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.

Paul (2011)

I'm going to keep this review short and sweet, just like Greg Mottola's latest comedy 'Paul'. Dubbed as being 'from the producers of Hot Fuzz', this extraterrestrial adventure is the first time duo Simon Pegg and Nick Frost haven't been directed by Edgar Wright. So without Wright at the helm, does this film take off or is it grounded from the start?

The premise of 'Paul' centres around a road trip with two friends Graeme Willy (Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Frost). These two nerds are on their way back from Comic-Con when they encounter the alien Paul, who has escaped from a government base. From here they come across all manner of interesting folk, while constantly being chased by FBI agent Lorenzo Zoil (Jason Bateman).

I found 'Paul' to be a very charming and amusing sci-fi comedy. Greg Mottola's style is imprinted throughout this movie. The comedy portions are very much in the same vein as his first smash 'Superbad'. Quite crude at times but not in a over-the-top way (cough recent Farrelly Brothers films). But then there's the other side to Mottola's direction which was seen in his last film, the much underrated 'Adventureland'. And this is where 'Paul' gets his heart.

It would have been very easy for us to despise the alien Paul. After all, he's loudmouthed, smokes and swears at every opportunity. But Mottola gives him a human emotion that allows us to connect with this unknown being. Pegg and Frost are hilarious as usual. Rogen seems like he was made to voice the character of Paul. The parody elements of the film add layers to its plot and a surprise cameo by Sigourney Weaver lifts this above the usual spoofs Hollywood so often churns out. This being a Mottola film, you can expect a whole host of appearances from Judd Apatow stablemates. Special mention has to be given to Kristen Wiig whose comic timing is second to none.

While 'Paul' doesn't break any new ground, it does provide plenty of entertainment value and a lot of laughs. The cast give strong comic performances and at times this feels very much like an Edgar Wright movie (never a bad thing). Mottola has recently been dubbed a director to watch and on this evidence, I'll be keeping a close eye on him.

True Grit (2011)

Tread carefully fellow film fans as we enter the harsh, vast plains of the land of remakes. This terrifying terrain is often considered a nightmarish world with moviegoers - filled with questionable plotholes and unnecessary treatments. You can imagine my scepticism when my two favourite filmmakers announced they were remaking a classic John Wayne Western. Should we continue the trail with the Coens or gallop back frantically in the direction we came?

The answer would be neither. We should stay exactly in this spot where we dismounted our horses. Let me explain what I'm talking about. The Coen's remake of 'True Grit' is a film neither rooted in the past, nor riding towards the future. It's a simple story which is given a very simple treatment. But when you have a top cast of actors and two of the most exciting directors of my generation at the helm - is simple playing it too safe? I'm afraid my answer would have to be yes but it's not a resounding response.

Firstly, let us begin with the plot for those unfamiliar. We catch up with Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) who is tending to her father's funeral arrangements after he was gunned down by Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). Mattie wants revenge and hires 'a man with true grit' - Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges). It is established early on that Cogburn is not a man who is merciless to those who fall on the other side of the law. A Texas ranger by the name of LaBoeuf (Matt Damon) is also on the trail of Chaney and joins forces with Cogburn and Mattie. However, along the way the Marshall and the Ranger have a disagreement and part ways. From here the film follows their trail towards capturing Tom Chaney and finally getting Mattie the justice she desperately craves.

While 'True Grit' does have its flaws, it also has many impressive qualities that lift it up from the doomed fate that has befallen so many remakes before it. These would be young actress Hailee Steinfeld, a beautiful musical score by Carter Burwell and stylish cinematography by Coen stablemate Roger Deakins. The breathtaking landscapes used in the movie allow certain scenes to come alive - watching Jeff Bridges sleeping under the stars has a strange tranquility to it.

