Filmknitter

Avengers Assemble

So, finally it's here. The film we (and by we I mean the fanboys and girls, the Empire readers, and the Downey Jr oglers) have been waiting for since Iron Man first swooshed onto our screens in 2008. Expectations have fluctuated with the release of each origins film - Iron Man was amazing, The Hulk less so, and Iron Man 2 even less so IMHO. However with the announcement in Spring 2010 that Joss Whedon was on board as both co-writer AND director (be still my geeky heart) my expectactions suddenly went sky-high. Essentially the plot is fairly simple: Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Thor's greasy and petulant brother, is plotting to invade Earth with a shedload of gnarly-looking aliens and their magical floating giant fish-skeleton things. Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson looking fabulous in black leather and an eyepatch) of SHIELD has been busily recruiting superheroes and, with the help of the droll Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) rangles them into a team to fight back against the evil Loki and his minions. After trading insults and some testosterone-fuelled scuffles, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, along with Hawkeye and Black Widow (not popular enough to get their own origins films, bless them), team up to battle their nemeses on the streets of New York.

I am pleased to report that the Avengers utterly lived up to expectations and is the epitome of awesome. Joss Whedon, God of Banter, has created a film that is much more than the sum of its superheroic parts. After Iron Man suddenly got all smug and annoying in Iron Man 2 here he is returned to the witty and charismatic scientist we all loved in the original film. Thor is still noble and heroic although I missed his viking-esque antics now that he is a little more streetwise (no smashing of coffee cups sadly). Captain America likewise. Hulk, now with new and improved Banner alter-ego in the shape of raffish Mark Ruffalo, is hilarious and gets some of the best lines in the film (watch out for his "puny gods" moment, it's a delight). Hawkeye and Black Widow are intriguing but do suffer somewhat from a lack of back story. I'm not familiar enough with the comics to know where they'd come from so it's sometimes hard to care for them as much as the characters I knew from previous films. However it's the combination of our six heroes that is the key. Joss Whedon can create a team dynamic like no-one else and the success of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly rested squarely on the strength of the relationships between the characters. People really cared what happened to Buffy and the Scooby gang, and the Firefly crew. I honestly don't think Marvel could have found anyone else who could balance the dynamics between such huge and well-known characters but Joss makes it look so easy and the tit-for-tat dialogue, pop-culture references, and off-beat humour that he is so well-known for makes the film feel much more accessible than the average blockbuster.

In addition to the white hats this film has an excellent villain in the shape of Loki; Tom Hiddleston scampers about with zealous glee and deploys his almost Nicholson-like gnashers to excellent effect. There's something about an ever-smiling nemesis that makes them truly creepy. I've always been a fan of Hiddleston and hope that these films bring him the recognition he deserves. As well as the excellent cast and the snappy script though, Whedon brings his skill in filming action sequences to the fore, having only done fairly small-scale stuff in the past he doesn't shy away from the massive battle in the final act of the film. Smashing up New York with gay abandon (and the aforementioned fish things) he manages not to over-egg the pudding (Transformers directors, take note) and with so many different fighting styles to enjoy, and different levels of peril (the Hulk is satisfyingly indestructible, but seeing Hawkeye balanced on the edge of a skyscraper looking worryingly human and fragile with his wee bow kept me on the edge of my seat throughout), there's never a dull moment. I would go see it again in a heartbeat and highly recommend this film to anyone. Even if you just want to find out who would win in a fight - Iron Man or Thor.

Delicacy

Delicacy, a French film, stars Audrey Tautou (who comes from the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' school of acting) as a sweet Parisian, Nathalie, who meets the man who will be her husband in a coffee-house. "If she orders an Apricot juice I will speak to her" he decides, and after she makes the fateful order, the two of them have an idyllic courtship, get married and move in together. So far, so predictable. However, then Nathalie's beloved Francois is killed in a road accident as he is out jogging. We witness Nathalie slowly recover from her loss, and throw herself into her work. Three years later she is successful professionally but lives alone in the flat she shared with her husband. Then a chance (and very French!) encounter with a physically-awkward Swede called Markus results in a fledgling relationship between two very different people.

