American Hustle

Academy Award Nominations: 10

·         Best Picture

·         Best Director (David O. Russell)

·         Best Original Screenplay (Eric Warren Singer, David O. Russell)

·         Best Actor (Christian Bale)

·         Best Actress (Amy Adams)

·         Best Supporting Actor (Bradley Cooper)

·         Best Supporting Actress (Jennifer Lawrence)

·         Best Editing (Jay Cassidy, Crispin Struthers, Alan Baumgarten)

·         Best Production Design (Judy Becker, Heather Loeffler)

·         Best Costume Design (Michael Wilkinson)

Irving Rosenfeld and Sydney Prosser have just met and fallen madly in love. A few problems: They’re working as con artists with Sydney pretending to be a British aristocrat, and Irving’s married and he refuses to leave his adopted son alone with his wife. When they’re finally caught by FBI agent Richie Di Maso, they’re forced to help Di Maso entrap Mayor Polito of Camden, New Jersey with the help of a fake Sheikh. However, as soon as Di Maso gets wind of a bigger target higher up the food chain, the operation grows despite the concerns of Rosenfeld, Prosser and Di Maso’s boss Stoddard Thorsen. The plan continues to escalate until finally they end up meeting Victor Tellagio, a violent Mafia kingpin. Can Irving and Sydney work their way out of an impossible situation? And can they keep Irving’s wife Rosalyn under control?

Does anyone else remember the days when David O. Russell was a director to be feared, rather than adored? He makes tremendous films, but this is the guy who almost got into a fist fight with George Clooney during the making of Three Kings. This is the guy who famously had an explicit verbal argument with Lily Tomlin during the making of I ♥ Huckabees. Well, that happened in 2004. He took a 6 year break, and has since come back with 2 absolutely blinding films. 2010 saw the release of The Fighter, with award winning turns from Melissa Leo and Christian Bale. 2012 saw the release of Silver Linings Playbook, with an award winning turn from Jennifer Lawrence which everyone loved (except me apparently). Now, having developed a new reputation as an “actor’s director”, he’s returned after a year, combining the casts of his previous two films in American Hustle, his supposed magnum opus based on the ABSCAM operation of the 70s and 80s. Let me tell you, it is ALL about the crazy hair…

How this film didn’t get nominated for hair and makeup is beyond me, because this film features every kind of wig you could possibly think of. It’s the 1970s, so it is all about the crazy hair and garish outfits, and they more than deliver on that front. Looks aside, American Hustle is all well and good, I’m just not convinced they knew quite what they wanted to achieve with this film. The tone is all over the place; shifting from slapstick to thriller to rom com to drama to PG to rated X at 100 miles an hour, and when you’re sitting through 2 hours of ever-shifting tone and pace, it just becomes a real labour to watch, even though for the most part it is an enjoyable film. Never has the phrase “jack of all trades, master of fuck all” been more appropriate for a film. I think Russell just got a bit overexcited while he was writing it and assembling his cast, because it seems as if the dialogue and the characters were given the majority of his focus and attention, whilst things like coherent plot and consistency were merely an afterthought.

Being an “actor’s director”, David O. Russell is able to elicit a number of great performances from his actors and actresses here. Christian Bale has performed his now-usual trick of losing or gaining weight for a role, this time adding a ton of weight to play Irving Rosenfeld with a Bronx accent. It’s not Bale’s greatest performance, but he makes his fat, balding, con artist someone to feel sorry for which is an achievement in itself. Amy Adams, for most of her time on screen, speaks in an almost flawless British accent. Other than that, she steals most of the limelight and is better in this than she is in The Fighter, and I thought she was fantastic in that. Bradley Cooper is great as Richie Di Maso, playing an FBI agent hungry for a shot and getting in way over his depth, and he has great chemistry with Louis C.K. who plays his boss. Jennifer Lawrence is… Amazing. Her character isn’t on screen nearly enough. But then, if she was, it might be overkill, because her character is an incredibly strong presence on screen and is the most memorable thing in this film. Well…