Let me tell you the problem I have with 'True Grit' and believe me, it's a difficult one to admit. The Coens wanted to stay more faithful to the 1968 novel by Charles Portis, rather than the 1969 film by Henry Hathaway. When I first read this I thought it was very good news indeed. Rather than simply adapting the original film with a new cast, they would be giving it their own spin. Well here lies the problem. The Coens are playing it too safe here. And for a film about dangerous men and the Wild West, that's never a good thing. I own every single Coen Brothers movie on DVD. I've been a fan for many years and I know their films like the back of my hand. I'm also a fan of Jeff Bridges, he was fantastic in 'Crazy Heart' and 'Tron Legacy'. Add to this my love for Western films from the early 90s onwards and I think it's safe to assume I'll be bluntly honest with you.

'True Grit' is not a film that should have been safe, by any stretch of the imagination. As I watched the two hours unfold, I kept wishing for a sparkle of that Coen's magic. Just a glimmer even would have sufficed. I just couldn't find it, no matter how hard I looked. Even Bridges, who I admire very much only gave a 'good' performance here. The accent was slightly muffled at times which I found offputting. Damon was decent but not really given enough screen time, as was the case with Brolin. Steinfeld stole the show and I can't believe she's only 14 and able to outshine the heavyweights.

For me 'True Grit' felt like it was setting off on a trail that was always predetermined. There were no surprises along the way. I will say that the second half of the film is much better than the first but even this can't really be construed as a positive. As I watched 'True Grit', I was reminded of another film - James Mangold's 2007 remake of '3:10 to Yuma'. I felt this set out to achieve something more than what the Coens attempted to do here. Having said that, it is up for many nominations and I'm sure some of you reading this will disagree with my verdict. My advice - go see it and decide for yourself. At one point in the movie, Damon mentions that he will have to abandon the search as the trail has gone cold. Perhaps the Coens should have done the same.

Brighton Rock (2011)

'Brighton's on the move. She's not what she used to be. And you, whoever you think you are. It won't last. - I haven't even started'. So responds the main protagonist of Rowan Joffe's drama, adapted from the popular British novel by Graham Greene. Indeed, this film introduces us to Brighton in a time of change during the sixties. The youth are rising up and the backdrop of Brighton Pier serves as a battleground between the Mods and Rockers. As the waves crash against the shore, we must ask one simple question. Does 'Brighton Rock' sink or swim?

Director Rowan Joffe adapted this from the novel, as opposed to the 1947 film by John Boulting. As such I think it is unfair to draw too many comparisons between the two. Sure, lead character Pinkie Brown (Sam Riley) is less menacing than when Richard Attenborough played him. But what Riley does bring to the table is a sense of insecurity. Throughout the film Pinkie is plagued with doubts about who he can and can't trust. After a tricky encounter which results in him murdering a man, Pinkie must tie up any loose ends that connect him and his gang to this crime. The loose end in this case happens to be a young waitress by the name of Rose (Andrea Riseborough). From here they begin a whirlwind romance that is always destined to end in tragedy. The changes in Pinkie and Rose's life reflect the social changes that Brighton was facing at the time.

I think Joffe has done a brilliant job of adapting a book which many fans feel very strongly about. One of the best things about 'Brighton Rock' is the cinematography by John Mathieson. Rather than feeling drab and glum, the pier comes alive. This is particularly true in the nighttime scenes, which feel like the water is creating a devlish whisper of the crimes that were committed nearby. Riley does a decent job of portraying the inbalanced Pinkie, although I will agree that he struggles to convey the more aggressive aspects of his character's personality. The star of the film for me is Riseborough. She's been cropping up in a few British films over the past year (Never Let Me Go, Made in Dagenham). The character of Rose is complex as she falls hopelessly in love with Pinkie and represents the goodness buried deep inside of him. I was very impressed with the way she handled the performance and hope to see more from her in the future.

