Argo - 2012 - Ben Affleck.

Worthy of best picture?

Argo, directed and starring Ben Affleck (The Town), is centred around the 1979 Iran hostage crisis and the efforts of one CIA agent, Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck). When the embassy in Iran gets raided, and seized by Islamic militants, six American diplomats managed to escape and find secret sanctuary with the Canadian ambassador. Months later, Mendez devises an audacious plan to get the six diplomats back to America, posing as a film crew looking for locations to shoot, along with the help of John Goodman (The Big Lebowski, Flight) and Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine).

I feel as a whole Argo is the weakest Best Picture winner in many, many years. Although a technically very sound film, it suggests that the film business can solve the world's problems, including terrorism. For this reason I can see why those in Hollywood love this picture.

The film is well directed, I am under the opinion that Ben Affleck can direct anything that he is given, yet, for me, Affleck is better suited to Boston thrillers, he should stick to what he knows.  Furthermore, it's interesting that his portrayal of Tony Mendez is one that focuses on his trusting nature and smarts in terms of his mission, yet it fails to question Mendez' separation from his wife. It seems to me that that sub-story is just included so that it will form a nice ending when his wife takes him back.

One thing that surprised me about Argo is that the story expands in an oddly uncomplicated and non-shocking way. This creates a much more believable environment. If this film was a fiction, and not 'based on truth', there would be many more plot twists, or tense encounters that would dramatise and, in a sense, take the film too far into the realms of a Hollywood, fiction, action/thriller.

An extremely enjoyable film, although not Affleck's best.

J.Henderson.

6.5/10.

Tomorrows review... Argo (2012).

Cloud Atlas - 2012 - Tom Hanks, Halle Berry.

A muddled attempt at piecing together life.

Cloud Atlas is a near three hour mess adapted from the 2004 book, of the same name, from David Mitchell. The film has three directors, Andy and Lana Wachowski (The Matrix Trilogy), and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run). These directors have the task of attempting to weave six stories from six eras in time, with each member of the cast portraying a different character in each story. These eras range from early 19th century to hundreds of years into the future. These stories are as follows; first of all set in 1849, centred around an American lawyer sailing home with a slave; secondly in 1931, about a gay Englishman acting as an amanuensis to an elderly composer; part three, in 1973, about a reporter looking into a conspiracy surrounding a nuclear power company; in 2012, about a weird and wonderful publisher stuck in a Scottish care home; in 2144, centred around a clone, slaved in Neo-Seoul stirring rebellion; and finally, in 2321, when life has returned to savagery and anarchy.

The film is just too messy, and those who have not read the book (like myself) may find it hard to stick with the constant chopping and changing of time periods. I feel that although the film is nearly three hours long, it's too simplistic in its approach to each segment of the overall story. With the movie being split into six sections, it was moving too quickly from one part to another. It fails to tell six short stories (as presented in the book); instead we are left with a jumbled narrative.

Due to the lack of depth afforded to each character, it only results in one thing, unconvincing characters. I do not feel that the acting is below par, but due to the quick changes from one character to the next, all I see is the star-studded ensemble cast. Instead of believing that Tom Hanks is a loud-mouth Irish novelist one minute, and then a futuristic tribesman plagued by hallucinations the next, all I see is Tom Hanks. This problem follows suit for the rest of the cast, as Hugh Grant moves from a cannibalistic warrior, to a sexist nuclear power company owner. As a spectator I found it near impossible to invest in any of the characters.

Possibly the most expensive independent film of all time is a flop, something shown in its box-office performance. A tough project to even attempt to make successfully.

J.Henderson.

4/10.

Tomorrows review! Cloud Atlas (2012).

Silver Linings Playbook - 2012 - Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence.

Very enjoyable, interesting take on mental illness but predictable.

Pat Jr. (Bradley Cooper) is a bi-poler man who suffers with violent mood swings, he comes out of a spell in a mental hospital with the aim of getting his life back on track. All of Pat's energy is focused on getting back with his wife Nikki, who has a restraining order out against him following Pat one day leaving work early only to come home to find his wife in the shower with another man -- whilst listening to their wedding song. Pat is forced to move back in with his parents, Pat Sr. and Dolores (Robert De Niro and Jacki Weaver), which may not be so wise given that Pat Sr's temper is just as volatile as his son's, whilst also having serious OCD when it comes to the Philadelphia Eagles. In Pat Jr's efforts to win back his wife he may be able to gain the help of, also mentally unstable, Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), but only providing he helps her in return.

