Fast and Furious 7

It’s a Friday so it must be time for yet another entry in the Fast and Furious franchise. This is the seventh outing for Vin Diesel and cohorts and, if you think that’s seven films too many already, you won’t find much here to fire your engine. For cineastes (stay with me here) the main (well only) intrigue is solid Aussie horror helmer James Wan taking the directors chair. For the ghoulish there’s how the film coped with the death of actor Paul Walker half-way through (body doubles, stunt doubles and CGI since you ask). For the rest, it’s as you were. Plot-wise we have the retired crew coming back online when they’re threatened by a relation (hello Jason Statham!) of the bad bod they defeated last time out. It’s mainly loud and noisy nonsense with some plot points beyond suspension of disbelief (at one point a massive is bomb is sent via the normal post from Japan to the US!). The odd thing is though is that Wan appears to have directed this all with a straight face. That aside it’s still entertaining, albeit in a pure throw away manner. You can understand Wan wanting to do something outside of his comfort zone, but an over reliance on dodgy CGI suggests this isn’t really his bag. It’s also far too long, the casual misogyny prevalent throughout the whole series is still present and (in)correct and the breaking of the fourth wall homage to Walker at the end of the film is somewhat clunky. Anyway, even if you don’t enjoy this, part eight will probably be out next Friday. Rating: 6/10.

Foxcatcher

The last time director Bennett Miller made a film based on true events he gave us the first-rate Moneyball. Obviously dramatic licence was taken for that film and Bennett applies the same approach here, but the result this time is an oddly flat film, not helped by the fact that the real life events surrounding John du Pont are arguably more “entertaining” that what is delivered here on screen. du Pont (Steve Carell) was a multimillionaire who, in the mid 1980’s, recruited Olympic gold medalist wrestling brothers Mark (Channing Tatum) and Dave Schultz (Mark Ruffalo) to help train wrestlers at his private estate (the “Foxcatcher” of the title – Basil Brush, relax). To say anymore about what happened would be a spoiler, but you’ll probably have already gathered from the moody marketing and trailer that this doesn’t end up with smiles all round. The main problem the film has is that it largely evolves around du Pont, but Miller decides to keep him as an enigma throughout and his actions are left to audience interpretation, rather than direction. For example at one point, when du Pont couldn’t appear to be happier, for no apparent reason he offers Mark cocaine – you can guess the rest, but why would du Pont sabotage his happiness in such a way? Such areas are never fully analysed. On the plus side, Carell (unrecognisable if you didn’t know it was him) gives a great performance as the ever unraveling du Pont. His casting though sums up the films muddled thinking, as Miller has been quoted as saying that he didn’t want to hire an actor who you might presuppose was capable of heinous acts – so if hiring Carell was partly behind that decision, why then cover him in prosthetics and makeup which makes him look like he’s capable of such things? In terms of the brothers, Ruffalo gives another strong turn, but Tatum reverts back to his moody ape face which doesn’t help anyone. There’s some good moments here (look for the painful scene where du Pont struggles to teach a group of his students the basics in front of his over-bearing mother), but Miller’s film is too slow and unengaging to demand further viewings. Rating: 6/10.

American Sniper

A number of Clint Eastwood’s last few films as a director have been blighted by endless continuity errors and his over-resistance on terrible CGI. Things take a turn for the better here though, with his (very loose) adaptation of the memoir American Sniper, which tells the story of, reportedly, the US military’s most lethal sniper in its history, Chris Kyle. Before we even get anywhere, if you want a debate on modern warfare, Iraq, Kyle’s legacy etc, then look elsewhere. This is a film review, not Radio Five Live. The film itself isn’t all that original in the story its telling, in the fact that what we have is the classic war two-hander – First the depiction of battle(s). Then the struggle to assimilate back into modern life. Eastwood has his hand on the tiller here in a much firmer way than what we’ve seen for a while and the film is confidently structured throughout. Though Kyle’s (portrayed by a bulked up Bradley Cooper) decent into post-traumatic stress disorder isn’t really fully explored at great length, when it’s touched on its done in a effective manner, especially in one great moment when the use of the noises of warfare are invoked to wrong foot the viewer (on that note, the sound editing is superb throughout). Cooper is good in the lead role, but the film is so focused on him that other characters barely register. Criticism by some (Americans, it should be noted) that the film is propaganda and akin to Inglorious Basterds Nation’s Pride are well wide of the mark. However, it’s got to be said that no other nation on Earth would make such a flag waving picture as this. So a solid, though not overly spectacular return to form for Eastwood. Having said that, this is an Eastwood directed film so it would be remiss to not highlight a few of the more ridiculous moments. Putting the “model baby” business aside (they had to use one in the film as the two babies slated for that days shooting couldn’t be filmed), I was tempted to go for the final shot taken by Kyle in the film which tips us into eye-rolling fantasy / video game land, but the stand out moment of stupidity has to be when Kyle is under heavy gun fire, deep into a claustrophobic battle with a number of his battalion, and he takes a personal phone call from his missus. At least they didn’t discuss what was for dinner, but still dumb, dumb and thrice dumb. Rating: 7/10.

Pitch Perfect 2

Elizabeth Banks is one of Hollywood’s more savvy operators and her choice of Pitch Perfect 2 for her directorial debut is understandably a smart move. To wit, even if the film is awful, it’ll still make a load at the box office due to the popularity of the first film. So has this turn of events transpired then? Well, it’s made the money (of course), but the film isn’t awful. It’s bloody awful. Banks’ direction isn’t great, but not even Akira Kurosawa would have been able to rescue this due to Kay Cannon’s painfully unfunny script. This is all a bit of a surprise as the original outing of the Barden Bellas was such a blast, aided by a story line that had been properly thought out meaning there was the perfect blend of heart and laughs. This follow up feels like it was thrown together in a one minute lunch break. There’s a few strands of different storylines going on (amongst them the girl group trying to win the World A Cappella title and Beca (Anna Kendrick) looking to move on with her life), but none of them engage the viewer and many scenes don’t progress the story in any way, shape or form. There is the occasional chucklesome moment, with the highlights being the return of Banks and John Michael Higgins with their absurd statements as they commentate on proceedings, and a rival German A Cappella group fronted by the game Flula Borg and Birgitte Hjort Sørensen has it’s moments. Though, viewers of BBC4 may be surprised to see the as-Danish-as-they-come Sørensen portraying a teuton. Overall though, the needle on the laugh-o-meter barely moves as joke after joke falls flat, not least with the introduction of a character from Guatemala who makes borderline racist remarks when talking about her homeland. Overall this has to be considered as one of the biggest disappointments of the year, neatly summed up by the bored look on Kendrick’s face throughout the film. You can almost see her brain chuntering over the decision about signing contracts that include a clause re returning for any possible sequels. To borrow the parlance: acca-crap. Rating: 3/10.

