Interstellar (2014) ****

Christopher Nolan has never been one to shy away from a challenge. Take Inception, for example, that took you into world’s within worlds in order to change the future.

In this case however, there was no need for such poetic licence, as Nolan is taking on the challenge of the universe, which is plenty strange enough. The film covers many decades and many millions of miles all within a running time of two and half hours. Not bad going. I suspect the cutting room floor was littered with the material that couldn’t be included.

The story is one of a planet running out of food and time. Corn is rapidly becoming the staple and only diet. McConaughey’s Cooper, a veteran space pilot, stumbles on and is brought into a secret NASA mission to try to find an alternative planet for mankind, or at least as many people as they can take there. Inevitably, he and a sparse crew are the last great hope and they are sent out into the far-flung reaches of the galaxy in search of some new real estate – which we assume in a few hundred years we’d manage to ruin in much the same way as we appear to have been doing to our current planet. Of course, by taking the mission, Cooper has to leave his family behind.

All this feels fairly Bruce Willis.

But it isn’t, and there are a number of reasons for this:

• The concurrent theme that runs through this film is the promise Cooper makes to his daughter – that he will return – and one he desperately tries to keep. This anchors the story in something very simple and real for the viewer – unlike the huge complexity of science that surrounds the rest of this film. It’s not sappy, it just a strong emotional tie that Cooper carries throughout the film.
• The strength of that theme is achieved in no small part as a result of McConaughey’s performance. This is a man who seems to have left those smiling, chiselled, Dolce & Gabana looks behind, to seek out a real film career – and this film is, and will no doubt remain, one of the highlights. He keeps Cooper simple, honest and not overly emotional throughout – a man determined to do his job, in terms of both saving the planet and his relationship with his daughter. It’s a stellar performance, ably supported by the likes of Chastain, Caine and Damon (the latter of which was particularly noteworthy)
• These are both great strengths of the film, but to me, what really wins out is the way Nolan handles this story. The magnitude of the mission, the absurd complexity of space and time and the number of things that are achieved and done within that running time, could have resulted in a fairly incoherent mess in another director’s hands (or a much simpler, dumbed down film). But Nolan somehow manages to cover so much in such a relatively short running time and yet never leaves the viewer behind. It’s a magnificent piece of film making in this regard.

So why only 4 stars? I believe there are only 2 problems with this film. The smaller issue is the casting of Anne Hathaway. Doesn’t work for me – she just doesn’t seem to be a thing of space suits (where Sandra Bullock, on the other hand, surprisingly was). The bigger problem is the ending. And when I say this, I mean the last 10 minutes. Nolan opts for a Hollywood ending and I don’t think it fits with the arc of the film. In many ways is the most unrealistic element of the film, which is saying something given what goes before. He could have been bolder, but chose not to – maybe because he felt he had to close off that other theme.

In reality though, neither of these significantly detract from what is a superb piece of work that is both enthralling and heart warming, whilst serving to remind us just how small and fragile we really are.

An epic journey, anchored by a simple human premise and beautifully translated into celluloid – cinema gold.

Silver linings playbook (2013)****

As I sat down to watch this film, I knew only 2 things about it: (1) Bradley Cooper and potentially Jennifer Lawrence (our lead actors) were both playing characters with mental illnesses; and (2)  this film had won some serious awards.

So I sat down to watch the film and found myself, in the last ten minutes of this movie, quietly saying the words “please don’t let this end badly”.  Tiffany’s previous husband had died by the road and I was convinced that in some cruel twist of fate she would follow suit. I wanted this film to end well because it would be a travesty if it didn’t.

Why was I so concerned about where this story might end up? Films that win awards tend to portray gritty realities. In reality, things rarely pan out how you had dreamed or hoped. This film has received a considerable amount of critical acclaim. Ipso facto – this film cannot end well. I liked these characters – so gritty realism was not acceptable as far as I was concerned.