This film is a rom-com, yet David O. Russell (The Fighter - 2010) adds elements of drama, including violence and arguments, instead of the whimsical comedy accompanied by an indie soundtrack that fills so much of the genre. These elements of drama hide the predicable ending as much as possible, although Russell  struggles with this during the last quarter of the film, as Pat Jr's anger seems to evaporate as an issue which leads to the happily ever after ending associated with this genre.

Before watching this film, I was unsure of what to expect from Bradley Cooper's performance. With his back-catalogue of films being heavily comedic, I was fearful of whether he would try to be too comedic in his  portrayal of the mentally unstable. However, for me, Cooper is the stand-out performer in this picture as he gives an edgy and extremely physical performance as Pat Jr, a character who's rage and impulses are so unpredictable. As for Jennifer Lawrence, I cannot wait to see her next film. She has altered from her previous roles as a strong, detached girl, to this vulnerable, unstable and erratic woman in Silver Linings Playbook.

Russell veers away from the norms of the rom-com genre as much as he can, yet the ending is just too predictable. Great acting all around.

7/10

J.Henderson.

Tomorrows review... Silver Linings Playbook (2012).

Gangster Squad - 2013 - Sean Penn, Ryan Gosling.

Stylish but frustrating.

1949 Los Angeles. The film centres around gangster Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn). Up against Cohen is a specialized bunch of cops, operating without their badges (Josh Brolin, Robert Patrick, Michael Peña, Anthony Mackie, Giovanni Ribisi, and Ryan Gosling). A perilous and promising hookup between Gosling and Emma Stone, who plays Cohen’s frustrated moll, is allowed to fizzle out. If Gangster Squad had given half as much time to its quality cast instead of pouring out needless violence then it could of been something.

Mickey Cohen is an over-the-top psycho, a former boxing champion who is now completely lacking in any charm. Cohen was one of the toughest and feared mob bosses around, but with Penn's puttied face delivering this with snappy pronunciations, the role is laughable.

According to the book, this film is based on true event, but some scenes are just too unlikely. Gosling and Brolin take on an armed gang of Cohen's men in a hotel lobby. Its probably about 2 verses 50, however, Gosling and Brolin make easy work of the task in front of them and dispatch the armed gang, not getting hit by the mass shooting from the enemy.

In another rather unbelievable scene, O'Mara's pregnant wife Connie (Mireille Enos) manages to survive and attack on her house, then after the attack, gives birth to her child in the bathtub, with the child seemingly ready to crawl away.

With the a-list cast available, the writing should have focused more on the characters, instead, it chose an extreme amount of violence as their selling point for this film.

J.Henderson.

4/10.

Flight - 2012 - Denzel Washington.

A powerful, solid drama.

Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) is an airline pilot and also an alcoholic drug-user. He is clever, charming and capable, and keeps his drinking under-raps from the rest of the crew. He takes off in the morning with a line of cocaine and helps himself to vodka throughout the flight. On a routine flight from Florida to Atlanta, one of Whip's jet engines suddenly fails and starts to fall from the sky. In a spectacularly realised action sequence, which may be a little too much for nervous fliers, Whip wrestles the aircraft to an emergency landing, saving all but six of those on board. Did Whip’s alcoholically becalmed state help him land the plan? Or was he the cause of the loss of six lives?

The film centres completely around the drug fuelled Washington, perfectly portraying a man in denial, seemingly unaware of his major problem. It’s  possibly Washington’s best performance since Training Day; a damaged, defiant soul, strutting down hotel corridors with his aviator shades on, that latest line of coke racing round his blood stream, or shivering as he pours bottles of spirits down the sink.

Another stand-out performance was the minor role played by John Goodman as Whip's drug dealer, who is a likeness of the Dude from The Big Lebowski. His perfectly delivered wit and authoritative manor create an unlikely character that certainly works.

Zemeckis, making his first live-action feature since Castaway (2000), makes a film that is morally provocative and filled with utter genius. He opens the film with a classic morning-after scene, followed up by possibly his greatest action sequence to date, the plane crash. The scene oozes tension worthy of Hitchcock himself.

Very strong film, watch out for John Goodman, not to be missed.

J.Henderson.

7/10. 

This is 40 - 2012 - Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann.

Footnote characters getting their own film.

