Films of the Month: February

 Howard Hughes was undoubtedly one of the 20th century's most incredible personalities. Aside from being one of the century's most forthright entrepreneurs, he also dabbled in film-making. Hell's Angels was his directorial debut and though he went on to produce many more, he would only exert complete control over one other: 1943's controversial film The Outlaw.
 Hell's Angels though was undoubtedly his most ambitious film project, and it cost a staggering $3.8m to make, which meant it made no profit on it's original 1930 release, as well as being the most expensive movie ever made to date. It was also the film that launched one his most famous women: Jean Harlow. Whilst the acting is at times a bit primitive, the film coming in the early days of talkie, it helps highlight Harlow's star power. Here she plays a seductive temptress, and with her blonde bombshell look, it's easy to see why she would soon become the next big thing in Hollywood. Her low cut dresses and risque demeanour is very near the mark. Thankfully colour tinted scenes were found in John Wayne's private vault in 1989 and the film has been fully restored, allowing the world to see the stunning Jean Harlow in colour for the first and only time of her career.
 As great as Harlow is, she isn't the real star of this picture. That accolade goes to the aerial stunt footage created by Hughes. It should be noted that Hughes' obsessive and perfectionist nature resulted in the deaths of 3 air stuntmen on this movie. His strive for realism even drove him to perform one of the film's stunt himself, one in which all other stuntmen refused to do, as they said it was impossible. Hughes' performed and filmed the stunt, but crashed the plane afterwards, one of the first of his ailments that would no doubt affect him for the rest of his life. The resulting aerial footage is nothing short of a masterpiece as a large German Zeppelin wreaks havoc over London and a squadron from the Royal Air Force launch their defence.
 Admittedly plot wise it lacks any depth or sophistication, historically it's inaccurate and the German's are perhaps overplayed as nationalistic evil doers; but none of this matters, as the film's good, is nothing short of magnificent; with the climatic shots of the dogfight, being something to marvel at. Even over 80 years' later it remains a special effects stalwart. This was undoubtedly Hughes' finest hour in film.

 Source Code was a cerebral thriller, brought to us by Duncan Jones (also known as David Bowie's son Zowie). Having yet to see his first wide release film Moon, this was my first Duncan Jones film, and it was both impressive and enjoyable.
 A soldier (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up in the body of an unknown man, and is part of a covert government programme to try and track down a bomber in Chicago. It's fast paced and action packed, and it's probably best not to say to much about it, as it doesn't deserve anything to be given away. Whilst some of the films concepts are quite complex, meaning that you have to pause for thought when you can, to get your mind round the ideas; the ideas portrayed are intriguing. It does become a bit over elaborate in places, especially at the end, but for the most part it is coherent and understandable. On the whole though it feels more like an amalgation of ideas from film pasts, rather than an entirely new way of thinking, but it still comes across as original.
 Gyllenhaal gives a consummate action thriller performance, and really does a great job of captivating the audience into his bizarre journey. Though Jones treads a bit to close to the lines of melodrama, especially in the scenes with Monaghan and Farmiga (both of who were good in fairly limited roles). However, the dialogue serves as a steadfast balance to the adrenaline rush of the rest of the film. Jeffrey Wright also gives a notable, if somewhat clichéd performance as the man who designed the programme.
 Perhaps the film lacks a little variety and is a bit too succinct to make it fully satisfying; but I have a feeling any more depth would have hindered the plot. It may not be as profound as it tries to be, but it is certainly one of the best action films of the last few years, and should be able to entertain most adult demographics.
                                             

 Red River was the film that made Montgomery Clift a matinee idol; and though it was also the first film he made, it was The Search, that was released first. The style of neo-realist cinema from Italy was evident in this film about the post-war rehabilitation of surviving children from the concentration camp. It was possibly the first time, this style of neo-realism had been brought to an American audience, and it's a style that was very befitting of the subject matter.
 Another unique thing about The Search, is that I believe it is probably the only film I've ever seen that dealt with the difficulty of having to reaccommodate the child victims of the concentration camps; not only to new homes, but to post-war society. The film had a great power in showing these vulnerable children struggling to cope with a new world, where the alien notions of trust and understanding were hard to comprehend. The film was greatly helped by being filmed against the backdrop of a rubble-laden Nuremberg; as well as the exemplary performances from the actors involved.
 The most compelling performance was that of child star Ivan Jandl, who spoke no English and learnt his lines phonetically. Despite this, nothing was lost in his performance, and his on screen relationship with Montgomery Clift felt as real as the debried laden backdrop. Clift and Jandl also worked together off screen in order to enhance their performances further. Without Jandl the film may have felt a bit false and the film would have lost some of it's authenticity. The same may also be said of Clift, who is at both his most paternal and fresh faced, he gives possibly his most endearing performance on screen, and this is without having to resort to overwrought melancholy. Aline MacMahon and Wendell Corey give appropriate, albeit a little stoic support. Whilst opera star Jarmila Novotna works well as the indigent mother longing for her son.
 Director Fred Zinnemann would go on to become a Hollywood stalwart, but this was the film that propelled him to the forefront of studio projects. As such it is probably one of his few films that succumbs to the Hollywood magic element that were prevalent in their post-war films. It manages to remain grounded and naturalistic, in spite of it's broad and tragic subject matter.
 It's certainly a film that's hard not to dwell on afterwards; but despite it's hard to watch scenes, they are rewarding on an emotional and intellectual level. This isn't just a storytelling exercise, it's a history lesson and very enjoyable and rewarding one at that, showing it's audience the often overlooked logistical difficulties resulting from the war.
                                           

 Michael Haneke is probably German most respected director at this moment in time, and on the eve of his Oscar triumph I watched his 2009 film The White Ribbon. Set in a small German village before world war 1, a lot of strange events start occurring, that appear to be some type of retribution against the villagers themselves. Alongside these events we are showing the abuse and repression that is experienced by the children of this village.
 For a film that has to rely on the performances of it's young cast, it really does excel. The entire cast delivers this emotionally packed screenplay to a tee, and it really is a privilege to watch so assured performances in so many child actors. The cinematography is also fantastic, and the black and white filming set up the dark tone of this film nicely. Some of the shots in the film are sheer beauty and serve as a reminder of what foreign language films offer over today's output from Hollywood.
 For all the technical quality this film has, it does unfortunately lack in a few areas; it's well crafted nature seems to come at a compromise to the pacing of the film and it is a little arduous to watch. It's ambiguous nature, whilst obviously an intended device, may leave the viewer a bit let down at points. However, as an allegorical satire of German society during this period it works perfectly, and when you do ponder upon some of the ambiguous aspects, you will discover the films intellect. It's a film that's hard to watch, but easy to admire; and one that simply would never get made in Hollywood.
                                           

 Marnie was a film that is probably regarded, slightly unfairly as the beginning of the end for director Alfred Hitchcock. It is probably fair to say though it did signal the end of his most high profile films and his subsequent films became quite low key after this.
 Marnie is a film though that manages to maintain all the signature elements of a Hitchcock classic. Tippi Hedren plays the central blonde/ femme fatale, and her character shares elements of recent Hitchcock blondes Janet Leigh and Eva-Marie Saint's characters. Sean Connery play the role of the cunning love interest that tries to out manouevre the manipulative Marnie. Like most of his films, this tries to maintain the mystery and suspense throughout the movie, but despite the best efforts of the cast, it just lacks the electricity of his previous thrillers. Some of Hitchcock's technical elements and special effects in trying to inject more suspense and excitement into the plot, come off as over the top and it has the reverse effect in detracting from the film's story. Hedren also tends to overact in places, but this may be down to her director trying to stir up more suspense and drama.
 That said, it is probably one of Hitchcock's most challenging films and he tries to push the boundaries in what is allowed on film here. Though most modern audiences won't be surprised by the end, of the film, I imagine that it was quite a revelation back in 1964. Though a good film by anyone standards, it is one that probably rightly gets overlooked in the Hitchcock catalogue, as it just lacks something that sets it apart.
                                              

