Crazy, Stupid, Love.

Romantic comedies are an incredibly difficult genre to wring any originality from. It has a tried and tested formula and one in which almost every single film of this nature follows to a tee. Which means that, to a certain degree, a romantic comedy is completely hamstrung by it's genre before it has even begun; there will never be any surprises in store for the audience. Well very refreshingly, Crazy, Stupid, Love approaches the genre from a very real and surprising place. For once, a romantic comedy has it's fair share of originality and twists that does wonders for the story. Led by the directors of last years uber-unconventional and very rude I Love You, Philip Morris, Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, seem to have carved out a nice original niche in genre films. This films surprise factor plays a huge part in why the film works as well as it does. However, when a film is this tightly written and performed with spark by a great cast then any stale notions of what the genre might entail are swiftly forgotten. Love, it seems can drive people to do the most irrational of things. The most confusing and yet common emotion, the film rather smartly explores variations on the theme. Unrequited teenage lust, stale marriage woes and those first exciting springs of discovery in someone new are all smartly woven throughout the story. As a result, the film is most certainly romantic, but not in erring to the overly sentimental side of things. Unsurprisingly, sex has a huge part to play in connections with others. Steve Carell stars as Cal, a 40-something going through a very painful divorce with his wife, Julianne Moore. Frustrated by love and hamstrung by a very nerdish demeanor, professional womaniser Jacob (Ryan Gosling) takes him under his wing to help teach him the ways of the mysterious woman. So what follows is a Hitch of sorts, with plenty of comedic material being derived from Cal's unfortunate adventures in this strange new world. Of course, things are not as simple as that, and the film has plenty of more tricks up it's sleeve throughout. Led by a smart, sassy and sexy script, characters are subtly developed so that while certain motivations for things might not be initially obvious, the more time we spend with these people, the more we understand about them. Wisely the film does not spoon feed the audience, but rather let's it's characters naturally progress onto events and earn the confusion, emotion and comedy that the film does so well. The only thing that the film let's itself down in, in fact, is a trite denonoument that trips over all the cliches and conventions it had smartly avoided for most of it's running time. It's not enough to derail the film, but it does leave a bad after taste when everything before was so much stronger. Overall, the film is a refreshing success. There was plenty of potential pitfalls throughout but for the most part, the film is an entertaining, witty and smart take on an otherwise stale genre. It also has the best scene set on a lawn you will see this year.

Verdict: 7/10
Apart from a disappointingly mundane and cheesy ending, the film offers plenty to say on the reality of love and sex and everything in between. A tight script effortlessly interweaves through a fantastic cast and the film has a fresh take on romance than is usual for a film of this type. Who says romance is dead?

"Crazy, Stupid, Love." Trailer

Drive

How does Ryan Gosling do it? The man is in front row to be my hero of 2011. His acting talent grows ever more intriguing and varied with each role he undertakes and he has a great eye for picking fantastic parts in great films. Blue Valentine  is quite possibly one of my favourite films this year, this week he is in two notable release (the other being Crazy Stupid Love) and with George Clooney's The Ides of March garnering serious oscar buzz for later on in the year the mans star wattage shows signs of growing ever brighter. Hands in the air, I have a serious man-crush on the guy. However here he achieves greater acclaim for making a quilted sports jacket with a gold scorpion on the back while mysteriously chewing a tooth pick look like just about the most stylish thing you may see all year. Drive is for all it's hints of loneliness and existentialism is far more concerned with smooth and pretty surfaces. Like Gosling's unnamed character, the film might have torrents of emotion running underneath, but it rarely lets them out. Unless to cave someone's head in that is. Drive might be ultimately shallow and even perhaps contrived at times in it's storytelling but when everything is handled as well as it is, it's hard not to fall in love with it's arthouse/action stylings. Dutch director Nicholas Winding Refn (him off ultra violent and questionably pretentious fare like Bronson or Valhalla Rising) deserves applause for delivering stale plot threads and characters through anything but standard means. Through every frame, the film brims with gorgeous images and subdued, yet vibrant colours. The story goes that upon Gosling and Winding Refn's first meeting, the heavily medicated director, recovering from a cold, burst into tears in a flood of inspiration at hearing REO Speedwagon on the radio. This was their 'Driver'. A lonely guy who drives around on his own all night listening to 80's pop music. True to his word, Drive is the perfect marriage of 70's/80's car chase 'heist gone wrong' thrillers, updated with a cool indie sheen. And it's all breathless, adrenaline inducing stuff.

From it's credits of retro indie beats mixed with pink font you know there is something striking in store. Gosling plays the Driver with no Name who works as a Hollywood stuntman while moonlighting as a getaway driver at night. His life is one of solitude and never getting too close to anybody. That is until new neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan) moves in with her son and the two strike up a relationship. As the Driver begins to melt his hard exterior and get close to this new family, his violent past comes crashing back into everyones lives. Along the way, supporting characters are filled out by fantastic character actors from Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston (his usual reliable self), Ron Perlman (having great fun), Oscar Isaac (about the only one who escaped from Sucker Punch untainted) Christina Hendricks (fans of Mad Men will not be happy with her limited screen time) and the usually typecast Albert Brooks. Brooks in particular is mesmerizing. Usually seen in childrens fare and nice guy roles, here he plays the psychotic main antagonist to fantastic effect. Interestingly, he is infused with layers making his violent actions all the more shocking and unpredictable. Surely an oscar nod can't be far off? And then there is Gosling. Given little to no lines throughout, Gosling gives a hypnotic and quietly powerful performance and one that is sure to be remembered in cult circles for years. Winding cast his film perfectly and everyone delivers in their respective parts. That is, apart from Mulligan. A usually fantastic talent, she is never less than entrancing in anything I have seen her in prior. Unfortunately here she seems distractingly miscast and is given little or nothing to do. One minor flaw in a fantastic film. Spontaneously prone to breaking out in hyper violence as it is in 80's synths, the film is certainly one of the more memorable you will see. Gorgeously shot and impeccably acted, Winding Refn has crafted one of the best of the year with scenes that will stick with you for a long time after. An art house version of an action film and one that is filled with as much quiet moments of introspection as it is in gun fights and car chases. Channeling the vibe of Bullitt and early Michael Mann, Drive is every bit as exciting and interesting as that might expect. While it's title might suggest revving auto parts; what it in fact refers to, is the driving force behind decisions and what consequences they may take.

9/10
Stylish, exciting and frequently adrenaline pulsing stuff, this takes the stale notions of what a crime movie might usually entail and turns them into a far more interesting and memorable experience. It may not be deep, but Winding Refn handles the atmosphere perfectly and delivers one of the sure to be favourites of the year.

"Drive" Trailer

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

I don't think anybody saw this coming. That a reboot/prequel of a forty something year old franchise would go on to become the best blockbuster of the Summer completely came out of left field for me. Sure, that first glimpse of CGI from the film was incredibly photo real but a good film is not made on special effects alone. Added to this, the first trailers released seemed hokey and moronic. Now while I have never seen any of the original Planet of the Apes films (minus the horrid 2001 remake), I couldn't see how a film like Rise could or would ever be relevant to cinemagoers today. Well this has turned out to be one of the films biggest strengths - low expectations. Everybody was more fixated on giant fighting robots, boy wizards and Captain Jack Sparrow this season, than a film about CG monkeys. Despite it's few minor flaws, this late addition to Summer is frequently visually stunning, offers a strong plot and features one of the most gasp inducing scenes in recent memory. Director Rupert Wyatt made waves with his debut feature The Escapist in 2008. Filmed primarily in Dublin's Kilmainham Jail, it was notable for it's fantastic ensemble cast, a rare lead for Brian Cox and how accomplished it was despite it's low budget roots. After a number of directors had come and gone for this gig, Wyatt finally got the unenviable job of crafting another chapter in the somewhat sullied Apes franchise. Here, he aces it, proving that The Escapist was no fluke and that he is just as home with huge budget effects laden extravaganzas as he is in more intimate character driven features. That his film is the success it is is down to one very important thing; Andy Serkis. Despite his British theatrical roots, Serkis has garnered more critical success with his CG animated characters, than any of his live action ones. The words 'oscar nomination' have been bandied about since this films release and upon viewing the film it is easy to see that such claims are not exaggerated at all. Serkis is simply remarkable, breathing impressive life into a simian who can barely communicate. His Caesar is not only a true watershed moment for CGI, but also for performance capture. It is after all, a true performance, eliciting genuine emotion and true depth behind those eyes. Using very little other than his movements, Serkis manages to imbue his CG character with important character tics and traits to staggeringly real results. It is magic come alive on screen.

