The Long Goodbye (1973)

Robert Altman's take on the world of Raymond Chandlers's infamous detective Philip Marlowe is less an adaptation of his 1953 novel and more of a deconstruction of the genre as a whole, updating it to a (then) modern day setting and befitting it with Altman's typical disdain and derision of the wealthy and immoral, not to mention his shunning of typical Hollywood cliché.
.
Elliott Gould steps into the detective's shoes here, replacing the character's typically hard boiled edge with more of an affable detachment. He still drinks and smokes his way through the film, and is efficient enough to conduct his investigations into the apparent murder / suicide committed by one of his friends, but his laid back charm and bemusement ('it's alright with me' becomes something of a catchphrase of his directed at various people throughout the film) lend him distance in a very deliberate way.
.
As a piece of cinema the Long Goodbye is often very good, the problem though is that Altman can't help being Altman, he is seemingly unable to leave his stylistic tendencies to one side and just serve the story. He clearly here has little interest in the central mystery, instead devoted large portions of the film to slow moving conversational scenes, his love of dialogue and human behaviour here feels out of place at times and as such the film has no great sense of urgency. The detachment of Gould's Marlowe extends outwards as well, Altman's camera roams around the scenes, focusing on the details but languid, his trademark overlapping dialogue and use of diegetic sound take you out of the moment more often than they add to the film.
.
As a statement on the genre it might well work, snubbing its nose at the notions of honour and chivalry as usually portrayed. Here Marlowe is dogged and persistent, but there's little nobility about him especially at the end. As one of the police officers remarks early on, he's a wise-ass, but not the typically endearing kind. Here he exists to provoke and annoy, seemingly unflappable and desiring a quieter life that never quite finds him.
.
There is a lot of dissect and take away from The Long Goodbye, but it does also work on a surface level. It's just that a lot of the odd touches, the random acts of shocking violence, the cryptic dialogue and bizzare situations (a late film scene where a gangster forces all those in his office to strip, including a young and, at the time, unknown Arnold Schwarzenegger really stands out for this) detract from the story, rather than help it. Altman was a gifted film-maker with a very specific point of view and style, here it seems that this does more harm than good, by looking down on a genre he is simultaneously engaging in it rings as a hollow exercise and prevents the film from coming together as a coherent whole.

13 Assassins (2010)

Takashi Miike, best known for his prolific filmic output and over the top extreme violence (think Ichi the Killer or Audition) returns after a quiet few years with an unlikely venture, a classical and relatively sombre Samurai movie who’s poise and accomplished look are a reminder that under the gimmicks and gore Miike is a supremely talented director, here he tests his hands at an epic and largely succeeds.

.

Set in 1844 during a time of peace the film follows a disparate band of Samurai’s who find themselves with no real place in a world that is leaving behind the old ways and customs. They are drawn together in a mission to assassinate a high ranking official, the casually cruel and sadistic Lord Naritsugu (played with relish by Gorô Inagaki), a man who’s lack of conscience and desire for violence would doom Japan should he rise to power.

.

From this setup the film becomes a piece of two haves, the first slow and deliberate, putting the pieces of the plan together and spending some time with these characters, none of which are especially showy but who all feel honour bound by a common goal and shared spirit. The second half of the film in contrast is a bravado extended action sequence in a small village where the two sides have their showdown. It is as remarkably constructed and well paced an action scene as I’ve seen in a long time and is punctuated by creative choreography and character beats that stop it becoming tiring or repetitious.

.

Due to the number of character it is true that few are sketched all that clearly, one of the exceptions being Shinzaemon the leader of the assassins, a former royal guard who can no longer sit by in silence, the way he compiles his plans and executes on them reveal a man glad to have a purpose and give his life for a cause. A man reborn and it's a strong central performance that carries the film. Having a strong villain is another key reason why the film works so effectively, Lord Naritsugu's sadism is shown early on and he looms over the film as a force that must be stopped, adding urgency and weight to the assassins crusade.

.

The film is gorgeously shot throughout, Miike's camera is controlled and patient, the costumes, and sets are superb throughout effectively registering the time and place without drawing attention to it. In fact the film is noticeably restrained, especially at the start., Things do start to get pretty violent and gory late on, but again Miike isn't revelling in the violence and there is always a clear narrative through the action. It is really the final 45 minutes that pull the film together and help it stand out as one of the most enjoyable and well crafted Samurai films of recent years. There is a deeper emotional story here as well, but also a wonderfully entertaining series of set-pieces that really deliver on the film's slow build up. It is a film that should satisfy any fans of the genre, and also those who just want to see a historical epic told with sincerity and skill.

Arrietty (2010)

Studio Ghibli’s latest offering is another perfectly esoteric choice for the Japanese animation giants, an adaptation of Mary Norton’s the Borrowers, relocating the film but retaining much of its inherent conceits and characters whilst still allowing the studio’s prevalent themes to shine through. Miyazaki is only on script duty here, with former animator Hiromasa Yonebayashi in the directors chair, but Miyazaki’s fingerprints are all over the film from its environmentalist undercurrents to the small details that sell the world.

.

Story-wise we follow Arrietty the only daughter of a family of Borrowers living in a remote house in the countryside (the location remains ambiguous) where a sick boy is recuperating along with his aunt and her housekeeper. As usual with Studio Ghibli films the plot is less important than the characters and the ways in which they interact and grow. They are able to say so much with the smallest of gesture or detail that the miniature world of Arrietty and her parents is immediately understood and accepted. When they step outside into the wider world the sense of scale and sound design in particular is wonderful, with every practical detail considered as to how they must navigate the familiar but suddenly hostile and vertigo-inducing environments.

.

I have always appreciated how Miyazaki’s stories stray from the usual narrative conventions and this is true again here, later on a villain as such does appear (and played in a more threatening manner than often found in his films) but the threat never overwhelms the films themes and the poignant finale manages to be sweet without going where I expected it to.

.

So whilst it may lack some of the more inventive and fantastical elements of the best Studio Ghibli work Arrietty remains a wonderfully animated and highly enjoyable film. It is rich with character and style, its world both gentle and reassuring, a reminder once again that each film from this wonderful studio is a real gift to be treasured.

