50/50

50/50 is a very real film about very real people; somewhat of an aberration from Seth Rogen's usual collection. The key ingredient in unlocking success is to finely sift the humour (generated primarily by Rogen) into the tragic story of Adam Lerner (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a 27yr old radio writer discovering that those niggling back pains he's been experiencing for the past couple of weeks are actually the work of a malignant tumour, the name of which he initially has trouble in pronouncing (the more syllables, the worse it is). For the most part, I proclaim it a success -- it never strays too far into either territory and plays efficiently on the audience's emotions. You'll laugh, you'll cry, and you probably won't realise this is based on the true story of Will Reiser (the film's writer and friend of Rogen).

Rogen occupies the role of Adam's best friend, Kyle. This is the role he played in Reiser's real ordeal and here we see something genuine from Rogen, in contrast to his high-profile turns in 'The Pineapple Express', 'Superbad', 'Knocked Up' and to some degree, his highly underrated performance in 'Observe and Report'. Here, he is genuine -- a person we could come across in our everyday lives, and probably an accurate representation of what Rogen may be like off camera (but a tad Hollywood-ised).

The script takes a few liberties (I'd imagine) in order to make good on the 'never stray too far' deal; the story doesn't represent the repercussions and frailties that such a crippling ailment can generate, but it's not about that anyway. In essence, it's a feel-good movie about a man who did survive, and his tale isn't told to turn cancer into something to be laughed at, but to depict the experience that he and, unfortunately, many others are forced to live through, and to show how it can be dealt with through the support and love of family and friends. Some are able to cope, highlighted by Adam's mother (a smothering, yet sweet performance by Anjelica Huston), whilst others, like his girlfriend, Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard) find themselves breathless, strapped into a corner, unable to break free.

Distilled as it may be, it's engrossing to watch how each character reacts to the news. The director, Jonathan Levine, has an easy job, allowing his adept cast to lead the way. Gordon-Levitt emobodies all the aspects of lost childhood; baby-faced, innocent and sullen, he's in fine form (as always) here. The support, Huston, Rogen, Dallas Howard and Anna Kendrick (playing Katie, Adam's young, inexperienced therapist) all play their parts, dot their i's and cross their t's. Yet, two performances stand out above all (bar Rogen perhaps), those of experienced actors Matt Frewer and Phillip Baker Hall playing Mitch and Alan respectively, two elderly patients suffering chemo alongside Adam. Both are small parts, but hold a lot of meaning. 80 years young, both convey the most positive aspects of Adam's journey. Getting high on weed-stuffed macaroons, tossing their ailments about as mere jokes, it was an oddly light part of the movie, when in contrast, the tone would darken when the jovial conversation landed on the whereabouts and support of Rachel (y'know, his girlfriend...)

It's a film that is worth watching because it evokes a strong sense of faith, survival and support in times of crisis. It is kept commercially viable but this doesn't hinder its powerful final act. It won't make many ripples in the Hollywood pond, but it'll be a film that you'll be glad you saw, whether it be for the talented cast, the subtle humour, the heart-wrenching story, or for Joseph Gordon Levitt's Voldermort hair-do (or lack of...).

10 Guilty Pleasures of 2011

There is a certain breed of movie that pops onto our screens every once in a while, usually (I say USUALLY) lambasted by critics and glossed over with indifference by the paying audience. These are movies that perhaps you would have seen, but won't recollect --

-- at least that's what you'll say when asked about said movie.

One of the many great things about films is that they can truly divide an audience. Obviously there's a difference between saying something like 'I didn't like Schindler's List' and 'Schindler's List is a bad movie' -- one is an opinion, and the other is an incorrect statement. Yet what if the movie is considered to be a bad movie, yet you find yourself oddly drawn to it? A foul-mouthed tirade of insults, accompanied by bumbling jokes living up to the age-old cliche of being 'so bad, it's good'.

So 'ave a look:


1. Drive Angry 3D
Current Metacritic Rating: 44

What They Say: Over-the-top grindhouse formula.