The plot concerns Dr. Will Rodman (James Franco) as he tries to discover a cure for Alzheimer's, as he watches his father (John Lithgow) slowly succumb to the disease. Through his many tests on Chimpanzee's we see it having a side effect and making one in particular, more intelligent that the rest. As can be guessed from the title, events lead to a full on simian revolt against the humans but what surprises the most is how easily Wyatt manages to make even the more far fetched elements of the script, plausible. Whereas those trailers seemed daft and illogical, the film takes the time to fully develop it's themes, so that when some of the more outlandish things happen, they are entirely inevitable in the plot. The respective monkey poo does indeed hit the fan here, but Wyatt manages to stay focused on the story side of things, never leaving the films core relationship of Will and his pet Chimp Caesar (Serkis) off screen for too long. To say the effects are stunning is an understatement; throughout they constantly dazzle and impress, but crucially never overwhelm the story. There are many instances were the various assortment of Chimps and Gorillas are actually photo real. Throughout, each simian performance fully convinces and while any casual observer on set must have had some alarming thoughts on why such a large group of middle aged men are dressed in leotards acting like baboons, the finished result is nothing short of miraculous. The films protagonist isn't it's human Will, it is entirely Caesar. It is he who shows a true character arc and whom the audience fully emotes in - Franco is there to better sell the Chimp action to the audience. Sure there are flaws; Freida Pinto's girlfriend gets nothing to do, while the films assortment of bad guys: David Oyelowo, Brian Cox and Tom Felton have no depth and come off more as villainous pantomime characitures. But overall this is a film that asks interesting questions about animal testing using it's technical accomplishments to further the story, rather than over power it. Sure the other Apes films had more social/political undertones enriching any allegorical context, but we are after all only on film one of a new proposed franchise. There are plenty of directions to take Caesar in which none of the bigger themes will be shied away from. In evidence of this, a sequel might not be such bad thing for once.

Verdict: 8/10
A fantastic addition to the Apes canon and perfect as a stand alone story for anyone unfamiliar with the franchise. Incredible special effects, stylish direction and a stunning performance from Serkis makes this, hands down, the best film of the Summer.

"Rise of the Planet of the Apes" Trailer

The Tree Of Life

Last week I made the argument that at the very least, a film like Transformers 3 is relevant because it shows incredible images that art house cinema could never compete against. Independant cinema will usually reach and touch you somewhere deep inside, whereas blockbusters pander to more broad, but no less important or worthy cinematic feasts for the eyes. Well after The Tree Of Life I may need to rethink that statement. For all of the films pretenses about the very nature of what it means to be human, it is at the very least ambitious. It is no exaggeration in fact to say, that The Tree Of Life is one of the most ambitious films ever made. This film strives bigger than most have ever gone before in the history of cinema. In five films over four decades, director Terence Malick certainly knows how to take his time. This is reflected in his films too; each one will take a leisurely amount of time to reach their goal or make their point. He is one of the most esteemed and respected auteurs working today and is part of a dying breed of film makers who aspire to a higher degree of authenticity on screen. I feel this is important upon watching The Tree Of Life. It should be watched with the respect it deserves. However upon walking out of the film I could not help but wonder why a director like Michael Bay is heavily criticised for presenting the audience with visuals at the expense of story and character, when Terence Malick has done the exact same with this film here. The Tree Of Life may well feature the most awe inspiring imagery you will see all year, but with nothing tying the lot together what are we meant to take from it all? Sure the film offers up such weighty themes as God, religion and man's place in the Universe, but has no discernible thread running throughout. It's unwillingness to conform to typical plot structure and a heavy emphasis on visuals shares elements with Koyaanisqatsi, but it is far less effective. For many, this will provide flummoxing viewing with those not used to existential musings of this nature keen to brush the whole lot off as 'pretentious'. That does a disservice to the film; I myself may not have enjoyed it, but that is not to say that others won't get much spiritual satisfaction from the picture. I feel I owe it to the piece to at least explain where my philistine opinions are originating and not just write the whole thing off as arty, obscure garbage. Surely it hasn't been proclaimed by many as the film of the year after winning the Palme D'or at this years Cannes for nothing?

The film has no real plot so to speak, rather a succession of scenes and images meant to stir up personal emotions and understanding of the films heavy musings. Beginning in the 60's, we open with news that Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain's son has died, through never explained causes. As everyone is shook to their very core, their eldest son Jack (a remarkable Hunter McCracken) tries to cope with the news and his parents' struggle with it. We then flash forward to the present as a now older Jack played by Sean Penn reminisces about his brother. Past and present collide with one another and if you are with the film so far then you are doing well - Malick heavily uses hushed voiceover filled with the wonderings of existence over seemingly random and unconnected imagery. There is no narrative so to speak, rather atmosphere and underlying metaphor. Malick then explores the very nature of the beginnings of time. Throughout a half an hour of a near wordless sequence, we are shown the big bang, the creation of the universe and the first ruminations of life on this planet. If it sounds interesting it is anything but. With no true emotion to hang anything on, the whole experience leaves you feeling cold. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki crafts some of the most gorgeous imagery to have hit celluloid in quite some time, but there is a hollowness behind it all. If Malick wants us to feel something, then he can't just show us nature at it's very essence and expect it to strike a chord deep inside you. I don't need the man to tell me the capacity of sheer beauty the world has to offer, or by that rationale just how harsh it can be. The film asks big questions such as why are we all here, what does it all mean, and where do we fit in, in the grand scheme of things. But this is nothing that any average human has ever pondered before; the feeling of having Malick ask you from his high horse leaves a bad aftertaste in your mouth. Just who is he to take such incredibly personal and ultimately inexpressible thoughts and put them up on screen? Sure, the man should be applauded for such an undertaking, but it was always doomed to fail. These are things that relate to the very core of humans and that is the only place it can truly reside. Malick seems to think he is asking profound, never before thought about questions, when they are anything but. Indeed the second half of the film is far more effective as, in the loosest term you can imagine, 'scenes' begin to form. Pitt initially is quite distracting, however proves his worth, commanding a very powerful performance. It is through those initial questions that Malick explores the true theme of the piece: how can you choose between Nature and Grace in life. Which is the right way to live? Here it is personified in a very stern Mr. Pitt serving as the metaphor for Nature, while the ethereally presented Chastain, is Grace. Jack is eternally caught in the struggle between the two, while Sean Penn (who looks like he shot his entire part in three days) is completely short changed in the film, aimlessly wandering around a desert, with his back to camera. This aspires to be transcendent and should be commended for doing so, but it is rarely executed as well as it's ideas and themes deserve. Many will be bewildered for most of it, and some will feel profoundly touched - the rest will wonder what all the fuss was about. This may be art, but it sure isn't cinema.

Verdict: 4/10
A film decades in the making and culled from six hundred thousand metres of film, this is a worthy, yet achingly slow moving paean to the meaning of life. Imagery is frequently stunning, but it is cut in a way that is never allowed to truly register. Moreover, Malick's themes are too personal and grand to ever fully realise them as well as they should. It's meditive, ponderous nature and frequently frustrating inability to ever give anything back to it's audience only serves to confound, rather than enlighten. Oh, and the CG dinosaurs are crap too.

"The Tree Of Life" Trailer

Cell 211

Cell 211 opens with quite possibly, the single most shocking image you may see all year. While it immediately sets up tough questions and an anticipation of heavy themes for the film to follow, the film instead takes a completely different path. I was expecting a politically charged, yet intimately haunting prison drama. What I was met with was a full-on, highly commercial, yet no less smart thriller. While it slightly betrays the weighty ambitions of such a harrowing opener, it nontheless grabs your attention and draws you into proceedings straight away. Juan (Alberto Ammann) shows up a day early for his new job as prison officer to make a good impression and winds up stuck inside after a huge cell riot. Forging an unhealthy alliance with head honcho Malamadre (a fantastic Luis Tosar) he is forced to pretend he is a new inmate, while those on the outside struggle to find a way to get him out. The film carries it's fair share of contrivances in plot (why is Juan's heavily pregnant wife putting herself in danger, how does Juan keep getting away with his communications to the outside, why are the inmates so quick to initiate Juan into their cause?) which threaten to overtake proceedings and push it into dubious territory, but director Daniel Monzón manages to keep everything on the rails. In fact the film is incredibly tense for most of it's running time and keeps the audience on it's toes throughout. The film won eight Goya Awards (Spanish Oscars) upon it's release in 2009 in it's native Spain. While it is hardly ground breaking stuff, it is very well made and acted and features plenty of nail biting moments along the way. Before it's undercooked climax is abruptly reached, it has you hooked every step of the way. Alas it seems that come the end, the budget swiftly ran out, leaving the feeling of wanting so much more for it's grandiose end, that never fully arrives. Other than that, this "Die Hard" in a Prison' is fantastically engaging stuff and is already facing the inevitable Hollywood remake, just around the corner. Catch it now; Hollywood won't top this Bad Mother too easily.