The Straight Story (1999)

David Lynch has never been one to stand by convention, and back in 1999 coming off the back of the deeply strange and impenetrable Lost Highway he chose to follow it up with a U rated film published by Disney. As odd as that sounds The Straight Story remains a Lynch film through and through, it merely replaces his darker id with a sweetness and decency that feels just as real and resonant. Those familiar with Lynch will know he has always has this side to him, from his love of the cornball aspects of Twin Peaks to the heartbreak at the centre of the Elephant Man. Here he channels it into the simple story of Alvin, an elderly man living in Iowa who sets out to visit his estranged brother after hearing he has suffered a stroke. However rather than taking conventional transport, and due to a lack of a valid drivers license, he instead decides to drive his trusty lawn mower, towing what he needs and sleeping rough along the 300 or so mile to his destination.
.
After a brief introductory sequence Alvin is quickly on his way and the film then largely becomes a road movie, showing how he impacts those characters he meets along the way and shares the philosophies and wisdom he has gained from a life fully lived. As Alvin Richard Farnsworth is wonderful in the role, he brings such pathos and generosity to the character without becoming twee or clichéd. He's eccentric but good hearted and some of my favourite scenes in the film were simple conversations where you would get to see worlds collide, and important character details revealed in the smallest of gestures. The script by John Roach and Mary Sweeney is wonderfully restrained and pared back. This isn't a film about big emotion or moments, but little slices of life and it affirms an underlying decency that I loved.
.
This isn't a complex film, or one with many layers, it's name is appropriate in more than one way. It has a deliberate pace, as Lynch's films always do, but the lush score from his frequent collaborator Angelo Badalamenti and Lynch's great eye for constructing a shot draw you in and make it a pleasure to absorb. This is a wonderfully human film, deeply felt and plainly presented.

Kiss Me Deadly (1955)

Robert Aldrich’s dark and oppressive Kiss Me Deadly is one of the most renowned film noirs of the 1950s. For me personally it was a case of renting it having heard the name, but not much else which is always a situation I enjoy with a film I can watch with no expectations or prior knowledge. The film starts in familiar fashion, a damsel in distress, a hardboiled private detective and a mystery he finds himself drawn to, but where it goes from there is often unexpected and frequently disturbing in a way that seems atypical for films of the time.
.

Ralph Meeker’s Mike Hammer is not an upstanding hero, instead he comes across as a reckless and morally dubious anti-hero who enjoys causing pain as much as he does hiring out his girlfriend / secretary to seduce divorcing men on behalf of their wives. Despite this though he remains a compelling character, and what really starts to separate the film as it goes on is the unsettling atmosphere that managed to pervade every corner of the film. After a while it becomes clear that whatever it is Hammer is after, is dangerous, yet we share his dogged persistence to get to the bottom of the puzzle.

.

The ending of the film is both strange and unexpected, but on reflection also totally fitting. This isn’t a film afraid to go big and weird and that twist actually adds a real edge that separates it from more traditional noir. With some expertly crafted scenes, top notch black and white photography and some charismatic performances Kiss Me Deadly is a great little thriller, its anachronisms easy to overcome even today and a great example of a classic film genre with a twist.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

For the fourth entry in the Mission: Impossible series the producers sought out Brad Bird for his live action debut, and it turns out to have been (surprise surprise) an excellent decision. What results is a fast, slick and highly entertaining blockbuster that sits right up there with the best the series has offered in the past.

.

Tom Cruise returns as Ethan Hunt, this time when his team is framed for an attack on the Kremlin he and his IMF team are firced to go underground. Working with limited resources and no backup they have to figure out who set them up and stop their plans to spark worldwide nuclear war. It's a neat premise (even if the bad guy's motivation is suspect at best) and one that allows the 'team' aspect of the franchise to take centre stage. It also allows the filmmakers to have their cake and eat it, by displaying much of the super-cool futuristic tech (a device for concealing progress down a corridor was a favourite) but also stopping the team from relying on it too much, as they are often entering situations here under-prepared and out of their depth.

.

Joining Cruise this time are Simon Pegg reprising his role from the third film and excellent by the way of comic relief, along with Jeremy Renner and Paula Patton, the four of them work well together and Bird stages some expertly crafted and nerve-wracking set pieces throughout the films running time. The most famous of these is Cruise's ascent up the Burj Khalifa hotel in Dubai which is truly astonishing, especially if you catch the film in IMAX.

.

Given how much I love all of Bird's previous films there was a touch of disappointment about Ghost Protocol which was really inevitable, it lacks any real depth of character or story and has moments that make very little sense in hindsight, one involving a reveal of a masked character seems to have come from a dropped subplot or earlier draft as it has no logical place in the story we end up seeing. That said the film is constantly entertaining, frequently funny and has a surprisingly tense and satisfying conclusion, it just falls short on a character level leaving a lot of spectacle but not much lasting resonance.

.

But not every film has to have that, and on the whole this is far, far better than any fourth film in a series has any right to be. A lot of that is down to Bird who's obvious knack for action cinema is highlighted here, his confident hand steers the film through its own absurdity and ensures that the Mission: Impossible franchise is as healthy as it's ever been. After this I would be more than happy to see future instalments involving this team if they were all as much fun as this.

Songs from the Second Floor (2000)

Occupying the very top tier of the arthouse cinema scale of intelligibility comes this strange, sad and oddly compelling Swedish drama from the turn of the millennium. Written and directed by Roy Anderson the film doesn't tell a story insomuch as it provides a meta-commentary on modern society through a series of carefully constructed, and invariable odd, vignettes typically populated by elderly, unhappy men (often resplendent with white facepaint for reasons unknown) struggling against life's absurdities. Whether it's Kalle (pictured) a man who burned down his furniture store for the inheritance, but who worries about being caught, or a businessman being fired unceremoniously in the middle of a corridor each of these characters is lost and searching for something that seems to have passed. Some characters weave in and out of scenes, strange events occur in the background of Anderson's frames, which are all filmed with long takes and static cameras that invite you to search the frames and contextualise what you are seeing.
.
Songs from the Second Floor is anything but an easy watch, individual scenes are often darkly funny. sad or just plain bizzare. They don't always work, the lack of propelling narrative or exposition will frustrate, and the long periods of silence and obtuse dialogue threaten boredom, but then something will click, be it a revered businessman and army hero living out his 100th birthday from a metal cot, literally helpless in front of those he has known, or Kalle's mute son, who is housed at a mental institute, crying silently in reaction to his brothers prosaic poetry. One of my favourite scenes comes near end as a series of businessmen make their way across what appears to be a vast airport check-in area, each struggling to manoeuvre their overburdened trolleys, each filled with all their worldly possessions. Each being held back from escape and freedom by all that they cling to.
.
It's not a film I would necessarily recommend, but one that has stuck with me in ways I was not expecting. It's an interesting realisation of a singular vision, one man's angry shout at an absurd world and for those moments when it resonates, it's worth the effort.

Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

Since Independence Day successfully brought back the large scale alien invasion concept, back in the mid 90's it has been a well from which many films have drawn. Battle: Los Angeles (or Battle: LA) brings its own twist to the tale, mixing the epic scope of previous blockbusters, with the gritty war-movie aesthetic usually reserved for much smaller scale endeavours. Unfortunately it also mixing in just about every military cliché in the book, along with some extremely forgettable characters (and this includes the aliens) resulting in a film that reigns some impressive images and sounds down but achieves very little.
.
Aaron Eckhart stars as Sgt. Michael Nantz, a man on the cusp of retirement from the Marines who is recalled to fight to reclaim the city of Los Angeles following an alien invasion. Not much detail is given, deliberately, as to the exact nature of the aliens or their attack, we are thrust into the action along with the platoon, who are initially sent to rescue to some survivors holed out in a nearby gas station. After things don't quite go to plan the troop find themselves teamed up with the remnants of the resistance and set out to get to safety. There is rarely a beat or story point in the film that doesn't feel overly familiar, from Eckhart's reluctant hero to Michelle Rodriguez as, you guessed it, a tough no-nonsense soldier (not to mention last surviving member of her platoon). This in itself isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, but the film never carves out any characters that resonate which renders the stakes in many of the protracted action scenes non-existent. The use of the shaky cam, gritty visual style doesn't really help the film either, it does lend a certain immediacy and intensity (and props must be given to the excellent sound design) but when you end up with a series of gun battles in the streets and in building with enemies that are terribly designed (they look like humans wearing odd helmets) you may as well be making an actual war film. There is very little that the alien angle of the film adds, aside from a few pieces of tech and a set-piece surrounding an antenna at the end of the film.
.
The alien design is a puzzle, even up close they are forgettable, indistinct humanoid shapes, let alone in the heat of battle. They are also remarkably inconsistent, early on it takes multiple rounds and marines to take one of these aliens down, the specimen is then examined for potential weak spots, a brief note is made about aiming to one side of their chest, but isn't brought up again, and yet as the film requires it the marines wind up mowing down the aliens at ease by the film's conclusion. It's nonsensical and again speaks to a lack of detail, and originality in the whole endeavour.
.
That's not to say there is nothing good here, technically the film is impressive with neatly integrated effects and a couple of nice sequences and performances, but the whole feels so unsatisfying and familiar that it accounts for very little, it's not terrible or even bad, it's just bland and unmemorable. There was potential for an Independence Day / Black Hawk Down crossover, but whatever that could have been, Battle: Los Angeles is not it.

Frozen (2010)

Adam Green followed up his 2006 horror film Hatchet, with this small scale affair, based around a simple premise and with just 3 characters. The setup concerns a pair of best friends, Joe and Dan, played by Shawn Ashmore and Kevin Zegers and Dan's girlfriend Parker (Emma Bell). After spending the day at a local ski resort they take a late in the day lift out to the peak for one last run. From here a misunderstanding leaves them stranded, the staff gone home for the week and the power shut off, all the while their lift hangs 30+ feet over the snow miles from safety. The rest of the film simply deals with this situation, and how these characters react, prompting an effective case of 'what would you do' in the viewer. Green is careful early on to not only introduce the character dynamics, but also emphasise the realism of the situation. The logical leaps aren't that great for you see such a situation occurring and in this respect the film is effective, sidestepping many of the conveniences horror films often have to bypass in order to generate tension and scares.
.
Here the tension comes from the rock and hard place choices these characters have to make, there is no obvious way out, the fractious nature of the friendships, tensions between best friend and girlfriend are nicely observed and the cast does generally good work, Shawn Ashmore in particular. The characters they have are recognisable but not especially memorable, perhaps by design. It soon becomes clear that the lift will be focus of the film, and Green does a generally good job of stretching out the film by incorporating various obstacles and problems to overcome as the film progresses. It is difficult to hold the audience's interest with such a limited scope and the film does suffer from this, it doesn't help that a moment about half way through that is clearly meant to be shocking winds up being almost comical through the over the top way it is put together. The film also relies on contrivances such as a local pack of wolves that makes an appearance to circle below the lift, filling in for the absence of any kind of real antagonist (aside from the weather). 
.
With such a slender premise the film isn't able to really sustain the interest that it might have if it had been slightly more ambitious. Again I admire the effort to put together a claustrophobic character study more than a typical horror film, but I don't feel that on the whole these characters are strong enough, nor the premise effective enough to really work as well as intended.
.
The film though is relatively short, and does make good use of it's options. The depictions of the characters as they suffer through the cold feel authentic and suitably horrific but the lack of either a clear goal or plan (other than 'escape') or time constraint make some of the middle sections drag. Overall Frozen is an interesting experiment in minimalism, it uses it's premise well and features some good performances but ultimately feels hampered by it's own small-scale ideals.

Green Hornet (2011)