Set five years after Knocked Up, with Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl nowhere to be seen, This is 40 centres around Pete (Paul Rudd), Debbie (Leslie Mann) and their kids Sadie and Charlotte (Maude and Iris Apatow, respectively). Pete and Debbie are coming up to their 40th birthdays, and everything seems to be going horribly wrong all at once as financial trouble and a lack of a sex life are making the couple feel trapped. Add to the mix a moody teenage girl and a hyperactive 10 year-old and everything is in chaos.

Pete and Debbie are trying to discover whether they still love each other. They hide their bad habits from one another (Pete and his cupcakes, cigarettes for Debbie). They don't spend time together. He's evasive, spending a ridiculous amount of time on the toilet away from anybody else, she's a nag. Yet, they feel trapped in the relationship, because of the kids, because of history, because of responsibility. They have come to the realisation that the life they have right now, is what they are stuck with forever.

The couple has not developed as characters since Knocked Up. Pete's still careless. Debbie's still shrill and a constant nag. This was perfectly acceptable, and quite hilarious, when they were a bit part in Knocked Upbut, in their own film, they're really hard to care about. Their financial problems, due to Pete's handouts to his father (Albert Brooks) and a failing record label, are supposed to form the backbone of the plot. However, you find it hard to sympathise for the rich people, almost laughable at the suggestion that downgrading a huge house for a smaller big house is a problem worthy of our sympathy. They may have big financial problems, yet they can still afford to throw a sizeable pool party for Pete's birthday, and go on a couples retreat.

The script for this film is weak and contradicting. Pete and Debbie seem to love each other one minute and then hate each other the next. On their little weekend away they indulge in marijuana cookies and speak of the love they share, how amazing their relationship is, it's very mushy, very soppy. 10-minutes later, at a party, Pete slips to Debbie that "it's not your fault you can't feel love," starting yet another huge argument. And then once more, 10-minutes later, all troubles and issues are forgotten, as simple as that, all it takes is for Pete to ride his bike into a parked car.

This film is not bad, exactly, just boring for long periods of time with moments of rare hilarity. Jason Segal and Chris O'Dowd give the performances to look for, with writing that suits their comedic style.

J.Henderson.

5/10.

The Impossible - 2012 - Naomi Watts, Ewan McGregor.

A physical triumph in film-making.

A story (based on fact) centred around a family broken apart by the horrendous 2004 boxing day tsunami. The story is simple, will the family be reunited?

Coming off the back of his chilling film The Orphanage, exciting young director Juan Antonio Bayona delivers a hugely physical, sensory assault, especially in a ten-minute sequence of phenomenal effects work and thunderous sound design. The scene apparently took about a year to make, using real water, unlike many other CGI filled films. The extreme length of time spent on this small section of the film completely pays off. Its a superb piece of film-making, so loud and harrowing, you feel trapped, drowned, helpless. One of the best action scenes produced, Bayona creates something worthy of any Hollywood action epic. Definitely a director to watch for the future.

Another highlight of this feature is the acting from the lead cast. Ewan McGregor and Naomi Watts give emotional performances as Mum and Dad, while 16 year-old Tom Holland, manages to successfully transform his character from a moody teenager, to a boy determined to help anyone he can and help get his family back together, in a performance that is truly remarkable. 

However, I feel Bayona takes this film slightly too Hollywood. To set this story around a wealthy white family, having a nice holiday go disastrously wrong, is not representative of the 200,000 plus that were killed by the tsunami, and the many more that were effected. With a film based on the horrendous natural disaster, I feel a film showing the effect that it had on the Thai people would have been more striking. It also seems that most of the people in the hospitals were tourists, what happened to everyone else?

Other than the terrific set and lead acting, the film disappoints as it fails to show the wider effect the tsunami had.

J.Henderson.

6/10.

Wreck-it Ralph - 2012 - John C.Reilly.

Fun and imaginative in a world you wouldn't even have thought of.

In a 1980s arcade game called Fix-it Felix, Wreck-it Ralph is building-smashing bad guy who is fed up of wrecking things after doing it for 30 years, and wants to be good. Wreck-it Ralph wants to be the hero, wants to save the day, so he breaks out of his game in search of a medal, in order to prove he is a hero.

Whilst on his quest, Wreck-it Ralph comes across many other arcade games, giving Disney the opportunity to play around with a large variety of settings, and being extremely creative. Wreck-it Ralph's journey takes him from the old-school, first generation arcade game Fix-it Felix, to 90s racing games Sugar Rush, and also to a new generation, present day shooter called Heroes Duty. Disney takes full advantage of being able to show off their visual styles.