A Walk Among The Tombstones / Run All Night / Taken 3

It's Liam Neeson triple bill time! Let's start with the best of these three, that being Scott Frank's A Walk Among The Tombstones, which, in these times of his cv getting clogged up with by the numbers action roles, is worth catching as it gives Neeson his most compelling role for quite a while. Though there isn't anything too original in his character (a private investigator who, wait for it, is an alcoholic ex-cop!), Neeson gives a nice turn as he attempts to find out who kidnapped a drug kingpins wife. To say anything more would be spoilerific for the smart story line, but Frank's film has a tough edge to it which makes for pleasantly adult viewing, though some people may be disturbed by the scenes of women being tortured (even if it is mainly just implied). The fact that many years ago this was mooted to be Joe Carnahan's follow up to Narc should give you some idea of the tone. Frank's direction is solid (without being spectacular) and you know you're on safe ground when it comes to the screenplay as that has been Frank's main breadwinner for a long time now. The whole film is almost kiboshed though (and loses a point in my review) by "cool urban kid" sidekick character played with zero acting talent by Brian Bradley. His smartass smugness is face slappingly annoying. The next Neeson cab off the rank is Jaume Collet-Serra's Run All Night which, get this, is virtually a re-make of Sam Mendes's Road to Perdition. A serious doff of the cap to who first spotted that. Anyway, we have Neeson as an ex-mob enforcer who, when a drug deal goes south, gets involved in protecting his innocent son from all sorts of heavies (inc. big bad Ed Harris - chewing scenery at some points, acting brilliantly at others). This is the third time Neeson has teamed with Collet-Serra and it's the weakest effort so far. Though there's plenty of gun play and fisticuffs going on, the plot is too convoluted meaning Collet-Serra can't settle on whether this is a drama, thriller or action film and the whole thing gets a bit messy. Worth catching on a Friday night, perhaps. Certainly not worth catching at any point (unless you're a budding director and are keen to learn how not to direct a film) is Neeson's return (surely by reasons of contractual demands only) to the role of former covert operative Bryan Mills in the latest film in the Taken series. If you were one of the seven people on the planet who liked the last film you'll like this one. If you not, forget the plot and actually challenge yourself to see if you can work out what the bloody hell is going on during the toothless action sequences that returning director Olivier Megaton (and, presumably his editor) have cut in such an incoherent manner it suggests that Megaton’s cat tore up the negative the night before the films release with Megaton then reassembling the pieces whilst wearing a blindfold. Also loses marks for Forest Whitaker as a detective with "quirks" (something to do with chess pieces and elastic bands) and the bad guy at the end fighting in a pair of white Y-Fronts. Seriously? Tombstones Rating: 7/10. Night Rating: 6/10. Taken Rating: 4/10.

Exodus: Gods and Kings

Director of photography Tom Townend stated a few years ago that a natural consequence of today's trailers increasingly mimicking the three act structure of main stream films meant that every moment of the finished product played as rote. Ridley Scott's latest is an interesting case in point as, not taking the actual trailer into account, how can a film that is based on such well known source material (in this case the biblical tale of Moses) not come across as routine? In Scott's case his approach is to make the film as loose an interpretation as possible. Now based on Darron Aronofsky taking the same approach with the awful Noah, coupled with the fact the last film Sir Ridley directed was the dire The Counsellor, this doesn't bode well at all. However, Exodus is passable entertainment. It does have a problem when it comes to reviewing it though. Scott is an agnostic and has stated that means he was the perfect choice to direct such a tale. Really? Whatever your religious beliefs, surely if you're presenting one of the Old Testament's most iconic episodes you would want to make it as accurate to it's source material as possible? In addition, doesn't this also make Scott a massive hypocrite? He's not sure he believes (which is fair enough), but that doesn't seem to stop him trousering plenty of dosh for helming this production. Anyway, I digress and this argument is for another time and place. The best thing to do when watching Exodus is to put aside thoughts of historical accuracy and just enjoy this for what it is and no more. If you're not au fait with the story of the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, we have Moses (Christian Bale) taking a stance against the Pharaoh Ramesses (Joel Edgerton) - death and destruction does follow. Scott's love (read - ridiculous overuse) of CGI has been a joke for years now and there's many scenes here that you could pretty much just cut and paste into some of his other "epics". That's not to say there isn't some great visual moments here (the ten deadly plagues are impressively realised), but any characterisation (despite Bale's best efforts) gets lost amongst the stop / start mayhem. Things aren't helped by some odd casting choices and costumes, with Ben Mendelsohn drawing the short straw here by being applied with so much make-up he looks like a camp oversized Oompa-Loompa. If you've got a spare two and half hours (gulp) there's just enough here to grab the attention, but it's been a long time since Scott made a really great film and it's clear his powers have been on the wane for quite a while now. Rating: 6/10.

The Theory Of Everything

James Marsh is best known for his documentaries Man on Wire and Project Nim, but his subject matter here is somewhat more hefty than a spiky Frenchman and, er, a chimpanzee, as TTOE is a biopic of Stephen Hawking, one of the most famous and well known people on the planet. Marsh is a skilled film maker though and, coupled with Anthony McCarten's sharp screenplay, this is a highly enjoyable film. To be blunt, Hawking is pretty much known for three things; his theoretical analyses, his disability and marrying his nurse. Marsh's picture covers all three, but the majority of the picture is spent analysing Hawking's relationship with his first wife Jane. The film itself is actually based on Jane's memoir of her life with Hawking, but it's balanced throughout neither painting Hawking as saint or sinner and gives an adult examination of how disability can affect a relationship. Both lead performances are superb, with Eddie Redmayne impressively nailing the hefty challenge of portraying Hawking's physical deterioration. Felicity Jones is, arguably, even better in her role as Jane, stoically coping with the complexities of the hand that has been dealt to both her husband and herself. Marsh's direction is fairly static throughout (though it doesn't really need to be anything more), but one of his main skills is getting tasteful laughs from difficult issues and Theory continues this trend, especially is capturing Hawking's well known wit and dry humour. There are a few problems though towards the end of the film with Marsh throwing in a mawkish dream sequence where Hawking rises from his wheelchair and picks up a pencil during a presentation. It feels both patronising to Hawking and us, the paying audience, and it's a bit of a mystery as to why it's included as it goes completely against the grain of not laying it on thick as throughout the rest of the film. Also, any need for a flashback sequence as well? I'm pretty certain most of the audience don't need reminding of what they've just say through during the previous 120 minutes. Overall though this is a entertaining picture being in terms romantic, funny, poignant and thought provoking and, yes, that is Frank Leboeuf cameoing as a Swiss doctor. Some things even Hawking wouldn't be able to explain.....Rating: 8/10.

