The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 Review

The year that the Twilight Saga ended a gap in the market opened up. Ready to reach out to those fans left empty after the ending of both the Harry Potter series and then Twilight was a new film series, The Hunger Games. The first film was incredibly striking, it was much more than the romance that defined the daftness and tediousness of the Twilight films, and it felt more grounded than the wizardy world of Harry Potter. The Hunger Games was presenting complex political ideas, moral issues and violence that were more akin to Battle Royale, it was merely posing as a teen film, this was something much more.

                The sequel came next which was just as impressive as the first and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire managed to improve on its predecessor’s box office haul of $694million, taking in a whopping $865million, it was fair to say that the teen market was officially tapped. Then came the announcement that the final Hunger Games instalment would be split into 2 parts. This decision had also taken place with both Potter and Twilight, and though producers will argue that it was for creative decisions, there is no question that the decision was for cynical financial gain. Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part One was a very poor film, lacking in any form of narrative structure it meandered all over the place leaving it rather dull, they must, thought many, be saving it all for the final film.

                Mockingjay Part 2 picks up exactly where part one left off, Peeta has been rescued from the capitol though he is suffering from severe mental trauma after being tortured and has been brainwashed into hating Katniss. District 13 run by their questionable president Alma Coyne (Julianne Moore) are going to make a push for the capitol in order to finally overthrow President Snow (Donald Sutherland), where they will put in place their new order. Katniss heads to the capitol as part of a team who seek to ignore their orders and get to Snow before anyone else does.

                It’s fair to say that after the time wasted in the previous film, the big set pieces have definitely been saved for this outing. There is fantastic fun to be had in the scenes set in the capitol, which has been rigged into a labyrinth of increasingly bizarre and fascinating booby traps. The design of the capitol is really impressive and a sequence involving an attempt to drown Katniss’ team in oil is creepily beautiful. A brilliantly tense moment set in the sewers of the capitol seems to draw from Neil Marshall’s The Descent which is a bold move in a film aimed towards younger viewers. Given that director Francis Lawrence’s previous credentials include the unimpressive I am Legend, and the not that much better Constantine, it was surprising to see such a brilliantly directed climax, the final assault on Snow’s mansion starts with great tension and builds to a sequence that feels like it came from the someone like Cuaron rather than Lawrence.

                It’s political ideas are still strongly present, events during the final act of the film begin to reflect on the complex nature of morality during wartime, just as the previous films had focused on the morality during the games. As the film draws to its close it becomes difficult to determine whether the villains of the film are the revolution or the establishment, and deciding who the bad side is doesn’t necessarily mean that the others are good by default.

                Jennifer Lawrence continues to show why she is the highest paid actress in Hollywood and she is surrounded by brilliant actors in great supporting roles. Solid if not overly showy in the previous films Josh Hutcherson really shines in this one, in what is a really difficult role, handling the moments of torment as Peeta is trying to remember what’s real and not-real as he recovers from his torture is impressive. Donald Sutherland and Julianne Moore are effortless in their roles, and in his final role before his sad passing Phillip Seymour-Hoffman is both quiet and affecting.

                Part 2 is substantially better than Part 1, but it still suffers from the split and this feels, to a lesser extent than the first, like an unbalanced film. Despite the time they’ve taken over the 2 films, major characters deaths seem rushed and brushed over, and the action of this part could do with a bit (but not too much) of the passiveness of part one. This part also seems to be the guiltiest of forcing the love triangle that really never existed, Gale (Liam Hemsworth) is one of the least interesting characters of the series and to try and form a triangle between Katniss, Gale and Peeta really detracts from Katniss, and its half-cocked attempt at doing so begins to detract from the film.

                The final moments of the film begin to feel like something really ambitious and very interesting particularly in some of the decisions that Katniss makes. But then the film continues, and the ending begins to turn to the ending that you expected it would go for, it’s not a terrible conclusion, but if it had taken a risk and ended ten minutes earlier it would have been more memorable.

                The cynicism of Hollywood suits have damaged this film series, what could have been one brilliant film has been split into a poor film and a great film, which means what could have been an exceptional trilogy is now a great series of 4 films. Reservations aside however, one must pause and think of the nature of these films, and how unlike other teen franchises it never patronised. It’s difficult to see what will fill the teen void following this, The Mortal Instruments came, saw and then quietly ran away to the corner, Divergent and its sequels are attempting something similar, but they make no sense and are barely washing their face at the box office. And with the unimpressive takings of The Maze Runner films, The Hunger Games has shown that this teen market might be more difficult to tap next time. (High 4 Stars)  

Black Mass Review

Since the early days of film audiences have sat gawping at the characters on screen, characters who quite often have been gangsters, the gangster film has almost as old as cinema itself which means when a new one comes along its hard to avoid imitation.

                Black Mass tells the true story of the rise of the Boston based crime boss James ‘Whitey’ Bulger, a man whose notoriety stemmed from the fact that his rise to power was in some part assisted by his partnership with  the FBI via his childhood friend agent John Connolly. In exchange for tipping off the FBI about other Boston based crime families, the FBI would turn a blind eye to the nefarious actions of Bulger, of which there were many.

                This film is definitely not original, which isn’t a fair criticism of the film given that it’s all based on true events, Bulger himself was inspiration for Jack Nicholson’s character in Scorsese’s Boston based crime film The Departed. There are a large amount of moments that take place that recalls to you some other gangster film you’ve seen before, some running dangerously close to rehashing an old idea, such as a dinner scene where the tone and conversation feel almost identical to the “funny how” scene in Goodfellas. It would be difficult to make this film feel original in any sense, so it’s impressive that the film on the whole is very effective.