 Django Unchained has to go down as Tarantino's homage to the spaghetti westerns; with it's combination of heightened violence, it's matter of fact attitude, mixed with low quality film for flashbacks, as well as it's Ennio Morricone soundtrack; it was a film comparable to Death Rides a Horse, My Name Is Nobody and the eponymous Django. Django Unchained though, is ultimately a high quality rendition of it's inspirations.
 Having been unimpressed with Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds, I was hesitant about this, being such a fan of the same films that inspire Tarantino. I needn't had been so worried, as this film is everything it sets out to be, and manages to update the themes of the spaghetti western for today's modern audience. What I absolutely admire about this, is that Tarantino doesn't hold back for one single frame of film, and neither do any of his actors, who give it their all and really do immerse themselves into their roles and the script. Tarantino has been getting a lot of slack for his overuse of the 'N' word in this film, and as someone who hates gratuity, I was apprehensive about this in the film. However, it works brilliantly as the antithesis of those decades of Hollywood movies that have shied away from exposing America's sordid past. Even though the word is used over 100 times in the film, it never comes across as gratuitous; and although gratuitous violence is something which can be labelled at Tarantino in the past, it is appropriate here, as it tries to match those low budget European Westerns, which tried to compensate lack of finance with overwrought violence.
 My one question in regards to the acting, is how Christoph Waltz was only nominated as a supporting actor. He has nearly 2 hours of screen time, more than the majority of past best actors winners, and he is seamless yet again for Tarantino, I've yet to see Lincoln, but surely he could have even challenged Day-Lewis. As someone who is ambivalent to Jamie Foxx, I thought he was superb in the title role, and really fit the role of "mysterious stranger" that was so prevalent in the original spaghetti westerns. Di Caprio and Samuel L Jackson were also revelatory in their performances, given them a bit of a departure from the roles they usually portray. With Di Caprio, he is on occassion guilty of over acting, but here he is so immersed in the role, that his method is never on show, and you feel as immersed in his character as he is. There are also some great cameos in this film from veterans such as Bruce Dern, Don Johnson (unfortunately Kevin Costner had to pull out again) and the original Django Franco Nero. The film is also littered with all the sycophantic nods to the films that Tarantino has grown up with and loved.
 As for the film it is atypical of a Tarantino film, in terms of editing, style and direction; but the film's real technical strength is it's superb screenplay, which is soaked in jokes, satires and the monstrosities of the pre-Civil War south. The one real let down of the film, came towards the end, when a scene felt like it was shoehorned in to work as a plot device, which led to the film's climax. That aside, this is a very good film, and a fitting Hollywood tribute to the film's that reignited the Western genre: The Spaghetti Westerns. It's probably Tarantino's best film since Pulp Fiction.
                                              

 Frame for frame, you would be hard pressed to find a finer looking Hollywood film than Days of Heaven. Terrence Mallick's second film after his debut, the seminal Badlands (which is also the only other Mallick film I've seen). Set against the backdrop of a mid-west farmhouse, in a similar vain to the Benedict farmhouse in the film Giant, some of the shots in this are simply sublime. For some critics though, this seems to have detract from the film's plot.
 Admittedly Days of Heaven isn't the deepest film to watch in a literal sense, however it offers a lot in the way of metaphor and imagery, that results in an experience that at times seems other worldly. The scenes a comparable to Visconti's best, including the locust ascending from the wheat farm, which is sublime. The accompanying score from Ennio Morricone and it's Saint-Saens motif from 'The Aquarium' sumptuously enhances each shot further. Leo Kottke's 'Enderlin' also fits the bill nicely for the more up beat moments in the movie.
 It's stars also have also never looked more beautiful on film, especially the young Richard Gere and Sam Shepherd. What also doesn't help the film plot wise, is the fact Terrence Mallick destroyed the script a couple of weeks into filming, and decided in letting actors work the story themselves. What results is a rather simplistic tale of a couple, who moonlight as brother and sister in an attempt to steal a rich farmer's wealth. Some may argue that there is a far deeper meaning to this film, and it could be viewed as commentary on life itself, with it's lead characters representing natures elements. With the amount of shots of nature intertwined with the story, it's easy to see why people have alluded to this.
 Whilst the narration from the vindictive couple's little sister can grate at times, it serves well as a guide to this simplistic story through the narrator's simplistic point of view. The films editing is also questionable to time, as it tends to jump during transitions, where as gentle fades would have been more befitting the cinematography and story. However, I think the brevity of some shots, sets it apart from other beautiful films of it's ilk, and helps move the story forward. Though this results in a short film, nothing feels underdone, and the film is left with that "rewatchability" factor, predominantly for it's sheer beauty; but admittedly also for it's poignancy. Maybe not as profound as his debut Badlands, but Days of Heaven is nonetheless a special film.
                                               

Films of the Month: January

 I kicked of the New Year by watching Oscar winning classic From Here To Eternity a film that is probably most known for it's passionate beach scene with Deborah Kerr and Burt Lancaster. Set in Hawaii just before the attack on Pearl Harbour, it tells the story of a young private army boxing champion (Montgomery Clift) who is punished by his superiors for his failure to box. At the same time his captain wife (Kerr) and second in command (Lancaster) begin a tumultuous affair.
 It's a film that is full of melodrama, and whilst there's a tendency in these types of films for performances to be overacted and the film to become schmaltzy; the entire cast manage to underplay it so it remains for the most part grounded. This is probably also helped by the good direction and guidance of Fred Zinnemann. Though there are a few parts in the script that are overplayed in order to justify the moral ambiguity of some of the characters, especially when Deborah Kerr justifies her numerous affairs. In that sense the film does at times come off as a little dated. Regardless of this the performances from the now legendary cast are worth the price of admission alone. Montgomery Clift is in fine form, and it seems that Clift manages to achieve more in one frame of film, than most actors produce in a lifetime. Frank Sinatra won an Oscar for his supporting role, which helped rejuvenate his career; but the performances from a young Ernest Borgnine and a promiscuous Donna Reed that are just as notable and perhaps more powerful. I'm not the biggest Burt Lancaster fan, but it's hard not to connect with his character, and his scene with Clift are amongst some of the most potent in the film. (Lancaster said that he was so nervous about working with Clift that he was visibly shaking in their first scene together.)
 Overall it's easy to see why this film garnered such praise; it is a times riveting and compulsive viewing, and it is helped by an enjoyable closing action sequence of the Japanese attack. It's not quite as timeless as other films from this period, but it's certainly one worth viewing on repeated occasions.

 The Hunchback of Notre Dame was one of the myriad of classic horror novels adapted for film in the early 20's and 30's. It feature the legendary Charles Laughton as the titular character, and a young Maureen O'Hara in one of her first film roles (at Laughton's insistence). There is also support from the usual range of character actors such a Thomas Mitchell, Cedric Hardwicke and a young Edmond O'Brien.
 It is for the most part an entertaining adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel, that does deviate from it's source in parts. Most impressive in the film are the huge set pieces, and of course Charles Laughton''s tour de force as Quasimodo. In one scene after Quasimodo has saved Esmerelda from being hanged, he gives a lucid and moving self assessment of his deformities, even by today's standard it is one of the most powerful pieces of on screen acting ever performed. Cedric Hardwicke is also very disturbing as the corrupt Notre Dame priest. Despite all the great things about the film, I was a bit disappointed with the ending, as it seemed to be more an oversimplistic commentary on society, and didn't quite make for a believable conclusion. However there was a great closing scene with Laughton on the cathedral roof.
 It's a film that is certainly worth watching, as it gives credence to Laughton's reputation as one of the 20th century's finest film artists. I will be interested to see master of disguise Lon Chaney's 1923 adaptation of the story, to see how it compares.

 Sometimes I have to just hold my hands up and say I was wrong. In this case I had speculated that the film adaptation of Les Miserables the musical would fail to succeed and fall short of recreating the magic of the stage version. I can now concede that I was wrong.

