Iron Man 2 (2010) with Trailer

After the surprise success of the first Iron Man movie, came the obvious and apparent sequel. As with many sequels, the diminishing returns are unfortunately evident. Carrying on from the previous film where Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) has just announced to the world that he is, in fact, Iron Man. A playboy millionaire with a superhero alter-ego. What is very much a refreshing change from the norm of many superheroes characters, is the fact that he doesn't have to hide who he his. No conflict of personalities or change of persona. Or, that is what Stark is trying to portray to the public. Deep down, what he is hiding is a slow and painful death resulting in his antics as Iron Man. The suit that keeps him alive is slowly poisoning him.

Following the rigid format of a typical comic book film, where there is a superhero there must be a villain (or villains).This comes in the form of Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke playing a role not to dissimilar to his previous film The Wrestler except with less words and less grunting). A quick intro of Ivan shows how he feels his father (an ex-employee of Stark industries) has been deprived and bereaved of his accomplishments. He feels Stark's father has claimed these as his own. As well as Ivan, there is the (obvious) rival company run by Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), who wishes to develop his own army of Iron Men for financial gain. When Ivan fails at his attempt on Stark's life, Hammer see this as an opportunity to team up with Ivan to develop his technology to advance his own. With Stark hiding his own battle with health and continual conflict with the government over his reluctant co-operation over the Iron Man technology, everything begins to mount up as a climatic battle ensues when Hammer's super Military Drones (controlled by Ivan) to go up against Stark in a battle of man against machines.

What is considerably lacking in this film is the shortage of tension or any real sense of danger. This big screen comic book action adventure just doesn't fulfil your desired expectations. There's a sense of impression that no one is really in peril. It's just the way the film flows. Robert Downey Jr's performance is very relaxed and comes across as if there is no trouble or menace that cannot be overcome with a witty quip/one liner. The final battle fX between the drones and Iron Man are spectacular and eye boggling at times but the same can't be said for the Monte Carlo racing scene. It doesn't capture sense of speed or excitement, with the race cars looking very obvious like CGI instead of the real thing.

Another problem I encountered was the pace in which the lines were delivered by characters in the film. Particularly the exchanges between Stark (Downey) and Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow). The dialogue between the two of them goes at a hundred miles an hour at times and can be very annoying to decipher. Stark comes across like a man high on drugs. Uttering words like they are going out of fashion. The performance to me seem a little lackadaisical and not as genuine as it could (or should) have been.

Humour is scattered around throughout the film and allows the film to live in it's own universe which is probably what I found a little deviating and creates little or no suspense. If you can live with Downey's performance then you'll tolerate the whole flaw the film has created for itself. I feel they haven't allowed enough development in characterisation. Even with his apparent battle and struggle with his impending death, you never feel like he was ever in any danger of dying. If you can't make the hero look like he has any weaknesses then there is no jeopardy or endangerment. The other problem is the villain isn't villainous enough. No matter how menacing you make Rourke look, he never seems to be an even match for Downey's Iron Man.

With this also being a link to the forthcoming Avengers film (a super group of superheroes!) the film is continually referring to characters and plot points towards a bigger picture. It's not a major problem as long as you know your Avengers back story or group dynamics but for others it may look a bit out of place within the film and some of you may wonder what the hell is going on. Who is Nick Fury? Why are they going on about this Avenger initiative and how does it progress the plot? It doesn't really have any bearing except to allow some tentative link for a couple of films to crossover to allow for the up and coming Avengers movie. It's not a massive negative and fan boys would probably love it but for Joe public it may seem a bit disjointed.

A lackluster and laid back sequel which disappoints as well as annoys in places (the middle segment of the narrative almost put me to sleep). A decent enough fX to please the brain dead but the film's overall emphasis on fun and witty one liners doesn't allow any real danger to exist. A failure to expand and develop with a heavy reliant on fX and humour to pass off as progress is a sad state of affairs. A sequel which like many sequel's pales in comparison to the original, which should come as no surprise then. Vapid, hollow and regurgitates old grounds.