Best and Worst Films of 2014

Ah, it's the middle of June 2015 so obviously it's time for my lists of the Best and Worst Films of 2014. Ahem. Getting on with it then and to quote Filth: “same rules apply”, i.e. a film is classified as “2014” if it had its mainstream UK release in that year and that the ten best films are an heterogeneous collective that should have something in there for most peeps to enjoy (plus honourable mentions to Dallas Buyers Club, The Babadook and Paddington that didn’t quite make the cut). Though the eagle-eyed amongst you may spot that Whiplash didn’t get a full UK release until January 2015, but as it was the first film I’ve ever given full marks to out of over five hundred different reviews it deserves it’s place as 2014’s brightest shining light. Looking over the top ten list its good to see the majority of films are (relatively speaking, of course) low budget productions meaning that perhaps the battle against Marvel, Michael Bay etc. isn't lost yet. Finally, The Golden Bug was the worst film I saw all year, but in sticking to the rules, as I actually walked out well before the end I can’t honestly say I can give it a full review.........

Best Films of 2014
1) Whiplash
2) Edge Of Tomorrow
3) Blue Ruin
4) Begin Again
5) Starred Up
6) Nightcrawler
7) Guardians Of The Galaxy
8) Birdman
9) The Imitation Game
10) 12 Years A Slave

Worst Films of 2014
1) A Million Ways To Die In The West
2) Transformers: Age Of Extinction
3) Lucy
4) Noah
5) The Inbetweeners 2
6) The Expendables 3
7) Robocop
8) The Book Thief
9) The Monuments Men
10) Fury

Round Up of 2014, Part Three: The Judge / The Drop / The Maze Runner / St Vincent / Gone Girl

Right let’s shoot through this final round up and if David Dobkin's new film (The Judge) is anything like his last film (the atrocious The Change-Up), then this first review shouldn’t take much time at all. Dobkin’s drama has Hank (Robert Downey Jr), a successfully smarmy attorney, return from the big city to his small home town on hearing that his mother has passed away. Whilst there he knocks heads with his father Joseph (Robert Duvall), a respected local Judge, and eventually ends up defending him in court when Joseph is accused for killing someone in a hit and run. There’s some good moments here (at one point Downey Jr and Duvall have a great verbal set to), but they’re few and far between and you’ll spend the whole film wondering how Dobkin and the casting agent thought it was credible to have people believe that Downey Jr, Vincent D'Onofrio and Jeremy Strong are all brothers (no, seriously). You just know this isn’t going to grip you when the courtroom scenes are ruined by a soppy soundtrack and Dobkin not even giving Billy Bob Thornton (as “Dwight Dickham” – seriously, who comes up with these names?) free reign to ham it up as a rival solicitor. The father / son part aside, this is basically Gross Pointe Blank, but with lawyers, less guns and a lot less fun. Talking of not much fun (for the characters in this case), Michaël R. Roskam’s The Drop is based in New York, concerns family and secrets, and is written by Dennis Lehane. I think you can conjure up the rest for yourself. For added info though, Tom Hardy plays Bob (though clearly not at the age yet where anyone would call a Robert, “Bob”), a bartender in a Brooklyn bar through which dirty money passes. A robbery gone wrong later and Bob finds himself involved in an investigation he’d rather not be, whilst at the same time trying to woo local girl Nadia (Noomi Rapace) and not falling foul of her intimidating ex Eric (Matthias Schoenaerts). In reality there isn’t anything here you haven’t seen before, but there’s a few nice twists and good turns from all the main leads. Though I still can’t tell, following Schoenaerts’ performances of few words in Rust and Bone and Bullhead, whether he’s actually a good actor or not (see “Mark Whalberg” for further details). Talking of things you’ve seen before here comes Theodore Melfi’s directorial debut St Vincent. Bill Murray stars as the eponymous character, a rude hedonistic Vietnam vet who by some plot machinations finds himself baby sitting the timid son of his new next door neighbour (Melissa McCarthy). Now can you guess what happens next? If you think its “Does Vincent teach the son how to be a man and the son teach Vincent not to be such a horrible git”? you don’t even win a prize – it’s just too obvious. That isn’t to say this is a bad film mind. It’s good to see McCarthy expanding her range into more dramatic territory and Naomi Watts is great fun as Vincent’s bonkers Russian “friend”. Melfi’s script and direction is economic enough that you don’t really notice any low or high points, but people who don’t worship the cult of Murray will probably best be advised to steer clear. Plus, any fans of singer-songwriter Annie Clark will be bitterly disappointed (a gag for the yoof there). Moving on we have another directorial debut with Wes Ball’s The Maze Runner (and if that isn’t a title for I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue’s sound charades round I don’t know what is), which is, wait for it, a science fiction dystopian action thriller drama – for kids! Well, young adults. Yep, we’re into the latest release for teenagers along the lines of The Hunger Games, Divergent et al. This time we have a group of teenage boys living in “The Glade”, an enclosed exterior environment, in which they have been deposited for reasons unknown and from which they can only escape by trying their luck in a huge and deadly every changing maze that surrounds them. You want a mash-up? Lets say the TV Series Lost v Vincenzo Natali’s Cube. Though the premise is old hat now (subjugated teenagers v shadowy governments / unseen forces) the target audience will lap this up. It doesn’t really crossover into full attention grabbing entertainment for adults, but if you do see the film (young or not so young) Ball does pull off the nifty tricky of having a payoff that leaves you wanting to see the next instalment. Finally we have David Fincher’s latest, Gone Girl, based on the best-selling novel by Gillian Flynn (who provides scripting duties here). GG is one of those films where the entertainment value correlates with how much you know beforehand as the film pivots on a twist half-way through. The high-end overview is that one day Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) comes home from work and discovers his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike) is AWOL. The police and media get involved and before long the finger of suspicion is pointing in Nick’s direction. I’ll leave it there story wise. Overall this has plenty going for it. On the acting front Affleck is solid, but it’s the usually (relatively) bland Pike who pulls out all the stops here. Clearly relishing her chance to show off her chops as one of the leads in a major production she gives a cracking turn showing hitherto versatility. In fact the whole film is nicely cast with, get this, even Tyler Perry providing great fun as Nick’s laid back wise-cracking solicitor. As this is Fincher the direction is visually spot on and the whole film has a stylish sheen to it. Where it starts to fall apart is the actual story which doesn’t grip as it should (not helped by a poor ending) and there are plot holes galore. In addition the tone is all over the place. Fincher is hardly known for his sense of humour (though his films do have a number of genuinely funny (usually black) moments), but here it's hard to tell if we should be taking the whole shebang seriously or not (the films only real scene of shocking violence is as bonkers as it is bloody). Usually a director of such stock as Fincher would mean his film would have it’s own separate review, but, including this, three of his last four films suggest he isn’t operating at full throttle at the moment. Let’s hope his rediscovers some of his old mojo next time round. The Judge Rating: 5/10. The Drop Rating: 7/10. Runner Rating: 6/10. Vincent Rating: 7/10. Girl Rating: 7/10.