                Scott Cooper is an interesting director, similar to this film, his last film Out of the furnace felt like it was imitating a lot of other films, but similar to that Black Mass doesn’t do anything lazily and manages to be a solid film. Cooper’s greatest talent lies in getting great performances out of his actors, this is the man who directed Jeff Bridges to a best actor Oscar, and the performances in this film are also pretty great. Female roles are very fleeting here, but in the moments of screen time that Dakota Johnson and Julianne Nicholson do get they give it their best. There are a whole handful of supporting players that include the likes of Jesse Plemons, Rory Cochrane, Kevin Bacon, Adam Scott and David Harbour who all give solid if a little unremarkable performances. When the film begins to stray into a side plot to do with Hai Lai it could easily have strayed into boredom, fortunately this point coincides with the introduction of Peter Sarsgaard as a cocaine addled nutcase which gives the film a much needed boost. The casting of Benedict Cumberbatch as Whitey Bulger’s senator brother seems a curious one, and though his performance isn’t terrible by any means he feels out of place in the film, which is perhaps the concept that Cooper was going for, the clean cut senator amongst a collection of criminals, but this feels incredibly distracting in amongst the rest of the characters. The best performance of the film by a big margin is that of Joel Edgerton as FBI agent John Connolly, it’s a fascinating character, someone who works in law enforcement who is in league with the criminals who he grew up with, a bond that couldn’t be broken. It remains ambiguous as to whether Connolly was genuinely a force for good trying to work outside the rules, or if he was ultimately the biggest criminal of them all abusing his position of power. Edgerton is fantastic in the role, his increasing swagger and physical changes as the film goes on are subtle but effecting, as his wife notes at one point “you walk differently now”. Edgerton has had a great year and he’s surely got to be a dead cert for the supporting actor nomination.

                Finally there is the leading man. Heralded as a return to form for Johnny Depp Black Mass sees him in a far more serious role than we’ve been treated to in recent years. The performance is good, but somewhat similar to the problem with Di Caprio in J Edgar is that his performance is hidden under all the make-up that has been plastered on him an attempt to make him look more like Bulger. It’s very alienating when in every scene where Depp is giving a great, if a little one note, performance, your entire focus is being drawn to the fact that he’s wearing blue contacts and his skin is about 50 shades brighter. Despite his notoriety I don’t think people would have cared that Depp doesn’t look like Bulger as long as he gave a good performance. Watching the film I recalled a fondness for the vastly underrated Public Enemies a film in which Depp looked nothing like John Dillinger but I believed in his performance all the same.

                Ultimately this is a solid, if unoriginal gangster film. Led by strong performances I imagine it might garner some steam going into awards season, and that’s in spite of all the people they’ll have pissed off with their attempts at a Boston accent. (Low 4 Stars)

Carol Review

2015 has seen the rise of a higher level of tolerance in society as nations such as Ireland and more importantly the USA have legalised same sex marriage. As we come to terms with where we are now Todd Haynes’ Carol offers a glimpse of where we used to be.

                Set in 1950’s New York, Carol, based on the book The Price of Salt by Patricia Highsmith, tells the story of Therese Belivet, a young shop worker who falls in love with an older woman and starts a relationship that threatens to change both of their lives forever. It seems like an entirely fresh and new idea to depict a romance between two women, enhanced further by their gaps in age, what’s impressive about the film is how it doesn’t become a film about a lesbian love story; it’s just a love story in a classic sense that treats its characters with respect.

                Given its period setting and the fact that it’s a love story, others will draw comparisons with the works of Douglas Sirk, but the sensibilities of Todd Haynes are far from that of Sirk. Sirk’s films operated with a rich colour pallet and tonally can be best described as melodramatic. Carol feels the exact opposite. In terms of capturing its period setting it’s got the things you’d expect from 50’s set films in terms of costumes and sets and hairstyles, but more so than that is the brilliant way it captures the atmosphere of the 50’s, the colours feel stripped back, nothing is over the top and every single person on screen, regardless of their billing, feels like they belong within that frame. Some films such as American Hustle try to capture the period by raiding the costume and wig closet, Todd Hayne’s feels like he’s put the effort in.

                Unlike Sirk also, Carol definitely doesn’t operate as a melodrama. The film operates in a brilliantly real tone, but Haynes still manages to be incredibly expressive whilst working within this style. The story plays out in a conventional manner, and though in parts it feels like it might waver off into a different film entirely; it’s always aware and pulls far away from that movement.

                Despite a couple of very small characters that border on caricatures or 50s pastiche, the performances are what really make this film. There are great roles for Therese’s friends who feel so at home in the 50s setting you’d swear they’d just wandered out of a bar with Jack Kerouac and Allan Ginsberg. There’s a small but important role for Sarah Paulson as Carol’s friend who holds most of the information about Carol’s ambiguous past. Then there’s Kyle Chandler who plays Carol’s husband, it’s a much more interesting role than just the angry 50s husband, despite their crumbling marriage he does still really love Carol and is making constant efforts to keep things together for the sake of appearances at business parties and trips to his parents’ house, though he’s occasionally angry in scenes, for the most part he just feels emasculated by Carol beginning to explore her sexuality.

                Supporting roles aside, this is basically a 2 hander with 2 damn fine hands at that. Rooney Mara as Therese is a revelation, saying that about an Oscar nominated actress seems like an odd thing to say, but she really does come into her own in this film. She plays Therese as this wonderfully curious person, in every room she seems like the most innocuous person but also the most interesting. Her interest in photography seems like a cliché character trait that’s appeared a thousand times before, but the film just manages to get away with it because it doesn’t detract too much from the Therese as a whole. Her naivety and bewilderment at her love for Carol is sweet and her innocent nature is what attracts Carol to her, Carol describing her at one point as a “strange girl, flung out of space”. Then there’s Cate Blanchett in the titular role. Blanchett is extraordinary, showing why her full name is 2 time academy award winner Cate Blanchett, and after this film maybe even 3 time winner. Carol is a woman who flirts with Therese in the sultriest manner, with porcelain skin gorgeous lips, a vodka martini in one hand and a cigarette in the other, Carol’s seductiveness is somewhat akin to the sultry sirens of the golden age of cinema. However for most of the film this personality that Carol adopts is a mask for the insecurities that lie behind it, there’s a sense that every time she turns away from Therese she’s terrified of the repercussions her love will have on her.

                The film isn’t sexless either, which is important. Being so comfortable with its sexuality the film portrays the sex as passionate if not overly explicit. In comparison to a film like Blue is the warmest colour which featured sex scenes that felt exploitative and were so long that they bordered on leery, Carol earns the right for to the moments of sex, so that by the time it comes along the film deserves it as much as the characters do.
                There are few directors that share the sensibilities that a director like Todd Haynes has, there are few actresses that can feel as genuine as Blanchett and Mara, and there are few films like this that can manage to be both a classic love story and feel modern at the same time. With Carol, Haynes as created a film that feels both timeless and timely, love is a beautiful thing in all its many forms, a testament that this film is truly exemplary of. (5 Stars)

Steve Jobs Review

      

Of the many news stories that came out of the Sony e-mail hack, the most interesting was the ongoing production problems that led to Sony releasing their Steve Jobs biopic, perhaps then that’s why the final product isn’t really a biopic. Written by Oscar winner Aaron Sorkin, who more often than not in Hollywood seems to be billed higher than the film’s director, who in this case is England’s own (not Sir) Danny Boyle. The film negates the principals of a standard biopic and instead focuses on three particular points of interest in Jobs life, the unveiling of the mackintosh in ’84, him going out on his own post-apple in ’88 and then his triumphant return and the unveiling of the iMac in ’98. Each ‘act’ is set in a theatre of some sort and focuses on the mounting tensions behind the scenes in the build up to the launch.

