This Is The End

The apocalypse is proving to be a somewhat popular theme to explore in film and tv over the last couple of years. Zombies are largely taking responsibility for the trend, but disaster movies like The Day After Tomorrow, Knowing and The Happening are showing that there's big money to be made from the whole "what if everything went catastrophically wrong" scenario. Granted, each of those last three mentioned are indescribably terrible films, but still...people went to see them. So I guess it was only time for someone to step up and make a good comedy addition to the genre, and that man was Seth Rogen (and writing partner Evan Goldberg, naturally). Rogen's career has hit a minor lull thanks to efforts such as The Green Hornet shaking his previously untouchable reputation for producing genuinely funny and original comedies, so now to find out if he could pull it back with his take on the end of days; This Is The End.

So here's the basic idea: we're watching a film wherein all of the actors are playing exaggerated version of themselves, and they're all attending the housewarming party of James Franco. Seth Rogen reuintes with his friend Jay Barouchel and takes him to the party, despite the hesitance of the latter. The party is awash with famous faces of American comedy, including Craig Robinson, Michael Cera, Aziz Ansari, Jonah Hill, Jason Segel and Christopher Mintz-Plasse, not to mention a showing from Rihanna. Once Barouchel decides to go out for cigarettes as an excuse for his feeling uncomfortable at the party, Rogen accompanies him to a convenience stores, just as the apocalypse kicks into life. People are "raptured" by beams of blue light, earthquakes shake Hollywood, and havoc breaks out on the streets. Returning to the party, Rogen and Barouchel find the guests blissfully unaware until a further quake claims the lives of several of the guests, leaving Franco, Rogen, Barouchel, Robinson, Hill and McBride as the survivors, sheltering in Franco's house. They must spend the rest of the movie attempting to survive what appears to be armageddon with limited food, water and a continuously strained group relationship.

The idea is a clever one in two ways. First: whilst this kind of story has been explored previously, from films/novels ranging as widely as End Of Days and I Am Legend, it has never particularly been explored successfully in a comedy format. Second: the casting is eye-catching. The majority of the actors were involved in either/both Freaks & Geeks or Pineapple Express, two of Rogen's most critically successful ventures so far. Furthermore, almost everyone in the film has appeared in a series of movies with a cult following (see Cera in Scott Pilgrim vs The World, for example), so the film pretty much guarantees it's immediate audience on cast alone. The majority of the actors provide excellent performances as themselves, as cameos or otherwise, even if Robinson and Danny McBride are essentially playing the same characters they've ever played in everything they've ever been in. Franco does a good job of making us wonder whether he actually is a slightly unhinged acting snob, longing for the closeness of his oldest friends in the business, and Hill is very funny as a cringeworthy, camper vision of himself. But it is still Rogen who steals the show here, even if he is also just playing himself. Rogen has a way of tapping into comedy, or at least to my tastes. He's constantly chortling away, making obscene jokes and just being the person you wish you knew in the real world, he immediately disarms you allowing you to appreciate the humour of the scenes he's in. But enough of my imaginary bromance with Mr. Rogen.

As the film goes on, it has some genuinely hilarious moments, whether that's seeing the various deaths of the party guests, the already infamous Emma Watson cameo or the group fighting off boredom through the filming of a Pineapple Express sequel in the house. It's never particularly intelligent, and rarely catches you by surprise, this film is a Rogen standard: friends ripping on each other; however, the twist on this one is obviously that hellfire is raining down on the planet at the same time. This simply means that the film can get away with the slightly more ridiculous, so high school anxiety is instead replaced with demons, cannibals and Satan. As you do.

Unfortunately, this only gets the film so far, as it has a storyline to try and tie up, and it rushes the process slightly. A lot of time is spent on the set up, and one or two comedy bits in the middle, and less on the actual climax of the film, which takes place in less than ten minutes of screentime. What's more, the ending seems to get sucked into a slightly sappy conclusion, albeit with a guy-love theme, rather than a full on love story. Though I will admit, the final scene of the movie, which I definitely will not ruin, might go down as one of my favourite (and most certainly the one of the most random) finales of any I have ever seen, and, no joking, genuinely made happy.

3/5 - Extremely funny in places,but a little stretched and forced in others. However, it marks a solid return to form for Rogen, and has apparently made me realise that I could end up being his stalker until I get to share a beer with him. Which is completely normal.

World War Z

The zombie genre has had somewhat of a reinvention since the turn of the millennium. Largely gone are the days of the shuffling, shambling corpses of the George A. Romero style, in are the chaotic, rage-driven....corpses...of the virus age. Films like 28 Days Later and series The Walking Dead have switched the focus of zombie survival from a short term "how do we survive the night" to "how do we fix this...and how do we survive the night". So when talk of Max Brooks' collection of survival accounts was first rumoured to hit to the big screen, I'm sure I wasn't alone in being just a little excited at the thought of World War Z.

In many ways, World War Z follows what has become the standard of zombie plot lines recently: man seems to be running normal life, man's home/city/country is the victim of a zombie outbreak, man survives, outbreak threatens to bring down society as we know it. However, instead of spending the rest of his life trying to merely survive, this time our hero calls upon his experience as a U.N. investigator to hunt out a solution to the pandemic, travelling around the globe to gather information vital to the survival of the human race.

Our hero in this instance, happens to be Brad Pitt, who plays Gerry Lane, the aforementioned ex-U.N. investigator, now fully fledged family man. You know you're always going to get a solid performance from Pitt, and this is no difference; he brings his usual easiness to the action-filled zombie apocalypse, with the added softness required for a man who knows he's doing his duty with his family in mind, a reluctant, yet stoic hero indeed. And while it's not unfair to say that Pitt really is the star of the film, his supporting cast help the story along well, albeit it in fleeting appearances. Daniella Kertesz fills a pleasing role as Israeli soldier Segen, who essentially becomes Lane's sidekick, a skull-busting, bite-risking amazonian of a woman, who you get the impression could survive the end of days all on her own. Pierfrancesco Favino takes on the part of a World Health Organization researcher who also takes on a reluctant hero role in the film, and gives a convincing performance as a man brought to the very bottom by the world crumbling around him. Oh, and there's a bizarre yet very much enjoyable turn up for The Thick Of It star, Peter Capaldi, as another WHO researcher, just to throw you off a little.