 It is a film that manages to recreate everything that is good about the musical, and it finally delivers a worthy big screen version for fans and newcomers a like. I saw Les Miserables numerous times growing up, and even managed to see the universally acclaimed cast version (including Colm Wilkinson, Michael Ball, Alun Armstrong, Ruthie Henshall and Lea Salonga); so it's fair to say I'm a fan myself. The film version follows the stage musical to a tee in terms of plot and storyline. Where it differs though, is in some of the musical arrangements and the style of singing. It comes across as more raw and therefore packs more of an emotional punch. Russell Crowe particularly excels from this, as whilst he doesn't have the greatest singing voice, the vulnerability of his voice shines through and works perfectly with his tortured character Javert. Hugh Jackman's natural likeability factor, and his obvious experience in musical theatre made him the ideal choice for the main protagonist Jean Valjean. Somehow he manages to encapsulate everything that was great about Colm Wilkinson's version, and improve it by adding a more rounded characterisation of Valjean, that in my opinion is more reflective of Victor Hugo's Valjean. Anne Hathaway as the tragic Fantine performs aptly, but it is unfortunate for her that she shares the majority of her scenes with Crowe and Jackman, who are quite simply, the better actors. Her singing however more than makes up for any traces of overacting that she succumbs to. 

 Now to the weak points in both the cast list and the film it self: The Thenardiers. Probably the most obvious cast choice on paper with Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter taking up the cudgels. For me though, they just don't quite work, whilst relatively amusing, their tone is just too light hearted in contrast to the rest of the movie. I suppose it's a problem with the musical itself, as the Thenardiers have always been the comic relief of the piece. For the song 'Master of the House', I suppose visually it's always how imagined it would appear on screen, but for whatever reason it just doesn't quite work. It seems to be a little too slapstick, and doesn't maintain enough darkness of the characters how they appear in the novel. Sacha Baron Cohen is also guilty at times of over playing it for the laughs, whereas maybe a bit more subtlety was in order for this role. An even bigger problem for me, was Amanda Seyfreid. It seems like they forced her into this film on the back of Mama Mia!, unfortunately for her and us she just a). is no Cossette and b). simply not good enough. Her singing at times is just too weak for my ears, and her acting is so hollow. Her relationship with her adoptive father seems to unnatural for me. I understand that Valjean is distant to protect her from his past, but there seems to be no love there, which is the whole essence of their relationship and in truth the story. Finally, I can't not mention Eddie Redmayne, who was undoubtedly the one slightly obscure casting choice. His character boyish innocence, yet quite determination and will of revolution is well portrayed; and for me, one of the most striking moments of the whole production is his version of 'Empty Chairs and Empty Tables'.

 Technically the film is at times spectacular, though the opening CGI shot's are a bit too much for me to stomach, from that point on, most of the action takes place using sets and props. Tom Hooper uses the wide  pan shots well, especially as the revolution begins after General Lamarque's death. The showstopping song 'One Day More' was captured well, though it is such a great ensemble piece that I feel no big screen adaptation could ever do it justice. I also felt that at times the film could have expanded on areas, but this is a problem with the stage production too. It omits too much of the backstories of some of the characters, especially Fantine and the Thenardiers; some of Hugo's greatest passages in the book are his description of how Fantine's liaisons when she was a teenager led to her demise. Indeed important plot points such as how Valjean came to break his parole and his saving of his doppleganger's condemnation is simplified. Other areas are simply alluded to, such as Javert's background in the song 'The Confrontation'. However, I must say that many of the Boubil/ Schonberg songs do manage to add ample character developments, as well as included lyrics at times directly lifted from the source material.

 For the most part though, Hooper's direction wholly captures the essence of the musical and despite personal preferences here and there, it's hard to really fault his effort. It is without doubt one of the finest musical adaptations of all time, and one that I will no doubt watch numerous times again. I can't however shake this nagging feeling that it could have been ever better.

 Before reviewing my next film I'm going to have a rant at Warner Home Videos. In future if you are going to release a film on DVD, I'm not too bothered about a complete film restoration, but it would be nice to have a studio recorded score added to the film. It doesn't necessarily have to be composed by Carl Davis, a young up and comer would suffice. What the viewing public do not want is a live theatre recording, where you can here the audience laugh and cough throughout the entire film. This lack of care and attention was given to their release of the 1927 Garbo/Gilbert silent Love. It was made worse by laughter at the most inappropriate moments; silent movies are different entities and the audience didn't seem to understand the overly expressive nature of the actors. I wonder if this same audience laughed whilst reading the source material Anna Karenina.

 Having somehow endured the film with the sound on, I can say that overall it was a decent film, although maybe lacked the integrity of the Tolstoy novel it was based on. The contemporary low cut dresses were not befitting the Czarist Russia the film was set in, plus the ending was completely different to that of the novel. Though I understand that an alternate ending was made and also distributed worldwide upon the film's release. Again Warner Home Video decided to omit this from their version, which seemed to act more as a quick way to make a buck, rather than put any graft into releasing a version that would befit the film itself.

 The film holds a certain interest for both Garbo fans and film historians alike as she went onto make a talkie version of the film 8 years later. The latter version did come closer to the novel itself, and a more mature Garbo seems like a better match for the role of Karenina. In this version she was only 21 years old when making the film, and was far to young to be this mother of a pre-pubescent boy. However, John Gilbert is far and away the superior Vronsky to that of Frederic March's character in the remake. Gilbert just looks more the part, and for me gives a far more accomplished performance. March I think struggled by being overawed by Garbo, and was dominated. Whilst the husband Karenin is played amicably in this silent version by Brandon Hurst, he is no match for Basil Rathbone's even more manipulative interpretation later on.

 I feel that this version is let down quite a bit by the story not being fleshed out enough, and in the end it's a very loose adaptation of the book. However it's great to see one of the greatest ever film partnerships onscreen together again, and whilst their chemistry isn't as electric as their first film The Flesh and the Devil; they still work so well together. Gilbert was one of Garbo's few leading co-stars who was able to compete with her on screen, and though she has a tendency to overact in places here she still manages to convey so much when the cameras focus on her eyes. Next time though, I will have to watch this on mute.

                                                                 

 The Last Stand marked Arnold Schwarzernegger's return to the big screen, in his first major role since he became governor of California. It's easy to dismiss Arnold Schwarzenneger and his films as being mindless action; but to be honest, the world needs them, especially in this day and age where film's tend to try too hard to be some kind of cerebral, intellegentsia masterpiece, and ends up falling flat (*cough Looper).

 Yes The Last Stand isn't going to win any Oscars, but to be honest there are things about it that aren't too far off Oscar material. For instance some of the direction and camera work is incredible slick and well captured, especially with the main antagonist's early escape from custody and the subsequent car chases. This was director's Jee-woon Kim's first Hollywood film, and it seems like a great choice for both the director and stars alike, and one that should benefit both parties based on the resulting output. The film also has a talented support cast including Oscar winner Forest Whitaker, Peter Stormare and a brief cameo from Harry Dean Stanton; as well as the likes of lesser knowns Eduardo Noriega. Luis Guzman and Jaime Alexander. Though Johnny Knoxville plays his usually idiotic character, he has limited screen time, so doesn't grate too much and does at least a few funny moments. In terms of action the film is pretty relentless, and some of the violence isn't for the squeamish, and whilst over-the-top it really is quite exhilarating to watch.

 The film does lose it's way at the end a bit, and verges on dragging out; but for the most part this film is a refreshing return to the simplistic action films, that Arnie made so popular. Whilst he looks a lot older now, and the one liners didn't quite flow as memorably as before, it's hard not to immerse yourself into his films, as they are what they are, and they certainly provide a fun and enjoyable cinema-going experience.