Lawrence is the most memorable thing in the film except for the uncredited cameo appearance by Robert De Niro as Victor Tellagio, Mafia crime boss. He appears suddenly near the end of the second act, and steals the show. He’s like De Niro of old; terrifying, enthralling, captivating, electric, sinister… It’s a performance he would have put in for Martin Scorsese thirty years ago, but it’s hidden away in a short 10 minute scene without any mentions of him being there before or after. The problem with De Niro’s cameo is that it’s his best performance in years but it’s hidden in a film which is extremely shallow and self-centred. No one cares for anyone else, there’s no thought of depth, and it’s all about the surface and the non-real. Given that the film is centred on an ever escalating scam, it’s hardly surprising that the entire film is a depth-less affair, but it’s a real shame it is because you can see that there’s a lot of potential in here for American Hustle to be a really spectacular film.

Overall, American Hustle ends up being just OK, it’s not anything spectacular, but it’s not terrible. The characters are great to watch, brought to life by 5-6 great performances from its lead and supporting actors and actresses, and the humour is at time laugh out loud. The drama and tension, however, is patchy, drowned out by the overlapping tones. It’s a real mixed bag, and at times, it’s even hard to comprehend who’s meant to be scamming who. Meanwhile, the conclusion is extremely short, sweet and sudden. After two hours of build-up, the film ends so suddenly that you’re left wondering what the hell happened and where your satisfying conclusion went. The film looks great and is well put together for what it is, but what it is is a shambles. A clusterfuck on a grander scale than we've previously seen from David O. Russell. The performances are worth watching, though.

Rating: ***1/2

American Hustle was released on 1^st January 2014 and is still being shown in cinemas.

12 Years a Slave

Academy Award Nominations: 9

• Best Picture
• Best Director (Steve McQueen)
• Best Adapted Screenplay (John Ridley)
• Best Actor (Chiwetel Ejiofor)
• Best Supporting Actor (Michael Fassbender)
• Best Supporting Actress (Lupita Nyong'o)
• Best Editing (Joe Walker)
• Best Production Design (Adam Stockhausen, Alice Baker)
• Best Costume Design (Patricia Norris)

Solomon Northup is a renowned fiddle player, living as a free man with his wife and children. However, after meeting two gentlemen who claim to be interested in hiring him, he awakes from a night of drinking to find he has been tricked, as he is shackled and about to be sold into slavery. He is shipped to New Orleans and given the name Platt while he works for plantation owner William Ford, with whom he gets on with. But he soon falls afoul of Ford's carpenter, and is moved to Edwin Epps's plantation. Epps is known as a slave driver in every sense of the term who believes he is doing God's work in keeping slaves to pick cotton. Northup witnesses the horrors of slavery, especially an uncomfortable relationship between Epps and slave Patsey, as he considers his place amongst the workers: As a wrongly imprisoned man, is he still free, or does he belong amongst the slaves and imprisoned?

Steve McQueen has rapidly established a name for himself in dramatic cinema. I say rapidly, his career has consisted of only 3 feature films since 2008, as well as a Turner Prize in 1999. His debut feature, Hunger, starred Michael Fassbender as Bobby Sands, the IRA prisoner who went on hunger strike in an attempt to regain political status. 3 years later, McQueen and Fassbender re-teamed for Shame, a story of a sex addict and his sister as they attempt to find their way in the world. Now, McQueen returns again with his most ambitious and epic project yet: The story of Solomon Northup, a free man wrongfully imprisoned and sold into slavery for 12 years. Films about slavery are a tricky proposition; one must find the balance between the brutal nature of slavery in order to make it a realistic document of a horrific time, whilst not going overboard and exploiting the ordeal of the hundreds of thousands of slaves, making it a spectacle rather than a drama. Mercifully, McQueen doesn't just get it right, he makes something of real cinematic importance.