I have been a fan of Michel Gondry since his video directing days, and for the most part have enjoyed his transition to feature director, Eternal Sunshine being one of my favourite films, but there have also been glimpses of his oddball sensibility and eye for the clever and absurd even in the films that didn't fully work. Green Hornet is the first really commercial project he has helmed, working with writers Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg (or Superbad and Pineapple Express fame) and it similarly their first foray into the world of big budget, more traditional blockbuster territory. The result is a film that surprised me, I didn't have great expectations despite the pedigree, in fact everything I had seen about the film hadn't impressed me, but the final product is a distinctive, fun and unusual comic book film. It has some big problems, but also does some things very well and marries the sensibilities of its creators well with the material.
.
I was unfamiliar with Green Hornet prior to seeing the film, as it is it concerns Britt Reid (Seth Rogan), wealthy heir to a successful media empire but well renowned layabout with little in the way of business acumen or affection for his cold and somewhat distant father. Following his fathers death he starts to bond with Kato, one of his fathers assistants, together they seek to vandalise a statue of Reid's father, but during the operation they inadvertently stop a robbery. Sensing something they form a partnership, with the aim of pretending to be new players in the local gang wars, only to be secretly working to help people. It's a little convoluted but I get the idea to flip the usual. good guy with a secret identity on its head and have the good guys pretend to be bad, but the film never focuses too much on how this is accomplished, or to what aim it is put. Their main adversary through the film is insecure crime lord Chudnofsky, played by Christoph Waltz. It is here that the film stumbles somewhat as well, his character is supposed to be strange but dangerous, constantly worrying about what others think of him, but Waltz seems to almost be in a different film to everyone else. It's not really his fault, the character just never quite gels  and even with his neat double barrelled pistol he doesn't stand out as a memorable or worthy villain to the piece. Similarly Cameron Diaz plays Lenore Case, a wannabe journalist that Reid hires as his assistant. The film starts to build something of a relationship between the two but her character isn't given much to do other than prompt Reid and Kato with ideas of what criminal activities to be seen performing next.
.
So what did I like? Well my issues mainly lie around everything outside of Reid and Kato, when the film focuses on them, and puts together details of how their partnership forms and progresses it is significantly more entertaining and fun than at any other time. Rogan and Jay Chou have great chemistry, despite (or even because of) Chou's difficulty with English it lets his performance be so much more physical and paring him with Rogan in typical motor-mouth mode was a master stroke. What is also unusual about Green Hornet is that the Hornet himself (Rogan) is by far the weak link in the partnership. He is the front man, but Kato is the real superhero, Reid may bankroll the operation but Kato builds the tech and has the martial arts skills. The visualisation of which (utilising Kato-vision) is one of Gondry's neatest visual tricks in the film, as the pair fight Kato is able to identify and isolate threats and predict their movements. It seems goofy but works really like any other superpower and makes the fights both clever and original.
.
The film is a sort of strange mix of blockbuster and comedy and can be very funny, but with strong likeable lead performances and with Gondry's distinctive eye giving it all a polished, but distinctive voice and vision it very much feels like its own beast. I'm not clamouring for more Green Hornet adventures, but I wouldn't be adverse to it either, in the swarm of comic book films that are enveloping our culture at the moment Green Hornet certainly stands as the odd one out, but shouldn't be automatically overlooked. There's a low-fi charm and spring in its step that I didn't expect and that I, despite everything in the film that didn't quite work, still enjoyed.

Drive (2011)

Like it's enigmatic central character Drive is a cool, calculating proposition, carefully measured and capable of both unexpected sweetness, and shocking violence. Nicholas Windig Refn's first Hollywood film is stylistically bold, and signifies him as one of the most exciting talents in an industry where truly individual voices are sometimes hard to find.
.
Ryan Gosling stars as the nameless Driver of the title, a part time movie stunt driver and mechanic, who moonlights as a getaway driver, offering his services for a five minute window, to aspiring criminals. Mysterious and tight lipped he marks an immediately iconic character, Gosling (one of the best actors currently working) finding untapped layers of cool and stillness as he begins to bond with his attractive neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son, who are struggling with Irene's husband being in jail. Through largely wordless scenes the pair form a real attachment, Mulligan brings real depth to a character who could be blank on the page, finding depths of loneliness and vulnerability that her eyes betray. She shares real chemistry with Gosling, while some might bemoan the films deliberate pace and restrained nature I found it affecting and distinctive. This is rarely a movie that does what you expect and as such feels fresh throughout. 
.
Things take a turn for the worse when Irene's husband returns from jail and enlists Gosling's help in a pawn shop robbery to help protect his family. Needless to say things go wrong and from here the film takes a much darker and more violent turn as the ripples of these actions reverberate throughout the world and touch on the shady world of the local mob, fronted by Albert Brooks (in a memorably chilling performance) and Ron Pearlman. Both of which have links to the Driver in the form of fronting his boss (the always excellent Bryan Cranston) in his latest business venture. Whilst the plot may seem complex it is actually fairly simple, but each of the characters is so well crafted, even with the broad strokes that the film mainly deals in, that it becomes absorbing throughout.
.
What really makes Drive stand out though is the atmosphere and construction, Refn's strong hand is visible throughout, from the moody Michael Man-esque glimpses of LA at night, to his framing and use of slo-mo and silence. As important a factor as anything is the films incredible soundtrack. fusing a mix of retro-electronica and ambient score this is a film completely in tune with it's soundscape, using it to heighten mood and enhance everything on screen. In many ways Drive feels like a film of a different era, a stylistic exercise that also works as a rewarding and thrilling film experience. This is largely thanks to the performances, Gosling and Mulligan really makes you care for their characters in a short space of time and it lends the back half of the film an emotional weight it might not have otherwise earned.
.
Like a knife through butter Drive cuts through so much homogenised, generic Hollywood cinema and proudly does things differently. It is a wonderful things to behold, and one of my favourite films of the year.

Morning Glory (2010)

As a lighthearted and entertaining throwback to the witty work-based comedies of Hollywood past Morning Glory gets a lot right. Though coming from the director of Notting Hill and writer of The Devil Wears Prada, two of the better films of a similar ilk from recent years, it should at least to a certain degree be expected. It also heralds the return of that rarest of beasts, an enjoyable and committed performance from Harrison Ford who seems re-energised here in a way so unlike his recent output.
.
Undoubtedly though the star of the piece is Rachel McAdams, she has impressed in other films up until this point, but front and centre here she puts in a truly notable performance, her mix of peppy eagerness and vulnerability neatly mixed with a real knack for physical comedy. She plays Becky Fuller, an aspiring news producer who dreams of one day working for the top rated network morning show. Upon finding her dreams falling apart she is accepted at a struggling TV station to try and boost their flagging program. It is in this effort that she strikes the idea of luring venerable, but ousted and embittered newsreader Mike Pomoroy (Harrison Ford) out of retirement and back into work, much to his reluctance. The rest of the film largely plays out to form with Mike and Becky learning from each other and plucky spirit overcoming obstacles, but nevertheless the somewhat grounded nature of the story and characters help keep the film engaging and the audience invested throughout.
.
Giving great support are Jeff Goldblum as Becky's cynical boss and Diane Keaton as the long-suffering co-host of the program, her chemistry with Ford is hugely entertaining and the film's obvious but endearing view of the world of news and especially breakfast TV feels fairly astute. Patrick Wilson has a relatively small role as a potential love interest for Becky, but I was actually glad that film kept this sub-plot largely on the sidelines. So the film works as something of an expose on the behind-the-scenes workings of a TV program, but also largely deals with the mixture everyone must battle with of career vs. family. Becky's ambition and commitment to her job have real consequences and it was nice to see this being addressed rather than the typical 'you can have it all' message permeating, and it keeps Becky likeable and sympathetic when she could so easily come across as annoying or overbearing. Again a lot of this is down to McAdams who's inherent charms have never been so well harnessed.
.
Ultimately Morning Glory isn't the deepest film, but it doesn't have to be. I found it a genuine surprise, thoroughly entertaining and upbeat with a very neatly worked and moving ending that manages to be as pleasantly low-key as the rest of the film. As I alluded to early on the film in many ways feels like something of a throwback with a fast paced script and entertaining characters,it's the sort of feel-good fare Hollywood should be turning out more often, so it's nice to recognise a job well done on those occasions that it all comes together this well.