Tonally this is a slightly odd film. The first 20 minutes or so are your typical Gallic rom-com, all very cute, Parisian and mainstream, however with Francois' death we are suddenly hurled into much bleaker indie territory. Nathalie is completely changed by the loss of her husband, and becomes stronger in some ways but also a little empty - different to the sweet laughing girl who opens the film. Markus is also not your typical romantic hero, he is built like an IKEA wardrobe, is terribly sweet but terribly awkward. He is not the seducer in this scenario - thanks to a moment of foolishness at work the two of them almost accidentally fall into a relationship. The film is interesting as a presentation of what happens when two people who may not appear to be perfect for each other turn out to be exactly what each of them needs. I particularly enjoyed the scene where Nathalie's boss invites Markus out for a drink in order to assess what she sees in him, and leaves at the end of the evening bemused and rather drunk. As the audience we share some of that bemusement but it is also easy to see why Nathalie might fall for someone as sweet and straightforward as Markus after experiencing a whirlwind romance and traumatic loss at a relatively young age. At one point she says to Markus "I like the fact that you always look the same; it's reassuring"; reassurance is exactly what she needs.

If you like French films and odd-couple romances then I can recommend this film. After such a dramatic downturn in the middle you require the same reassurance as Nathalie and the slow emotional climb from utter grief to hope and the promise of a new beginning is remarkably uplifting. The final section of the film is particularly lovely, and contains possibly the best French grandmother ever; I defy you not to leave the cinema with a smile on your face.

Mirror Mirror: The Untold Adventure of Snow White

Mirror Mirror is Tarsem Singh's gloriously flamboyant reimagining of the fairytale of Snow White. Lily Collins (daughter of Phil) plays Snow, kept under house arrest by her evil stepmother the Queen (played with gay abandon by Julia Roberts in a series of ginormous dresses). As she turns 18 Snow White realises that she's being a tad downtrodden by her stepmother and decides to escape the castle; she visits the local village where she realises the Queen's exorbitant taxes are keeping the villagers on the breadline, and also rescues a handsome prince (Armie Hammer who spends a pleasing amount of time semi-clothed) who has been robbed by 7 vertically-challenged outlaws who are living in the forest. After flirting with the prince at the Queen's ball that evening Snow is taken deep into the forest by the queen's loyal minion (Nathan Lane) and, well I'm sure you know the rest...

I'm a bit of a fan of Tarsem Singh's signature spectacular style. A former music video director (he won a VMA for his video for REM's 'Losing My Religion') his previous films had been triumphs of design with rather odd storylines (The Cell, The Fall) however with last November's Immortals (my review here) he moved more into more mainstream storytelling and I was delighted to hear about this retelling of the Snow White fable (I'm a sucker for a fairytale). Tarsem doesn't disappoint in terms of visual flair; he has a bit of a knack for arresting openings - The Fall has possibly my most favourite opening scene ever - and this film begins with a pretty animated sequence which looks like it's performed by ceramic puppets and displays the familiar setup for the Snow White tale, with an arch commentary by the Evil Queen. Following this little treat the rest of the film is full of cunning design, outrageously beautiful costumes, and a rather fun adaptation of the fairytale about the girl with raven hair and skin as white as snow. Singh retains his collaboration with costume designer Eiko Ishioka and for me the costumes are worth the admission price alone: sumptuous fabrics and over the top designs that don't quite go as far as The Fall but maintain the fairytale feel of the film. The Queen's dresses were my favourites but also Arnie Hammer's rabbit outfit at the ball is a simple delight, and the beautifully embroidered dress worn by Snow at the start of the film.

The film is well cast with Julia Roberts relishing the chance to be the villain for a change; you can't help but enjoy her wryly self-conscious campery. Nathan Lane provides her comedy foil with his usual style, and Lily Collins is sweet and convincing as our heroine who goes from being a closeted princess to an action hero as she saves her prince, learns to swordfight, and defeats the Queen. The dwarves give good slapstick and comedy banter, and look out for In Bruges' Jordan Prentice as fashion-conscious outlaw Napoleon. The only misstep comes in the shape of Sean Bean's cameo at the end of the film. In stark contrast to the stately king we see in the animated prologue poor Sean appears looking rather out of place in this stylish and prettified film sporting a fetching neck-doily that does nothing but highlight his grizzled Northern features.

