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!

Argo

Sometimes film throws something unexpected at you. They can be things like Jim Carrey being an excellent serious actor (Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind), Sylvester Stallone making a very good modern Rocky film (Rocky Balboa), or anybody actually paying to see a Kevin James movie (literally any Kevin James movie). But on this occasion, we see the release of a film which was highly expected to crown the restoration of the reputation of Ben Affleck; it's Argo.

When we first really got a glimpse of Ben Affleck, we saw a man of great promise, with pleasing contributions (be it in front or behind the camera) in Good Will Hunting and the Kevin Smith films Mallrats, Chasing Amy and Dogma, and we all thought we had something good coming along. Unfortunately, however, roles in movies like Armageddon, Pearl Harbour, Daredevil and Gigli pretty much caused a blitz on his reputation (and pretty fairly so, if we're being honest about most of those films). But then we saw a glimmer of hope in him once more when Gone Baby Gone and The Town arrived; the key difference of course, being that Affleck was also directing, and what do you know it, he's done the same again this time. Seems the more creative influence the man has, the better his films tend to be: therefore we can either assume he just got lazy and has terrible taste in roles, or he simply got sick of terrible roles and wrote stuff for himself. Either way, it worked out great for us.

Argo is a movie 'inspired by' (meaning a lot of it actually happened, but some parts have most likely been sexified) by the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. A short summary...because it's kinda also the plot...goes as follows: Iranian protesters raid the U.S. embassy in Tehran in response to the disgraced Shah being granted hospitality in America, where he spent months being treated in hospitals. Over 50 embassy employees (as well as people who happened to be there at the time) where taken hostage, whilst 6 Americans escaped and took shelter in secret at the Canadian embassy. Tony Mendez (Affleck), a CIA man whose speciality was to get endangered Americans out of hostile situations abroad becomes part of the think-tank to rescue the six in hiding. Mendez comes up with the idea of flying to Tehran, posing as a Canadian film maker, rendezvousing with the escapees where he would train the Americans on their back stories; the rest of the film crew. So they have to make a fake movie look realistic so that the Iranians will believe it enough to allow the 'Canadian's to leave on a plane back home.

Now, this is an almost entirely true story, so you'd expect that to spoil the plot slightly...I mean, if you know anything about the event, you know how it ends. However, this couldn't really be further from the truth, as the right application of (and by which I mean a metric juggernaut load of) tension sucks you into the unfolding drama as it goes on, causing you to forget what actually happens, and instead think of what you'd do in that situation...and duly squeal like the baby fish falling off his rocking horse at the start of Finding Nemo.

The performances are all very solid. Particularly key to the success of this film are the roles of the six hostages; these needed to be interesting enough to warrant us actually caring about them, whilst staying realistic enough for us to accept that this actually happened. And that, is short, is exactly what you get. Tate Donovan, Clea DuVall and Scoot McNairy are certainly the most eye-catching of the bunch, and each fulfil a required role in their group; leadership, fear and doubt respectively, which helps the film chug along nicely. Affleck himself is both prominent and understated at the same time; he's given a lot of screen time, but, true to his CIA character, you never really get an in-depth look at what's going on behind the job, although little hints are dropped in with regards to his wife and son, this is, thankfully, just an aside to the main plot. And then you have some truly joyous performances from three of the finest character actors around. First is Bryan Cranston (Malcolm In The Middle and, most spectacularly, Breaking Bad), who plays Jack O'Donnell, a chief at the CIA, but also a friend of Mendez. Second is John Goodman (Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona, The Artist...), as John Chambers, an Oscar-winning make-up artist used as a connection to Hollywood by Mendez. Finally, and my personal favourite, is Alan Arkin (Catch-22, Glengarry Glen Ross, Little Miss Sunshine and at least 17 bazillion others) as Lester Siegel, a Hollywood producer roped in by Chambers to help Mendez create the perfect fake movie. Again, without these three, the film wouldn't work, Cranston provides a stable professional/friendship grounding for Mendez, whilst the others not only have key roles in what needs to be accomplished in the success of the rescue mission, but also bring a dose of comedy relief done in the best possible taste.

This film will win awards, and hopefully not just because it happens to be based on a real-life act of insane heroism, but because it is genuinely very, very good. Despite there not being too much fast-paced action, or constant gags, the film really pulls you in, and that is simply because it doesn't do those things. It'll be one of those films that makes you feel all dandy for watching, understanding and enjoying it, because it's simultaneously simple yet smart; probably because what exactly happened is freakishly clever whilst also being totally stupid, as well as the film itself being produced in a straight-to-the-point manner.