Verdict: 7/10
A hair raising and frequently exciting thriller that flirts with bigger themes, but is more than content to simply be a straight forward action/prison movie. All the cast are fantastic and despite it's slightly disappointing climax, there is much here to enjoy on a Saturday night.

"Cell 211" Trailer  

Submarine

Richard Ayoade has been threatening to break into cinema for a while now. Some may not think they initially know the name, but the man has slowly and surely been working his way up through the ranks for the best part of the last decade to this point. That's not to say "Submarine" was always part of the plan. Rather, it feels more of a natural progression of the mans talents. So while most will know him from his work as Moss on Channel 4s "The IT Crowd", Ayoades interests go far deeper than seen there. While as intentionally broad as the character he so well plays is, Ayoade has far more original sensibilities. From his work directing and writing "Garth Merenghi's Darkplace", one of the most hilarious and unique TV shows to grace our screens, he has also directed music videos for bands such as Kasabian, Arctic Monkeys, Vampire Weekend, Yeah Yeah Yeahs and The Last Shadow Puppets. From those he honed a unique visual style as well as gaining a working friendship with Alex Turner, singer of both the Arctic Monkeys and Last Shadow Puppets. Incidentally Turner contributes some solo material for the soundtrack on "Submarine". Put simply, whether it be acting, writing or directing Ayoade showed a unique flair for it. Fans waited with baited breath to see what his debut would be. Some expected the indie cool sheen he brought to his music videos. Others expected the intentionally shoddy and gut bustingly hilarious comedy of "Darkplace". Most will be surprised to find that it is neither of the two, rather something altogether more soulful and deep. While still managing to retain his finger prints "Submarine" has turned out to be one of the most original films this year and one of the most exciting debut films from a British film maker in quite some time.

Oliver Tate (Craig Roberts) is a socially awkward, yet outwardly confident sixteen year old. He could be considered pretentious were he not so brash. Set in the 80's, the film follows Oliver as he struggles to maintain a relationship with the pyromaniac girl of his dreams Jordana (Yasmin Paige) while trying to keep his parents (Noah Taylor and Sally Hawkins) crumbling marriage together. While frequently hilarious, the film has a streak of melancholy running through it. Characters here live lives of sadness (almost wilingly so) and it is through this that Oliver finds his voice. Due to a love of French New Wave cinema and his self belief in being a great litery genius, Oliver views himself and his life as what we see on screen. This could make the protagonist very self-aggrandising to the audience yet Roberts makes sure that Oliver is never less than captivating throughout. His self assured belief in himself is where the film finds most of its understated humour. Lines like 'I suppose it may be affectation, but I sometimes like to read the dictionary', further add to the pomposity of his character. And yet, for all his flaws, Olivers heart is in the right place. Sure some of his methods are sometimes morally questionable, but it is only because he wants those he loves to be happy. At the center, his relationship with his parents and they, with each other, is what manifests itself into his relationship with Jordana. If they can't be happy, then what chance does he and his new would be girlfriend have? Both Noah Taylor and Sally Hawkins are wonderful as Olivers parents. Their marraige on the rocks is not one of heated arguments and intense fireworks, rather of quiet and muted restrain. How much does Taylor want to fight for his wife. How much does Hawins want him to fight for her. You get the feeling that these people are far too self absorbed in themselves to ever truly get the urge to fight for what they want. And yet Oliver seems to be the only one who is doing that. This makes later actions more understandable and effective (although not necessarily condonable). The cast are all uniformly brilliant. For such young actors both Roberts and Paige both have stunning grasps on their characters. As the film progresses, the oddity of their relationship is always grounded by their performances. The always great Paddy Considine also shows up as the heavily mulleted stage psychic who shows an unhealthy interest in Olivers mother.

Now by no means is this film perfect. It gets bogged down in its mournfulness more than once and is sometimes too quirky for its own good. But stick with it and the results will be rewarding. Comparisons are there to be made to Wes Anderson, but with a character like Oliver narrating events, how else could it look? Dialogue is constantly at odds with normal narrative convention. Events don't always go where you might expect. Instead of the fantastic and very romantic night Oliver has planned with Jordana, he is instead met with 'Christ, you're a serial killer' from her. Ayoade has crafted a smart and very witty debut, but what is most exciting is to see where this talent will go next. With each move he makes he takes great strides in his abilities, so it would not be unfair to assume that Ayoade is on the cusp of some very special things indeed. With "Submarine" he has crafted merely something very good and for now, and that is more than enough.

Verdict: 7/10

A very funny and touching coming of age story. All the actors are brilliant and Ayoade shows a unique visual flair behind the camera. It's sometimes stale idiosyncrasies threaten to over shadow proceedings, but the film is rich, subtle, unique and very rewarding. This is one that will only grow stronger with time I imagine.

"Submarine" Trailer

Never Let Me Go

There is something irresistibly fresh in the tragic beauty of "Never Let Me Go". It is not often you see a film blend seemingly contradictory genres together and yet this film succeeds admirably. Science fiction and drama are mixed with period detail to create a wonderful and hauntingly subdued film. Possibly not to everyones taste as evidenced by its poor box office in America, it is nonetheless a very worthy cinematic experience. The film paints an alternate dystopian history, and yet for all its subtle sci-fi musings, the film is primarily concerned with romance. Kathy H (a heartbreaking Carey Mulligan) grows up in a boarding school with life long friends Tommy (Andrew Garfield) and Ruth (Keira Knightly). Throughout the years she finds her feelings for Tommy grow while the seemingly jealous and calculating Ruth becomes romantically involved with him first. As the young adults progress we see how their restrictive fate mixed with Kathys eternal unrequited love for Tommy affects their lives. There is a strong sense of tragedy running through the film. The films chief existential questions weigh heavy on our heroine. What does it mean to love? What does it mean to have a soul? The film is not a cheery watch, and yet if you work for for it, its low key charms will soon reveal themselves and linger inside long after the credits have rolled. Director Romanek, known more for his flashy music videos, here uses an effective and simple technique, filtering his rain drenched England through a system of grey and blue hues. Make no mistake, that while the film may sound uneventful and dull, it offers plenty of tantalising questions for the audience to answer. The cast are all uniformly brilliant handling the trio of characters superbly. While some of their actions, especially the initially nefarious Ruth, may seem hard to condone, they are nonetheless understandable. Of course sci-fi as a genre is based on asking big questions and this is no exception. With writer Alex Garland (working from the original novel by Kazuo Ishiguro) it is no surprise that the results are as thought provoking as they are. And yet the film has so much heart running throughout, making its weepy third act all the more effective. The film earns your emotional attachment to it. This is grand intelligent film making on an emotional and engaging level. It's poor showing in the states hopefully might not be the same over here, but it is a very tough and strange film to market. Not many people may initially think they want to see a film like this, but it is more than worth it. Films like this rarely come along and must be treasured when they do, otherwise Hollywood runs the risk of making every science fiction film stuffed with explosions and over sized robots. In a genre chocked full of predictable and stupid trappings, this breathes fresh life into it.

Verdict: 8/10

A haunting and frequently devastating oddity. It blends several genres together, to create an original yet understated thought provoking experience. This deserves to be mentioned with some of the greats come the years end, and its ignoring this awards season is criminal. A very special film.

