Avengers Assemble ☆☆☆☆☆

Warning, there may be mild spoilers in this review.

Synopsis: Loki, the mischievous brother of Thor who we last saw falling into the abyss, has spent his time in exile getting up to no good. He has found a way to Earth with the help of another group of beings who are intent upon ruling us puny humans. Loki is determined to be King, feeling he was displaced by his brother and is the rightful ruler of Asgard so must make the Earth that his brother cares for so much his own. He uses the Tesseract (a powerful blue cube of energy that SHIELD have been tinkering with since Howard Stark found it at the end of Captain America) to unleash an army from another world upon the Earth, and it is up to a disjointed group of superheroes brought together by Nick Fury to come to the rescue.

I will say now if you have not watched Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, or Captain America....just don't bother seeing The Avengers till you have okay?

Oh. My. Gods. This film was simply brilliant.
For an ensemble film of such magnitude it would have been easy for the characters to get lost or overwhelmed by stronger forces, however Joss Whedon is the King of the ensemble. Joss is responsible for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, and a plethora of other creations including comic books, and all are ensemble pieces. I was reassured when I heard he was directing The Avengers (or Avengers Assemble as the UK has to say) because I knew no character would be left behind, even the supporting cast have appropriate light shined upon them to make you care what happens. Joss also re-wrote the script previously written by Zak Penn, a wise move because Penn is responsible for the rushed effort that was X-Men: The Last Stand which left many characters behind in its wake.

Each character gets his (or her) screen time with ample opportunity to get to know them a little better, I especially loved the small moments with Agent Coulson where we got to know the man behind the sunglasses and how much he loved working with superheroes.
I also enjoyed Scarlett Johannson's Black Widow immensely, previously met in Iron Man 2 she has a lot more screen time in this movie, some extraordinary fight scenes, and is so badass it makes me want to learn martial arts.
Another new-ish character is Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye, who we saw all too briefly in Thor, and now plays a compromised agent working with Loki and who makes Katniss Everdeen (The Hunger Games) look like an amateur with a bow and arrow.

Loki is able to turn the good guys with the use of a staff which has some of the energy contained in the Tesseract, and he does so by touching their hearts. He obtains Hawkeye and Doctor Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard, also from Thor) who steal the Tesseract from Nick Fury, prompting our one-eyed wonder to bring together Bruce Banner (The Hulk), Tony Stark (Iron Man), Steve Rogers (Captain America) whilst obtaining Thor through his own quest to bring back his brother and the Tesseract to Asgard.

However the group are fairly loathe to team up and play nice, as displayed in some frankly awesome fight scenes between Thor and Iron Man. All the fights scenes were incredible, whether it was against each other or the alien invaders, and the special effects were pretty seamless.
The Hulk is played this time by Mark Ruffalo, having previously been Edward Norton and Eric Bana. It is also the first time the actor has gotten to play The Hulk through the wonders of motion capture, and it really makes a difference here. Ruffalo is fantastic in both Hulk and Bruce form, he appears so laid back but is incredibly quick to anger, quite the reverse of Ed Nortons Hulk who was constantly trying to stay calm.
Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jnr and Chris Hemsworth were all rather marvellous too, they have each captured their characters in previous films but here you get to see them try to out-do one another on muscle tone and funny quips.

The king of the sarcastic comment has to be Iron Man, but the physical comedy award goes to The Hulk, I almost cried with laughter at him banging Loki around like a rag doll after said enemy has just exclaimed he is a god and nothing can stop him. They are all very very funny, and this is thanks to Joss Whedon, who has won over so many fans because his work is serious, exciting, but also incredibly witty.

The turning point for the disjointed group to become The Avengers is the death of a central SHIELD team member, killed by Loki. Having previously fought one another they now stand united against the hole that has been ripped open in the sky and is pouring out enemy invaders with their rather fancy weaponry. Again the special effects are incredible, The Hulk rips his way through office buildings, Thor uses the Empire State Building as a huge lightning rod, and Iron Man takes on huge living battleships with the help of Hawkeye's strategic input.

The death of the SHIELD officer is so sad I actually welled up enough for a tear to spill over. However it was needed for the heroes to come together, it is textbook plot development and Joss knows it. It is not made to feel contrite though, again the genius of the Whedon. Death is pivotal and tragic, but it can be manipulated and Joss makes this very clear.

I have mentioned Loki frequently but not the actor as yet, and he is played with venom and charm by the wonderful Tom Hiddleston. With his slicked back hair and pale complexion he is the picture perfect villain, however it is the delivery that makes you swerve between hatred and pity for the out of place being. The son of a Frost Giant but raised by their enemy, wanting to rule but really would have no idea how to handle a small town let alone the world. He is funny and spiteful in equal measure, incredibly charismatic, and those are the most dangerous enemies. For Captain America he is the new Hitler that needs defeating.

