The Wolf Of Wall Street

There are two films with the title The Wolf Of Wall Street. One is a black and white, mainly silent drama from the 1920’s. The other is Martin Scorsese’s new film. You’re unlikely to get the two mixed up. Telling the story of Jordan Belfort’s (Leonardo DiCaprio) life as a stockbroker, Scorsese doesn’t hold back with his portrayal of Belfort’s rise and fall amid a cacophony of drugs, sex and swearing (this sets a record for the F-word) that has had the censors having a field day the world over. As a depiction of the excesses that can be bought on by wealth it works. However, as a film it doesn’t really work. The plus points first. Terence Winter’s screenplay has a number of witty scenes of memorable dialogue and there’s some great acting from the cast that make up Belfont’s cronies (Jonah Hill as the quasi second lead is miles better than DiCaprio – the comedy teeth are pointless, mind). The whole package is just too repetitive though and at three hours long you need something more than just scene after scene of debauchery. The film would have been vastly improved if the depravity had been trimmed and more time was spent on explaining what scams Belfort and chums were getting away with (in the film whenever an explanation begins DiCaprio just breaks it off with a shrug of the shoulders and a swear word before he disappears into more vice) and a proper focus on the detective side of things as the FBI track down their man. Scene after scene of DiCaprio addressing his animalistic trading floor troops gets tired very quickly and, with the exception of Belfort’s first wife’s eighties hair do, whether it’s meant to be 1987 or the late 1990’s, production wise it all just pretty much looks the same. Accusations of misogyny against Scorsese don’t really hold much water (this is a portrayal of a certain lifestyle after all), but he can’t deny the film glamorises Belfort’s actions and the denouement suggests little has been learnt by the main protagonist. This lacks the cutting satirical edge of something like American Psycho and if you want a film that explores hedonism to the extreme just watch Jon S Baird's Filth instead, which does a better job engaging the audience, developing characters and asking moral questions in half the running time. Rating: 5/10.

Best and Worst Films of 2013

A bit tricky doing the lists this year due to there being quite an overlap in respect of release dates and whether a film is classified as being 2013 or 2014. Basically, I've gone along the lines of when it had its mainstream UK release and left it at that. Anyway, after my surprise number one choices of the last couple of years, things are a bit more back to normal this year with the best film being helmed by the mighty Paul Greengrass which means that since I started this blog, three Brits, a German and a Swede have topped the best film list in terms of who was the director of said production. In fact my top ten list for 2013 arguably only has a couple of films that you would call US productions, with the rest a mixture from Ireland, the UK, Australia and Japan. Each to their own of course, but with Hollywood seemingly running out of ideas unless its remakes, cookie cutter rom-coms or same old same old superhero movies, it appears the more discerning viewer needs to looks elsewhere for their thrills these days. My usual caveat re the top ten best films applies - I go for an eclectic mix in which there should be something in there for most people to enjoy and (though I feel Captain Phillips was the standout) you can mix them all up and have them in any order you want really. As usual the list of worst films has about thirty films all fighting for the "honour" of being included and no, that's not a typo, a film starring Halle Berry did make it into my favourites of the year.....

Best Films of 2013
1) Captain Phillips
2) Rush
3) The Great Passage
4) In Fear
5) Mystery Road
6) Gravity
7) The Call
8) Prisoners
9) Filth
10) Philomena

Worst Films of 2013
1) Kick Ass 2
2) The Counsellor
3) The Great Gatsby
4) G.I.Joe: Retaliation
5) After Earth
6) Despicable Me 2
7) A Good Day To Die Hard
8) 11.6
9) Runner Runner
10) Iron Man 3

