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.