The film ends with, quite literally, a bang. The battle is fought and won (sorry, but you didn't really imagine they would lose right?) and there is humour and tenderness. The characters go their separate ways, but make sure you don't leave the cinema when the lights come up, in typical Marvel style there is an extra scenje you will want to see.

From the spectacular battle scenes to the quieter moments between characters I had my hand on my mouth a LOT; I was on edge, I was engaged, so thoroughly absorbed in the story and the visuals. I laughed out loud frequently, and I was glad that the relatively full cinema laughed too. I was pleased to see Pepper Potts, glad they did not forget to notify Thor where Jane was, and intrigued by the friendship of Hawkeye and Black Widow.
None of the characters disappointed me, neither did the storyline or script. This was quite clearly made by a fan, but most importantly a fan who is a talented writer and director, and should direct every film in the future.

Restless ☆☆☆☆

I have wanted to see this film since I saw the trailer last year on IMDB, I find a fair few movies that way.
It stars Mia Wasikowska (one of the stars of my most recent review, The Kids Are Alright) and Henry Hopper (son of the late great Dennis Hopper) as Annie and Enoch, a pair of teenagers greatly troubled with death.

For Annie death is imminent as her brain tumour has returned with no hope this time for treatment to work, as for Enoch he crashes other peoples funerals because of his preoccupation with death and being able to say goodbye. They meet at the funeral of one of Annie's fellow 'cancer kids', and she takes an interest in the strange boy who clearly knows nobody at this memorial, not even the deceased.
The relationship tentatively develops, they reveal their secrets - Annie's terminal cancer, Enoch's ghost kamikaze pilot friend - and take advantage of life while they can.

It is an incredibly sweet love story and beautifully acted. I have said before I think Mia is a remarkable actress, but the film showcases Henry Hopper's talent too and I have to say, like father like son. Henry's Enoch is sensitive but on edge, and the anger that bubbles over has glimpses of his Dad's extraordinary ability to embody emotion.
The relationship is so fragile, you feel as though a sudden gust of wind would break them apart. Previous films covering the same topic, Love Story and A Walk to Remember, have a tendency to be overly dramatic and bordering on cheesey. I think because of Enoch there was no danger of it becoming cheesey, his own experiences with death (his parents and the ghost friend) creates an aura of mystery about this boy - how on earth will he cope with a dying girl?

Annie is an exceptional girl, dying but is the strongest person around her, taking lifes experiences as she finds them, not shying away from the strange boy and joining in with his conversations with his dead parents.

Safe to say I cried quite a lot. Not racking sobs, the film never goes that far to torment the viewer, rather just sad tears that fell without warning. I cry at adverts though, I'm that girl.
It is a gentle movie, despite the theme of death, and boasts two rather wonderful performances. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I highly recommend giving it a try if you enjoy quiet and thought provoking films.

The Kids Are Alright ☆☆☆☆

Never a truer title.

I've seen this film before but checking back through this blog I appear to have been remiss at reviewing it. Never mind, now having watched it again and enjoyed it just a much as I did the first time I feel justified with my rating.

The film follows a family of four, the Mums, Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore) and the kids Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and Laser (Josh Hutcherson). Joni is turning 18 and at the bequest of her younger brother opts to get in contact with the sperm donor who is both her and Laser's biological father. So the kids have the same dad but each of their Moms is actually their mother. Free spirited Jules is clearly Laser's mother, and Nic, a doctor, is crazy intelligent Joni's Mom.

The introduction of the sperm donor Paul (Mark Ruffalo) throws a significant spanner into the family unit, especially in the mind of Nic who is pretty hostile toward him at the start, but who does try as she sees her family warm to him.
The film follows how the family cope, knitting together with Paul becoming more involved as he tries to get to know his kids and becomes a little too friendly with Jules. I won't elaborate but suffice to say there are a fair few sex scenes.

What I really love about this film is how normal it seems. Okay so the kids have two Moms which you don't often see in mainstream movies but that doesn't stop them appearing like your average American family. One parent the breadwinner, the other has small projects but nothing in salary competition, and the kids are healthy and pretty well adjusted human beings. The characters are funny, sweet, infuriating, and sometimes a little idiotic. Nic and Jules' relationship sounds more like a teacher and pupil at times, and Jules' frustration is understandable as her ideas are met with criticism rather than encouragement.

Mark Ruffalo is brilliant as the bewildered sudden biological parent, I felt for him struggling in the wake of having two teenagers but also felt he was a supreme idiot. Paul comes into this family out of his depth, a total free spirit and complete charmer but starts to get ideas above his actual position - seeing himself as able to be a Father, not just sperm donor. He gets a little too excited about the idea of having a family, and here is a ready made one that he wants to claim as his own. Paul does support the children and Jules in a way that Nic has not been able to, cultivating Joni's interest in local foods and employing Jules in her first venture as a landscape gardener.