Don't Look Now (1973)

Nicolas Roeg's revered, but little known psychological horror is an effective and disturbing example of 70s cinema at it's finest. The story, as it is, concerns a happily married couple Laura and John Baxter (Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland, both excellent throughout) who suffer a terrible tragedy. In order to recover they take a trip to Venice, but the impact of their loss follows them, as they are warned of further tragedy up ahead by a slightly creepy psychic who takes a shine to them.
.
Don't Look Now is all about atmosphere, right from the films unsettling opening it has a very distinctive feel and edge that never quite feel right. The film is never safe and predictable, which lend it a tremendous air of tension and uncertainty throughout. Roeg uses a variety of techniques to accomplish this, from dream sequences and great use of symbolism and imagery he quickly paints a picture of grief and psychological worry. It is even more remarkable to reflect upon the way characterises and uses the location of Venice, so often leaned on as a romantic paradise, here it's eerie canal-lined streets and crumbling façade's all threaten the unexpected, the couple's sense of isolation, from the world and each other, never more clearly depicted as in the sequence when they spend a night apart, Laura visiting the psychic woman for some sort of closure whilst John drowns his sorrows. 
.
Playing a large part in the building of tension and atmosphere is the wonderful sound work and score by Pino Donaggio, never overbearing but unnerving throughout. The lack of release or closure is one of the film's greatest strengths, all the peripheral characters that we need also seem slightly off, you start to not trust anyone, the carefully worded script leaves many things ambiguous (including the nature of the psychic lady who seems to offer assistance) until suddenly it is too late, and events of the films shocking conclusion are in motion. The conclusion is possibly the one aspect of the film that shows its age a little bit, it remains effective nonetheless, and the film on the whole holds up incredibly well.
.
The performances throughout are excellent and bold, Christie and Sutherland make a convincing couple, familiar but distant. Their infamous moment of connection in the middle of the film is as affecting and emotionally honest scenes of its ilk that I can ever remember watching. While the film can be unflinching, honest and tough to watch at times it also has a great air of mystery that keeps the story moving, even though even as you watch you feel no good can come of things.
.
Overall I found Don't Look Now a real surprise, it's oppressing atmosphere retains its power and the great performances and direction lift the film to the very highest tier. File this alongside Rosemary's Baby as a prime example of the power of cinema to evoke fear from mood and atmosphere, a feeling of dread almost unparalleled and a film well worth making time for.

Buried (2010)

Taking the idea of minimalism in film about as far as it can go, Buried is a taut thriller based solely on the premise of a single actor in a single location for its entire running time. It is an ambitious undertaking, and if anything is surprising it is that the film actually, for the most part, makes this work. What it does mean though is that the film never really justifies its limitations, so whilst I appreciated the craft it qualifies more as an notable experiment than a real success.
.
Ryan Reynolds plays Paul Conroy, a contractor stationed in Iraq who wakes up to find himself buried alive in a coffin. He quickly finds a mobile phone and a couple of lights, but no obvious way of escape. Soon he is contacted by his kidnappers, and the US team of investigators working to locate him, and so begins a race against time for him to be located before he runs out of air, or the coffin itself collapses in on itself. In between screenwriter Chris Sparling manages to find many ways to spread out the tension from this bare setup, be it demands from the kidnappers, the intrusion from an unfriendly snake or just Reynolds' character coming to terms with his life and situation. Here director Rodrigo Cortés must be given credit and he keeps the film visually interesting at least for its running time. From claustrophobic close ups to some cleverly positioned perspective shots and a nice use of colour (dependent on the light source and used inventively to reflect mood) he doesn't make the film feel as restrictive as it really should.
.
There have, of course, been similar single location films made before, recently Joel Schumacher's Phonebooth which used the concept well, and Danny Boyle's 127 Hours. Where Buried falls down in relation to these films is creating a memorable enough setup and purpose. Because we never leave the coffin we have no experience of Paul outside of this setting, and so the stakes are always hard to convey. It's a bold choice to start right from the moment Paul wakes up, but one I'm not convinced pays off as intended. Not that this is the fault of Ryan Reynolds who impresses, he is given a lot to do with a very restrictive situation, and with only voices to play off against, he is one of the reasons the film works as well as it does and whilst his character by design is not particularly notable he makes the emotional moments hit and few actors would be able to carry an entire film like this.
.
The decision also to keep the film grounded and quite harsh makes it on the one hand uncomfortable, I myself am no fan of tight enclosed spaces and it definitely affected me, but it also makes the film quite a tough watch. There isn't much in the way of release, again by limiting the films view, and not indulging in any flashback / fantasy sequences it leaves it all a bit one-note.
.
Ultimately Buried is a film that impresses in a way by simply existing. It is bold and different, but ultimately I feel the self-imposed restrictions of the premise hold it back. The basic idea and way that things plan out aren't really strong enough to be supported by the limited aesthetic choices and as such it is a film that feels like it is being held back. It has a great central performance, and some effectively tense and nerve-wracking moments, but overall it still feels like an interesting oddity, rather than a genuinely good film.

