An Education - A Review

Well this is the second part of what I am informally referring to as my Carey Mulligan trilogy, which will be concluded tomorrow, and which was induced yesterday with my review of The Great Gatsby. Kudos to my friend Ada for her recommendation of this delightfully quirky British film, produced by BBC Films. An Education stars Carey Mulligan, then unknown in her first starring role as Jenny, a bright 16 year old schoolgirl who plays the cello and keeps out of trouble, on track to be accepted into Oxford University. Her plan goes awry when she is seduced by a David, a handsome charismatic businessman, who woos her with parties and trips to Paris.

Thematically the film deals with the use and meaning of an education, why an education is important, and what an education means in ones life, Jenny essentially has to choose between what David refers to as the 'University of Life' and going to university and getting a formal education. Jenny looks at the female role models around her, and what they have done with their education, and the choices they have made. David tells her that he went to 'The University of Life' referring to how he never had any kind of formal education, yet manages to have a fabulous existence none the less. Jenny finds this life exciting, she is taken in by the parties and the concerts and the money, and the trips to Paris. Her boring life with her parents could never compete with this.

Carey Mulligan portrays Jenny, a young innocent ingenue who is taken advantage of. Mulligan manages to add a depth and weight to this character. The character at times has to be submissive and obedient when she is at school, and yet when she is with David, she discovers another side, a wilder more emancipated side, and a side which she finds exciting and terrifying, these two personalities come together at the end of the third act.

Peter Sarsgaard portrays David, the charming Jewish businessman, who seduces Jenny and her parents, into letting them into their world, and into letting him sweep Jenny away to Paris, where she will discover her own sexuality. Sarsgaard is successful in portraying a man who is charismatic and charming, yet who's slick exterior hides a more sinister and chaotic interior, the interior of a man with two lives, and who struggles with choosing between these lives. Sarsgaard grafts a character with whom we empathize, yet who also disgusts us, and who seems as pathetic as he is admirable.

The film is beautifully shot, and cinematographically distinct, the film uses colors which mimic the sixties when the film is set, the film is clearly well made, and concisely achieves what it sets out, without being over ambitious or pretentious. The film succeeds by focusing of character and performance, and thus allows the audience to connect with the characters, an effect which is enhanced by the fact that the characters don't feel too foreign, and the audience is allowed to see themselves portrayed onscreen.

Overall this is an entertaining film which features strong performances and beautiful visuals, and which will surely go down as a classic film in motion picture history. Rating: A

Jenny: If people die the moment that they graduate, then surely it's the things we do beforehand that count.

Gatsby - The Motion Picture Event of A Century

The time is finally here, the film I have been waiting for for over two years is finally here. Baz Luhrmann's adaptation of F Scott Fitzgerald's epic 20th century is finally in theaters. The novel is one of my favorites, and is a powerful tale of love, loss, and really great parties. The film uses Baz Luhrmann's signature visual style, and is a continuation of the style used in Moulin Rouge with pans, quick cuts, and swoops, whilst also containing racking shots, to show the romantic progression of the story . I suppose I don't have to explain that i was pretty excited about this movie, given that i wrote two posts on the trailers, and I must say that the film doesn't disappoint, and is a classic film that feels relevant and current.

The film has an amazing all star cast, and improves on the 1974 version on the cast alone. Leonardo Dicaprio stars as the titular Gatsby, and manages to show a man who is slick and smooth, yet who hides a violent dark exterior. Dicaprio manages to improve on Redford's performance, as he is more rugged and broken than Redford was, and manages to carry with us our hopes and dreams, and he makes the audience fall as head over heels in love with him, and we fall as hard as Nick does, when we are ultimately betrayed, and when our trust and faith in him falls due to his actions.

Carey Mulligan stars as Daisy Bucchannan, a rich spoilt fragile woman, who risks to be pushed over the edge by the chaos that ensues. Carey Mulligan manages to capture the fragility and the trauma of a woman who struggles between her love for two men, and with the dangerous destructive relationship that she has with an old lover, a relationship based on the past, a past that will never be reclaimed, and a relationship that is slowly dying and which becomes more and more toxic as we progress through the story. Mulligan manages to perform better than Mia Farrow, who also deftly portrayed the fragility, but who's performance at times veered into shrill, and lost some of the weight of the character.