The CGI is, unfortunately, something of a love-hate feature of this film. When we get up close and personal with the zombies, they're fairly impressive, and at the very least menacing. The citywide scenes of destruction are something to behold as well, and successfully fill the audience with a sense of menace and dread at just how quickly the outbreak takes hold of civilisation. However, I found the scenes involving the zombies as a hoard to be extremely disappointing. Whilst impressed at the scale with which the undead maraud their way through a city, the speed of them is simply flat out unbelievable. And I say that knowing full well that this is a film wherein the dead are rising up and eating people. They are jerky, they are fast, but simply too fast to be taken seriously. It reminded me sadly of the 2008 inspired by/remake of Day Of The Dead, wherein the zombies would inexplicably speed up, as if someone had just pressed 'fast-foward', and looked utterly ridiculous. Now I get that we are supposed to be looking at this as a way of saying that this virus breaks us down into something not human, something totally animal and something of near hive mind; but instead of making a clear social statement, the use of over-the-top CGI leaves you looking at the film unable to immerse yourself in the situation. The tension is so much more effective when in close quarters with the zombies, which, unfortunately, does not happen often enough.

I may be being harsh here, as, after all, this is a film about the bigger picture of a zombie outbreak, and is rumoured to be only the first of perhaps three films, but it leaves us a little confused. There are a few close call scenes with a not-so-vast amount of zombies, and those work very well. But then again, there are full on sieges of hoards taking cities, and whilst the point is there, it gets somewhat lost as it all happens a little too quickly. Again, this could be a point director Marc Forster was trying to get across (just how rapid the outbreak takes hold), but with a confused swapping between bigger battles and frantic one-on-one moments, we never really know how to feel. Ultimately, I truly hope the ambiguous ending of the film is simply a bridge to a sequel, as I feel this has serious potential, however, as a stand-alone effort, I couldn't help feeling disappointed when the conclusion arrived.

3/5 - It had it's moments, and was enjoyable, without being particularly engaging. It's difficult to get close to the benchmark met by either 28 Days Later or The Walking Dead when it comes to the big scale zombie ponderer, and even more so to get anywhere near the Romero standard of immediate danger, but this film had some way to go. I'm a huge fan of the novel, and I really do hope more is made in any sequels, preferably by following the model of survival accounts from around the world, as opposed to one man saving the world.

P.S.

The product placement is pretty hilarious.

Man Of Steel

Cinema is right in the middle of a major superhero boom at the minute, and deep, dark, moody anti-heroes have been raking it in. The success of the Dark Knight and Iron Man franchises alone prove just how much the modern audience loves the Byron-type. So how will a movie telling the story of the most clean-cut superhero in the history of men wearing pants in unorthodox manners; welcome back to the big screen, Superman, Man Of Steel.

We all know the basic Superman story by now, don't we? Super-powered alien baby is sent to Earth, raised by farmers, discovers he is in fact an alien after all, decides to use his powers for good, and takes up the mantle of the protector of humankind. And that is largely the idea of Man Of Steel, but with a great more detail given to the final days of Superman's home planet, and more a passing reference to the bumpy childhood years of our hero (probably due to it being done to death in Smallville). Attention particularly focuses on General Zod, the military leader of Krypton, who has Nazi-levels of genocidal passion for "pure blood" society for his people, who is ultimately solely driven in a quest to track down Superman, and bring him to what the general sees as justice. So our hero is faced with the decision of fighting what it probably the last surviving members of his species, or letting the planet which raised him fall to the General's wrath.

The man chosen to play Clark Kent was Henry Cavill, who apparently missed out on the same role for the absolutely terrible 2006 Superman Returns, so I imagine he had more than a point to prove when it came to being handed the red cape for himself. He does the role justice too, with a pleasing amount of All-American, slightly corny, all clean honesty. It may not be hard to play Superman, when you really think about it, but he carries it well and with a sense of humour borrowed slightly from Chris Evans' take on Captain America. Michael Shannon provides a menacing and utterly psychotic General Zod, and his performance is very pleasing, as you actually almost begin to fully sympathise with his reasoning for wanting to destroy all of mankind, which is slightly worrying when you think about it. The part of Lois Lane is played by Amy Adams, and she's shown as less the ever-in-danger damsel in distress, more of the career-driven, strong willed power woman. Not entirely sure which is a more reoccurring movie cliche, in all honesty, but it's still sort of annoying. Russell Crowe has a good turn in a supporting role as Jor-El, Superman's father, and it's his display of resilience and high morality which allows the audience to buy into why Superman eventually decides to take up the fight for good. There are also strong supporting roles from Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, who play the Earth parents of The Big Blue Boy Scout. It was sort of nice to even remember Costner existed, really.

The film is laden with explosions and special effects which would make Michael Bay squeal with delight, but are largely used responsibly (that's a weird sentence, I know). A climactic battle scene sees the destruction of an enormous part of the city of Metropolis, and it's absolutely spectacular to watch. Similarly, the scenes depicting Krypton are heavy with CGI, to the point of reminding us all a little of Avatar. Like I said, these are used largely to give you a feel of the magnitude of the technology and super-human powers of Superman's race, even if there comes a point where the level of destruction becomes almost ridiculous, we have to remember that this is a film based on a comic.

However, therein lies the main problem of the film. Thanks to the astronomical success of the Batman reboot, pretty much every superhero movie since has been following the idea of having a great deal of gritty realism. This is applicable to Man Of Steel, arguably due to the involvement of The Dark Knight's Christopher Nolan as a producer, and also the fact that the director is Zak Snyder, who also gave is the massively moody Watchmen, so we should have expected no less. But the problem with having gritty realism in a superhero movie is that you need a superhero who is somewhat believable in that universe. I'm not saying that the likes of Thor are any more convincing, and it's arguably the viking god's inclusion in the Avengers series which threatened to make the franchise a bit ropey. But Marvel got away with it, because they're Marvel, they're a much more fantasy and superpower based series than the DC universe of Batman and Superman (in my opinion, at least). Trouble is, Man Of Steel keeps switching between the grittiness, and showing a man in a cape flying around, shooting lasers from his eyes and recovering from being hit with trains as if nothing happened. There's only a certain amount we can actually suspend our disbelief by, and Man Of Steel blurs the line far too much. Furthermore, the film seems to rely too heavily on coincidence, seen particularly by Lois Lane's ability to transport herself over stupendous distances in seconds in order to arrive at the convenient location of Superman.

3/5 - The film is an enjoyable watch, very much so. However, it is exceptionally confused by itself, trapped by the need to be realistic (or even having an ounce of realism), whilst recognizing that the hero is one of the most over-the-top characters in comic book history. But at the very least, it's so very far ahead of Superman Returns that we'll actually look forward to the sequel.