What I Say: It's a movie called 'Drive Angry' and features the versatile genius that is Nic Cage as an undead vigilante who recklessly 'drives' across the country in a flurry of explosions, booze and boobs (sometimes all at the same time) hunting down a satanic cult and co-starring Bill Fichtner and Amber Heard, with a script crammed full of rampant one-liners, perilous threats, and vehement put-downs (*puts away thesaurus*) -- in a nutshell, it cannot fail.



2. Gnomeo And Juliet
Current Metacritic Rating: 53

What They Say: Weird, silly, too self-referential. Pixar-wannabe.

What I Say: I like Pixar as much as the next over-grown kid, but to expect every animation to live up to the standards set by Woody and Buzz is ridiculous. Though the film never hits the heights of a Pixar movie (Cars being the only exception) it is a creative and spirited take on a tale which had all but worn out its welcome. There are plenty of laughs to be had, and features a well rounded cast with the talents of Matt Lucas, James McAvoy, Michael Caine, Emily Blunt and Jason Statham. Kids will love it, their parents will love it, their slightly older kids will love it, and those that don't fall into any of those brackets will also love it.




3. Your Highness
Current Metacritic Rating: 31

What They Say: Scattered laughs at the usual phallus/sex/fart/old person falling over humour.

What I Say: Yeah, I can't really defend this movie -- it's a terrible, terrible film and deserves all the criticism it gets. Yet, there's no denying the well placed moments of genuine humour it does have, and the cast who, no matter how uninspiring the movie was at the box office, appear to be having the time of their lives. And fair play to Natalie Portman for following up the performance of her career in Black Swan with a role which I imagine will be a top answer in years to come on BBC's gameshow 'Pointless'. Danny McBride is a funny guy, and his brand of improv, in-your-face comedy is usually very entertaining and he has the impression of a guy who doesn't care immensely how his movie performs. He'll just stroll through the set, saying what comes naturally and putting on a good show for the audience.



4. Paul
Current Metacritic Rating: 57

What They Say: Fun, but never hilarious, nor successful.

What I Say: Whilst Paul doesn't fit into the category of being a 'bad movie' in any way in particular. It does feature the most generic looking alien you're likely to see in any contemporary movie for a while, smoking spliffs, coming onto women, and uttering about every swear word the script can come up with (and more, knowing Seth Rogen's knack for improvisation). It's not a believable movie in any shape or form, and will not change the way you consider the world, or anything Kubrickian like that, but it will provide good family fun for everyone, from fan-boys to the stuffy, impassive uncle that no one really likes. The mix of charm, good-nature and outrageous (Yo, fucknuts! It's probing time) outbursts will be enough to keep everyone entertained. OK, so maybe it's not 'family' fun.



5. Super
Current Metacritic Rating: 50

What They Say: No life and no idea of what it actually is.

What I Say: Ellen Page. She hoists this movie up onto her shoulders, and runs as far as she can with it (before having her head blown off). For a movie marketed as a dark comedy, there's actually very little comedy from its lead, Rainn Wilson, who has made his name in one of the funniest US sitcoms on TV. He mopes and stumbles through this film in a state of child-like depression leaving it to the youthful exuberance of Page to salvage any hope of praise from the critics and audience, and thankfully for him, she proves herself worthy. She makes the film what it strives to be so much so, that when she's not on screen, the movie is soulless, dull and in desperate need of the defibrillators to give it some life.



6. Scream 4
Current Metacritic Rating: 52

What They Say: Wearing out its welcome quickly. Can't get away with its 1996 hi-jinks.

What I Say: There is little doubt in my mind that Scream is one of the greatest and most influential slashers of all time. It took the archaic, dusty rulebook of Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday The 13th, gave it a good scrub, ripped it to shreds and then plastered bit and pieces of it into its own, modern rulebook. In Scre4m, and its new techno-enabled world, it's less of a rulebook and more of a memo, created on an iPad. It may explain the difficulties the film had in being able to achieve what it did in the original but nevertheless, it brings the franchise a much needed refresh, along with the giggles and the gore and its 'meta' story is enough to make us forget about the decaying corpse complete with bloodied-knife-in-back that was Scream 3. **shudders** (quick note, the writer of Scream 3 also penned Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen....)