Joel Edgerton stars as Tom Bucchannan, and despite being deft in his performance, he offers little is the way of imagination, or new insight into the character. Toby Maguire portrays Nick Carraway, and also provides little in the way of insight, which is perhaps appropriate, given that nick is intended to be a lens, always seeing, yet providing little in the way of opinion or unbiased critique. The film allows us to agree with nick, and fall for Gatsby as hard as he does, thus continuing the narrative of the book.

The real star of this film is Elizabeth Debecki as Jordan Baker, a newcomer who manages to maintain the essence of the original character, whilst taking it in a different direction, I was a huge fan of Lois Chiles shrewd and self aware performance in the 1974 movie. In this version Debecki portrays Baker as more of an ingenue, a wide eyed young woman, who observes what goes on around her, and the film dispenses with the  subplot involving a romantic relationship between Nick and Jordan and a plot involving golf and cheating. Debecki is a newcomer having just graduated, and i can see an oscar coming her way for this deft and studied performance.

The film is a visual treat, and shows us the hollowness of this world which Fitzgerald creates. If the party in the original film was a little mishandled and held at arms length by the filmmakers, here the party is literally the best party one could imagine, the party is huge and gratuitous, and has great music. The music in the film is great, with a Jay Z produced soundtrack, which combines modern Hip Hop and pop music with old school 1920's Jazz music. The costumes are also spectacular, and are a blend of 1920's styles, with a more modern touch, such as the slimmer tailored pant.

Now we come to the negatives, the film contains a subplot involving Nick narrating his story from a sanatorium, which could have been dispensed with, and the film suffers from poor pacing towards the third part of this four part movie structure, when the story seems to be going nowhere, however these issues are resolved in the final act when the film soars, and then finally plummets towards its assured and destructive conclusion.

Overall however this is an assured visually stunning picture, with a great soundtrack and wonderful performances from it's leads, and i dare anyone who watches it not to fall just as head over heels in love with it as I did. Rating: B+

Nick Carraway: Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter - tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther... And one fine morning - So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

3D Fad or Fab! - My Opinion

Well, my recent viewing of Iron Man 3 in 3D, in addition to my compulsive researching of home cinema's lead me to a reflection of the use of 3D in modern cinema. We live in an age of money, and with showings of Avatar in 3D having unprecedented success, 3D was unceremoniously tacked on to a number of releases that were not designed nor edited with 3D in mind, leading to headaches and nauseating effects. (I'm looking at you Clash of the Titans) The 3D boom can be credited for reinvigorating the cinema industry financially and for dragging audiences back in to the theaters. Only three of the top 20 highest grossing pictures of all time were produced before 2000, and all of those have at some point had a 3D theatrical re-release.

Despite, having to some eyes pushed the focus of cinema-going back to technology and off storytelling, yet there are exceptions to this rule, for instance Toy Story 3 was as arresting and enchanting as the first two, and yet was also in 3D. I saw this film in 3D myself and found the 3D to be an enhancement, and it helped to drag the viewer into the action, rather than distract. There were recent articles reporting a viewer decline in 3D viewing trends, stating that less and less viewers are going to see 3D movies, preferring 2D content, my reasoning behind this is two fold, firstly viewers are sick and tired of the extra fee, which in some theaters can be exorbitant, and secondly, the dimness of the image, the glasses that one is obliged to wear are tinted, and thus can diminish the brightness of the image, to such an extent as it is noticeable.

3D is apparently making a big jump into our homes, yet in my eyes this remains to be seen, 3D home technology is expensive with the glasses alone costing as much as $150 apiece, much of this has to do with them using the active 3D shutter effect, i also fear that the size of a 3D television will hamper the immersiveness of the effect, and create an odd jump between the screen and the outside world, an effect that is diminished in a dark cinema. Let it also be said that there is relatively little 3D content available, with few films being released on 3D DVD and many conversion processors giving odd effects, due to a lack of ability to process the information fast enough. Overall 3D seems to be here to stay, for now anyway!

