My Dinner With Andre (1981)

My Dinner With Andre is, on the surface, one of the most straightforward films ever made. It is a conversation, pure and simple. Set up as a result of a chance encounter between two former friends one chilly day in New York. The film follows Wally (Wallace Shaun) as he, somewhat reluctantly, meets his old acquaintance, Andre (Andre Gregory), at his bequest. Andre, as it transpires, has been away travelling and dealing with life’s big questions following a breakdown a few years prior, and the film reveals itself as an exploration of life and it’s meaning and complexities, through these two characters.

.

It is a strange and daring concept for a film, to sustain a dialogue for such a period of time, to do away with conventional narrative and story completely and to trust in engaging an audience is no easy feat. Once you get used to this and embrace the theatrical nature of the film though it slowly draws you in. Written by its stars (who also play versions of themselves) there film blurs the line between drama and documentary at points. The first half of the film is largely given over to Andre as he recounts tales of his adventures in the forests and wilds of Europe. What makes the film work is the naturalistic dialogue coupled with strong delivery, Gregory is adept at drawing you in and peaking your interest and the deeper undertones of a lot of the topics covered is never overtly dwelled upon. That said your mileage might vary with portions of the film that are practically a monologue, once Wally starts getting more involved a more standard discussion erupts around modern day living and philosophical questions of happiness and contentment. Wally’s everyman tendencies, he is a slightly down on his luck actor, counter Andre’s fantastical, and somewhat bizarre, ramblings and he helps ground the film. The chemistry between the pair is evident from the off and it is a testament to both performances, and to director Louis Malle’s almost invisible work behind the camera, that the film flows and engages as much as it does.

.

Ultimately though this is very much a thought piece, a film to be savoured and pondered upon and to lead to ongoing discussions amongst those who watch it. I enjoyed the sheer uniqueness of the setup and conversation throughout, but it isn’t an experience I would look for in too many other films. As an experiment I would say it succeeds, managing to deal with big questions in the simplest of ways; by enjoying an evening in the company of some great conversation.

My Neighbours the Yamadas (1999)

Studio Ghibli have a deserved reputation as purveyors of fantastical and sophisticated fantasy animation, with the company coming to wider renown after 2003's Oscar winning Spirited Away. But the company had been churning out consistently interesting and varied works for years before this, from that My Neighbours the Yamadas is certainly one that sticks out. Adapted from a Japanese comic the film retains it's aesthetic and narrative convention, presenting itself as a slideshow of sorts documenting the everyday life of the Yamada family. Comprising of mother, father, grandma and two children the film plays out as a series of small vignettes displaying some aspect of their life, conflicts or just quirky situations. Despite this seemingly thin premise there is plenty to enjoy here, largely thanks to the wonderfully warmhearted characterisation and animation. 
.
Directed by Isao Takahata, also responsible for the other Ghibli films Pom Poko and Grave of the Fireflies, the film strikes a wonderful tone, shifting effortlessly between slapstick antics., quieter human moments and meaningful life lessons. There is nothing showy, or extravagant about the Yamada family and I immediately became engaged with their everyday exploits and interactions. Each family members feels so well sketched and detailed that the sparse animation only enhances this. What could have seemed overly simplistic and a burden actually enhances the film, allowing you to fill in the gaps yourself and presenting an abstract world that feels unique and fascinating. Some may find the lack of a strong through narrative difficult to handle, but I never had an issue with the episodic nature of the film. Each segment is so well constructed, and varied that I was left wanting more if anything once the film had ended.
.
Of all the characters the youngest daughter, Nonoko, leads many of the adventures, but the film also manages to find ways in which to give each character a chance to shine. The grandma is especially well defined and one of the things I was most impressed with was the restraint with which the film handles it's sensitive moments. There are frequent opportunities for the film to take an obvious and exaggerated view of a situation, but this is never acted upon. The film also observes family brilliantly, the ups and downs as well as the strong bond that runs underneath it all, allowing misunderstandings and arguments to resolve in a surprisingly grounded manner. If anything it is this ego-less matter-of-fact tone that most endeared the film to me. It runs so contrary to the idea of family so often peddled by Hollywood that it felt refreshingly humble in it's embracing of the everyday and mundane. 
.
My Neighbours the Yamadas is a slight film, of that there is no denying. However it is also very funny, truthful and engaging. It paints a wonderfully appealing portrait of family life and left me inspired by its quiet message of love, perseverance and understanding in all circumstances.