                                              

Films of the Month: December

 Kevin Costner's Swing Vote was a somewhat far fetched story of a man, whose vote on the night of the presidential election isn't counted due to a malfunction on the day of the presidential election. It turns out that his county in the state of New Mexico is the last one to declare on the night of the election, and it's a dead heat, therefore he has the chance to recast his vote and decide the Presidency. He has 7 days to recast his vote, and of course both candidates (played by Dennis Hopper and Kelsey Grammar) try their best to win his vote.
 It's far fetched to say the least, and sadly the film itself is equally as bad. The problem with it is that it has no real depth to it, it's more just a series of events that happens. Whilst it could be assumed that the message of the film is the importance of voting,as well as highlighting the flippant nature and hypocrisy of modern politics and media; but the film oversimplifies it and the film lacks the punch to make these statements powerful. It also becomes a bit too farcical as both candidates use over elaborate campaigns (as well as sacrificing their own values and ideals) to try to secure this one vote. Though it could be argued that it is a microcosm of modern election campaigns on a wider scale. The film is caught somewhere between a drama and a comedy, but neither really to suit the film and it all comes of a bit of a mess.
 There are also some big names in this film in the supporting roles, such as Stanley Tucci, Nathan Lane and Judge Reinhold; but it comes off as a low budget, made for TV affair unbefitting these star names. Even as a fan of Kevin Costner, this film is admittedly one of his weakest. Even the much maligned Waterworld, The Postman and The Bodyguard are very engaging films and certainly provide some moments of real entertainment, that despite their flaws are quite fulfilling.
                                                        

 Sightseers was one of the first British films I had seen at the cinema for a while. It was a black comedy that followed a couple of outcast's caravan journey across some of Britain's most eccentric landmarks. Soon the trip takes a turn when they accidentally run over a fellow visitor to one of the landmarks, and so play out there blood lust by murdering everyone who antagonise them along their journey.
 It is a very offbeat film, and for me personally it's just a bit too detached from the audience for one to really fall for it. The main problem is that the main characters are pretty unsympathetic, which I suppose is important considering they are serial killers; and indeed both stars (comedy writers Alice Lowe and Steve Oram) play the very characters one imagine British serial killers to be like. Both are socially awkward and the film is reminiscent of Natural Born Killers and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, albeit distinctly more British.
 Despite this main negative, the film does have it's moments; and whilst it isn't necessarily laugh out loud funny, it maintains a certain level of amusement throughout. It's the type of humour that has become a stalwart in British comedy in the last 10 years; that awkward to near the mark type, that leaves many uncomfortable. It was also a film that lingers in the mind, which is never a bad thing, and although many have likened it to Mike Leigh's Nuts in May (a television play I've yet to see), I found it quite original. Ultimately it was just a bit too challenging, and is probably a film I wouldn't go back to.

 The Three Stooges was a reboot of the classic 40's comic trio, which I had little desire to watch, especially after seeing the trailer for the film and having never even seen the original comedy troupe. However, the casting of one of my comedy heroes Larry David, was enough to sway me into giving it a chance. I was glad I did, as it was one of the more pleasantly surprising film's I've seen this year.

 Full of slapstick and simplistic humour that were tantamount with the original Stooges, as well as the directors of this version the Farrelly brothers; it's a film that may not be everyone's cup of tea. In my opinion though, it was refreshing to see a comedy film that was simple, silly and family friendly. It never tried to get clever and become something it was never going to be, and whilst like most comedies it resorted to inserting contemporary culture to win the casual viewer with the inclusion of Geordie Shore; it seemed more like the Farrellys were making a veiled attack on modern day television programming. It was for the most part stupid, immature and crude (like most Farrelly movies), but it was also obviously made with a lot of heart by the directors who wanted to share with the world their own love, and what influenced them. It was great to see a reboot made, with such affection, rather than simply a money making opportunity. I could certainly see where they were influenced in previous works, most notably their greatest work Dumb and Dumber and Jim Carrey's Lloyd Christmas was clearly based on Moe. It also opened my eyes to other ways The Three Stooges has influenced some of my other favourite comedies, such as The Simpsons, Futurama and Robin Williams. Sometimes there's a bit too much love as the skits and catchphrases are a bit overplayed and overexposed, but it still generates a chuckle. The film also gets a bit stale on the laughs in places, and maybe a bit over the top; but it was certainly amusing and entertaining enough to keep me interested for the 90 minutes.

 I also thought that for the most part the acting was handled well, and though I've only seen brief clips of the original Stooges I thought Sean Hayes, Chris Diamantopoulos did good jobs, and Will Sasso was particularly notable as Curly. Larry David worked well as Sister Mary-Mengle, as did Sofia Vergara who was quite funny as the conniving villain; but I was a bit bemused as to why Jennifer Hudson cast, as she was given limited screen time considering her Oscar winning status.

 It's a shame that a film such as this can quite easily be swept aside, when there are so many more forgettable, generic comedies that are praised by critics, that are both more shallow and mediocre than this. I also feel a bit for the Farrelly brothers, as whilst their output may not always be the funniest; they do manage to create more often than not, enjoyable films, that on first look seem simplistic, but actually a bit more wit and depth than first glance; an ability that not many other comedic film makers manage to emanate. If The Three Stooges delivers one thing above all else, it's that it will make most movie-goers want to discover the original Stooges.

                                                            

 Moonrise Kingdom was the antithesis of The Three Stooges, but again directed by a comedic director with a certain style. The offbeat Wes Anderson comedy was very much of the same ilk as The Life Aquatic and The Royal Tenenbaums, with another all star cast that we have become to expect from his films. Despite the big name, the plot actually resolves more around the children in the film as a young boy scout runs away from a camp with a local school girl. They are soon hunted down by the adult stars (including Billl Murray, Edward Norton, Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand and Tilda Swinton); as well as the belligerent remainder of the scout troop.

 As with the other Wes Anderson comedies, it had that melancholic underbelly to the humour, as well as the retro style of the set and production. Though I can respect and sometimes admire his style, I do at times find his work frustrating to get into, whilst Moonrise Kingdom is probably one of his most accessible films; I still struggled to immerse myself into the film. It is undoubtedly witty and endearing, and even entertaining, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it is a stalwart of modern comedy, again something I can say about any Wes Anderson comedy. I always come away from his work with the same overall impression, as if I'm missing something that others have found with them. I did prefer this latest effort to his previous The Royal Tenenbaums and it possibly just pips The Life Aquatic and Rushmore too; but for me it's still short of greatness. It was though helped by some good performances, especially Edward Norton, Bruce Willis and an impressive film debut for Kara Hayward. The dialogue at times is also sharp, but with a bit of sentiment too.

 I suppose one thing that can certainly be said about Wes Anderson's films, is that he always puts a lot of heart and soul to all his characters, and even the smallest role is fleshed out with even the most minor nuances. Admittedly Moonrise Kingdom is one of the better films released this year, but it has been a poor year overall from Hollywood.

                                           

 William Friedkin is a man responsible for two of the most memorable movies of the 70's (The Exorcist and The French Connection). Since then it's fair to say that he's failed to match those heights, with a fair amount of low key output. Killer Joe certainly reminded people that Friedkin still directed films though. Based on a dark plot, where a small time drug dealer (Emile Hirsch) decides murdering his mother for the insurance money is the only way to pay off his large debts. He plots with his family to kill his mother, with the help of bent police detective (Matthew McConaughey), who also doubles up as a hitman.

 Naturally it is a very dark film, and is at times a tough watch, with uncomfortable levels of violence and equally disturbing sex scenes. But this is the William Friedkin that we like, and it seems that the veteran director has rediscovered his magic, as well as his passion for film making. The film's unabashed style is certainly akin to The Exorcist, and I personally revel in the masochistic manner of some of cinema's darkest films. During a time when another gun slaughter has taken place in North America, the ignorant amongst the world, will turn to blaming films' such as this in order to gloss over the more obvious problem of gun control. All art forms should never be censored, it is through censorship that humanity's greatest crimes have come to fruition. It's for this reason that I can't help but admire Killer Joe. It is over the top, but I don't think it goes too far, films should be allowed to offend as well as challenge, and this does both. If there was any issue with the film it was possibly an underdeveloped plot, but a few nice twists maintained the interests. As for the stars, I'm not a McConaughey fan, but he is beautifully sadistic as the eponymous Joe, and Emile Hirsch is always engaging. Juno Temple probably gives the most impressive performance as the naive 20 year old sister of Hirsch's character; who becomes part of Joe's payment. The young Brit will hopefully be given more substantial roles in the coming years.

 It's not without it's faults, but for sheer two fingers up to modern sensitivities, it get's my vote. Alhough that may sound a bit unfair on the film, as it does have a lot of merit to it. Maybe Friedkin still has one last swansong in him too, judging by this effort.