First of all, let's make things clear: For the majority of the film, the same material from every other film about slavery is covered. The brutal beatings for insolence, the wicked plantation owner, the group of slaves singing as they work. What makes this different is the character of Solomon Northup. As a free man, he is considered an extraordinary negro. Yet when he becomes a slave, he doesn't fit because he's far too educated and he hasn't spent his life in slavery like 90% of his cohorts. Essentially, Solomon Northup is the most relatable face of slavery you will likely ever find in cinema. That's not to say you relate to him, I'm saying he's as close as you'll ever get to relatable, which is still a million miles away from understanding what exactly they went through. That being said, 12 Years a Slave feels like you're watching about as realistic a portrayal of life as a plantation slave as is humanly possible without first hand knowledge. This film never becomes exploitative in any way, it always keeps the viewer engaged albeit uncomfortable. The set pieces and events of Northup's life as a slave are as mesmerizing and astounding as they are horrifying and distressing. This is not an easy watch.

Chiwetel Ejiofor is given the grave task of bringing Northup to life, and does so with great aplomb. There's a lot of emotion in his actions, which shows Northup's internal struggle as he wonders whether he belongs with the slaves he shares a cotton field with. It's a really visceral performance that is unlikely to be matched this year, and has great chemistry with everyone he shares the screen with, and that's a lot of main characters and cameo appearances. He shares screen time with Paul Giamatti, Paul Dano, Benedict Cumberbatch, Michael K Williams, Michael Fassbender, and Brad Pitt, and yet manages to outshine them all thanks to the strength of his performance and the depth of character he creates on screen. For all the praise being heaped upon Lupita Nyong'o for her performance as Patsey, I was unconvinced by what I deemed to be an uneven performance. For every scene where she evokes heartbreaking pain and agony, there's a scene where she seems vacant and inappropriately emotionless. Michael Fassbender is terrifically psychotic and frightening as Edwin Epps the plantation owner though, and ends up becoming a dominating presence on screen. McQueen has a way of drawing out phenomenal performances from this man, and this time gives him a character where he can do something fantastically different.

The film is captured in McQueen's usual visual style; it captures the events in a documentary style with steadicam work mixed in with more elaborate set-ups, but the images captured are extremely rich and stylised and feel extremely cinematic rather than realistic, which creates the impression of an 'epic' film in the vein of Ben Hur and Cleopatra. There are two moments in particular which highlight both McQueen's visual style, as well as his aptitude as a director and story teller. At the impromptu funeral of a fellow slave, a song breaks out amongst the slaves, Roll Jordan Roll, a song typically sung by slaves in plantations. Close ups show Northup's face as he struggles with the decision to join in; even after all he's seen, he's unsure whether he belongs within the group of slaves. The struggle of his face is clear, and eventually he relents, begins joining in, his voice becoming more and more powerful as he becomes more asserted in his now assumed role. Later, near the end, there's a scene involving Epps and Patsey, which is filmed on a steadicam. It's a long scene, and there isn't a single edit. The content of the scene was uncomfortable enough, and the longer the take goes on, the more uncomfortable it is to watch. It never becomes overwhelming, but it shows McQueen's determination to show the real brutality of slavery in southern America and we shouldn't shy away from the facts.

Overall, this is a great film with an important message, though what that message is is up to you to decide should you choose to watch. It's brutal viewing, but ultimately rewarding, even though its conclusion is sudden and abrupt. The cinematography and editing are great, and the music becomes more than just background atmosphere as the score becomes to reflect the position of Solomon in the film and becomes its own character. It's a very deliberate film, in that every small aspect has clearly been well thought out and is deliberately on screen or coming through the speakers. It is, ultimately, the acting performances of Ejiofor, Nyong'o and Fassbender which keep you watching and make this film as good as it is. You feel in the hands of other actors, the impact of the film may have been lessened, but the combination of cast and director have created something which I would hope people will recall as 'something special' for years to come.