In Fear

One of the plus points about the UK having only minimal funds when it comes to producing films is that we produce many high quality horror films. In Fear can be added to this roll call of honour. Tom (Iain De Caestecker) and Lucy (Alice Englert) have only been dating for a couple of weeks when Tom invites her to a romantic weekend in Ireland, including a stay in a hotel located in the remote countryside. However, as the weather closes in and with the signs to the hotel sending them around in circles, the bonhomie between the couple quickly starts to dissipate. Then things turn even more serious when it appears that the (unseen) locals are preparing to turn a situation of helplessness into something a lot more serious indeed. First time director Jeremy Lovering makes the most of the minimal resources to hand, helping to tighten the screw from scene to scene with his use of tight facial close-ups, a score that goes from silent to thumping and mastering the art of what you can't see is psychologically more terrifying than what you can. Lovering helmed this in a smart manner, shooting chronologically and only providing his young cast with the script scene by scene. It pays off in spades with De Caestecker and Englert looking both physically and mentally lost, especially in a superb moment where Lucy suspects that Tom might be behind all the mayhem. It's clear that even Englert herself doesn't know who this man she's only just starting dating really is. This is (literally for the characters themselves) a white knuckle ride, but its the way Lovering builds that suspense which makes this such a cracking watch. From its subtle comments on relationships (everyone will be able to relate to the couples gentle bantering over map reading which soon turns into blatant annoyance) to a twist at the end which is a nasty surprise, this slowly engulfs you. On the minus side, if you go back and scrutinise the script you'll no doubt find plot holes galore and the ending defers to the modern approach of leaving things up in the air. At 85 minutes though you can't really go wrong and this high intensity thriller hints that in the form of Lovering we could another young star in the making behind the camera. Rating: 8/10.

Gravity

Alfonso Cuarón is a seriously talented director. He was the man behind the only Harry Potter film that you would call world class and his last film, 2006's Children of Men, contained some of the greatest directed set pieces since the turn of the century. It's a shame for us all that this is only his third film in the last ten years, though they say quality is more important than quantity and Cuarón confirms such an adage with his latest. Gravity tells the story of astronauts Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Kowalsky (Clooney) who, during a spacewalk, find themselves at the mercy of hurtling space debris which destroys their space shuttle and leaves them with the serious problem of how on earth do they, well, get back to Earth. Despite a great performance from Bullock (Clooney's cheeky chappy act feels a bit old hat these days) this is all about Cuarón and its the film of the year in respect of it's technical achievements. Visually stunning from start to finish, the film juxtaposes the beauty of space with the helplessness of the astronauts situation. The planning, care and execution of the production is up there for all to see (to wit, the special effects took three years and there's over 1.8 million (1.8 million!) LED lights employed to simulate how light is reflected in the thermosphere) and coupled with Emmanuel Lubezki's excellent cinematography even watching this in 3D doesn't ruin the overall presentation. So that's enough about the visuals, what about the sound? As the informed (or, at least people who have seen 2001) will know, there's no sound in space, which Cuarón adhere's to though the films score appears in certain scenes to help rack up the tension (and there's also a cheeky wink in respect of an ear piercing high pitched note that Cuarón kicks the whole thing off with). One of Cuarón's trademarks is long continuous (or at least seemingly continuous) takes and this is full of them, the opening shot alone lasting for 13 minutes. On that note the script, in respect of actual words spoken, is more to do with telling the storyline as opposed to any memorable lines, which might explain a hallucination scene that occurs at one point which is such a terrible mis-step it prevents me giving this a higher rating. Whilst we're on the bad stuff the thematic elements of death and rebirth may be a bit too arty for some tastes, but they're aren't many more negatives after that. Cuarón has understandably taken some liberties in respect of the science involved regarding space exploration, though real life astronauts have been queuing up to heap praise on its realism. To sum up, can Alfonso Cuarón be forced to direct at least one film per year in the future? Rating: 8/10.