The Great Gatsby

It may seem an extremely critical view of the current state of big cinematic releases to note that the market is somewhat saturated by adaptations of novels, graphic novels, comics and even games. So when it comes to the cinematic imagining of one of the most well-known and celebrated novels of the last century, everyone involved in the film really needs to make sure they're doing a good job of it. So, this time it was the turn of Baz Luhrmann to bring the life of luxury and excess of 1920s New Yorkers to the big screen, in his vision of F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic novel The Great Gatsby.

So the basic upshot of the plot is that our narrator, Nick Carraway is a writer-turned-bonds salesman who takes up residency in the extremely wealthy area of Long Island, New York, becoming neighbour to a Mr. Gatsby, a mysterious millionaire, who throws parties of legendary status at his enormous mansion every week. Gatsby reveals himself to Carraway, telling him that his the presumed-dead former lover of Carraway's cousin, who is now married and lives across the bay from Gatsby's home. Gatsby has spent the previous few years accumulating wealth and possessions to please Carraway's cousin Daisy, on the day when they are finally reuinted. However, things do not run smoothly, as Gatsby and Carraway must not only negotiate Daisy's husband Tom Buchanan, but also the increasingly shady side of 1920s New York.

The part of our narrator is played by Tobey Maguire, his Carraway is a gentle natured man who is being slowly exposed to the life of debauchery and excess led by the wealthy inhabitants of New York. He is welcoming and loyal to his friends throughout, and Maguire portrays this with a simple warm face at all almost all times. Even when he is thrust into situations which immediately make him uncomfortable, Carraway has the manner of a man curious to explore all that life has to offer him. The role of Daisy Buchanan is filled by Carey Mulligan, and she manages to give a performance which captures the spirit of a woman trapped and unsure, innocent and yet wise, she's the damsel in distress who seems oddly capable of saving herself anyway. But the star of the film is undoubtedly Leonardo DiCaprio, playing the eponymous Jay Gatsby. A notable moment comes upon Gatsby's revealing of himself to Carraway, complete with the memorable "smile" line from the novel; the smile delivered by DiCaprio is one which immediately imprints the entire nature of Gatsby on all who look at it, audience included, and such a feat is something worthy of serious praise, as it simply makes you happy to have seen it. DiCaprio portrays the character as a man ready to explode with passion and emotion, but who almost always keeps his cool, sophisticated front, all in the name of being the gentleman. He always looks genuine, even when we are not sure what his intentions are, or indeed who he really is; he immediately strikes us as somebody we would like to know, and who we would trust.

Stylistically speaking, there's one thing that needs to be pointed out straight away: this is a Baz Luhrmann film. The same Baz Luhrmann responsible for Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge!, so of course The Great Gatsby has it's own phenomenal sense of style about it. There are times where the movie has a film noir feel to it, particularly the scenes involving the "valley of ashes" and other seedier areas of New York. But the most impressive atmosphere-shaping feature of the picture is the use of music. Again, in true Luhrmann style, he takes songs which would never even be thought of in the time the story is set, and blends them into the action, meaning that the high class debauchery of Gatsby's parties is made instantly relevant, thanks to being soundtracked by what I can only call ridiculously cool remixes and covers of extremely modern music.

The story itself is both touching and gripping in places, although I must admit, I did find myself growing a little weary about how long it seemed to be taking for any form of resolution to plot to unfold. And this is the main criticism I had with the film on a whole; it seems to get lost in just how good it looks and sounds, that it is occasionally guilty of forgetting that it has a powerful story to present. The conflict between riches and romance is key in the plot, and yet we are sometimes left instead to gaze in awe at Gatsby's home, or to simply be captivated by the man himself. It could be argued that this is also the point of the character in the first place, as he has spent years of his life moulding himself into a perfect, successful gentleman, but it does ultimately prove a minor distraction from the actual content of the story.

3/5 - Enjoyable, and spectacular to see/hear, however, it is guilty of forgetting to actually get on with the point of the story, dragging out the process a little too long. DiCaprio is fantastic though, and is almost worth paying the price for your ticket by himself.

Star Trek Into Darkness

Sequels are always a tricky issue when it comes to successful firsts. But when you consider that a particular successful first was the reboot of a fanatically loved franchise of over 50 years, the pressure is peaked somewhat. 2009 gave us a truly brilliant revamping of Star Trek, introducing us to the characters so many of us had loved but lost to gimmicky nostalgia, the task now, was to let them break their stereotypes. Time to take a leap of faith, with Star Trek Into Darkness.

Here's a round up for what goes on for you. Captain Kirk leads the crew of the Enterprise into a secret (and completely against Starfleet regulations) mission to save a dying planet, a mission which temporarily costs him the command of his ship. Luck smiles on Kirk, however, as he is offered a chance at redemption by his old Captain, Rear Admiral Pike, who takes him under his wing. Kirk is given the assignment of tracking down and executing on-the-run terrorist John Harrison, a mysterious former Starfleet officer who has taken out a series of devastating attacks on Starfleet headquarters. The film focuses on the relationships between Kirk and his crew, particularly Spock, as well as a desperation in understanding this new, enigmatic foe.

The crew are played by the same actors as last time, and once more they just get it very right. Chris Pine perfects the reckless acts of heroism, tinged heavily with tongue-in-cheek, macho humour that embodies Captain Kirk; Zachary Quinto has become so very much like Spock that I'm beginning to wonder if he is in fact related to Leonard Nimoy; Karl Urban embraces and delivers the hokey metaphors and melodramatic speeches of Dr. McCoy; Zoe Saldana brings the Amazonian quality to the lead female role with ease. Slightly disappointing is the more backseat roles of John Cho and Anton Yelchin, who play Sulu and Chekov, respectively, although both are given brief moments to shine with a piece of comedic panache. My favourite (somewhat unsurprisingly) of the main crewe, is of course Simon Pegg as Lt. Commander Scott, who really soaks up the spirit of the franchise, guilty-cheesy humour comes hand in hand with a seriously impressive array of scientific-sounding words, what more can you want from a science fiction classic? The man who almost steals the show from the lot of them, however, is Benedict Cumberbatch, as the villain John Harrison. He manages to be consistently unnerving, even more so when it appears his character is attempting to be trustworthy, and there is always something otherworldly about him. I'll not beat around the bush here, there's something about the Harrison character that I did not see coming, which I perhaps should have at first, but it's a very pleasing revelation when it arrives, and only adds to the sinister atmosphere surrounding him. Also, the Starfleet Admiral, Alexander Marcus is only played by Peter "GOD DAMN ROBOCOP" Weller. So there's that.

