The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

I don’t know why I didn't learn from last year. Especially when I've watched The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey again only recently. Not having read the book since last year (and therefore having forgotten most of the detail) I expected to enjoy the first film a good deal more on a second viewing. Unfortunately though, DVDs come without a massive cinema screen, 3D, and surround sound, and it lost a lot of depth without those. There just seemed to be an awful lot of slapstick humour and unlikely survival after falling down cliffs and getting smashed against rocks.

They’re both wonderful films, don’t get me wrong, but my main overriding feeling after watching both of them has been one of annoyance. Why take a book, turn it into a film, and spend half the film telling a story that is not that book? I know, I know, the Necromancer is definitely there in the book, be it only mentioned briefly, and it’s important to include it to flesh out the story and explain why Gandalf buggers off for a film and a half. I don’t really have a problem with that and it adds necessary complexity. It also gets Sauron involved too – come join the party Sauron – why not? Stick to the plot though! We don’t need new stuff. We don’t need a love story. We don’t need Kíli getting hit with a Morgul arrow. I’m thoroughly convinced that the only reason that little plot twist was added was to a) justify the continuing presence of elfs in the film, and b) so that everyone can be pleased that they knew they had to use Kingsfoil/Athelas (“I remember that because they did that in LOTR – yay”). Of course this means that half the dwarfs stay in Laketown and don’t get to go to the Lonely Mountain as per the entire point of the quest. Silly.

Also I’m a bit hazy on the detail in the book but I’m pretty sure that restarting the ancient dwarven smelters with irritation-induced dragon fire wasn’t how they originally fought Smaug. Good job they started alright though eh!? And does Smaug really need to be hit with a special kind of arrow? And do we really care that much that some dude’s grandfather missed him during the last battle – it’s not exactly his fault. It’s all just creating characters for the sake of giving people a bigger part than they would do otherwise. They’ll be bringing Gollum back next.

I do approve of a kick-ass female elf though. No harm in adding her at all – if they had just stuck to the plot and written her out when they all escaped from the elfs hidden in the barrels. We didn't need either the stupid love triangle (oh there’s a female character – she absolutely has to fall in love) or the battle in the barrels with the orcs by the river. That was gratuitous use of 3D effects in my book.

I think the invention of 3D is very bad for films. In the same way that the diamond slippers in The Wizard of Oz were turned into ruby slippers to make full use of the technicolour technology, films these days are written around exciting 3D scenes. They’re crow-barred in where they’re unnecessary and unwelcome. It’s the equivalent of the running away from the goblins in the mountain scene in the first film.

It’s my fault for having Lord of the Rings up on a pedestal. It’s so amazing though – and every time I re-watch it I think it’s amazing. Even Orlando bloody Bloom. God he’s a muppet in this film. He doesn’t look like Legolas did in LOTR (Bloom is ten years older though I suppose so that’s not really fair, although his hair also isn’t right somehow) and he’s even more poncey than ever. A mixture of the Legolas elfiness and the doe-eyed soppiness he exhibited so humourously badly in Pirate’s of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (“Elizabeth… sigh”). What a wally. Gandalf doesn't look the same either. His nose is different and his hat is too cartoony. It should be less structured and less felty. Am I really asking too much? These films are for some of the biggest geeks out there and they of all people are going to notice inconsistency.

I shouldn't compare it to LOTR. That will get us nowhere. I also need to stop comparing it to the book or, more importantly, my memory of the book. Let us begin.

It’s a really good film. Visually it’s really impressive and the animation is near flawless, particularly with the treasure in Erebor when it all slides down like a little avalanche. Superb! Each individual character is awesome and I was genuinely worried when Gandalf was losing his fight against the Necromancer. Smaug is a wonderful dragon, and the next film is going to be great with more of him in it.

I just need to learn how to enjoy it. 

The Fish Child (2009)

After a long period with very little time on my hands, I’ve realised that almost all of the films I’ve seen in the last six or so months have been big famous films in the cinema. The ones I’ve been looking forward to for ages and the ones that everybody’s talking about. And as good as it is to see the Gatsbys and the World War Zs and so have the ability to discuss them excitedly with others, I thought it was about time to return to what I seem to do best – watching random films that no one has heard of.

So it was that I joined Netflix last night. That’s right: I have absconded from Love Film – abandoning it in favour of the younger, sexier model. Receiving DVDs through the post no longer really suits my viewing habits and Love Film Instant is pretty shoddy so why not branch out? That said, the first three films I searched for weren’t on Netflix either, although they are on Love Film on DVD – maybe I will once more return to the fold, truly repentant and admitting my error in judgement. I may then reap the rewards of Only God Forgives, Mud, and The Impostor... one disk at a time.

Anyway, whilst excitedly looking through the recommendations from Netflix and after some repeated “No Netflix – I definitely don’t want to watch Beverly Hills Chihuahua!” I realised that many of recommendations were either crap (various saccharine American chic-flicks), or gay/lesbian films. That’ll be the influence of Mysterious Skin sinking in then. Hopefully the recommendations will sort themselves out in time but they’ve only got one month to impress me before I decide whether or not to pay for the service. The clock is ticking.