                   Steve Jobs, as with every project he works on, entirely belongs to Sorkin, his screenwriting is the dominant force of the film, where everything is kinetic and the people on screen talk like no person has ever done in real life. Boyle doesn’t go unnoticed though, and he manages to bring some flair and a cinematic sense to dialogue driven scenes. There are some outstanding bravura sequences where confrontations between 2 characters rely as heavily on editing and composition as they do on the words of Sorkin. The cast are uniformly brilliant, a role that started off with Christian Bale and passed by Leonardo Di Caprio before landing at the feet of a man who looks nothing like Steve Jobs, its troubled roots don’t show at all in Michael Fassbender’s performance. In a leaked e-mail at Sony, Aaron Sorkin said of his leading man “I don’t know who Michael Fassbender is and the rest of the world isn’t going to care”. Fortunately for Sorkin, Fassbender is this year especially showing himself to be an extraordinary actor, within ten minutes of him on screen you completely ignore his complete lack of physical similarities with Jobs and begin to see the man, he embodies all of Steve Jobs’ more detestable qualities and completely personifies the driven nature and megalomania that got Jobs to where he was. There are strong supporting roles as well, there is a surprisingly great dramatic turn from Seth Rogen as the down beaten Steve Wozniack, a talented mind sick of being in Jobs shadow “I’m tired of being Ringo when I know I’m John” he muses in one confrontation. A former Sorkin pro, Jeff Daniels gives a great performance as CEO John Scully and Michael Stuhlbarg has gone under the radar but his role as Andy Hertzfeld is one of the few genuinely likeable characters on screen. Kate Winslet as Jobs’ head of marketing Joanna Hoffman is probably the most important character, given the hate that could be directed at Jobs, the film needs someone that is warm and likeable and who, for some reason, likes Jobs, Winslet is brilliant at playing the mother hen who can turn fierce when she sees someone like Jobs is straying too far in his ability to alienate other people, and she also tackles her tricky accent with aplomb.

      Given the nature of its structure and even its setting, it’s impossible not to see this film as theatre more than cinema, the film might face 

     up to this aspect in some scenes but it never overcomes it. The same problem goes for Sorkin’s dialogue, nobody in film writes like he does, in the past he has said “I’m a ultimately a playwright winging it as a screenwriter”, a statement which is entirely true but not necessarily a good thing, yes his dialogue is fiercely enjoyable, but it poses a challenge that even the necessary walking and talking can’t seem to overcome, which is putting his screenplay on film and making it cinematic.

       The film has been described by some friends of Jobs as opportunistic, and the producers would be hard pushed to say that it isn’t, making a film that capitalises on the death of a high profile public figure. The problem however isn’t that it’s opportunistic, it’s that the film tells a story that isn’t particularly interesting. The screenplay is packed with tonnes of technical language that when spewed out in Sorkin style forms a cacophony of computer jargon that goes in one ear and out the other. Steve Jobs goes to extreme lengths to create a sense of everything being monumentally important and that serves as justification for most of the characters being so odiously ambitious, but that sense never really comes across. So whilst Steve Jobs might be acted, directed and for the most part written well, it eventually feels perfunctory, maybe I’ll revisit the Ashton Kutcher Jobs film. (High 3 Stars)

Sicario Review

      

“Those who fight monsters should see to it in the process that they do not become monsters, and when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes back into you”. It’s a very old quote from philosopher Fredrick Nietzsche, but it’s one that is evident in cinema and literature across decades. Sicario isn’t an original story by any means, Kate Macer is an FBI agent who is offered a chance to join Josh Brolin’s shady agent and his team in taking on the Mexican cartel’s. What makes Sicario as extraordinary as it is, is the execution. The performances are brilliant, Josh Brolin plays the cocky all American agent, but he’s incredibly shady and right from the off you know he’s hiding something, it’s a difficult thing to pull off, but he makes it seem effortless. Then there’s the outstanding supporting role from Benicio Del Toro as an even shadier character called Alejandro, he’s referred to as an ‘advisor’ but he’s something much darker, Del Toro has a face that holds so many conflictions, he looks world weary but he’s also really supportive to Kate in parts, and then in its climax he shows his full descent into the abyss. Emily Blunt is brilliant in the lead role, she’s captivating as someone who wants to do the right thing in an impossible situation and she has a brilliant talent of embodying the audience, she is as confused as us for the most part. But what separates this from the usual thrillers is the tone it creates. It has one of the best opening sequences which throws you in at the deep end and sets up the darkness this film and in particular Kate is in. The score from Johan Johansson is exceptional, its dark and oppressive and nails the tone of the film. DP Roger Deakins shows once again why he is long overdue an Oscar, one shot of a team of special ops descending a hill at twilight is genuinely one of the most extraordinary shots I have ever seen. In amongst all these are director Denis Villenvue, after everyone else its difficult not to lose sight of the director, but his style is really developing, what’s refreshing is a director who isn’t afraid to let the camera run, he doesn’t use cuts to hide anything, moments of dialogue he just pulls back and watches it happen. After the success of Prisoners and Enemy, Sicario indicates that Villenvue is one to really keep an eye on. (High 5 Stars)