Annette Bening and Julianne Moore are utterly natural as the two Moms of Laser and Joni. Nic takes on the paternal role while Jules is maternal, but both are frustrated by their self-imposed boxes. I have always loved Moore and she has such amazing comedic ability, while Bening I have only seen in serious roles and she brings that weight to the film.
Mia Wasikowska (Jane Eyre, Alice in Wonderland) is an extraordinary young actress, and she plays girl on cusp of adulthood very well as her character is about to leave home for the first time. Josh Hutcherson (The Hunger Games) is also a talented actor and is believable as the boy who wants a Father, but is left disappointed by Paul who shares little in common with his son. They are both sensitive teenagers but incredibly grounded, having been loved and supported by two parents their whole lives.

The film is incredibly funny, the facial expressions alone caused me to giggle frequently. But more so it was the natural interactions, the teasing, the care, the arguments, that actually made me smile throughout the entire movie.
I've not seen any of director Lisa Cholodenko's previous work, either as writer or director, but her co-writer Stuart Blumberg is responsible for a couple of films I have greatly enjoyed, namely The Girl Next Door and Keeping the Faith. The easy humour of The Kids Are Alright is prevalent in the previously named movies, and it is what makes the films so successful with both audiences and critics as it is intelligent humour whilst also being totally natural.

What you come away with from this film is that the title absolutely sums it up, the kids are fine. They have been brought up by two mothers, met their sperm donor father, been disappointed in their parents, but are ultimately making the right decisions for themselves and growing in their own way.
This is such a funny film, I thought Ruffalo's Paul was a great character, so laid back he's horizontal but also meeting these kids sparks a need in him he thought was never there. Ultimately I think he kind of deserved what happened, but thats a personal opinion.
I was left with the thought that families are things to be worked at and can go wrong sometimes, but also can be a safe and stable environment no matter what happens as long as you are willing to put in the effort.

Gentlemen Broncos ☆

Did anybody catch this film when it aired on Film4 the other week? I thought I'd give it a go as it looked bizarre and starred Jemaine Clement from Flight of the Conchords.

I hadn't planned on reviewing it but felt the need to warn those who thought about watching it that they really gotta love and get Napoleon Dynamite to properly enjoy this film. I am firmly in the camp that says 'You what?' to the Hess brothers' previous effort. I did like this film more than ND though, and that was down to a few key performances.

The film focuses on teenage author Benjamin, played by Michael Angarano (Lords of Dogtown, Sky High). He is a keen writer of science fiction novellas, quite possibly home schooled (I wasn't entirely sure) and lives with his strange but sweet mother, his father having died some years before. Benjamin attends a writers camp, meeting along the way a sparky girl called Tabatha and a ridiculous wannabe director called Lonnie. While at camp he submits his story to be judged by his hero Chevalier, played by Jemaine, who then goes on to steal his work (with a few alterations) because he is about to be dropped by his publisher.

So while Benjamin has sold film rights to The Yeast Wars to Lonnie and is coming to terms with his work being basterdised by the weird filmmaker and his groupie, Jemaine is reaffirming his prowess as king of the sci-fi novella. Of course the boy finds out the truth and how despicable his hero is, and only with a surprise source of help does the film end happy for the young author.

It sounds intriguing, and it is, I only have a problem with the execution. I dislike films I perceive to be trying too hard to be weird, and the sheer amount of weird thrown at you here was just too much for me. It was also trying to cover too much. There is romance, comedy (some gross-out which conflicted with the sweet comedic elements), betrayal, mild violence, and science fiction. None were covered well.

I'll interpose here with what I liked about the film. Jemaine is typically smarmy and plays the villain with sad desperation, but have to say I found it a little too pantomime at times. Angarano was sweet and obviously delivered what was expected of him, he was a bit of a carpet at times but when he got angry it was refreshing to see he wasn't going to be walked over the rest of his life. Jennifer Coolidge playing his mother was brilliant, she can play sweet and kinda nutty so well, she is so much more than her plethora of supporting or bit parts suggest.
And finally what really got me laughing out loud were the strange drifts into the alternating stories of The Yeast Wars (Benjamin's stolen story) where the protagonist is played in both versions by the genius that is Sam Rockwell. Seriously if you think you won't enjoy the film but love Sam it's kinda worth the 90 minutes to see him as rough and ready Bronco (the original), or transvestite Brutus (Chevalier's version). Simply hilarious hearing him as camp as a field of tents.

Though fun I have to say those cut aways into the contrasting versions of the plagiarised story interrupted the flow. Then I also recognise without them the film would be barely an hour long.
I think my main problem is, apart from the humour which isn't really my cup of tea, that it seemed to be style over substance. Where this could, in other writers and directors hands, have been a woeful drama of the little guy being screwed over by the corrupt idol, it became a colourful and weird glance at plagiarism, the oddities of sci-fi, and a young man growing up.

