2011/2012 in film

Tomorrow at midnight will mark the end of 2011 and the beginning of a new year. Now, if you're spending it at a NYE party in the French capital and you don't make a Woody Allen reference on the stroke of 12am (Midnight in Paris)...I digress.

2011 has been a strange year for films, ranging from the terrific to the terrible. I've managed to see my fair share of both of these but less so in the last few months of this year (due to entering the world of full-time work). However, before this I was seeing, on average, a movie a week at the cinema. Which myself and my film-loving friend referred to as 'Slacker Tuesdays'.

So here it is, my end-of-year, all singing, all dancing 'best films of 2011' list. Drumroll please...

1) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two: Slightly biased as I'm a huge fan but you can't deny that this wasn't a fantastic conclusion to an epic series. The 3D added nothing to it but who cares?! A fitting end.

2) X-Men: First Class: I knew from the moment I saw this first (class) trailer that X-Men wasn't going to be your standard comic-book adaptation. Fassbender is the coolest guy to grace our screens in recent years. Kevin Bacon made a great villain. The plot was engaging. I expected nothing less from the guy who brought us 'Kick-Ass'.

3) The Skin I Live In: Damn, this movie freaked me out! One of the best twists I've ever seen in a film (no spoilers). Banderas was fantastic. Almodovar delivers a film which is somewhere between a thriller, a romance and a horror. Don't like subtitled films? Trust me, you're missing out. Perfection.

4) 127 Hours: One of the best cinema experiences I've ever had. It felt like I was going through the journey with James Franco. Very clever direction and camera-work by Danny Boyle.

5) The Tree of Life: Completely polarised audiences (a few people walked out while I was watching it). Malick has a lot in common with Kubrick in that respect. You'll either love it or hate it. I loved it. A truly beautiful film.

6) The Fighter: A great plot but it's the acting that really sets this film apart. Bale at his finest. Fine supporting cast too. Should have won more at the Oscars.

7) Crazy, Stupid, Love: This film took me by surprise. Much more than a rom-com, it has elements of tragedy and genuine emotion. Gosling was fantastic. And yes, it's another movie where Julianne Moore cries.

8) True Grit: I had to watch this twice to fully appreciate it. The Coens play it straight but still add their own nuances to this remake of the John Wayne original. Jeff Bridges is the perfect Rooster Cogburn.

9) Source Code: David Bowie's son delivers a tense sci-fi thriller. Not quite as good as his debut 'Moon'. Still plenty of replay value.

10) Blue Valentine/Neds: Slightly cheating here as I have two more films worth mentioning. The former is an emotional rollercoaster with fantastic acting from leads Gosling and Williams. The latter is Scotland's answer to 'This is England' - just with a lot more violence and swearing. Really powerful stuff.

So there we have it. There have been a handful of films I haven't seen yet that I wanted to, so perhaps when I watch them, this list might change.

Actor of the year is Ryan Gosling. Worst films of the year were Transformers: Dark of the Moon (I almost walked out), Green Lantern (the comics are fantastic, just let Nolan direct the sequel) and Never Let Me Go (depressing and boring).

There were a lot of three-star comedies - 'Bad Teacher, Hangover Part 2, Inbetweeners, Cedar Rapids.

Biggest surprise of the year was 'Paranormal Activity 3'. Having only gone along because I had free press tickets, I found it to actually be quite unnerving in parts. The plot is daft, of course.

'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' remake was slightly disappointing - the original is much better. And 'The King's Speech' was decent but overrated (especially at the Oscars).

Now 2012 or what I've dubbed 'the year of unnecessary 3D re-releases' is shaping up to be very similar to 2011 in terms of films (both good and bad).

As mentioned, we have 3D releases of Titanic, Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace, Beauty and the Beast and Finding Nemo. My advice - save your money and just watch the originals as they were meant to be seen.

So here's my top anticipated films of 2012 (that I know about).

1) The Dark Knight Rises: Nolan. Batman. Bale. Bane. If this isn't film of the year, then something is wrong with the world.