Inside Out Review

Pixar are more or less the undisputed kings of animation, at least in terms of western audiences, they have however been on something of a poor run of form recently, for some reason they followed a moderate success in Brave with 2 poor follow ups to earlier properties with Cars 2 and Monsters University, but perhaps they were saving themselves, perhaps they were taking every lesson they learnt and building up to this moment, Da Vinci had his Mona Lisa, Michelangelo had his David and Pixar have their Inside Out. The film centres on a simple idea, a young hockey loving girl called Riley moves from the Midwest to start a new life with her parents in San Francisco, but rather than follow Riley’s story on her own the film follows her as well as the emotions in her head. Those emotions are Joy, Sadness, Fear, Disgust and Anger. The emotions are ruled by Joy, who sees it as her duty to keep the other emotions in check in order to make sure that Riley is happy. The conflict comes from the emotional toll the move takes on Riley combined with the emotions she experiences whilst going through the change of childhood into teen years. Calamity ensues and Joy and Sadness become separated from the control centre leaving the other emotions to rule whilst Joy and Sadness take a journey through Riley’s mind in attempt to get back before everything goes wrong. Exploring the mind in cinema is a difficult task, you have to be able to present a world which has rules and logic but is also entertaining and something that the audience can digest. These seem like ideas that Kubrick or Nolan would attempt to tackle, yet when Pixar does it its effortless. The world building of Riley’s mind is seamless, and the balance between showing how the mind and events in the real world affect each other is masterful. It could be seen that when it comes down to it the film is an odd couple movie featuring Joy and Sadness on a journey together, but it’s about so much more than that. The film is predominantly about how to deal with emotion, not something that Riley learns but something that Joy learns, the revelation that she can’t always keep Riley happy is a beautiful moment and it builds up to a moment which realises how joy can come from sadness and that you can’t always be happy. It’s also a film about growing up and the loss of childhood, this is particularly noticeable in the heart-breaking scene featuring the loss of an imaginary friend. When Riley is first born the control panel is one button and the emotion that stands at it is Joy and all of her core memories are joyful ones, by the end of the film the control panel is complex, the facets or her personality become extensive, and her core memories are more than just joyful ones, showing that sad moments and fearful moments are as much a part in making us who we are as the happy ones. There are also brief glimpses into the minds of other characters such as Riley’s Mother and Father, and a hilarious moment where we see a teen boys control centre freak out when confronted with a girl. Those brief glimpses though pose a thousand questions as to why particular people are ruled by certain emotions. The film is also consistently funny; this isn’t the slapstick of Minons so really young children might not connect with it as much, but this doesn’t sell itself out for one second, just because its animation doesn’t mean it can’t be intelligent. The greatest compliment that I can pay to this film is that in the weeks since I’ve seen it I’ve looked at people in a different way because of how this film explored so many complex ideas. Pixar’s finest moment, and I hope to god it’s the first ever animated film to win best picture. (High 5 Stars)

Whiplash Review

      

On paper this film probably doesn’t sound great, the story of a young jazz drummer who works to be one of the greats. But this is a film about drumming, that isn’t really about drumming. It’s about whether the ends justify the means, is greatness a part of someone or does it have to be beaten out of them both physically and mentally. This is the Full Metal Jacket of jazz music, J.K. Simmons is brilliantly charismatic as the bad mouthed enigmatic band leader, and he’s matched just as good by the young Miles Teller. It has a brilliant visceral energy that from first scene to last it doesn’t seem to stop. It might lack in well written female roles, but that’s sort of the point, and the moments Andrew shares with Nicole are actually quite sweet. There won’t be another film like this for a long time. (High 5 Stars)

It Follows Review

Horror had a major problem, it developed and evolved until it eventually reached the gory slasher movies of the 80s, the formula for those films (first half filled with teen sex, second half filled with teen slaughter) became the cheap formula to replicate. The next craze was the found footage frenzy post- The Blair Witch Project, cheap to make and trying to convince those watching that it might actually be a documentary. So the problem became that horror lost its inventiveness and everything became a cheap slasher film or a cheap found footage film, horror might now be finding its feet again. Last year saw the terrifying Babadook, and this year sees the brilliant It Follows. What these films understand is shouting boo makes you jump, but creating a sense of dread will keep you up at night. It follows sees Maika Monroe’s Jay have sex with a boy, only to discover that having sex with him has passed on a form of curse, where a being that can look like anyone and is referred to only as “It” will follow you until it can eventually kills you, if you sleep with someone else you can pass it on the them, but after it kills them it will eventually work its way back down to you. What’s fantastic about this film is that draws inspiration from exactly the right areas, particularly the work of John Carpenter circa 1970s. Rather than relying on close-ups and editing, director David Robert Mitchell utilises beautifully composed long shots as various forms of “It” creep into frame. The appearances of “It” are perfectly composed and you spend your time viewing the film wondering like Jay if “It” is close and who could it be. The performances are all great, the teen characters feel really genuine rather than the stereotypes often depicted in usual horror fare they all feel like real people. The depiction of sex as an act leading to potential demise isn’t one particularly unique to horror, more often than not the survivor of a horror film is the white virgin female, however what’s fascinating about this is once Jay is given this curse, she becomes the victim but she is also instilled with a sense of power, she could have sex with someone and potentially seal their doom. It’s a shame that given the films strong showing that it falters a little in its final act, it doesn’t exactly know how to solve the conflict between Jay ant “It” and the show down doesn’t seem entirely at piece with the rest of the film. Fortunately the films closing scene uses ambiguity to its strength leaving multiple interpretations, none of which are going to make it any easier for me to get to sleep tonight. (5 Stars)

Ant-Man Review

      

Being a big comic book fan and being a big film fan often conflicts with how to look at a film. Watching superheroes you’ve read in the cells of the page for years is such a monumentally exciting experience, and no one in Hollywood is doing it better than Marvel studios. However that comic fandom has got be separated from watching a film on its own terms and as massively enjoyable as Marvel films are they have in the past become a little formulaic. How brilliant it is then that Marvel has managed to make such a spirited and individual film that fits into the Marvel universe yet doesn’t seem compromised. Ant Man’s greatest strength is its sense of old fashioned wonder, the massive world it creates when Ant Man shrinks is brilliant, and it uses this sense of 50s nostalgia to create a brilliant comic tone that feels so individual to the film and not restrained to the MCU. The nature of Ant Mans powers also lead to some incredibly inventive fight sequences and set pieces, whereas most MCU outings have the predictable finale of an aerial threat to a populated city, Ant Mans finale takes place in a little girls room on her train set and it’s brilliant. Credit has to be given to director Peyton Reed that he manages to impose his style on the film, this is most notable in the tip off montages which feature the hilarious Michael Pena, its touches like this that make the film feel so individual. Then we come to Ant Mans greatest strength which is its leading man Paul Rudd. You’d be hard pressed to find any soul on this earth who doesn’t like Paul Rudd, and he brings something entirely different to this Marvel universe, as you’d expect he’s incredibly charismatic and funny, more so than Chris Pratt or Robert Downey Jr, but more interesting than them is he feels like an everyman, yes the scenes with his family are probably the least convincing aspect of the film, but he feels like someone who fans can actually see aspects of themselves in. The only Marvel trapping the film seems to fall into is its unconvincing villain, Corey Stoll gives a quite good performance but the film doesn’t go to great lengths to explain his transition to a supervillain. That is however a minor drawback in what is Marvel’s best film to date. (5 Stars)