The Hess brothers appear to be trying to be bizarre cross-overs of the Farrelly and Coen brothers. However they miss-fire in the output. Where the Farrellys have the market on gross-out humour with a sweet subplot, and the Coens have weird drama down to a T, the Hess brothers have stumbled on mixing weird with sweet.
It doesn't sit well with me, however like I said if you love Napoleon Dynamite I'm pretty sure you'll enjoy Gentlemen Broncos as it takes weird to the next level.

Moon ☆☆☆☆☆

This is the second Duncan Jones film I've reviewed and it is proving as problematic as Source Code in not revealing spoilers...I'll do my best. At the end I will give full warning of a short spoiler-rific section because I want to make a few comments that just can't be done otherwise.

Using IMDB's synopsis: Astronaut Sam Bell has a quintessentially personal encounter toward the end of his three-year stint on the Moon, where he, working alongside his computer, GERTY, sends back to Earth parcels of a resource that has helped diminish our planet's power problems (imdb.com).

And thats all I'm sayin' for now plot wise.

Sam is played by the simply fabulous Sam Rockwell, an actor who can carry a film such as this because he has the capability of playing off nothing more than his own reflection. If you have never seen Rockwell then I have a list here of must-sees: Galaxy Quest (shush it's brilliant), Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, The Assasination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford (don't be put off by the long title or running time), and The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (his Zaphod is loveably insane). Of course there is also The Green Mile, but that is one of his more abhorrent roles and, though brilliant as a psychopathic paedophile, I love him too much to call it a must-see performance. Rockwell is an enigmatic, slightly unhinged at times, gorgeous, charming, funny, and dark actor. He brings every ounce of his acting ability to his performance as Sam Bell, a man who has suffered from being on the moon for three years alone except for a computer.

GERTY, said computer, is voiced by equally enigmatic Kevin Spacey, who is aided in his performance here by cartoon smiley faces that reflect what the concerned computer system may be 'feeling'. It is a different portrayal of a computer system, I was half expecting a HAL type override would be the instigator of the action (don't get the reference? First shame on you, second good for you as 2001: A Space Odyssey was perhaps one of the most boring films I've ever forced myself to watch).

The visuals and special effects are really quite convincing. The moon is not such a barren wasteland because of the installations, but I wasn't looking at them or the vehicles thinking "gosh this looks a lot like Thunderbirds", I was enjoying seeing the moon as a productive part of civilisation.
Duncan Jones' story and vision are pretty unique, its unsurprising that David Bowie's son edges toward the wacky side of filmmaking.
However because it is obviously quite a centralised vision the direction is fluid and controlled, never allowed special effects to take over, nor does it make the bizarre story seem explicitly so. You get used to the ideas in this film quite quickly,

So before my spoilers take over a conclusion: This film is one of the best I've seen in a while. It is unique, not because the story it tells is necessarily so, but because it is told so simply and so beautifully. The performance of Sam Rockwell is outstanding, the voice of Kevin Spacey oddly comforting.
The film is in equal measures happy, sad, thrilling, violent, but over all is a fantastic piece of science fiction.


Now to the spoilers. Please stop reading now unless you've seen the film!

SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILERS!!!! SPOILERS!!!!

I hope no one is reading this part who wants to see the film, believe me it would ruin your whole experience.

What I wanted to say was more on Sam Rockwell's performance, playing clones coming to terms with their fate is difficult for several people (The Island is one example), but Sam has to play against himself. There is also credit due to the director and camera work for not making it seem forced that you cannot have close ups of the two Sams together. The fight scene I thought was very well done, and I enjoyed the interaction between the two in the more simple tasks, like when old Sam teaches new Sam how to build miniature models.

The story too was fascinating and so sad. I was genuinely quite scared that old Sam was going to disintegrate. I loved the rebellion in new Sam, and also in GERTY, I love that the computer didn't end up the fail-safe option of the 'bad-guy'. What I really wanted to know though was what led the original Sam Bell to agree to be cloned in the first place. But as all good movies leave you wanting more I'm happy to have that question float around for a while, maybe someone else will have come up with an answer, and if they could let me know that would be brilliant.

End of spoilers, also end of review. Pretty short but I think the five stars speak for themselves.

Chatroom ☆☆☆

What I am learning over the years is exactly how extraordinary some young actors truly are. Take Aaron Johnson, known for his portrayal of John Lennon in Nowhere Boy, but famous because of his relationship with director Sam Taylor Wood, with whom he has two children, and a 22 year age gap.

He copes with this notoriety whilst also giving performances of actors twice his age. He has a strength and ability not many young actors truly possess, and in Chatroom he blows all other performances out of the water.