"Never Let Me Go" Trailer

Rabbit Hole

I feel I may have missed the point of "Rabbit Hole". Upon first hearing about this film (a couple deals with the recent untimely death of their four year old son) I immediately thought 'thanks but no thanks'; as would most normal people. I mean in all honesty, who wants to sit through something so morbid and bleak? Sure, there are opportunities for some nice insights and observations, but is it really worth it to be so thoroughly bummed out? Then I heard a few initial reports on the film. Praise was very high indeed, and even more encouragingly, those previews painted the film as while being very sombre, also filtered through with a nice bit of understated humour. I suddenly became more interested. Sure Nicole Kidmans acting skills disappeared the second she lost the power to emote due to overuse of botox, but this could be her big comeback. Aaron Eckhart is consistantly one of the most underated actors going and with the original writer of the play it's based on, serving as screenwriter here, all pieces were in place for a suitably darkly humourous study of grief. Of course oscars interest in it didn't hurt much either. How disapointed was I then to sit down and find it was exactly the film I didn't want to get. Bleak, morbid, depressing, sad; this is not what I signed up for. Yes, for while "Rabbit Hole" does feature suitably moving performances by the always reliable Eckhart and newcomer Miles Teller, it is completely bogged down in its own gloominess. Nicole Kidman may be better here than she has in quite a while, but that still doesn't disguise the fact that her role screams 'I want an oscar!' and that her characters natural coldness segues into how we emote to her as a person. A few choice moments of humour does not make this any more palatable. As both of our leads handle their grief in different ways; for him an unwise relationship with a fellow grieving Mother, for her, a strange relationship with the teenager responsible for her sons death, we see them gradually fall apart. To be fair director John Cameron Mitchell does good work with the material. A look back on his earlier films of a travelling transgender singer in "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" and the sexual explicitness of "Shortbus" initially might paint him as the one person who should not direct a film of this nature, yet he pulls it off with admirable restraint. In the end the film is nothing but a well intentioned study of grief. Everyone involved puts in good work and Eckhart was robbed of an oscar nomination, but it's just not something I wish to wallow in for the films running time.

Verdict: 63%

I fear I may have missed something here, but while the film is never less than watchable, with some very admirable performances, its heavy handedness casts a too bleak tone on proceedings.

"Rabbit Hole" Trailer

The Fighter

Mark Wahlberg could be forgiven for being more than a little hurt by the academys ignoring of his performance in "The Fighter". Wahlberg has spent the better part of ten years trying to bring the project to life. The film as it exists today, and that it is as good as it is, is down mainly to Wahlbergs persistence. After going through a multitude of different directors and actors, and non stop grueling boxing training sessions, it looked like the film would never see the light of day on more than a few occasions. But his dedication paid off. In Wahlbergs career so far, "The Fighter" is his towering achievement. Sure, his performance has been unfairly overlooked elsewhere, but as producer the man can safely take credit for the films success. Make no mistake, this is a Mark Wahlberg film. Of course the hiring of personal friend David O. Russell to direct was a masterstroke. At one point Darren Aronofsky (among plenty of others) was tapped to direct, but his indecision at stepping back into the ring so soon after "The Wrestler" led to O. Russell taking over. He retains his executive producer credit here and looking closely it was probably for the best; would Aronofskys naturally dark and glum style have lent itself to an uplifting underdog sports drama? Russell and Wahlberg of course have worked together two times previously. "Boogie Nights" and "The Departed" aside, O. Russell has been the only director to consistantly have been able to get a performance out of Wahlberg. As frustratingly hit and miss as he is, it is easier still to dismiss his films. For every "Three Kings" there was a "Max Payne". Wahlberg is a better actor and more savvy than a lot of people give him credit for. A lot of his films certainly are lacking in areas, but it seems he knows fully what he is doing. His more recent attempts at blockbuster status could be seen as paving the way for "The Fighter". Without those, he could have not have made or funded it. The truth is that the fact that Wahlberg initially seems like an afterthought to this film, shows he has done his job as far as his role was concerned. The real life Micky Ward does always struggle to get a word in edgeways when surrounded by his Brother and Mother. If Wahlberg takes a step back and lets his co-actors take the glory, then it could be argued that thats only because that is what the real life Micky Ward has done. And by that measurement, Wahlberg gives quite possibly, the very best performance of his career so far.

What are all great boxing films really about. Certainly not boxing. Sure, the sport features, but it is not what the film is ever truly about. As a non boxing fan it seems odd that my possible favourite film of all time is "Raging Bull". I never watch boxing on television. This is because the idea of two grown men beating each other up holds very little interest to me. Not without knowing the background of these people. The psychology is incredibly engaging; why do these men willingly choose to spend their life taking a beating? Of course in the best sports films, the metaphor of the sport always serves as something else. "The Fighter" is not about boxing. It is about family. Managed by his all-domineering mother (a great Melissa Leo) and trained by his crack addicted brother Dicky(Christian Bale), Micky's commitment to his family was (again, like Wahlbergs commitment to his story) unwavering and seemingly at the detriment to his own career. They might all have noble intentions but they are dragging Micky down with them. At thirty something years old, Micky took his very last shot at becoming a success and went on to fight for the welter weight title. As the trouble making attention seeking older brother Dicky, Christian Bale is a revelation. Charasmatic but selfish; likeable but dishonerable, Bale nails the very conflicting mindsets. Bale has been much quieter in his roles in the past few years, so it's great to see he still has what it takes to be a method powerhouse when it comes to his parts. His dedication to Dicky is incredible and he completely immerses himself in his part. Much has been made of his repeated weight losses for his films, but here it only ever adds to the character. Of course looking at Dicky, it is obvious what he is, but Bale is pitch perfect in getting into the mindframe of the real life version. As strong as his competition will be on oscar night, he deserves to take home the gold statue. Speaking of which, it is safe to say he will be joined by Melissa Leo as the mother and manager of Micky, and the family. She reigns supreme and strictly governs and protects her family life as she does Micky. With her sprayed hair and venomous tongue, she cuts a very intimidating figure indeed for Mickys new love interest Charlene (AmyAdams). Not to mention Mickys seven sisters all holding a grudge against her and it takes a very special lady to stand up to them to protect Micky, but that is what Charlene does. Breaking type, Adams is fantastic; sassy, tough, but also nurturing and tender. The problem is that each member of the family has noble intentions for Micky. If only they can each let their egos from overtaking the spotlight, Micky could be the great success he has it in him to be. One of the treats of the film is rendering the family at all times loveable, in some warped way despite all the nefarious things they do and how they act. They all love each other and to them family is the most important thing in the world.

It might have been easy for some directors to go heavy on grittiness of our characters and themes, but very wisely O. Russell simply lets the characters be. Sure they are sometimes ugly but they are never less than real. The dynamic is the most important ingredient and O. Russell handles it wonderfully. Of course this also leads to some fantastic scenes of humour; with a family like this, how could it not be? He brings out the best of his cast and story and manages to keep the possibly too bombastic story on track. Bale and Leo offer incredible performances, but that is only because the film is anchored in Wahlbergs self assured lead. The central relationship of Micky and Dicky is what drives the film. While the films many fantastic HBO style boxing scenes will bring all the fireworks, it is the love between two brothers that will be the long lasting impression left on you. At the end it is there for all to see: it's easy to take a few punches, in time those scars will heal. The deeper scars caused by those you love in trying to keep everyone together is what will always cut deeper. And it is all down to Mark Wahlberg.

Verdict: 83%

A fantastic sports flick and the best boxing film seen in quite some time. The film is funny, touching and moving, all bolstered by stunning turns from everyone involved. A possibly predictable story is shot through David O. Russell's assured eye and long after the glare of the fights scenes have faded, it is the touching dynamic of the family that will linger inside.

"The Fighter" Trailer

Conviction

Real life stories by their very nature, face an uphill struggle with just how invested audiences are going to be with the tale. Most of the time, we all know how these types of films are going to end up. Recent examples like "127 Hours" offered us existential questions not only about our protagonist, but also our own lives to side step this problem. "The King's Speech" offered a delectably told story about the friendship between two very different men under the heavy shadow of World War II. They also had endings that anyone with access to a library or computer could discover very easily. It was about how they told their stories rather than the outcome. Simply put, with films such as these, it's the journey that counts, not the destination. Shame then that "Conviction" falls into the narrative trap. If we all know how the film is going to turn out, then why should we spend two hours getting there? To be fair the true life story "Conviction" is based on is extraordinary in itself. It was simply begging to be turned into film material. If this is going to be the case then, it must offer the audience more substantial meat to chew on. Unfortunately for"Conviction" it very easily finds itself falling into 'TV movie-of-the-week' territory.