Singh has done a solid job of adapting the story for a modern audience. Snow White, never the most proactive of fairytale princesses (she goes from imprisonment to drudgery to unconsciousness) is transformed into an action-heroine who saves the prince from the dwarves, the dwarves from some particularly unpleasant puppet-like monsters (a deliciously dark segment of the film), the village from the queen, and her father from an evil spell. Add to this the knowing comments from the Queen and the comic turns from the dwarves and Nathan Lane's manservant Brighton, and you have a film that owes more to The Princess Bride than the Brothers Grimm. It's being pitched at a slightly younger audience than I would have expected given that there are some fairly dark moments (the Queen's alter ego in the mirror world is properly frightening at points), however it's full of silly campy fun, and visually arresting enough to keep your attention through some of the fluffier story beats (Snow's unexplained friendship with the servants all feels a bit Garry Marshall - he of Princess Diaries and Pretty Woman fame). If you're a fan of Singh or the fairytale it is very much worth your time. I wait with bated breath to see how Snow White and the Huntsman compares when it's released in June.

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games, based on the incredible book by Suzanne Collins, is essentially Battle Royale for the American teen market, but in a good way. Katniss Everdeen, our hero, is a teenager in the battle-scarred and dystopian world of Panem. Panem is divided into 12 districts which produce various resources, and which decrease in affluence from District 1 down to Katniss's home: District 12, the coal district, a bleak place where the Everdeen family struggle to get enough to eat after the untimely death of Katniss's father in a mining accident. In order to support her struggling mother and innocent younger sister Katniss steps up as head of the family and escapes the borders of the district to hunt wild game in the forest, selling meat to the other residents of the district in order to earn money. In this desolate view of our own future there is a reality TV show called The Hunger Games, designed to prevent the downtrodden residents of the 12 districts from rising up against the wealthy overlords who reside in The Capitol, a glossy and wealthy city which is in stark contrast to the world Katniss lives in. From each district two 'tributes' are chosen; one boy and one girl under 18. When Katniss's little sister Prim is chosen Katniss volunteers to take her place. However in The Hunger Games only one winner emerges from the arena, the single survivor of a horrific game where the tributes have to fight and kill each other as well as survive genetically modified deadly animals and insects, and the whims of the 'gamemaker' who stalks around his fancy TV gallery and, like the heavenly Christoph in the Truman Show, can cause anything to happen within the arena he has designed.

So, yes, the story is a little complicated (and if they adapt the 2nd and 3rd books it will get a lot more complicated) so be ready to pay attention, and also be prepared for a film which is a solid 2 and a half hours long. No complaints from me however. The Hunger Games was read voraciously by my flatmate and I when it first published in 2009, and we were understandably excited and wary when we heard the book was being adapted for film. Katniss is an incredible strong female role model, more in the mould of Buffy than Bella, and Hollywood is not known for such feminist icons in its mainstream output for teens. However thankfully they have not watered down Katniss. She's still as feisty, cold, and complex as she is in the books and, unlike poor Bella in the Twilight film franchise, they've not prettied her up too much. Jennifer Lawrence spends the majority of the film in an outsize cagoule and military boots with straggly hair. I approve of this. Lawrence makes a solid Katniss, and is a good addition to the new crop of female action heroes that started with Angelina Jolie in the early noughties.

The rest of the cast is also very respectable: Stanley Tucci is perfect casting as the odious host of the Games, Ceasar Flickerman; Donald Sutherland as dependable as ever as the evil President Snow; Josh Hutcherson is suitable baby-faced as Peeta; fans of Caprica should look out for Paula Malcolmson as Mrs Everdeen; and admire the sculpted facial hair of Wes Bentley as Gamemaker Seneca Crane (it took me a lot longer than it should have to remember that he was Ricky Fitts in American Beauty - he's come a long way from the embittered drug-dealing teenager).

The film is a solid adaptation of the book but somehow left me feeling slightly unsatisfied. I think precisely because it is so faithful to Suzanne Collins' original. It all feels very safe; much like the Twilight sequels. These books are so well-loved, and the fans so influential, that the directors seem unwilling to take chances and try something different. I loved The Hunger Games book and it was fun to see it played out on screen, also the medium of film adds an extra dimension to the story - when Katniss stares confrontationally into the camera you really get a shiver down your spine as you realise that you are in the position of the Capitol audience, unlike the books when you are inside Katniss's head with her. However besides this it is just a faithful page by page retelling. Personally I'd prefer something a little riskier; something that takes the bones of the story but exploits the medium of film a little more. Perhaps I've just become too cynical but the book really blew me away and the film, while enjoyable, just couldn't match the shocks of the original and also failed to immerse me in the story the way that the book did. It all feels just a touch pedestrian. This may be partly to do with the editing of the violence in order to get the film down to a 12A rating; it doesn't quite feel visceral or real enough. Again, this was obviously done so that the young adult audience of the book would also be able to go see the film. All in all I would recommend other fans to see the film; the director has made a faithful adaptation of the book. Though, I can't help feeling, perhaps a little too faithful.