Chatroom is an intriguing concept, the director is better known for Japanese horror films and here he brings the same disturbing quality. It follows five teenagers who take part in an Internet chatroom, but the film gives the forum its own physical body - an actual room. You get to see the teens discuss their issues, either as part of the group, in private discussions, or in their own rooms on the Internet.
You also see them in real life, how the Internet is replacing a real social life in some way, or glimpses into why they have resorted to the web to talk.

Aaron Johnson plays an incredibly troubled young man called William, the creator of the room 'Chelsea Teens' where the five meet, who has a famous author mother and a past that is slowly revealed to be steeped in depression and suicidal thoughts. Imogen Poots (28 Weeks Later) is Eva, an aspiring model with more successful 'friends', a privileged lifestyle, and a fascination with William and his less than conventional approach to life, be it his enthusiasm or his tendencies toward violence. Hannah Murray (Skins), Matthew Beard (One Day), and Daniel Kaluuya (Black Mirror) make up the rest of the group as Emily Jim and Mo.

The film revolves around William's insane quest to destroy the life of Jim, a boy who has admitted to the group of a crippling depression after abandonment by a parent. To William this is weakness, a weakness he himself suffers from and actively hates. At first the group are a support network, but it soon becomes clear what William's motives are.

I don't want to spoil the plot for anyone, and I also don't want people to believe the IMDB rating score of 5.2/10 as I think this is unfair as the story is a harrowing but inventive tale of depression and teen suicide.
There are scenes of self-harm and suicide, but they are not gratuitous.

The acting is very good. Johnson is superb and embodies the tortured soul of William in every facial expression and hand twitch. The rest of the teens, though not quite of Johnsons standard are nevertheless convincing, especially Matthew Beard as the put upon Jim.
The brief glimpses of the families of the teens are also very good, William's parents are scared both of and for their son, with good reason.

As for direction, as said before Hideo Nakata is better known for The Ring and other horrors but this does not prevent him bringing some of the qualities of the genre to this thriller. There is suspense and shock, graphic visuals and truly disturbing rhetoric. It is a tale of how the Internet can purport feelings of depression and escalate and influence child death.
The film is based on a play by Enda Walsh (Disco Pigs) who adapted it for the silver screen. I can see how interesting it would be in a theatre set up, however I think it works brilliantly as a film.
Seeing an Internet chatroom in a physical way, and not just the Chelsea Teens also sex chatrooms, ones that advocate violence, and suicide rooms, is a powerful image. Proving how little we know of each other, but also how much sometimes we are willing to reveal to strangers.

I think this film sends a powerful message about reliance on the Internet for human contact, but it does not give any answers. It does not say "STOP! The Internet is bad!" but nor is it saying everyone should be on there. What I took was an advocacy for moderation, to use what is positive and to avoid the negativity which is in in abundance. To create friendships online that could lead to real life relationships is a positive thing, but it is also constantly under attack from those who mis-use the medium.

I liked the film, it was powerful and has sincere message. The performance of Aaron Johnson is sublime, and the story incredibly disturbing. For those who enjoy exploring the darkest depths of humanity.

The 12a rating - redundant or required?

I recently commented on an article on the guardian online concerning the rating of the last in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises.
What had irked so many was the USA censors decision to rate TDKR pg13, a rating we Brits copied but reduced to 12a, which means under-13s (or 12s) can see the film so long as they are accompanied by someone who IS 12 (or 13).

Now I understand the annoyance, it has grieved me for some time that films, especially book adaptations, that are the least bit dark are censored so much so that seven year olds won't be so scared they leave the cinema.
This is wrong, we had a perfectly good 12 rating in this country. Below 12 years old the majority of children do not have the capabilities of coping in a large, dark room with loud noises and scenes of violence. Of course there are some 40 year olds who share this sensibility. However the point is 12 (or 13 even) is a suitable age to limit what a child sees on screen. Of course you get the smart-arses like myself who at 11 insisted they could watch American Beauty without it disturbing them, but that was at home, where my own Father rented the film for me because between American Beauty (rated 18) and a film called Tumbleweeds (rated 12) I wanted the intellectual one.

Truth time, since I saw American Beauty I have not been able to bring myself to watch it again. Now I truly do not believe its because I was too young, I understood that Kevin Spacey was deeply depressed and I found it haunting. A lot of the sex went over my head, but I can remember Spacey obsessing over his daughters friend, the drugs he got from his neighbour, and the ultimate tragedy that occurred because of middle-America's attitude toward homosexuality.
To back up my statement that it was not my age that meant I cannot see it again, when I was 20 I saw City of God and though I loved it I cannot see that film again, I was 19 when I saw Pans Labyrinth and though the little girl still flashes across my memory I cannot watch her die again. This is just my personal quirk.