Any opinions, let the world know in the comments box below!

Antichrist - By Lars Von Trier

I recently reviewed Melancholia, and now i will be reviewing the controversial film Antichrist, also by controversial danish director Lars Von Trier. The film is much more controversial that Melancholia, and remains unrated in the united states and was not given a theatrical release there. The film however deals with similar themes as melancholia, and acts as the first part of the Depression Trilogy. The film stars Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg as 'Him' and 'Her', a couple that goes to live in a wood after the death of their child, who falls out of the window, and he uses this time to attempt to 'heal' his wife.

I feel that i should warn people that this film is graphic, the film was released in two forms, entitled the catholic and the protestant versions, the former being the censored edited version, and the latter being the uncut and generally unrated version. The film was however released in the UK uncut, gaining an 18 certificate. I will be reviewing the unrated version here, however the two are very similar, having the same plot and events. The film is a blend of genres, and can most accurately be described as a blend of a horror film, an exploitative thriller and a porn film. I feel that it is important to clarify that this film is not torture porn, a genre which I loathe, and each act of violence has a purpose and a place in the plot, and it is really for this reason that I chose to watch the unrated version, as i feel that the censored cut robs the piece of some of it's majesty, and power.

The film was controversial as soon as it premiered at Cannes, with some ridiculously referring to it as the most controversial film of all time. The film is about a couple who retreat into the woods after the death of their son, where the woman manifests increasingly violent sexual behavior, as she transforms into the ultimate manifestation of pure evil. Thematically the film deals with evil and humanity, and the main character expresses the same revelations as in Melancholia, and expresses the evil of humanity and the evil of nature. The female lean, known as She, a woman who researched murder crimes against women, and who comes to believe that all women and nature are evil.

The film was controversial upon its release, in part due to it's use of untsimulated, 'real' sex scenes. To be honest I have a sense of ambivalence towards this, while I'm not sure if the film benefits from the use of these scenes, I also don't find these parts of the film particularly shocking, and so I guess I am not the person to say whether these add to the film or not, for me they were a part of the film, and were not more or less shocking than anything else. The film is also tied in to Melancholia with its use of musical motifs, the film uses Lascia Ch'io Pianga, by Handel to bookend the film, and to use as the prologue and epilogue, much like Melancholia uses the Wagner prologue. The film is split into four chapter, each of which deals with a certain aspect of the madness that encircles this couple.

In short I will say that this film is masterfully shot, and wonderfully filmed, atmospheric and dark, but like melancholia, it is also perhaps more interesting to discuss than to watch, and may be too gruesome for some to watch, however the film remains a masterpiece of the horror , and is perhaps my favorite horror film, a branch of cinema that I have been known to despise. Surely handled and well filmed this film stands out among the Lars Von Trier canon. Rating: B+

She: Nature is Satan's church.

Melancholia - By Lars Von Trier

Melancholia is a 2011 art film by controversial danish director; Lars Von Trier. The film stars Kirsten Dunst as Justine, a woman who we are introduced to as a bride, suffering from a crippling depression, whilst trying to appear like the happy bride as social convention dictates. Charlotte Gainsbourg stars as her sister, named Claire, a woman struggling to take care of her almost catatonic sister, and deal with the crisis that surrounds her. The premise of the film is that a planet named melancholia is about to collide with the earth, wiping out all existence, and the film attempts to explain the different ways in which we deal with these situations.

The film is the second in Lars Von Triers Depression, which started with Antichrist, and which will be concluded with Nymphomaniac this summer. The genesis of the trilogy came when Von Trier was undergoing therapy for a crippling depression that left him unable to work. The plot was conceived when his therapist told his that depressive people are lore likely to remain calm under difficult situations, as they are conditioned to expect bad things to happen, thus the film is split into two distinct chapters, entitled Justine and Claire, each exploring the different ways in which they deal with impending doom. The differing ways are interesting, and i will admit that although their reactions were not obvious to me, they make perfect sense, and Dunst's character deals with the whole ordeal with a bored ambivalence, and remarks that the earth is evil, and must be destroyed, a statement which was earlier uttered in Antichrist, review coming soon. On the other hand Gainsbourg's character has a complete breakdown, and is left unable to function, and completely petrified by the impending doom.