                                           

 Conquest was the last dramatic role of Greta Garbo's career, and it would signal the beginning of the end of her film career. After the enormous success of Camille, Conquest told the story of Napoleon's Polish mistress Marie Warlewska and their illustrious affair. Charles Boyer was the ideal casting as Napoleon given his shorter stature and French accent; the Academy thought so too, awarding him the Oscar.
 Despite solid performances from the leads, the film suffers a bit from questionable plot devices. For instance the first love scene between the two comes across as tantamount to rape; and it becomes pretty unbelievable after that point that she would fall in love with this man. At least in Gone With The Wind, it's still believable that Scarlett O'Hara would swoon after being violently taken by Rhett, due to their previous relationship history and Scarlett's character. The script is the main problem with this error, and it is also at fault for the characterisations of both characters and why these two would fall in love with each other. As for Garbo herself, she looks very radiant in the piece and adopts a similar style to her appearance in Camille.
 The film overall is largely forgettable, but for Boyer and Garbo and the natural draw of Napoleon's life. It's also interesting to see these two on screen together as he was one of her few co stars who she remained friendly with in both their later tragic lives. (The full movie can be viewed below)

Film Event: Lawrence of Arabia 4K Restoration Re Release

 It's safe to say this is the one film I've always wanted to see on the big screen above all others (including the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Ben-Hur and even The Good, The Bad and The Ugly). It was wonderful to learn that Lawrence of Arabia was being given a high definition restoration to mark it's 50th anniversary. My anticipation for a film has rarely been matched, especially as this was for a film I had viewed on numerous occasions. Finally I was sitting in a cinema and listening to the now legendary musical interlude of Maurice Jarre's timeless theme, allowing it to sink in before the film was to begin.
 At nearly 4 hours long, there were those in the audience I had sensed were wary of it's run time, having not seen this stalwart of cinema before. I had no such worries, safe in the knowledge that I was about to watch one of the great adventure epics, and of course a performance from Peter O'Toole often lauded as the finest in cinematic history.

 What was immediately apparent was the finer resolution of this transfer, the colours more prominent, the background finer and the sound even sharper. This, more than perhaps any other film, was sorely appreciated as that first remarkable cut of Lean's first graced our screen, as O'Toole's Lawrence blows out the match, only for we the audience to be transferred to the majestic sunrise on the Arabian desert.

 It was truly invigorating watching these incredible shots in such detail on the big screen. The vast expanse of some of these shots have never looked more remarkable and the now synonymous Lean lens, has again exposed it's full potential on screen, through the advancement of technology. The scene that struck me most, was of course the now infamous Omar Sharif entrance through the mirage. Arguably the most famous scene in film history, this transfer really did do it justice and I can say with utter confidence that it's effect was far more powerful than any time previous I had seen it.

 Of course the beauty of this film didn't stop with this scene, and it continued to dazzle as Lawrence advanced through the Nefud desert, launched his assault on Aq'aba and ultimately ascended on Damascus.

 It is undoubtedly one of the most accomplished films ever, as it's not just the motion capture aspect of it, that provides it's power, but the performances of it's stars. The first time I had ever seen this film I had read a lot about O'Toole's performance being arguably the greatest ever, and whilst I recognised it as great at the time, I wasn't sure whether it could be considered the greatest ever. It's only been on repeat viewings that the complexities of the character and his interpretation can be discovered and revered. Lawrence is a man destined for greatness, but his own egotistical and at times masochistic demeanour only serve to prevent him from achieving his destiny. He is forever standing on the precipice of martyrdom, and is whispered to of being some type of prophet by his peers. There are also subtleties to his character, that alludes to the darker and mysterious side of Lawrence, certainly in regards to his sexuality, as well as his morality.
 Ultimately though he, as well as we the audience, learn that he is merely mortal, and is only flesh and blood. Lawrence's own realisation of this and his inner turmoil is at times tragic, but needed, as his arrogance goes too far as his self importance goes too far. This in my opinion is what makes his performance so remarkable, in that by showing what an 'extraordinary' man Lawrence was, we are always prevented from falling for him. Lean and O'Toole's genius, is in painting a no holds barred portrait of the man as he is and as he was.
                                                            

 It is testament to O'Toole that for a four hour film he never lets up, and Lawrence is forever engaging. The film is also aided by an incredible pool of talent supporting O'Toole. Jack Hawkins, Anthony Quayle, Jose Ferrer, Claude Rains and Alec Guinness all put in superb turns in their respective roles. Ferrer always pointed to his small cameo in this film, as his finest piece of screen acting. It is however Lawrence's Arabic allies in Omar Sharif and Anthony Quinn who provide the finest turns in their respective roles.
 Like O'Toole, Sharif was a complete unknown in world cinema, though a star in Egypt. Aided by the already mentioned entrance through a mirage, Sharif lives up to his grand entrance. At first he conflicts with Lawrence, as both parties questions each other's cultures, but like the majority of romantic films, he falls in love with Lawrence. It is a love that is purely platonic, and one built first out of respect and admiration for the man, but eventually he clings on to his love through sympathy and fear for Lawrence. In my opinion, their love is a personification, of Lawrence's own love with the desert. Mostly one way, with the desert causing more harm to Lawrence both psychologically and physical.
 Anthony Quinn gives a more hard nosed turn as Auda Abu Tayi, who is portrayed as ultimately a mercenary. It could be argued that Quinn's character is complicit of Lawrence's demise, whereas Sharif's Ali tries to appease him and maintain Lawrence's ideals and ambition. Quinn's character seems to be symbolic of the reason why Lawrence ultimately failed in Arabia, as not only was there too much inner turmoil between the different tribes, but the Arab's had different (as well as more superficial) goals to Lawrence.

 It should be added that the main controversy of this film, is it's historical accuracy, with some of the events shown in the film never actually happening, as well as some characters not existing. Ultimately though, I feel that some films should be allowed artistic license, especially if the essence of the story is still being told. Robert Bolt's screenplay seems to justify any inaccuracies, as the story told is exhilarating and immersive; It rightly won the Best Screenplay Oscar that year. The inaccuracies though are one of the few blemishes on this film, and are scant reason to disregard it in any way. One can always read 'Seven Pillars of Wisdom' if they want a first hand account of events.
 What is also striking about this film is that it's a 4 hour film without one line of dialogue for women, and considering it's setting and the story it's telling, it's fitting and appropriate. Indeed Lean, had been forced by the studio to insert a love scene for his previous film Bridge Over The River Kwai; which just came across totally gratuitous and unnecessary. It would have been highly ludicrous for a film such as this to insert something that would have come off as desultory.

 Finally seeing this on the big screen, was truly awe inspiring, and of course I am now faced with the realisation that I will never see another film on the big screen that will surpass this. I envied those around, who were watching it for the first time, gasping at each twist and turn, and their anguish when the film ended 4 hours later. The restoration only added to the richness, vibrancy and beauty of the desert, as well as O'Toole's baby blues. The only detriment to this restoration, was that the make up was at times more prominent and O'Toole really could have been Florence of Arabia. Whilst this is only number 2 on my list of greatest films ever, it is probably the greatest film ever made, certainly on a technical level.