The Girl Who Played with Fire (2009)

The second in the Millennium trilogy of films, based on the hugely popular books, wastes little time in getting down to business. I saw, and really liked, the first film adaptation, and as such had hopes that this would continue in the same vein. Unfortunately whilst it is a competent and enjoyable enough thriller the film lacks the cinematic edge and gritty spark of the original leaving it feeling somewhat muted in comparison.
.
The film begins a year after the original, with Lisbeth (Noomi Rapace, again impressive in the lead role) returning to Sweden after a sojourn around Europe where she disappeared after the events of the first film. Once back she seeks to re-establish contact with her friends and family only to find herself framed for a triple homicide, which is also linked to the latest investigation being carried out by Mikael Blomkvist's Millennium magazine. Finding themselves inextricably linked the pair work to uncover the truth and free Lisbeth's name, and also uncover some of the darker secrets of her past.
.
Originally released as a TV movie it is easy to see the roots of this throughout the film. Where the first had a real sense of scope and scale, The Girl Who Played with Fire feels somewhat pedestrian, doing nothing with any real flare. However it wasn't just the technical level that I felt let the film down, whilst the plot is interesting, and I did appreciate how it tied up some of the seemingly unrelated plot threads from the first film (Lisbeth's probation worked for example), it's insistence on keeping the two main characters separate for the vast majority of the film's running time is a decision that hurts the film. I understand the dramatic reasoning for this, and assuming this is a faithful adaptation then this is also a problem inherent to the source material, but a large part of what worked well in the original was the interplay between the characters and seeing them play off each other, and work together. Here they act independently throughout, it is a long time before they even realise they are working on the same case, and even then the plot threads remain disparate. Independent of each other neither character was really strong enough to carry my interest in the film and as such I found it much less engaging that it might have been.
.
So whilst not a bad film, per se, it still feels like a disappointment. Having not read the books I can only assess the film as such and whilst I am suitably intrigued in checking out the final film, I can't admit to being as engaged by these characters and stories as so many seem to be. I enjoy a good detective thriller and there are enough tense and exciting sequences to redeem the film somewhat at the end, there is just nothing that feels especially new and interesting which is a shame. The first film, whilst not revolutionary, felt somehow dangerous and had a palpable sense of mystery that feels lacking here. Some of the brutal violence remains, but again it seems somehow tempered and less effective.
.
Those looking for a crime thriller could do plenty worse and there is a fair amount to enjoy here, but for best results go in with your expectations suitably lowered, as I shall now do for the final chapter in the trilogy.

The Tree of Life (2011)