Acting 3/5

Technical Merit 3/5

Narrative 2.5/5

Entertainment 3/5

11.5/20

Amelie (le fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain) (2001) With Trailer

Could there been a better time to review a classic than it's ten year anniversary?

 Released only a decade ago Amelie has firmly established itself as a timeless classic. Director Jean-Pierre Jeunet's best film so far (his latter films are a bit of a disappointment but check out his earlier works "Delicatessen" and "The City Of Lost Children"), here he is allowed full rein over his expressionistic ideas and visions, brought to live by a simplistic and charming story of a young girl with an imaginative and inventive mind growing up with little or no friends where all she has for company is her fantastical views on people and her unique look on life.

The story starts with a narrator regaling little facts about bluebottle flies  before moving onto the main character and her family. Divulging further titbits in an entertaining and statistical manner over her families likes, dislikes and idiosyncrasy (not just about Amelie but every character the camera comes across, we get a little story on obsessive compulsive behaviours ranging from bubble wrap popping to bone cracking). As we follow Amelie on her fabulous journey (the English literal translation is The Fabulous Life of Amelie Poulain!) one event which affects our heroine is the death of Lady Diana. With the news playing in the background Amelie drops a lid, that rolls towards a tile, which happens to be loose and it's there she finds someones hidden childhood memories. That night she decides to track down it's owner, return it to him and if they are grateful she'll continue to do further good deeds. From there on the film goes off on an extraordinary and incredible adventure where she becomes a match maker, a tour guide, a deceased lover and a woman looking for love amongst others.

It's a film that is so beautifully shot with outstanding colourisation and a marvelous use of warm soft Earthy tones of greens, reds and yellows. Paris has never looked so autumnal. The complementary colours of the greens and reds brings out the vibrancy and warmth which gives the film more heart and feeling. It's a quality the film never veers away from and as a failed artist it's not too hard to spot the beauty and artistry of the cinematography. Along with the beautiful music by Yann Tiersen, they combine to add an elegance and haunting beauty to what is already a feast for the eyes let alone the ears.

The breakout performance from Audrey Tautou as Amelie who in nature appears child like and innocence enables her to tug on viewers heartstrings at all the right places. A spot-on capture of someone who is positive and has their heart in the right place though has a sly wicked streak for those who deserve punishment (a comical moment in the film where she teaches a market vendor a lesson or two in humbleness and humility). With a uniformly strong supporting cast (keep your eyes out for Jeunets regulars Dominique Pinon and Rufus) the story ticks along with each characters little foibles creating a world where perfection is not the norm and everyone has their own little obsessive behaviours whether they know it or not. 

Cynics of you may not buy into its charms or understand Amelie's take on the world and life. The mixture of fantasy, dreams and reality may not be everyone's taste but it's undeniably wonderful and captures the human spirit and it's faults to a tee. It's an escape from reality and that is what cinema is all about. You don't go to see the mundane and the drab (though in this film even the mundane and the drab are given beauty and purpose). Here, the joys and euphoria come at you in equal measure and one persons act of kindness is surely something that's not too hard to imagine.

This is dedicated to my wife, my very own Amelie as this is one of her favourite films, and like Amelie she has a heart of gold and would do anything and everything for anyone.

Acting 4.5/5

Technical Merit 4.5/5

Narrative 4.5/5

Entertainment 5/5

18.5/20

One Day (2011) With Trailer

Whenever there's a successful book, an adaptation of the story is never far away. Here we have a faithful adaptation from it's own author (David Nicholls is the writer for the film so no one can argue about what is put on screen). The story, for those of you who haven't read the book, follows the lives of two people, Dexter Mayhew (Jim Stugress) and Emma Morley (Anne Hathaway). What differs from the norm, is the fact we only  meet Dexter and Emma on this "one day" July 15th (St Swithin's Day) every year, for twenty years starting on the night of their  graduation. 

We are shown how their relationship develops over time, from going on holiday together to family bereavement to fall outs and reunions. Sometimes they are together and at other times they are not. Throughout the years they start to grow apart, their lives moving in different directions but their initial connection inevitably always draws them back together. They both experience failed relationships and eventually realise their true feelings for one another and they end up together as fate would have them to be.