This gay/lesbian influence is only likely to increase however after watching The Fish Child (El Niño Pez) – the tale of Lala, a rich teenage girl in Buenos Aires who is in love with her (female) housemaid. This should have everything I enjoy in a film – strong female characters, foreign language, and a bit of sexual violence thrown in (no, I don’t know what’s wrong with me). It also has a bit of zipping about through time as the film is mostly told through flashbacks, showing the relationship between the two women develop as they plan for the future – running away to a fantasy house by a lake in Paraguay.

Whilst a definite story is there, and a good one too (there’s murder and mystery, one which we’re fed pieces of gradually through the film) it’s a story that’s really quite hard to follow. There aren’t many physical clues for us to gauge the timing of each individual scene, and I don’t think I’m wrong when I say that the flashbacks aren’t strictly in chronological order. The characters’ motivations seem to swing between extremes too and not completely believably.

Overall, it was nice (if nice is the right word about any of the films I watch), but I just didn’t get it. Even the title was only explained in a hurried way at the end. Perhaps that was supposed to be a climax – it wasn’t very climactic. The legend of ‘The Fish Child’ barely seemed to be relevant at all, although it was referred to sporadically. My main opinion seems to “that’s a shame, it could have been so good”.

The Master (2012)

Not what I was expecting at all!

To be fair I knew very little about this film. I knew it starred Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator, Walk the Line) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote), I knew it was about a charismatic leader of a cult not so dissimilar to scientology. That’s about it. I imagined it largely to be about this leader, and the transition from having a couple of followers to a reasonably sizeable cult.

It’s not about him. Not directly. It’s about Phoenix’s character Freddie– an alcoholic wartime navy sailor with PTSD and rather an obsession with sex. Him, and his interaction with ‘The Master’.

I’ll be honest, I didn’t really get it. Freddie stumbles drunk onto The Master’s daughter’s wedding boat whilst drunk one night and rather than lock him up they make friends with him, celebrate his concoction of paint-thinner alcohol, and attempt affairs with him. Why? He’s repulsive, and rude, and thuggish, and a thief!

Over time we see more of the cult and its weird culty happenings. It’s the kind of cult that involves regression into pre-birth memories and past lives. It involves ‘processing’ (where have we seen that before?), and also has no interest in discussion of its beliefs or practices, but rather squashes opponents in a much more brutish fashion.

I didn’t care. I tried, and on hearing good things about this film tried for quite a bit longer than I would have done with most other films but I didn’t finish it. I was tired and wanted to go to bed instead.

Gravity (2013)

This film is so good it gave me a panic attack. Seriously. There is so much tension coming and going throughout the film that, by the end, it all became a bit much and I got a bit… hyperventilatey. I can’t really say specifically why without spoiling things but suffice to say, my greatest fear is drowning, with that slow inevitability of being trapped inside something that’s filling up with water. Shudder.

But that’s not what Gravity is really about. What it’s about is demonstrating what good actors George Clooney and Sandra Bullock really are. Playing two astronauts (cosmonauts? What’s the difference? ), Clooney and Bullock are separated from their shuttle (which is irreparably damaged) by a large debris shower. We watch as they attempt to a) stay alive in the deeply inhospitable environment of space, and b) find some way to return to Earth when everything seems to be broken, or without fuel.

Gravity is also about affording us the opportunity to spend a couple of hours enjoying some spectacular views. The scenery is incredible, and the cinematography immense. The plot is simple but it works really well and there is only one ever so small part where Hollywood kicks in and it all gets a bit cheesy. It’s only one line really – you’ll know which one I mean.

Whether you enjoy space films or not, and I’ve sat through enough to know that, in general, I don’t, Gravity is spectacular and wonderful and definitely should be seen on a big screen with loud music and potentially 3D (if you like that sort of thing). Whether it would be as good with a baby screen and small speakers at home I don’t know.

The Fountain (2006)

If pushed to state a favourite director, I would have to say Darren Arronofsky. Black Swan is very high up on my top films ever and Requiem for a Dream is unarguably incredible. I haven’t seen The Wrestler yet. Director aside it doesn’t really seem something I’ll like and I don’t like Mickey Rourke’s face. Pi I feel might be a bit difficult, and so I’m putting it off. Noah, though I am looking forward to immensely, but unfortunately it’s not released until next year. The Fountain therefore offered the logical next foray into Arronofsky’s work.

Set at three different points in time it follows a couple in their search for the tree of life. Merging Myan legend with bible stories and science fiction the separate stories link together frequently to give continuity to what otherwise could be a bitty film.

The original intention was apparently for the film to star Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. While Blanchett would of course been fantastic, I think the eventual casting of Rachel Weisz is perfect. Hugh Jackman too was cast well and took on a role very dissimilar to anything I have previously seen him in. A combination of period costume and space travel is a long way from Wolverine. He does it very well though and managed to make me forget that it was him, which is impressive with three roles to play.

I’m still not entirely sure whether I liked this film as a whole piece. It took me a little time to get into, and perhaps it was a little too surreal in places. There were also some aspects which I didn’t feel I understood sufficiently to appreciate their full meaning.  There were many points however when I was completely bowled over and fully involved in and loving everything I was watching. Throughout The Fountain grabbed my emotions and did with them what it wanted which, when it comes down to it, is all I’m really looking for in a film.  I’m left with the overall feeling that I did like it, although I think that that will be cemented with a second viewing, this time more prepared for what I’m about to watch. 