Films of the Month: November

Blue Lagoon was a controversial film, released in 1980, that starred a then 14 year old Brooke Shields as a shipwrecked castaway, who is forced to grow up and mature on a remote island with her cousin (Christopher Atkins). The film however wasn't as controversial as Shields' previous role as a child prostitute in 1978's Pretty Baby, made when she was just 11 years old.
 The film starts as the children are left on the island as pre-pubescent castaways, and follows them as they mature from the age of innocence, to an age of sexual awareness. They are initially guided to life on the island by fellow castaway Leo McKern, who soon after dies, after drowning whilst drunk. It is at this point that the children's loss of innocence begins, as they begin to deal with the darker side of life. Mirroring the children's evolution are images of natures on cycle of life, which they cohabit with on the island. However, these scenes come off as rather amateurish, simplistic and a bit too pretentious to really aid the film. The acting does manage to get away with any accusations of woodenness, due to the subject matter at hand, and both Atkins and Shields' manage to do an adequate job at portraying their naivety. McKern in fact manages to pull out a wonderful cameo at the start of the film, that matches his usual onscreen energy and persona.
 Apart from the occasional flashes of child nudity, there is nothing really explicit that suggests this film should have garnered the controversy it did. In fact it comes across as quite pure, but ultimately a bit too sweet for it to be considered an accomplished work. Unfortunately, it does struggle to compete with the similarly themed Death in Venice and Lolita, which are far superior in style and execution. It's biggest strength comes from the source material from which it is based: Henry De Vere Stacpoole's novel of the same name; which leads me to think that this is a film that may do better being remade.
                                                        

 No Way Out was an espionage thriller starring a youthful Kevin Costner, as a naval officer who gets involved with the defence secretary's (Gene Hackman) mistress (Sean Young). The defence secretary kills his mistress by accident, and Costner's character is the man brought in to divert suspicion away from the defence secretary.
 For such a convoluted plot, it is actually pulled off far more impressively than the synopsis suggests; although it may seem a little bit dated these days. There are moments of genuine tension and the film has one of the truly most bizarre endings in film history. The performances are also quite good, especially from Costner, who manages to carry the film well, though he is sometimes let down by Young's at times erratic demeanour.  His scenes opposite Hackman invoke some of Costner's best scenes, and Hackman manages his usual level of vigour. David Bowie's wife Iman and Will Patton also provide impressive support.
 For a film of it's ilk, that is probably quite forgotten in this day and age, it does actually have something about it that will probably still resonate with today's audience. Whilst not a great thriller, it is worth watching, if not for the already mentioned ending that will leave you dumbfounded.
                                             

 Silver Linings Playbook promised much, with many critics calling it one this year's best films. It told the story of a man (Bradley Cooper) recently released from a mental institution, who sets about trying to reconcile with his wife. Along the way though he meets a fellow troubled soul in the form of his friend's sister in law (Jennifer Lawrence), who promises to help him by being the go between with him and his wife. Along the way we encounter all the peripheral characters in this man's life, whose own idiosyncracies seem to point to Cooper's character not being the only one with mental health problems.
 The film is refreshingly original, and one can see why the critics have fallen for it. However it is a bit too gimmicky at times to really be counted as something genre defining. Whilst it is both amusing and fun, it does try to cater too much for it's target audience by reverting to cheap sentiment at times. In many ways it reminded me of last year's Crazy. Stupid. Love., but this was definitely a bit more grounded, although not as  enjoyable as the aforementioned. The acting was good in this too, with both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence managing to provoke a lot of likeability in his complex character. It was the first film of Lawrence I had seen, and she gave a mature performance that it's surprising to learn she is only 22. The film also featured Robert De Niro as Cooper's father, whilst recently De Niro has paled in the performance that made him once a true great of cinema, here at least he gives a likeable turn, with traces of his past bravura. Chris Tucker also gave his first performance in 15 years that wasn't part of the money cow Rush Hour franchise. Tucker showed that he isn't just a one trick pony, and gave an endearing turn as Cooper's equally troubled ex-inmate.
 It's a film that will rise to the top of what has been a remarkably subdued year for films, especially from Hollywood. It is easy to see why it's garnering such praise, it's problem is though is that it is a little to unremarkable to be remembered beyond this year. Ultimately it's another film that leaves any film buff asking "Is this the best they can come up with?".

Bond at 50: Skyfall Review

 And so it came to pass, 50 years of Bond, and the 23rd official James Bond film of the franchise was released. I came in expecting a film that would compliment the franchise greatly, as well as being an improvement on the disappointing Quantum of Solace. This was exactly what I got.
 As with all Bond films, the prologue had to be action packed, and set the tone for the rest of the film. Skyfall certainly produced action as Bond (Daniel Craig) and his colleague (Naomi Harris) embarked on a chase through the streets of Istanbul. It was exhilarating and the jolt in the arm the film needed, in order to engage the audience immediately. The climax of the prologue, meandered into the opening title sequence beautifully. Whilst I didn't care much for Adele's theme song to the film, I was especially impressed by the opening title sequence of the film. It was poetic and somehow poignant and appropriate for the film we were about to watch. It certainly ranks up there with the best of the Bond title sequences.

 The film itself was dark, brooding and everything we've come to expect from Craig's "grittier" Bond, but there was still the heart and essence in the film that has made the franchise so popular. As this was an anniversary Bond, there was also of course some wonderful references to past Bond films particularly The Man With The Golden Gun. There was a particular scene that literally mirrored the scene from Scaramanga's fun house. Of course a lot of the references were wonderfully subtle, mixed with the blindingly obvious (such as the silver DB5, and Bond giving some confidential papers "For her Eyes Only").
 Technically the film was sound. Sam Mendes helmed the picture, and upon his announcement there were a few eyebrows raised. Mendes thankfully overcame any doubts over his ability to make an action film, by directing a very fundamentally Bond film, but as well as adding his own touches of emotional input that helped form the Bond universe, and indeed Bond himself (afterall the Craig films have thus far been set at the very beginning of the James Bond story). The acting talent on show is also the film's biggest strenght. With names such as Albert Finney, Ralph Fiennes, Rory Kinnear as well as the steadfast Judy Dench, the film was always going to be in safe hands. But added to that Berenice Marlohe and Naomi Harris, who were both well suited to their roles, especially Harris, who seemed in my opinion to be a perfect fit. Then there was Javier Bardem as main villain Silva, a former agent who felt betrayed by MI6 and is carrying out his vengeance. Whilst obviously not quite the powerhouse performance that earned him the Oscar in No Country For Old Men; Bardem gets the role right, with his usual show of bravura mixed in with his natural tempered charisma. It was also interesting to see that the character was bisexual (probably by Mendes hand), which made his scenes with Craig, even more riveting to watch.
                                                           

*SPOILERS WITHIN
 As for the story, it was a well written affair full of all the betrayal, violence and emotion that have made Bond so entertaining. With light touches of humour that have meant the films still have that element of fantasy, that makes them still enjoyable. The film was pretty much what I expected in terms of it's place in the franchise. I expected this film to be set immediately before Dr. No, and in terms of the cast I expected Ralph Fiennes to be the new M and Naomi Harris to become Moneypenny. It was also as the film panned out that I expected M (Dench) to die, but unfortunately, possibly due to classifying the film as a 12, the writers weren't brave enough to let Silva (Bardem) kill her, which I think would have been brave and a fitting end to the film. However it must be said, I would have been very disappointed if the film hadn't have panned out as I'd anticipated. It was wonderful the way the film ended in an evolution of the beginning of Dr. No. Though it was a bit too much watching the DB5 get massacred, but at least I know it'll be back in time for Goldfinger. I think the next Daniel Craig film will be set a lot further into the future, and Craig will hopefully portray a far more relaxed and wiser Bond.

 The film on whole was very enjoyable, and a noticeable improvement on Quantum of Solace, however it was still not as good as Casino Royale, which had the rawness and the audacity to reignite the franchise, in a way that was appropriate and didn't take liberties. I think Skyfall, will be a fondly remembered Bond, but it doesn't quite have that edge or indeed uniqueness that sets it apart from the others, and amongst the best.