I'm sure that many fans of the book would cry outrage at the numerous missing sub plots and minor details but the main emotional ethos of the source material remains intact. There is only so much you can expect to fit into an hour and forty feature film. 

Full praise goes to Rafe Spall as the one time long suffering ex boyfriend of Emma as he steals every scene he is in. The character is bought to life in a better way than I could have ever imagined. The two leads do command the screen well as they go through a range of emotions with events which affect their lives. An obvious talking point will be Hathaways accent. I'm not going to say it's bad but it does veer in and out of  Yorkshire tones. Her Englishness isn't at all terrible but some words do stick out like a sore thumb. It's not a complete mess and does not ruin what is pretty much a very commendable performance.

The use of music to mark the progression of the years is very efficient in allowing viewers to hear as well as see the date on screen via text appearing in an inventive and nifty way. Apart from allowing the actors hair to grow/shorten or go grey, there isn't much the film makers could do to show two people growing older through to their late 30's early 40's.

In some ways the film works as well as the book. The unnecessary flab in the book is trimmed and so are some of the characters which doesn't effect the overall journey of two lead characters. What is lacking I found is the lack of emotional depth that you could get from the book that you couldn't get from the film. The thoughts and feelings can only be portrayed by the two stars but the thoughts are not heard like they are in text. The emotional wallop doesn't translate fully but there are still snatches of tears to be found in the saddest parts of the film.

For the fans of the book, I would have to say not to go in expecting everything you may have read in the novel and you won't be disappointed. The films stays close to the books heart and the journey of Emma and Dexter is brought to life in a worthy adaptation. For those of you who haven't read the book, go out and read it. 

Acting 4/5

Technical Merit 3.5/5

Narrative 4/5

Entertainment 4/5

15.5/20

The Silent House (La Casa Muda) 2010 - Official Trailer

A Uruguayan film which claims to be filmed all in one shot and in real time! I was intrigued to see whether the claims were true. As film making has progressed, what is to stop anyone from making a film in one long continuous shot? Well here's an attempt from debut film maker Gustavo Hernandez.

The plot is based on a true story of an event which happened in the 1940s in Uruguay. A father and daughter are called to a cottage/farmhouse to house sit until it's eventually sale. It doesn't take long to find things are not as quiet and serene as they seem. The daughter Laura, (the main focal point in the film) starts to hear some noise coming from the rooms above. She wakes her father who goes reluctantly to investigate and that's when the film kicks into gear. After a few minutes and the non re-appearance of her father, Laura decides to find out what has happened to her father.

What happens next is a series of what I would call "boo" moments, as the film makers try to catch the viewer off guard by springing up flashes of images and dark shadows in the background to instill some scares. As a veteran horror fan it wasn't too successful as it was predictable. What the film does succeed on though is giving the sense of claustrophobia. Having only one view point can be really unsettling, as the camera follows our protagonist from behind and slowly switching views to being in front and occasionally becoming the POV shot, there is no cut away or a secondary view point. The film makers really have tried to make the film flow like an uncut one long continuous shot.

But is the film really filmed with no cuts? Unforutnately no, those of you with an eagle eye will probably be able to spot the "seemless" cuts between the passing through objects or anything dark. That isn't to say that there isn't a lot of technical achievement on show but the claims of the film are clearly not 100% accurate. There is a lot to say about only having one view point as it can seem really restrictive but in turn it can boost the overall atmosphere and tension. The lack of film score also adds to the sense of dread as every little sound is magnified.

The only thing criticism I would level at the film is it's last reveal or final revelation. When you find out what is really happening there's an enormous sense of let down. For all the films technical flair, the film is severely hampered but it's silly turn in events. If you have seen the French film Haute Tension then you will understand what I am talking about. It should have kept on going as a haunted house story instead of what it turns out to be.

An interesting idea, clever uses of light and dark and the generation of tension is admirable. Clearly influences by other low budget horrors like Blair Witch and the video game Silent Hill. A girl walking around a house with only a torch to light the way only conjours up memories of playing the old survivor horror game. Alas, I feel I would have more fun and rewarding experience playing the game than watching this film. A flawed experiment.