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

Unlike certain films that already have options for sequels built in, it’s safe to say that back when Will Ferrell first donned Ron Burgundy’s moustache back in 2004 not many were thinking of future instalments. Back then Ferrell wasn’t a big name, the title was somewhat clunky and Adam McKay had never directed a feature film. Popular myth is that the film was a box office failure and made its money back via DVD sales. In fact the film had a decent return at the box office, but it really only exploded into the cultural phenomenon it became (well, at least amongst men aged 20 to 40) once word of mouth spread following home viewings. For the sequel all things remain the same. The original cast are back, McKay directs, Judd Apatow produces and McKay and Ferrell script. Another thing that remains the same: it’s very funny. Not on a par with the first film (there are few quotes that will pass into the zeitgeist), but there’s enough laughs here to prove that this wasn’t a wasted effort. The plot is fairly basic (Burgundy finding himself back in San Diego and helping front the first 24-hour TV new channel), thought it's basically a MacGuffin around which to hang scene after scene of silliness. It's all fairly chaotic and unstructured, but the wide range of jokes guarantee at least a couple of laughs no matter what your comedic tastes. The spoofing of how we ingest the news in contemporary society is smart and the reaction to the chaps getting a female black boss comments on the changing attitudes of the mid-80's (and, of course, is the set up for some guilty laughs). There are quite a few negatives mind. McKay’s direction is rusty (he hasn’t done anything since 2010’s so-so The Other Guys), some of the cameo’s are as bad (Hello, Kanye West) as they are good and promising story lines (James Marsden in nice sneering form as a rival reporter) are quickly abandoned. The biggest mistake comes in boosting the presence of Steve Carell’s dim-witted Brick Tamland. The delight of his character from the first film was his occasional surreal remarks, but here that has been diluted and a subplot involving a love interest in the form of Kristen Wiig is painfully unfunny. Plus a section of the film that attempts to get laughs from Burgundy going blind is in pretty poor taste. All in all, as a follow up this is a good effort and it has many laugh out loud moments, but I just can’t see it demanding repeat viewings. Rating: 7/10.

Frozen

Trivia Time! By jointly directing this film Jennifer Lee became the first female director of a Disney animation feature film. Irony Time! The head of animation for the film is accused of sexism for comments he made about the difficulties of animating “pretty” female characters. Very loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen’s The Snow Queen, Frozen bares quite a resemblance to Disney’s Tangled. The visual approach is the same (the blend of CGI and hand-drawn animation), one of the main characters is afflicted with a condition that causes as many problems as it does delights, there’s a comedy horse (er, in the form of a reindeer) and, of course, a love story involving a square jawed manly hero. But hey, if it isn’t broken it doesn’t need to be fixed, right? Andersen’s original tale is a dark concoction which, unsurprisingly, Disney have tweaked to make more family orientated fare. Princess Elsa (Idina Menzel) does a runner from her Kingdom when her powers of being able to create ice and snow overcome her and she accidentally leaves her home town in eternal winter. Her sister (Kristen Bell) sets off to find her and along the way discovers, well, see above. The relationship between the two sisters is excellently portrayed, there's some decent laughs (kids will love Olaf, a snowman who yearns for warmer climes) and a couple of decent musical numbers. However the screenplay is a bit uneven in its tone in regard of deciding who the target audience is and the side storyline involving Trolls is a bit odd (though the film is principally based on Norway and Norwegian culture). An enjoyable film, but there really isn't anything overly memorable. Though any film that takes us a step further away from Home on The Range has to be seen as worthwhile. Rating: 7/10.