Bel Ami

Bel Ami, based on a Victorian novel by french novelist Guy de Maupassant, is a rather soapy story about a young lothario, Georges Duroy (Robert Pattinson) who social-climbs his way to success after returning from military service in Algeria to a penniless existence in Paris. A chance meeting with one of his former officers in a bar leads to his gaining a job at a newspaper and thence access to the fashionable ladies of Paris high society; wives to the most powerful men in France. He acquaints himself with three of the most influential wives and, thanks to his smoldering good looks and jaunty personality, ends up having an affair with each of them. However it is only Clotilde (Christina Ricci) who ever has a true hold on his heart.

Bel Ami is a film made predominantly for fans of period drama and Robert Pattinson. I happen to fall squarely into that bracket which means that this will not be a sharply observed critique of the film's flaws but rather an indulgent review of its more attractive features. The cast is suprisingly good for such a small, rather niche film. Kirstin Scott Thomas has of late been choosing her roles very carefully and while it is not suprising to find her in an independent period drama I'm surprised that she didn't find this too fluffy. However she does sterling work, as ever, as Virginie Walters, and also brings a lot of humour to the film. Uma Thurman has made some odd choices since her standout role in Tarantino's Kill Bill films, and this is her first period drama since 2000's The Golden Bowl. However she is actually perfect as brittle, cool Madeleine Forestier who evidently intends to use Georges Duroy (Pattinson) just as callously as he sets out to use her. Ricci as Clotilde de Marelle is very sweet and the chemistry between her and Pattinson is the most convincing in the film; the love story between the two of them was the saving grace of what can occasionally be a rather dark little parable.

The clothes, obviously, are the highlight of this film. Edwardian fashion is my second most favourite period for costume drama (Regency is first naturally) and I spent much of the film drinking in the gorgeous fabrics and designs of the three leads' frocks. Uma's in particular are a treat. I was particularly coveting the eggshell blue dress that she wears for the scene with her ailing husband. The sets also, and the backdrop of Paris, are equally sumptuous and provide much to enjoy when the plot fails to hold your attention. Having said that the story itself is ok, other than a slightly saggy section about an hour in.

The slight problem, I'm afraid to say, is Pattinson himself. In looks he is perfectly cast, you can absolutely understand why three bored housewives find themselves unable to resist his charms. However, and whether this is the writing or his acting style I don't know, he is not quite convincing enough as the cunning con-artist he is made out to be. With all three of his affairs although he sort of initiates matters, you very quickly feel that he is being manipulated by his paramours, rather than the other way round. You get the impression that he is actually rather dim, and it is only good luck that has gotten him this far. However, in fact this makes for an interesting dynamic and, for a Victorian novel authored by a man, raises interesting questions about the methods used by Edwardian women to change the world around them. Madeleine in particular is, to all intents and purposes, a feminist and uses Georges as a conduit to manipulate the political landscape of France. The scenes between her and Georges, whilst not always comfortable to watch (particularly the physical ones), raise interesting questions about the morality of their situation and the standards by which we judge each of them. In general I would recommend this film for any period drama fans, but I don't anticipate it being at the top of any Box Office charts.

A Dangerous Method

A Dangerous Method is a film about the birth of modern psychology, and the two men who conceived it: Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. Freudian theory was well-established when Jung emerged onto the psychoanalysis scene and (arguably) improved upon his mentor's rather one-sided theories. The two men met for the first time in 1907 and became fast friends despite their differing theories. However, their antagonism towards each other eventually bore out and they parted ways in the next decade. This film tells the story of their friendship as well as their relationship with Sabine Spielrein, one of Jung's patients who eventually became a psychotherapist herself after he successfully resolved her mental health problems using 'the talking cure' he and Freud developed.