Visually speaking, it's two things. First, it's a science fiction film in arguably the biggest science fiction franchise of all time, being remade in a time where special effects have become largely perfected for the genre. Second, it's directed by J.J. Abrams. So yes, it's quite the spectacle in terms of everything you see on screen; particularly pleasing are the depictions of a 23rd century London, as well as the interior of the Enterprise itself. Only minor issues I have with this aspect of the film is that Abrams once again puts it dangerously close to being called "STAR TREK: INTO LENS FLARE...and a bit of darkness", though he has thankfully toned it down slightly since Super 8. Second, and very much minuscule picking I had was the appearance of the Klingons, who look somehow much less realistic than they ever did in the Next Generation series. But, hey, I'm fairly sure we can live with that.

The story is entertaining, it's gripping and tense in places, and it's just plain enjoyable. Yes, it's nonsensical in places, and there are a good few plot holes, but we have to remember, this is a science fiction movie; sci-fi relies on pieces of luck and farfetchedness more than most genres. Watching this film made you feel like you were watching Star Trek in its pomp, and that is largely due to the fact that the roles of Kirk and Spock are exploring and almost turned upside-down throughout the course of the movie, really grabbing you and dragging you into the story. The more emotional side of Scotty being explored, albeit briefly does nothing more than multiply this effect, as it's not something you'd expect from a character who is largely used for comedic value.

5/5 - For me, this is a perfect science fiction film. It has suspense, it has laughs, it has tonnes of nods to the old series and all the cultural references that it gave us. Oddly, it's not a flawless film, and it's not the most complete one you're likely to see, but at no point did I find myself not being entertained by it. Contrary to what it may seem from my superlatives above, I was never much of a Trekkie, and yet I loved every minute of this film, and felt like I'd been a fan of the whole franchise for decades. It's just that good at pulling you in. Definite go see.

Iron Man 3

Over the last few years the start of summer has been marked by the release of a superhero movie, quite often followed by a good 42 others right up until autumn comes along and tells us all to go back to being normal again. Marvel have pretty much monopolised the market for superheroes right now, as although the Dark Knight franchise is of phenomenally high standard, it's just three films, with one particular story arc, Marvel has released six films to date, with more already in production, and even more planned. And this is the one that sparked it all, returning to the big screen in a solo effort, it's Iron Man 3.

Plenty of cinema goers (myself definitely included) will have been left wondering exactly what direction any of the heroes involved could possibly go in a post-Avengers world. Would The Hulk hold down a steady coffee house job? Would Thor open his own chain of hair salons? Would we have a film where Captain America studies, in a Johnny 5 style in order to catch up on all the possible cultural references he'll be missing out on? I'd probably watch the latter. The answer is surprisingly simple: how does Tony Stark cope with life being as "back to normal" (at least as normal as it gets for him) after witnessing and thwarting the attack on New York by an alien army.

The crux of the story is this: Tony Stark has been shaken mentally by the events of New York, and it's having an effect on his relationship with Pepper Potts. He's become obsessed with building a seemingly endless line of armoured suits. Meanwhile, a super-terrorist going by the name of The Mandarin is unleashing scenes of total devastation upon America, and seems to have links to a previous acquaintance of Stark, in Aldrich Killian, pioneer of the creation of the Extremis virus. Stark must overcome his fragile mental state in order to solve the mystery of the Mandarin, find out who he really is, and bring an end to his attacks. Simple enough, really.

Robert Downey Jnr, as his character declared in the very first film, is Iron Man, he is cast perfectly as the eccentric, egotistical, witty and charismatic Tony Stark, that much we already knew. However, his new fragility allows RDJ to show a more tender side of the character, which his delivers with aplomb. Naturally though, despite just how down Stark gets, he's full of his trademark humour with every situation, and at no point does the mood of the character put a dampener on the film itself. Support comes from Gwyneth Paltrow reprising the Pepper Potts character, who is explored a little more here, with a non-spoiler experiment on the whole damsel-in-distress scenario. Also reprising his role in the franchise is Don Cheadle as Rhodey aka The Iron Patriot, who ups his game somewhat in how close he becomes to Stark, up to the point where we find him also making Starkish wisecracks. Sir Ben Kingsley fills the boots of the enigmatic Mandarin, and delivers an exceptionally chilling vision of an extremely powerful terrorist, attention to detail going down to his accent, sounding just American enough to unhinge you from what you'd expect, given his near-stereotypical terrorist appearance. Guy Pearce gives a pleasing showing as Killian, the once crippled scientist turned suave think-tank leader, he never lets you know where anyone stands with the character, and at no point are we sure if we should trust him.

The film just looks like a Marvel movie, it's very bright and colour-focused, and, as has become somewhat of a trademark, it just looks like a comic strip. The only real issue I had with the the visual quality of the film is that the effects used for the Extremis virus are somewhat cheesy, but whether or not that simply adds to the feel of a comic book is, I guess, up to the viewer.

The whole story runs very smoothly, and at no point did I ever find myself feeling bored. What's more, the issue of how a superhero movie could work in the Marvel universe after The Avengers was comfortably dealt with, and is definitely encouraging for the releases of the next Thor and Captain America films. It's not spectacular, but it ticks all the boxes you'd want from a new Iron Man movie.

4/5 - Genuinely enjoyable, and very much worth a watch. Builds the excitement up for what Marvel have to offer in the next couple of films. There's a great deal of spoilers to be had though, so I really cannot go into much more detail, but trust me, there are a lot of hugely fun and unexpected moments in the film which are all very much key to the story.

P.S.

There is a scene after the credits, just you have to wait slightly longer than normal. It's not much, but it's another thing to make Marvel fans go all gooey.

Cloud Atlas

We all like a good thinker every so often. Whether it's a Sixth Sense style "waaaaaaaaaaaah!?" moment or something just plain confusing like Mulholland Drive, quite a good deal of us seem to be drawn to things that make our heads hurt. Sometimes you get a big budgeted confusing film which throws a huge cast of respected players at you, and sometimes that's a terrible thing. Often these are based on successful novels, which is also sometimes a terrible thing. But sometimes it just might work. This is Cloud Atlas.