7. Pirates Of The Carribean: On Stranger Tides

Current Metacritic Rating: 45

What They Say: Disjointed, noisy, irrelevant action scenes.

What I Say: Yes, they've milked this rum-stained franchise bone dry and I hear they plan to release yet another vehicle to propel Capn' Jack into the limelight, but c'mon, this flick was a far superior effort than the jumble-sale of convoluted plot lines that characterized 2 and 3. Gone was the sentimental soaked 13yr old love letter that was Elizabeth and Will (has anyone else tired of Keira Knightley and her bloody corsets real quick?) and in comes the slightly less muddled goal of living forever. Simple. Let's keep it at that. Depp is his usual, Penelope Cruz radiates charm, zest and many other positive attributes and McShane is callous as ever as Blackbeard. Action sequences are consistent, fun and original (sorta') and the refreshed score epitomised a return to form for a franchise which finally began to resemble the Disney ride it was based on.


8. Horrible Bosses
Current Metacritic Rating: 57

What They Say: Premise is promising but loses its way quickly.

What I Say: Who knew that 'Guilty Pleasure' was just a phrase used to veil the utterly ridiculous. Horrible Bosses is a concept based on a general idea, magnified into an extreme hyperbole and then tied up neatly with a well-rounded cast. It's one of the year's best comedy movies and brings more laughs than both 'Hangover' films combined (for me, anyway -- don't bitch and moan). The strength of 'The Hangover' was that it was based on a situation that can and probably frequently does happen. Horrible Bosses chooses to base itself on the impossible, but deals with it in a mature and almost believable manner -- with the exception of Aniston and Farrell's cartoon villain bosses -- moving itself from a wacky/absurd tale to the blackest of black comedies, sure to bring the laughs (Jamie Foxx's Motherfucka Jones is a particular highlight) and even though by the end of it, you're fairly certain that it took some rather large liberties with the narrative, you're satisfied that you've just watched a movie full to the brim of comedic talents and some real gems packed within.



9. 30 Minutes Or Less
Current Metacritic Rating: 49

What They Say: Disjointed narrative with laughs too sporadic.

What I Say: Similar to Natalie Portman, Jesse Eisenberg follows up his career-defining role with a rather more liberating movie which sees him play a pizza-delivery guy, caught in the middle of a bank-heist plot, conducted by, hey, Danny McBride again. Eisenberg teams up with Ruben Fleischer once more (Zombieland) in this black comedy, and though the script doesn't live up to its undead counterpart, the cast featuring Eisenberg, McBride and Aziz Ansari, are likable and breeze through their dialogue with relish and contribute to an entertaining, if not slightly too short, ride.


10. Tower Heist
Current Metacritic Rating: 59

What They Say: Usual Ratner offering of no-brains, but amusing sequences.

What I Say: Again, not a badly received movie by any means, but when it comes to Ratner, there is a certain acceptance that all disbelief must be locked away in an air-tight container. You've come to watch the ridiculous and to laugh at the interactions and sequences that would never happen in a Mike Leigh movie. From beginning to end, you will endure high-end stupidity from its talented cast, and you will not care, because that is the only way you will be rewarded. Eddie Murphy is the star of the show and brings the laughs in bucketfuls; he says 'bitch' and we laugh, that's how ensnared we are as an audience. Character is kept to a minimum and the movie never reaches the levels of previous efforts such as Rush Hour, but Tower Heist is amusing in its own sought out way, and deserves a place on the list.

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 -- Reviewed.

And so, the Harry Potter franchise comes to a rather majestic ending with Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 and I for one, found it a very satisfying end, yet I usually find some form of beauty in the way things end, whilst others tend not to share my views (I’m looking at you LOST).