Round Up of 2014, Part Two: Pride / Mr Turner / Black Sea

A few local (relatively) low budget films here which I've lumped in together as they're all noble efforts, enjoyable in parts, but unlikely to lead to you shelling out for the Blu-ray. At first glance you might hesitate at using your hard earned free time to watch Matthew Warchus’ Pride – I mean, do we really need yet another British production (regardless of the decent quality of previous efforts) concerning lefties and the miners? Warchus’ film has a USP though, as its based on the true story of a group of lesbian and gay activists who, back in 1984, raised money for miner’s families affected by their battles with the man (well, wo-man in this case – you know who). The crux of the film concerns the local community coming to terms with differing sexualities and accepting financial and moral help from the activists. Warchus hasn’t directed a film since 1999’s Simpatico (though since then he’s become a fairly large cheese in theatre land) and his direction is one-note all the way through. However, the film is elevated by some great performances (an understated Bill Nighy gives one of his best performances ever as he doesn’t play Bill Nighy for once) and Stephen Beresford’s sharp script provides many a laugh. This is an old fashioned crowd pleaser which, despite it’s flaws (it doesn’t have a tough edge to it like Billy Elliot, Brassed Off et al.) we should still be rejoicing in its appearance – I mean, could you see such a film ever being green lit in the States? You’ll be unsurprised to hear that a musical adaptation for the stage is being planned. Lets move on to Mr Turner - an effort that is as British as a Mike Leigh film starring Timothy Spall. Which this is. The film charts the last quarter of the life of celebrated artist JMW Turner (Spall), but its probably best you come prepared for this with a bit of background knowledge as Leigh does little to help out the average viewer. The film itself is hit and miss. Though Spall gives his usual solid performance, do we really know that Turner spent his whole time mumbling or grunting? On that front, Leigh doesn’t really get under the skin of Turner, though as all we have is written accounts of the man that’s hardly surprising. Spall’s Turner is basically a curmudgeon and at times its hard to really care what he gets up to. The film is actually stolen by the actresses who play two of the main women in the latter stages of Turner’s life. Marion Bailey brings quiet dignity to the role of Sophia Booth (Turner’s landlady and lover), but it’s Dorothy Atkinson as Hannah Danby (Turner’s housekeeper) who really tugs at the heartstrings with her lifelong unrequited love for Turner only being acknowledge by him via sexual exploitation. Though why Leigh continues to cast the dull as ditch water Ruth Sheen (a lacklustre cameo here) remains a mystery. The film has some great moments (look for the scene at the Royal Academy of Arts where Spall smugly improves one of his paintings) and Dick Pope’s cinematography is beautiful. Overall though it’s not as entertaining or informative as you’d hope and its way too long. Finally, lets finish off with some silly goings on in Kevin Macdonald’s submarine based thriller Black Sea. Jude Law puts on a (hit and miss) Scottish accent as Robinson, a recently laid off captain of under-sea salvages who, backed by a mandatory shadowy figure in the background, rounds up a crew of men in order to help locate a sunken German U-boat that is allegedly laden with gold. Each man will get a cut of anything they find, but it doesn’t take them long to realise that the less crew there is, the more there is to go round. Dennis Kelly’s script is no great shakes (amongst the crew we have people playing to type - Scott McNairy as a snivelling suit; Ben Mendelsohn, wait for it, twitchy and unhinged), but instead of making it the standard free for all, Kelly nicely pitches the men at loggerheads via cultural divides (Brits v Russians). This is mainly Friday night dumb fun (there’s a ludicrous bit on the submarine involving a lottery ticket), but there’s a frustrating hint that this could have been a lot more in a stupendous scene where the men attempt to transfer the gold from the U-boat. It’s unbelievably tense and a masterpiece in direction by Macdonald. It’s a shame the rest of the film doesn’t hit similar heights, though Black Sea will go down in history for having one of the greatest ever entries on the films Trivia page on IMDB – “Jude Law is not actually Scottish”. In summation re all three films, they’re all enjoyable in their own different ways, but unlikely to elicit further viewings. Rating (all three films): 7/10.

'71 / Unbroken

Lumping a couple of films in together here as they both star one of the UK’s up and coming talents, Jack O’Connell. No doubt O’Connell has some acting chops to him, but both '71 and Unbroken are films where he has so few lines to speak it’s actually quite hard to appraise his performances. Granted its due to script and character, but you can’t say these are eye catching turns like his cracking performances in Starred Up or Tower Block. Word was that ’71 was hotter than Death Valley and Yann Demange’s portrayal of a young British soldier (O’Connell) getting lost in the mean streets of Belfast during the Troubles has plenty going for it. In respect of its visual portrayal of the Northern Irish capital at that time it’s a triumph and Demange’s use of handhelds adds a feeling of real claustrophobia to the proceedings. This is Demange’s debut feature (though he has a solid track record in Shorts and TV) and he’s certainly going to be one to keep on eye out for on the aesthetic side of things. Less successful is Gregory Burke’s script. The premise of the person trapped in an unfamiliar and hostile environment is one of cinema’s oldest staples, but any thrills or twists are lost amongst some truly terrible character stereotypes. Plus, despite Demange’s statements to the contrary, its fairly obvious which side his sympathies lie meaning the films examination of both sides of the conflict is unbalanced throughout. Hats off though to Demange for having an attempt at addressing a situation that is still such a hot political potato (and good luck to anyone outside of the UK understanding the history of the whole business). Definitely worth a watch but, despite the technical improvements in the last seventy plus years since Odd Man Out, Carol Reeds similarly themed thriller is by far the superior film. Moving on to another production about conflict we have Unbroken, Angelina Jolie’s second film as a director, which tells the real life story of Louie Zamperini (O’Connell), a US Olympic athlete who survived the second World War despite being shot down, lost at sea and interned in a number of brutal Japanese prisoner of war camps. The film is basically split into three parts. The first follows Zamperini growing up and his development as a runner that leads to him competing at the 1936 Olympics. The second is his role as a bombardier in the US Air Force and subsequent crash into the ocean. Finally it’s his time spent as a prisoner, up until his liberation at the conclusion of the war. Jolie’s no fool and she’s employed a number of heavy hitters (the Coen’s helping on script, Deakins as cinematographer, Desplat on scoring duties) to lend her a hand and there are a number of impressive moments (the airplane fight scenes being a particular highlight). The problem the film has is that, despite appearances, its too lightweight for its subject matter. The final third of the film being a case in point where Zamperini constantly falls foul of camp commandant Mutsuhiro Watanabe, played, in somewhat bizarre casting, by Japanese pop star Takamasa Ishihara (no, me neither). Though it’s harsh at times, it’s a long way from the detailed history of what actually occurred (in reality Watanabe was a vicious sadist) meaning that the film doesn’t hit home as it should. Somewhat unforgivably as well, Jolie doesn’t even begin to explore the cultural reasons why the Japanese treated their POW’s so appallingly. A more confident editor would have helped as well, particularly for the middle section of the film which seems to go on for ever. On the acting front O’Connell is fine, but does little to show that his being cast over any of the other young actors out there has made a huge difference. Talking of up and comers – keep an eye out for Domhnall Gleeson as his campaign to steal the title of Being In Every Film Ever Made from Mark Strong continues to gather pace. Overall, not a bad film, but for someone as bloody minded as Jolie this really shouldn’t have pulled the punches it does. Rating (both films): 6/10.

