Romeo and Juliet  (2013)    50/100

Rating :   50/100                                                                     118 Min        PG

A conceptually lacklustre effort that strips Shakespeare’s play down to its bare bones, and exposes just how dreadful the story actually is. Suffering the leads trying to enact star crossed love is like watching two bricks smash continually into one another, as Romeo comes across as a pathetic and vain dolt abusing the hopeless naivety of young Juliet. They first meet during a masquerade (was it as such in the play? I can’t remember) and given it’s supposed to be love at first sight, it seems somewhat odd when they can’t actually see at least half of the others face. What would have been more interesting is if Romeo had unmasked Juliet and said “Hmm, actually I think I made a mistake, sorry love, where did that other one go. Rosaline!”

The only saving graces for the film are the old acting hands who do a pretty convincing job, especially Paul Giamatti, playing friar Laurence, continuing his penchant for scene stealing (that’s not to say Douglas Booth as Romeo and Hailee Steinfeld as Juliet don’t convince, they do – just not really until their final scene together … ) and the costumes and set design, although it does very much look like the marriage scene was done with the aid of computers for some reason. Director Carlo Carlei must take a large share of the blame here, who seems to have taken a leaf from Tom Hooper’s book and decided that whenever one of his freshly faced nubile actors are onscreen he will zoom right in until their noggin fills the entire frame, not so great when you have one dramatic scene all but ruined by the large nose hair waggling away in time with The Bard’s lyrical lines. That is, of course, if you can actually make out what those lines are – much of the first third of the film is either badly recorded or mumbled and the experience quickly goes from ‘What? What was that?’ to ‘Actually, I don’t care any more’ as everything becomes a droning phrssssssssss sound.

Kodi Smit-McPhee as Benvolio is easily the best here out of the newcomers, and will be the phoenix rising from the ashes of this film.

Thanks for Sharing  (2012)    61/100

Rating :   61/100                                                                     112 Min        15

There are shades of meaning here, but overall this is another American template film – cheesy fluff disguised as comedy and accompanied with repetitive chirpy music, interspliced with moments of real drama. The trouble with this ‘playing it safe’ formula is that it rarely satisfies, either as simple entertainment or as serious thought provoking art. The subject of the day is sex addiction, and two of the main characters, played by Mark Ruffalo and Tim Robbins, are sober former addicts who have bonded through their therapy sessions, where they meet new addition to the group Neil, played by Josh Gad. Ruffalo’s self will is put to the test with succubus Gwyneth Paltrow, Robbins must confront the long lasting effects his addiction has had on his family, meanwhile Gad is the only one who really convinces as having real problems as we see him trying to resist rubbing up against women in the subway and give up junk food at the same time – then in steps pop artist Pink as the sex addicted woman simply in need of a male friend and a good hug.

Comparing this to Steve McQueen’s ‘Shame’ (11), which was a much more focused portrayal of the same subject, it’s impossible not to see this as almost laughably bad for the most part, and it is not really until the final quarter that it dares to show any real teeth at all. The inclusion of Pink doesn’t help – she is actually quite good in it, but there is a natural dismay at seeing someone who already has an established high profile career and image appear on film at the expense of another actress trying to get a foot in the door, especially when they appear onscreen out of the blue and look for all intents and purposes exactly as they do in their other career.

Paltrow’s character almost laughs off sex addiction as an excuse for men to play around – and it is fair criticism for something that isn’t really in the public domain, asides from Michael Douglas publicly claiming he was a victim of it, and the aforementioned ‘Shame’. Is it a real condition on a par with alcoholism? This film did not leave me especially convinced. Could it perhaps be that it is more the cocktail of chemicals that must be floating around the body of someone who is constantly chasing tail – a mixture they enjoy but also suffer from: the weight of society’s watchful gaze, the lies and deception that might come with that: the stress of worrying about infection constantly: the knowledge one day it would have to end in order to have a family: the boredom of mundane work compared to the adrenaline fix of trying it on with every hottie around (especially the ones at work). With a substance addiction even though the body can’t handle what’s being thrown at it, that same body can continue to physically administer it – but with sex the body will reach a point where it’s simply no longer possible to continue with it, and surely drive must fall when that happens?