Monsters University (2013)

Disney owes a lot to Pixar. The use of computers has completely and permanently changed how animated films look and feel, and has allowed a visual complexity which was impossible with traditional animation methods. As well as this, Pixar has completely changed what we expect from a film plot these days. Retold fairy tails or children’s books like Beauty and the Beast, Hercules, or The Jungle Book just don’t cut it anymore, and targeting a film at children is now no excuse for overly simple story-lines  As Rauld Dahl knew, children like to be scared, and they like to laugh, and soppy doe-eyed women being rescued by princes doesn't really manage that. Take Up! as an example – the hero is a grumpy old man and I know some adults reduced to tears by the opening montage. That would never have happened twenty years ago.

Because as old as it makes me feel, it is almost twenty years since Toy Story was released. I loved it, I still do and very surprisingly I loved the sequel, the uninspiringly named Toy Story 2. Even more amazingly, Toy Story 3, released much later, was also pretty damn good, although nowhere near the brilliance of the other two. Other Pixar enthusiasts and I have often disagreed over the best Pixar/Disney film to date, and I know many people rate Finding Nemo above any of the Toy Storys. Hopefully they’ll be pleased with Finding Dory, due for release at the end of the year. With any other production company I’d wonder how they could remake the fish looking for a fish story without overt and tedious repetition but, while there will be many a reference to Finding Nemo I’m sure, I have no doubt that it will stand alone as a solid film.

The same can be said for Monsters, Inc. and Monsters University. Again, a completely new story and one which I don’t think many people saw coming. The idea that the monster lurking under the bed, or in the wardrobe, has a life outside scaring kids and is doing it for a purpose other than just to be mean is fantastic. It’s also something that kids can relate to, just as they can to the idea of their toys coming alive when they’re not in the room or the secret exciting lives of insects in A Bug’s Life (although for my part I did prefer Antz).

Monsters University sees Monsters, Inc.’s heroes Sully and Mike during their training to be scarers. Naturally nothing goes to plan and the two find themselves in a scaring competition to secure their places in the programme. Many of the favourite characters from Monsters, Inc. are present, along with some great new ones. Helen Mirren voices the fantastically intimidating Dean Hardscrabble and I loved ‘Squishy’, a fellow student who is ridiculous and adorable. While I won’t say that it’s flawless this film made me so happy. There’s so much you can do with animation and the Monsters platform really lets the animators have fun. The visual complexity mentioned earlier is also present and most apparent with Sully’s fur – there’s so much detail there – it’s a beautiful thing. 

Dreamworks Animation needs to sort itself out and come up with something new and exciting. There’s only so much they can flog the Shrek franchise, as good as the original film was. I hear Puss in Boots 2 is due for release later this year – that’ll make at least 6 in the series. Then there’s Madagascar 1, 2 and 3 (plus ‘The Penguins of Madagascar and potentially a Madagascar 4 on the way); Kung Fu Panda 1 and 2; and How to Train Your Dragon 1 and the soon to be released 2 and 3. Enough with the sequels!

Go Pixar!

Cosmopolis (2012)

Oh God what a load of crap! I don’t mean any offence to anyone involved with this film but I did not enjoy it. Pattinson is wooden and seems to suit his on-off relationship with whats-her-face Stewart – he has only one facial expression the entire time I’m sure. Maybe I’m missing the point but how does a taxi ride take all day? How can so much happen and yet nothing happens! He meets up with people multiple times throughout the film – they seem to manage to get stuff done between scenes, all he does is sit in a car going from one end of town to the other.

Whether they’ve missed key details of the plot out, or whether I just wasn’t concentrating through boredom, doesn’t matter. I’m fairly convinced that none of it makes sense and is pretty pointless.

Waste of time. I had vague hopes for Pattinson being better than Twilight but apparently not. Bel Ami, then this. That’ll do. 

Now You See Me (2013)

I don’t like magic. That is, I don’t like magicians in my face picking on me and making me look stupid. I get embarrassed and I don’t like feeling embarrassed. This being a film, I considered myself safe.

Now You See Me is about four magicians who come together as The Four Horsemen – a spectacular Vegas show incorporating various aspects of magic whose grand finale involves the robbing of a bank in Paris. This stunt of course lands them in trouble with the FBI and Interpol, who don’t take kindly to the theft of many millions of Euros and spend the entire film trying to work out how on earth they did it when they were clearly in Vegas the entire time!

While it started well, and there are some quite clever bits, the use of ‘magic’ very quickly gives way to the use of CGI and lighting effects, which as common as they are in modern entertainment made it much less impressive. I would also say that that’s cheating to use CGI for magic tricks but perhaps that’s what modern illusions are – I wouldn’t claim to be an expert. It seems a bit easy compared to the subtleties of slight of hand or misdirection though.