Rating: *****

12 Years a Slave was released on 10th January 2014 and is still being shown in cinemas.

Nebraska

Academy Award Nominations: 6

• Best Picture
• Best Director (Alexander Payne)
• Best Original Screenplay (Bob Nelson)
• Best Actor (Bruce Dern)
• Best Supporting Actress (June Squibb)
• Best Cinematography (Phedon Papamichael)

Woody Grant is a millionaire. Or at least that’s what the sweepstakes letter he received in the mail says, and he’s determined to walk the 850 miles from Billings, Montana to Lincoln, Nebraska to collect his winnings. Unfortunately, it’s a mail scam, and everyone including Woody’s son David knows it. However, Woody is determined, so David decides to humour him and take him on a road trip to Lincoln so Woody can see for himself. However, after an accident halfway through the journey, plans are made for David and Woody to return to Woody’s home town of Hawthorne in Nebraska for a family reunion. It’s there where we meet Woody’s family, Woody’s old friends, and David gets to know his dad a little better than he did, but maybe he’s about to find out too much…

Alexander Payne has carved out a niche for himself, creating a series of reflections on contemporary American life in his films through satirical, understated, lightly funny dramedies. Election reflects on American politics through a high school election, whilst examining what happened to Ferris Bueller when he grew up. About Schmidt reflects on old age and life in general, whilst Sideways reflects on friendships and relationships. After a while away, he came back with The Descendants (which I loved) which reflects on the impact of death and the monotony of life. He returns for this award season with Nebraska, a look at family and monotony in monotone. It’s strange to think that as popular as Payne and his films have become, this feels like he’s taking a step back to his independent roots, and to be honest, it’s a real joy to watch.

Payne has spent a lot of time reflecting on who he’s become as an auteur, focusing his films on relationships, friendships and monotony in an extravagant life. However, with Nebraska, it feels like he’s chosen someone else’s script where he’s able to return to his own roots and look back at where he came from, focusing on an eccentric father and an eclectic family, as well as returning to a home town, which is almost foreign compared to the life they lead at home. The town is different and behaves in a strange way, the family members are different and lead completely different lives run by a different set of rules. This is something I can certainly relate to, so no surprise that I related entirely to this film and loved it much like his other previous works. The awkwardness and the stubbornness that emerges when two different cultures clash under the pretence of a common denominator makes for an awkward yet laugh out loud funny viewing experience, as I believe I can attest to the fact that his portrayal of this kind of culture clash is so accurate it hurts.

The story itself is charming: Old man believes mail scam is real and sets out to claim a non-existent million dollars. Bruce Dern is unbelievably good in this, really. He may be old, but he plays even older and less-able in this film to the point where you feel the performance is rooted in real life, which based in recent media appearances is entirely untrue. You feel for the guy, he’s a loveable idiot character and an adorable pensioner character in rolled into one, it’s impossible not to root for Woody by the end of this one. Also great, June Squibb as Woody’s wife Kate, who is the archetypal matriarch of the family and refuses to stand for any of Woody’s nonsense, constantly belittling him in a way that make you feel as if she’s almost reminiscing for the days when Woody wasn’t as senile as he’s becoming. Also, great here is Stacy Keach as Ed Pegram, Woody’s old business partner who tries extorting money. He’s unlikeable from the moment he hits the screen, and the character he plays only works in his favour, a real old school villain who you don’t often get to see on screen any more.

You know who isn’t good in this? Will Forte as the main supporting actor, playing David, Woody’s son. But you know who’s even worse, amazingly? Bob Odenkirk as Ross, Woody’s other son. Personally, I think they’re horribly mismatched in this film and their presence in the film undermines both the tone and the objectives of the film. This isn’t a super serious drama by any means, it is whimsical and light hearted for the most part, but Will Forte is meant to be playing a straight guy character that doesn’t play for laughs. That goes against everything he’s used to, and kudos to him for attempting to play against type for a change, but it doesn’t work, his performance is wooden and only gets better towards the end. Bob Odenkirk, however, is shockingly bad in this. You’d have thought that his experience in drama as Breaking Bad’s Saul Goodman would have helped him, but he sticks out like a sore thumb in this. The performance is atrocious, just all over the place, extremely inconsistent and distracting whenever he’s on screen, and it breaks my heart to say it.