Films of the Month: October

 Billed as this decade's The Matrix, Looper was already up against it. It seems that the vast majority of films that bill themselves as 'The New...' never live up to expectations, it's probably fair to say they fall embarrassingly short. However, Looper was on the way to changing this with a convoluted, time-travel centric plot, that gave it a bit more depth than the average action flick.
 Based around the mob's use of time travel to send their victims and enemies back in time to killed, 'Loopers' are the ones who act as their executioners. Eventually though the Loopers themselves begin having to kill themselves, having been sent back 30 years from the future, equipped with a massive pay off, to make sure they enjoy their final 30 years. One day though, one of the Loopers (Paul Dano) discovers it's his future self before pulling the trigger and lets his future self go. Now on the run from the mob, the Looper seeks refuge with his fellow Looper (Joseph Gordon Levitt), who resolves to give him up. This leads to one of the film's best moment, as the exiled Looper from the future is dismantled by the mob who are 'operating' on his younger self. There is also this whole "seemingly" superfluous mention of telekinesis, that gives one that sinking feeling about where this film is heading.
 Soon Gordon-Levitt's character is brought face to face with his own future self (Bruce Willis), which leads to another fantastic sequence showing the different 'loops' and the consequence of the character killing himself (when it originally happened the first time his future self was sent back). Up to this point the story and action is extremely absorbing, as Willis tries to kill the future crime lord who he has deduced is a 5 year old child, and Gordon-Levitt tries to kill his loop. The film doesn't hold any punches and is also pretty unconventional.
 Sadly it is right after this point where the film falls apart, in a similar fashion to the earlier character who was literally dismantled. The film quickly begins to become overindulgent in the melodrama; and even the action sequences become gratuitous, even to the point of laughable. I honestly can't remember a movie having such an abysmal final third in contrast to the rest of the film. The twists are predictable, which is I don't usuallly have a problem with, but in this case they are executed poorly and one soon becomes irritated with how poorly they're handled. For a film that started so well (though obviously nowhere near The Matrix level of greatness) it's ending is so shockingly awful, that you have to remind yourself it's the same movie. Bruce Willis' own Twelve Monkeys is similar in concept, but the finished product there is far more satisfying compared to this below average affair.
                                             

 Next up I saw A Star Is Born, one of Judy Garland's most famous films and one made off the back of many similar movies that were about the show business industry. It was later remade in the 70's with Barbara Streisand in the lead role; but this version was itself in fact a remake, however this is the most famous version of the film. It was significant for Garland as it was the first film she made with Warner Brothers, having successfully terminated her contract with MGM. As such what is most striking about this picture is Garland's image, as she appears more dowdy and plain; but this is also due to the script, which satirises the "star system" (synonymous with her old employers MGM). Her image may have also been suffering due to her off screen drug troubles and mental illness.
 The film itself centres around Esther Blodgett (Judy Garland), a small time singer, who's show is interrupted by A-lister Norman Maine (James Mason), who drunkenly invades the stage. He soon sobers up and spots Garland singing in a lounge bar, where he's struck by her talent. He soon sets about in making her a star and the two fall in love along the way. The problem at this part of the film is that Mason's character when they first meet is such a wreck that it's hard for the viewer to warm to him quickly. To be fair to Mason though, he's seemingly unscrupulous character, begins to show some heart as he falls in love with Garland.
 The film is credited as being Garland's landmark performance, and whilst she is undoubtedly the star of the show, it is neither a performance that completely blows me away. She has that sense of vulnerability and charm that makes her endearing (along with her singing talent), but the lack of great songs and plaintive tone of the film, doesn't work in favour of her performance. As for Mason, he lacks a bit of the charm and suaveness he exudes so readily in other pictures, oddly enough it's his plaintiveness that does work for him in this film; and his ability not to conform to the conventional leading man is arguably his greatest strength. There is also decent support in this film from accomplished actors Charles Bickford, Jack Carson and Tommy Noonan.
 The production values are also strong, and atypical of the musical's of the 50's; with direction from the great George Cukor, and musical arrangements from George Gershwin's brother Ira. Unfortunately, the film on the whole comes up short, in terms of both films of similar plots such as Singin' in the Rain, All About Eve, Sunset Boulevard and even The Bad and the Beautiful. It's lack of real great show tunes and musicality even leaves it short in my opinion of the being a truly great musical. It's a good film, that is maybe over indulged by fans of Garland, who are exposed to an on screen Garland that is akin to her real life turmoil. The film in truth though is a bit too overblown for it's own good.
                                             

 Don't Look In The Basement was an early 70's horror film, much in the same mould of the low budget grindhouse and snuff movies also released around that era. This film did in fact share a double bill feature with Wes Craven's The Last House on the Left. Set in a remote mental asylum, where a couple of the patients have killed a doctor and a nurse, leaving just one more doctor on site, when a young female nurse arrives informing the doctor that she was assigned to the place by one of the victims. This nurse begins to endure the mental and physical anguish the patients unleash on her.
 Whilst this film is very low budget, it is blessed in that it has a strong plot, that does suffer a bit from slightly erratic direction at times, that can sometimes seem confusing. The acting is also forgivably tolerable, but does suffer from a bit of the usual woodenness associated with these pictures; but at the same time is amusing and is why they're so enjoyable. In my opinion it does compare favourably to other films of the genre, and is definitely amongst the better ones I have seen. It isn't overly gratuitous and has a bit more purpose than the snuff-centric The Last House on the Left, but it's not quite as gripping as I Spit on your Grave. The ending to this one will leave the viewer guessing, and it's probably due to it's strong screenplay that a remake is currently in the works. However, there's something about the rawness of these films, that make the overproduced remakes occasionally pale in comparison to the originals. The entire film can be seen below:

 I also watched the 1925 version of Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ, which is often cited as being the most expensive silent film ever made. Though it shared much the same narrative as the Wyler remake, there were also longer, as well as a few additional scenes. The film was directed by Fred Niblo, who had directed two other movies I had seen, Greta Garbo's The Temptress and Mysterious Lady. Already impressed by hints of his technical mastery in those pictures, this film is undoubtedly his most known, probably because it's his most impressive. This was one of the first MGM productions, it's opulence and grandeur would serve as a signal that started MGM's and indeed Hollywood's Golden Era. Along with The Big Parade, Ben Hur instantly propelled MGM to become the biggest studio in Hollywood.
 Niblo had originally wanted to cast Hollywood's biggest star at the time in the title role, Rudolph Valentino. Eventually the role was given to Ramon Navarro, who gives an interesting performance as Ben Hur, and looks the part, especially when enslaved by the Romans. The problem is though, that Charlton Heston's seminal interpretation of the character is definitive. his characterisation best portrays Hur's inner struggle with faith and vengeance. Whilst the supporting cast, especially Francis X. Bushman as Messala, work well; they don't quite match up to the charisma and emotional impact the modern cast portray.
 The film also differs to the remake in it's tone; this film is surprisingly darker and even more subversive than the 1959 version. It includes scenes of nudity; and the violence is also quite graphic for a film of the era, most notably during the galley battle and of course the chariot race. Despite this, rather ironically, the film managed to pass censors as it was about Christianity. One can't talk about Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ and not mention the chariot scene. The original version is just as impressive as the later one; maybe more so as it was filmed more than 30 years earlier. Interestingly one of the second unit directors in this scene was one William Wyler. This version also boasts the restored 2-colour Technicolor footage, originally though lost. The colour footage looks incredible and adds to the film as a spectacle. One of which stands out more than the others, which parodies Raphael's masterpiece The Last Supper. Finally, like the majority of restored silent films today, this version boasts a score from the always impressive Carl Davis, who's work has ensured the projects he's worked on will endure for a further 90 years.
 Overall, I believe Wyler improved upon this version, mainly due to the cast and the fact that the sound does add to the emotionally charged script (admittedly, some of the best lines are taken right out of the original). This however, is undoubtedly a great epic, and one that will forever be remembered for it's ground breaking technical direction from Niblo; which in turn propelled MGM straight to the top. The resulting Golden Age of cinema and it's "more stars than heaven" owe a lot to this film; even if it took until 1931 for it to make a profit, it was still very much a box office smash and great success for MGM.