In 1983, smalltown trouble maker Kenny Waters (Sam Rockwell) was wrongfully convicted of the murder of elderly woman Katharina Brow. Kenny had no where to turn for help. With a corrupt officer out to get him, no money to defend himself in court and a history of volatile behaviour, he was sent to prison for life. His loving sister Betty Anne (Hilary Swank), seemingly the only one left fighting for his innocence then took it upon herself to defend her brother. Over the course of twenty or so years, Betty put herself through school and college to earn her GED, her bachelors, her masters and eventually her degree from law school. Her support and duty to her brother was stunning, but even after straining every relationship in her life to achieve this, she still had to find the evidence in order to prove her brothers innocence. As the siblings our two leads are unfaltering. Swank shows unreserved courage and dignity in her determination at setting her brother right, when everyone else has turned against him. Her vulnerability is touching at times, especially in a later scene asking her two sons would they do the same for each other. The real Betty Anne of course did something many of us would have to think long and hard before ever undertaking. With so much going against her, her almost entirely unwavering obligation to her brother is very inspiring and Swank conveys this very well. As Kenny the never less than reliable Rockwell delivers another nuanced performance, as is typical of him. His range knows no bounds, and with any role he finds himself perfectly at home there. I am an unashamed fan of his and would gladly watch any film featuring just him and him alone, as the classic in the making "Moon" ably demonstrated a few short years ago. The supporting cast also add nice touches to the film. Driver who I have not seen in anything for quite some time brings an understated and much needed dose of humour and spark to proceedings. Melissa Leo, carving out a very respectable career for herself as a reliable character actor, again delivers as the officer with a grudge to Rockwells character. However out of them all, it is surprisingly Juliette Lewis who impresses most as the woman who may or may not hold the key to Kennys innocence. In just two short scenes she leaves a lasting impression on proceedings and easily walks away with them.

Yet again, the main problem however falls mainly down to the director and script writer. Director Tony Goldwyn, who some might recognise as a very decent character actor in his own right, unfortunately does not grasp the material as immediately as he should. Events carry a flatness and never really shoulder the dramatic weight that they should. Worse still, the script only accentuates these problems. The real life story, being as strong as it is thankfully keeps proceedings on the rails, but it never seems willing to delve further into the darker implications a life wasted and a life given can have. Worse still, a very tragic and shocking accident that happened six months after the film ends is completely excised and not once mentioned in order to achieve a happy ending. Surely with the films many shifts in chronology such an important fact could have been worked into proceedings. I won't spoil what it is here, but the fact that it might render a 'what was that all for?' reaction in the audience might count as a reason but surely a better handling of the material could have found a way to make it work.

Verdict: 58%

Two leads impress as always and the real life story the film is based on is far too incredible and dramatic in its own right to ever render the film fully 'boring'. But the lack of focus on characters as opposed to plot ends up conveying the same reaction you could get from reading an article about Betty Anne and Kenny, and in far less time. Nice but insubstantial TV movie fodder.

"Conviction" Trailer

It's Kind Of A Funny Story

It must be tough for any film centred on psychiatric stress, set in a hospital ward for mental patients; it will always invariably end up being compared to "One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest". In fact such a stamp has that film made on the genre, it seems that any film attempting to deal within the same topics, it will always come off as cliche and more than a little derivative. Put simply, it is hard for any new film put its own stamp on a subject so fragile and delicate. However as great as that film is, there surely must be some new things filmmakers can say nowadays about such a topic. However that is not to be the case here; its shadow unfortunately covers over almost all of "It's Kind Of A Funny Story". A film with noble intentions, but one that never rises above 'sweet'.

Craig (Keir Gilchrist) is a very stressed 16 year old boy. After having contemplated suicide, he checks himself into a psychiatric hospital. After initial feelings of fear and intimidation, Craig begins to get to know the patients around him. Among them is Bobby (Zach Galifianakis), who takes Craig under his wing and whom he forms a friendship with. Can Craig learn to control his emotions and not cave under the immense pressure from his father/friends/school? Along the way he meets Noelle (Emma Roberts) a fellow patient who self harms. The film does run the risk of being too bogged in seriousness and a dour subject matter. Mental health isn't exactly fun. However play it the other way, take away some of the levity from the illness and you risk making your subject twee and not to mention offending any real life victims of the disease. This is where the film finds its one major flaw. It seems caught in between thse two worlds and never fully committing to either. Director/writers Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck have proven their talent after their previous oscar worthy effort "Half Nelson" four years ago. In short they should have been able to pull off a far more substantial and satisfying film than what we are left with here. Not to say the film is not good; it is very entertaining and watchable at times, but is that really what you want when it should have been so much more?

The cast are all meet the demands of the script admirably. Lead, Gilchrist is a very charming protagonist and one that is easy to root for despite the fact that he has not been seen in much previously. Emma Roberts sidesteps her tween-centric past to convey a girl with a lot of serious, deep problems. If she seems quite 2D at times, it is down more to the limitations of the script and her character rather than her acting skills. She certainly has it in her to carry more dramatic and serious fare. And then there is Galifianakis. Galifianakis's schtick is showing signs of wearing. There is only so many times he can do the loveable idiot man-child before it falls into predictable and one note territory. The man is a very natural and funny comedian and actor, and it is obvious he is very talented. His stand up shows darker signs underneath than any of his bigger comedy films have, and HBO's sleuth comedy show "Bored To Death" show there is certainly more from his personality to be mined. I am glad then that this film demonstrates the range this man has the capability to play. It may only be one small step, but it should lead to greater things more people want to take a chance with him on. The role is funny and quirky at times, but offers more going underneath the exterior with problems not nearly as easily handled as our leads. Galifianakis pulls it off very well and the film comes alive with every scene he is in. So the main issue comes down to how the overall theme is portrayed. The film is too nice to bear any greater dramatical weight. There is far more going on here that the script should have delved into, but it is simply more content with with being sweet and feel good. It is funny, but why not take it into darker and possibly more controversial territory. Laughs could come thicker and the true dark nature of our minds fight with itself could be dealt with better rather than the sometimes too saccharine offering we are left with. The film is good, but it's hard to become too involved in it when our protagonists main problem is too simply chill out and relax.

Verdict: 65%

A very pleasant and entertaining film. Performances all deliver and Galifianakis proves he has plenty of range underneath the beard, but the film refuses to delve too deep into its dark issues, leaving a rather muted aftertaste.

"It's Kind Of A Funny Story" Trailer

Black Swan

Awards season is always the best time of the year to go to the cinema. It may be odd when you consider it, but releasing most of the years great films over two or three months, is incredibly encouraging. Each week you can be sure to find a very worthy film in your cinema. There are however, a few downsides to this. By distributers holding onto their strongest film for a very specific release date, it casts a very obvious dearth on the rest of the year. The year is top ended, with the majority of great films getting released from December to February. Not to say there will be no more great films this year, it would just be more welcoming for more of these worthy efforts getting released in the Summer time, when Blockbuster fatigue is setting in. And of course, just as it can get quite tiring after a while reseeing all the explosions and shallow characterisation the Summer has to offer, it can also get samey reliving all the more classic and serious minded films the Awards Season has in store. I find it all the more strange then, that "Black Swan" is one of those films being considered for awards. Not to say it is undeserving of its awards success, far from it, but it just seems most of these films are more often than not 'safe'. Not to take away from any of them, as this is never necessarily a bad thing, it just seems blatantly obvious as to what films are going to be favoured by the Academy and get nominated and win awards. "Black Swan" is completely and unashamedly polarizing. Just as many people going into it will detest it as those to proclaim it to be a breathless work of art. Moreso than that, when was the last time you saw a film win awards that featured extreme violence, jump scares, and a full on no holds barred lesbian scene? This is not any film however. This is a film by Darren Aronofsky, and any glance over his body of work shows perfectly what we have in store here. "The Wrestler" may have brought him more mainstream success, but it has not for one second changed his sensibilities. His films split a fine line through the audience. They are more often than not, searingly brutal, uncomfortable to watch, quite upsetting and visually majestic. You may not have enjoyed the ride he has brought you on, but at the very least, you will not be able to shake it off for days. This is a tradition he upholds in glorious style, with "Black Swan".

Ballet dancer Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) lives a sheltered and very protective existence under her Mothers (Barbara Hershey) wing. When she is finally picked to appear as the lead in the new production of 'Swan Lake', it seems all her years of practice have finally paid off. However, Thomas (Vincent Cassel) her sexually manipulative director, says Nina is too technically perfect in her dancing skills. While this is perfect for the White Swan side of the character, she does not know how to lose herself in the moment to fully engage as the Black Swan. This is embodied in Lily (Mila Kunis), a new younger upstart, who fits the Black Swan role perfectly. She is everything Nina secretly wishes she could be; confidant, sexually ambitious and dances gracefully and carefree. Pressure comes from everywhere: her so called 'friends', her Mother, her director who may or may not be abusing her and Beth (Winona Ryder), the aging dancer Nina recently replaced. The immense pressure coming from all angles causes Nina's psyche to crack. Of course this could all be intentional. Is Nina's quest from shy, unassuming 'nice' girl to vampish and psychotic seducer what she needs, in order to fully inhabit the Black Swan character, and win the adulation she craves? The film, at the very least is intense. Led by Portman's stunning turn, the film begins quite melodramatically and grows ever more nightmarish and terrifying as more and more of Ninas psyche comes undone. Everywhere she looks is an oppressive force looking to corrupt the innocent star. However as it turns out, Nina's greatest enemy may in fact be herself. In every scene mirrors dominate the frame, with a mysterious doppelganger skirting around the edges. It's no coincidence that Thomas' repeated orders for Ninas technique is to 'lose yourself'. Paranoia and vivid, walking hallucinations dominate proceedings and all the while Nina struggles to keep it all together. The film is very effective in showing Ninas floundering mental state, and all the more disconcerting for it. You may not want to experience something so vividly dissected, but you will not be able to tear your eyes from the screen come its gloriously deranged climax.

