Captain Phillips  (2013)    73/100

Rating :   73/100                                                                     134 Min        12A

Tom Hanks stars as the eponymous captain Richard Phillips in this based on real events thriller, set in the waters off the horn of Africa as his large cargo vessel is beset by Somali pirates. The events took place in 2009, and although the film is engrossing and recommendable with a good leading performance from Hanks, much controversy has been caused by the depiction of his heroic efforts in the movie. In real life the captain seems to have a lot of questions to answer – with various crew members, who are suing the company they worked for, claiming he had something of a death wish, didn’t try to hide the crew as shown in the film, and sailed the ship unnecessarily close, in the region of three hundred kilometers too close, to the Somali coastline despite knowledge of several attacks on cargo vessels in the three weeks prior to their voyage.

Notwithstanding this disappointing information the film is still definitely worth a look in with a realistic and sustained feeling of suspense throughout – and the brave efforts of chief engineer Mike Perry are related to us just as they occurred in real life. With Hanks’ domineering popularity with movie goers and industry insiders alike (he was recently voted America’s most trustworthy person) perhaps together with the misfortune of being recently diagnosed with diabetes, it is quite likely this will garner him another Academy Award nomination next year. One by no means undeserved. From director Paul Greengrass (‘The Bourne Supremacy’ 04, ‘The Bourne Ultimatum’ 07, ‘Green Zone’ 10).

The Fifth Estate  (2013)    70/100

Rating :   70/100                                                                     128 Min        15

Telling the story of Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange, with the title referring to the traditional four estates of the clergy, the commoners, the nobility and the press and the posited operation of individuals freely publishing online (riotous revolutionaries that they are …) as a fifth pillar of modern civilisation, this film attempts the impossible – to give us a historical account of the rise and machinations of both the online whistle blowing mouthpiece, and Assange himself.

Directed by Bill Condon (‘Gods and Monsters’ 98, the last two Twilight films) an attempt has been made to bring some of the technical side of things to life graphically, which doesn’t work as well as intended, but the essence of the story and its relevance for intelligence agencies, governments and the general public across the world, not to mention Assange himself who is still currently for all intents and purposes a political prisoner in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, couldn’t be more fascinating or relevant.

The screenplay is based on two different published books on the topic, but there is always going to be that irritation of not knowing just what to believe, especially since here we see a very traditional almost pantomime character portrayal of Assange, which may or may not be accurate, but is doubtless one of the reasons he has disowned the film (see the clip below). With Daniel Brühl, David Thewlis, Peter Capaldi, Laura Linney, Anthony Mackie, Stanley Tucci and Alicia Vikander in support, Benedict Cumberbatch gives one of the best performances of his already very impressive career as Assange, replete with a convincing accent and mannerisms, ones which those who worked with the Australian have described as impressively accurate.

Diana  (2013)    50/100

Rating :   50/100                                                                     113 Min        12A

An odd film that, despite being complete rubbish in pretty much every respect, still delivered a bit of an emotional punch by the end. Indeed, two of my initial criticisms may perhaps work in its favour. This is of course the story of Princess Diana, portrayed here by Naomi Watts, who was once a potential candidate for the British throne, but who met an untimely death on a Parisian road in 1997 after the Paparazzi (incidentally this word is generally accepted to have derived from Fellini’s ‘La Dolce Vita’ and the character name of the press photographer – Paparazzo) hounded her car and the inebriated driver panicked and lost control of the vehicle. Or it was a professional hit, if you prefer the conspiracy theory. To go back to the aforementioned criticisms, the film opens on that fateful night as we see Diana getting ready to head down to her waiting car, and she suddenly stops and looks back down the empty corridor behind her – and as she does so the camera zooms backward. I assume this is to give the impression of the photographers spying on her/we the current voyeurs looking back on a fairly tragic human life, but for the audience it just looks weird, and certainly does not herald well what follows. Bizarrely it’s now one of the images I remember most about the film, and I’m wondering if it ultimately didn’t help deliver a sort of haunting/haunted feeling. We never see the crash, and again initially I thought this was something of a cop out, as if they were too afraid of a possible backlash and yet shot in the right way it could have really hammered home the main point the film tries to make about the invasion of celebrity privacy by the press. Perhaps though, since most people are very aware of what happened, not filming the event has a greater impact, I’m still undecided on this point ….