The secondary cast also behave in bizarre ways, Claire's husband commits suicide, an event which she covers up, hiding the body and sending away the horse, making it seem like he had fled. The first chapter shows Justine's wedding, as she deals with a series of personal and professional challenges, and attempts to do it with a grace and joy that is expected. What makes this film intriguing for me is the way in which it shows Depression with a realism and a deft that it a tribute to Lars Von Trier as a filmmaker, and Kirsten Dunst as an actress. The film uses the prelude from Wagner's; Tristan and Isolde, a great peace of music which adds to the films atmosphere as an epic universal story, and which is a great counterpoint to the beautiful images shown in the story.

Now we come to the more negative points, despite being visually stunning and well acted, the film is let down by its script, despite having a powerful story and an interesting premise, the film is let down by the fact that it has relatively little dialogue, and is at times  little slow, that said it is none the less a very powerful film and an interesting jump off point for a dialogue about depression and the way it affects our actions.

Melancholia is a good film overall, it if well made, well acted and clever, and only let down by its slow pace and apparent lack of dialogue, it is perhaps a film that is more interesting to discuss than watch. Rating: B+

Justine: Life is only on Earth. And not for long.

MUD - An Epic Story

Well, my second cinema venture this week would take me to see Mud, a southern coming of age drama about two young boys who find a mysterious man on an island in Arkansas. The film is directed by Jeff Nichols, director of the acclaimed 2011 film Take Shelter. The film stars Matthew McConaughey in the title role as Mud, a mysterious fugitive, and Reese Witherspoon as Juniper, his former flame whom he attempts to reconcile with, whilst hiding from the police and a series of dangerous bounty hunters simultaneously. The young boys in the film are played by Tye Sheridan and newcomer Jacob Lofland. The supporting cast is filled out with Sarah Paulson, Michael Shannon and Ray McKinnon.

The film is set and was filmed in Arkansas, and is about the two impoverished boys experiences with a mysterious man, whom they meet on an island, whilst simultaneously having to deal with the breakdown of one of their parents marriage, and trying to reunite the fugitive, Mud, with his love Juniper. Thematically the film deals with hope and young love, destiny and the relationships that we have with our parents.

The film is well made, and beautifully shot, with many shots showing the natural beauty of the area in which it is set, and there are many shots of the sky and the clouds. which are simply breathtaking, and which could even be framed they are so beautiful. The film was cheaply made, and was filmed mainly on film and mainly with handheld cameras, and on film which I love, one can see on this blog that i have a self confessed loathing for all things handheld, yet in this film the handheld camera is well used and unpretentious, and I like the fact that it is used more out of necessity, shooting in tight spaces requires use of the handheld, and not to make the film 'arty' or pretentious, and the camera doesn't shake too much.

This film could be favorably compared to 'The Place Beyond The Pines'. I like the fact that this film has so much less attitude than 'Pines', the film has so much less ego in that it actually strives for much less, yet achieves more, it tells us so much more about father-son relationships, without the need to pretend that it is some epic tragedy, and it stands on its own terms, without the need to pretend that it is 'arty', which 'Pines' does. Pines ends up being simply pretentious, as it never achieves what it sets out to or what it thinks it does, yet what i like about Mud is that it sets no standard for the audience, and allows the film to stand on its own feet and allows the audience to make up their own mind as to what it is about, and the audience leaves feeling more fulfilled. The film is also much more well made, and doesn't need to resort to making it's leads ugly in order for us to empathize with them.

What i mean by this is that in 'Pines' really hot people are made to look ugly and unattractive. In Mud, Reese Witherspoon looks good, McConaughey looks hot, and their performances are allowed to shine without the need for ridiculous make up, as in ¨'Pines'. The performances in the film are good, and McConaughey shines as Mud, a mysterious man who is as perplexing to the audience as he is to the two leads, and with whom we want to believe despite our cynicism, and whom the leads become enamoured with. Reese Witherspoon is also great as Juniper, Mud's bruised lover, whom we like despite her flaws, and who uses her sexuality to manipulate people, especially Mud.