The journey was always about Harry, Ron and Hermione and even though many of the more established cast members, such as Alan Rickman, were given juicier roles in this segment of J.K. Rowling’s saga, their screen-time was kept to a minimum, allowing us to follow the three heroes as they do battle with the forces of darkness. I don’t think anyone can have any complaints here, as the other cast members did what was required of them, and did it well. It was good to see Maggie Smith again as Minerva McGonagall take a more action-themed role, and I’m glad they were able to convince some of the older faces to return for the smallest of cameos, such as Gary Oldman as Harry’s godfather, Sirius Black.

Daniel Radcliffe has come a long way since ‘Harry Potter & the Philosopher’s Stone’ in terms of acting. I have usually been very vocal with my criticism of his performances, but I throw my hands in the air this time around, ‘coz the boy nailed it. Resilient, is how I’d label his performance; after 10 years, he knows his character inside out, and though he’s suffered more than most, Harry’s ability to stand up to these seemingly undefeatable foes and hit back has never been depicted so brutally, so vividly, by Radcliffe, than in his final appearance, just when he needed it the most. Backed up by the ever-reliable figures of Ron and Hermione, this movie never drags, it never bores, it never hesitates, not for one second and it is high-octane action from start to finish.

The decision to split the film into two parts was masterful; though I enjoyed Part 1, it ran a little too long and focused on sentimentality for too much of the film when we all wanted to see wizards attacking each other with colourful spells. This brings the special effects into the equation; they were very good. Very, very good. My advice is to watch the film in 2D though, as there is always going to be that slight discrepancy with 3D films and in particular, the awful art of post-conversion **shudders** -- my viewing wasn’t exactly ruined as one can appreciate the dazzling effects in either format, but it’ll save you a couple of quid and in my opinion, makes the film much more fluid.

In terms of relation to the book, I honestly haven’t read The Deathly Hallows for a long while, so it wouldn’t exactly be prudent to start comparing. You’re always going to have the people who claim ‘the book is always better than the movie’ and in a way, they are right, because books have so much more room for meaningless exposition. The film adaptation is a challenge because the film-makers need to choose carefully what is depicted and whether or not it’ll make sense to those who have only viewed the films. At the end of the day, I was taken in by the pretty shiny lights, and didn’t really care, but it was a satisfying movie and that’s why you’ll get value for money.

It’s not a perfect movie, and there are segments which made little sense to me, in particular, Voldemort’s (SPOILER) death (too late...). I don’t remember how he was killed in the book, but I do know that it wasn’t conveyed clearly in the movie. If I had to describe it, I would say his wand flew away from him mid-duel and he disintegrated for no discernable reason. I probably missed something (darn 3D...) but for a movie franchise which has been full to the rim of dramatic exaggeration (do you remember the end of the first film?!), I was very surprised how low-key the end was. Voldemort dies and Harry strolls back through Hogwarts – do people know what has just happened? Wouldn’t they ask Harry where exactly Voldemort is? As always, there are parts I would do differently and as a (ex) film student, perhaps I’m just being too critical. I did love the movie and don’t want to take anything away from it.

Overall, the franchise has been a successful imagining of J.K. Rowling’s world for me. The characters, the set pieces, the locations, were all captured perfectly and each director has brought something differently magical to their films. My personal favourite is still The Chamber of Secrets, but the way the films have got darker with each addition is something to really be admired and Deathly Hallows Part 2 is naturally the most grown-up film of the lot. No longer is it a coming-of-age story; Harry is in the real world, facing real grown-up threats. Danger, destruction and death face him from every direction in this film and it’s really quite amazing when you look back at the little boy who lived under the stairs all those years ago

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Featuring the creamiest of the English crop, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is sure to generate a plethora of expectations, on account of its impressive cast, and also due to its background in literature. The film is based on a 1974 British spy novel (of the same name) from acclaimed author John Le Carré and is set around retired British intelligence officer, George Smiley (Gary Oldman, The Dark Knight, Leon, and so many more...) as he begins to discover the most shocking of skeletons in the most scandalous of closets.