I've been aware of Freud's and Jung's theories for a long time so I was excited to see a film that looked like it would not only have a good story, but would also present a fascinating insight into the lives of two of the most powerful men in the history of psychology. Plus it stars a triptych of my favourite actors: Michael Fassbender as an enigmatic Jung, Keira Knightley (and her chin) as transformational mental patient Spielrein, and Viggo Mortensen hamming it up ever so slightly as a charismatic Freud. I was feeling circumspect owing to my most recent cinema visits not quite living up to expectations, however I needn't have worried about this one, it's incredibly enjoyable and a satisfying portrait of the two theorists. I was fascinated to discover more about Spielrein, who I knew next to nothing about, and she serves a useful purpose in this film uncovering the inner workings of Jung who at first appears rather too self-assured. Fassbender is a delight as Jung, not least because he spends half his scenes eating - I can recommend you take some nibbles along as watching Jung wolf down cakes, cream, and dinner at every opportunity made me rather peckish. Keira Knightley is perfect casting as Sabine, an excellent complex female character who is in stark contrast to Jung's angelic baby-obsessed wife. Having been warned beforehand of the chin-thrusting I have to say I felt that her portrayal of one of Jung's most difficult patients does not descend into stereotype. Spielrein's story is inspiring, and ultimately tragic (stick around for the explanatory paragraphs at the end).

Mortensen could be accused of over-egging Freud slightly but then he has become such a caricature that it's difficult to get at the actual man beneath the serious beard, cigars, and sexual pre-occupation. He's undeniably having fun and he adds levity to what could easily have been a rather dark film. That's really what I liked about this film, it presents a good grounding in the history of psychology and an insight into Freud and Jung but remains entertaining and enjoyable. I'm not saying it's for everyone - as you might expect there's a healthy dollop of sex in there: heaving bosoms, unlaced corsets, spanking and *ahem* cigars. However it treads the line between lechery and propriety and really a film about Freud that didn't include some of the above would be rather disappointing.

See this film if you're interested in psychology, good acting, beards, Switzerland, or watching Michael Fassbender enjoy a nice bit of cake.

War Horse

War Horse, based on the book by Michael Morpurgo and following in the hoofsteps of the successful stage adaptation, opens just before the start of the First World War. In a small Dorset village a daft and drunken man buys a fancy thoroughbred instead of a plough horse at auction. His teenage son Albert (Jeremy Irvine) falls for the horse just as quickly, names him Joey, and bonds with him by teaching him to plough the family farm. As the war begins the family have to sell the horse to save the farm and Joey is sent to France with a young cavalry captain (Tom Hiddleston). During the chaos of war Joey passes through many hands - English, German, French - and by 1918 ends up in the trenches where a very young soldier is searching for his long-lost horse...

I hate having to write this review because I'm going to have to be harsh, and I genuinely wanted to love this film. I'm a sucker for a sad horse story - Black Beauty is the only film that's ever made me cry - and I expected to love this one just as much as Black Beauty and My Friend Flicka. However, sadly, Spielberg has rather cocked it up. I've never read the book or seen the stage play so I can't be certain whether all of the flaws are the director's but some of them most definitely are. Firstly, the photography. The entire thing looks like it was made a good 20 years ago, the lighting is very strange, not least the final orange-drenched scene supposedly depicting sunset. Considering that even the most mediocre of films these days can be stunningly beautiful (I'm looking at you Sucker Punch) I'm surprised that Spielberg went for this fuzzy, dated, technicolour look which just makes the whole thing look like a Hovis advert for horses.

The second problem I have with this film, which is going to sound awful, is that the cosy Dorset village where Joey begins his life seems to be the place where all the other villages in the South West send their village idiots. Admittedly the slow Dorset accent doesn't help, but Albert looks incredibly dozy as does his gurning best friend. It's difficult to find much empathy with a hero who looks like he's wondering what day it is half the time. Mr Narracott is a drunk with very few wits who attempts to shoot the very expensive horse he has just bought because the poor creature shies away when he clumsily  shoves a horse-collar at it. One has to wonder why his evidently more clever wife, played by Emily Watson, ever married him to begin with.