For those who've read this blog before, you'll know I like to throw together a brief, preferably not spoiler-laden summary of the plot of the film I'm rambling on about. This, however, is somewhat of a challenge for Cloud Atlas, as it is in fact six stories which weave together to build one overall theme. That theme is more or less that a good deed against intolerance can have an effect on the lives, and therefore troubled situations faced by others for years to come. So here's my briefest of briefs on each of the stories: a 19th century American lawyer travelling by ship to San Francisco to conclude a slavery contract, encountering a slave on the way; a 1930s English bisexual musician takes on work as an amanuensis to a famous composer, privately working on his own masterpiece, "The Cloud Atlas Sextet"; a 1970s American journalist looks to follow in her father's footsteps, trying to uncover a conspiracy involving a nuclear reactor, in a plot for oil company success; a present-day English publisher is made an unwilling resident of a retirement home by his brother in his attempts to escape the angry cohorts of an imprisoned former client; a 22nd century Korean clone is freed from her slave-like job by a Union rebel, in an effort to expose the horrors of fabricant life; a distant future tribesman reluctantly helps a technologically advanced Prescient to climb a mountain in order to activate a signal to all human life which has fled Earth. Confused enough? Good. Because I'm simply not going to explain it much more. Each of the stories are heavily, yet not blatantly linked to the others, ranging from pieces of music, to characters actually appearing in multiple stories. If I go into more detail, not only will a tie myself into a gigantic, confused mess, muttering about sci-fi colliding with old people's homes and cannibals, but, more importantly, I'll start giving things away.

The cast is fairly notable, and, once more, confusing. There are seven main actors in the film, and (with only a couple of exceptions), they all feature as a character in each of the stories, and each is the lead in one of them. Tom Hanks is particularly pleasing in a truly Tom Hanks kind of way, whether it's his morally troubled Zachry of the far future, or the suspicious Dr Henry Goose travelling with the lawyer to San Francisco, he revels in the opportunity to play to many different characters, and it's no shock that he truly is one of the stars of the film. If nothing else, seeing him as an expletive-happy Irish gangster is something worth watching alone. Halle Berry is less notable throughout each, but she gives a very strong performance as the lead as 70s journalist Luisa Rey, at the very least a step towards making us forget Catwoman once more. Ben Whishaw gives a very impressive showing as Robert Frobisher, the musician seeking a chance for fame, battling to keep his bisexuality hidden at a time where it was more than unacceptable to be so in public. My pick of the bunch, is the magnificent Jim Broadbent, who takes the lead as publisher Timothy Cavendish. His story largely provides heart-warming comic relief, lampooning The Great Escape and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest as Cavendish makes a bid for freedom from the retirement home he has been made resident of. It is this story, for me, which somehow makes the whole movie tick, despite the fact that it is almost certainly the least important one to the overall climax of the film. Notable mentions must also go to Hugo Weaving and Jim Sturgess, who also provide pivotal characters in most of the stories, and also to Hugh Grant, whose slimy nuclear reactor manager is definitely loathsome, as well as his fantastically unexpected turn as the leader of a tribe of cannibals. Bizarre.

Despite as unfathomably confusing as the plot no doubt sounds from that fumbled attempt at a description, it flows very nicely together. This is more impressive than it seems, given that the narrative jumps from any one of six time periods at moments which can seem almost random at first, but always, always prove to be more pivotal to the plot than it first appears. It's a confusing yet wonderful story, and intricate in the detail to boot.

Visually speaking, the film's even more pleasing. It's a big budgeted science fiction film, and so you expect the use of special effects to be of the top order, and the scenes of New Seoul in particular are phenomenal. However, it is more an attention to the feel of the film through the use of (what I have assumed is) deliberately sketchy altering of the faces of the actors to fit with each of the stories. For example, there's not a single moment in the New Seoul story where we believe that Jim Sturgess is a Korean man, and not in fact, Jim Sturgess in peculiar make up. But this definitely adds to the charm of the movie, giving a more old-fashioned feel to an otherwise highly advanced use of cinema technology. I mean, I can't emphasise enough how much I enjoyed seeing Tom Hanks dressed up to look like a hardened Irish gangster. I...I just can't.

4/5  - Certainly not a perfect film, but extremely enjoyable and oddly touching. Guilty of trying too hard to hammer the message of "TOLERANCE IS AMAZING, RIGHT!?" home, but that's usually not too much of a glaring issue. Definitely worth watching.

Les Misérables

First and foremost, we had a massive break between posts as my previous laptop decided to essentially go full retard and set fire on me (quite literally), so I offer my apologies to anyone who for some reason got impatient, and also to my lap, which had a near death experience in the process.

And second, I'll put this out there right now: I'm not know as a prolific follower of musicals. My taste in such has stretched as far as South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut and Team America: World Police, so not exactly the higher end of the spectrum when it comes to the apparently cultured and sophisticated world of musical cinema. But when a film comes out with a promising cast, based on a phenomenally successful theatre production and a tidy budget to boot, I was more than willing to break my usual tastes and go see Tom Hooper's big screen version of Les Misérables.

The film tells the story of Jean Valjean, an ex-con who strives to turn his life around, taking on the daughter of a woman forced into prostitution after losing a job in his factory. Valjean's task is made no easier as he is persistently tracked by Javert, a dogged and much feared police inspector, who is also attempting to overseer and thwart an uprising of the angry youths of Paris. As the title suggests, this is not a particularly happy tale, more a collection of people whose lives are a little more riddled with strife than sparkles. Valjean is perpetually dealt a poor hand in life, Fantine loses her job, her daughter, her dignity and more, Enjolras is attempting to spark an uprising against inconceivable odds, and even Javert begins to question his usually unshakable professionalism. So yes, there aren't too many characters who come out of this one smelling of sunshine and roses.

You know those musicals where you get about 5-10 minutes of actual talking with a song thrown in for good measure in between those spells? Yeah, this film is most certainly not one of those. This is 158 minutes of almost constant singing. Now I'm definitely not a fan of that in almost every other example you could come up with, however, in this case it actually goes by very well. I'll not pretend that it doesn't feel a little cringey, because it does in places, there are some things you simply don't need to sing, and it does occasionally feel as if the characters would break out their falsetto just to announce that they're going for a pint of milk and a loaf of bread. But, in the bigger picture, the singing works very well, and certainly adds the right emotional connection to the physical actions going on underneath all that lung squeezing. Also, in terms of singing ability, I was pleasantly surprised by the talent displayed by a great deal of the cast, with Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway quite probably being the most notable of the bunch. Russell Crowe does a good job of it too, although he possibly seems to try and be too clever with it...though I naturally wouldn't be saying that to his face.