Big Hero 6 Review

Animation is always something to be weary of before going in, they nearly always tend to make money regardless of how good they are because parents are always going to take their children to them, that’s why when a really good one comes along it makes it all the more wonderful. Loosely based on a marvel comic, Big Hero 6 is set in the fictional future city which amalgamates two cultures into the metropolis of San Fransokoyo, the film features child genius Hiro Hamada who is wasting his genius to fight robots and win money. His older brother Tadashi is equally smart but is applying his genius for good at college where he is working on a healthcare robot called Baymax. Catastrophic events lead to the death of Tadashi and an evil man in a kabuki mask stealing Hiro’s technology, Hiro and his friends will use their smarts to take down the bad guy and save the day. The greatest thing about this film is the design, firstly the city is just one of those places that you could look at for hours and someone you’d want to live. The equally brilliant design is that of the real star of the film which is Baymax, there are tonnes of funny lines such as “falalala” and “furry baby” but the animators have a brilliant understanding of physical comedy and seeing Baymax just move around is laugh out loud funny. The film also holds a positive message in using technology and your own intelligence for good, whereas there are constantly people using technology for nefarious purposes Hiro learns from Baymax that Tadashi really wanted to create something that just helped people. What really surprised me about this film Is its maturity, it deals with the very complex notion of loss, and there are some really emotional scenes, but I feel this film in years to come could become really important in teaching younger children how to come to terms with loss, its never patronising of schmaltzy but is often incredibly touching. Yes the plot isn’t terribly original but the amount of fun that’s had during its running time is brilliant and I keep repeating the phrase “oh no” in a Baymax voice. (5 Stars)

The Martian Review

For years I’ve had an argument with many a person informing them the same thing every time “Ridley Scott doesn’t have as many great films as you think he does”, shock and horror for some people, but I’ve always alarmed them when I can name more great Rob Reiner films than Ridley Scott films. However, Ridley Scott is undisputedly a great director who has a great style that is really great cinema, Prometheus looks and feels great but has an incredibly poor story, The Councillor is a cool and slick film with a monotonous script. So the problem is evident, Ridley Scott can’t find a good screenwriter. There’s an old saying in film “there’s been many bad films made from good scripts, but there’s never been a good film made from a bad script”. With The Martian, Scott has addressed this problem by directing a film based on sound work, originally the best-selling book by Andy Weir, but to a much larger extent the brilliant script from writer Drew Goddard. Goddard’s script is filled with fun and comedy which really lifts the film away from being anything tonally morose given that it’s a man marooned on a planet thousands of miles from home. What’s also great is the way he manages to make the science of the film incredibly digestible (some realistic, some a lot less so). If there’s a problem with his script it’s the pacing, it’s a difficult thing to get right given how long he is marooned on mars, but the pacing seems rushed towards then end meaning the film spends too long with Mark Watney at the beginning and brushes over a big period of time towards the end. The performances are also uniformly brilliant with a stellar supporting cast. But this film rests on its leading man, given that Matt Damon has to act alone for 90% of the film, he really owns every second onscreen. Damon’s Mark Watney is a shining example of man’s will to survive as well as his own ingenuity. Watney is a positive character who maintains the comic tone of the film, but shows his strains when things go wrong before picking himself back up again. The films faults increase in its last act, there are clichéd moments of people watching the events unfold in city centres around the world, and part of me really didn’t want to see Mark back on Earth once he’s been rescued. All in all though it shows that if given a good script, Scott can make a great film.  (Low 5 Stars)  

Mad Max Fury Road Review

Anyone with any knowledge of action cinema knows that the key to action is all in the editing, it’s in how you piece the film together. What’s interesting about Mad Max’s return to the screen is that it was made (at least to begin with) from thousands of storyboarded images rather than a script. This is incredibly noticeable in the films narrative, whose plot is essentially, good guys on a war rig escaping bad guys chasing them, think Stagecoach if it was done by scrapheap challenge. There’s no real time wasted on characterisation so it’s a good thing all the characters have such great names, non more so than Charlize Theron’s Imperator Furiosa, who really is the lead of this film, which is a good move considering Tom Hardy’s Max is actually really boring, he’s a great actor but not a great movie star, and in a film with minimal dialogue I don’t think his presence can carry the film. However the star of this film is the director George Miller, he hasn’t directed an action film since the 80s, but Miller has turned up with a film that has shown us what we’ve been missing amongst all the CGI dross of the last 30 years. The film is manic, but its beautiful at the same time, Michael Bay thinks that you can destroy things and it’s a film, George Miller knows that you have to find the beauty within the destruction, and his destruction is almost ballet. The problem is Mad Max is and will always be an exposition film, and that’s a format that works best over 90 minutes, at a running time just over 2 hours it begins to become a bit exhausting. But there is so much in this film to enjoy, and with future sequels in the works it’s interesting to see where it goes next. (Low 5 Stars)

American Sniper Review

This film rises and falls based entirely on what you think on the lead character Chris Kyle. A well-publicised figure in the American media, the late Chris Kyle was the most lethal sniper in American military history with 161 confirmed kills. People have since questioned to what extent he can be considered an American hero, or did he just kill people because as he’s said in the past, he likes it. In the context of the film you can only judge him on how he’s been presented on screen. Clint Eastwood isn’t interested in the Iraq war as a whole, this is about one Americans experiences at War, what made him want to fight, what made him so good at it, and how it affected him as a person. Eastwood also, quite sensibly, doesn’t seem to make a decision as to what type of person he felt Kyle was, allowing the audience to come to their own conclusions. Bradley Cooper is exceptional as Kyle, its not a showy performance, he captures all of the patriarchal respect that’s embedded in Kyle’s nature, all the yes sirs and yes mams, it’s also the incredible subtleties of the 4 tours and their effects on Kyle. The film is also extremely effective as a tense action with the set pieces confidently handled. There are some missteps, in an attempt to demonise the enemy there are some slightly over the top sequences that are slightly mishandled, and also a bizarre sequence which features an obviously fake baby. Though it’s effectively done its also not necessarily ground breaking in structure but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. Ultimately as a big fan of Kyle, regardless of his more unlikeable qualities, I really liked this film and it’s great to see Eastwood back in such good form. (Low 5 Stars)