Now we come to the negatives, these are more personal that academic, as i feel that despite the film is very well made, and accurately achieves what it sets out to do, and does it well and is a very beautiful film. However the whole film is simply too 'Southern' for me, everyone has a southern accent, and in this respect it could be negatively compared to 'Million Dollar Baby' where southern accents are also used, but where they feel less artificial, and where not all of the characters have the exact same Arkansas accents. This is a personal flaw more than anything, and should not really influence others opinion of the film.

In short this is a very well made film, beautifully shot and superbly accurate and with an uplifting spirit, however it was not to my tastes, and feels a little too 'southern' for me, despite its strong performances. Rating: B+

A Day With Wilbur Robinson!

I, as any nineties kid would be am a great fan of Disney animation, growing up during the Disney renaissance gave me a sense of admiration for great animation, such as The Lion King and Aladdin. I also love science fiction, a fact to which this blog should testify, given the disproportionately large number of science fiction films reviewed compared to the relatively small number released. Meet The Robinsons is a film which combines breathtaking computer animation with a science fiction inspired plot involving time travel, and great well rounded Disney characters, along with an annoyingly uplifting plot, and great message, and is a surprisingly fun romp with a great cast of characters as I'm sure that the picture below will testify!

Meet the Robinsons is loosely inspired by A Day With Wilbur Robinson, a children's picture book which despite having a slightly similar premise, and illustrations showing characters which resemble those in the film, the overall plot is wildly different to that of the book, with the book not being about time travel. The overall premise of the film is that Lewis, an orphan and inventor enters a project into a science fair which goes wrong, and then he must attempt to restore order and undo the damage done. He is intercepted by a boy called Wilbur Robinson, who reveals that he is being hunted by a man known as The Bowler Hat Man, he explains that he has a time machine and that If Lewis helps him that he will take him through time to meet his mother. Drama ensues and we meet a bizarrely crazy family.

The film has a ridiculously clever plot, and has to be one of the most complex plot yet to be featured in a film primarily aimed at children. The plot as I said involves time travel and thus has to be complex without confusing it's primarily young audience. This is done effectively by giving each time period a distinguishing visual identity, and each character in each period a distinguishing visual identity, thus allowing the audience not to become confused. The film contains numerous references to science fiction and comic book culture. Wilbur has a t-shirt with the same symbol on it as comic book legend 'The Flash', the time machines have a distinct resemblance to The Enterprise, from the Star-Trek franchise, and a series of Dystopian Futures is shown, one of which has a distinct resemblance to the harvesting fields in The Matrix.

The movie also contains a theme park know as Todayland, a reference to the Tommorowland  found at numerous Disney parks worldwide. The films characters are also more distinctive than generally found in Disney cartoons, with the characters having a certain flair than usual. Disney often gets a bad wrap when compared to Pixar, especially when it comes to computer animation, however here we are given a film with a solid and clever plot, a bunch of great and distinguished characters, and a solid visual identity, and puts zany avant-garde characters against amazingly beautiful backings, (such as the one below) augmented by the addition of wacky inventions and a modern city skyline. The film is also very optimistic, and is distinguishable from other science fiction films in that it shows us an uplifting vision of the future, and makes little reference to a post-apocalyptic future except during a flashback.

The film does have some negatives, in that many of the zany characters that Lewis meets in the future can seem to be under-developed and strangely foreign, and the fact that the film can at times be seen to be unsuitable for children, and the story is mainly adult centered. Overall this film is a fascinating romp, and as a science fiction fan is a perfect blend of sci-fi and animation, with an uplifting and heartwarming message, and is one of my five favorite Disney animation movies! Rating: A-

DVD Review - ADELE

Okay well this is a little different, i never really expected when I started this blog that I would be reviewing music DVDs, but a lonely Wednesday night led to me being curled up on the sofa with a cup of green tea and a copy of Adele at the Royal Albert Hall, and with want of something better to do, I gave it a try. Being a fan of Adele, i knew in advance that the DVD wouldn't be too repulsive! Any Londoner should know the importance of the setting of this concert, it was filmed at the Royal Albert Hall, site of famed concerts such as the Proms. The DVD was filmed after the release of 21 and features material from both her albums as well as some covers.