2) The Hobbit: The prequel to one of the greatest trilogies of all time. No pressure then.

3) Shame: Did I mention that I think Fassbender is great? Here he plays a sex addict. Already won a bunch of awards.

4) J.Edgar: DiCaprio. Eastwood. Could be one of the greatest biopics of all time. Or it could be another 'Hereafter'...

5) Prometheus: It's not an Alien prequel, says Ridley Scott. Really? Because it sure looks like an Alien prequel. Hopefully it's a blockbuster with brains. Less 'Avatar', more 'Inception', please.

6) The Amazing Spider-Man: The trailer didn't blow me away and Garfield has only proven himself in supporting roles. Still, Marc '500 Days of Summer' Webb is directing. But do we need yet another reboot?

7) The Hunger Games: It looks great but I'm worried it could be a cash-cow like the Twilight movies. Lawrence was fantastic in 'Winter's Bone' - can she repeat that here?

8) Rock of Ages: Cruise as a rock star. Zeta-Jones singing. This will be the funniest film of the year.

9) Looper: I don't know too much about this. Willis and Gordon-Levitt are the leads. It's on this list because Rian Johnson directed 'Brick' and if it's anything like that, it will be the most original film of the year.

10) A Dangerous Method: Cronenberg. And a certain gentleman by the name of Fassbender. It looks good.

11) Young Adult: Hoping to disprove my friend's hypothesis that Charlize Theron has sex in every film she stars in. It's only bloody Jason Reitman's follow-up to 'Juno' and 'Up in the Air' (I loved both).

12) The Great Gatsby: ETA December 2012. DiCaprio and Luhrmann team up again for this classic tale. Remember how good 'Romeo & Juliet' was?

So there we have it. A very rough guide to films coming out next year.

I anticipate that 'The Avengers' will be the most overhyped film of the year. 'The Iron Lady' will dominate the Oscars but could be more of an actor's movie (like 'The King's Speech).

I've left out 'Warhorse' and the silent-movie 'The Artist as I'm not sure what to make of them. They've both received great reviews. Definitely two films I'm interested in seeing.

Oh and, in case you didn't know already, 2012 will belong to Michael Fassbender.

Happy New Year!

Batman Live (Saturday September 17, 2011 - Nottingham Arena)

Holy smoke, Batman! For those of us old enough to have grown up with the caped crusader (prior to the Nolan reinvention), we've seen old Bats transformed from a classically camp superhero into a 'Dark Knight' antihero. 'Batman Live' slots itself neatly in the middle of these two eras. The show has more in common with Schumacher's 'Batman Forever' and towards the second half, the video game 'Arkham Asylum'. While this doesn't lend itself to complex narrative and dialogue, it does allow the show to dazzle in its greatest strength - acrobatics.

A strong cast of gymnasts and circus performers make up a healthy chunk of the two hour (ish) running time. These scenes mostly involve a tussle between Batman and a whole host of henchman. I hesitate to use the word 'fight' as it's more a slight kick here and a push there. Not exactly the ultraviolence of the Joker's interrogation scene in 'The Dark Knight'. Still, we have to remember this is a show aimed at a younger audience. A scene involving a 'trick with a pencil' would undoubtedly be entertaining for me but I imagine the parents would be in uproar. And this leads me to my main problem with 'Batman Live'. While I found the theatrics and spectacle of the show very entertaining, I couldn't help wishing we could have seen the darker side of Batman/Bruce Wayne. Not too dark for the kids but just enough that we could glimpse that inner struggle he has always had with his demons. People have compared this show to the comics. To me, that's false advertising. Have they even read a recent storyline?! They are darker than the Nolan films!

The main strengths of the show are the performances (particularly Harley Quinn who sounded exactly like her video game counterpart). The Batmobile obviously stole the show and you wouldn't expect anything less from the guy who designed the McLaren F1. The explosions and overall humour of the show were fitting. Okay, there were some cliches here and there but you can forgive them because the comic timing is so perfect onstage. The set design was inventive and allowed you to become immersed in Gotham City's dark underbelly.