There was another thing that was bugging me in the first quarter an hour of the film. There is a long-held recognition that one of the quickest paths to oscar glory, is by playing someone who is mentally or physically ill.  Jack Nicholson in One Flew over the Cuckoo’s nest is a case in point. As already mentioned, I knew that mental illness was on the cards and it was made very clear from outset that Bradley Cooper’s character had issues. In my sceptical mind (pushing against the tide of critics that generally know what they are talking about), this fact immediately called into question the legitimacy of any awards this film had received. A little unfair I hear you say, but keep in mind that I was busy praying for a happy ending and was convinced this was not to be afforded me.

So to the film. Bradley Cooper, with his unfeasibly wide shoulders and tropical ocean eyes, plays Pat. Pat’s life and marriage has fallen apart and he has spent the last 8 months in a mental institute. We open with his mother extracting him from it, provided he behaves himself. Pat is bipolar. Pat is fixated on trying to get his life and marriage on track. At this point Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) enters the fray. Tiffany has her own problems and the two enter an uneasy pact where Tiffany offers to help Pat in return for a favour of her own. I’ll leave it there.

This is a story of 2 people played out against the backdrop of a series of deals and wagers. The supporting cast is excellent, which includes Robert De Niro, but Cooper and Lawrence steal every scene they appear in. I found  myself a fully paid up member of the Pat and Tiffany fan club and I really wanted to know what happened at the end – the basic requirements of a good film. As such, I was going to be pissed if the director went all “arty” at the end and spoiled it.

As to whether Tiffany does make it to the end of the movie – well I can’t tell you as that would spoil it.  Be assured though, this is a great film and one of the best I have seen in the last year.

50/50 (2011)***

50/50 is an indie romance, set against the backdrop of cancer. It’s not the first film of this kind and it won’t be the last – the question, as I sat down to watch it, was whether it could get the balance right. Not to sickly and not to sweet.

Joseph Gordon Levitt (one of the upcoming talents in Hollywood these days) plays Adam, aged 27, who is diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. As the title would suggest, he is given a 50/50 prognosis and we are taken on the journey to see which way the dice will fall. More importantly, we observe the people around him rise and fall against the backdrop of his lonely journey.

The film creates a not entirely original, but certainly on the face of it an interesting, set of dynamics through which this comedy drama is to be played out.

Seth Rogen is Kyle, the best mate who supports Adam throughout, albeit not in an entirely conventional manner. This is another Seth Rogen performance that bares a striking resemblance to, well, previous Seth Rogen performances. He’s crude, off beat and always appears just slightly unwashed. Not original, but admittedly he plays the role solidly.

Other heavy weights in the ring include Angelica Houston, as Adam’s overbearing mother and Bryce Dallas Howard, who plays the girlfriend that just doesn’t want to handle all this reality so early in their relationship.

So, thus far we have a pretty standard story which Joseph is carrying. Seth’s adding a few useful punch lines. Everything else is scenery and in the case of Dallas Howard, the kind of scenery that passes you by without you noticing.

Enter Anna Kendrick’s Katherine, the therapist assigned to Adam to provide clinical support. In my view she steals the film, just like she nicked “Up in the Air” right out from under George Clooney’s nose. The interaction between her character and Adam is the most effecting of the whole film. She has a wonderful understated style in this film – a steely vulnerability that speaks volumes. The chemistry between the two works.

The other key credit for this film is its treatment of the subject matter. Yes some of the subplots are theatrical and clichéd, but Jonathan Levine captures very effectively the helplessness that cancer can evoke. He allows the film a few moments to dwell on the unfairness of it all without crossing over into melodrama. It’s deftly handled.

So, despite a slow start and some strong acting calibre not being deployed effectively, this is a solid film which is lifted every time Levitt and Kendrick share the screen.

A good mix – not a full on weepy but may require the occasional dab with handkerchief.