Jackie Brown (1997)

Until recently this was the only Quentin Tarantino film that I hadn't seen, for whatever reason it had always eluded me, at the time though it was under close scrutiny, coming off the back of Reservoir Dogs ad Pulp Fiction, and whilst it is perhaps less immediately impressive as those efforts there is an added layer of maturity here that I was surprised and impressed with. Many will forever labour Tarantino as a stylist first and formost, someone who crams in his love of film history and quirky fetishes into every film, and whilst those traits are visible here what Jackie Brown ultimately boils down to is a tremendously entertaining character piece choc-full of brilliant performances.
.
Based on the Elmore Leonard novel Rum Punch (he was also responsible for Get Shorty and Out of Sight) Jackie Brown focuses on the titular character, a superb Pam Grier, a low-rent flight attendant who finds herself supplementing her income by smuggling money across the border to Cuba for small time arms dealer Ordell (Samual L. Jackson, never better than he is here). When the police catch on to this Jackie is given a choice, jail or help them take down Ordell. However her loyalty is tested, especially when she befriends her worn down bail bondsman Max Cherry (Robert Forster). Add into the mix Robert DeNiro as one of Ordell's prison buddies who has just been released and you have an all-star cast of acting talent brought to a head in a clever and twisting tail of betrayal, murder and, naturally, amazingly sharp dialogue. The film takes its time setting up characters and the story, focusing on Grier's somewhat embittered but fierce Jackie Brown. She is wonderful in the film, strong but proud and it is clear from the way Tarantino shoots her that the film was largely built as a vehicle to re-launch her as a star. The symmetrical opening and closing sequences, set to Bobby Womack's 110th St. are perfect, as usual Tarantino's soundtrack is as integral part of the film as anything else.
.
As well as a twisting and involving narrative, the film is also very funny in places, Jackson and De-Niro (better here than he has been arguably since) make a great double act, neither one all that smart but both dangerous and equally tormented by Jackson's live in stoner girlfriend played with wonderful detachment by Bridget Fonda. Equally Forster plays the sad-sack well meaning bondsman with a tremendous amount of heart and feeling, the way his relationship builds with Jackie Brown is sweet and understated, it becomes clear how she re-ignites something inside of him that his job, seeing constant parades of criminals come and go, had all but taken away. These are simultaneously larger than life, stylised characters, spouting razor sharp dialogue but also very human recognisable souls, something that isn't always the case with Tarantino. It is ultimately this humanity that makes the film resonate, it's clever three-way final sequence is a great example of a directorial trick that feels appropriate for the film and the story, not a gimmick. The film's languid pace is often a blessing in that it gives the characters and actors a chance to breathe, and when even incidental scenes are acted, shot and edited so well it never becomes a chore.
.
Whatever it was that was holding me back from watching Jackie Brown, I'm glad that I got past it. Whilst it may not have the immediate impact of much of Tarantino's other work it ultimately feels like one of his most accessible and meaningful films. Full of great performances and dialogue this comes highly recommended as the kind of the film that, simply put, no-one else could make.

I Saw the Devil (2010)

As I have no doubt previously expunged upon in great detail I am a big fan of the current crop of films coming from South Korea, which is fast establishing itself as the most exciting and interesting source of cinema of any kind at the moment. Director Jee-woon Kim is at the forefront of this movement coming off the back of the hugely entertaining The Good, The Bad, The Weird and A Bittersweet Life. His latest film, I Saw the Devil is arguably his best film yet, a black hearted thriller that proudly subverts convention to provide a memorably and twisted experience that is hard to shake.

.

When Kim Soo-hyeon’s (the excellent Byung-hun Lee) pregnant fiancée is abducted and killed by a serial killer roaming the streets of Seoul, he sets himself the task of hunting the man down and getting justice. Being a highly trained secret agent makes this task well suited to his skills, interestingly the film is not so interested in the chase, indeed Kim locates the killer (Oldboy’s Min-sik Choi in another stunning performance) within the first hour of the film, the point at which most conventional narratives would end. Instead Kim plants a tracker on the killer, breaks his hand and lets him go, starting a dangerous game of cat and mouse where he seeks to torment, and slowly bring down the killer in his own time. It’s a wonderful conceit and one chillingly realised, Min-ski Choi’s killer is a brilliantly hateful character, a truly depraved and unsettling individual who fills every second of his screen time with menace. It is a wonderful performance and goes a long way to encouraging the viewer to cheer on Kim’s quest for vengeance, as he repeatedly pulls the leash and disrupts his plans, never dealing the final blow.

.

But the film doesn’t shy away from the dangers of Kim’s revenge trip either, the people he places in danger by letting the man go, or the damage to his own soul he risks by sinking to Choi’s level. The murky moral waters are largely left below the surface but their subtext underpins the rest of the film, elevating it beyond a standard revenge thriller. However the film also delivers on this regard, it is full of memorable set pieces and tense exchanges, and not afraid to face up to the darkness it depicts. This is a rough film at times, those with experience of Korean cinema would expect no less, but it never feels overly gratuitous.

.

If you can get past the dark subject matter, there is a fascinating and engaging thriller here, with a shocking and blackly comic finale. It is not subtle, and maybe not ultimately all that deep, but while it lasts it is a riveting and exhilarating experience that I would highly recommend. This is another brilliant South Korean revenge film, and proof that there is plenty of mileage in that particular tank left.

Blow Out (1981)