Now You See Me is an entertaining and fun film. Most importantly, it’s harmless. There’s nothing really special about it but it entertained me on an otherwise boring mid-week evening. Jessie Eisenburg (The Social Network) wasn’t too annoying, although he played his usual awkward geeky character. Michael Caine was quite cool. Morgan Freeman was very cool. Mélanie Laurent played her usual sweet ‘not as stupid as I look’ French blonde girl and I think it’s a shame that that’s all she really is in this. Inglorious Bastards and Beginners – both fantastic films – gave her more to play with and a real character to get into. Everyone else was a bit negligible, which is a shame for Mark Ruffalo (Avengers Assemble, Shutter Island) who is supposed to be one of the main characters. It’s a shame for Isla Fisher also whose role seemed to boil down to ‘hot girl in a fish tank’. Maybe the success of Gatsby will let her choose some more interesting parts in the future.

My only one big problem with this film is my usual big problem. This film is about slick stunts, cool bank robberies, and the odd car chase. It doesn’t need any more than that. So why the half-arsed attempt at a love story? It’s not done properly and it’s completely unnecessary. Grrr!

World War Z (2013)

Zombies are not my usual cup of tea, but I have enough male friends who have put time and effort into refining their own ‘zombie plans’ to have half-formed one myself. What seems to bring these semi-regular discussions to a close, usually without resolution, is disagreement on the capabilities of the zombies we would be battling. One used to be able to out-run the things as they dragged useless limbs behind them at a snail’s pace, but apparently that is no longer the case. Why the nature of this potentially imminent undead foe should have changed, just because a few films have decided to up the anti, is not a question I feel like asking; mostly because I would have to listen to the response.

Not being particularly inclined to discuss them, I have no great desire to watch films about them. An exception I will make is Zombieland, which is humourous enough for me to enjoy, zombies-and-all. It also provides me with ready made rules for surviving any similar apocalypse so that I don’t have to think of them myself. Thus I am spared from succumbing to a terrible zombie death by a simple failure to ‘check the backseat’ or by forgetting to employ the ‘double-tap’.

Despite a general dislike for the genre, I went to see World War Z at the cinema, and found it was really rather good. That’s not to say I enjoyed it all – I don’t go for panic-attack inducing films all that much, which is why any horror I watch tends to lean to the gory or creepy (Saw, Let the Right One In), rather than the jumpy. World War Z definitely makes you jump, and the luxury of 3D makes the jumps that much bigger.

What World War Z did manage, was to make me believe that this is what might actually happen, were such a horrific disease to develop (it seems always to be caused by a disease these days). Everything’s fine one minute and then boom! Zombies everywhere. These were particularly fast acting zombies mind, 12 seconds from bite to zombie and full sprinting ability. That doesn’t take long to spread. It shows military responses and emergency roof-top evacuations; loss of cities or even whole countries to the evil undead enemy. Survival seems to be down to a combination of not just what you know, but who you know. So I’m dead then.

World War Z primarily follows Brad Pitt and his family as they attempt to leave a hugely congested and increasingly zombie-ridden city and get to safety. As an ex-UN employee Pitt naturally ends up the hero, flying around the world to discover the source of the zombie disease, and attempting to find a cure. Thus we see zombie battles in many different environments which removed any of the tedious repetition that is almost a certainty with a theme so simple yet repeated so many times. That said, the standard supermarket scene with looting and fending off rampant zombies is very much present.

Both the highlight, and for me the least enjoyable scene, is the end where Pitt the hero deliberately faces the zombies head on, in the final push for that elusive cure. Quietly sneaking past zombie after zombie with very little in the way of protection or weaponry you want to hold your breath to prevent any noise from revealing his presence to the unsuspecting zombies that surround him. When I say it was the least enjoyable, I just mean for me. It’s amazing; I’m just of a nervous disposition apparently. During this time we see some good zombie close-ups and can study their mannerisms. Once dormant (if deprived of humans for a while), there’s a lot of twitching and shuddering and moping about, rather than the full attacking sprint that we see during the rest of the film. It’s creepy and terrifying, but hugely fascinating and for that reason too you’re willing them to remain dormant and unaware of a healthy human’s presence.

From this, I assume they can’t smell. I don’t know if that’s a tactic commonly used by zombies – the ability to smell healthy people but I suppose that would put pain to any chance of sneaking past. Let’s hope it’s not something I ever have to consider.

The only drawback was a slight comic aspect to the twitching (if you choose to see it), which reminded me of the guy in the Rowntree’s Rip’ems advert – the one dressed up as the blue bird. Unfortunately that advert was played in the cinema just before the film, otherwise maybe I wouldn’t have made the connection.

The Great Gatsby (2013)

I’m not sure how it came about that I was eagerly anticipating The Great Gatsby. I have no great love of Baz Luhrman although I very much enjoyed Romeo + Juliet when I re-watched it a couple of years ago. Without the giggly Leo-loving schoolgirls or the class-room setting (which ruins any good film/book/play) I found the direction exciting, lively, and evocative. Moulin Rouge on the other hand I’ve tried to sit through twice and spectacularly failed both times – I think its crap. I’ve heard very little about Australia. I imagine that’s because it’s quite meh (6.6 on IMDB) and no one has any real opinion about it. Perhaps I’m wrong.

Anyway, either Luhrman has burrowed into my ‘like’ category of directors without permission or there were other forces at work. Possibly it’s that external influences have given me a fondness for all things vintage recently, possibly it’s because I discovered the existence of the film project as I was reading the book, or possibly it’s the actors. I really quite like Carey Mulligan, despite Never Let Me Go and Shame (both disappointing) and Leo really is a very impressive actor when he wants to be, as I was delightfully reminded recently by Django Unchained.