The film is diverse in that it is filled with various humour, from the outrageous action, to the quick witted one-liner (usually from Jane Lynch). Also, Wreck-it Ralph has moments of a dark nature that I didn't see coming (not going to spoiler). Overall the film is quite an imaginative risk, with the idea of teenagers still going to spend their pocket money down at the arcade a little dated, but Wreck-it Ralph is a classic Disney production. It seems that the combination of Disney and Lucasfilm is already on show as in this film we saw a little cameo of Star Wars sound effects. See if you can spot it.

A very good Disney film, worthy of its Oscar nomination.

J.Henderson.

7/10.

Django Unchained - 2012 - Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz.

Masterful.

Set in the American South, only two years before the Civil War, Django (Jamie Foxx), a recently freed slave, sets out on a journey to find and free his wife (Kerry Washington) and take revenge on the cruel plantation owners, along with the help of bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz).

Tarantino deals with this story so simply that as his heroes have suffered such historic injustice, their revenge can never be too bloody or cruel, allowing for this to be a classic QT picture. Tarantino's natural instinct in film-making seems to be to exaggerate, and Django Unchained is no different. His use of blood is hysterical, creating a volcanic type eruption whenever a bullet strikes its target. Furthermore,Tarantino uses the N-word as often as he believes he can get away with, yet, I don't feel he over-stepped the mark. Tarantino films must always be watched knowing that what you are about to see is not trying to be a true depiction of the era or subject involved. It is simply Tarantino's take on the subject, and nearly always poking fun. Take Kill Bill for example, the action sequences are ridiculously unrealistic, with QT clearly making a joke about martial arts films. I feel something similar is happening with Django Unchained, as Tarantino writes his own history.

The film opens to a pair of brutish slave-traders who are dragging a chain-gang of black men across Texas. Next enters Dr King Schultz, a stylish German-born bounty hunter. Schultz dispatches the slave-traders in a superbly calm and comical style, and off he and Django, released from the chain-gang, go together. When Django explains he is looking for his German Speaking wife, Broomhilda, Schultz becomes entranced and agrees to help find and free Broomhilda, who happens to be under the ownership of plantation owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).

Christoph Waltz follows up his excellence in Inglourious Basterds by delivering another phenomenal supporting performance, and a deserving winner of the Golden Globe. However, the stand-out performance was that of veteran Tarantino favourite Samuel L. Jackson, as Stephen, the housekeeper of Calvin Candie, and the most evil Uncle Tom. "Who dis nigger up on dat nag," is the reaction of Stephen seeing a free black man, and also the audiences introduction to Samuel L. Jackson. From his introduction onwards, Samuel L. captures every scene with his quick-wit, contagious laugh, and dark betrayal of Broomhilda. The character of Stephen perfectly highlights Tarantino's ability as a screenwriter, as the large portions of dialogue, mixed with the outbursts of violence, manage to successfully captivate the viewer.

Tarantino's best film since Pulp Fiction, one that should definitely not be missed.

J.Henderson.

9/10.

Lincoln - 2013 - Daniel Day-Lewis

A highly polished, yet dull, picture.

The first thing that I can say about this movie is that it is not exciting. The acting, however, is terrific. Also, the filming is top draw (including a colour saturation pulled back to give it an old look without seeming affected). Technically the film is of expert quality, that which has come to be expected from a Spielberg picture.
Two areas define this film for what it is. Firstly, the acting. Daniel Day-Lewis' portrayal of Abraham Lincoln is overwhelming to say the least, leading an audience to forget that he is acting; adding verisimilitude to the role. Tommy Lee Jones also gives a solid performance as Thaddeus Stevens, playing the role with a slightly troubled demeanour.

The second area that defines this film is its content. The movie centres around Lincoln attempting to pass the 13th amendment, which would lead to the abolition of slavery. Although sounding like a good base to start from, the movie focuses solely on this matter which becomes extremely tedious to watch. The content in this film is highly conversational, and not in a way which has worked so well for the likes of Quentin Tarantino. Tarantino's films are based on their impressive dialogue, yet are sprinkled with outrageous action. Lincoln fails to deliver any action that would keep an audience interested for two and a half hours. The seemingly endless courtroom ramblings engulf the whole film, leaving no room for any action from the Civil War, or even the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. 

Technically, a solid film, yet its story leaves something to be desired. Watch it for an outstanding acting display, but have an energy drink beforehand.

J.Henderson

4/10.