The latest in the recent batch of Brian De Palma movies that I have been catching up on, Blow Out is also my favourite of the directors work so far. It keenly marries his directorial flourishes to a compelling story, proving a good old fashioned thriller along the way, with a few twists.
.
The film starts wonderfully, in a voyeuristic POV shot we witness a serial killer stalk a college dormitory. Told with a real sense of menace but also a sly wink and a nod, it is soon revealed that this whole sequence is merely a film within a film, a movie that John Travolta's Jack Terry is working on as the sound engineer. When the killers spree ends with a somewhat pathetic scream, he is charged with recording a better one. Quite why a skilled sound man is working on low budget horror films is something revealed in the film, but it also allows the film to provide a sort of meta commentary on itself from within. Whilst recording the new sounds for the film, Travolta accidentally overhears a car accident, which claims the life of a senior politician. He rescues a woman (Nancy Allen) from the river where the car ends up, and soon discovers that there was more to the incident than a simple accident and soon he becomes embroiled in a conspiracy, and his sound recording could be the only clue to solving it.
.
It is a neat premise and the film knowingly skirts the conventions of these types of thrillers. On top of an intriguing plot the characters fascinate too, Jack soon takes a liking to Sally and the two of them tentatively build up a relationship. Both leads impress, Travolta in one of his most understated but effective roles, and Allen playing sweet and naive in a way that still remains believable. On the other end of the spectrum John Lithgow has a memorable role as a hitman and he brings his usual menace to the role. To give much more away about the twists in the tale would spoil a tale best left untold, but this is a rare case of a thriller holding my attention throughout and providing a clever and exciting conclusion. The Hitchcock parallels are always evident with De Palma, but he does a lot here to distinguish his own voice. It is also a nice ode to analogue technology, made as it was before the rise of digital equipment, and there is a fascinating sequence where Travolta's character has synch up separate audio and video recordings, it's painstaking but the sort of nitty gritty detective work that I appreciate in these types of films.
.
The story is nicely grounded as well, focused as it is on a relatively small number of characters and never unravels to become overblown or too fantastical. Combine this with a snappy pace and several memorable sequences and you have a smart, effective thriller that I found a joy to watch. 

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

It is a sign of my delayed reviewing schedule for this year that I am only just getting round to one of the summers biggest blockbusters, long after all who wanted to see it will have already done so, but nonetheless I find the film worthy of discussion, exemplifying as it does the very best and worse that Michael Bay and large scale Hollywood productions have to offer at this rather strange time for the industry.
.

The third in Bay’s trilogy of Transformers films (though he may be done, the film’s $1bn at the global box office ensures there will be more films to come, of that we can be sure) Dark of the Moon has the definite feel of someone making a grand statement. It is a colossal film, in scale and technical accomplishment that dwarfs nearly all its blockbuster competition in terms of ambition and scale of action. However it also suffers from many of the issues that plague Bays films and his Transformers ones in particular, proof that not all the necessary lessons were learned from Revenge of the Fallen, though Moon is a distinct improvement on that bloated and excessive sequel.

.

Set a few years after the events of the first two films Dark of the Moon once again concerns itself with the daily life of Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBouf), this time as he struggles to find a job and make his way out in the world. We also discover that in the time between films he has been ditched by his girlfriend (Megan Fox who was ousted from this outing) and is now seeing the new piece of eye candy Carly Spencer (played by model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley), as such it is difficult to build up much sympathy for Sam’s initial frustration in the film at being unappreciated for his part in saving the world and unable to find employment. I generally like LaBeouf as an actor, even when others don’t, but at the start of the film he indulges in all his bad habits, turning the motor-mouthed smart alec dial well up towards unlikeable. 

.

In fact this trait seems to have been inherited by the entire human cast in the film, John Malkovich, Ken Jeong, Alan Tudyk; the list of actors who I like and who end up just grating in this film is disturbingly long. Some of this obviously comes from Bay’s goofy sense of humour and insistence on everyone in the film acting as comic relief, but it also stems from the fact that none of them are playing real characters, they are all a bunch of ticks and quirks and it soon frustrates. Remarkably John Turturro’s returning Agent Simmons is one of the least bothersome characters, along with Frances McDormand’s uptight FBI agent who seems to rise above the silliness that surrounds her. Still it seems that aside from Sam, who is given something of a character arc in the film and some decisions to make, there is very little offered by way of character in the film which is a real shame.

.

Plot wise the film is more straightforward then the second film, if just as nonsensical, the discovery of a crashed Decepticon ship on the moon leads to the revival of the war, culminating in the last half of the film which solely focuses on the battle for Chicago. There is at least a clearer focus on objectives and purpose here and whilst the film is still overlong it moves at a decent pace and once it gets going is an easy watch, despite the aforementioned issues with its characters. In fact once the Chicago scenes start the film barely stops for breathe, delivering set piece after set piece in some of the best sustained and constructed action of Bay’s career. The trouble is that whilst the central objective is at least clear, there is little pacing or rhythm to the action, it works in sections but doesn’t always gel. In some scenes characters will be glimpsed and then vanish, part way through Bumblebee is seen fighting alongside Sam, however in the next scene he has been captured and is about to be executed. It’s a shame really as there are lots of great moments that don’t quite work together as well as they should. It doesn’t help that the logic of what the decepticons are trying to do at this stage is not only unclear, but seemingly illogical that leaves the film without clear stakes. 

.

The lack of this personal touch is a theme of much of Bay’s work and is one of the reasons why he is a frustrating director for me personally. Unlike some I don’t regard him as the devil incarnate (take a bow Mark Kermode) I think he is very talented as an action filmmaker, and who has a good eye for a well staged and ridiculous sequence, but lately more than ever he seems less and less interested in the actual people that populate his films. This is a real problem as you merely end up with the shell of a film, one that might seem fun and entertaining, and contain lots of pretty visuals and explosions, but that lacks (for want of a better word) soul. This summer I also watched Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life, which seems the very antithesis of the Transformers movies, in that it is nothing but soul, focused as it is on character and emotion, things these films could really do with, even in the smallest amount.

.

As it is Dark of the Moon does contain some stunning sequences (one set in a collapsing skyscraper being the stand out) along with some of the best CGI yet committed to film, as well as a very impressive 3D presentation (the first since Avatar that has really wowed me in relation to enhancing the action on screen) but it feels all for nought. Our investment in this world, in these people just isn’t there. Even the Transformers themselves (which I have thus far neglected to mention, mainly because they aren’t especially interesting either) whilst given more prominence than in the other films, don’t come across as particularly likeable or nice. Bumblebee has always been the sympathetic character, and so he remains, but Optimus Prime here merely comes across as something of an arrogant and violent dictator, gleefully slicing through his enemies in ways that struggle to reconcile with his supposed commitment to peace. Though I did appreciate Leonard Nimoy’s addition to the cast as Sentinel Prime for a period, adding some much needed gravitas to the proceedings.

.

Dark of the Moon is a pure sugar rush of a film, and ultimately as unfulfilling as you find the now-empty pack of chocolate to be moments after finishing. Looking back to the first Transformers film (which I still like as the best of the three) there is a heart, an underlying theme of growing up and getting your first car that still rings true. It’s hardly Malick but it’s enough, and it’s what has been missed in the ever escalating spectacle ever since.