Being a Londoner myself, this DVD was intriguing to me, Adele is a fantastic performer, and this really comes through on the DVD, with the performances really allowing her vocals and the poignancy of her songwriting to shine, the film also puts her theatricality on display, with the show opening in front of a huge scrim, featuring a silhouette of the London skyline, as she sings Hometown Glory, one of my personal favorites! Adele banters throughout the show, giving insights into her songwriting and into the history and true life experiences behind her songs. Adele seems sincere throughout these moments and on many occasion managed to crack me up with her honest yet humorous wisecracks, and her accent is adorable!

Of the many covers she sings, only two of them I actually knew, yet they show off Adele's vocals superbly, and Adele's cover of Make You Feel My Love, used as a tribute to one of my heroines; Amy Winehouse, is simply breathtaking. The film is beautifully shot, and makes use of obscure and unusual camera angles, which not only showcase the superb architecture of the Royal Albert Hall, but which also add interest to the film, and make each song into a beautiful montage, using pans, swoops and racking focus to add interest.

Now we come to the negatives, despite this being a superb show, and beautifully performed, one could question it's suitability for transferal to this kind of media, and ask oneself whether a live album might not in fact have been a better choice, i had intended to watch this solo, yet found myself looking for something to do whilst watching it. One could negatively compare this to Lady Gaga Presents The Monster Ball Tour by HBO, as despite the fact that Adele is a superior vocalist to Gaga, I found the latter more entertaining, and it stands more as a long form music video, or a musical, as the story arc and the sheer theatricality and stunning visuals make it a more interesting ride.

In short this DVD is for strict superfans only, anyone else will surely be bored, despite the stunning vocals, and i found myself playing this in the background almost as a CD, which makes one wonder if it would have been better as a live album. Rating: B

Get Carried Away

There are good films and bad films, and there are mediocre films, and then there are films which are so delightful that they capture an audience despite their flaws, Sex and the City is such a film. Being a huge fan of the original series upon which this film is based, I have a vested interest in this film, and for fans of the series it doesn't disappoint, the film reunites the cast of the series, with some notable additions, and is directed by Michael Patrick King, director of many of the episodes of the original HBO series, and is produced by Darren Star and Sarah Jessica Parker, both producers of the original series. Thematically the film deals with the subject of marriage and weddings and what it really means to have one's 'happily ever after'.

The film has the same structure as the series, in the series each episode dealt with a certain issue, and the issue was discussed by these women as the episode progressed. The film takes a similar approach, albeit on a slightly grander scale, with the film spanning a year in the lives of these characters, yet retains the rounded feel of the series, with the film coming to a rounded and satisfying conclusion, and ending with the Carrie concluding on her opinion about that particular issue.

The film takes place in real time, this movie came out in 2008, and the series ended in 2004, so the film takes place four years after the end of the series, i feel that this a smart move, as it enables the film to analyse how far the relationships have progressed in the past four years, the opening sequence of the film is long, clocking in at over 5 minutes, yet is economical in the way it allows us to catch up with all the characters in a very short time, meaning that all the action of the main film takes place in what i like to refer to as 'real time'. The films use narration also helps with this, allowing this sequence to be, yes, long, but economical. The use of music in the film is great, and this film has a great soundtrack, music is often used in transitional moments, and the soundtrack has a great eighties throwback feel.

This film is very long, at over two and a half hours, this film does have some pacing issues, and the last quarter of the film does lead the audience wondering where the film is going, but despite this the first three quarters of the movie are really not bad, and the film has a fun script, many of the films moments of dialogue are great, and contain the same acerbic humor as in the original series. The film is, like the show, set mainly in new york city, and is just as fashion oriented as the original series was, Pat Field returns as costume designer, and the costumes really give us an insight into how these characters have developed in the past four years.