You may wonder why I have digressed onto a personal memory of being eleven and watching a film rated seven years older than I was, and its simply to say I completely understand when parents argue their kids can cope with films older than their age. It is only that if your children really do understand, then wait for the DVD like my parents would, in a safe environment where if it does in fact get too much there is this wonderful device called a remote control which can pause the action for a few minutes.

I would just like to point out I was alone when I saw American Beauty, no creepy family time viewing I promise.

The 12a rating in this country meant that the recent smash Hunger Games had a LOT of its violence either cut or limited. This I was okay with because the way the film was shot meant your imagination still had work to do, which I'm all for. However for fans of Christopher Nolan's Batman movies the 12a means the increasingly dark franchise may not get to wallow in the depths as long as they would like.

What I would love is for the 12a to be cut all together. When the films are released for purchase the 'a' magically disappears and suddenly the right age group are able to take home the movie. So why does getting bums on seats matter so much that studios are willing for their films to lose credibility by not fulfilling their original purpose - either to scare, incite, bewilder, or amuse?

I guess it all comes down to money. Films are rushed because of budget constraints or time limits. Actors and directors drop out when their needs are not met, either by paper or consideration (am thinking here of Gary Ross dropping out of Catching Fire for creative reasons).

This all makes me very sad. For now I will just have to accept that 12a's are here to stay, and go see films when the lovely boys and girls are in school, and hope that the complaints about films becoming less suitable to their ratings means that 12a's will not be censored too much in the future.

This is not a review!

Watch the film read the book(s) – wrong order right? Well maybe not.

I have been convinced I am a book reader first and foremost, and a film lover second. However more and more I am realising that the books I am reading are prompted by either watching an adaptation on TV or in the cinema, or learning of their impending release.

A couple of examples are the teen sensations Twilight and The Hunger Games, the first I saw on screen then read the books and the latter I read because I was so intrigued by all the fuss that was being created about the film release.

Now you may argue that teenage novels are really not the best example, because after all I was 21 and 24 respectively when I read the above, so the likelihood of finding these reading materials on my own was slim to none. And okay so the Twilight saga are not the best written books in the world but they were compelling, The Hunger Games trilogy however are incredibly well written whilst also being addictive.

A better example is probably JRR Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. I was 14years old and only just coming to terms with my geekiness when The Fellowship of the Ring was released, I had had The Hobbit read to me about five years previously as part of ‘story time’ in school but never picked up the book myself. Of course I then saw the film and bought the books and have not looked back.

I was OBSESSED with Lord of the Rings; it gave me my window to be who I am, slightly geeky and obsessive. I no longer cared about revealing that side because suddenly I had the internet to back me up. But of course the only way I could join these forums and find out all the details about the books and films was because I had had my interest piqued by the movie.

Is it because I had not been exposed to the literature by those with the power to do so, my teachers, peers or parents? Or because of the age I have grown up in where everyone has access to television and the cinema for relatively little cost (compared to fifty years ago) so it is more natural to watch rather than read? I think it’s a little of both in truth. I love television, in fact I probably love it a little too much but that’s my issue. I also love going to the movies (as this blog proves!), but I adore reading. Getting caught up in a book is one of my favourite past times: you can do this on a train, on the beach, in your room, even on the toilet if the mood takes you. Now I know you can in theory watch TV or movies in each of these places using a mobile device, but it just doesn’t seem right to be on the beach watching a film, it’s too self-involved.

It has been a very long time since I discovered a book on my own, in fact I may have been a child because that was the last time I regularly used a library for purposes other than studying. I have a few books that I definitely prefer to the film version (Time Travellers Wife and The Lovely Bones), but these were recommended by my friends. I discovered Neil Gaiman after watching Stardust, and though the book is hardly anything like the film I love them both, and now have read four of his other novels. Chocolat is also entirely different to the film but the reason I read it was because of Johnny Depp.

Really what I am trying to say is a big thank you to the film industry. Without it I would not have read half the books on my shelf, which would have been detrimental to my own character. Books fuel imaginations, they often pick me up when I am feeling low, and they offer up people I can relate to and not feel quite so alone. It is reassuring to find my sense of humour in a Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett novel, but then it is equally reassuring to find it in Little Miss Sunshine.

Adaptations can often vex, rarely surprise, and sometimes delight us. I have two books I am wanting to read, one is Winters Bone because I want to see what made Jennifer Lawrence so desperate to be part of the movie, the other is book recommended by a friend. Perhaps my mission now is to find a book on my own without the film industry or friends, but that would require my local library being adequately stocked, which is another issue entirely.

Thank-you for bearing with me in this departure from my usual reviews, I promise it won’t happen too often! Also if anyone has any book recommendations (or film for that matter) please comment below!

Moneyball ☆☆☆☆

The multi Oscar nominated Moneyball unfortunately left with no awards this year despite being up for best film, actor, and supporting actor. Of course it was up against The Artist and there really was no competing with a silent black and white film no matter how good a drama it may be.