Acting 3/5

Technical Merit 4.5/5

Narrative 2/5

Entertainment 3.5/5

13/20

Before Sunset (2004) with trailer

The second feature in Richard Linklater's exploration at romantic love in which we are re-united with the characters we were first introduced to, back in 1995, in Before Sunrise. Reprising their respective roles are Ethan Hawke (Jesse) and Julie Delpy (Celine). We are invited to catch up on their lives 9 years later and straight away we feel like we're catching up with old friends.

For those of you who have not seen the first feature, at the end of that film, both promised to meet each 6 months later but the meeting never took place. Almost a decade later we find Jesse (an author now,who's written a book based on his experiences in Vienna) on the launch of his book in a bookstore in Paris. The film opens up with Jesse explaining his theory and his ideas of his own book. By coincidence Celine happens to be in the very same book store. What follows is a brief encounter where they go to have coffee and converse over matters and topics like their lives and the reasoning why they never got to meet up.

As they wander through the streets of Paris they talk about what had happened, the camera slowly follows them as they talk and catch up on events. This one, like the previous effort, the dialogue and performance is main focal point and drive in the narrative. Issues which both character have passions for, are vocal discussed in an expressive and devoted manner like the environment. In the little time Jesse has before he his flight leaves, they connect like they did before as they come to realise that this sort of connection is a rare thing in life. The way in which they talk is so relaxed and comfortable in feels so effortless and never contrived.

With this film being set almost a decade later it differs from the fact they have moved on and their lives have changed but they realise that there is some chemistry and undeniable attraction towards each other. Gone are the ideals of young love and blossoming relationship, here we see two people reconnecting and finding nothing has changed in what they found so attractive about each other.

What is technical, a remarkable achievement, is the way the film unfolds in very long shots which captures the naturalist and authentic performances in the streets of Paris. The dialogue is as ever, free flowing, witty, entertaining, funny and never feels like they're reading from a script. The writing duties on this film is credited to both leads (and director) which shows their acting never feels like acting, past experiences and events in their real lives seem interwoven into the story. With the ever setting sunset, the film captures an illuminating yellow tint which gives the overall tone and feel a glowing radiant beautiful shine. It  feels like a metaphor on their relationship. The sun maybe setting  but there is a beautiful glow like the heart beating on and love still resonating.

A journey which unfolds in real time and with two likable actors who portray two people in a very honest and romantic way in picturesque setting of Paris. Little nuances from unspoken words to glances and physical touches all adds to the depth of realism. And in the way in which the film ends, well... maybe there's more to their relationship to discover and more to their journey but when it ends, we left with "what ifs" and "what now". A tantalising ending, full of promise and hope.

Acting 5/5

Technical Merit 4.5/5

Narrative 4.5/5

Entertainment 4.5/5

18.5/20

Dead Man's Shoes (2004) plus trailer

A gritty, British revenge thriller with a towering performance from Paddy Considine, who single handedly carries the film with an astounding physical and an emotional performance. The film centres around Richard, a military man returning to his hometown in an unnamed Midlands suburban village. He wanders around the town to seek revenge on the tormentors who bullied his mentally challenged brother Anthony (played with great subtly and reserved interpretation by Tony Kebbell). When he comes across one of the local bullies, they soon realise their time is up, as Richard has nothing but death in his eyes.

With such an exceptionally simple concept comes a very powerful and moving tale of one brother who will do anything to wreak vengeance and make the bullies pay for the abuse they put his brother through. From the first initial confrontation in the pub when he spots Herbie (one of the gang members) the controlled turn of anger from Considine is both shocking and gripping at the same time. A complete composure which switches at a drop of a hat. It is an electrifying and absorbing performance which is only comparable to such an actor as say De Niro.