This will quite probably be the film that finally gives Hugh Jackman a bit of a more steady reputation as an actor. Whilst being a lead man for the best part of a decade, his best performances have all come whilst sporting pointy hair and having retractable claws, but his performance in Les Mis is a very solid one. Whilst not always the main focus of the story, he is the consistent backbone to it, and if it were not for him, we wouldn't be interested in the other subplots. Valjean is the piece holding the different characters together, and Jackman duly turns in a very powerful performance to keep us interested in what happens to everyone else, without him, this movie would almost certainly not succeed. Russell Crowe as Javert provides an intimidating authority figure for Valjean and the youths the rebel against, but he also adds a subtle softness to the character, and we're never quite sure whether his emotions are getting the better of him, which is also key to the whole film. So yes, Crowe is also very good here, but again...the singing. Then we have Anne Hathaway, playing the tragic Fantine, who goes from sweet and innocent to reluctant, depressed prostitute in a matter of screen minutes, but displays the concerns of years of suffering on her expression which immediately draws you in. Arguably one of the finest performances given by someone on screen for such a short period of time in recent years. Supporting roles from Amanda Seyfried as Cosette (daughter of Fantine) and Eddie Redmayne (Marius) do a job nicely, playing out the roles of lovers often separated by unfortunate circumstances, as do Sacha Baron Cohen (Thenardier) and Helena Bonham Carter (Madame Thenardier), although they do seem to be places exactly the same characters here as they did in Sweeney Todd, but with a slightly Frenched up Cockney accent. A special mention, I think, needs to go to Aaron Tveit, who portrays Enjolras, the leader of the uprising in Paris. He captures the very essence of the angry young man his character embodies, and is so very single-minded when it comes to revolution, that his emotion is purely drawn from how his plan is progressing; a very enjoyable and powerful performance.

Visually speaking, the film is no less than what you'd expect for a $61 million budget, but it really is spectacular. Right from the off, we're treated to massive scenes of enormous ships being towed by slaves, Parisian streets flooded with colour and people, and forests that seem to have fallen directly from the pages of Hans Christian Andersen's stories. The film uses colour particularly well too, with red and black being key throughout (as one of the songs even mentions), and it all adds up to a visually magnificent spectacle, to fit nicely alongside the vast amount of powerful (if occasionally over-the-top) singing.

4.5/5 - I know it's cheating to bring decimals into this, but there's logic behind it; this film is very good. I was happily pulled along through the whole story, and never once felt bored or uninterested, despite the length. I very much enjoyed the performances and the story itself. I even enjoyed pretty much every song in the thing. The only thing I can take away from it is the fact that the singing really is constant, and seems unnecessary in places, which made me cringe every so often. But don't let this take anything major away from the whole picture, it really is a sensationally good movie. Anyone put off by the fact that is a musical is missing out on one of the best films of the year. Definitely go see it.

Lincoln

When Oscar season is upon us, there's usually a good couple of movies released that you can guarantee will have a fairly good chance of sweeping the board, and quite a few of those films tend to have come from a certain Mr. Spielberg. So, without wanting to sound a little cynical, a drama about one of the greatest figures in American history, directed by Spielberg, starring one of the most critically acclaimed lead actors of our time...any shock that we're talking about a film that has been nominated for twelve Academy Awards? Yep, it's Lincoln.

The movie focuses on the final few months of President Lincoln's life, a period in which the President was attempting to push through the Thirteenth Amendment, ending slavery in the United States at a time where the country was still divided by civil war. The Amendment was widely unpopular with a great deal of the country at the time, and the film emphasises the moral struggle undertaken by the President in keeping faith in his cause, instead of using it as popularity leverage to bring an end to the war. The plot is supported by Lincoln and his wife Mary's rocky relationship with their eldest son; Ulysses S. Grant's maintaining of the frontline; and the work of Radical Republican Congressional leader Thaddeus Stevens in ensuring that emancipation would succeed. The plot is largely an accurate, if exaggerated account of the time, so it is left to Spielberg to fill out the colour of the story, which is nothing less than what you get.

In terms of performances, Daniel Day-Lewis is by far and away the most remarkable thing about this film, and that is in no way a disparaging remark about anything else you see. Day-Lewis is renowned for his method acting, often outright refusing to break character for extended periods of time in order to immerse himself in his roles, and you can certainly tell it's worth the effort from his performance as Abraham Lincoln. Everything about Day-Lewis expresses such an air of what we picture the President to have been like, from his soft, croaky and warm voice, to the slow, steady and crankety manner in which he moves, not to mention looking remarkably similar in appearance to him. The script allows Day-Lewis to deliver whimsical little anecdotes at every turn (with one character even getting annoyed that he's about to hear "another story"), causing us all to be taken in by the idea of a gentle giant of a man, filled to the brim with knowledge. Day-Lewis is simply outstanding, it's difficult to say which of the roles he has played have been his finest, but his turn as Lincoln must be considered a major contender. He is supported brilliantly too, with Sally Fields playing Mary Lincoln, troubled by an overwhelming grief for the loss of one of her sons, the character was often thought to be insane, but is shown here as holding a level of intellect adequate enough to hold her own with the political minds filling the White House. Fields is as dependable as you'd expect, and her anguish over whether her husband will allow their eldest to enlist provides a more human aspect to the almost supernatural figure of the President. A third stunning performance is turned in by Tommy Lee Jones, in the role of Stevens, the crotchety but rapier-witted Radical Republican Congressional leader, and devout abolitionist. The trademark Jones grimace is prominent throughout, however this time it is partnered with tremendous deliverance of an unpredictable man. We can never quite figure out what Stevens is about to do or say, but we always feel is if there is something bubbling underneath his stony expression. Stevens is a key player in the eventual passing of the Amendment, and as such, it is only fitting that he is played by a man who offers such a powerful performance. There are minor roles too for Joseph Gordon Levitt (seems you have to have a three-part name to be considered for most roles of this film), Hal Holbrook, James Spader and Jackie Earle Haley, beefing out the story nicely.

The film is shot beautifully, again, something you expect from a Spielberg picture, but the efforts of cinematographer Janusz Kaminski need a serious amount of praise. There is a reason Spielberg uses this man as his principal photographer, having kept his services through Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report, War Horse and more, Kaminski is a vital part of making Spielberg's films look like Spielberg films, you feel totally immersed in the picture, it's very clean yet not unbelievable, there is simply the very feel of 19th century America about every single scene. 