Moneyball is based on the true story of Billy Beane, former baseball player and current (2001) General Manager of the Oakland A's. The team are failing with players being poached left right and centre, a severe lack of funds, and an old fashioned approach to selection and coaching. By chance Billy meets Peter Brand in a player negotiation who advises his boss not to trade a player from San Francisco to Oakland due to a series of statistical analyses on his performance.

Billy is no fool and recognises Pete's potential and is intrigued by the idea successful teams are made of players who get on base rather than if once in a while score a home run.
So they embark on a controversial plan to employ ball players mostly shunned because of a quirk, injury, or age. And with this baseball is changed forever.

Now you may have been reading the synopsis of this and thought 'what? Why does a film about a sport I (if not from USA) know next to nothing about?' and I'll admit I am actually a fan. I lived in the states for 6 months and saw the Oakland A's play (and beat) the Boston Red Sox. However I do not think you need even the slightest interest in the sport as the story is told so well. And if course it's an underdog tale so any Brits watching it should have no trouble getting behind it.

The story mirrors what happens in almost all the major sports anyway, the biggest and richest teams get the best players. They could all be called Moneyball as there is little loyalty to be found if the pay-check is large enough.

The film is a well crafted and tightly woven drama. It is the type of film I compared The Artist to in my review, one that requires the understated performance.
Brad Pitt never stops delighting me as an actor, and here he delivered an Oscar winning performance, had he not been up against Jean Dujardin.
He is so emotive and believable, especially in his interactions with his daughter. You begin to care about the team when he starts taking a more dynamic role with the players, especially those he has given a chance again after injury has rendered them ''unplayable''.
Jonah Hill (Superbad, Knocked Up) is remarkable, I slightly wondered if his nomination was because there weren't quite five outstanding performances so he got lumped in to the Oscars, but that was entirely wrong. As Peter he has an almost determined nerdy-ness that his statistical theories can work on the field, whilst also quite clearly both petrified and in awe of Billy - as Jonah himself most likely felt working with Brad.
He is also a very likeable character, rooting for the underdog players and giving them their chance.
One such underdog is played by Chris Pratt (Everwood, Bride Wars) who has a dodgy elbow after nerve damage so cannot be catcher anymore. The few highlighted players all are convincing, there is no hammy acting, instead you feel the world of sport is so demanding and unfair that players who can still win games are relegated if it takes extra work to build them up again.

It has been filmed in much the same style as an American TV show called Friday Night Lights (about a high school football team) with hand held cameras and a lot of dusky shots and close ups of people's eyes. It's an effective method for putting the audience member 'in the moment'. Decision making has a pace to it as players are traded like monopoly hotels, bought and sold as commodities.

What I really enjoyed about this film was that nobody treated it like an easy ride. Heart and soul was pushed into this film by everyone involved, which is something you see in the crowds watching baseball games.

It is a simple enough story, but told so well it is an undeniably fantastic drama. As Claudia Winkleman said on Film 2012 it was so good it made her care about a sport she had never seen.
The whole cast are brilliant, Kerris Dorsey playing Brad Pitt's daughter was incredibly professional, and her interactions with Pitt were completely believable.

I recommend this film to anyone who enjoys good drama. If worried about being confused about the baseball references then just accept that you might well be, but let them wash over you. Good drama doesn't need a whole lot of explaining, and an underdog remains the same whatever sport their playing so just go with it and root for the little guy. In my opinion this was 133 minutes well spent.

The Beaver ☆☆☆½

Okay so I'll be honest here, when I saw the trailer for this film a couple of years ago I giggled quite a bit.
For one, it's called 'The Beaver' and no matter how much I believe I am a sensible grown-up that made me laugh. Second, it's Mel Gibson communicating with the world through a puppet with a dodgy cockney Aussie accent.

But then I saw The Hunger Games and, let's face it, fell in love with Jennifer Lawrence. Those who read this blog will know what a girl crush I have on Emma Stone but I'm afraid her time has come, I still love Emma but there is a bright shiny new thing in the playground now.

So of course I looked at Lawrence's filmography and low and behold there was The Beaver. So I decided in my fickle way that now it was deemed worthy to watch.

I wasn't expecting to enjoy it as much as I did. My reason may have been Lawrence but I kept watching because of Anton Yelchin (Star Trek XI). He is superb as the son of Mel Gibson's chronically depressed CEO of a failing toy company.

The story follows this family of Gibson, Yelchin, Jodie Foster as mum and a sweet little actor called Riley Tomas Stewart struggling to cope with the fathers depression. I don't know enough about depression to comment but what the film seems to suggest is that it can be genetic. Gibson's father took his own life because of it, and now his son is starting to display similar traits.