Of course, this is Aronofsky through and through. The film shares parallels with his previous feature "The Wrestler", something the director himself acknowledges. As he himself puts it, 'Wrestling some consider the lowest art—if they would even call it art—and ballet some people consider the highest art. But what was amazing to me was how similar the performers in both of these worlds are. They both make incredible use of their bodies to express themselves'. Aronofsky again takes pleasure in detailing the routine behind the scenes injuries of these show people. Their bodies take as much a beating as their heads and hearts do. Aronofsky shoots in a similar style to that film, yet as "Black Swan" goes on, it throws subtlety out the window in favour of shocking violence and terrifying ghosts, haunting our heroines mind. Interesting also to note, that Aronofsky gave its so called 'low art form' of the wrestling world, a far more subtle and heartbreaking emotional experience; while for ballet, the 'higher art form', he goes to great extremes in making everything visually heightened and wildly excessive. This is part of his genius. His is surely one of the best visions in Hollywood right now. His films are not ever nice or pleasant, but they always make the audience feel. In fact "Black Swan" also shares some parallels with his sophomoric effort "Requiem For A Dream". Both films feature underlying themes of how fragile the mind can be, and both race towards a nightmarish and disturbingly surreal conclusion. In fact it is probably for the best Aronofsky has not yet crafted an out and out horror film as of yet; the results might simply be too much to take. Anybody who has witnessed "Requiem For A Dream" can tell you just how terrifying it portrays drug abuse; likewise here, there are some scenes that will have you looking out from behind your popcorn. And yet the overall film, never descends into horror cliche. As unsettling and creepy as it threatens and indeed does get, it is grounded in our heroines performance, and her reality. Losing ones mind is something most people fear. Aronofsky knows how to take basic and very real human fears and turn them into nightmares on screen.

Portman gives an incredible performance. She puts absolutely everything into her performance and not just into the dancing, so stunningly photographed by Aronofsky regular Matthew Libatique. The dichotomy of her character is also enforced by the real life Portman; we all know she has what it takes to be nervous and fragile Nina, but what about that rarely tapped, darker side? It doesn't matter because Portman nails both. Aronofsky always gets incredible performances out of his actors. After the career best turns he coaxed from Ellen Burstyn in "Requiem" and Mickey Rourke in "The Wrestler" would be be unreasonable to add Portman to that list? No, here she shines brighter than ever before, and taken out of her normal comfort zone so much as she is here, shows what a courageous actor she is. This film calls for some outrageous scenes and situations to be in, and without Portmans convincing veneer, the audience would be lost in the jumbled mess of this persons mind. Cassel aides as a very sly and slimy director. His actions and power to manipulate others minds and bodies is ugly to watch, but nontheless entrancing. Kunis also gives a fantastic performance as the woman who may or may not be out to steal Ninas role for herself, while Barbara Hershey terrifies as the passive-aggressive Mother. It is through Nina she lives now; all her dreams and failures are on Ninas back and with her constant nagging and treating her daughter like a little girl, it is obvious that even without the ballet underlying the drama, Nina would still be teetering on the edge of sanity.

The film is stunningly filmed. It has images and scenes that stick in the memory long after the final lights have died down. Aronofsky goes for grandiose in every performance and scene. As events spiral towards a breathtaking and original climax, no matter how much you want to, you will not be able to tear your eyes from the screen. The dance sequences are majestically filmed and the underlying grace and beauty of ballet, is contrasted brutally with Aronofsky's hard edged presentation of it. It is quite possible, you won't see anything like this for a while. For his next gig, Aronofsky is helming the new 'Wolverine' film. Charged with the saving of a franchise as big as that shows the faith in his talent. Looking at his films when he started no one could have predicted they would be awards favourites, mainstream successes, or even blockbuster extravaganzas. How such a searingly inventive, extreme and original director achieved this must show that maybe it is in fact the world that is losing its mind, and not Darren Aronofsky.

Verdict: 85%

Divisive, terrifying, putrid, ugly, depressing, exuberant, theatrical, original, thrilling, shocking, exciting and remarkable. Vintage Aronofsky then.

"Black Swan" Trailer

Blue Valentine

A script 12 years in the writing. A constantly starting and halting production. An original release date of 2008. A lead actor almost dropping out of filming. For any other film, such reportings might be cause for concern. After all, if a film has this much going against it, then surely it can't be worth it unless it is something special. And if there is a word to describe "Blue Valentine" it is, at the very least special. A fragile and often uncomfortable look into the fickleness of love and relationships. It is a film, that if all its encompassing factors had not been so specifically in place, it is quite possible we would not be left with the mini masterpiece we have here. Having directed one little seen feature over a decade ago, director Derek Cianfrance set his resources into getting this picture made. Quite obviously a labour of love for everybody involved, it was honed and crafted over the years, adding vital slices of real life experience into its script. If the film is one thing, it is honest. It is a frank look at the breakdown of a relationship when sometimes for nothing or everything, love one day, just leaves us. After searching endlessly for his leads, he found Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, so perfect for their roles. After Heath Ledgers untimely death, Cianfrance, out of respect for Williams and their daughter, halted production. A lesser director might have recast the part, but Cianfrance knew just how vital Williams was to her role. A change of location in the script, some delays in its release and a run in with the MPAA and it is quite lucky that the film is even here at all, much less the work of beauty that it is.

Working as a far more tragic and bleak version of "(500) Days of Summer", the film charts the breakdown of a marriage over the course of one weekend, while cutting back to the original sparks of love first igniting between the pair many years earlier. This could be seen as stylish and gimmicky for the sake of it, yet through this, the director highlights some important contrasts in character outlook and perspective. The overall question of 'where does love go?' is not an easy one, but by bringing us back to those early, happier days, we can gauge the various reasons and choices that have led our two protagonists to this point. Not that it is quite as simple as that, Cianfrance never points the finger at either members, rather acutely observing the destruction unfold. Life sometimes gets in the way it seems. As 'Dean', Gosling gives an exuberant performance. A man simply committed to his wife and daughter, and not much else, through his perpetual childishness we see reasons for Cindys gradual despising and original blossoming love for him. As 'Cindy', Williams, delivers an astonishingly subtle performance. Her coming to terms with what is happening juxtaposed with Goslings 'die hard romantic-fight til the death' is profound. Their studying of the characters for years in the productions many starting and stoppings, must have led to a deep understanding on the actors behalf. The fact that before filming began, both Gosling and Williams lived together as a family, adds to the unbearable realness of it all.

Cianfrance shot with little or no rehearsal and insisted on capturing most of the scenes on the first take. The acting is as raw and gritty as the script calls for. Cianfrances camera puts the audience in the middle of it. To say the film is uncomfortable is an understatement. At any given time it feels the viewer is eavesdropping on a couples demise. If the film was initially slapped with an NC-17 on its American release, it is not down to the frank nature of the sex scenes, but rather the feelings of realness it injects. The filmmakers have pondered that perhaps it was too real and that is what led to their downfall. Had the film received the rating it was initially stamped with, it would have been the death knell for it. It would not have received nearly the same audience it deserves and if anything, the only thing the film is truly explicit in, is emotion. While harvesting some all too real truths about both members of the opposite sex, the film also provides some illuminations on the first awakenings of love. Gosling playing ukulele while Williams tap dances is just one hauntingly beautiful soon to be classic scene in a film full of them. The film is tough and painful but only as it should be. As a result, it would not be described as a fun or entertaining evenings watch. But caught in the right mood however, with no distractions, then the film will soon take over. It might be easy to play the blame game with both characters, but like reality, it is not as simple as that. Everybody and nobody is to blame. Life is life. In all its mysterious glory, who can predict why things happen the way they do? Of course, by that rationale, who could have predicted how searingly beautiful "Blue Valentine" would ever go on to be, or that it would even exist at all.

Verdict: 88%

A stunningly observed dissection of love and relationships. It may not be fun and easy, but it is important and forces you to ask substantial questions about your life. The actors transform into a space where that on screen is reality, and we have walked in on something painful, real, true and most importantly, beautiful.