Maybe it was just good marketing.

Whatever the reason, my excitement as The Great Gatsby was released was stupid. Having previously read the book I should have been prepared for an otherwise perfectly good film that made me angry because they changed the colour of a pair of gloves (or some other such insignificant detail). However, I wilfully ignored my previous discussion of film vs. book I had only hours-since written in my Life of Pi blog and continued to be hyper-levels of excited until I actually took to my cinema seat.

It was awesome. I say this with some hesitation. What I mean to say is the view, the scenery, the music, and the glitter, all combined with gratuitous use of 3D made for a spectacle that inspired awe and wonder. This film is all about the visuals, and it does it ever so well. Everything was so good to look at and so good to listen to that I came out of the cinema thoroughly happy. However, that’s not to say that it is a great piece of cinema. As a film it wasn’t flawless and if I wanted to delve deeper I could find a lot of problems to grumble about. This is one to definitely take at face value and indulge in the many many cocktails, the flowers, the costume and the music. The modern music apparently – that surprised me and I think it worked really well, although I know others disagree. The use of Alicia Key’s Empire State of Mind I think was silly – Sex and the City 2 monopolised use of that song when it was released in 2009/2010, and it has been played to death since. Other than that, it was fantastic.

Looking at it at a superficial enjoyment level (which I don’t think does it a disservice), I could think of 4 flaws in the entire film, all of which are pretty trivial:

1. Use of Empire State of Mind (part II), however briefly.

2. One too many ‘old sport’s from Gatsby – I know it’s his thing but a few of them were a bit clumsy.

3. The framing of Tobey Maguire in the final Gatsby-Carraway scene. It just looked a little odd.

4. I can’t actually remember the forth. It was probably something petty to do with the party/soppy bits of plot ratio. Too much soppy.

All in all, pretty good. I’m not sure if I’ll bother seeing it again unless the screen is big and the stereo of a good quality. It needs it.

I should also mention Daisy Buchanan’s diamond ring. Possibly the fanciest and nicest piece of jewellery ever – I’ll put one on my birthday list. 

Life of Pi (2012)

As with many other films, I find it hard to judge Life of Pi due to having read the book before watching the film. I find it a certainty that, for the large majority of cases, one will all but destroy the other, and it seems silly to favour the adaptation over the original.

Some films for me have been completely ruined by a far superior book - Memoires of a Geisha and We Need to Talk about Kevin being prime examples. While so many film adaptations will get me angry because people seem to insist on changing the plot, these two along with so many others simply failed to bring across on film what was so well communicated by word. They weren’t bad films necessarily but they just weren’t anywhere near as good as the book.

That said, it’s not a given that reading a book beforehand will spoil your viewing experience; some films are just so good that they stand up for themselves. Atonement is the best example I can give here – I love the book, and I love the film. They’re both amazing and compliment each other well. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, also (the Swedish version obviously) was fantastic, and in no way made me angry because the book was better. So many others too – Remains of the Day, Lord of the Rings – it’s definitely possible. So what about Life of Pi?

It fails. The problem with choosing this book to translate into a film is that very little actually happens. There’s a lot of description and thought, and the way to get around that is first person voice-over, which was used liberally throughout the film. Even so, I feel that an audiobook would do the job better.

Now, I didn’t see the 3D. The visuals were really very very good and it was beautifully done in that regard. I can see that with a large screen and the benefit of 3D would make them gasp-worthy, in the same way that The Hobbit’s scenery and high frame rate were. That’s only half the point though and what I want is my emotions pulled here there and everywhere as they were by the book.

Without wanting to spoil the ending, when I finished the book I was shocked and appalled and in complete floods of tears. Maybe it just can’t have that same impact twice, or maybe you just can’t convey that as well with cinema, but I found the ending to the film comparatively underwhelming. If it’s for the former reason, I fear that for an increasing number of films we shall have to make a choice between enjoying the film, and getting the most from the book. It’s one of those competitions that, for me, a book will always win.

I don’t mean by this that it was a bad film. I really did enjoy it. It’s just going to be added to the list of films where the book is just so much better.

Here’s wishing The Great Gatsby good luck – I read it just before Christmas.

Killer Joe (2012)

Not many people seem to appreciate Killer Joe. 3 stars on LoveFilm, 6.8 on IMDB, and 62 on Metacritic aren’t terrible scores by any means. It’s quite standard for a good film which seems (as this has) to have gone by largely unnoticed by the world in general. There are however, an awful lot of reviews out there which proclaim it to be a horrible, unnecessary waste of space. That’s great as far as I’m concerned. Let a few soft people who like fluffy pretty films get stressed about it – that’s fine. It shows it’s doing its job properly.

Maybe it’s Matthew McConaughey’s presence – people see his name and think of happy smiley feel-good films like How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days or The Wedding Planner. Maybe they haven’t noticed that he seems to have changed direction more recently. Participating in both Tropic Thunder and Magic Mike does seem show some range. Not that you’ll catch me saying good things about the man. I still think he’s vile.