The film has a lot of problems, and those who are not fans of the series will likely loath it, however for those of us who are fans, the film is a fun continuation, that is too delightful to resist, and which despite its convoluted story, has a good script with some fun dialogue, and has a surprising number of laugh out loud moments, and a feel good ending. Rating: B

Carrie Bradshaw: Millions of women come to New York for the two L's: Labels and Love.

Stoker - A Thriller

Now it is no secret that I am not exactly a fan of horror films, my review of Saw should prove that! But I did love Black Swan, a film which has much in common with Stoker, both films are thrillers and are perfectly understated, with the events of the films having a jarring contrast with the intense beauty of the images presented, and the hideous nature and motives of the main characters. The film stars Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode and of course Nicole Kidman in the leading roles.

The film revolves around a family just after the death of its patriarch, as the fathers creepy brother moves in with the family, and all hell ensues! This film is everything i love in a thriller, in that it has an economy of shocks, the film never tries to go over the top with its more cathartic moments, and manages to do more with suspense than outright gore, with only a few moments in the film actually showing blood. This economy is what makes the film truly suspenseful, and effective, and what keeps the audience intrigued, and never becoming desensitized, or adjusted to the violence.

The film has a great cast, and none of the lead actors let the side down, the three leads in the film are particularly stunning, especially India played by Mia Wasikowska, who manages to act without words, and incredibly manages to portray a child who is dark and haunted, and yet who is also introverted and silent. She is an economic actress in this role, and we connect with the character through her silence and strangeness. The character is not necessarily understood by the audience, yet is accepted and cared for, in spite of her strangeness, and in reality it is the fact that film has a foreign director, that there is a silence and contemplation to the film.

Matthew Goode is also good as the creepy uncle, and manages to be totally creepy, and really attractive at the same time, there is an unwavering malice hidden behind his perfect smile and beautifully curled hair, and something creepy about the way he swoops in, just after the death of India's father, and instantly captures the affection of the family matriarch, played by Nicole Kidman, who is a delight, despite having a rather small role, with less weight being given to the character, yet she still manages to capture the instability of a woman being driven mad by the changes in her family, and who is being driven further and further into instability by the incestuous relationships in her life.

Thematically the film deals with the themes of incest, family troubles, bad blood and the relationships we have with our parents, in fact this film is far more successful at highlighting parent child issues than the place beyond the pines, and ironically is much less overt in ist attempt to highlight these issues. The film uses traditional thriller motifs, such as spiders and footsteps, and contains many homages to old horror movies such as swinging lights, and strange sounds. The film is also a successful homage to old Hitchcock movies, and uses many of the same motifs, such as many of the pivotal moments taking place on stairs, such as many of the conversations between the characters and the final confrontation between the three main characters. Another Hitchcock motif used is the train being used as a metaphor for sexual climax, In fact one of the sex scenes in the movie takes place near a train track in the woods, and sounds of the train are heard at pivotal moments.

Now we come to the negatives, although the film has a good universal story, in fact the story itself is timeless, and we never find out where the story is set, we only in fact have one indication that the story is set during the present day, with one of the characters mentioning 1994 as the year of an eighteen year old's birth, and with various flashes of technology. The story becomes sloppy towards the end, using unnecessary twist towards the end in order to tie up all the loose ends of the plot, loose ends which do not necessarily need to be tied up, and which would be better suggested, rather than explicitly shown on film.

Overall this is an stunningly film, elegantly shot and featuring great performances, which is delightfully understated, a rarity in our modern cinematic universe, in short if you like thrillers, this film really is as good and entertaining as any, and is a cinematographic delight. In short, a wonderful homage to a universe of thrillers, and a surely handled, well acted 99 minutes of suspense. Rating: A-

India Stoker: He used to say, sometimes you need to do something bad to stop you from doing something worse.

Julie & Julia

I have previously expressed my distain for films that attempt to use multiple storylines, often finding films with more than one storyline cluttered and muddled, and lacking real character developpement, however there are of course some exceptions, and this film manages to sufficiently separate the differing storylines. The film tells the story of a blogger living in Queens and working for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, dealing with the aftermath of 9/11 whilst attempting to cook all the recipies in Julia Child's cookbook in a year. This story is contrasted with the life of Julia Child herself, living in france during the 1950's, and learning about french food with the support of her husband.