'Batman Live' easily does its job of entertaining the audience throughout. It never lets up and a brief intermission does nothing to detract from the main action. There are rumours this show will go on tour for the next five years. While I enjoyed the experience, I'm not sure it is a strong enough to warrant extended periods of touring. Still, only time will tell. And with the release of the final film in Nolan's trilogy - I think it's safe to say next year will belong to the Dark Knight.

The Skin I Live In (2011)

Whenever someone mentions a plot twist in a film, I immediately think of M. Night Shyamalan's 'The Sixth Sense'. This 1999 chiller was the first vivid memory I have of watching a film that, for want of a better word, messed with my head. It spun my brain around like a children's roundabout on a blustery, autumn day. From that moment until now I've been fascinated by movies that delve into the deepest pits of your psyche and alter your perceptions of reality and dreams. There have been countless films since '99 that have done this (Fight Club, The Prestige, Saw, Shutter Island - the list is endless). Some work better than others. The problem with a 'twist' as a plot device, as with anything that gets overused, is when it becomes obvious and stale. So does Pedro Almodovar's newest drama take pride of place alongside the classic 'twisters' or does it continue spinning around in that lonely children's park?

Almodovar has become a staple in Spanish cinema over the past 20 years. Indeed, many call him the finest Spanish director of his generation. It's safe to say that the bar is set very high when watching an Almodovar film. And I can say without a shadow of a doubt, he doesn't let his legions of adoring fans down. 'The Skin I Live In' sees Pedro reunite with Antonio Banderas for the first time since 1981. You can tell these two individuals have an understanding that can only be born out of that friendship and experience. The narrative is the strongest point of this film. It twists and turns throughout until it weaves a web of deception and some truly shocking revelations.

The basic synopsis of the film sees Banderas as a plastic surgeon who is keeping a woman as a prisoner (the enchantingly beautiful Elena Anaya) and lives with his housekeeper (Marisa Paredes on top form). He is developing a new skin for his hostage that will be more resistance than any human skin before it. And really this is all I can tell you about the plot. To give anymore away, would be unfair on a director that has strived to break the boundaries of what the audience expects. What I will say is the many plot twists (and especially the main one) completely change the film and it is entirely up to the viewer as to how well this works. Personally, I thought this was one of the most intelligent and beautifully shot pieces of cinema I've seen in a long time. Don't dismiss it just because it's in Spanish or looks like a slightly arty film. It's definitely not the latter - the narrative paces along at a good speed and the two hour running time is perfect for what is explored.

I would however offer a word of caution to viewers of a nervous disposition. While most of the 'bad' stuff is implied and suggested, there is a fair amount of sex, nudity and violence. The subject matter is pretty grim stuff so it's best to go in with an open mind. The acting is fantastic, the cinematography (by Jose Luis Alcaine) is breathtaking and the story is handled with the kind of care and precision you'd expect from Almodovar. As I said to my friend as the end credits began to roll - 'this is the scariest 'non-horror' film I've ever seen'. Cannes loved it, you will too.

The Tree of Life (2011)

Grandiose. A single adjective that the dictionary defines as impressive or magnificent in appearance/style and excessively grand or ambitious. As soon as I left the doors of my local multiplex, I began to ponder on what my answer would be when my friends or colleagues inevitably asked me: 'What did you think of the movie?' There is no way I could begin to accurately describe the narrative to them (I doubt very few could). Furthermore, they will never understand the emotion I felt throughout this cinematic experience, as it was not shared. Therefore, I was left with only one confidant on which to unburden myself of all the thoughts and feelings I'd kept inside for the past 139 minutes. A fellow journalist, a film lover and my partner-in-crime at nearly all my cinema viewings during the past year or so. More importantly than of all that though, this is a person that I knew would give me their brutal, honest opinion on what had just transpired on the screen.