The only negative criticism I have to offer the film is somewhat contradictory. Yes, the performance of Day-Lewis as Lincoln is phenomenal, however, as suggested earlier, he is presented as some sort of almost superhero-type figure; each speech that he gives is soaked in meaning and philosophy, running the risk of becoming less believable. I'm not questioning whether or not Lincoln was anywhere near the almost prophetic man presented in the film, but he simply doesn't seem to be of our world; an engineer even going so far as to ask whether he feels he "was born in the right time". The awe-inspiring manner in which Lincoln leaves the White House for the last time is also depicted as if the man was a spirit drifting through the time of those lucky enough to have lived with him - moving, but quite probably over-done slightly.

4/5 - An extremely impressive film, aided enormously by the stunning and mesmerising performance of Day-Lewis. Very enjoyable, and even gets you on tenterhooks, even though we all know the outcome of the voting process in the centre of whole story. A definite go-see, just try not to get a little annoyed as I did as the feel of being in the presence of Abraham Lincoln/Justice & Equality Man, the superhero of 19th Century America.

Django Unchained

There are a few directors whose every movie is as eagerly awaited as the last, thanks to a reputation built on a back catalogue of top class offerings. Quentin Tarantino is certainly one of those, as in my opinion, he has yet to make a film anything less than very good. We expect something in particular from Tarantino in his film, more often than not a loving B-Movie flavour, often a very dark sense of humour, but always, always, a great deal of violence. Now, after years of waiting for it, Tarantino finally has his go at a Western, with Django Unchained.

Django is the tale of a slave, the eponymous Django, who is given his freedom by bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz, forming a partnership to take down a series of targets, before ultimately trying to rescue Django's wife from a plantation. The film takes an utterly brutal look at pre-civil war America, and most definitely focusses on the treatment of black slaves. The movie is nothing short of visceral in the handling of violence throughout, and a great deal of it - at least initially - involves the horrendous treatment of slaves, particularly in mandingo fighting. Definitely not one for the faint hearted, but of course, this is a Tarantino effort, so it's doused with a great deal of head-shaking humour to thoroughly confuse how you should be feeling about it.

The performances of the cast in Django are extremely impressive, although you might expect as much, with Tarantino's reputation. Jamie Foxx's hero grows from a quiet and naive slave to a ruthless bounty hunter, more than willing to get his hands dirty in the process, even assuming the character of a black slaver. Foxx is as he usually is, very focussed and solid, nothing whatsoever to really pick at him for. Leonardo DiCaprio, who Tarantino had sought after for years, plays Calvin Candie, the owner of the 'Candieland' plantation, a figurehead of a mandingo fighting ring, and owner of Django's wife Broomhilda, and he's pretty fantastic at it too. DiCaprio brings a swarthy, yet extremely slimy charm to the character, who is simultaneously sly and a little stupid, not to mention a genuinely unsettling burst of fury. As far as Tarantino villains go, Candie has pretty much everything we've come to expect; he's cool, stylish, has the odd couple of soon-to-be massively quoted lines, and he's very much not afraid to throw his weight around. Very enjoyable performance and quite probably my second favourite Tarantino villain, only second to a character played by the true start of the film: Christoph Waltz. In Inglourious Basterds Waltz was sheer perfection of a skin-crawling villain, loved and hated by all. This time, he's almost the opposite; Dr. Schultz is a kindly man, somewhat of a romantic and holds a great deal of moral obligations. However, he is also an incredibly successful bounty hunter, a profession which he keeps his emotions separate from. If DiCaprio brings charm to Candie, Waltz brings in by the boatload for Schultz, he is simply captivating in absolutely every single one of his scenes. In all seriousness, this is probably the dictionary definition of what a scene-stealing performance will say from now on, as no matter what is taking place in the scene, you cannot help but find yourself drawn to Schultz, just to see what he's going to do next. But there's also another impressive performance amongst them; that of Samuel L. Jackson as Stephen, an elderly house slave trusted by Candie. Although the make-up runs dangerously close to reminding us all of one of Eddie Murphy's Klump family members, Jackson is intimidating, funny and loathsome at all once.

The plot itself runs fairly smoothly, something Tarantino is bringing more and more into his films - just a straight, simple story. Not only is the main plot allowed to run freely, we're given a couple of genius little subplots to keep us fully enthralled, if a little caught unaware. The greatest example of these is Schultz and Django's run in with what we assume to be an early incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan, who are all too concerned with how their hoods are looking to go about their business. Added comedy comes from the unexpected appearance of Jonah Hill as a Klan member. The climactic end is tremendous, though you may have a sense of de ja vu, as it follows the same lines as both Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds...and arguably Reservoir Dogs: a great big slice of revenge for the hero against a huge amount of people he doesn't like. There's even a great similarity between the speech Django gives at the point of his vengeance and the speech the Bride gives at the culmination of the Crazy 88 scenes, however, you can either view this as a lack of creativity, or that Tarantino is just incredibly good at reinventing a similar story, and have you enjoy it without realising it might very well be close in parts to what you've seen before.

Visually, again it's what you expect from a Tarantino effort, particularly following on from the style in which he shot Death Proof. There's a nice nostalgic feel to the film, and it definitely captures the twang of B-Movies that Mr Director is so very clearly a huge fan of. Furthermore, it's more of the same when it comes to the score; you're really thrown off kilter a little when rap and rock music comes blaring out over a backdrop of  19th century Southern U.S. But it works phenomenally; not only does it help set the perfect tone for the film, but it also reminds us just who has made it.

5/5 - Up there with my other favourite Tarantino films, and, in case you couldn't tell, I'm somewhat of a fan of his. Despite it's disturbing content, despite an enormous amount of splatter violence, and despite a lengthy runtime, Django Unchained flows very easily, and keeps you interested, if not engrossed for the whole ride. There are some brilliant performances from DiCaprio and Jackson in particular, and an otherworldly performance from Waltz to help it on it's way. However, most importantly, this is a film which not only retains all the hallmarks of a Tarantino film, but it is a brilliant film outright. A definite to watch.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

After a wait which seemed maybe just a bit longer than the extended edition of the original Lord of the Rings extended trilogy, fans of Middle Earth cinema epics finally had got their wish, with a return to the Shire at Christmas time. Of course, we're talking about Peter Jackson's first of three-part adaptations of The Hobbit; An Unexpected Journey.