The Tree of Life feels like the culmination, and continuation of the themes and ideas that Terrence Malick has grappled with throughout his career. It is an intensely personal and fiercely uncommercial meditation on life, love and death, filtered through Malick's superlative grasp of imagery. A film to be experienced and weighed upon and that offers no clear answers or narrative structure on which to hang your attentions. 
.
Roughly speaking the film follows the memories of the childhood of Sean Penn's Jack, the eldest of three brothers who, as an adult, is still coming to grips with his place in the world and the meaning of his existence. Much of this is implied through, the film is largely dialogue free, its almost wilful disregard for standard filmic convention will be enough to infuriate many, and with some justification. It is nearly an hour in before any two characters exchange real dialogue, even then it is hushed and brief. Malick seems not to care for observing the nature of conversation, instead he attempt to capture moments of truth and beauty in everyday life, his piecing together of Jack's childhood begins with an astonishing extended sequence in which he depicts the beginning of the universe, an operatic and staggeringly beautiful series of vignettes that bring us through the entirety of history to Jack's birth. This entire piece is almost worth seeing the entire movie for, the scope and artistry with which it is constructed is remarkable and never has Malick's control of picture and sound been so clear. Afterwards though he uses the momentum to propel us through Jack's childhood and adolescence, told as almost a slideshow of memories from the small, to the large, but all elements of the man he later becomes. Captivating and confounding in equal measure those hoping for a plot to emerge from the film will find themselves disappointed, the film is less interested in actions than it is behaviour. 
.
Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain play the parents, each, as a voice over early on informs us, representing the two choices one has when living their life, to live by selfless grace, or to embrace nature, where strength and willingness are most highly valued. This dichotomy cuts to the heart of the film with Pitt's contradictory disciplinarian being both a figure of love and affection and fear for his children. In contrast Chastain is a warm and yet passive figure in their lives, she has an elegance and a beauty that Malick loves to film and who infects much of the film with its spiritual leanings. Whilst not strictly adhering to any specific teachings there is no denying the spiritual nature of Malick's ideas as they are presented. He seems to view love as the only way to live, and yet be equally puzzled by its existence in an otherwise cold and undeniably vast universe, and the final sequences of the film hint at a closure that I found extremely moving and hopeful. As a Christian it is easy to imbue my interpretations of the film with my own beliefs, but ultimately that's what great art does and the ambiguous nature of much of the film leaves it open to, and welcoming of, such thinking.
.
The film is quite possibly one of the quietest I have ever experience in a cinema, often even the diegetic sounds of nature are toned right down, almost as if Malick himself is listening in for something, anything else to venture into the scene. Equally the characters' voice-overs, a tradition of his films, frequently take the form of prayers, or ethereal enquiries, as the characters wrestle with the big, unanswerable questions. Yet the real trick to the film is that it doesn't get so bogged down in such metaphysical meanderings so as to become unwatchably pretentious. It asks the big questions, and deals with heady themes, but not at the expense of the humanity on show. The way Jack's childhood is revealed feels honest and natural. Newcomer Hunter McCracken is superb in the role, as are the other brothers, with Malick's roving camera capturing hundreds of tiny little moments that feel real and heartfelt, moulding these into an intimate picture of childhood and existence. The careful editing, to a rhythm and mood rather than for any sense of real continuity, helps further the film's reading as that of a visual poem helping it ring true at a fundamental  human level. The joys, the pain, the anger of youth are all distilled into singular moments there, that build up a picture of life that everyone should be able to recognise and identify with.
.
As should have become clear by now this is definitely not a film for everyone. It is slow and thoughtful, many will find it boring, and justifiably so. Towards the end I felt the film drag at times, extending itself a touch too far, with some repetition of ideas that could easily have been trimmed. Equally the slight nature of many of the characters may leave some cold, for the truth and beauty Malick finds in childhood he also fails, at times, to really dig beyond the surface, especially with Jessica Chastain's character, leaving her more of a symbol than meaningful character.  Still despite these flaws, and the impenetrable nature of the film's construction there is no denying it is a major accomplishment. It is challenging and provocative, sincere and over serious but also touches on deep themes and issues in a way that will long stick with me. There is no other director out there like Terrence Malick and this feels like the film that is most truly him, intensely personal but universal in its themes. If you can get past it's idiosyncrasies and missteps and embrace it as art, then inside, when it works,  lie deep pools of truth and beauty. It feels like food for the soul.

The Town (2010)