"Blue Valentine" Trailer

The King's Speech

What a fantastic tribute to film making that "The King's Speech" is. Against all odds, this relatively intimate, independant, character drama, has gone onto great success in theatres all over Europe and USA. That a film like this has registered with audiences as it has is very surprising indeed. Look at the factors: An historical drama, set on the cusp of World War II. No major movie megastars at its disposal. An independant, character based, period film. A film that takes its main plot points in the simplicity of two middle aged men becoming friends. Not to mention, that in its own way, the film could be seen as slight and predictable. When was the last time you saw a film like that connecting with audiences on the scale that this film has? And yet, "The King's Speech" is an absolute joy and pleasure to behold from start to finish. Because you see, some of the things the film had going against it, are the things that make it seem so fresh and personable. The wonder of simple storytelling is all it ever takes to transport the viewer into something special. That combined with some of the most fantastic acting you may see all year, brings me to the fact, that even under the stiff competition of other strong films being released this awards season, "The King's Speech" more than holds it own, and may in fact may be the most special of them all.

When a film begins there can sometimes be a sense from the off, that this is going to be something special. It is rare, but when it happens, there is a sure sense of satisfaction and pleasure. This can be down to a choice of music in the soundtrack, a camera flourish or even a simple line of dialogue. In "The King's Speech" it is the opening introductory shot of Prince Albert, waiting nervously in the wings to go on air. His impending fear and anxiousness is palpable. With a simple, yet subtle expression, our protagonist has immediately won us over. This is a story we want to see and hear. Prince Albert (Colin Firth), lovingly referred to by family and friends as 'Bertie', has a crushing and debilitating speech impediment. In his requirements to give regular public speeches his stammer is excruciating, with each pause lasting for what seems an eternity. His wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), fearing her husband has given up hope of ever being relieved of his speech obstruction, turns to common speech therapist and failed actor, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Through a variety of unorthodox and quite funny techniques, Logue slowly but surely begins to improve Berties stammer, along with slowly becoming friends with the Prince. It is only after Berties older brother, Kind Edward (a sly Guy Pearce) abdicates the throne in late 1936, that the shy Prince realises he will have to step up to the biggest challenge of his life. At the outbreak of war, can the new found King, so unsure of his words and self, successfully rally the nation behind him and provide the encouragement and support it so greatly needs?

The cast is filled by some stunning turns. As Logue, Rush is marvelous; it is no coincidence that all his characters name is missing, is the 'dia'. Through ways that confound, and sometimes anger the future King, the Aussies elecution lessons provide searing insights into Berties past and help him find the confidence inside he will need to succeed. Director Hooper takes liberties with such scenes; it was never known just exactly how Logue treated Bertie, but the humorous and very entertaining means he goes about it will delight and move, in equal measure. Bonham Carter provides vibrant support as Berties wife. Her love is a constant inspiration to him and gives him the strength he needs to go on. As the reluctant King, Firth is spellbinding. Going against the natural flow and rhythm of an actor, he delivers lines with warm vulnerability; he is aware of his impediment, but will not let it rule over him. We can see the constant chagrin it is to him, not only through his stilted sentences, but also through his eyes. Those closest to him know Bertie has it inside him to succeed as a very worthy King, but if only Bertie knew that himself. As a result, it paints the Royal Family in the best light seen for quite a while. For the first time I can remember, they are relatable. Through Berties stammer, it grounds the family in a manner that all can feel a certain bond to. We all want Bertie so succeed. While Michael Gambon and Guy Pearce all lend reliable support, the film belongs to Firth and Rush. It is their growing friendship which forms the backbone of the picture. These scenes are wonderful; at times funny, sad, insightful, subtle yet bombastic, Director Hooper does a wonderful job with the material. He shoots large throne rooms of the sovereignty with a cold eye and lets the central friendship be the warmth. Through simple framing he helps provide significant insight into his characters mindsets.

The film is an incredibly warm one. While being very entertaining and crowd pleasing, it never forgets to do justice to its characters or story. Some films might have cast a more sombre eye over King Edwards abdication, something that turned the Royal Familes reputation upside down, but therein lies the simple beauty of this film. Hooper shows us something we may not have initially known about, or that on first look may not have seemed like compelling viewing. Here he passes with flying colours. With previous efforts such as "The Damned United" he demonstrated flickers of talent, yet here he demonstrates his true filmmaking capability. That many have sought out to see this picture and its recent box office success (Rush himself never thought it would go onto become the success it is), shows that audiences are hungry for simple and very classy storytelling. It may initially seem like Academy hungry fare, with little or no true spark. However, the script is considerably witty and the incredible true story is stunningly executed. With a blinding cast and some of the most funny/touching male bonding scenes you may see all year, "The King's Speech" deserves to be front and center when the envelope is opened on February 27th. A wonderful film.

Verdict: 89%

Aided by a stunning cast, Tom Hooper delivers a rich, rewarding and very entertaining drama. Going against what is expected of the genre, he crafts a crowd pleasing and very affecting tale, one that anyone can get behind and root for. The cast all exhibit high standards and it is unlikely that you will have a more endearing film experience this year. And 2011 has only just begun.

"The King's Speech" Trailer

127 Hours

Danny Boyle certainly knows how to put his audiences through the wringer. The reason a lot of his 'happy' endings have the effect they do, is because he knows how to make his audience work for it. Would Rentons declaration to 'choose life' at the end of 'Trainspotting' have been as sweet had we not witnessed the drug dens, the psychotic friends, and hopeless spiraling descent into drug abuse that we did. Would '28 Days Later' have had the same relief in its coda, without going through the loss and breakdown of society and humanity, had we not felt like we had been through it all with our heroes? Would 'Slumdog Millionaire' have been the feelgood film that it was, had we not had to endure child slavery and torture, in a crime ridden India before our two romantic leads could finally be reunited? When Boyle offers a happy ending in his films, not that they're common mind, it is based on his knowledge that the higher the trauma, the higher the catharsis. Put simply, we want the protagonist to pull through in a Danny Boyle film. And now, with '127 Hours', it is no better evidenced. Quite simply, as much a testament to Danny Boyles incredible film making, as it is to the unbelievable true story it is based on; it is the first film of 2011 to be seen here and it's a belter.

In 2003, mountain climber and reckless adventurer Aron Ralston (James Franco) went out hiking in the Blue John Canyon in Utah without telling either friends or family where he was going. Tragedy struck when Ralston accidentally dislodged a boulder in a small canyon, trapping his arm against the rock wall. Left alone and isolated with minimal chance of rescue or survival, Ralston is left to muse on his life, and the choices that led to this point. Now it may initially seem strange for a director as visually gifted and kinetic as Boyle is, to lend his eye to a completely static and lifeless location for the duration of the film. But that is exactly why none other than he could pull off a film like this with such visceral force. The film simply brims over with life, color and energy. While other directors might have played up the very small time limit Ralston had to extricate himself from his nightmare for tense and ultimately more shallow entertainment purposes, Boyle seems more concerned with the existential musings behind it all. As a result, the ordeal cuts that bit more deeper in the viewer, no pun intended. Yes, the ways and means Ralston tries to free himself are incredibly tough and hard to watch, but that is only because Boyle knows the release and absolution must be akin to something the real Ralston went through in order to achieve the desired results. Not that that makes it any easier to endure.

As Ralston, Franco gives the very best performance of his career so far. Spending much of the film on his own, he holds every ounce of our attention. His gift lies in the sheer range he has. Coming from his comedy roots and matinee idol good looks, he has portrayed very different characters across his career. A glance across his CV shows that while there have been attempts at blockbusters and classic leading man status, Francos best roles have been actually more character driven parts. A very solid co-starring role in 'Milk' showed his determination at being considered as a more serious actor, to go along with his more broader comedy output. Here he is a revelation and for once plays to all his strengths. Ralston was reckless bordering on arrogant. His sure positioning of himself as infallible was always going to be his downfall. When the boulder finally gets lodged in its position on top of Ralstons arm, his initial reaction is one of disbelief. That it would be this boulder rather than something altogether more grander that would trap him is unthinkable to him. He will not be beaten by something as insignificant as this. But beaten he is. His cocksure audacity and unflinching confidence soon gives away to anger, and then helplessness. It is only when Ralston can take responsibility for his actions that have led him here that it makes way to acceptance. The dawning when it happens, is just as significant to Ralston as it is the audience. We can't do everything on our own. We need friends and family. We need other people in our life. Otherwise everyday is just surviving. Ralston doesn't want to just survive anymore, he wants to live. The results of this are incredibly emotional for the viewer. Filtered though Franco's fantastic performance, we put ourselves in his place - would we actually be able to do what Ralston did? Of course Ralston was resourceful. Not many regular people would ever find themselves in the predicament that he did. Not that it should ever take Ralstons ordeal to learn what he learned. Through his daydreams and delirious visions, we should always remember to never take anything in life for granted. If anything, the film should be a reminder of that in all of us.