There are many odd things about this film - the tone for much of the film is aimed (sort of) at realism in its depiction of war, but then at the start of the film we have an almost anthropomorphised goose who spends his time berating the farmer, peering malevolently round doorways and chasing the evil landlord off the farm. Then there's the ridiculous moment when Albert and Joey victoriously plough the bottom field, just as a tide of curious villagers apparently sprout from the next-door field, and as they head towards a particularly treacherous looking rock which is evidently going to trip both horse and plough, the plough blade slices through it as if it is cheddar cheese. I'm no ploughman but I find that a tad unrealistic. This film is a curious mix of mawkish sentimentality and grim reality. The problem may be with the story; some characters are introduced as if they are going to be important and then forgotten about (hi, random pretty girl in car near the start of the film, and also the goose). Then there's the French girl, Emilie, who charms us for a few scenes but by the end of the film all we get is some mutterings from her grandpere who suggests she's died, although this is by no means clear despite the fact that she's the only character I felt any empathy with.

The feel of the entire film is old-fashioned and outdated and I have to wonder at Spielberg's decision to drench the production in cheesy storytelling traditions when the stage play was so successful using a more innovative and original approach.

There are some good scenes in the film - the section with Emilie and her grandpere is sweet, and I loved the section where poor Joey has tangled himself in barbed wire in No Man's Land and a young German soldier joins a young English soldier to cut him free. However, the majority of this film was a sad disappointment and I can't help but lay the blame at Mr Spielberg's door; much as I like his other family films this one falls well short of expectations.

Hugo and The Artist

Hugo, based on the book of the same name by Brian Selznick, tells an enchanting story of an orphaned boy (Asa Byutterfield of Striped Pyjamas fame), a genius with clockwork, who lives in a Paris train station winding the clocks and stealing food. He inherited an old automaton from his father and attempts to make it come back to life. After stealing one tool too many from a toymaker who has a small shop in the station the old man catches him and makes him work to pay off his crime. Hugo meets the man's goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Moretz of Kick Ass fame), and together they discover that the old toymaker is in face Georges Melies, a pioneer of early cinema.

Hugo is a slightly odd combination of whimsical adventure story and historical drama about the birth of cinema. Also odd in that it is directed by Martin Scorsese, not known for whimsy or children's films. However, this is not just a children's film. Our two protaganists are 13, both having the sort of slightly stretched look that young teenagers often suffer, and both are in some way older than their years so they do not come across as immature. Also the film benefits from being very French in inspiration. Like the films of Jean-Pierre Jeunet and his forebears the story encompasses the smaller dramas of the supporting characters too - the budding relationship between an elderly couple (Frances De La Tour and Richard Griffiths) who are kept apart by an angry dachshund being my favourite. Rather than flattening everyone beneath the wheels of the central couple's storyline, as so many American blockbusters do, Scorsese includes and indulges these minor storylines and the film is all the more engaging for it.

As a film fan Scorsese obviously relishes the chance to tell the story of Melies' early films: fantastical wonders, produced in the early 20th century in a giant greenhouse (for the light) and even shown in colour (Melies and his wife painstakingly coloured in each cell on the film), with amazing special effects and costume. I found these to be some of the most fascinating sequences of the film and also the most affecting, as Melies has to sell his entire stock during the First World War and turns into the embittered old man Hugo met at the start of the film. The two parts of this film blend together very well and both are equally enjoyable - the sections with Hugo and Isabelle exploring the old station are enchanting and the latter half where they discover Melies' past is fascinating. Very much worth a watch if it's still showing near you.

Empire described The Artist and Hugo as being "an overpoweringly emotional film fan’s double-bill", and having seen them both within a week I agree that they do complement each other very well. However, I have to confess that I probably enjoyed Hugo the most. The Artist is undoubtedly an interesting addition to the fold - filmed in black and white and almost entirely as a silent film, with orchestral soundtrack, it is a throwback to the glamorous silent films of the 20s. It tells the story of the change from silent film to talkies during that decade through the plot device of a young aspiring actress, Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), who falls for an older established film actor George Valentin (Jean Dujardin). They fall in love despite Valentin being married but tension arises as she becomes the new darling of the cinema-going public, starring in the new talkies, and he falls out of favour as he doggedly pursues silent films.