Kingsman: The Secret Service Review

Hollywood is a cynical place where artists visions are compromised by studio accountants, and there’s nothing worse than a compromised piece of art. Matt Vaughn produces and self-finances all his own work meaning his films are made entirely without compromise, and my god does it show. Kingsman is a manic film, the idea of a playful spy film is taken and then pumped with a toxic cocktail of cocaine and adrenaline. Its helped by a strong cast including the immensely likeable newcomer Taron Egerton, and old hands such as Colin Firth, Michael Caine, Mark Strong and a sibilant Samuel L. Jackson. There are 2 particular sequences which are nothing short of exceptional, it will be a tall order for a cinematic moment this year to top the glory of Colin Firth killing a church load of people in emphatic style to the tune of Lynnrd Skynnrd. There are drawbacks however, the frantic nature of the film leaves aspects feeling underdeveloped, and although it touches on some interesting points concerning the class system in Britain and the essence of being a gentleman, it doesn’t seem like it spends enough time on developing them. The film begs a sequel, and seeing something so completely uncompromised I would be the first one to book my ticket. (High 4 Stars) 

John Wick Review

Keanu Reeves isn’t a particularly good actor, when stretched in certain performances it shows, what Keanu Reeves is however is a proper movie star and thankfully this film does everything right in proving that. It’s a story we’ve all heard before, man who is retired from his dark past is dragged back into the violence when bad men takes something he loves. That almost sounds like Taken, the difference is that Taken is absolute dross and stars a man that has no business in action films, unlike John Wick which takes a simple premise and makes it seriously fucking cool. Reeves plays the titular character who goes on a one man killing rampage to find and kill the scumbag son of his former boss who broke into his home, stole his car and killed his dog given to John by his dying wife. What separates this film first from other similar fare is its action sequences, unlike other films which rely heavily on editing to disguise that its stars are really a bit crap, this film has 2 directors (formerly the martial arts co-ordinators on The Matrix films) who understand the cinematic quality of a well-choreographed fight sequence or shoot out, as the camera steps back and marvels at Wick dispatching people left, right and centre it creates a character that we genuinely believe is unstoppable. This is also supported by every other characters reactions to John Wick, the name seems to strike fear into anyone who hears it, summaries of Wick being “he’s not the boogeyman, he’s the guy you’d get to kill the boogeyman” or “I once saw John Wick kill four guys in a bar fight…with a pencil”. Taken somehow managed to spawn 2 sequels, the first film was shit, it definitely didn’t warrant 2 more films from the same universe, John Wick however creates a universe that I’d love to see sequels from, there is a hit man hotel called the continental and they all have their own currency and its all these little things that make John Wick so interesting, but more than anything it just seriously kicks ass. (High 4 Stars)   

Mission Impossible Rogue Nation Review

Tom Cruise is a movie star, he’s an actor of course, but he’s first and foremost an undisputed movie star, and the mission impossible films are his greatest star vehicles. The films have evolved immensely since the first one from Brian De Palma, since then there has been a different director each outing offering their own vision all to varying levels of success. The latest outing is from writer/director Christopher McQuarrie, and he draws from some great areas of cinema to make a really great spy film. The cast are all in good form, Cruise is effortless of course, Pegg plays both comic relief as well as effectively representing the audience in the film by being amazed at Cruise’s stunts. Renner manages to make much more of what isn’t a particularly interesting role, and then there is the films new superstar in the form of Rebecca Ferguson as the mysterious villain/hero/spy Ilse Faust. What’s so brilliant about Ferguson’s performance is that it is incredibly layered, and as well as kicking some serious ass she isn’t burdened with any romantic sub plot, she’s a proper character and not just a plot device, if this film shows anything its how you can make a spy film much more fun than Bond that doesn’t have any of the rampant misogyny. McQuarrie does some interesting things with his direction, and in amongst all the car chases and shoot outs the stand out sequence from the film is an opera sequence which is old fashioned and really effective. If it falls down anywhere it’s in its story, as the film progresses the plot becomes increasingly convoluted and it seems more interested in just dragging the film to the next set piece. It also tragically wastes the talents of the brilliant Sean Harris who plays the films main villain, Harris is a menacing screen presence and he’s an actor whose good at being bad, but in amongst all the plot detail the film never takes the time to fully flesh out his character. When it comes down to it, Mission Impossible is what movies are about, its big fun, and when you’re sat watching Tom Cruise genuinely clinging onto the side of the plane during mid-flight, you know it’s worth the price of admission. (High 4 Stars)   

Avengers Age of Ultron Review

The Avengers is Marvels biggest event movie of all their big event movies, when all of their superheroes gang together in order to fight an evil foe. The first film managed to more or less pull it off, Age of Ultron now has to follow that. The balancing of the characters is one of the trickiest aspects to pull off about these films, there being so many main characters there always ends up being someone left side lined. The particular characters left side lined in this outing are Thor and Captain America, though Thor gets most of the best comedy both of their arcs seem unimpressive in comparison with the rest of the film. The good news is the arc of the other characters, this sequel is unquestionably darker, Starks nightmarish thoughts of his whole team dying, glimpses into Natasha’s darker younger years and Banner’s continuing battle to control the beast. But with Joss Whedon providing these characters with their dialogue there is so much fun to be had, the greatest aspect of these films are the characters, It would genuinely be worth the price of admission to watch these characters just paint a house or something. The new additions to the film are a success as well, twins Pietro and Wanda are great fun and offer a new dynamic in the action set pieces, but the films best new addition is its villain. Though a completely CGI character the performance given by James Spader is extraordinary, his voice is charming yet still holds so much menace, hes violent, yet hes also quite funny. The weaknesses of the film, as with every other Marvel film, is its reluctance to change its formula and its persistent setting up of future sequels. There is no sense of surprise in the films, and there needs to be a drastic overhaul of their third –act battle sequences which have been the same for the last 5 movies. The universe that Marvel have created with their films is a 5 star collection of what is now 11 movies, but the formula required for those films to share a universe hinders the films in the quality and individuality. It’s a good thing then that for the moment the formula is a lot of fun. (4 Stars)