With Gone Baby Gone Ben Affleck silenced many of those who had scoffed at the notion of him making the transition from actor to director. It was one of my favourite films from 2007 and really impressed me. With The Town Affleck shows that his first directorial effort was no fluke. Set in Charlestown neighbourhood of Boston, an area that has the dubious honour of being home to more armed robbers and criminals than any other, the film follows a group of four friends trapped in this cycle as they plan their last couple of heists. Affleck himself plays Doug MacRay, the smartest of the bunch and one who feels an obligation and a sense of loyalty to the lifestyle, whilst also secretly wanting to get away and escape. Jeremy Renner continues his strong run of recent performances here as James, Doug's best friend and potential loose cannon, a guy who lives for the thrill but who's recklessness endangers the group. On the opposite side of the law Jon Hamm is clearly enjoying himself playing a vindictive FBI agent brought in to deal with the recent spate of robberies. By working to make Hamm's character unlikeable the film clearly wants you to root for the criminals and Affleck has an affection for Boston and its people that is evident here, as it has been throughout his career.
.
The relationship between the group is authentic and measured, these are characters that you can sympathise with to a degree and understand. The tribal nature of the town and it's reputation is prevalent throughout, the underlying ache for change and helplessness of being trapped in circumstance feels like an echo from Affleck's filmography, specifically Good Will Hunting. What separates The Town is that it manages to mix in a series of exciting and well realised action scenes alongside the drama. Affleck shows a natural aptitude for these and there are some tense and exciting shootouts throughout the film, largely assisted by the realistic tone that grounds the whole thing in something approaching reality, lending a sense of danger and risk often not found in such sequences.
.
A large chunk of the film centres around the relationship that develops between Doug and Claire (Rebecca Hall), a bank clerk who is taken hostage by the group at the start of the film (briefly), however as she is unaware of Doug's true nature she becomes his secret, a link to a world outside of violence and crime. Rebecca Hall has been someone that has caught my eye in recent years as a really interesting and talented actress, and she delivers another great performance here, though I felt she was let down somewhat by the script. Her character isn't given a lot to do except be a symbol, a representation of a better life and she is never truly given a character to embrace. She plays sweet very well, but a more rounded arc would have helped her side of the story resonate more than it ultimately did. Elsewhere Blake Lively steps outside of her Gossip Girl clean-cut nature to play Doug's ex, Krista, a girl dragged down into drugs and with a young daughter. She is fine, but I was constantly reminded throughout of someone playing a role, as opposed to, say, Amy Adams in The Fighter who managed to convince as a character, but this again could be attributed to the scripts somewhat stereotypical portrayal of her character.
.
The film as a whole, whilst enjoyable and very well put together failed to engage me as completely as I wanted it to. Whether it was the disconnect between cheering on armed robbers, more than happy to gun down policemen, or the script's occasional lack of subtly I'm not sure, but compared to Gone Baby Gone the film has slipped from my memory a lot faster. That said it is still a very good film full of great performances and insight into an area and a culture I had little to no knowledge of, and further proof that Affleck as a director is someone with a real voice and something to say.

The King's Speech (2010)

Tom Hooper's modest monarchist drama surprised many by becoming a worldwide hit last year, scooping most of the major Oscars and upsetting a lot of the supposed big name films. On the surface this may have seemed unlikely, but watching the film it is clear to see why it has such mass appeal, it manages to tell a familiar story in a new way and thanks to the great performances, transcend the stuffy reverence that can often coat such dramas.
.
The film tells the story of George VI, before and after he becomes King during the 1930's, a task for which he feels inadequate thanks to a speech impediment that has affected him since he was a small child. Using the introduction of Radio and the mass media the film neatly plays into the populations increased desire for contact from their leaders, and the importance of appearance in such roles. Having unsuccessfully rid himself of his condition George comes across a rather unorthodox speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) and the film charts the relationship these two, very different, characters form. Loosely based on true events what the film does well is strip away a lot of the political and social aspects of the story to focus on the characters. Colin Firth won an Oscar for his performance as George VI and it is easy to see why, he plays slightly repressed and downtrodden very well and he effectively explores George's condition not just as a series of tics and mannerisms, but as a condition that has defined his entire character from a very early age. He is defensive and untrustworthy, the psychological element of the story is not lost and that was something that surprised me. Every bit his equal though is Geoffrey Rush, who arguable has the harder role, acting as the counterpoint to Firths solemn and restrained performance. His Lionel is full of his own quirks, strict but fun and warm and though he takes a backseat to Firth for much of the film he provides it with the real heart.
.
The performances really drive the film forward and the moments with Firth and Rush apart are noticeably worse off for it. Despite the general lightness of tone there is still a certain dryness that creeps in to the film's slower moments that failed to keep my attention. The close focus that works so well at times also feels a little restrictive, the film feeling play-like in its dialogue and interior heavy focus and a bit more scope and urgency might have helped drive the plot along. It is a shame that the film didn't engage me as much as I had hoped, as technically it is clearly impressively constructed. Director Tom Hooper uses a variety of techniques to highlight George's condition, his use of odd angles and close-ups foster an atmosphere of claustrophobia, ably enhanced by Firth's performance. For the score Alexandre Desplat provides another in a series of strong recent compositions here, enhancing the light tone and yet remaining reverential, mixing in classical pieces from Beethovan and Mozart effectively.
.
Overall it is easy to see why The King's Speech garnered the attention it did, it is unashamedly crowd pleasing and I appreciated its restrained conclusion, eschewing Hollywood style bombast. However the film remains somewhat thin, aside from the great performances it fails to really grasp and engage as it might. It is far from the best film of last year, but if you temper expectations, there is still a lot to enjoy here.