In any case, the film focuses on the life of the Princess after she separated from Prince Charles but before they became officially divorced, and it primarily concerns itself with her sexual relationship with Hasnat Khan (Naveen Andrews), a heart surgeon working in London. The film is the first major casualty of what I term ‘The Argo Effect’, where, on the back of the success of that film, other filmmakers consider it perfectly acceptable to take enormous liberties with actual historical facts – here they have not gotten away with it because there is a very high profile individual involved and all of the events are much fresher in people’s minds than those taking place in Iran in 1979 (most of which was covert anyway). The most obvious thing that’s changed is that here Diana chases after Khan, whereas in real life it was the other way around. In fact, in the film Diana merely looks at him for a brief moment and then, for all intents and purposes, it looks very much like she goes home and sets herself up for a nice masturbatory session over the memory. Returning to the hospital she’s like a hopeless besotted teenager, and all of the dialogue contains sexual undertones. In fact, throughout the entire film she comes across as a wayward dizzy blonde – not that Khan comes off much better, as he is portrayed ultimately as a terrible coward, and when he first goes to see Diana in her stately residence he tells her the dish she’s cooked is dreadful, suggests they order hamburgers, lights up a fag inside, then puts on the tele to watch the football. As if anyone who wasn’t reared in barn would do any of those things in anybody’s home they were visiting, never mind a trip to Kensington palace!

Watts is Ok in the role, but it never feels like we’re seeing her really embody the character, and she has done herself no favours whatsoever by claiming Diana visited her in a dream – lending her permission and support to make the film. The film also shows everyone in Khan’s neighbourhood being woken up around 4am after the accident – as if everybody in Britain rang everyone else in a sort of state of national emergency that Diana had been killed. Ridiculous. All of this also detracts from the important message regarding press intrusion – very topical in the UK after the recent Leveson enquiry into press standards, one which showed without a shadow of a doubt (although it was pretty blooming obvious anyway and shouldn’t have required millions to prove it) the horrible corruption, and the effects of that corruption, throughout the British tabloids. Sadly for the public, the country currently has in place of a leader, a pathetic little arse gerbil climbing up the back passage of big business, and despite the findings sweet f.a. was done about it. People’s privacy being torn to shreds and being followed everywhere they go at all times – seriously, how difficult is it to make that illegal? There was an enormous public display of mourning after Diana passed away – if the same public stopped buying trashy crap like ‘Heat’ magazine, then they might actually prevent anything similar from happening again.

Rush  (2013)    80/100

Rating :   80/100                                                                     123 Min        15

Director Ron Howard kicks all memories of his lame duck ‘The Dilemma’ (11) into the dust with a fuel injected character study of the real life infamous formula one rivalry between straight laced and professional Austrian Nicki Lauder (Daniel Brühl) and playboy adrenaline junky Brit James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth). I have to admit I wasn’t looking forward to this, partly because I don’t watch the sport (the only race I did watch was in the late nineties when one of the cars was engulfed in flames whilst in the pits, which certainly adds weight to the statement Lauder makes in the film that each time he steps into the car he accepts a twenty percent chance he will die) and partly due to an overload of marketing and exposure to the trailer at least thirteen times – and multiple different versions at that, in fact not only does each contain major spoilers and play with the narrative in a false way, but they combine to give the feeling of having already seen the film before it’s even started. Crazy.