Jurassic World Review

Despite it being the fourth instalment in what must now be a franchise, Jurassic World comes over a decade after the third, its massive box office success would seem to have jumped upon audiences hunger for dinosaurs during that time. The park is now officially open and is looking to draw in more customers by offering new attractions in the form of genetically modified dinosaurs; needless to say everything goes horribly wrong. This new film features an entirely new cast, who’s characters and performances achieve varying levels of success. The strength, as with the original, is its young cast, the dinosaur mad young brother played by Ty Simpkins and the moody, mean and seemingly very horny older brother played by Nick Robinson (not the political editor for the BBC). Their performances avoid the usual trappings of disaster movies where you end up cheering for the annoying kids to be eaten, and seeing them come closer as brothers as result of the situation they’re put into is really effective, particularly the change we see in Nick Robinson’s older brother. Bryce Dallas Howard offers an enjoyable performance, but she’s lumbered with a very uninteresting character who’s character arcs are really broad strokes. Then there is Chris Pratt’s action hero Owen Grady. Pratt proved in Guardians of the Galaxy that he could play the leading man really well, however Owen Grady isn’t Star Lord and for me it doesn’t work, and I don’t believe Pratt as this action hero, the great thing about Star Lord is he is an action hero, but he’s also an affable idiot, whereas with Owen Grady its trying to sell you on something that doesn’t really work, and the film seems to agree with this because its really trying to force this image on you with lines like “your boyfriend is kick ass” and “Yeah, its Owen” and “no we want to stay with Owen”. Thankfully there are great performances in the supporting cast, Vincent D’onofrio’s villain may seem a bit one note, but Jake Johnson’s technician gets all the best laughs and Irrfan Khan tackles the loveable billionaire with great charm. Plot wise its all over the place and has more holes than a kitchen colander, but it doesn’t drop the pace for long enough to make you think on them, ultimately what the film achieves is that it’s tonnes of fun. Its not as smart as the original and far more generic than it, but it’s the best sequel and when Velociraptors are teaming up with a T-Rex to take down a newly designed dinosaur called the Indominus Rex, it’s never dull. (4 Stars)  

Everest Review

      

It’s a disaster movie but because it’s based on a true story its grounded in reality which makes it feel so much more emotionally investing. There are some genuinely emotional moments and the sense of triumph in the first act makes the second act all the darker. There are some good performances but the ensemble nature of the film means there is little time spent with any of them which means every character is very broad strokes. Despite the truth of the film it falls into a lot of disaster movie clichés, and the combination of both real location shots and CGI are visually jarring, the CGI isn’t bad it’s just noticeable. Overall it’s a fairly gripping 100 or so minutes but on reflection the story felt very underwhelming, I’m sure there’s a great film to be made about the dangers of Everest, I’m just not sure that this is it. (High 3 Stars)

Legend Review

Titles can say a lot about films, sometimes a title is the last thing a film receives, Legend tells you everything you need to know about the approach director Brian Helgeland has taken to the story of notorious London gangsters The Kray Twins. The film isn’t the story of the Krays so much as it is the legend of the Krays, as the opening says, “everyone had a story about the Krays” in addition to that those stories also tend to me fabricated. The film is fun and littered with great British character actors such as Thewlis, Eccleston and a small turn from Paul Bettany. But this film has not one but 2 towering performances from Tom Hardy who plays both Krays. His Reggie is cocksure and charming and harks back to the great stars of the 60’s, he’s smart and suave but he maintains the sense of unease about him. Then there is his Ronnie, a big hulking paranoid schizophrenic homosexual who is always seconds away from snapping on someone, what’s most impressive about his Ronnie is his dead stare that Hardy has developed that creates a sense of vacancy in Ron. But the film needs to be more than these performances and through all its fun a panache it feels a bit empty, there a funny moments and shocking moments of violence, but the film doesn’t really have an opinion on any of it, and with a title like Legend it ultimately feels like its glorifying 2 quite horrible people. It also suffers from an irritating narration from Reggie’s wife Frances, which brings literally nothing to the film. It’s glitzy and stylish and features a double towering performance from Hardy, but I just don’t feel it’s going to last very long in the memory. (High 3 Stars)

Fast and Furious 7 Review

Go back 15 years and watch the first of the Fast and Furious films and what we have here is about a billion light years away from where it started. This film is unbelievably STOOPID, it is utterly ridiculous, but there is a certain level of fun that can be had if stupid is done properly, this is almost that. The plot sounds simple enough, Jason Statham is the brother of bad guy Luke Evans, and he’s out for revenge against Dom and the gang for what they did to his little brother. Sounds simple enough and the excitement of seeing Statham vs the gang sounds titillating, the film however has the stupidest mcguffin in the history of cinema. The gang are recruited by shady CIA man Kurt Russell, who could actually just play himself and it wouldn’t make any less sense, he wants the gang to find a computer hacker who will lead them to a piece of software she developed which can hack everything simultaneously to find anyone (liberally ripped off the dark knight), the gang will do this for Kurt because they you can use it to find Statham. That set up makes zero amount of sense however because Statham turns up to kill them in every fucking scene, so there’s endless scenes of them discussing “once we find this software we can find Deckard Shaw and take the fight to him”, JUST TURN AROUND FOR FUCKS SAKE, HES RIGHT BEHIND YOU! However stupid this is though, these films have never been much about story, they’ve been about set pieces and fun, and this is really good fun, the cars are faster and the action furiouser, it also shows a certain amount of subtlety in its sparing use of Dwayne “the rock” Johnson. The films greatest strength is its handling of the sad death of Paul Walker, the ending is so beautifully handled that for the first time this film seems to get you to believe in the notion of family that it’s been talking about for the last 15 years, God bless you Mr Walker wherever you are. (High 3 Stars)     

Spectre Review

Took in a packed screening of Spectre on Tuesday evening at my local soulless multiplex. My anticipation was high after reading several 5 star reviews, and after the great work Sam Mendes had done with Skyfall, surely Spectre would be just as impressive, what a crushing disappointment this latest Bond outing really was then.
The positives can be summed up as fairly good performances, a good fight on a train and thanks to Hoyte Van Hoytema it definitely looks pretty, but the rest is an utter shambles.
The plot makes little to no sense, that alone usually isn't a problem with Bond but it has to make up for it with the set pieces, Spectre however rehashes so many old Bond set pieces that it feels like a highlights reel of the Bond classics, and every set piece feels incredibly hollow and dull, in particular the Rome car chase. Spoilers aside, a character revelation in the final third made me vitriolic and Dave Bautista's Mr Hinx is tragically wasted.And the final most heinous crime of Spectre is the misogyny. Being cross about misogyny in Bond is like being cross about racism in 12 years a slave, Bond and terrible female characters go hand in hand. But the filmmakers never shut up about the way they've created more rounded female characters when they've actually done nothing to change it, so they cast a 50 year old as a Bond girl, hardly revolutionary when she's in the film for under 10 minutes and Bond still manages to sleep with her, and Madeline Swann has 15 minutes of screen time between her threatening to kill James and then throwing herself all over him like a bad rash. Don't know what's next for Bond, but Spectre feels like it's unravelled all the hard work of Casino Royale, must do better 007. (High 2 Stars)