Round Up of 2014, Part One: The Rover / What If / Lets Be Cops / Sin City: A Dame To Kill For / The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

David Michod’s full length debut feature was 2010's superb (though little seen) Animal Kingdom. Surprising then that it’s taken over four years for Michod to grace us with his presence again, this time in the form of, yep, another gritty drama. The Rover has Guy Peace (unnamed in the film, but “Eric” in the credits) travelling around the Australian outback on the trail of the thieves who have stolen his car. Though a loner, he captures one of the thieves’ brothers (Robert Pattinson) to help him track down the culprits. Set ten years after a global economic collapse, the dystopian setting obviously brings to mind Mad Max though Michod’s approach is more low key than George Miller’s visceral slant. Michod himself has claimed his film is more menacing due to it’s near contemporary nature, but that’s a hollow victory really as Miller’s Max is on the more pulp-ish side of things. That aside, the narrative is a bit of a struggle and the film moves at a languid pace with little revelations (apart from the final reveal, which is a real doozy) as we stumble though the running time. This is still memorable though for it’s beautiful cinematography, strong lead performances and Antony Partos’ discordant and agitated score. It’s a bleak watch no doubt, but you can always lighten the mood by downing an alcoholic drink every time Pearce utters in his Aussie twang, “Where’s my care?”. Talking of Pattinson lets move on to one of his peers, that of a certain individual who is also trying desperately to rid himself of a film franchise that made their name, if not their acting credentials. What If has Daniel Radcliffe as Wallace, a recluse who meets Chantry (Zoe Kazan) at a house party. They hit it off, but there’s the problem of Chantry’s boyfriend Ben (Rafe Spall) to deal with. It’s a film of clichés and a framework that will familiar to anyone who has watched a rom-com in the last five years, but some decent comic moments (Ben succumbing to a spectacular accident the first time he meets Wallace) and a believable struggle of feelings make this a solid watch. It’s unnecessarily coarse at times though and for people with a low tolerance to kook an advance warning: Chantry and her friends all meet at a knitting club. Still, Michael Dowse’s film will tick all the right boxes for fans of this kind of thing, but who ever heard of an Englishman with the given name Wallace? Lets Be Cops has taken a critical pounding, but it’s actually not all that bad. Perhaps the horror of seeing the surname Wayans (this time it’s Damon, Jr.) on the credits is enough for people to run for cover, but catch this on a Friday night and you should be OK. The plot is a bit thin (Jake Johnson and Wayans Jr. are pals who accidentally get mistaken for policeman following a costume party, but then decide to run and run with the subterfuge) though as director Luke Greenfield also produces and co-scripts I doubt he had much time to listen to outside opinions. The laughs are hit and miss, but there’s chemistry between the two leads and Greenfield moves the whole thing along at such a pace you don’t have time to think about how ludicrous the whole set-up is. Finally, lets lump together Sin City: A Dame To Kill For and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1. These films may look like strange bedfellows, but they’re both sequels which don't add anything new to what we have seen previously and, somewhat scandalously in Hunger Games' sake, don't leave you wanting to see any more. On the Sin City front, Robert Rodriquez and Frank Miller share directorial duties, but their combined canniness couldn’t stop Dame dying at the box office, which is somewhat ironic as not many minutes pass without someone croaking it in one way or another. Much like the first film its visually spectacular, but that first outing is almost ten long years ago now and does anybody really even remember (or care) about the back story to Nancy? (played by the bland Jessica Alba). As an exercise in style it still works, but despite there being an eclectic mix of characters and story lines there’s little variety from scene to scene (though the films title is apt for Eva Green who smoulders throughout). Alan Partridge fans might want to dip in mind due to Mickey Rourke’s Marv now bearing a bizarre resemblance to Norfolk’s finest after he had been on the Toblerone’s. A place which certainly could do with some Swiss chocolate to cheer up its inhabitants is Panem, the grim world which The Hunger Games franchise reverberates around. This time out we follow Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) as she becomes a symbol of the rebellion against boo-hiss President Coin (Donald Sutherland). This is double Lawrence jeopardy as aside from Jennifer’s dull performance, we also have Francis in the directors chair. Arguably not his fault this is so lacklustre, but he’s hardly a director to get excited about. The problem the film has is that it doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know. This is basically two hours of virtually nothing happening in respect of plot development and the twist at the end is telegraphed miles in advance. I can’t quite work Lawrence (Jennifer) out, but here she just seems gormless for most of the, ahem, “action”. Much like the split of the last Harry Potter book into two films, we can only hope that this follows the pattern of one snooze-fest – one decent send off. Gains an extra point for a ginger cat cameo, though. Rover Rating: 7/10. What If Rating: 7/10. Cops Rating: 7/10. Sin Rating: 5/10. Games Rating: 5/10.