Unlike some of the other actors. Juno Temple is lovely. I was first made aware of her existence in atonement and since then I’ve seen her in The Other Boleyn Girl, Glorious 39 and, more recently, The Dark Knight Rises. I wasn’t that fussed about her at first but Killer Joe has upgraded her to I’ll-watch-something-just-because-she’s-in-it status. Emile Hirsch is also always worth watching. I don’t necessarily think he’s anything special but The Girl Next Door was funny so he’s in my good books. I don’t like Thomas Haden Church.

Killer Joe is a policeman in a small town in Texas. He’s also a killer, funnily enough. Joe is hired by Chris, a young man who’s got himself into a spot of bother with some drug dealers – he owes them money and doesn’t seem to have any. Oh dear. The obvious solution therefore is for him to get his mother killed off so that he can capitalise on her life insurance policy. His dad (now divorced from his mother) seems to agree too – it’s a plan!

The difficulty comes with paying for Joe – he wants money in advance or, when that’s not possible, a retainer. The stakes get higher and everything, of course, goes wrong. Pretty standard in terms of plot, but not done badly.

I’ve said before about liking films that make you feel something. Killer Joe certainly does that – and it’s a feeling that lingers. It’s an uncomfortable kind of feeling. Not fully shock, not horror, maybe a decent amount of disgust, but it’s mostly just uncomfortable. I loved it. As a film it is by no means perfect but I think it’s great!

And I shall echo the sentiments of others who have written about Killer Joe – don’t watch it if you’re eating KFC.

Les Misérables (2012)

It wouldn't be exactly true to say that I don’t like musicals. I loved Oliver when I was younger, and still very much enjoy Chicago – both the film and the show. Keep me clear away from Andrew Lloyd Webber though – stupid melty-face toad man! Les Misérables is a very different style to most others (as far as I’m aware). It’s not a play with a bit of music added in for fun and good measure – everything is sung, as it is with an opera, which is fine I suppose but it does take a bit of getting used to.

My prejudices against this film going in were not, therefore, entirely musical-related. It was more the cast. Specifically Anne Hathaway and Amanda Seyfried. Especially Amanda Seyfried. Between them they’ve been in so many bullshit films that I’ve had to endure hearing about (even if I haven’t actually seen most of them) and I resent them for bringing them into my life. Examples include: Red Riding Hood, Dear John, Bride Wars, Letters to Juliet, Valentine’s Day, and Becoming Jane. What a load of crap.

By contrast Les Mis also features some very lovely people: Eddie Redmayne, Helena Bonham Carter (even if she does play the same character as she does in many of her other films), and Hugh Jackman. There’s a fantastic collection of films that they’ve participated in: The X-Mens, Fight Club, Glorious 39, Twelfth Night, The King’s Speech, My Week with Marilyn. Real films that, even if they don’t suit everybody, at least weren’t written by Nicholas bloody Sparks.

An exception can be made for The Dark Knight Rises, which is obviously a fantastic film, and which doesn’t suffer too much for including Hathaway. I’m not sure she really adds anything though.

The presence or otherwise of Russell Crowe doesn’t really bother me. He’s one of those actors that has completely passed me by. Obviously I know very well who he is but of his reasonably lengthy film list, I’ve only seen Gladiator (once, a while ago), and Robin Hood. I might perhaps have seen A Beautiful Mind, or the beginning of it at least, but I can’t really remember it. Maybe I’ll try that one again.

Anyway… luckily for me aforementioned annoying actresses appear only very briefly. I am also forced to completely retract anything negative I have ever said about Anne Hathaway’s ability to sing. As much as everyone’s gone on about it and she’s nominated for an Oscar and all, I didn’t really believe she’d be anything other than adequate. I was very wrong. While her general acting is nothing to write home about, that Dreamed a Dream song is amazing. Whether it’s her singing, her facial expressions and body language, or the cinematography throughout, it’s a very powerful part of the film and, while I won’t admit to breaking down into hysterical tears, I was very impressed at the song’s strength.

I’ll let it be known at this point, that I don’t cry at films, not even Titanic. In the whole history of my film-watching I have cried at only 3 (that I remember). The first is a pile of rubbish and I don’t know what came over me – I blame teenage hormones. I won’t mention the film by name but suffice to say it starred Mandy Moore. One other is still my favourite film of all time: The Secret in their Eyes – it’s amazing and twisted and clever and everyone should watch it!

Film no. 3 I have to confess is Les Misérables. There was a reasonably steady stream of tears going by the end. Clearly it cheats by the strong use of music and everyone dying but the fact still remains that I apparently cared enough to display outward emotion and that deserves some serious praise.

Amanda Seyfried is just as annoying as I expected, but she doesn’t feature much so never mind. Actually, that was a point I found quite amusing. The character Marius (Redmayne) falls in love with the cute, blond Cossette (Seyfried) and fails to return the (probably more sincere) love of Éponine, the daughter of his landlord. Éponine is played by Samantha Barks who, after a brief look at her IMDB page, appears to have first appeared on the I’d Do Anything talent show. Maybe Webber does have a use after all as Barks is magnificent and easily outshines Seyfried. What is Marius thinking? She’s definitely someone to look for in future films.