This film is certainly a curiosity and there are some very clever sections in it, notably George's dream sequence where he cannot find a voice in a world of sound, as well as an extremely talented dog; however it doesn't really do anything new for the format, its interest lies in the fact that it is a very accurate 21st century reproduction of what film was like 90 years ago. It's certainly fascinating to see that in this day and age director and writer Michel Hazanavicious has produced a successful film which is entirely in black and white with only a few lines of dialogue, and I can't deny that the film is sufficiently engaging and enjoyable. It's also very restful; the restrictions of this format means that, by necessity, the storyline is simple and the pace is slower than modern films so you just have to sit back and appreciate the music and the attentive period detail of the beautiful sets and costume.

I suspect the reason that this film has had such a rapturous reception from the critics is because it's a film-geeks heaven, especially for those who have a nostalgia for the 'Golden Age' of Hollywood. However, as a very modern film fan myself, I enjoyed it but was not blown away by it. Of course I appreciated the work that had gone into it, the charisma and talent of leading man Jean Dujardin, and the novelty of sitting in Oxford's aging George Street Odeon watching such a throwback, but it's purely a very clever reproduction - this is not doing anything new or original. Although, perhaps it's not meant to. If you're a fan of old films you'll love this, but I suspect that it will cling on for longer in the Indie cinemas than it will in the multiplexes.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

I've seen quite a few films at the cinema recently, sadly most of which I've neglected to blog about; Hanna, Attack the Block, Water for Elephants, Thor and I'm sure a couple of others that I've forgotten. All of these were enjoyable and most of them original and compelling. 'On Stranger Tides' however, is not. It's flabby, boring, self-satisfied and uninspiring. Now, I'm not hating on the Pirates franchise. I adore the first one, it was the best film of 2003, a hugely entertaining, funny, family-friendly film, with a fresh concept. The sequel was so-so; like so many sequels it lacked the originality of its predecessor but it was still a decent summer flick. The third one was abysmal, and this one does not improve matters at all. It moves away from the timeline of the first three, having shed Keira and Orlando, here we have Jack in his very own adventure with some new playmates: a love interest, allegedly the 'female Jack Sparrow', a pretty little mermaid, and a buff clergyman. Also we get a brand spanking new villain in the shape of Blackbeard (smoking beard and all) played by Ian McShane. The plot is negligible but basically they're all looking for the fountain of youth, along with some pointless but handsome Spaniards.

Well, so much for the new characters. Sadly they are not a patch on Elizabeth Swann and Will Turner, and they were hardly the most compelling of protaganists. Our 'love-interest' turns out to be a bit of a damp squib, in the shape of a heavily pregnant Penelope Cruz. Why anyone would cast an actor who was going to barely be able to run in an action film I have no idea. Perhaps if they had made her condition part of the story there might have been a bit more spark to her character, as it is there is a distinct lack of it. Ms Cruz, it turns out, is not pirate material. After a spirited fight with Jack at the beginning their relationship becomes a boring saga of petty, veiled, arguments that aren't even funny. It's like watching your mum and dad snipe at each other on a long car-journey.

The new kids on the block, Astrid Berges-Frisbey as mermaid Syrena, and Sam Claflin as man of the cloth Philip, are undeniably pretty, but also undeniably dull. Their angsty fledgling romance relying mostly on longing glances, bereft as it is of any chemistry or tension. It's almost as if the director realised they would need a replacement for the central couple of the previous three films but couldn't be bothered thinking of a decent story so shoe-horned it in to an already overloaded plot. Blackbeard is revealed 40 minutes in in an exciting shot where he emerges from a darkened doorway, preceded by the smoking ends of his rasta-beard. Hang on to that excitement cos you won't be getting any more from Mr McShane, lacking as he does both the humour of Barbossa and the threat of Cutler Beckett.

Thankfully Geoffrey Rush is still around as Barbossa, in this film posing as a stand-up member of His Majesty's Navy. His entrance, in the pale make-up and giant wig of the 18th Century court, is a delight, combining his jaunty piratical scruffiness with a simpering attitude and a well-placed beauty spot (there may also be some pouting involved). Barbossa has lost a leg, thanks to Blackbeard, and is seeking revenge. Barbossa and Jack's banter remains entertaining (an early scene involving the two of them and a later one with an escape from a coconut tree are the high points of the film), but Rush is ill-advisedly sidelined to make way for the pointless quartet of new faces. Depp as Sparrow remains entertaining but he is too quirky to make a leading man and results in a film that lacks direction and rather founders. It is also interminably long. The concept, production values, FX and music could just about be enough to make this film entertaining if it was a trim 90-minute romp. However over two hours of bloated plot devices soon wore out my patience. I enjoyed seeing Captains Jack and Barbossa and the ships, but this pirate yarn is more of a bloated lumbering merchant galleon than an exciting and nimble Man-O-War. My timbers remain distinctly un-shivered.