Birdman

So, Whiplash – a brilliant film about a drummer. Birdman – a brilliant film with a drumming soundtrack. Though the similarities end there in terms of pace and style, as Birdman is the latest from Alejandro González Iñárritu, a director not known for yelling “cut” until all the reel in the film has been used up. Personally, I’ve found Iñárritu’s previous Hollywood efforts cold to the touch and more often than not a little dull (they’re a world away from his blistering Amores perros calling card). Things are a bit different here though thanks to a witty script, solid acting and some wizardry with the camera. Michael Keaton stars as Riggan Thomson, a washed-up actor famous for playing a superhero (the Birdman of the title) in his prime, but now trying to win the respect of the establishment by starring in and directing a Broadway production of a Raymond Carver story. Iñárritu’s camera follows Riggan as he smooches around the backstage of the theatre in which he is attempting to put on his show. It’s not an easy ride as he finds himself hampered at almost every turn, from a bonkers co-star in the shape of Edward Norton to the distractions of the the main ladies in his life (ex-wife, daughter, girlfriend). As a storyline that would pretty much still play fine on itself, but Iñárritu’s also throws in the curve ball that Riggan appears to also have inherited a number of superpowers (levitation and telekinesis amongst them) which he utilises every now and then. Whether these acts are real or imagined, Iñárritu leaves to the viewers interpretation. I’m not sure the script really needed such a twist though as the film would work fine without them, though you could argue it helps cement Thomson’s ever fraying mind set. Talking of tricks, the film is notable for (with a few exceptions) being portrayed as being shot in one continuous take (Hitchcock and De Palma fans rejoice). Though it’s a trick, it’s an absorbing and highly impressive one. If you read on-line about the colossal preparation undertaken to produce such an effect, it’s heady stuff indeed. I guess the extras on the Blu-Ray will be something to behold. However, though the film should rightly be lauded for it’s technical prowess, does this distract us from the films limitations? As a satirical swipe at actors it doesn’t really work and its hard to care for any of the characters who are virtually all fairly despicable in their various different ways. Plus, the special effects for the main “Birdman” scene are a bit ropey and some performances barely register (you’ll hardly recall either Andrea Riseborough or Amy Ryan being in this by the time you’ve passed through the cinema exit door). Who does register though is Keaton. It’s actually quite rare for him to appear in a mainstream film these days, but clearly the ex-Batman couldn’t resist the (somewhat painful I guess) irony of the role in question. He’s great here though, displaying a gamut of emotions (watch for the superb moment where he deceives Norton into thinking he was abused as a child) as Riggan tries ever desperately to get his play down pat and finally earn the critical (not commercial) respect of his audience and peers. Arguably Norton is even better. Norton seems to be one of those actors who gets rave reviews for one-note performances, but he’s off the scale here as Mike Shiner, a credible stage actor, who has some serious insecurity issues despite his outward confidence (Hello, all actors!). Sadly he pretty much disappears around the halfway point and the film doesn’t quite ever regain it’s thrust. Though also look out for Zach Galifianakis (in one of his few “straight” performances) giving a small role some understated kudos. Ah – should also mention that drumming. Antonio Sanchez is the man with the sticks and his sharp playing is nicely matched up pacing wise by Iñárritu to whatever’s happening on the screen. Overall, this is a triumph for meticulous planning, but will it elicit repeat viewings though? From the technical side of things I’d say definitely. As a whole package though, I’m not so sure. Rating: 8/10.

Whiplash

They say to budding authors to write about what you know and first time writer / director Damien Chazelle has done just that for his mesmerising film debut, telling the story of student jazz drummer Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) and his combustible relationship with volcanic teacher Terrance Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). Plot wise that’s pretty much it, but Chazelle’s film doesn’t need to venture much further than that basic premise as it’s locked in place by two barnstorming performances by its leads, a tight script, economic direction and, as you’d expect, a foot tapping score. The battle between Neiman and Fletcher is what drives the entire film. From Neiman’s innocence and naivety in response to Fletcher’s early friendly putting him at ease encouragement, up to the scenes of physical and mental abuse, it’s a contest between the two that, crucially, is mainly controlled by Fletcher as he holds the keys to Neiman’s Kingdom. The two leads are an interesting mix. Teller has plenty of films under his belt already, though nothing to suggest he has the talent he shows here. Simmons on the other hand is great in everything he is in, but has never had that one standout performance. They’re both utterly superb here. Teller’s Neiman is in every single scene of the film, meaning that Simmons’ Fletcher is more of an enigma. The approach works though, as Fletcher is already the more (if flawed) rounded character, but Neiman has still to choose his path. I mentioned earlier that the film doesn’t stray far from the head to head between the two leads, but when it does Chazelle quickly and efficiently shows us what we need to know with the minimal of fuss and we move on. To wit – Neiman’s family and relationships. Though Paul Reiser appears sporadically as Neiman’s father, the whole family dynamic is explained away in a quick dinner table scene, which also includes the films best one-liner. It’s a proficient approach that in other film makers hands would have taken all day to explain. Any love interest for Neiman is dealt with in a similar fashion. He has a meet-cute which is expanded out into one date scene, before all is abruptly finished when he dumps her as he claims he won’t have time for her anymore due to his drumming. It’s brutality as honesty from Neiman, but it isn’t even the total truth. In reality Neiman feels she will impact on his quest to be one of the greatest of all time. Chazelle makes it clear to the viewer that nothing will get in Neiman’s way – hence the full blown horn locking that develops with Fletcher. Lets move on to Chazelle himself. As mentioned at the start, Chazelle wrote this based on his own personal experience of being a jazz drummer in a high school band. So the fact he knows his floor-tom from his hi-hat is hardly a surprise. He’s clearly a clever cookie though as, a novice director he may be, but he knows the basic rule of cinema and follows it to the letter – that being you only include scenes that move the storyline along and / or progress characterisation. The best TV drama’s have been doing that to a tee for the last decade (which explains why we’re in such a purple patch for unmissable idiot-box viewing), but so many films ignore this standard for fear of not having a bloody two hour plus running time. Whiplash is as lean as it comes and there’s zero fat here. OK, I slightly twisted it when I said this is Chazelle’s debut feature, but only the most factious would count his non-mainstream released micro budget effort Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench from 2009 as a feature film (however, that film was also a study in jazz, so the teeth cutting had already begun). Throw in the fact that this was shot in only nineteen days, it’s clear that Chazelle knows how to portray his vision. Plus, just to make us all feel worthless as well – he was only 29 years old when he shot this. Though the triumphal triumvirate of Chazelle, Teller and Simmons is what makes this one of the best films in recent memory, huge kudos must go to the films editor Tom Cross as well. Aptly named, he cross-cuts to such spectacular effect (especially during the musical numbers) that it was only on a second viewing of the film that I made a conscious decision to look at just how many edits there are. There are loads, but instead of getting a Tony Scott inspired headache, Chazelle and Cross have approached it in such a manner that you actually believe you are watching seamless panning. OK, that’s a bit arty I know, but films like this don’t come along very often so they deserve a wider analysis. All this and I haven’t even mentioned the sound. It’s a not quite a requirement on par with something like Berberian Sound Studio, but make sure you see this in a cinema with a decent (and loud) speaker system so you can get the full effect, from the gentle thump of the snare drum that subtly underscores the minimalistic title screen to the breath-taking mayhem of the drum solo that underpins the final scene. Some negative comments have come the way of this in respect of Fletcher’s bullying and crude and coarse insults, but such talk can only described as idiotic. He’s a character in a film. Plus, it’s hardly a plot spoiler to point out that Fletcher isn’t awarded the teacher of the year award come the denouement. Now – that ending. It’s an odd comparison, but it reminded me in a roundabout way of Juan José Campanella’s The Secret In Their Eyes in regards to each film having a narrative that twists and turns over a short period of screen time with the audience having no idea how it’s going to play out. In Whiplash its urgent, dizzying and compelling as the upper hand switches between Neiman and Fletcher minute by minute, until the killer sign off that’ll have you punching the air in response to the music in a manner unseen since the barnstorming climax of Radu Mihaileanu’s The Concert. I think I’ve typed enough now, so I’ll leave the final summation to film critic Robbie Collin who encapsulates the entire film perfectly when he says, “However genius may flourish, you know it when you see it, and Whiplash is it”. Rating: 10/10.