I would compare the film, rather obscenely, with any of the three monstrosities that make up the Transformers film franchise, in that like any one of those films, I’d unequivocally place Tinker, Tailor... at the very tip of the filmmaking spectrum. The glaring difference, of course, being that the films occupy separate sides; the best and the worst of contemporary filmmaking, if you will.

The film scrupulously succeeds in painting the right picture and displaying it for the audience to see – a grim world, positively dripping with the smoky stench of paranoia, deceit, murder, and creating an image of the Cold War which can be felt from beginning to end, highlighted flawlessly in the opening scene, depicting a British agent, Prideaux (Mark Strong, Kick-Ass, Sherlock Holmes), meeting with a Hungarian contact in order to root out the identity of a mole, who has burrowed himself into the very heart of British intelligence. That’s where the magic lies, in the orchestration of events, the flow of exposition, the tone – imagine Tim Burton without the whimsical side – the well-dressed Secret Service men who stumble around each other, cigarettes hanging consistently in between their lips, stony expressions not giving anything away, heavy faces hiding heavy secrets.

Of course, the aesthetic brilliance of the film is merely part one of this heavily-layered labyrinth. There’s a story within these walls wrapped tightly and woven intricately in with Thomas Alfredson’s (Let The Right One In) astute direction and it’s a ‘blink-and-you’ll-miss-it’ type deal. There will be no big finale, no loud explosion, no chiming Hans Zimmer score to accompany a majestic final revelation. What you will be left with is a tale that twists delicately between past and present, heedfully dropping hints at the right moments, taking George Smiley, and his Watson-esque assistant, Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock), and indeed its audience, to all the appropriate locations and informants as the truth unravels in some rather startling scenes.

Again, I sing the cast’s praises – actors such as John Hurt (Alien, The Elephant Man), Oldman, Colin Firth (The King's Speech, A Single Man) need very little introduction, and all play important roles here, which they devour with a melancholy ambivalence. No one is there to bowl you over – the film’s protagonist is Oldman, and reliable as ever, his performance is as assured as Alfredson’s direction. Grey-haired, grey-faced, his somnambulist attitude to his duty as well as his personal life is always seemingly at ease. The supporting cast is magnificent, featuring the previously mentioned Mark Strong, the recently established Tom Hardy (Bronson, Inception) and the BBC’s new boy Cumberbatch. All fit into this tale in an instant, understanding their place in the affair, and contributing wholesomely.

James Bond, it ain’t. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is slow, deliberate, thoughtful, thrilling and as uneasy as any film relating to the Cold War should be. It’s a world shadowed not in black, but grey, and we are guided through the corruptness of higher powers by Smiley’s moral principles, Oldman’s performance, Alfredson’s certified talent, and a laid-back yet daring script, each doing their part to create perhaps a masterpiece, and one of the best films of the year.

Retrospective Review: Children Of Men

I hold my hands up and admit that as good a film student as I was (my words), I had never seen Alfonso Cuaron's Children Of Men until last Monday night. I'd like to claim that my film workload was too much of a burden, and prevented me from watching...y'know, films...but truth is, there's probably quite a few modern classics out there which haven't gotten the time from me they whole-heartedly deserve.

So, banging through them one at a time; Children Of Men.

One thing I must immediately brag about, not for myself but for the film, is how it is able to look past its 'Sci-Fi' tag and dig a little deeper. This doesn't just include its lack of special effects, but its very vision of a dystopian society set in Britain which holds numerous political and social overtones. As the last standing government worldwide, the UK intends to be, in a way, a Utopian state, but the influx of asylum seekers from, what I imagine is a global scale, has dissolved into into a police state, where foreigners are locked up in cages, segregated from the last traces of humanity, viciously beaten, and slaughtered.