Boyle films the tragic consequences with his typical flair. Events never once become dull or boring. The resolution, when it finally comes is as unbearable as it is unflinching. When it happens, there is almost a sense of relief that this man is finally taking his own survival into his hands, no matter how grotesque to watch it may be. Reports of people fainting at the crucial point on initial screenings are so far unfounded. Not that it would be hard to imagine; Boyle's location is realistically and astutely detailed, despite half of its filming in a studio. The build up is so well defined and depicted that the solution, when it happens is far harder to take than most grand guignol films could ever muster up. And when it's over we are left, not with horror, but with a sense of uplifting fervor. Gain, not loss is what registers. And that is testament to Boyles skill as a filmaker. 2011 has just begun and so far Boyle has delivered one of the sure to be year greats.

Verdict: 84%

Aron Ralstons five day ordeal is given the Danny Boyle treatment. His high benchmark of stunningly edited sequences and soundtracked to a glorious score is again masterfully maintained. As gut wrenching and hard to stomach as it is emotional, the final feeling left with the viewer is in fact, one of incredible elation. James Franco gives a triumphant performance and the film deserves all of its awards and adulation sure to be coming its way.

"127 Hours" Trailer

The Social Network

How ironic it must be to Mark Zuckerberg to have founded the worlds biggest social networking site, when he himself, is anything but social. Now with David Finchers film bringing even more unwanted attention upon him, it must be a constant chagrin to Zuckerberg, when all he wants is to be left alone with his computer. Or so Fincher's ''The Social Network'' would have you believe. Based on Ben Mesrich's 2009 book, 'The Accidental Billionaires', the film is not, wholly based on 100% fact. This is something that writer Aaron Sorkin, or Fincher ever denied. Sorkin himself was been quite objective on his intentions. He has been quoted 'I don't want my fidelity to be the truth, I want it to be storytelling'. Sorkin wants to entertain, rather than educate his audience. Their intentions known from the start show just what they have achieved here. They haven't set out to fire out facts and events in black and white. They have set out to make a statement. It may be a document of our time, but not of the factual kind. It is yet another triumph added to the most excellent Fincher's list of impeccable triumphs.

When initial reports came out detailing Finchers new 'Facebook Movie', reaction ranged from baffled to outright horror. This was Generation X's movie punk wunderkind, and he was selling out? Fincher was a master of the macabre, of skewering perceptions of the serial killer genre, not once, but twice. He deals in worlds full of threat and darkness and menace. Of radicalizing notions of pop culture in cinema. Every shot is meticulously planned out, and every subject he draws upon, is researched to the max. Robert Graysmith, the author of 'Zodiac' maintains that Fincher got further than he ever did on the confusing, disturbing and very slippery case. Wasn't Facebook below him? Then something curious happened. Finchers backwards fairytail ''The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'' was released to much acclaim. Sure, some purists might have argued against his branching out to more saccharine subjects, but few could argue against the success of his wild genre change. An epic meditation on love and life, there was no severed heads to be found in boxes anywhere. If this was Fincher selling out, then the grace and beauty and simple power of his love story ensured that no one could argue his commitment to it. David Fincher is the consummate Director. He has too good an eye for detail, too much talent and too much range to simply sell out. Suddenly the prospect of David Fincher's Facebook didn't seem so bad. It was only when Aaron Sorkin was announced as writer, that people began to grasp what was in store for them. ''The West Wing'' is one of the greatest shows ever. While I myself have not seen the full seven seasons, I have seen enough of it to know just how finely tuned Sorkin's ear for dialogue is. It is a pleasure to listen to, and therein lies many of the reasons the show appealed even to those who had little or no interest in Politics such as myself. Sorkin writes drama stunningly. If he can make Politicians exciting for me, then surely he can make Facebook exciting for those who turn their nose up at such a subject. Despite what you may think, Sorkin takes Facebook seriously. Perhaps he takes it too seriously, I will go into more detail on that later, but for his commitment to the story he must be applauded. Because this 'Facebook Movie' is so far, front and center primed to take home a lot of awards come early next year.

Set in 2003/2004, the film concerns itself not with the rise of Facebook, but rather the rise of its creator, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), currently, the worlds youngest billionaire. The fact that he helped create the Facebook revolution is only all the more stunning that it came out of something entirely negative and ugly. Ridicule of others online. Zuckerberg himself is painted as someone who's genius is matched only by his ego. He wishes to be held by high esteem by everyone, yet holds nothing but contempt for them. Eisenberg portrays him wonderfully. He is a contradiction of mass arrogance. He seeks everyones approval and yet mocks them. He wants friends, and acceptance yet most people are a burden. A very unenviable task for Eisenberg, he is never less than compelling. Of course the legal spiderweb that entailed the creation of Facebook and its success is what focus is kept on. The linear shifts from its beginnings to the legal wranglings of Zuckerberg and his only friend, Eduardo Saverin, played here by Andrew Garfield propels the drama. That there is also the lawsuit of whether or not Zuckerberg stole the original idea from two Harvard rowing champion twins, shows the potential for much of the story to buckle under the burden of its talky weight. Fincher keeps proceedings fresh and distinctive and shows a wry eye for humour along the way. The soon to be the future Spider-Man, Garfield provides much of the emotion of the film. His fractured relationship to Zuckerberg fuels a lot of the drama on screen. At its heart, the film is all about relationships and the strain money and success places on them. Tension is only further exacerbated with the arrival of Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake). The original founder of Napster, his reasons with getting involved with Facebook may not be entirely honourable and yet it is he, who Zuckerberg looks up to and wishes he could be more like. Parker is everything Zuckerberg is not, but in the end one gets the feeling, that Parker needs Zuckerberg a lot more than Zuckerberg needs Parker. Parkers genius lies in making those around him think they need him when all he really is, is a mouth. Unfortunately, of the three leads Timberlake is the only weak link. While perfectly serviceable I could never once get by the fact that 'Justin Timberlake is acting'. He is not wooden and he can certainly deliver a line, but it is his mere presence that is sometimes too distracting. While this might be what the character calls for, I ultimately found that to be too true to the case in point. Timberlake was portraying a character, next to Eisenbergs and Garfields real people.

Sorkin's script is 166 pages long. Usually each script page counts for a minute of film and yet the film runs to just over two hours. Finchers way of getting the running time down, while still including everything the story needed and deserved was to merely get his cast to talk fast. Really fast. That should give you an idea of how rapid the dialogue is presented. From the off in a fantastic pre-credit sequence Fincher draws us into our leads. Two characters involved in quick rapid fire dialogue across a table. Character traits are immediately established along with motives and shifting dynamics. It is the perfect introduction into this Harvard elite Fincher presents us with, and shows how rash decisions can lead to huge consequences. Like the founding of a multi billion dollar online empire for example. Eisenberg and Finchers new 'Lisbeth Salander' Rooney Mara trade insults, barbed delusions about the world and a complete relationship break down all in the space of four minutes. It is a masterclass in dialogue and is arguably the finest and most important scene in the film. Sorkin litters his screenplay with choice moments of necessary humour. The film might get bogged down were it not for this. And yet, I cannot help but wonder if a lighter touch still might have worked wonders for the film. It seems to be lacking from a true sense of drama as there never truly seems to be anything at stake or anything for the audience to invest emotionally in. There is next to no surprises in the plot for the film to be fully captivating. Zuckerberg himself, seems to take a back seat to Saverin and Parker in the second half, which is a shame, as his downward spiral into loneliness and social rejection was one of the most intriguing aspects for me. Fincher however surprises again with his film. He is comfortable dealing in any genre he feels like and his extraordinary vision is evident in every frame. And in those twins, he creates the most seamless special effect I have ever witnessed as one actors head is invisibly grafted onto another actors body. Twice. And you thought an ageless Brad Pitt was good?

Verdict: 78%

David Fincher adds another impressive layer to his bow and Sorkin reminds just how peerless he is when it comes to dialogue. Trent Reznor provides a fantastic debut score and Eisenberg excels. However, the lack of any true drama and urgency and Timberlakes casting takes it back down from masterpiece status. A fantastic nights entertainment with one of the best auteurs of our generation is waiting for those who decide to log on.

''The Social Network'' Trailer