Prometheus (2012) ****

Back in 1979, Ridley Scott introduced us to the Nostromo, a deep space vessel whose commercial crew are awakened from hyper-sleep in response to an apparent SOS from a nearby planet. They visit the planet and pick up an unwanted passenger who subsequently wreaks havoc on the ship. This film was “Alien“. To this day it remains one of the best science fiction movies ever made as well as one of the best of the horror/thriller genre.

Over 30 years later, the same director, brings us another ship, Prometheus. Except with this ship, and with this film, Scott takes us back to before Alien and seeks to explain how the crew of the Nostromo ended up in that mess decades earlier. Also, as is his way, he assembles a fantastic cast to deliver this new masterpiece (with the standout performances from relative newcomer Noomi Rapace as Elizabeth Shaw and a fantastic portrayal of David by Michael Fassbender).

So, high expectations on my part (definitely a “pull the seat round in front of the TV for maximum impact” film). It’s connection with such a fabulous predecessor and the same director at the helm made this compelling viewing before I even pressed the play button. And the first half hour, maybe 40 minutes, I was smiling and excited. For the remainder, I was entertained but not over awed.

I think, ultimately, I was disappointed. But not because this is a bad film. It’s a good film. I just believed it could, and expected it would, be more. Particularly given the promise of those first 40 minutes (give or take the very first scene).

So why? Let’s delve for a moment into the hype, which all modern films are required to carry. I was led to believe that this film offered something different to the Alien series – dare I say something better. A breadth of fresh air and something altogether deeper and smarter. More cerebral.

Well, if that were true, then without even watching the opening credits, this was a potentially mixed blessing because, good though that sounds, the original Alien movie was very smart film making – it was conceptually new, ahead of its time and truly scary in parts. It created one of the most iconic film heroines and it ushered in a new generation in special effects. Most of all, it was original.

In Prometheus, Scott provides us with another crew sent out into the distant yonder, this time in search of what we believe could be our  “makers”, based on some ancient cave maps scattered across Earth. So a crew is sent across the galaxy, finds the planet and sets down to try to unravel the secrets therein. This is where the film I believe quickly falls back into a well trodden path. We have the dysfunctional crew, we have the female heroine, we have the creepy cyborg and we have the going into dark rooms and touching things that common sense would clearly tell you not to. And it’s not a problem, because its done well and builds the tension effectively combined with some stunning visual effects.

However, when everything starts to go wrong, the film drops a few notches. Yes the scenes that follow are clever, thrilling in part and drive the film to its relentless conclusion – but it left me entertained not thrilled. Ultimately, it kept to the formula set over 30 years earlier, even if it was hidden below some layers of complexity, and therefore lacked that additional injection of originality.

And what of the cerebral angle? The film does kick up a few interesting, although not entirely unexpected, tensions. For example the question about how the concept of another race creating us sits with our existing religious beliefs – a different take on the concept of of intelligent design. But interesting though these are, and despite being cleverly weaved into the story, they are not enough to raise this film to a new level.

So expectations are a powerful thing. It’s a 4 start film but I expected it to be a 5. Against most other science fiction films, this is a very good movie. But Alien still looks down upon it from above.

Not out of sight but certainly a small climb.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) ***

One of my rules of thumb in movies is that a film never outclasses the book on which it is based. I am yet to come across an exception to this rule, and despite a strong cast and an excellent director, the same applies here.

That’s not to say that the book is class, despite its best-selling status. It’s good trash fiction. This is a good adaptation of a well structured trash fiction story but it would have to truly excel to beat the book – which it does not. What further plays against this book and solidifies my rule of thumb is that this is the first book in a trilogy. I have read all three. Recently. I have a clear idea in my mind of what these characters look like and how they behave. So, to be fair, the film had an uphill struggle from the outset. In fact given the furore around the books and the general bent towards all things scandinavian in film and TV, it was a brave move by Fincher (who is a truly great director) to take this on.

To the casting team’s credit, Mara Rooney is very close to my Lisbeth Salander. Daniel Craig, as Mikael Blomkvist is not. And what’s with the glasses hanging from one ear? I tried it, its ridiculous.