I also think a lot of the credit for the success of Les Mis should go to director Tom Hooper. Not only did he direct The King’s Speech which is clearly marvellous, but he also (apparently) directed some Byker Grove episodes back in the day – what a hero! In the wrong hands this could have been an overly sentimental disaster but it’s not. Well, it’s obviously overly sentimental – it’s a musical – but it’s human and more believable than I think any stage production would be able to make it. I’m clearly biased though.

Django Unchained (2012)

You know what you’re getting yourself in for when you watch Tarantino. There’s mostly a lot of ridiculously amazing violence, a fantastic soundtrack, and a less than linear story. That’s also pretty much what you get with Django Unchained.

Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave in the pre-Civil War deep South, is unexpectedly bought and freed by German ex-dentist Dr Shultz (Christoph Waltz). Shultz needs his help to kill three brothers, wanted dead or alive by state authorities, and so claim their bounty.  Realising they make a good team, Schultz and Django spend the winter together bounty hunting with glorious style. Django is, of course, a natural with a gun and soon can imagine a future when he will have enough money to do whatever he wants with his life.

What he wants is to find and rescue his wife Broomhilda, whom he was separated from by evil plantation owners after they tried to run away together. Rumour has it that she’s now at Candie Land – one of the largest plantations in the area, owned by the mean and ruthless Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Candie spends a large portion of his time and his wealth buying and selling ‘mandingo’ fighters – black slaves who fight to the death for the entertainment and gambling pleasures of rich white men. Django and Shultz, realising that they’ll never manage to persuade Candie to sell Broomhilda if they ask directly, pretend to be interested in buying themselves a mandigo fighter, with the hopes of casually buying the pretty German-speaking slave as well while they’re there.

There are so many positive things that I want to say about this film, beginning with just how cool Jamie Foxx is. I realise now that I’ve never actually seen him in anything, although I first heard of him because of Ray and how awesome that’s supposed to be, and heard his name mentioned every now and again in connection with various films that I’ll never watch (Miami Vice, Valentine’s Day, Horrible Bosses). I think he’s brilliant.

The sleekness, cleverness, and overly-elaborateness of the bounty hunting plans by Shultz is also a joy to behold. Even if things go wrong, he remains calm and cool and just deals with it, with undeniable style. I know I’ve ranted on before about watching a smooth plan just work well and how good that is to see.

Leo. I will always love Leo, and I would like to make completely clear that this is not because of some silly teenage girl crush based on Titanic and Romeo and Juliet. That boy can act. Despite being nominated a few times, he’s never won an Oscar, or apparently any other important award, but surely has deserved some for some of his roles. What’s Eating Gilbert Grape being a prime example. He’s awesome in this too, and very nicely dressed as well.

Samuel L. Jackson. He’s so good!

The violence. It’s brilliant, and (mostly) comically OTT. There are a few moments with the brutality of the white slave-drivers where you really have to brace yourself for what you’re watching or look away if you really can’t take it, but I hope that these small parts don’t put anyone of seeing it. It’s worth it, even if it is uncomfortable.

The only bad thing that I can possibly say about this is Tarantino felt the need to appear in it, as he so often does. He managed to resist for both Kill Bill films, so why start again? He cannot act, and he’s very annoying, but never mind eh?

Overall – this film is gob-smacking, cool, and everyone in the world should watch it. Unless you really really don’t like violence – then you probably won’t like it.

Mirror Mirror (2012)

2012 was apparently the year for Snow White. Four different versions were released in various forms including Snow White and the Huntsman with the ridiculous Kristen Stewart. I was shocked to see that it was nominated for two Oscars when so many fantastic films seem to have been overlooked, but apparently they’re for costume and visual effects so that’s ok.

Mirror Mirror’s cast is not quite as star-studded as Snow White and the Huntsman’s, but still features some pretty high profile names. Julia Roberts is the evil Queen and Sean Bean the King. Armie Hammer (The Social Network) plays the prince and is horribly saccharine throughout, and the Queen’s aid is Nathan Lane who, for all his many film at TV appearances is still probably best known as the voice of Timon from The Lion King. As far as I’m concerned anyway. Lily Collins, who plays Snow White, has been in absolutely nothing of note except The Blind Side (The Priest and Abduction don’t really count as films of note as far as I’m concerned). She is ridiculously annoying although pretty enough in exactly the right fairy-tale way so she’s reasonably suited for the role. Especially in such an annoying film.

Because oh my God it was annoying! Notwithstanding a perfectly acceptable train-her-to-be-a-fighter montage in the middle (who doesn’t love a good montage?) the whole film is ridiculous. Not ridiculous in a good quality B-film kind of way – no, no – that was what I was hoping to find, but in a way that made me that close to giving up on it after about half an hour. Being mostly about The Queen rather than completely concentrating on Snow White, I imagine it was designed as some kind of final ego boost for Julia Roberts before everyone completely forgets about her and moves on.

Oh yeah, and Snow White starts singing some kind of Bollywood number at the end. That was unnecessary! Maybe kids will like it.

My lasting impression: Oh Sean Bean! What have you become?