The concept drives this notion -- there are no children. Two decades of infertility have wreaked havok on Earth and two significant scenes characterized this perfectly for me:

1. The film's opener. The youngest man on Earth was 18 year old -- heralded as a celebrity for this status, the movie begins with a news report on his death (anger after he refused to sign an autograph). The pictures that follow, the grieving public, the riots in the street, it draws comparisons to images post-9/11. The loss representing the pain and suffering of a childhood all but abolished.
2. Our protagonist, Theo (Clive Owen), visits his cousin, a government official, in order to secure transit papers for a young girl. In the corridor of his home, Theo comes across Michaelangelo's David. Stood resolute, for all to see, like a pot-plant, or family portrait. In 100 years, there will be no one left to remember any of this. "I just don't think about it" is the solemn reply.

Clive Owen is very good here, and due to the wicked nature of his surroundings, his character's development happens almost instantaneously. He's very much given up on trying -- he's a former activist, turned civil servant, and he's accepted the world he occupies a place in. Nothing can save them now -- until one poignant scene, where the young girl he's agreed to travel with, removes her top, revealing a 'miracle' -- after 18 years, he's just come across the very first pregnancy. From then on, it's not a tale about motherhood, about caring for the youngster -- it's not about saving a world which is destroying itself, one street bomb at a time. It's very much about hope, resolution and faith -- the pregnant girl, with so many religious connotations, holds the key to everything and the film has a unique way of getting that message across.

Generally, when a movie contains as many action sequences as Children Of Men, the director will spend hours in the post-production room with the Editor, cutting it here, inserting shots there, rapidly criss-crossing through the scene, across different perspectives, to give a sign of the kinetic and frenzied attitude of the action. Yet here, Cuaron stretches his single-shots for as long as 10/15 minutes, tracking his characters, following them through the decaying rubble and muffled background explosions, never leaving them in their actions. It's innovative, choreographed with immense skill and meticulousity, and adds a touch of grace to the grey, mundane setting.

An example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en16i8BY4hI

I admire the film for never losing focus of what is important, and neither do its characters. They are just like me and you -- there's nothing special about them whatsoever, they just want to survive. How would we feel if Theo came across a massive revelation at the end, including government conspiracy, the answer to 'everything' etc? It doesn't matter, because there is no reason, and there never has to be one. Cuaron presents us with the action as it unfolds, with very little use of exposition and as a result, we are right there in the film, a visceral experience like no other.

A must-see.

Tower Heist

Brett Ratner is a predictable, predictable man. That's what I told myself last Wednesday morning before heading up into town to my local cinema to catch his latest offering of brainless Hollywood hi-jinks. Gay slurs aside, Ratner's films usually come with a set of expectations for most --

Fast-paced? I suppose so.
Incoherent plot? You betcha'
One or two fleshed out characters, anyone else is a glorified prop? You said it.
Mind-numbing stupidity? What did you expect? Chinatown?

And I'm pleased to report my expectations were met, with interest!

Now let me tell you all about how that isn't a bad thing, without ever resorting to classic 'it's only a bit of fun' judgement. It don't work for Michael Bay, it won't work for Ratner. A budget of $80million for a 'bit of fun'? Dream on, sunshine.

The movie begins with some really quite fabulous shots of the Manhattan skyline, and as we jump down on to a private and luxurious swimming pool situated at the very top of The Tower, a cute dollar bill (don't quote me on that, I'm British and don't know American dosh -- the difference between a nickel and dime baffles me) imprinted on the stagnated pool floor, we should realise then how very one-dimensional this affair will be.

Characters are required to be motivated -- they need to want something, and in order to get this 'something', they need to be pushed. The film makes use of its early rounds by introducing us to the odd assortment of goofballs we will be lending our hopes and sympathies to throughout the movie. Most of them work at The Tower, and find themselves fired early on for aggravating the owner, Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda) (who has just been arrested for fraud) -- now Josh (Ben Stiller), Charlie (Casey Affleck) and Devreaux (Michael Pena) find themselves sitting at home, nursing a grudge against the man who apparently lost them their jobs. But wait? Josh THINKS there might be a safe in Shaw's penthouse suite. They can steal it all back, true Robin Hood style -- all they need now is the black criminal (Eddie Murphy) and....Matthew Broderick.