He didn't enjoy it. At all. We spent the next twenty minutes discussing everything from the actors to the narrative (hell, even religion and the dawn of time entered into the conversation!). This exchange of words took place against a backdrop of thunder and lightning as the rage of the rain beated down on the figures below. I leaned across and stared out the glass walls of the cinema. Truly, there has never been a better example of pathetic fallacy in the 24 years I've been on this planet. After the film had ended, all of my fellow punters left the auditorium in complete silence. A first for me, which is surprising given that 'Cineworld' is practically my second home. The thunder roared against the lofty, glass panelled roof. The harshness of the weather in the middle of summer. The eerie silence as we exited Screen 12. The divided opinions. I gazed up and couldn't help thinking it was all connected. Like I was having some out-of-body experience. In that second, I felt like my life was being directed by Terrence Malick. And that's when I started to understand 'The Tree of Life'.

Let's start by saying this is a Malick film. For those unfamiliar with his work, it's like going to see a Tarantino or Scorsese film. You enter into an invisible contract in which you expect certain connotations and stylistic elements to go along with that particular director. Malick is no different. Google his name and you will see a whole host of interesting words crop up. Genius. Recluse. Sound. Sight. These four words pretty much sum up the essence of a Texan man who is revered by critics, seen as an enigma by the media and perhaps misunderstood by many film fans. Malick has made four films previous to 'The Tree of Life'. The first two have been dubbed 'classics'. The last two didn't fare as well against close scrutiny. Still, there's no denying that Malick pours his heart and soul into every single movie and is the only director that shows beauty on screen in its rawest form.

Needless to say, going into 'The Tree of Life', I had a lot of preconceptions. I'd read all of the Cannes 'buzz' (if you're not aware, this film won the coveted Palme D'Or award - which in itself was controversial to many in attendance). I'd also read Peter Bradshaw (The Guardian) singing Malick's praises and awarding it the full five star treatment. Still, I wanted to go in with a fresh perspective and make my own mind up about 'The Tree of Life'. Yes I'm a Malick fan but that doesn't mean I agree with every cinematic choice he makes.

The loose narrative of 'The Tree of Life' is essentially split into three sections. We have Sean Penn living his life in the modern world as an architect, who spends his time dwelling on thoughts of the past. We then have the flashbacks to his childhood, living with an authoritarion father (Brad Pitt), angelic, naive mother (Jessica Chastain) and three brothers. This section makes up the main crux of the film's plot (which is very fragmented). Footage of the dawn of time/birth of creation is interspersed with these scenes and Malick spends a good 15 minutes examining this. The majority of the film is spent following Penn as a boy (played by Hunter McCracken). The ending goes into a completely different tangent that is best described as being 'heaven-like'. The films begins with the death of the one of the three brothers.

If reading that sypnosis makes you head spin, then you're in good company. I didn't fully understood a large portion of the 'The Tree of Life'. While you may think this is a bad thing, I assure you it's not. Malick is merely presenting the world through his eyes. It's the birth of nature which can be both beautiful and a cruel mistress. He is showing us how our childhoods can shape and affect our futures. It's a bold move for a bold director but it's one that doesn't quite pay off. During the lengthy 'birth of time' scenes, I glanced around the cinema to see a lot of confused, uninterested faces. If I'm honest, even I found it tough to comprehend what was happening. Halfway through a woman got up out of her seat and left. Apparently, this has been happening frequently across America. It's a real shame because in order to get the most out of Malick's movie, you have to be patience and willing to invest your time in the film.

It's safe to say that this isn't going to be a film that will suit everyone's taste. It has more in common with early Kubrick films like '2001' than anything we've seen in recent years. 'The Tree of Life has great strengths - namely the acting (especially the young McCracken), the beauty of the visuals (no living director can touch Malick on this) and the sound (a haunting score by Alexandre Desplat). Its flaws then lie in its disjointed, often baffling narrative and the religious issue. This is something I want to touch upon briefly. Malick uses the idea of 'God' throughout 'The Tree of Life' so frequently, that at times it can feel slightly suffocating. The message he is trying to deliver is a positive one but I can't help feeling that maybe it's being forced on the audience a little too much. There's one scene with two dinosaurs (don't ask) which is so completely abstract that you don't even question what it's supposed to mean. Malick should cut this for the DVD version. Oh and on that point - there's a supposed six hour extended cut of 'The Tree of Life' in the works. You can't say the man's not ambitious!