Terminator Genisys Review

Not all films can make a franchise, not all films have the material and the content to create a series of films with enough quality. The Terminator franchise, started by James Cameron in the 80s, created a universe that crossed multiple time zones and the first two are flawless sci-fi classics, since then however it’s all gone horribly downhill, and now with the horribly titled Terminator Genisys it’s difficult to see if there’s any hill left, because this is a new level of terrible. First the good parts, the opening is a strong depiction of the post judgement day future, there is also some phenomenal CGI work creating a fight sequence between an old T-800 and a young T-800 (old Arnie vs young Arnie). Now the rest, Emilia Clarke is an abysmal Sarah Conor, never convinces in the slightest as an action lead, looking and acting for the most part like someone made a terrible decision and handed a teenager a rifle. Jai Courtney continues his terrible run of form as a terrible lead in a terrible film, Kyle Reese is meant to be a weak food deprived survivalist who is genuinely terrified of T-800’s and T-1000’s, what Courtney brings is a muscle bound quippy superstar who never feels threatened. The worst sin of this film by far is its story; it feels like a group of studio executives just threw out some random ideas and then never made the effort to make them work at all. Nothing is explained and the film poses about 1000 questions that it’s obvious even the film doesn’t know the answers to. The only thing that saves this from being a one star films is the amount of time I spent laughing at the film, but I was laughing at it, never with it, and I hope to god that this franchise is dead, I’m off to watch T2. (Low 2 Stars)      

Frank Review

     

Some films can come along fairly innocuously without hype or publicity and then when you watch them they impress on a monumental scale, Frank is that film for this year. Based loosely on writer Jon Ronson’s time spent playing keyboard in Frank Sidebottom’s band, it goes much further, and other than the giant paper mache head Frank is much more an amalgamation of musical talents such as Daniel Johnston and Captain Beefheart. The film follows hapless wannabe musician Jon, who somehow manages to land himself a role as the keyboard player in a band with an unpronounceable name lead by their frontman and almost mystical leader Frank. The film focuses on the intense year behind the creation of their album, but is more about what it takes to be a great songwriter, and also the fine line between genius and madness, what makes Frank as great as he is? And if you take away Franks uniqueness what does the music become?  The film is, in short, marvellous, it is a perfect blend of comedy and tragedy without one of those disciplines ever undermining the other, the music is brilliant, every performance is wonderful and I haven’t laughed more consistently at a film this year. The final scene is one of my favourites of this year, it shows how after all the bullshit of the music industry with people desperately dying to “make it”, music in its purest form has the incredible power to bring people together.  (High 5 Stars)

Boyhood Review

1.     

Sometimes the process of making a film can overshadow the  actual film itself, this is a fear I had with Boyhood, a film that was made over 12 years using the same cast. I needn’t have worried, Boyhood is not only a cinematic landmark in terms of production but what has been produced is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. The cast a brilliant, and rarely can you see actors change and develop their character so deeply, the characters in this film are the most developed of any film I’ve ever seen. Richard Linklater continues to show why he is the master of catching life in film, its all scripted but it never feels like it is, the way he’s able to capture lifes little moments is phenomenal, and its so hard to believe that the film is never relying on hindsight, so conversations about future star wars films, or facebook etc become so relevant. Occasionally it feels like the dialogue missteps causing a cringe reaction, but then you realise the reason you’re cringing is because you’ve had exactly the same conversation at some point in your life, it’s like watching a home movie of your youth.  I also feel as someone who recently turned 21 that Boyhood is the perfect film for someone such as myself who is reflecting on his childhood, Mason’s life is both incredibly similar and incredibly different in so many ways, but growing up with Mason (and everyone else in his life) over a period of 3 hours is a monumental experience. Along with 12 Years a Slave, 2014 may have produced 2 of the greatest films ever made. (High 5 Stars)

The Guest Review

What is cool? The answer to that question is completely down to opinion, but on a cinematic level it falls into patterns. It began with Nic Refn’s Drive, a film that could best be described as post-modern 80’s pastiche, fuelled by its cool jackets and synth soundtrack, and this continues in the form of Adam Wingard’s The Guest. Again the 80s soundtrack is in place creating the post-modern 80’s vibe with a partnership in neon, and Adam Wingard demonstrates his cineliterate mind referencing 80s horror and action. Wingard’s first film You’re Next was a brilliant horror film that managed to place family feuds at the centre of a slasher narrative, The Guest goes bigger and bolder. The family stuff is in place again and the interplay between the Jefferson’s is well written and well acted, but this film entirely rests on the performance of Dan Stevens as the titular guest David, and he knocks it out the fucking park. The man who once dwelled in Downton Abbey couldn’t be further from manor houses as the charming yet menacing David, every look, every smile and every compliment ooze with menace, you know David is 100% bad news, but like the Jefferson family you fall for him completely and don’t think for a second at what the violent outcome will be. David is definitely the best character of the year so far, and he makes this film what it is. The film is also laugh out loud funny, its so refreshing to see a director with a sick sense of humour, if you’re not laughing at this, you’re not watching it properly. (High 5 Stars)

Nightcrawler Review

Coming out of Nightcrawler I was trying to think of a director that has had a better debut film than this. Dan Gilroy has created a modern masterpiece. The film follows Jake Gyllenhall’s Lou Bloom, a man with poor social skills but a phenomenal ego who takes to the world of late night TV journalism, “if it bleeds, it leads”. The social comment the film makes is incredibly poignant, but what’s impressive about the film is how exceptional it works as a thriller, the end sequence is masterful in its tension building leading to a violent outcome and a car chase-chase. At over 2 hours long it feels incredibly lean as well, there’s no sub plots that don’t lead anywhere, this film has an idea and then just ramps it up. The indisputable best aspect of this film however is its leading man, there is no performance that I can think of anything like Lou Bloom, he is a sociopath who spouts self-taught business jargon at people as he makes everyone’s skin crawl “if you want to win the lottery you have to make the money to buy the ticket” being one of his philosophies. His relationship with news producer Rene Russo is easily the most interesting relationship of the year. Gyllenhall’s career has rocketed in the last couple of years from good actor to great actor, he’s suddenly become a name that makes a film like this a must-see. (High 5 Stars)