The film is superbly acted, and features Meryl Streep as Julia Child, infuses the role with a grace and a joy which is infectious, whilst managing to be respectful of the fact that she is playing a real person, and yet never allows her performance to veer into comedy territory. Amy Adams plays Julie Powell, said blogger, and Adams manages to add gravity to this role, she really has to form this character in its entirety, and yet manages to graft a character that is inherently flawed, yet is still likable.The supporting cast is made up of Chris Messina, Stanley Tucci and Jane Lynch, who is particularly good as Julia Child's sister.

The film manages to deftly weave together two storylines, which is does successfully by making the two segments cinematographically distinct, with the 2002 segment being more slick and sharp, compared to the more softly lit and delicate tones of the period sequences. The film also manages to successfully weave together the different storylines with differing yet similar narrative structures, Child's sequences are narrated by the letters she writes to her friend Avis, while Julie Powell's segments are narrated as she writes her blog, this continuity makes for a successful paring, and seamless blend.

Overall this is a fun delightful comedy, whilst having little substance, the film is carried along by strong performances, fun cooking titbits and an overall sense of joy which makes this film a great watch, if a forgettable one. Rating: B+

Julia Child: I'm Julia Child. Bon appetit!

Iron Man 3 - The Final Installment

Today I had the great pleasure of seeing the third Iron Man movie, a perfectly delightful experience and only my second 3D experience if we don't count Disneyland. The movie is good, and as a recent fan of the franchise i was impressed by this movie, and feel that it is definitely a great improvement on Iron Man 2 and may even be better than the first installment. The film features the same cast as the previous installments, adding Guy Pearce as the films villain, and showing the events which take place after The Avengers, referencing these events, yet the film acts as a stand alone film, and doesn't require knowledge of the events referenced.

The film is a good sequel and manages to act dually as a sequel and the final in a trilogy, yet also as a stand alone film, which manages not to be too referential, and is understandable for those who may not have seen the others in the series. This post will be the last in my Iron Man trilogy, and i will try not to break my rules on finishing off trilogies, however i may write a spinoff post about the avengers! The film itself is the perfect example of how to finish off a trilogy, as it ties up all the ends, leaving a satisfying conclusion and finishing off the story arc of the main character, whilst leaving the options open for Iron Man 4 or The Avengers 2.

What is very exciting about this post is the fact that i saw it in 3D, and am thus able to comment on the effectiveness of the 3D effect, here it is rather effective without being over the top or in your face, there are for instance no moments in which objects obnoxiously fly out of the screen slapping audience members around the face, yet the effect is used to add depth, and is used effectively, yet not obnoxiously. There are moments when the 3D is very effective, such as a number of moments involving holograms and explosions, yet they are moments which would be unremarkable, and would not strike the audience in a 2D screening, yet which are simply stunning and remarkable is 3D.

The villain is pretty stunning, and this trumps the first two for this reason only, this is the first film in the series in which the villain is not simply a larger version of Iron Man, and instead we are given a villain who is more imaginative, and there is a clever twist in there too! We are also shown the rise of Don Cheadle's character into Iron Patriot, complete with a paint job, and we have a great buddy cop feel at the end, with war machine and Iron Man teaming up, this is also the first film in which Pepper Potts is placed right into the middle of the action, and which we are given not just a damsel in distress, but a real fighter, plus she gets to don the suit, which is pretty cool.

Now we come to the negatives, of which there really are not many, despite being a little convoluted and borrowing some plot points from The Amazing Spider-Man, the films script retains the funny witty dialogue from the previous films, yet has more heart and is darker than its predecessor, the film also benefits from it(s continued refusal to go to New York, and has the finale taking place in Miami instead, which is a nice change. Overall a great movie and a great story and a satisfying and fun conclusion to a strong superhero trilogy. Rating: A-

Tony Stark: I can't sleep, and when I do I have nightmares. Honestly, there's a hundred people who want to kill me. I hope I can protect the one thing I can't live without...