Nevertheless, it didn’t take long before I was drawn into the story and the excitement of being thrust into the driver’s seat through multiple close fought, and sometimes catastrophic, races. The film charts the long standing antagonism between the drivers, and successfully plays around with demonstrating the pluses and minuses to each of their individual characters, constantly challenging our sympathies for each and having us second guessing which one we’d actually like to see win. It’s a very good film – one reminiscent of ‘Senna’, a fantastic documentary set in the eighties and early nineties {here it’s the seventies} and focusing on another powerhouse of the sport, Ayrton Senna. In both films, if you are not in the know about the events and drivers concerned then you are at an advantage, as it is far better to go in with no idea what the outcome will be and the two compliment each other nicely. Here, Rush sees both leads giving great, believable, contrasting performances, with equally good support from the likes of Olivia Wilde and Alexandra Maria Lara.

Lovelace  (2013)    74/100

Rating :   74/100                                                                       93 Min        18

A well shot and acted film that is both interesting and at times disturbing. It follows the true story of Linda Boreman, aka Linda Lovelace, who starred in one of the highest grossing and famous porn films of all time, ‘Deep Throat’ (72), and then all but disappeared from the public eye, only to publish a book many years later detailing the abuse she suffered from her then husband Chuck Traynor, whom she alleges forced her into making the film. The movie plays with different viewpoints, and is brought to life by Amanda Seyfried in the title role, Sharon Stone and Robert Partrick as her devoutly Catholic parents, Peter Sarsgaard as Chuck, and with Hank Azaria, Juno Temple and Chris Noth in support (and James Franco briefly as Hugh Hefner). It’s an uncompromising role for chick flick stalwart Seyfried who does a fantastic job and, ironically, I’d probably rather watch a couple of the scenes from this again than any from the entirety of ‘Deep Throat’ …

Bigger Stronger Faster* : The Side Effects of Being American  (2008)    90/100

Rating :   90/100                       Treasure Chest                     105 Min        12A

When I first came across this film I thought to myself ‘What in the name of God is this?’, I almost turned it off, but it was amusing in an ironic sort of way so I hesitated awhile. Good job I did as, of course, it was meant to be ironic, and what unfolds quickly becomes a very, very well put together and fascinating documentary about the use of performance enhancing drugs in the world of sports in America, particularly in the field of weight lifting, but also athletics and baseball. The film is fast paced, fitting in a ton of information – every bit of which is relevant, advances our grasp of the subject, and also manages to deepen the interest level, as the interviews progress from members of the filmmaker’s family, to members of congress and top level athletes like Ben Johnson and Carl Lewis.

It is the fruit of many hours work, and the brainchild of Chris Bell – and for an inexperienced feature filmmaker it’s a sterling production. The footage and interviews with his family over a period of what seems to be a couple of years add a very human relevance and emotional connection to the film, as we see the wide reaching implications of the story unfold. The scope continues to widen as it fits in the big business world of sports supplements, the tales of poster boy stars like Stallone and Schwarzenegger, and it even manages to sneak in an interview with Stan Lee, of Marvel Comics fame, to talk about the popular appeal of the idea of superhuman strength. The asterisk in the title refers to the ones used to mar an athletes record if they are found to be using anything illegal. Sadly, one of the brothers in the film, Mike, died shortly after the film was completed (click here for the details).

A must see movie for anyone who likes well researched, balanced and eye opening documentaries.

Chasing Mavericks  (2012)    73/100

Rating : 73/100                                                                       116 Min        PG

Gerard Butler stars in this ‘Karate Kid’ esque (both also star Elisabeth Shue, coincidentally) true story about how one man’s lifelong love of surfing helps inspire a similar desire in his young neighbour, Jay Moriarity, whom he reluctantly takes on as his protege in order to train him to tackle the giant, dangerous waves at the North California location of Mavericks, waves that have claimed the lives of some of the biggest names in surfing and are formed by an unusual rock formation under the water (the name comes from that of the dog who accompanied the location’s founding surfers). The film does stray dangerously close to Nicholas Sparks level melodrama, with the small town, the small town bully, the small town cute girl the protagonist wants to get with, and the ever present danger of the waves, but it eventually sidesteps this dead end territory and fleshes out as a pretty decent drama.