Interstellar

So where to begin with Christopher Nolan’s latest? Perhaps its subject matter. Cinema has been producing films about space exploration since the days of Georges Méliès, so Nolan is hardly breaking new ground here and the main plot strand (that of humans starting life on other planets) has been covered by a number of recent films (Oblivion, After Earth, Elysium et al.), albeit though not really all that successfully. The fascination though lies in Nolan himself. In Interstellar does he go further than the old chestnuts of gravity, perpetual motion, dreams etc.? – No he doesn’t, but that’s not really the point is it? It’s not that we want to watch an epic film about space and the future of the human race – the crux is how does Nolan portray such things? Right, that’s enough of the question marks. Plot wise we’ll be here all day (and keeping away from spoilers), but we follow a group of astronauts (Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway amongst them) as they journey into space in search of a new home, as ole’ planet Earth is on its last legs. So, any good then? It’s the old response: Yes and No. On the technical side of things, it’s hard to find a fault. The practical and digital effects are top notch (the robots in the film are superbly realised and, spoiler alert, don’t become murdering bastards!) and Hoyte van Hoytema’s cinematography is something to swoon at up there on the biggest screen you can find. There are also a number of stand out moments, including the scene where a number of the crew visit a planet, whilst the rest stay on board the spaceship. The catch being that for each hour spent on the planet, time dilation equates one of those hours as seven years for the astronauts left on the craft. Finally, despite it’s length (and a somewhat pat ending), things really kick into gear in the final third with some great plot twists and the surprise appearance of a Hollywood A-lister. The overall irony though is that despite it’s huge scope, this is actually one of Nolan’s least entertaining films. As you’d expect its all based on fact (or at least an agreed version), but that hardly leads to snappy dialogue. In fact, David Gyasi (as one of the astronauts on the mission) only appears to be in the film in order to be the cosmic equivalent of Basil Exposition. Not too mention a scene where Hathaway delivers a monologue about love that she looks embarrassed to be orating. There’s obvious nods (good and bad) to be made to 2001: A Space Odyssey, but Interstellar suffers from an accusation that Kubrick naysayers like to put forward – that of coldness. The lack of warmth and humour of the characters in Interstellar make them feel somewhat distant and, for a film that’s ostensibly about the fight for the continuation of mankind, there are actually very few of the protagonists whose death you would really mourn. Comment should also be made about Hans Zimmer’s overbearing score and the overall sound mix. The soundtrack is somewhat OTT and at times sounds like the B-sides from Tubular Bells, though Zimmer can’t be blamed for it being so damn loud throughout the film it’s actually difficult to pick up some of the dialogue. In addition, there’s far too much mumbling going on at times (particularly at a crucial reveal during a death scene) and what with the Bane fiasco, Nolan is beginning to development some form here. Some fun to finish off with though: For fans of Michael Winterbottom’s The Trip, Michael Caine gives us a new Michael Caine voice here – so no doubt Messrs Coogan and Brydon will be practicing. As for what’s next for Nolan? He’s distanced himself from Bond, but surely a contemporary thriller must be on the cards at some point……Rating: 7/10.

Paddington

Prior to release, Paul King's Paddington was already making headlines as the character that was one protagonist too far for uberthesp Colin Firth - that character being the eponymous bear from Peru. Guffaws aside, you do wonder why he was put forward in the first place as surely most people would expect a younger voice to emerge from the hirsute South American rather than that of a man in his mid-50's? Anyway it was Ben Whishaw who got the gig in the end so let's move on. The storyline is a basic as it comes; Paddington arrives in London, a family takes him in, then can't decide if too keep him or not, whilst a boo-hiss museum owner looks to capture him and stuff him for display. However, despite the script not pulling up any trees it does exactly what its required to do, i.e. just be a peg onto which to hang many silly and amusing moments, plus of course, messages about families and friendships. King's only other previous film to date was 2009's bonkers, but surprisingly tender, Bunny And The Bull. The balance isn't quite the same here (more cheese than real emotion), but its thoroughly entertaining on the comedic front with plenty of laughs for children and adults alike, the latter coming with its dry comments on the banalities of British life and some inspired moments including a sat nav instruction and the best gag ever concerning the "Dogs must be carried" sign on the London Underground. Speaking of the capital, be warned: This is the animated equivalent of Richard Curtis' London. It's all warm colours, empty streets and polite manners. Peeps who live in London (I'm one of 'em guv'nor) might think about a lawsuit for false representation. Stuffed with actors you'll know from mainstream British TV (The Earl of Grantham! Super Hans! Malcolm Tucker!) the performances range from standard to appreciatively more than is required. Sally Hawkins is great as the mother of the clan - Julie Walters "comedy" Scottish cleaner appears to only be in there for the North American audience. Plus, Nicole Kidman basically just channels Cruella De Ville in her role as the baddie, but at least she appears to be having fun and she does a good job. On the animation front, the effects range from seamless to, err, not quite so seamless, but overall this is great fun and one for the whole family, though not quite enough here for adults to take in a second viewing. Rating: 8/10.

The Imitation Game

There’s already plenty of visual media out there surrounding Bletchley Park and the Enigma code, from Channel 4’s informative 1999 series Station X to Michael Apted’s so-so Enigma film from 2001 (complete with Mick Jagger cameo!). Director Morten Tyldum is the latest to throw his hat into the ring, though The Imitation Game focuses squarely on the mastermind who was behind the unlocking of the "unbreakable" German cypher, one Alan Turing (played by Benedict Cumberbatch). The film is basically split into three parts. We have Turing's difficult times at boarding school, his secret work at the Park and, finally, his criminal conviction for his (at the time) illegal homosexuality. Despite the heavy subject matter this is actually quite a light concoction for the majority of the running time, namely as a large portion of the film is based around the middle third of Turing's life, that of his exploits at Bletchley. Cumberbatch is superb in the lead role, though the nature of his distracted performance hints at a mild form of asperger's a la Sofia Helin of Bron / Broen fame. His riffing off the other cast members is great fun, especially Charles Dance giving good stiff upper lip. Matthew Goode gives a subtle performance as a fellow cryptographer and it’s great to see Mark Strong continuing his run of being in every film ever made. Advance warning though: Keira Knightley affects her porsh English accent in this. Speaking of Blightly, there's plenty of British wit on display throughout, no doubt helped by the Scandinavian Tyldum's Norway sharing our similar dry approach to humour. Speaking of Tyldum it’s good to see him being given the keys to the Kingdom following 2011’s bonkers Headhunters and he directs here with a minimum of fuss. If you want negatives, the script is somewhat formulaic and your enjoyment may depend on how true to life you expect Tyldum’s account to be. The film is riddled with historical inaccuracies both in dates and actions - even the sign off regarding Turing’s suicide is actually disputed in many quarters. Regardless of all that, this is solid entertaining stuff, topped off with another starring turn from the chameleon that is Cumberbatch. One other thing though: Regardless of it being named after one of Turing's tests (which isn't even addressed in the film), that title's a clunker. Rating: 8/10.