So, for those who know nothing of either book or film (all 3 of you), this is the basic premise. Blomkvist is an investigative journalist who has just been sold down the river by a source. As part of a forced exile from the magazine on which he works, he takes a job from Henrik Vanger (a well cast Christopher Plummer) who asks him to move up to the Vanger island (the Vanger’s own a multinational corporation) to investigate the murder of a member of the Vanger Family decades earlier. Parallel to this is the focus of the trilogy, Lisbeth Salander. A social outrider, originally brought onboard to investigate Blomkvist for the Vangers and then recruited by him to support the investigation and the character that forms the spine of the trilogy.

It’s a beautifully shot film (although nothing knew on what is becoming a tried and tested bleak canvas that represents Scandinavian countries). The story has, in Salander, a very unique character and Fincher exploits this effectively. Craig creates a take on Blomkvist, but his cinematic persona follows him into this film and its the wrong one for this role. I think Blomkvist would be better with a little more paunch and a little less chisel given he mainlines coffee and cigarettes in the book. I also like the casting of Stellan Skargard – a man of so many films and one who depicts Martin Vanger perfectly in his quiet and understated way.

So yes – everything is more or less there, making this watchable (apart from a couple of gruesome parts – it’s not a lovely story). But it lies in the eclipse of the book and that will always be a problem. Sorry Mr Fincher.

The adventures of Tintin – the secret of the Unicorn (2011) ****

Tintin, the much loved flemish explorer, with his little white dog Snowy, could only be described as excellent source material for an epic and groundbreaking film from two of cinemas heavyweights,  Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg. The fact that its an animation is slightly more surprising. But by far the most surprising thing is you barely notice it is, given the rich canvas on which this Indiana Jones esque tale of the search for sunken treasure is cast and the detail and vibrancy of the characters that populate it. It is astounding just how far the likes of Pixar and Dreamworks have taken us and one only wonders whether all these highly paid holloywood starts will start to look over their collective shoulders when the people that really start to pull the strings are these digital pupateers who can create such auspicious characters without a single shot of a real human being required. Where will this take us I wonder. Has Harrison Ford hit retirement at just the right moment? Should Tinitin grab his hat?

The swashbuckling adventure centres around the purchase by Tintin of a model ship. This model of the “Unicorn” hides a secret message which a number of interested parties are after and will lead him on a voyage to discover the riches that the real ship carried centuries before. On his journey he is supported by the rarely sober Captain Haddock who treats water with disdain and lives solely on a diet of Whisky. Tintin is also helped by the slightly inept interpol detective twins, with their hats and walking canes in tow wherever they might be. The adventure moves from land to sea, from boat to motorbike and from city to desert at break neck speed. Interestingly, the set pieces are little more excessive then the average blockbuster which helps to further the illusion. At the same time, the animation enables Jackson to link these scenes together in a way that is visually warming to the eye.

In terms of downsides, well there aren’t many except perhaps our hero himself. This is not the fault of Jackson or Spielberg as their creation of Tintin within the film is excellent. The issue lies more with the fact that Tintin is a character from the past and even then, his status was far from mainstream having arrived from across the channel. Many will have spent more time with Asterix and Obelix than with Tintin. Tintin was at best a peripheral character in their childhoods making this more of a curiosity than the bringing to life of a childhood friend. And because of that, although this is is undoubtedly a great family film, I suspect for most it will remain just that.

Dredd 3D (2012)***

There is a comic book subculture of which I know nothing. If you talk to someone who knows a little about comics they will expound the virtues of the likes of Marvel and the fantastic characters that they created over decades of scribbling. What’s more, there is an undercurrent within every story, a representation of diversity, a socioeconomic riff and an observation on human frailty. Apparently not just colourful and vivid stories designed to entertain pubescent teens then?