Probably it is also a question of loneliness, or emptiness – and perhaps it is possible to become addicted to anything that can be used to fill that void, forcing any addict to stare into it whenever the fix has run out, spurring them to run back to their crux with ever increasing desperation. The film shows the support group giving up on masturbation for extended periods of time (possibly indefinitely) – I was always under the impression human males have to ejaculate a certain amount of times a week in order to keep various bits and bobs healthy. Naturally, I was never sufficiently interested to investigate this further – I can only advise that easily the most satisfying way to end a sexual encounter is to quickly EAT your partner. Interpret that how you will.

How I Live Now  (2013)    42/100

Rating :   42/100                                                                     101 Min        15

Total crap. Yet another film (on the back of ‘Byzantium’ and ‘The Host’) that sees Saoirse Ronan playing an angsty teenager in love, who must deal with some enormous problem that is preventing her from having ecstatic fairytale love with her perfect man, as she stares angrily/stoically into space. The dramatic event is in this case a nuclear attack on London, and the subsequent invasion of the mainland that plunges Britain into darkness and separates her from the local churl that she is having desperate fantasies about (played by George MacKay) – often shown to us in lurid, jarring and bizarre dream vignettes. The trouble is that their cardboard romance doesn’t look like it would survive a trip to Blackpool never mind the end of the world, as the film, despite good cinematography and deserved kudos for the wardrobe department (anyone who dresses their heroine in a T-Shirt that reads ‘My laser Kittens destroy you’ is most definitely onto a good thing), tries to achieve something akin to crossing ‘The Last of the Mohicans’ (92) with ’28 Days Later’ (02), and completely fails. Teenage girls might enjoy this, but very doubtful anyone else will – disappointing effort from ‘The Last King of Scotland’ (06) and ‘Touching the Void’ (03) director Kevin Macdonald.

Blue Jasmine  (2013)    69/100

Rating :   69/100                                                                       98 Min        12A

As a comedy, this is for the most part dead in the water. As a dramatic character portrayal, is it a sad but very effective exposé – largely thanks to another tremendous central performance from Cate Blanchett as the beleaguered Jasmine, formerly named Jeanette, who was once hostess to the cream of New York society, but is now forced to live with her sister in San Francisco (where most of the film is set) after her rich husband was exposed for fraud, jailed, and all of their assets were seized by the state.

It is Woody Allen’s latest film after last year’s ‘To Rome with Love’, and here we see the return of Alec Baldwin in support, along with Peter Sarsgaard, Sally Hawkins and Bobby Cannavale, the latter two of which are particularly good in their roles, but at its heart Blanchett is the driving force – managing to make a troubled, neurotic character who is essentially unlikeable in the beginning, into a nuanced individual engaging the audience’s empathy, whilst still expanding on her central negative traits, something Woody Allen excels at. Quite possibly another deserved Oscar nomination coming her way … (she has one win so far for best supporting actress as Katharine Hepburn in Scorsese’s ‘The Aviator’ 04, and four nominations; best actress for ‘Elizabeth’ 98 and ‘Elizabeth: The Golden Age’ 07, best supporting actress for ‘Notes on a Scandal’ 06 and ‘I’m Not There’ 07)

Cate Blanchett talks about her experience of making the film

Runner Runner  (2013)    51/100

Rating :   51/100                                                                       91 Min        15

If you’re just in the mood to sit and watch a meaningless film, then this might be just the ticket, but if you’re looking for intrigue, originality or good acting then it is a ‘safe bet’ this will only disappoint. Justin Timberlake, who is once again entirely unconvincing as anything other than an irritating childlike upstart, plays Richie Furst, who finds himself in the unlikely employ of Ivan Block (played by Ben Affleck, who’s actually not too bad here – he is always much better when he is playing the bad guy), the mysterious head of an online gambling outfit being run from Costa Rica. It is painfully obvious where things are headed and how they will ultimately turn out, although credit should be given to the director Brad Furman (‘The Lincoln Lawyer’ 11) for managing to maintain at least minimal interest in seeing it through to the end despite it’s inevitability. Gemma Arterton turns up to pay the bills (and, presumably, to have a nice trip to Puerto Rico where it was mostly filmed) along with Anthony Mackie (who has more onscreen charisma than Timberlake and Affleck combined, and has also appeared in two films that won best picture at the Oscars incidentally – ‘Million Dollar Baby’ 04 and ‘The Hurt Locker’ 08 {although to be fair so has Affleck with his ‘Argo‘ 12 and ‘Shakespeare in Love’ 98}) as an FBI agent with an interest in Block’s activities. With both ‘Filth’ and ‘Prisoners’ on at the big-screen right now, one would be well advised not to waste their time on this.