Nightcrawler

Dan Gilroy has been living in brother Tony’s shadow for a while now which, considering that Tony was the director of The Bourne Legacy and Dan was the writer of Freejack isn’t really all that surprising. It’s good news for the Gilroy family though as Dan has come to the party as writer / director of the highly enjoyable Nightcrawler. Despite being marketed as a sleazy trawl through the LA underbelly, this is more a character study of Jake Gyllenhaal’s Lou Bloom, a young man who stumbles across a car accident one night and becomes fascinated by the freelance camera crews (“nightcrawlers”) who film the situation and are then paid by the news channels for their footage if it’s deemed worthy. What a character it is too, thanks to Gilroy’s sharp script and Gyllenhaal’s star performance. Gilroy’s film sets its stall out early on, picking up Bloom in the opening scene showing him assaulting a security guard and pocketing his fancy watch. He’s a low-life, but he is oddly fascinating as we watch him slowly integrate himself into the nightcrawler scene, eventually reaching Man Bites Dog-esque territory as Bloom starts to become directly involved in causing the carnage that he subsequently films. Gyllenhaal’s performance is superb, helped by Gilroy’s decision to steer clear of mentions of his background and for us to instead just invest our emotions with an individual who at times is so robotic in his approach to life, that he’s like an Alien impersonating a human being. Though this is Gyllenhaal’s film, there is also strong support from Riz Ahmed as Bloom’s naïve “assistant” (look for the hilarious job titles and appraisals that Bloom subjects him to) and Rene Russo (Gilroy’s real life missus) as a news editor torn between her job and submitting to Bloom’s quasi-blackmailing in the shape of having to sleep with him for his video footage. Away from the individual assessment, the rest of the film is solid if not spectacular. Though it appears Gilroy is satirising US news reporters, European audiences will still be cringing at the (true to life) alarmist paranoia put out during the forecasts. Plus, a shock twist towards the end of the film is clearly telegraphed if you’ve been paying attention. Overall though, this is one of the films of the year. To wit: Bloom isn’t a anti-hero, he’s a morally bankrupt sociopath with a serious dark side but, somehow, Gilroy and Gyllenhaal mess with your head so much that you’ll remember Bloom as a charmer who you actually care for. Rating: 8/10.

Boyhood

It's experiment time! Richard Linklater's latest film Boyhood follows the coming of age of young boy Mason Evans Jr (Ellar Coltrane). The twist being that Linklater has intermittently shot the film over a twelve year period, so we literally see Evans Jr grow before our very own eyes. Predictably this approach has had the high bow critics drooling, with the film appearing at the number one spot on many film of the year lists. However, is such adulation worthy for a film that has numerous issues. Firstly, why such plaudits for a technical approach that is hardly original? Francois Truffaut indirectly did the same thing for his character Antoine Doinel back in the 1950's and there are a number of TV documentary series that began in the 1960's that have been following their real life protagonists ever since. For something more contemporary Michael Winterbottom spent five years filming his characters for his 2012 release Everyday. Secondly, it becomes pretty clear early on that Coltrane can't act for toffee and gets worse as the film progresses. By the time he hits his teenage years its hard to tell if he's actually just given up acting or if his character is just reverting to the standard mumbler that permeates virtually all of Linklater's films of this ilk. Also, not much really happens in the near three hour running time, apart from Mason's divorced mum (played by Patricia Arquette) repetitively choosing unsuitable partner after unsuitable partner. There's also some seriously clunky moments in the script, the low point being when the children are being treated to a meal by their mother and are moaning about their lot in life (i.e. indirectly blaming Arquette) when the manager of the restaurant they are in comes over and announces what a special person their mother is due to some advice she had given him in the past. How handy! On the plus side, there's some decent acting to enjoy. Linklater's real life daughter Lorelei is fun as Mason's sister and Marco Perella (as one of Arquette's partners) is terrifying as a controlling aggressive drunk. The performance of the film goes to Arquette though. I know that's hard to believe as she's never really dazzled throughout her career - Plus, can you actually name a film she's been in over the last ten years? Here though she's totally convincing as the single mum who does all she can to financially keep her family afloat, including a heart breaking scene where she breaks down due to her believing she's been a bad parent. In effect, though this is called Boyhood, it's more about the adults of the story as they aid (for good or bad) the development of Mason's personality. On that front, more could have been made of Ethan Hawke's absent Dad, but it's clear that Linklater had thrown his lot in with Mason and he could hardly change things halfway through. Something Hawke has said about the film did strike me though, calling it "Tolstoy-esque in scope". I can only assume ol' Ethan hasn't read much Leo. This isn't even Toy Story-esque in scope. Rating: 6/10.

Transformers: Age Of Extinction

The perceived wisdom is that critics (what ever the discipline) have more fun tearing apart something dire than giving praise to something of artistic merit. I'm not sure that's quite true as I want to spend as little time as possible passing comment on the latest cinematic travesty from our old friend Michael Bay. In fact, if I add this is the new Transformers film from the Bayster, do I really need to type much more? In order for completion I will confirm what you already suspect. Yes, this is over long, loud, stuffed with awful one-liners and is basically scene after scene of the same battle being repeated over and over. At least the awful Shia LaBeouf has been jettisoned, but his replacement as the male lead in the form of the bland Mark Wahlberg is like discovering you've won a million on the lottery, but then discovering it's a million Italian Lira. Any plus points? Well you can't fault the special effects and Stanley Tucci is fun as the smarmy businessman planning on building his own robots, but unless there is some sort of alteration in the space-time continuum, like a goat chained to a post, the output of a Michael Bay film will always chew the cud within a limited circle of mediocrity. Perhaps I'll leave the final word to a young girl who, at a screening of a different film I was at, when Wahlberg popped up to present the trailer to this film with the words "I'm hear to introduce the trailer of my new film Transformers: Age Of Extinction", she replied out loud for the whole cinema to hear "No thanks". Smart girl, she'll go far. Rating: 3/10.