Thor: The Dark World

Unless you were a fan there was only one reason to watch 2011’s Thor, that being to see what on earth Kenneth Branagh was doing directing a Marvel film. This limp follow up doesn’t even have that as a pull, with Alan Taylor picking up the reigns. Who, he? Taylor directed Palookaville back in 1995, but has done little else of cinematic note since. As you can see, another match of man to material. That aside you can see why the choice of director is hardly even a concern for such a by the numbers film as this. You’ll either be excited by the description of “Thor teams up with Loki to save the Nine Realms from the Dark Elves” or you’ll give it a miss as, well, you pretty much already know what’s going to happen so why bother going? There’s nothing original here, but what plus points there are come in the form of the development of the relationship between Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the impressive special effects (for the scenes set on Earth, at least) and some subtle comic touches (Thor politely hanging his hammer on a coat hook as he enters someone’s house). Taylor has claimed he tried to make this film visually grittier then its predecessor and, arguably, you could say he’s achieved that. However, that’s little compensation for the average script. Apparently even Joss Whedon was helicoptered in to rewrite certain scenes, but you wouldn’t know it. If you’re a Marvel nut then, well, you’ll probably going to love this whatever, but for the rest of us all we’ll left with is a film with zero chemistry between the main male and female leads, a final showdown involving teleportation that has been done before and a very final image that is beyond stupid and will only make you feel like you’ve been cheated as opposed to being eager to see what happens next. Oh yeah, there’s two post credits scenes as well. Give me strength…..Rating: 5/10.

Captain Phillips

There aren't many better directors around than Paul Greengrass when it comes to scenes of tension on the big screen. From the crunching moments of his two Bourne films to the whole of United 93, he knows how to induce sweaty palms in the cinema going public. His last film was the confused Green Zone, but he's back in blistering form here with his take on the real life hijacking by Somali pirates of the Maersk Alabama container ship in 2009. Tom Hanks stars as Captain Richard Phillips, the man at the helm as the group of pirates storm his ship and what follows is a game of cat and mouse (though mainly with the pirates holding the upper hand) as Phillips and his crew attempt to negotiate with their uninvited guests and come to a resolution that means no blood is spilt. On seeing the trailer my concern was where could the film go once the pirates get on board. If you don't know what happens next I won't spoil it, but Greengrass keeps tightening the screw until the hard to breath denouement. Virtually everything about this film is of the highest quality. Hanks puts in his best work for a long time and his portrayal of someone going into shock during his medical examination at the end of the film is some of the best couple of minutes he's ever put on screen. Even better is the astonishing performances from the unknown group of actors who make up the pirates, led by a mesmerising turn by Barkhad Abdi as Muse, the groups leader. Despite being a gun-toting mercenary, Abdi's performance is so strong he elicits sympathy from the audience and the moment when Phillips asks him that there must be more to life than what he does, Muse's wistful response of "Maybe in America...maybe in America..." isn't a justification of Muse's actions, but a comment that for some people you can only play with the hand you've been dealt. This is actually one of the films main triumphs as instead of painting the pirates as one dimensional, Greengrass focuses as much on them (the initial selection of the men who are picked to go on the mission is akin to picking a football team in the playground) as he does the ships crew. Telling the story from both sides gives the audience two different strands of involvement, though the similarities between the groups (panic when plans fail, arguments throughout the chain of command) are subtly ironic. Greengrass' direction is back to his best, utilising his trademark shaky camera work to capture the chaos of the situation, but also creating a real sense of claustrophobia with his up close framing during the calmer moments. One great moment where this is shown is when the pirates finally leap from their skiffs and board the boat for the first time. Even though you know what will happen the suspense is still wrought tight and the look of sudden terror and helplessness that crosses Hank's face as he realises that life now suddenly hangs in the balance is a moment of pure human cinema. Negatives comments have come from sources that claim that Phillips actions in the film don't tell the true story, but the studio haven't hidden from the fact that Billy Ray's screenplay is based on Phillips' own account of events in his book about the incident. Regardless of the truth (as with most of these things, I expect the reality in somewhere in between) this is an exhilarating piece of cinema. Rating: 9/10.