Like Minds (2006)

As with many films on my watch list, I first heard about Like Minds by seeing a trailer on a DVD. It caught my attention by the presence of Toni Collette whom I at least think I like, even if I usually find that I actually don’t (she is, incidentally, the weakest part of this film), and because it seems to mostly be about two boys who are, frankly, evil. And I love watching cold, deliberate evil. It’s a similar style to We Need to Talk About Kevin – that completely self-aware, could-not-give-a-shit attitude that’s very impressive and powerful. It’s the reason why I like bad guys: Chuck Bass, Heath Ledger’s Joker, Gollum (no, wait – scratch that).

This film’s examples of evil incarnate are Alex Forbes (played by Eddie Redmayne – My Week with Marilyn, Les Misérables), and Nigel Colbie (Tom Sturridge – The Boat That Rocked, On the Road). Both actors are fantastic and play calm and twisted very well.

Like Minds follows a criminal psychologist Sally (Collette) as she attempts to uncover the truth about the murder of schoolboy Nigel. Alex, arrested for the murder, swears he didn’t do it despite compelling evidence to the contrary. As Sally talks to him and probes deeper into his thoughts and memories, we gradually discover more about the boys’ relationship over the past few moths, and how dark and sinister the whole affair actually is.

As I said above, for me Collette is the weakest part of this film. She’s mostly fine but it’s ruined by one moment with a particularly exaggerated gesture that immediately made me think of About a Boy where she does exactly the same thing. There’s also a bizarre moment where Sally breaks into Nigel’s house without any kind of warrant or apparently telling anyone where she’s going. Not Collette’s fault – that’s more to do with the writers but it bothered me and I don’t see why she couldn’t do everything properly. I know films like to make the main character go all maverick and everything but she’s not really the main character – just a vessel through which the real story is told (sorry Toni). All in all I much preferred the flashback parts of the film to the present day parts.

Despite sounding rather negative, I found the whole film very compelling. It’s a mystery and a thriller and incorporates obscure Christian history and inherited mantels. A bit like The Da Vinci Code but better (despite being less thoroughly researched).

It’s also given me more of a reason to see Les Misérables, as if Hugh Jackman wasn’t enough. I’ll see if when the time comes whether or not the presence of Hugh Jackman, Eddie Redmayne and Helena Bonham Carter together are enough to outweigh having to sit through Amanda Seyfried and Anne Hathaway attempting to sing.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

I am not one of the many people in the world that have been waiting for The Hobbit film since God only knows when. Nor was I even particularly interested in it during most of the build-up. That is, until I saw the trailer for the first time and realised quite what the release of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey meant – more Lord of the Rings! It includes the same actors as the LOTR, reprising their roles from the trilogy, and the music’s the same. It was the music that got me – it contains the same themes and is in the same style and suddenly I was eagerly anticipating the release of this film. Because I love Lord of the Rings. Completely, stupidly love it. I’ve seen all three God knows how many times, I’ve done the thing of watching all the extended versions back to back, know most of the actors’ names, and memorised a decent quantity of the script.

So obviously I read the books, or rather book. Once will do – I can hold my head up high and say I’ve read it but never need to worry about it again. I didn’t go on to read The Hobbit though. That is something I’ve rectified, I’m currently reading it and I made sure I’d read at least enough to cover the first film before I went. But possibly that’s what ruined the film for me.

It looks phenomenal – there’s no two ways about that. I felt compelled (unlike with most films) to splash out and watch it in 3D, and in the high frame rate that everyone keeps banging on about. The end result is gob-smacking. The hills and the mountains look ridiculously good and the depth given by the 3D made me completely forget I was watching a film. In a good way.

The problem with 3D is when there’s action; or close-ups. My eyes can’t keep up and it goes a bit too blurry for me to remain in my disbelief-suspended film-watching mode. Which is mostly why I don’t normally watch non-animated films in 3D. I don’t know if there’s technology that needs improving there, or just that my eyes are crap, but it spoils it. If it wasn’t for that then I would call the visuals pretty near perfect. 

Incidentally the HFR didn’t bother me at all. Maybe it needed a little getting used to but probably no more than normal 3D would have done.

I had a slight worry about Martin Freeman being Bilbo. He didn’t seem right for it at first but I will hold my hand up and confess I was completely wrong – he did a very good job and it worked really well. It is, of course, always nice to see Ian McKellen and again, Andy Serkis produced a crazy-good Gollum. What I wasn’t expecting was to recognise so many other faces. LOTR didn’t contain that many well-known actors and although it was natural that a few more would jump on the Tolkien band-wagon faces such as those belonging to James Nesbitt (Cold Feet, Bloody Sunday), and Aiden Turner (Being Human, Desperate Romantics) were a surprise.

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before, but my number one pet hate with adapted screenplays is when they change the book. Obviously you have to change the book a little – miss bits out, possibly re-order some stuff so it makes sense for the screen, but don’t just make things up. Especially for absolutely no reason. The slightly altered ending of the American version of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo springs to mind as a pointless, completely unnecessary change. I won’t mention anything specific about The Hobbit because someone geekier than me will point me straight to the part of the Silmarillion, or the precise LOTR appendix from which it was taken but suffice it to say, enough was different to the book to make me really quite annoyed by the end. And not in a slightly rolling the eyes kind of way. Properly annoyed.

But I’m ignoring that. It’s more Lord of the Rings and I’m determined to love it in the end. I’ll watch it differently next time, and not just because I won’t have the fancy-pants technology.