This film was lobbed back and fourth through development hell for the majority of the last decade, ever since the phenomenal success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Whilst Peter Jackson had initially expressed an interest in making the film as early as 1995, the rights to any adaptation were already under ownership, then, when these rights eventually were secured, the director attached to the project, Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy) would ultimately drop out, leaving the whole thing in doubt until Jackson finally returned to the director seat. There is a great deal of pressure on this film, first and foremost, it has to live up to standard of the previous Middle Earth movies, which broke new ground, particularly for the fantasy genre. However, it is also vital that this film retains the more light-hearted feel of the Tolkien novel; after all, this was a story originally written for children.

Just in case you don't know, and if you don't, go buy the book, it'll make you just a little more smiley, here's a brief summary of the plot. Bilbo Baggins is your typical hobbit, happy to allow life to be something that just happens to him. All that changes completely upon the arrival of Gandalf the wizard to his home, bringing with him a company of thirteen dwarf warriors who are undertaking a quest to retake their home city from a terrible dragon, Smaug. This first part of the trilogy focuses more on how Gandalf and the dwarves slowly change Bilbo's outlook on a life of adventure, slowly making their way through the wilderness and through the Misty Mountains. There is an additional story fed into the main picture too, wherein Azog, an orc who killed the father of dwarf king Thorin Oakenshield before being humiliated in battle by the dwarf is tracking the company.

For me, the casting is one of the very best things about this movie, and that's aside from the obvious roles. Those being the return of Ian McKellen as Gandalf, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel and Hugo Weaving as Elrond. All as amazing as you'd expect it to be, particularly Gandalf getting up to a little more shenanigans than we were used to seeing last time round. An extra return to Middle Earth is also a little bit awe inspiring; Christopher Lee as Saruman. Sure, he gets CGI'd a little, thanks to Old Man Time trying in vain to erode Sir Lee from existence (he won't succeed), but Saruman is back in his full booming glory, and even though we know he's not supposed to be evil yet, Lee pushes through a suspiciousness about the great wizard in a bit of an "uh-oh, he's up to something!" kind of way. But, the best of all the returns has to be, and unsurprisingly so, Andy Serkis as Gollum. Gollum's big scene in this movie will no doubt go down as one of the best he's ever been in, which is saying quite a bit given the excellence of Two Towers and Return of the King, but it's almost as if Serkis was never not Gollum, he's somehow even creepier in his childlike brutality that you just can't help get fully sucked in to his riddles.As for those joining the cast, the dwarves all do their job masterfully, even if seemingly half of them get no speaking parts. Richard Armitage plays Thorin in a very Sean Bean-like manner: all blood, guts, moodiness and thunder, not to mention making several ladyfolk swoon in the process. James Nesbitt is not only a surprise inclusion in the cast as Bofur, but, perhaps a little more surprisingly, he's actually pretty good too, providing a mixture of humour and a bond to Bilbo. And that of course brings us to Mr Baggins, cast perfectly with Martin Freeman. Bilbo is essentially Arthur Dent from Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy but with big hairy feet, so why not cast the man who made Arthur Dent brilliant to make Bilbo brilliant? Freeman brings a pleasant simpleness to the role, a reluctant giddiness to give in to his unexpected urge for adventure; there's a constant charm about him, and he's instantly likeable. Oh, and there are also pleasing little cameos from Ian Holm as old Bilbo and Elijah Wood (who almost certainly didn't need CGI on his face, as I'm fairly sure he's an ageless freak of nature), set literally seconds before the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring. Which is all very nice.

The story itself is good, pushing on through the meeting in the Shire to eventually battling goblins in the Misty Mountains, definitely no complaints with that. Nor with the inclusion of the extra story; Azog hunting down Thorin. The only complaint that I would have is that it seems to be extremely stretched. It's not a particularly popular opinion, but Fellowship was my least favourite of the LOTR films, largely due to how much time they spend in the Shire, and that's the danger run by this movie; it takes the majority of the first hour before they so much as leave Bag End. That said, the scenes with the dwarves are very much enjoyable, especially their drinking songs, their tidying songs, their sad songs...and their songs about songs. Furthermore, as muchas I truly enjoyed seeing so many of the familiar faces of the previous films, there is a feeling of "OOOH LOOK, IT'S HIM/HER! I REMEMBER THEM!". Case in point being Bret McKenzie (out of off of Flight of the Conchords) reprising his minuscule role as Lindir, for the sake of a barely less minuscule role this time out. The main problem the movie really had to deal with, as mentioned earlier, is the balance of a more light-hearted feeling that the previous films whilst still keeping everyone interested with a vaguely serious fantasy film, and it does wobble a little every so often. We get a little confused between the moody brooding of Thorin, the joyous singing of the dwarves, the full blown evil of Azog and the sheer slapstick of the Trolls, not to mention the flip-flop of moods present in all of the scenes involving the Goblin King (voiced fantastically by Barry Humphries, no less). It's a bit weird, because each of those scenes are extremely well done, and all are very much enjoyable, but they jar a little.

Cinematically speaking, the film is absolutely outstanding. The staple of Jackson's previous trilogy returns with a vengeance here; of course, it's the "SWEET MERCIFUL JESUS, NEW ZEALAND IS BEAUTIFUL" panoramic shots of the Kiwi countryside. But not only this, Jackson's decision to film in 48fps is a masterstroke in the main run, as it really makes you feel like you're looking through a window to Middle Earth, particularly when viewed in 3D or IMAX. However, one gripe with this is that some of the CGI looks a little tacky in comparison to the non-virtual surroundings; the Goblin King and the Trolls are the main culprits here, whilst looking impressive, they look very much like they've just been plucked from an animated film. Furthermore, Azog is pretty much an entirely animated presence in the film, and whilst that's not a bad thing if you get it right (which they definitely did with the Gollum motion capture), you sort of miss the giant brutes of men in orc costumes, only tweaked with CGI instead. However, some of the CGI is pretty spectacular, and the battle between stone giants is simply astounding.

Overall, it's a bit of a mish-mash in terms of tone, but I'll be amazed if you come away from it without actually having very much enjoyed the film. Encouragingly, it did feel quite similar to Fellowship, in terms of building up to a greater story, and so here's hoping that the next two will be a bigger step up, as although I definitely wasn't disappointed with the film, it didn't quite live up to what I had expected.

4/5 - A little confused in places, but definitely better than most fantasy films you're likely to see. There are scenes of sheer brilliance littered throughout, and it's almost worth sitting through all 169 minutes just for the scenes with Gollum, let alone anything else. Not quite as good as what I was expecting, but a very good film nonetheless.

P.S. - Everyone enjoy Sylvester McCoy being Sylvester McCoy being Radagast the Brown, completely insane, but this time...with rabbits!