The supporting cast includes screen veterans Helen Mirren and John Hurt who are both exceptional in slightly limited roles. I studied the novel at school and have also done projects on the Brighton riots that occured in the sixties. I thought the film had a great sense of realism and for a brief moment, I was transported back to a time of great change. I imagine 'Brighton Rock' will fall under the radar given the fact that it hasn't garnered any nominations during awards season. Still, I felt this film was every bit as good as 'The King's Speech' and deserves to be seen by more than just fans of the novel. Brighton is indeed on the move but this is one film that will last the test of time.

The Fighter (2011)

Yesterday I had the privilege of finally getting to watch David O. Russell's sports drama 'The Fighter'. I emphasise finally as I must have watched the trailer for this film about 50 times (no word of a lie). And hey, of course I have since it's been attached to pretty much every big movie released so far this year. After all, we're only a few weeks away from the main event (Oscars). Still, part of me was worried that after building this film up in my head, I'd be knocked down by my own preconceptions. So is 'The Fighter' worth ringside seats?

'The Fighter' is definitely an actor's film. It's a towering tour-de-force of big names and rising stars including Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams and Melissa Leo. All of whom are fantastic throughout. But this fight belongs to Bale. His performance as Dicky Eklund is the finest I've seen this year and is worthy of mention alongside actors like Daniel Day-Lewis. And quite rightly, Bale has been nominated for Best Supporting Actor. I sincerely hope he wins.

The plot follows the true story of Micky 'Irish' Ward (Wahlberg), a boxer from Lowell, Massachusetts. He is managed by his mother Alice (Melissa Leo) and trained by his half-brother Dicky. During the course of the film, he develops a relationship with Charlene Fleming (Amy Adams). The film chronicles the troubles the family faces before the penultimate big title fight.

It's interesting that Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan) is one of the producers as you can see some of his stylistic qualities in the HBO documentary sections of the film. This is shot on handheld camera and gives the movie a very raw feel. Similarly, the boxing sequences are shot as if you were watching them on a tv screen. All of this allows O. Russell to create a fluid, realistic vision of boxing.

'The Fighter' is less a film about boxing and more a film about family. Obviously the main theme of the movie is Micky's journey as a boxer. But the narrative mainly boils down to the relationship between him, Dicky and Alice. Luckily, these actors/actresses are of the highest quality and allow the film to flourish into something more than another generic sports biopic. Without Bale, this movie would only be an above average underdog tale. However, with him it is one of the finest pieces of cinema I've seen in a long time. Sure it's no 'Rocky' or 'Raging Bull'. But then it doesn't try to be. The film is as concerned with family and crack addiction, as it is with boxing.

A scene at the end shows the real life Micky Ward and Dicky Ecklund. Christ, I got shivers seeing Dicky talk as Christian Bale nailed the performance. I've always admired Bale as an actor but with this film he's really outdone himself. Wahlberg, Leo and Adams are also impressive but this is one of the few movies I've seen where the supporting actor steals the show. I urge you to go see 'The Fighter' and defy anyone not to cross their fingers for Micky Ward in that final match.

Hereafter (2011)

Clint Eastwood is a movie icon. I just want to put this simple fact out there. If you're reading this and doubting that he's anything less than a genius, then just stop right now. 'Gran Torino' was one of my favourite films of 2008 and showed that Clint still had that moviemaking magic. Fast forward to 2011 and this time he's taking a seat firmly behind the camera for drama film 'Hereafter'. Is this Eastwood's swansong or a sign he should throw in the towel?

Well 'Hereafter' is an unusual film in that, it's really three films all rolled into one. We have Matt Damon as a retired psychic, a French journalist who survives a tsunami and a young boy whose older brother is killed. The link between these story arcs is where the film's title comes in. 'Hereafter' meaning life after death (the afterlife). Each of these characters have been affected by death in some way and the film attempts to show how it can change and alter the course of a person's life.

Now going into this I'd heard fairly negative things about 'Hereafter'. Most of the criticism is directed at the multi-layered plot - with some going as far to say that the film should have just concentrated on the psychic George Lonnegan (Matt Damon). While I agree this is the strongest of the three tales, I think it's unfair to disregard the other two stories, as they both have their merits. The weakest plot out of the three is the French journalist Marie Lelay (Cecile de France). The actress in question gives a fine performance but I didn't feel like enough time was invested in her character. It almost felt like the sections involving her were slightly rushed.

However, the story involving the young Marcus (Frankie McLaren), whose twin brother is killed (George McLaren), is a good example of how multi-narratives can work well. These two young actors and Damon's heartfelt performance lift the film above what would otherwise have been a fairly sedate drama. The questions that arise about the afterlife are nothing we haven't seen before. The ending is predictable but ties up any loose ends and you won't leave the cinema feeling cheated (unlike some films I could mention, *cough 'Buried').

'Hereafter' feels like it could have had the makings of a great film (given the director and lead). It just never quite reaches the dizzying heights it so desperately strives for. Still, I'm quite surprised it only received one Oscar nomination for Visual Effects. I still very much admire you Clint but maybe next time you could make a movie that doesn't make me feel like I've crossed over to another world (where you don't make excellent films).

Blue Valentine (2011)

I need to take a deep breath before I start this review. The reason being I've just finished watching Derek Cianfrance's 'Blue Valentine'. This is a film that knocks you for six. It grabs you by the throat and refuses to let go. But more on that later. Let me start by saying Drama has always been my favourite genre of film. Sure Comedy is upbeat and makes you laugh. Action is exciting and thrilling. But Drama is a different kettle of fish. It makes you feel. It takes you back to moments in your life where you can relate to the events unfolding onscreen. It approaches you at your most vulnerable and unearths a whole wealth of human emotions. And by god, Cianfrance will make you feel every single one of them over the course of 112 minutes.

What's that you say? - surprise, surprise another Academy film. Well yes, like it or not 'Blue Valentine' is another Oscar tipped film (although far less so than 'The King's Speech'). But it's not the director that will be the most likely choice for an award, or indeed the film itself. It's the two leads. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are 'Blue Valentine'. No one else could have portrayed their roles with such passion and conviction. Of course, they're both up against some extremely tough competition in February (but more on that after the nominations have been announced).

'Blue Valentine' calls itself a love story. But it's only a love story in the most loosest of senses. Like '500 Days of Summer', the outcome is in no way clear cut. And like Marc Webb's film, the events are told in a nonlinear fashion. We follow Dean Pereira (Gosling) and Cindy Heller (Williams), showing their tumultuous relationship as it is now, and as it used to be. Dean meets Cindy after she has a rocky encounter with her now ex-boyfriend Bobby (Mike Vogel). It is his daughter Cindy eventually ends up giving birth to and Dean agrees to look after them and become a family. This happy-go-lucky life is contrasted with the events of the present day. Dean and Cindy are having marital problems and escape to a cheap motel for the weekend. Here they lose themselves even further. The polar opposites between the love they shared in the past and the loveless marriage they are currently trapped in allows the audience two sides of the relationship. Both characters are extremely likeable and you'll find yourself yearning for a positive outcome.

Cianfrance's drama is a tough film to watch, both in mood and events. One or two scenes in particular caused a bit of a stir with the age classification board. I think the distress comes not from what is actually happening but the fact that 'Blue Valentine' feels so real. The film was shot in a very unique way - the flashbacks in Super 16mm and the present in RED. This gives the film a very raw look which feels beautiful and melancholy at the same time. Gosling and Williams both agreed to live together before the film so they could allow themselves to get into their character's heads - staging arguments, going shopping etc. All of this (plus the haunting soundtrack by Brooklyn band 'Grizzly Bear') allows 'Blue Valentine' to feel more intimate. And that is exactly what you want from a love story like this.