Enough Said / Nebraska

Two low budget films for you to enjoy here which, despite their fairly heavy subject matters, have a number of lighter moments and keep the flag flying for (relatively) independent film making. Enough Said is one of those odd films where virtually the entire storyline has been told in the trailer. However, it also has enough of a hook that means you'll still check it out if you're at a loose end. In addition, you may be swayed to check out one of the final film performances of James Gandolfini prior to his sad passing. Gandolfini stars as Albert, a divorcee who meets fellow divorcee Eva (Julia Louis-Dreyfus - by the way, if you can name a previous film starring her you're a better man than I) at a party and soon enough they begin dating. The problem is though that Eva begins giving massages to (unbeknown by her) Albert's ex, who isn't shy in putting the boot in. Soon the comments start to raise concerns with Eva that Albert isn't quite the man she thinks he is. Director Nicole Holofcener's films have always been a bit of a struggle due to her mainly filling them with largely unlikeable characters and this is no different. Toni Collette and Ben Falcone pop up as a rich bitter married couple that you wouldn't want to spend a minute of your life with and Albert's daughter is pure surliness. Even Eva has moments of meanness. What makes this work though is the chemistry in the scenes between Gandolfini and Louis-Dreyfus and Holofcener's script which is a more adult and mature (and believable) take on the modern rom-com (though a subplot regarding Eva's preference for hanging out with her daughters friend rather, than her own offspring, is set up and the then seemingly forgotten about). Moving on to another helmer who also likes to put the characters at the forefront of their movies, for me Alexander Payne's directorial career has alternated between so-so and above average (with Sideways the only real stand along classic) and the equation adds up as, following the so-so The Descendants, comes the enjoyable Nebraska. In effect a road movie, we follow the ageing Woody (Bruce Dern) and his son David (Will Forte) who travel from Montana to Nebraska in order to claim a million dollar marketing prize. Its obviously a ruse, but David goes along with it when he realises his father won't take no for an answer. On the way they stop at Woody's old home town around which the majority of the story hangs its hat. Scrapes ensue with family, old friends, old enemies and old flames. The relationship between the father and son is nicely explored with gradual reveals by Bob Nelson's script and the overall take on extended family politics will be familiar to all. Not all the characters are fully sculpted though (June Squibb as David's overbearing and promiscuous mother is just plain silly) and at times the extended silences just come across as a lack of editing as opposed to anything more cerebral. Visually this is a black and white production and Payne had to fight the studio to release his film in such a format, finally getting the green light following decent feedback at the previews. I'm not so sure it's the correct choice though as the rolling landscapes of the midwest get lost amongst the monochrome. Payne also had to battle the studio to get the actors he wanted in the main roles (you can find the lengthy lists on-line). Forte is barely known outside of the States, but you can see why Payne went for him as he brings a believable everyman quality to the part which may have been lost with the the distraction of having a more established star. This isn't a solid production all the way through (it's way too long for starters), but it hits home in its little moments (Woody's cousins laughing at David's alleged slow driving is a delight). Payne's films aren't too all tastes and this certainly won't convert anyone (the hackneyed final scene hardly helps), but if you want a break from noisy blockbusters then this will see you just fine. Rating: 7/10 (both films).

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Pick up your weapon of choice and fight for your life! Sounds horrific, but this is the Hunger Games so don't fret too much. Despite its nasty premise, the first film was blunted by comparisons to the vastly superior Battle Royale, saturation of it's tougher elements to get the crowds in and Gary Ross' poor direction. Ross has vacated the directors chair for this follow up (due to a "tight" schedule - yeah, right) and been replaced by the equally eyebrow raising choice of Francis Lawrence (again showing that all the money has been spent elsewhere). No point going into the storyline here, but the whole things bears an uncanny resemblance to the first film. A first half of social commentary / training for battle and a second half of action. Even the poster looks almost identical. However, the good news is that this is the far superior film. Partly this is due to Lawrence's style of film making where, even in his action films, the dramatic elements are the strongest segments. The first film was the set up and now Lawrence expands the storyline out with a much deeper exploration of the common good. Acting wise Jennifer Lawrence is vastly better than she was in the first film now giving the impression of wearing the tough and cynical Katniss as a second skin and Jena Malone adds some needed spunk as a new tribute. Best of all though (as with the first film) is Elizabeth Banks bringing real depth to such a superficial character as Effie Trinket. Some problems remain though. Many of the special effects are average in the extreme and the editing of the action scenes in the arena are terrible. Certain characters get lost in the mix now as well (despite having a major role as a love interest, Liam Hemsworth is so bland its inconceivable the headstrong Katniss would ever give him a second glance) and Stanley Tucci's hamming now just grates. Overall though this certainly isn't a wasted night and is a much more profound production that you would expect. Plus there's a stupendous twist at the end, which, if you're unaware of its nature as you haven't read the book, give the film an extra mark. Rating: 7/10.