In fact, despite the mainstream appeal of these comic book adaptations, these same gurus can be decidedly critical of many of these films and to be honest, as an observation, hollywood has become increasingly lazy in this area meaning that we should probably not tut too much when they criticize the failure to follow the source material.

Dredd therefore has a head start as it is I am told very true to the source material. Does that make it a good film though.

Well, it creates a pretty grim world with Peaches Towers, with its 75,000 residents, a backdrop against which the majority of the story plays out,  a far cry from summery fair it might suggest.

Judge Dredd, with his rookie judge Anderson in toe, goes to the towers to investigate a triple murder and finds himself locked in to prevent him leaving with one of the drug lord’s henchmen. A bounty of sorts is placed on his head and the Judges have to do or die until the blast doors are raised. What follows is a considerable amount of blood, gore, careful pacing along some dark corridors and an eventual, slightly under played, showdown.

Of course, even for us comic amateurs, we all knew roughly who Dredd was, we all wanted the helmet (almost as much as a stormtrooper’s helmet) and we all have pointed a gun at the mirror uttering the immortal words “I’am the law”. On those fronts you will not be disappointed (although he only uses the words once). But this has no colourful edges and is not an easy watch. The drug taking scenes are overstylised but otherwise the rest is not. I sense the level of gore is to stay close to the source. The casting of Karl Urban as Dredd is masterful as is his use of his jaw and voice. Everyone else is little more than a satellite to his central mass and the film only works when he is present, which he is for most scenes.

So. Not your average comic book flick but a reasonable addition to the genre that takes a different and more accurate route but one which is both good and bad for the cinematic experience.

Of course, I’m told The Raid is better with a very similar story – I wouldn’t want to comment…

[Note – as the title suggests this is full on use of 3D – it took my eyes at least 10 minutes to deal with the 3D barrage but it does work and you do adapt.]

Tyrannosaur (2011) ***

How much cold, hard reality can you take in a film and still want to watch it? Engage with it. Give two hours of your life for it. Is it selfish to avoid watching a film that is going to take you on a journey to a reality that you hope you will never know, however compelling that journey might be?

Tyrannosaur firmly falls into this category. A film that can never end well. There may be a small flicker of light at the end of the tunnel but it simply can’t extinguish the darkness which has gone before.

Of course the lead actor in this film is Peter Mullan, and he is a master of this type of gritty genre. My name is Jo being a case in point. Added to which Paddy Considine wrote and directed it. Dead man’s shoes, the film for which he is best known, takes you on an equally light-hearted journey.

This is the story of Joseph, an alcoholic with vile manners and someone for whom everything he touches or looks at turns to shit. He stumbles across Olivia Colman’s Hannah, a christian Charity shop worker, who appears to offer him an opportunity to exit the cycle that his life has fallen into. But Hannah has her own demons in the form of a cold, extremely abusive husband. Add in the child across the street, constantly taunted by his mother’s live in boyfriend who has his pitbull terrier roped to his ample waist and you start to get the picture.

This is the kind of film you want to watch from behind you hands, and not in the childhood way you did with a rubbish horror movie. You almost want to physically protect yourself from what unfolds before you on the screen. Of course, behind those hands you do long for a ray of hope for both Joseph and Hannah, you will them to get a break, for something good to happen in their desperate lives. But the collision course is set from early on and you can only watch in uncomfortable horror at what unfolds.

It’s a powerful film, be of no doubt. It deserves to be viewed for taking on such tough subjects and characters in such a direct way. Coleman, who won awards for her performance, and Mullan give accomplished turns and the film moves forward at a decent pace against Considine’s “Banksy” backdrop. This film has certainly earned it place .

But for me, and I am clearly no cinematic purist, I prefer to reserve cinematic viewing for a little less reality.

