make-up and CGI enhancements.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who spent his summer battling Bane's army as Blake in The Dark Knight Rises, shines as the film's tough and gritty leading man role that his career has been leading up to (well, technically only half the lead role I guess...) - it is great to see such a fantastically talented screen-presence finally getting the top billing that he deserves. Supporting him is Emily Blunt who provides a really refreshing and a much needed strong female presence in the male dominated world of the film. Bruce Willis as the other half of the leading man is also a brilliant screen presence, displaying a bit of actual acting which provides a much needed contrast to his OTT gun slinging role in this summer's The Expendables 2. Of course that's not to say that Willis doesn't get any action at all in the film; Looper actually features a number of very engaging and exciting action set pieces throughout, including one particular scene with Willis' character mid-film which despite feeling like a pleasant piece of nostalgia hearkening back to 80s sci-fi action films like The Terminator (a clear inspiration for the film), does brings us nicely onto some of the problems that I had with the film...

Time's up for JGL's next victim in Looper

Despite everything I loved about the film, there were a few minor niggles that put me off somewhat. The Bruce Willis scene that I just mentioned - without spoiling anything for those who haven't seen the film yet - whilst brief does get a bit silly and feels like a scene from something like The Expendables 2. This is perfectly fine in one sense (c'mon, it's Bruce Willis!), but it did feel like a bit of a shame considering how much I'd appreciated Willis' more toned down performance throughout. This particular scene also ends a one of the important narrative strands of the film in a very sudden manor, which unfortunately made it feel somewhat rushed and underdeveloped as a result; especially when the outcome of this means that we get to spend less time with Jeff Daniels' (seen recently in Aaron Sorkin's excellent TV series The Newsroom) character Abe who is a fantastic presence in a role not unlike a slightly toned down version of his brilliant Will McAvoy character from The Newsroom... with a beard! This scene comes during the middle of a very long period of time set on Sara's (Emily Blunt) farm which slows things down a lot and in contrast actually felt too long (although arguably necessary and important to the plot) - I couldn't help but think that time could have been spread a little better during these parts to get the pacing balance just right.

My biggest problem with the film however is the telekinesis sub-plot (referred to as 'TK' in the film) which was somewhat unexpected to say the least. I'll once again avoid spoilers here but for me the whole sub-plot, especially towards the end, felt very random and out of place in the story and perhaps one leap of faith too far that I just couldn't fully buy into. A much more subdued alternative could have been put into place here which would still have allowed the film to come to the conclusion that it needed to. As it stands it did feel like a bit of a shame that within a film grounded so well into a believable sense of future reality to see an element of human evolution that leads to certain individuals being able to levitate objects; I just couldn't buy it. As a result this whole premise feels like it's been put into place by the filmmakers in order to feature some cool Inception-esque slow-motion floating effects into the proceedings (although if you don't think about it too much, it is stylistically very cool).

TK, or not TK: is it one plot too far?

In terms of the time travel storyline, as with all time travel films there are going to be plot holes aplenty. This is simply because time travel is impossible, and so there are numerous theories about how it could work but no definitive proof to support any of them. Therefore the best way to execute a time travel plot in film is to stick to one theory rather than to mix and match theories where and when it feels convenient; in any case though, in terms of time travel the best thing to do is to just not think about or criticise it too much, as there'll always be a problem with it somewhere. In terms of Looper, I did get the sense that it was picking and choosing theories when and where it was convenient, however the premise of the film is one so interesting and original that it doesn't come across as an issue at all - just try to enjoy and to not think about it too much, because if you do it will completely fall apart!...

Not unlike Drive last year, Looper is 2012's end of year gem of a film that you probably weren't expecting to find. With an entertaining, engaging and original sci-fi premise (that sits nicely alongside Inception and Source Code as modern sci-fi greats), fantastic action set-pieces, a wonderful cast and impressive visual effects (featuring enough lens-flares to entertain your average J.J. Abrams), Looper is an intelligent yet simple, stylish and entertaining piece that just so happens to be the big film of the moment - and if you're lucky it might just become one of your favourites of 2012! The more I think about Looper, the more I like it (although the time travel stuff does fall to pieces if you think about it for too long); it's just a bit of a shame that there are a few problems with the film which ultimately prevent it from becoming something really special. But if you can look past these few minor niggles you'll get a very, very good piece of modern filmmaking that is a real treat.

Verdict: 4/5

Looper (certificate 15) is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Have you seen Looper? Agree or disagree with my review? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments section below!