Never Let Me Go & Ondine

I saw both of these a couple of weeks ago now and, owing to generally being busy, didn't get chance to blog about them, so excuse the sparse reviews as I've forgotten most of my thoughts on these two generally enjoyable films. Never Let Me Go is based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro. It's ostensibly a sci-fi story but not what I would describe as sci-fi. Tron 2, this is not. Our three main characters, sensible Kathy (Carey Mulligan), spiteful Ruth (Keira Knightley, and boyish Tommy (Andrew Garfield) are denizens of a mysterious boarding school called Hailsham. As with the novel we are given very little context but are aware from the start that these children aren't normal. There is no mention of parents and from the veiled subtext of their teacher's conversations about and with them we come to realise that these children are kept apart from the rest of the world for a reason. However the mystery of their existence is only half the story. The bones of the plot is the relationships between the trio, and this is fleshed out in the second half of the book as we discover their function in this parallel world to our own.

The film is kept delightfully loyal to the book, which I enjoyed but was eager to see on screen. I was frustrated by the lack of context and disappointed by the 'revelation' at the end. However I suspected tht in the film they would have to give at least a little more context because whereas in a novel an author can deliberately omit description of the world to keep readers in the dark; in a film, by its very nature, the audience has to be shown a lot more. I was not disappointed. Director Mark Romanek has realised the book beautifully and it was great to finally 'see' Hailsham and its environs, as well as the medical centres where Tommy, Kathy, and Ruth end up. The characters themselves are impeccably cast. Miss Knightley is perfect as the beautiful and misleadingly confident Ruth, Andrew Garfield has the perfect look as boyish and fragile Tommy, and Carey Mulligan is stellar as Kathy - I loved her just as much as I did in the book, if not more. She has such an appealing look and nature that you can't help but side with her against Ruth. The (anti)climax of the story was also more satisfying to me somehow, perhaps because you get to see exactly what the mysterious donations entail. The book does a good job of conveying the creepy nature of the medical centres, but obviously seeing the harsh reality in gory objective detail, rather than through Kathy's schooled eyes makes it more disturbing. As with the book, this isn't crowd-pleasing sci-fi type action, but it's a gently English story that will make you think about where technology might take us.

I missed Ondine at the cinema but wanted to see it because it looked like an unusual love story in a pretty location, and also it stars Colin Farrell with long hair, chunky fishermen's sweaters, and a thick Oirish accent. Yum. Fisherman, Syracuse (Farrell), is out on his boat one day when he finds a young woman (Alicja Bachleda) caught up in his nets. She seems disoriented and scared so he hides her away in his mother's old cabin by the shore and tries to find out who she is and why she was floating around off the coast of Ireland. His wheelchair-bound daughter, Annie, meanwhile discovers Ondine and decides that she is a 'selkie' - a Celtic mermaid - the legend of which seems to tie up with Ondine's discovery and the little she confesses to them. As Syrcause and Annie become more enchanted by Ondine they find out that her back-story is a little less like the fairytale they imagine.

Ondine is not a film that everyone will enjoy, it's all rather soppy, and full of whimsy and Irish stereotypes, but it's charming and genuinely romantic too (in fact Farrell and Bachleda got together while filming and now have a daughter). This is a fairytale but it's a bit of a grimy one - Syracuse is an ex-alcoholic and Annie's mother, played by Dervla Kirwin, and her new husband are still heavy-drinkers, which causes a tragedy near the middle of the film. It's not a ground-breaking plot but I liked the twist and the revelation of who Ondine really is. Colin Farrell looks appealingly rustic and is an entertaining hero - he goes to his local priest (played by Stephen Rea), not because he is a devoted Catholic, but because there is no branch of AA in town so he treats the confessional as such - confessing to how many units he has or hasn't drunk that week. The character of Annie is slightly twee but again enjoyable, she is a savvy young thing and it's fun watching her run rings around her devoted father in her electric wheelchair. Watch it for the pretty locations and pretty central couple; perfect fare for a Sunday afternoon with your knitting and some chocolate.