Foster has finally kicked out her husband because of the negative effect living with an effectively comatose person brings, and this is when Gibson finds in a dumpster a hand puppet.

The story then follows him speaking through the puppet in order to communicate where previously he was mute. He rebuilds a relationship with his wife and youngest son, but not with the elder. He even manages to resurrect his fathers toy company.

However this is not a fun story of a man and his puppet. It is a dark and twisted tale of a husband and father losing his mind and his family. It is incredibly moving, but like I said it is the eldest son who really focussed my attention.

The tension of living with a depressed parent is felt through his rebellion of writing other people's papers for money. I've read articles where depression has been linked to hyper intelligence, so the knot of worry about this fictional boy was formed quite early on in my stomach.

Yelchin's performance is utterly believable, his budding romance with the class valedictorian (Lawrence) is older beyond their years because both have become somewhat jaded by life experience, though only 18 they could be a pair of 40 year olds. I think the film is entirely worth watching for Yelchin, you grow concerned about his welfare as though you are actually part of his life.

Mel Gibson, as much as I'd like to despise him, is convincing as a man entirely lost and on the edge of sanity. Jodie Foster is her usual consummate performer self, I will always prefer her Tallulah to anything else but she has a dual purpose here as she also directs. The story is deftly woven together, though by far my favourite actor is the older son, the whole family unit are given enough time to tell their story.

The film is unforgiving. It does not pander to one or the other opinion on depression but accepts how truly destructive it can be. It is not a laughing matter, and yet this does not prevent humour arising from it. This is healthy, if depression is to be conquered it cannot only be associated with the depths of despair. With laughter comes hope, and it's when the puppet starts to make you the viewer feel sad that the story shows the power of the mind, it can split us when it can't cope anymore, but that other side can also take over.

A total surprise but worth watching, I would be interested to know if people out there who have been affected by depression feel this film is in any way relevant or accurate.

Battle Royale ☆☆

Continuing along a theme then, I decided to finally watch Battle Royale after numerous comparisons with The Hunger Games.

Its the story of Japan in turmoil: the youth have revolted, there is record levels of unemployment and zero respect. So the government have passed the Battle Royale law where each year a class of 14/15 year olds are put on a deserted island to do battle until one is left.

The film displays all the typical elements of Japanese filmmaking: crazy fight scenes, over excited girls maniacally giggling, overacting and a lot of bloody violence. In films like these you see where Tarantino gets his inspiration for his own movies.

You are thrown into this film with little preparation or build up. After a glimpse of the past where schools are overrun with disobedient and violent children you see the same school kids on a bus happy and laughing, cut to them passed out and two sinister figures in gas masks, and when they wake up in a dreary classroom with metal chokers the atmosphere is positively charged with fear and confusion.

The story plays out almost exactly to the blurb on the back of the DVD. It is a bloodbath of accidental death, desperation, psychotic tendencies, suicide, and fear. Where in western cinema once machine gunned down a person will not get back up again, the Japanese don't work that way. Death is over-exaggerated and almost comical.

There is a love story among the school children, an almost triangle had the third component not been killed by his metal choker, which is designed to explode if the player is not 'behaving'. This is a sweet element to a vicious film, the boy who has lost everybody dear to him will now do anything for the girl he has a crush on. Other romances within the film are crushed by suicide pacts or fear; not knowing the boy coming for her is actually wanting to protect her is the cause of one death.

It's sad, and gruesome. An utter failing in humanity but told in such an extreme and exaggerated way that it becomes unreal. This is where The Hunger Games triumphs over Battle Royale, though the build up is slower it creates a world and characters you can believe in. Battle Royale is a caricature of violence and dystopia.

I gave it 2 stars when it probably deserves more, but that is personal taste taking over. I can see which elements influenced Suzanne Collins for her trilogy, but the two are not comparable in terms of filmmaking.
Battle Royale is 114 minutes of confusion and terror, for both audience and actor. I got mixed up along the way which battle was which, and the purpose of the games didn't hold because though almost 40 died no one was there to watch, removing the idea of a totalitarian state keeping you under their control because the opportunities to rebel were more frequent.

It's bloody and violent and more than a little crazy. Worth a watch if you like Japanese cinema or want to see other interpretations of a death arena, but it isn't the best example of either that I have seen.


RETRACTION: I have been informed that Battle Royale is in fact televised, something I clearly missed whilst watching the movie. I know at the beginning the winner of the most recent battle was revealed in a swarm of television crews and photographers, however they did not know who won - I distinctly remember the TV presenter saying "and the winner of this years Battle is....a girl!" just as the girl appears. So I still fail to see exactly how these are supposed to be 'televised' games. But again, I'll just have to point out the superiority of Hunger Games in this respect because you are never allowed to forget that it is a form of entertainment. For a more succinct review of Battle Royale I suggest you check out http://www.cultflicks.net/