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010)

Zack Snyder's first foray into the world of animated films is a bit of a left field choice for the director who has thus far displayed a knack for gloriously over the top violence; a fantasy story focusing almost exclusively on Owls based on a series of children's books. As well as being lumped with that unfortunate subtitle, the film struggles throughout to really create an identity for itself, its hooting protagonists aside, the story is unfortunately generic, but Snyder's artful direction and the film's gorgeous animation help it entertain more than it perhaps should.
.
Jim Sturgess lends his voice to Soren, a young owl who, along with his siblings, is captured from his family home one day and brought to St Aggies, an orphanage that fronts a more sinister purpose, brainwashing kids and stray owls into forming an army at the behest of Joel Edgerton's Metal Beak. After managing to escape Soren seeks out the legendary Owls of Ga'Hoole to help combat the rising darkness. Needless to say originality isn't the film's strong suit and beat for beat much of the film can be easily predicted. Now this isn't necessarily a problem, if the characters are interesting and engaging enough, unfortunately this isn't the case. There's nothing wrong per-se with any of the cast, voice wise they are all fine, but enough isn't really done to make us root for them in the story. This isn't helped by the fact that there are a lot of quite similar looking characters in the film, a limitation of having just one primary species of animal to choose from. 
.
That said the owl's themselves, whatever you may think about them inhabiting a fantasy world and spouting dialogue about honour and courage, do look incredible. Snyder deliberately chose a realistic style for the film and as such it is remarkable that the animators were able to make the characters work as well as they do. There is limited space to emote but the differing varieties of Owl's are well used and painstakingly rendered. In fact everything about the film is truly stunning to look at, from the subtle animation of the individual features to Snyder's stunningly framed shots of the scenery. Whatever the failing of the story, Snyder never stops impressing visually, however without the real emotional engagement it becomes a bit of a hollow experience in the end.
.
Not that I found the film to be expressly bad, one slightly cloying and badly judged musical montage late-on excluded, but neither did it truly engage me. Truthfully I was sceptical of the entire premise so that fact that the sheer strangeness of what you are watching (Owls remaking Star Wars essentially) doesn't detract from the experience was enough of a surprise. Obviously the film is skewed at a younger audience, though with this in mind some sections remain quite violent thanks to the realistic look of the characters and Snyder's fondness for action. 
.
Overall there are few surprises in the film, aside from the fact that it works at all, and truthfully as a spectacle with some decent action and a familiar story it works perfectly well. Synder definitely has a knack for the animated medium and his presence certainly elevates the film from what it might have been. So it remains a solid animated adventure but one that's biggest problem is a lack of identity, you get the feeling that having the character's be Owls was the only big idea, and no more followed. This fact being true does nothing to influence the story or characters, and so it seems arbitrary, which unfortunately is something of a fitting metaphor for the film as a whole.

Predators (2010)

Neither a sequel, not real remake of the original Predator film, Predators stands as a new entry in the series, designed to return to the simple premise at the heart of that initial films success, pitting a team of marines in a hostile environment against the titular predators. On the whole this was the right approach for the series, whose only real action in the last decade or so has been in the increasingly disappointing Alien vs. Predator format, films that haven’t done either franchise many favours.

.

The film opens with Adrien Brody’s Royce waking up, mid parachute jump, heading for the ground with no recollection of how he got there. Upon landing he happens across a disparate group of people in the same situation, from all corners of the planet. As they group up and explore it becomes clear that they are not on Earth, and worse, they are being hunted. It’s a neat initial twist on the original premise, rather than having the Predator’s come to Earth, they bring the prey to them. One of the problems with the film though is that it is a bit slow to get started, especially as the audience has a big head start of the characters. They, naturally, are unaware of the Predator, its hunting techniques and capabilities, but at this stage of the franchise those who watch are already overly familiar with these tropes. As such the strung out introduction of the creatures, which takes a good chunk of the film, and re-use of the gimmicky ‘predator vision’ feels unnecessary and pointless, we already know ahead of time what awaits the characters on the surface and a smarter thing to do would have been to establish this right from the start rather than tease the reveal of the creature that everyone knows for a good 40 minutes or so.

.

As such we are lumbered with a fair amount of exposition and traipsing through unremarkable jungles early on (it may be by design, but there is very little ‘alien’ regarding the design of the locations and geography of the planet, which somewhat makes the decision to set the film there a bit moot). The cast is game enough, Brody is a highly unusual action star, he growls his lines and does an alright job of playing the mercenary but never quite convinces. The rest of the group, who we discover are all taken from the most dangerous and highly trained organisations in the world (Yakuza, Special Forces etc.) are generally fine but mostly forgettable. Topher Grace, as the odd one out (a doctor) provides some comic relief but the script doesn’t give many people a reason to stand out. But then again this is not the sort of film that requires that, the structure is very familiar, gradually the group are picked off as they try and find a way to escape. For this the film-makers do introduce some new creatures, some ferocious dog like beasts are a neat addition to the universe, but the storyline involving two differing species of Predator (who both looked virtually identical to my eyes) feels unnecessary and underdeveloped, existing only to fulfil a rather belaboured plot point towards the end of the film.

.

Setting the film away from Earth, and featuring characters with no prior knowledge of the Predators does lead to some narrative issues that are largely explained away by the inclusion of Lawrence Fishburne’s Noland, a previous captive who has holed himself up in an abandoned spacecraft. Fishburne gives a distinctly batty performance, possibly so as to distract from all the exposition he is lumbered with, but the whole sequence again feels like the solution to a narrative problem.

.

I am perhaps being critical of a film whose primary focus is to entertain, but then it often fails at this also. It is technically competent and does feature some engaging action sequences, but largely feels devoid of interesting and original ideas. Shoot outs in the jungle are so familiar at this stage that sometimes it mightn’t even be Predators they are facing. So devoid of ideas is the film that it even manages to take one of the best ones from the original (covering a character in mud to avoid detection) for its own. The film is by no means terrible, its ambitions to return to the originals pared back narrative are noble and the Predators remain an interesting and effective creature, it’s just a shame that the film feels like a wasted opportunity on the whole, bringing little new of value to the franchise and existing as largely forgettable spectacle. A few more over the top sequences, or ideas, might have elevated it but it largely just exists, not offending but not engaging either, which really is its biggest crime.