One final point in a review which perhaps could be conceived as slightly pretentious (interesting that this is the same criticism garnered towards 'The Tree of Life'). In the past week I watched this and 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon'. Halfway through the latter, I considered walking out as it's the worst film I've ever seen. It's interesting that nobody walked out of a film which is so patronising and overly simplistic that it's borderline offensive. Yet as soon as Malick presents the general public with something slightly intellectual and different, they're in uproar about it. The next time you hear someone moan about the 'state of cinema' after seeing yet another terrible 3D blockbuster, tell them it's not the studios or the multiplexes that need to change their habits - it's you.

Fair Game (2011)

Doug Liman is a guy that should be pretty familiar with conspiracies by now. Having directed 'The Bourne Identity' and 'Jumper' (both of which involve men being hunted down), he returns to his stomping ground with political thriller 'Fair Game'. Bourne was brilliant. Jumper was mediocre at best. After a hit and a miss, has Liman finally found his sweet spot?

Based on a true story, 'Fair Game' has the tricky task of accurately depicting Valerie Plame's (Naomi Watts) CIA downfall while remaining entertaining enough for your average cinemagoer. Does it achieve this? Well as always this is a game of two halves. The first half deals with the complex issues of both Iraq, uranium in Niger and Valerie's relationship with her husband Joseph Wilson (Sean Penn). Some of the jargon isn't sufficiently explained during this first half (repeated mention of the word 'yellowcake' didn't help) and at times you may find scenes dragging on a bit. I have to admit there were one or two 'watch glances' during the first hour. So at halftime you may be forgiven for thinking this is going the way of another Liman turkey (namely 'Mr and Mrs Smith').

But don't write 'Fair Game' off quite yet as the second half is when things really start to get interesting. The pivotal moment comes when Valerie's name is printed in the New York Times, thus blowing her cover as an agent and jeopardising several ongoing missions in the process. Not to mention the effect it has on her family and the strain it causes on her marriage. Sounds juicy? That's because it is. Read up about the Plame affair and you will immediately see the makings of a great movie.

Watts and Penn basically run this film. Not much time is given to secondary characters and to be honest, that doesn't matter. The story and acting are strong enough to warrant just two leads onscreen. Watts and Penn are terrific, with Penn slightly outshining our leading lady. They have great chemistry and nothing appears forced. As with 'The Fighter', real footage is included during the ending credits showing Valerie giving a testimony.

'Fair Game' has a lot going for it. Top acting and a story that's waiting to spill off the paper and onto the screen. However, a couple of flaws leave it feeling slightly disjointed. While not being as good as Liman's breakthrough film, it's encouraging to see the director back on track after a few flops. And when that final whistle blows, you'll probably be relieved that you don't work for the CIA.

Unknown (2011)

Mr Neeson, it appears you have become the darling of the action genre and every director's go-to guy when they require a man driven to the edge. While this isn't a bad thing (as Liam Neeson plays this role remarkably well), I feared going into his latest thriller that we were going to see a carbon copy of the role he played in the 2008 film 'Taken'. Grab my hand and hold on tight, as we head into the 'Unknown'.

Jaume Collet-Serra's movie shares a lot of similarities with Luc Besson's 'Taken'. Neeson desparately running around a city trying to find the bad guys. Check. Impressive car chases that suspend belief. Check. An American trying to find his way around a foreign city. Check. The difference in 'Unknown' comes from its source. Based on a French novel called 'Out of my Head', Serra's plot is not a simple tale of connecting the dots. It has more brains than 'Taken' but does it have more heart?