Submarine (2010) ***

Personally, I’ve always been really rather fond of duffle coats. The big ones, with the tiger tooth buttons that should be so much easier to button up than they in fact are. In my child hood my duffle coat was like a protective force field in the winter. Doing up the buttons was turning keys in a lock to close out the cold. Duffle’s are great, in a Paddington kind of way. And it’s for this reason they are not exactly an under used prop in the cinematic frame, albeit one I could certainly see more of.

Our protagonist in Submarine is of course duffled up. And he wears it with all that pent-up angst and quirkiness that wearing such a coat requires when you are, let’s be honest, well beyond the age for duffle wearing. Particularly where the duffle is accessorized up with a very slim briefcase. The kind of ensemble that going to get you smacked one in the playground.

I couldn’t really work out what this film had about coats – his girlfriend has a red lesser model, also worn regularly throughout the film. Maybe it was some sort of metaphor for the world around them that they need to be wrapped up almost all of the time – as some sort of protection against the human elements. Or maybe it was just winter, and they weren’t getting enough heat from burning everything.

To me this was a story of a boy coming of age while trying to micro manage the world around him and yet time and time again finding it unmanageable. It’s about working hard for the small victories and rolling with life’s knocks whilst remaining artistic throughout. Perhaps it should have been about recognising that carrying a briefcase at school will always make you a marked man (even if you have a cool duffle coat to protect you).

This film falls firmly into the alternative/indie genre. It’s shot like a VW advert but with just a bit more grey. In fact it feels like a mix of genres all cobbled together to make an almost endearing whole with a strong narrative lying over the whole thing. A kind of Welsh diary narrative.

It’s hard not to like Oliver Tate (Craig Roberts). It’s also hard not to want to shake him at times for thinking so simply. His parents like him are dysfunctional which makes it all the better to bring into this cauldron a neighbour from healing hell (Graham Purvis played in an understated way by Paddy Considine) to mix things up further.

It’s a weird mix but it does work. I’m not sure what else I can really say. Other than to remind the kids to stay away from the matches…

The Guard (2011) ****

Can one joke make a film? Not as in the same running joke throughout the film. No just one deftly delivered piece of dialogue, one look, one line, one slight tilt of the head make a whole film worth the viewing. Would I be about to review this film so warmly but for the fact that it had me crying with laughter at one point? I think I would. The Guard is a very enjoyable film in its own right. And then there’s the whole liquidation discussion.

The premise of the Guard, which is set in West Ireland, is not an unusual one. It’s the story of an unlikely meeting of minds from two very different enforcement bodies, both trying to capture some unruly drug dealers trying to close out that one big pay-day. Kind of Beverley Hills Cop. With a large dose of Guinness.

Brendan Gleeson plays Sergeant Gerry Boyle and you need to pay some serious attention in the first 5 minutes because, just like Shakespeare, it takes a while to tune in to the thick irish accents (seriously thick – the US audience probably needed subtitles). Sergeant Boyle is a very uninhibited policeman, strongly disliked by most of his colleagues and gloriously unconcerned as he sets about trying to find these drug dealers after a visit to a crime scene in the opening scene within the film.

Don Cheadle (FBI agent Wendell Everett) plays Gleeson’s foil. Unconventional though this pairing is, it is superb and it brings this film to another level. Everett shows his increasing frustration with Boyle’s ever more inappropriate jibes, less through what he says and more with his brilliant facial work. Both are brilliantly deadpan and their non vocal interaction makes the subtle comments and less subtle jibes all the more effective. This is inspired casting.

Directionally it’s another easy one. Beautiful backdrops, quirky locals, a sharp script and well paced action that moves these two towards the inevitable showdown at just the right pace. Inevitably there is a tad of clichéd Ireland in here but it’s not a spoiler.

Gleeson remains a very under used actor in Hollywood. A bull of a man with a deft delivery  who has popped up in many a film in the last decade but, on this form, should be leading more. Cheadle underlines the talent that we know already existed but this side of the Atlantic clearly suits him. What’s more there are some great supporting turns with Mark Strong probably slightly under used in this case.

So, no one joke film. Just a very good crack all round.