Prisoners  (2013)    75/100

Rating :   75/100                                                                     153 Min        15

Brutal, but brilliant. Without doubt a genuinely disturbing film, centred around the disappearance of two small children and the ensuing police investigation, but with great performances all round it proves enthralling from start to finish. In particular, Hugh Jackman as the father of one of the missing girls and Jake Gyllenhaal as the police detective assigned the case are darkly compelling in their roles. They’re joined by Maria Bello, Terrence Howard and Viola Davis as the other parents involved, and Paul Dano as suspect numero uno. It has a similar feel to David Fincher’s ‘Zodiac’ (07), also with Gyllenhaal, and although it’s certainly not light entertainment, it is a very good, gripping film. From Canadian director Denis Villeneuve, three time winner of the best director Genie award (Canada’s highest filmmaking honour) for ‘Maelstrom’ (2000), ‘Polytechnique’ (09) and ‘Incendies’ (10).

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.

Filth  (2013)    73/100

Rating :   73/100                                                                       97 Min        18

Great film. James McAvoy gives a commanding turn, arguably his finest performance to date, as Bruce Robertson the Edinburgh copper with ‘issues’ in Jon S. Baird’s interpretation of Irvine Welsh’s novel. Filmed in Scotland’s capital this is replete with all the drugs, violence, corruption and black humour/foul language one expects from Welsh’s writing, as we become engaged in Bruce’s struggle to obtain, by any means possible, the promotion at work against his rival colleagues, amongst them Jamie Bell and Imogen Poots, whilst also wondering exactly what is going on regarding his relationship with his wife (Shauna Macdonald). Eddie Marsan, Jim Broadbent, Kate Dickie and Martin Compston round out the more familiar faces in the cast, and everyone is good in this throughout as the story keeps us guessing, and often laughing, from start to finish. Oscar nod for McAvoy? For The Red Dragon, he and Michael Douglas, in ‘Behind the Candelabra‘, have given the two most memorable male performances of the year so far …

The Great Beauty / La Grande Bellezza  (2013)    65/100

Rating :   65/100                                                                     142 Min        15

From writer/director Paolo Sorrentino (‘The Consequences of Love’ 04, ‘This Must be the Place’ 11) and seemingly owing a lot to Fellini’s seminal ‘La Dolce Vita’ (60), with a similar raft of the well to do social intelligentsia going through existential crises, this Italian film follows main character Jep Gambardella (Toni Servillo), a writer and one time novelist living in Rome (with a flat overlooking the Colosseum, incidentally) whom we learn never penned a second book as he was searching for ‘The Great Beauty’ of existence. A strong vein of comedy permeates this semi-surrealist consideration of the human experience, but it’s never really, to use a bit of a juxtaposition, LOL worthy despite the good intent. The undeniable sophistication of the conceptual artwork of the film is grand, but I can’t help but feel there exists a depressing smugness to not just the movie, but also many of the characters – garish in their almost nihilistic narcissism.

The avant-garde direction is at its most successful when capturing the frenetic and hedonistic atmosphere of the several florid and somewhat debauched parties that the main characters like to throw for one another, like a sort of extended cerebral series of art house Carlsberg ads (although here the product placement is very obviously for Peroni, whose ads have of course also alluded to ‘La Dolce Vita’ and Anita Ekberg’s classic scene in the Trevi Fountain). Someone I spoke to after the screening concluded that they had no idea what this film was about, but they were certain they liked it, and would probably go and see it again. I’m not sure it merits a second viewing (says I, going to see the not quite so high brow R.I.P.D again), but giving it the once over is certainly justified, and there are some nice touches – like the end credits playing over the top of footage of the Tiber in Rome, for example.

‘Baby, it’s You’ by The Shirelles, a version of which featured in the Peroni ad, followed by the original fountain scene from ‘La Dolce Vita’

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.