Newcomer Jonny Weston does a good job as the wave hungry Jay, and the film’s visuals of the surfing, and the fact that it’s a true story, are its biggest strengths, with the waves at the end looking sufficiently catastrophic – projecting surfing as at once deadly (Butler himself almost drowned and was hospitalised whilst filming after a succession of waves pulled him under for forty seconds), and a lot of fun. Co-helmed by respected directors Michael Apted (‘Gorillas in the Mist’ 88) and Curtis Hanson (‘L.A. Confidential’ 97), the shoot was difficult and dangerous, going on for a lot longer than expected thanks to bad luck with the weather – all the surfers featured, bar the two leads, are professionals.

Have a peek at the interview below with Butler and Weston, with one of them constantly interrupting the other …

Behind the Candelabra  (2013)    80/100

Rating :   80/100                                                                     118 Min        15

Michael Douglas gives what may very well be the crowning performance of his illustrious career, as the secretly, but very obviously, homosexual pianist and entertainer Liberace. Matt Damon plays his young love toy, and he appears on the scene looking like a groomed and buff Prince Adam as both he and Douglas prove committed to the full, giving emotional and engaging performances replete with physical alterations to match their character’s changes over time (Rob Lowe is also good in support). The film focuses on the evolution of the relationship between the pair, with the emphasis naturally leaning toward Liberace, though the story is based on the memoir of Scott Thorsen, Damon’s character, and I think I’d put down Michael Douglas as the heaviest contender so far this year for Oscar nomination in the winter (he has one previous best actor win for portraying Gordon ‘greed is good’ Gekko in Oliver Stone’s 1987 ‘Wall Street’).

At time of writing this is set to be the last feature film from director Steven Soderbergh as he takes a break of undetermined length (not ‘Side Effects‘, as was originally reported, although they were likely filmed around the same time) and it would be a ‘fabulous’ way to bow out of cinema, featuring as it does many refinements to his craft, especially the use of music in the narrative, with here the sound never imposing a viewpoint and yet still driving the story forward – with that of the ensuing scene repeatedly preempting the transition by appearing in the current one, and also the subtle thread of devilish comedy (see his excellent ‘The Informant’ (09) for more along that vein, again with Matt Damon). Filmed not long after Michael Douglas’ was given the all clear regarding his throat cancer, you can be sure this will be work he will never forget, as you can tell by his heartfelt press release below. (Incidentally, his cancer was caused by the sexually transmitted HPV virus, of which there are many strains, so much so that many cannot currently be detected and those that can be are often not tested for at health clinics, in many senses it’s assumed that if you’re sexually active, you are probably carrying some version of it. Worth reading here for more, albeit succinct, info).

(As a further aside, in a fantastic strategic move, a couple of years ago researchers looking to solve a genetic problem in the search for an AIDS cure, sent the real life puzzle out to gamers on Second Life, and one of the many thousands of players actually did solve it. Creatively using the computer game trained minds of gamers to help solve humanity’s problems was a great idea, and indeed it remains so for the future)

The Iceman  (2012)    72/100

Rating :   72/100                                                                     105 Min        15

Michael Shannon stars as real life New Jersey hitman Richard Kuklinski, who reputedly snuffed out over one hundred people in his long running career, in this violent tale of one man’s rage fuelled impulses and his conjoined determination to protect his family, together with his need to keep his underworld business with the Mafia a secret from them as a necessary part of that protection. Shannon is fantastic in the role, and Ray Liotta is just as good as the gangster that ‘funds’ his murderous enterprise, although this is hardly surprising since Liotta is pretty much the professional gangster of the big screen, someone should really make ‘Shoot Them One More Time Just to Make Sure’, the Disney musical biography of Ray Liotta’s onscreen career.

Winona Ryder plays Kuklinski’s somewhat faithfully naïve wife, whilst Chris Evans, Captain America himself, turns up as a rival assassin, and David Schwimmer convinces us he’s not Ross from ‘Friends’ this time round. Bizarrely, there is a court room scene at one point that seems to have mostly CGI members of the public sitting in the gallery. It’s a little odd, but otherwise this is a noteworthy gangster film sold primarily on the back of Shannon’s ability to embody the relentless killer that Kuklinski is, whilst also gaining our sympathy for him and his family.

The age certificate screen that appears before the film proper describes it as rated 15 for strong violence, sex and bad language, but I fail to see how graphic images of people having their throats sliced open doesn’t qualify it to be an 18 – neither is the sex especially strong (which is a shame since Winona Ryder is in it). It reminds me of when the computer game ‘Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas’, which was rated 18, was pulled from shelves not because you could run around chainsawing old grannies in the street and then rob and kick their corpses, but because a mod version was found to exist whereby once you’d shacked up with whichever one of your lady friends you’d impressed by doing all manner of pointless things, and the screen switched to an outside view of the house whilst you went in for some ‘hot coffee’, you were now able to view the actual act of, ahem, procreation, and could perform different sexual manipulations with the control pad. The game was made in Edinburgh, by Rockstar North, I’m proud to say, but the absurdity of the ban highlighted a bigger problem with censorship in general. Likewise, this should have been an 18, but the lack of genital shots rather than brutal executions are what prevent it from being so. Naturally.

The Look of Love  (2013)    67/100

Rating :   67/100                                                                     101 Min        18

A biographical portrait of Paul Raymond, one time richest man in Britain and head of soft pornography giant ‘Men Only’ magazine, along with many infamous Soho establishments, convincingly played here by Steve Coogan. The film really focuses on his relationship with his daughter, played by Imogen Poots, but it tries to squeeze in all of the other women in his life as well; his wife, long term girlfriends, threesomes, and general one night stands. A lot of these elements take up the first half of the movie, and are given too brief a treatment to be effective, and indeed the cutting and editing is far too rapid here generally. This may be to do with the content, as we see an endless stream of bare breasted girls parade up and down the stages of his London attractions, at once containing enough nudity to offend and off-put some viewers, and yet cut far too sharply to be used for any effect other than to show Raymond was constantly around attractive young women.

It’s like the film is playing it safe, commenting on the infamously conservative British relationship with sex and pornography in general (see this article, for talk of the current government banning all porn in the UK) and talking of its evolution in history, and yet also suffering from that same slightly repressive culture – accentuated with sex scenes that are shot in a traditionally prudish way, especially with regards to male nudity onscreen. There’s really nothing here to offend or, ‘ahem’, titillate your average audience member. There is a lot of cocaine use throughout though, especially with Poots’ character, in fact we are to believe she essentially takes the stuff with her Cornflakes for several years, and yet she continues to still look pretty good, which is perhaps a bit of a visual oversight.

Despite its flaws and a dull first half, ultimately the slow burn effect begins to work, and together with the music and feel of the era it evokes, it does build to a reasonably memorable emotional end. Admittedly, having a slight crush on Imogen Poots probably helps (also, see her surprisingly accomplished Scottish accent in ‘Centurion’). It’s directed by the man who effectively brought Coogan to an international audience with ‘24 Hour Party People’, Michael Winterbottom, and marks the latest of a long running collaboration between the two, after further films like ‘The Trip’ and ‘A Cock and Bull Story’.  Also with good turns from Anna Friel, Chris Addison (‘The Thick of it’) and Tamsin Egerton (‘St. Trinians’, ‘4..3..2..1’) and features a brief but pretty good Marlon Brando impression from Coogan too (he began his career onscreen as an impressionist for ‘Spitting Image’ in the eighties).

Speaking of which, here are some equally good impersonations from another famously famous thesp.