5/5 - If you like to get submerged in the moment of real-life drama, you'll love it. You forget you're watching something that actually happened, which makes it all the more impressive when you remember that it's actually a film. Not only because of the daring of the real-life heroes, but also because you'll have just seen Ben Affleck produce something rare: a 'based on a true story' movie that isn't wallowing in pretence.

Stitches

Once every so often something so completely absurd and brilliant comes shambling out of cinemaland that it simply has to be seen to make it seem real. Whether that's Nicolas Cage appearing as flamed-headed superhero, or Ben Affleck turning out to be a really good director, some things are just so weird to imagine as a sensible idea that we just can't help but watch. Note: I'm definitely not saying that Ghost Rider was a good thing, not even a little bit. On this occasion, however, something so utterly stupid just happens to become a perfect recipe for cult fantastitude that you'll probably think I'm making it up. Ladies and gents, I present to you... Stitches.

A quick sum up of what this insane film is comprised of: it cost a meagre 600 000 Euros, is both a tribute and send-up of 80s slasher flicks, the main character/antagonist is a sleazy children's entertainer who comes back from the dead in his clown form to take his revenge...and he's played by Geordie comedian Ross Noble. If done in the wrong manner, this film sounds like it could be absolutely terrible, but, if done right, it could be fantastic.

So, as hinted, the plot goes... Richard 'Stitches' Grindle is a terrible clown who works birthday parties, and one party in particular sees him having to cope with a group of especially evil children. The kids end up accidentally causing the death of the clown, tripping him head first onto a kitchen knife in the dish washer. Jump to a few years down the line, and all the kids are now teenagers, and Tom, the birthday boy on that day, still troubled by the memory of it. He hosts a house party on the weekend of his birthday, which inadvertently reunites the original gathering. Stitches returns from his grave to get his revenge at the party, and clowny brilliance ensues.

It's simple, straightforward slasher stuff in terms of story, when you think about it. Traumatic event > Years later > 'Unexpected' return > Bloody havoc. However, this is about a clown. A clown who takes his revenge  in ways which are specifically appropriate to those who wronged him in life. And the whole film is done with a blatant sense of humour...it knows it's a clown, it knows it's lead is a stand-up comedian, and it knows just how stupid it is. As such, there aren't any scares to speak of, because that's not the point. There is, however, a loving bucketload of 80s style gore. We're talking a victim getting there head inflated with a balloon pump gore here, and quite a lot of it done without the use of CGI. Basically read that as: done the way horror films were done when they were fun. You'll definitely squirm at some of it, but a lot of the time you won't know if you want to wriggle uncomfortably at the thought, or wet yourself at how that gore was unleashed. This is not gore for gore sake: see the Hostel films for that sort of malarkey. This is gore done for hilarity...plus...it's a ruddy CLOWN bringing it forward.

In terms of performances, the whole supporting cast brings exactly what is expected of them. They're a group of typical film teenagers: the clown, the fat one, the artsy girl, the bully, the slutty girl, the weird boy, the uncool main boy with issues. These are token stereotypes of the slasher film, and are used simply to fill the role. But these characters have a little more flesh on the bones, and are actually quite funny to watch, or, more importantly, enjoyable to watch be set upon by a rampaging undead clown (definitely a sentence which should be said more frequently). But of course, the undoubted star of the whole thing is Ross Noble, whose performance is only funnier if you've seen his stand up, because you know you've seen elements of his insanity before. Everything from the daft gruff voice, to the clown-like ways he moves, every little thing Noble does is comedy gold. Clowns are naturally really, really, ridiculously super creepy, so Noble bringing his natural daftness turns it around a little into the ludicrous, but in a very good way. Arguably my favourite scene of the lot coming in the form of the high speed...bicycle chase, wherein a knife-wielding Stitches pursues two would-be victims on a tiny tricycle; pure absurdity, but performed in a way that makes it hilarious.

There's very much a feel of The League of Gentlemen and Psychoville to this film, and that is definitely a good thing. The humour is cheesey, but in a totally right way...not to mention a little sick. It gets just about everything right. The only complaint I would possibly have is that it's arguably a little too short and makes you wish you had a bit more fun...so I guess that's sort of a good thing too. Mind you, it really is a solid and brilliant tribute to the slasher, right down to the standard formula of those who have debauchery-related fun times are the first to get it. But of course...this is with an intentionally stupid clown as the main piece.

4/5 - Now I'm not saying it's Oscar-worthy, or that it's the same quality overall as a critic's darling sort of movie, but for what it is, this film is amazing. It's a low budget horror/comedy, which is a genre with standards set by Shaun of the Dead. Whilst this is certainly not at that level, it is extremely entertaining, and, most importantly, very funny. It features some of the best death scenes you're ever likely to see, and they're all done in great humour. Do yourself a favour, see it if you get the chance, it's certain to become a strong cult classic.