 The Public Enemy was my second James Cagney film after his sensational turn as psychopath Cody Jarrett in White Heat. The Public Enemy was made 18 years before that film, and would forever be remembered as the film that made James Cagney a star. People have often cited the moment that James Cagney appears on screen in The Public Enemy as the birth of modern acting. It's easy to see why too, he's comfortably natural in front of camera, noticeably more so than some of his co-stars. Added to that the energy and charismatic performance of Cagney, it's easy to see why the world fell in love with this despicable on screen character. He plays a young Chicago hoodlum, who soon becomes murderous and one of the forerunners for bootleg alcohol during the prohibition period.
 The charm of this film is that it is made just a few years before the Hayes code came into effect into the Hollywood. Therefore we are privileged to see a more open reflection of the Chicago the film is set in, including a highly camp and suggestive tailor, Cagney getting seduced by a floozy whilst drunk; along with more brutal and violent scene, including the infamous "grapefruit scene" with Mae Clarke. Also in this film is another icon of cinema, Jean Harlow. Harlow was given second billing in the film due to her association with Howard Hughes and the success of the recent Hells Angels. I like Harlow's look, and whilst she isn't particularly beautiful, she has a unique style that is unmatched and an allure different to her contemporaries. Unfortunately in this film her performance is rather flat and she seems to struggle with the delivery of her lines; along with limited screen time. However, it is great seeing two screen icons sharing the same scenes.
 The film is superb, despite it's flaws, and is one of the greatest gangster films I've seen, predominantly because of Cagney. His ability to be both terrifying, yet endearing is a real gift; the story is also gripping, and one that future films of the genre would follow. For a film that is now over 80 years old, it holds up remarkably well, and for anyone who likes crime dramas, it's hard not to enjoy this.
                                           

 Man on Wire documented Frenchman Philipe Petit's audacious stunt of tightrope walking across the World Trade Centres in 1974. It's a film that intersperses that big stunt, with footage of Petit's build up to it; where we watch him hone his skill and performs similar stunts on Notre Dame Cathedral and across the Sydney Harbour bridge. We also see the formation of the relationships with the people that would help him pull of the stunt, the most notable of which are with his fellow planner Jean-Louis Blondeau and his girlfriend Annie Allix.
 Whilst the documentary is always intriguing, it really reaches it crescendo when it talks about the World Trade Centre stunt. The intricacies of how they put the wire across a 150 feet gap, is clever and admirable. When the moment comes towards the end of the film, it's truly awe-inspiring, one gets vertigo just from the idea of it. It isn't just Petit, the viewer ends up admiring, but also his support team. Their complete calm at seeing their companion do this truly death defying stunt would be hard for even the most of benign of person would struggle to convey in such a situation. Jean-Louis' pragmatism is the perfect antidote to Petit's dreamer like persona, and one can't help but feel this was needed to ensure Petit wouldn't go too far and be killed.
 It is after the stunt is performed that we realise Petit is quite a selfish individual, as he takes the plaudits and is seduced by the power of his new found fame. We are left just as betrayed as Jean-Louis and Allix, as they are left abandoned after the stunt. Nonetheless one can't help but respect these people who push the boundaries of plausibility and produce just one extraordinary moment, that shows the true power of man.

Bond at 50: My favourite Bond...

In anticipation of next month's release of Skyfall, this is the final James Bond entry celebrating the 50 years.

My Favourite "Bond... James Bond": Daniel Craig in Casino Royale
 The furore over the casting of Daniel Craig as James Bond was well and truly silenced with his debut in Casino Royale. There have been many Bond introductions that are instantly iconic as each new actor takes on the Bond role, none more so than the original opening lines Sean Connery uttered 50 years ago in Dr. No. However, as iconic as that moment is, I think it was superceded by Craig at the end of Casino Royale, as the darker tone and mood of his Bond was truly cemented as he shoots Mr. White in the closing scene of this movie. It's a fantastic way to end Craig's arrival as Bond and is entirely fitting and appropriate in the context of the film and his interpretation of the character.

My Favourite Bond Death: Jill Materson in Goldfinger
 Obviously there are a number of great deaths in the Bond catalogue with Tracey di Vicenzo tragic end in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, to Franz Sanchez's associate's Krest's sickeningly explosive end in License to Kill. The most iconic of all of these those has to be Jill Materson's death in Goldfinger, considering it's a relatively small part for a Bond film, Shirley Eaton who played her is still recognised today for her role. It was probably the death that set the tone for all future Bond's in killing people in unique, over-the-top and slightly gruesome ways. Materson's crime, was helping Bond cheat Goldfinger at cards, and so suffocated in gold paint, in a scene that has echoes of Caligula's downfall.
                                            

My Favourite Bond Film: The Spy Who Loved Me
 This was incredibly tough, whilst the Bond series isn't the most consistent, when it's good it's great. Whilst I do thing From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Casino Royale are great films in their own right; and Thunderball, The Living Daylights and Goldeneye are entertaining; I think The Spy Who Loved Me is the one that combines all the great Bond elements. It has great gadgets, the fantastic submersible Lotus Elise, a fantastic looking Bond girl in Barbara Bach, a brilliant villain played by the great Kurt Jurgens and even Roger Moore gives one of his best Bond performances. I don't know why I ended that sentence there because there's also Jaws, a superb Carly Simon theme song composed by Marvin Hamlisch and a superb screenplay. It was the film that probably helped rejuvenate Bond, in the same way both Goldeneye and Casino Royale later did. The film also combines great chases and action against the backdrop of impressive set pieces, like the Sphinx at Giza and villain Stromberg's Atlantis water fort. The film was directed by British stalwart director Lewis Gilbert, who was also at the helm of Alfie, Sink the Bismarck! and another Bond film You Only Live Twice. Which makes him close to Martin Campbell in terms of directing quality Bond films. The film sets the fast paced tone from the start, with an impressive opening scene (below). I think it's the most balanced of all the Bond films, and as such is quintessential.

My Favourite James Bond: Roger Moore
 While I think most people agree the quintessential James Bond has to be the first interpretation with Sean Connery; for me the one that fits ultimately with series, and indeed helped the franchise survive a difficult transition period, has to be Roger Moore. Whilst the standard of his films weren't always up to scratch, I feel he is the most representative in that aspect of the inconsistency of the franchise. As well as that I think he also gave the most variation to the character, in his films he would show to chauvanistic side of the Bond character, which now seems slightly too politically incorrect, maybe cause it is the usually charming Moore being violent to women. But with that he was also the funniest Bond, albeit not always for the right reason. I think the Bond does have a strong sense of kitsch, even in the Connery era, but because Moore represents this aspect so well, for me personally he's most representative of Bond.
 In fairness to everyone who's played Bond, everyone has held their own. Even though Lazenby for a time was largely lampooned by the wider audiences for his portrayal, I think it's fair to say that On Her Majesty's Secret Service was one of the best Bond films and that was in part to Lazenby's ability on screen. His breaking down of the "fourth wall" at the start, whilst controversial, in my opinion it's almost like the definition of kitsch, but it's so bad it's in fact good; I think it's those moments in the franchise that make Bond what it is.  Dalton and Brosnan are other ones that are often the victims of criticism, but what is great about the Bonds is each have their own unique interpretation and none of them really attempt to copy another.
 As for Moore, one thing that I think is most unappreciated about him is that he was able to keep Bond going through a tough transition. Whilst he himself admits he continued for too long, I think it's fair to say that he did a great job in keeping the franchise alive especially with films like The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only, when EON were really struggling financially and with rights issues. Another thing that is likeable about Moore is his openness and willingness to talk about the franchise and the ability to poke fun at himself. He starred in 7 movies overall, the most of any Bond actor, and whilst the quality wasn't always there, each outing had the same sense of fun and incredulity that has since become synonymous with Bond, that in most cases it's forgiveable. Barry Norman has said that "Everyone's favourite Bond is always their first". I'm not sure this is true, as I believe the majority would say either Connery or Moore, which is understandable as they are responsible for over half the franchise. I also believe that there is a high proportion of people like myself who recognise Connery for his greatness as Bond, but at the same time hold a great affection for Roger Moore's own self-styled Bond.

Preview: Skyfall
 Having now seen the trailer for Skyfall on the big screen, I think it's fair to say my anticipation level has heightened slightly. It seems like a superior film to the disappointing Quantum of Solace and maybe a return to the standard of Casino Royale. There seems a lot of action though with some impressive looking stunts, with this comes the fear that the screenplay and writing will suffer. Though with a cast that includes Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Rory Kinnear, Naomi Harris and the great Albert Finney, it's hard to see it falling short. It's also interesting to note that Finney becomes the first actor to have both a role in the Bourne and Bond franchise, but with Finney being an actor with such a variety, it may go unnoticed by many. Below is the trailer for Skyfall:

Bond at 50: On Blu-Ray

 Below is a trailer celebrating the October 5th release of all the Bond movies on to Blu-Ray: