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.