The true stars of the film are of course Gosling and Williams who both give phenomenal performances. I for one will be crossing my fingers for them in February. But even if 'Blue Valentine' doesn't win any awards, it's still a fantastic piece of moviemaking that I'm sure will be spoken of for a long time to come. Cianfrance, I'd take one of your films for every hundred soulless and vapid 'love stories' that Hollywood churns out day in and day out. It's a real shame more people don't share this view. After all, the majority of us don't see life through rose-tinted glasses and I salute any filmmaker brave enough to show us the truth.

The King's Speech (2011)

Well here we are. After a long wait, many trailers and an overuse of the word 'Academy', 'The King's Speech' is finally with us. Expectations were very high going into this. After all, it has a stellar cast and an extraordinary story that couldn't possibly fail, right? Join me as we walk the red carpet and see if it truly deserves the royal treatment.

I can't quite remember the exact date I first heard about Tom Hooper's period drama. But I do know, the buzz surrounding it was huge, even all those months ago. The problem with a speeding hype train, of course, is the impending explosion that erupts if it fails to reach it's intended destination (you, the audience). Thankfully, you're in safe hands with Hooper, Firth, Rush and the rest of the cast.

'The King's Speech' meticulously explains the true story of King George VI (formerly the Duke of York), played by Colin Firth. His stammer causes him great problems, especially during public speeches so he seeks help with a therapist (Geoffrey Rush). From here the two build up a powerful relationship which culminates in the most important speech the King will give.

Hooper's drama is an actor's film through and through. This is the very reason it stirred so much attention before the Oscars. Firth, Rush, Bonham Carter, Gambon - it's a tour de force of the best in the business. Firth is fantastic throughout playing a very difficult role which requires great timing (due to the stammer). And my money is on Rush to win Best Supporting Actor for his role as Lionel Logue. He gives one of the finest performances I've witnessed in modern cinema. There's actually not a single negative point I can make about 'The King's Speech'. The acting is sublime, the story is well crafted. I felt genuine shivers watching Firth deliver the final speech. It's also worth noting that Hooper brings a tremendous amount of humour to an otherwise, very serious script.

Now perhaps 'The King's Speech' is the obvious choice at the Oscars. And that would be right on the mark. But when it's this good, surely that's not a bad thing. No matter what happens in February, I think Hooper and the rest of the cast deserve a standing ovation and a truly regal reception.

127 Hours (2011)

As I ventured forward through the dark double doors of the auditorium to view Danny Boyle's latest film, I was sightly skeptical. I've never been completely convinced of the merit of claustrophobic cinema (movies that take place, for the majority, in one location and with one character). If we're playing the blame game, the finger would have to be pointed at Rodrigo Cortes. Last year's 'Buried' should have been fantastic but left me feeling cold and questioning this new genre of cinema. But then again, Danny Boyle isn't a director who's afraid to take risks. So 127 hours (94 minutes in real time) later, is this film worth taking the plunge?

The tagline sums it up better than I ever could. 'Every second counts'. And this is particularly true for Danny Boyle's life-affirming tale of endurance and courage. You can't help but fall in love with Aron Ralston (James Franco). He's a live-on-the-edge kind of guy. This is a flawed man, sure, but he also has a refreshing air of honesty about him. Franco is perfect for this kind of character. It's almost like this is his persona off camera. At no time does it feel like he's running through the motions. Underneath an exterior layer of humour and confidence lies sadness and regrets. Aron is a loner when he sets out to climb an isolated canyon in Utah. Besides two women he meets near the start of the film (Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn), the remainder of the film is mostly just Franco and his handheld camcorder. A few secondary characters appear in the form of flashbacks (including the beautiful Clemence Poesy of 'Harry Potter' fame).

Simply put, If Franco's performance failed, '127 Hours' would. In this genre of cinema, the audience needs to be able to connect with the character immediately or all is lost. Luckily Franco is a very genuine actor and perfectly portrays Aron Ralston. The fact that it's based on Ralston's autobiography is just the icing on the cake. Even if this wasn't a true story, it would still be a fantastic piece of cinema. Boyle is no stranger to uplifting films (see 'Slumdog Millionaire') but he really outshines himself here. The way the movie is shot is entirely unique. I was foolish enough to believe the film had nowhere to go when Aron is trapped early on but it was the exact opposite. A word of caution to viewers of a nervous disposition - the infamous scene where Aron cuts his arm off is handled very realistically. The scene was shot in one-take and Boyle wanted to make it as medically accurate as possible. The camera doesn't shy away from the more graphic details.

There are so many great aspects of '127 Hours' worth mentioning. The amazing story without which none of this would be possible. Danny Boyle's artistic direction. James Franco's worthy performance. The beauty of the Utah landscape. The realism which ozzes out of every seep of rock. I came out of '127 Hours' feeling grateful for my life and the people in it. I await your next film with quiet awe Mr Boyle.

Black Swan (2011)

Just a brief glance at that striking image of Natalie Portman on the poster lets you know that 'Black Swan' is a film about appearances. Or rather, it is a film about the deceptive nature of appearances. Darren Aronofsky (of 'The Wrestler' fame), uses the simple setting of a ballet perfomance of Swan Lake to mask a story that is filled with falsehood and doubt. White Swan vs Black Swan. Good vs Evil. Reality vs Fantasy. Shall we follow him down the rabbit hole?

You bet we will. Because once you allow yourself to be captivated by this psychological and magestic thriller, there is no turning back. Aronofsky has clearly done his homework when it comes to ballet. The choreography during the dance scenes (of which there are many) are a lesson in beauty. This is crucially important to the film as it gives it a sense of realism. Make no mistake, ballet is at the forefront of 'Black Swan'. The story follows our protagonist Nina Sayers (Portman), as she deals with the pressures of being offered the lead role in a new performance of Swan Lake. Cast as the Swan Queen, Nina faces her hardest challenge yet. Finding the passion needed to perform both in her comfort zone (as the White Swan) and most importantly, out of it (as the Black Swan).

Themes of acceptance and letting go of reality are identified early on in the story. Nina's director Thomas Leroy (the brilliant Vincent Cassel) is an overbearing force who believes Nina lacks emotion (indeed, referring to her as frigid at one point). Once this simple idea is planted, Nina starts to spiral out of control. This begins with the arrival of fellow ballet dancer Lily (Mila Kunis), who is also eager for the attentions of Thomas. As Nina becomes more involved with her performance, she loses her grasp on reality. And that's all I wish to tell you about the plot. As with any psychological thriller, it's important that the audience are kept guessing right until the end. What is real and what is simply in Nina's mind?

Aronofsky portrays the story almost like a ballet piece in itself. The soundtrack that plays pretty much throughout, is a heady and dreamy mix of compositions designed to create this sense of detachment. Intense scenes are built up through music and at times you feel like Swan Lake is unfolding before your very eyes. And like ballet, 'Black Swan' is an emotional rollercoaster. Not least because of the sublime performance that Portman gives. She conveys beauty in ithe most fragile way and her loss of innocence is both tragic and difficult to watch. Sexuality is a central theme in 'Black Swan'. Nina is forced to explore her lack of sexuality in order to find the passion needed for her performance, and also to free herself from the confines of her mother (Barbara Hershey).

Cassel is excellent as always and Kunis, although given less time onscreen than she deserves, is a powerful presence throughout the movie. One or two of the more sexual scenes felt a bit too graphic and out of place for a film that is so concerned with beauty. But perhaps this extremity was necessary to give us an insight into just how fragmented Nina's mind becomes. While 'Black Swan' doesn't quite reach the towering heights of Aronofsky's last movie 'The Wrestler' (and let's face it, few can), it does make for an emotional feast of a film. It will be a travesty if Portman doesn't win Best Actress at the Academy Awards this year. I've never been so captivated by the beauty and elegance of a leading lady onscreen before. When 'Black Swan' hits cinema, I urge you to go along and suspend all preconceptions. Aronofsky, I think I'll stay down this rabbit hole with you for a bit longer thanks.