Bad Grandpa

Though billed as “Jackass Presents…”, this is pretty much a one man show as Johnny Knoxville dons the make up to star as the 86 year old Irving Zisman. The loose plot has Zisman agreeing to drive his grandson (Billy) from Nebraska to North Carolina and drop him off with his real father. Of course, the plot is basically the MacGuffin that drives 90 minutes of jokes played out on the unsuspecting US public. Again this is also a break from the norm, as the usual MO is a mixture of duping the great unwashed and crazy stunts that the Jackass boys would undertake themselves, whereas here its pretty much just an extended episode of a hidden camera show. This is one of those odd films where unless you are already a fan of Jackass / Knoxville then you won’t be going in the first place. Is it any good though? In effect this is basically the fourth Jackass film and the law of diminishing returns is in full effect. However, if you like Knoxville’s brand of antics and humour then there’s enough cheap laughs here to keep you going. There is also some decent execution behind some of the larger pranks and despite showing up some of society’s odder creations (one person at a delivery company seems more than happy to help Knoxville post his grandson in a massive box) this actually shows a caring and humane side to the general public as they intervene whenever they can to protect Billy from his boorish Grandpa. People might be disappointed that Knoxville doesn’t really put himself in much danger throughout the film (no matter how much of an arse he behaves, no-ones going to punch an octogenarian), but I think its safe to say the guy deserves a break on that front. Kudos though to Greg Harris (as Billy’s father) who puts his well being on the line when acts up in a bar full of miffed bikers. Rating: 6/10. 

American Hustle

Word of mouth was that this was hotter than Death Valley so I sneaked it in before the end of the year anticipating that it was going to be crashing into my top ten best films of the year. Sadly, like all con tricks, the end result isn't quite what you anticipated. This is still decent fare, but its more of a character study as opposed to anything to get the brain cells swimming. When FBI agent DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) catches grifters Irving (Christian Bale) and Sydney (Amy Adams) in a scam, he offers them their freedom if they help him to ensnare some bigger fish. Complications ensue when romance rears its head, especially in the form of Irving's green eyed monster of a wife (Jennifer Lawrence). Director David O. Russell has surrounded himself with talent he has used before, which might explain why the performances here aren't up to what you would expect. Bale gives his weakest performance for a while (he seems unsure as to who his character is meant to be) and Lawrence can't cope in the many improvised scenes (her facial expression is one of thinking about what to say next). Other negatives include the too slow beginning, Adams' English accent (it comes and goes so much that when she "reveals" her real accent at a crucial moment of the film you'll be somewhat confused as to what has just happened) and the short scene following Lawrence dancing around wearing marigolds should never have made it to the final cut. The twist at the end is decent, but hardly earth shattering, especially as only a few minutes previously one of the characters revealed they "have a plan". Two things save this though. Cooper's barnstorming performance as the cop slowly starting to go round the bend is arguably his best work and the script has some nice comic moments (Irving and his wife's confusion and reluctance on receiving their first ever microwave), including a great running gag concerning a family story from DiMaso's boss (Louis C K - confirming his status as one of the best character actors around). This was originally titled American Bullshit, which though clearly tongue in cheek does sum up the frustration you may feel at a film that doesn't deliver as much as it promises. Finally, the 70's set up means it's a competition between Cooper, Bale, Adams, Lawrence as to who can reveal the most chest. Good news boys, Adams is the winner. Rating: 7/10.