What gives this film a different slant on the whole revenge genre is that it is almost played out like a horror film (a slasher if you will). Richard incorporates many implements of a horror film. Stalk and slash comes to mind, as he breaks into their houses and leaves his mark on them. Though it is probably the use of the old military gas mask which is put to such great affect, where Richard appears on the front door step to frighten the persecutors. What's more, it is the way in which he has complete power over them and has the ability to show them he has no fear. And like a horror film, they are all picked off one by one...

The main reason to see this, is the performance from Considine who channels a raw energy to exhibit a controlled psycho to such touching and poignant moments when he is alone with his brother. Unfortunately some of the other actors are not as strong so the performances seem a little bit uneven. Tonality of the film is spot on though. It's a very sombre affair with a surprising amount of light humour thrown in too.

Overall, a surprisingly calm and tranquil ending with a predictable outcome but nevertheless an enjoyable journey. An affecting performance with a hybrid of genres which melded well together and never looked forced or added as an afterthought. A well written script by director (Shane Meadows) and star (Considine) and fully deserving a place in anyone's movie collection.

Acting 4/5

Technical Merit 4/5

Narrative 4/5

Entertainment 5/5

17/20

Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon (2011) With Trailer

The third film in the successful franchise based on an 80s toy product. This one sees the plot revolving around Earth's manned mission to the moon in the 60s (which incorporates some good and clever use of archive footage). The real reason behind the mission is in fact a cover up for an "incident" which the world knew little about. An Autobot spaceship which crash landed on the surface on the moon, millions of years ago.

With the intriguing set up, the film unfortunately falters and flags. As the story heads back to the drama's of Sam (Shia Labeouf) Witwicky life. Set a couple of years of the 2nd film. Sam is struggling to find a job whilst his Autobot companions are out on secret missions maintain peace and order with their human allies. It isn't too long before the Decepticons make an appearance and are back to their old tricks again. We learn that within the crashed spaceship (the Ark) contains special pillars that could help the Autobots once and for all, to conquer the Decepticons and win the war....but in the wrong hands they could also lead to the destruction of the planet Earth.

To summarise the plot in such way makes the film sound interesting and exciting but it is far from it. The total lack of serious/normal characters in the film jars the brooding menace. Every supporting character is a bit weird (John Malkovich's- Bruce Bezo) or over hyperactive (Ken Jeong's-Jerry Wang). It sometimes feels like there are two films competing here. One a wacky and (un)funny comedy drama whilst the other, an explosive and eye popping special effects laden action film. I am at a loss as to why there was any need for such a need to try to use stock footage of real events for it to only throw at us such infantile humour. 

After the absolute slating that the 2nd film received you would have thought that Bay would have learnt his lesson, but far from it. Racial stereotypes are still ever present and it seems like any ethnic minority portrayed comes across in a very unpolitical correct way. A Scottish sounding Autobot is heard to say "I'll bottle ya" The humour is also not at all funny. If you do laugh, you'd be laughing at the absolute dire dialogue written for the film. I had high hopes for this film and my hopes soon turned to anger and dismay.

The other problem with the film is the pacing of the whole thing. It takes an absolute age for anything exciting to happen. When you come to see a  film like this you'd expect robots to be smashing other robots, buildings or any other inanimate object. What you get is a limp attempt at humour and character development. Too much unnecessary padding. Strip away the waste and this film may have been better.

Enough about the negatives you say, what about the positives? Well the action scenes are extremely well handled. If you watch in 3D then your eyes will be in for a treat. Bays trademark of slo-mo is in full effect and there is so much happening at one time you could get lost in which Transformer is which. With the carnage and mayhem, you're always going to be in safe hands with Bay. The 3D is also implement in such dazzling ways and the action packed set pieces are done with aplomb.

I just wish he would try to leave school boy humour and offensive pokes at other races alone. Apart from that I just about found the film tolerable. A complete mess with a tone which shifts from one extreme to another and just doesn't sit well. I now know why Megan Fox jumped ship and left this awful mess of a film. A sad waste of money, time and effort. I want my money back.

Acting 1.5/5

Technical Merit 2.5/5 (3.5/5 for 3D version)

Narrative 2/5

Entertainment 2/5 (3/5 for 3D version)

8/20 (10/20-3D)