The plot follows Dr Martin Harris (Neeson) as he arrives in Berlin for a summit on biotechnology. He is accompanied by his wife Liz (the ever enchanting January Jones). After a taxi journey to their hotel, Harris realises he has left his briefcase back at the airport. He sets off without his wife in a taxi driven by Gina (Diane Kruger). On the way, a road accident causes the taxi to fall off a bridge, at which point Gina manages to save Neeson. Harris wakes up in hospital a few days later with a bad head and a hazy memory. After locating his wife, he slowly starts to realise that something is wrong. Everyone is telling him he isn't Martin Harris. His wife is with another man with his name. Is he going mad or are darker forces at work here?

If someone was to ask me to describe 'Unknown' in a few words I'd say 'Bourne meets Taken'. While this isn't a bad thing, it does mean that Serra's film is slightly confused. On the one hard it sets out to be a gritty thriller in the vein of 'Taken'. On the other, it spins this slightly less than complex plot about memory loss and conspiracies. And here lies the problem. 'Unknown' is not quite as clever as it thinks it is. It lacks the intelligence of films like 'Inception' and uses too many tired plot devices. Basically we've seen it all before (and done better in some cases).

That doesn't mean that 'Unknown' is not an enjoyable movie. I was very entertained throughout. Neeson is perfect for this role. He seems like an average guy but there's always an underlying darkness within him. He's the kind of guy that you could imagine has to keep this buried deep inside of him. The rest of the cast are good but simply not given enough screen time for us to develop a relationship with them. Except for the fantastic Bruno Ganz. I last saw him playing Hitler in 'Downfall' and he commands the screen like few current actors today. I definitely think it was a wise decision for Serra to include him.

While 'Unknown' won't light the action genre on fire, it does simmer gently with enough thrills and spills to keep your average popcorn audience entertained. Perhaps Serra slightly overreached with a plot that could have been far simpler and delivered the same result. Less 'Taken 2' and more 'Taken 1.5', I would say.

Drive Angry 3D (2011)

Ah Nicolas Cage. You do love these blockbusters nowadays, don't you? Putting aside the fact that it doesn't look like he will return to Drama films anytime soon (much to my disappointment), Cage has always been an enigmatic lead that can light a screen on fire (sometimes literally). 'Drive Angry' is his first 3D film - but does Cage reach out of the screen and grab us or is he still thinking of the paycheck?

Patrick Lussier's film should be taken with a pinch of salt. As long as you don't go in expecting the emotional intensity of the 'Oscar' films, you'll be pleasantly surprised. What I like most about 'Drive Angry' is how unapologetic it is. This is a big, explosive, grindhouse 3D film. The plot is fairly mediocre but it doesn't matter. With a film like this all the audience wants to see is the special effects and action sequences.

And 'Drive Angry' has a plethora of both. The story follows John Milton ('Paradise Lost' reference possibly lost on the target audience), a criminal escaped from Hell who is after those who took his granddaughter and murdered her mother. The little girl has been taken by a satanic cult led by Jonah King (Billy Burke). Along the way Milton is joined by a standard 'hottie' (Amber Heard) and hunted down by a man named The Accountant (William Fichtner).

Cage plays everything relatively straight and sadly doesn't really 'lose his shit' at any point. The best performance from the film comes from Fichtner who reprises his cool but crazed role last seen in the tv series 'Prison Break'. I looked forward to the scenes involving him and I'm glad Lussier included him in most of the movie. 'Drive Angry' is quite graphic in parts but always in a comic way. And it's an 18 anyway so it's what you'd expect from the rating.

Obviously for a film shot in 3D, the effects work well. Still not quite convinced that 3D is 'the future' like so many people keep saying. Wearing glasses over glasses is not the most comfortable experience. Still like 'Tron Legacy', I felt the 3D wasn't over the top and didn't cloud my viewing.

'Drive Angry' doesn't break any new ground. Hell, it doesn't even make a dent in the pavement! But the primary purpose of going to the cinema has always been to be entertained. And it does exactly that.