So back to motivation. Paper thin depictions of 5 men desperate for a bit of cash, for themselves, for their co-workers, I don't know -- we don't need to know, it's not required that every single character is plucked apart for their entire life, interior and exterior, to be explored to a tee. I think it's safe to say that the movie generalizes the capital factor -- if there's enough dosh to be gained, that's enough for me, you and Ratner.

Hollywood at its finest.

The heist itself is Ocean's 11 for the Twilight generation (no offence intended....sort of) -- we're going to walk in, block out the security cameras, pray to God for an insane amount of luck and cut away at the seemingly impossible bits to divert the audience's attention to another character who contributes very little, but gets in there with a few snappy one-liners for giggles.

The positives are all in the performance. Eddie Murphy is a likable, talented actor, as is his opposite number, Stiller. Two unique brands of comedy working head-to-head and it comes out, guns blazing, to great effect. You will laugh, sporadically maybe, but there are genuine laugh out loud moments. You probably won't understand why 20,000 thousand New York(ians/ers?) can't seem to spot a Ferrari 250 paved with gold hanging out of the top floor window with 3 figures defying gravity swinging about left, right and centre, but it worked for Rush Hour, didn't it?

Ratner is a good director, and he knows how to make shots work. You'll like the film, I have no doubt, and I don't think anyone associated with the film expects it to break any boundaries nor do they wish it to, and I say kudos -- nothing wrong with that. It's just a bit of f...

Bazinga.

2011, so far...

I haven't seen a lot of new films this year, and the films that I have seen are massively mainstream and hardly stand out from the crowd.

It's very difficult being a University graduate, what with the empty pockets, the moths fluttering out my wallet every time I open it -- when you've recently completed a film degree, it's even bloody harder. Hence, getting anywhere is usually quite a mission, and my options are limited, so I make do with the Odeon and their crowd-pleasing blockbusters which rake in an obscene amount of cash week after week, including my own hard-earned (cough cough) money.

But, I digress.

Last year was a wonderful year for film. All 10 nominations for the biggest of big prizes (the Oscars) were fully-deserving of the honour and in my opinion, any one of them could have taken home the gold.

This year, not so much. Perhaps the hidden gems are cautiously peeking out from the respective hiding places, ready to launch themselves out during December, stunning us all into submissive praise and appreciation. Let's hope so --

What have we had this year? We've had the Superhero epics -- Captain America, Thor, X-Men: First Class, Green Lantern. The first 3 all had their moments and whilst they offered little but cheap popcorn thrills, they did it with the budget on their side, and with visual flare and the occasionally decent performances. Green Lantern was the chewing gum on the bottom of your shoe. Only less entertaining.

The Harry Potter saga came to a magically explosive end with Deathly Hallows, Part 2 -- again, another SFX-laden extravaganza which made good use of its astronomical budget and excited audiences in both 2D and 3D (you know, that cinema technique which offers cinema-goers a brand new experience which they wouldn't get anywhere else...).

Pirates splashed.
Transformers crashed.
Apes smashed.
Ryan Gosling amassed...

It's not been an awful year, but a so-so one -- no film, bar Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, has truly knocked my for one, but it's during this season where the award darlings tend to show themselves.

We Need To Talk About Kevin begins to sound in the deep -- a whisper here, a wayward comment there. Word begins to spread.
Martin Scorsese gives birth to perhaps another masterpiece.
Spielberg gets over the brainless, attractive fun that was Tintin and releases guaranteed sob-fest, War Horse.
Matt Damon buys a zoo.
Fincher reinvents Swedish goth drama.

A lot to look forward to. Maybe.

Until then, I'll give a run-down of my top film picks of the year:

Drive. Absolutely.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Positively.
Senna. Not just for the F1 fans.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2. No doubt.
Beginners. Charming.
Cave Of Forgotten Dreams. If you're into Herzog.
Rango. Unpleasant fun.
Source Code. Smart, high-brow entertainment.


and Jack and Jill.....two Sandler's = double the fun (at least, that's how I'd market that aberration).

**clinks glass** Here's hoping for a strong end to the year.

Focker, out.