Overall though, this is a really charming film about small town life and the decisions you make in life, all told in typical Payne manner. The older actors and actresses are who steal the show and carry the film to its conclusion, as well as develop most of the plot points. It seems very deliberate that the younger people are along for the older people’s ride in this film, rather than the usual vice versa, which is a good take on the parent-child road trip and one which works for the kind of tone they are aiming to achieve with this film, which I have to say, they get right throughout. The cinematography is lovely, vividly capturing a barren part of America whilst not stealing focus from the performances, and the dialogue is witty, snappy and realistic. It’s a feel good story with a sentimental side without becoming overly gooey and cliché ridden, which is absolutely OK with me.

Rating: ****

Nebraska was released on 6th December 2013 and is no longer being shown in cinemas.

Gravity

Academy Award Nominations: 10

• Best Picture
• Best Director (Alfonso Cuaron)
• Best Actress (Sandra Bullock)
• Best Original Score (Steven Price)
• Best Cinematography (Emmanuel Lubezki)
• Best Editing (Alfonso Cuaron, Mark Sanger)
• Best Production Design (Andy Nicholson, Rosie Goodwin, Joanne Woodlard)
• Best Sound Editing (Glenn Freemantle)
• Best Sound Mixing (Skip Lievsay, Christopher Benstead, Niv Adiri, Chris Munro)
• Best Visual Effects (Tim Webber, Chris Lawrence, David Shirk, Neil Corbould, Nikki Penny)

Dr Ryan Stone is on her first space mission aboard the Explorer accompanied by Matt Kowalski, a veteran on his last mission. In the middle of a spacewalk, they receive word from mission control that a destroyed Russian satellite is destroying other satellites, creating a chain reaction of debris heading their way. Stone and Kowalski attempt to get out of its way but they're too late: They get hit by the debris, and are left stranded in space, untethered to any shuttle or station, with no communications with Earth and no way of getting home...

Usually in this paragraph, I'll ramble about the history of the film being reviewed, whether it's sequels or the material the film's based on, I might even touch upon the production history before kicking off. I'll be honest, I knew nothing of Gravity until the first trailer appeared. Wow. Then the second trailer appeared. Wow. Since then, it's been everywhere: George Clooney and Sandra Bullock lost in space from the director of a Harry Potter film. No-one knew much of the plot or what would happen, and slowly but surely we found out the film is three years in the making after being written by the director and his son. It's been a long time since I've seen an original film not based on another text. Gravity is, unfortunately, a rarity in modern cinema. Let's hope that trend is bucked after this, because... Wow.

Gravity is stunning. Why sugar coat it or go a long way around saying it? It's stunning, it's a stunning piece of cinema. But where to begin? Let's go with the cinematography. This film has been excellently filmed by Emmanuel Lubezki, cinematographer previously on The Tree of Life and Children of Men. Given that this film is mainly a green screen production with heavy special effects, that's no mean feat. Essentially, the film has been shot in a series of long takes where the camera is completely fluid, moving from long shot, to close up, to third person, to first person, all in one seamless movement for a good 20 minutes. The way the film has been shot is just one element (of which there are many) which contribute to the audience's involvement in the film; you feel like you're there with the characters, whilst also being taken out of it and made to look at the horror and the beauty of the situation. The editing is minimal because the cinematography does all of the editor's hard work for him. It captures wonderfully the beauty of space, as well as the terror of a vast, uncontrollable, unending setting in which there are no directions, there's no up or down, there's no control, and personal locations are completely subjective. With the film being a series of long takes, it takes a fantastic amount of talent and control from its lead actors.

George Clooney and Sandra Bullock are given a monumental task in Gravity; they have to get through a series of long takes without any mistakes, they were asked to act in a situation where nothing was real and they were surrounded by green screens and cranes with only the hope that they're doing the right thing, and there are no other acting performances in this film; they are left to carry a 90 minute film by themselves. They did it, man. Research tells me that most of Sandra Bullock's scenes were shot while fastened into a giant mechanical rig simulating weightlessness, where she often spent 10 hours a day without breaks. Good for her, because she's still amazing. Terrified, yet optimistic; brave, yet flawed. George Clooney is great as well playing a stereotypical veteran astronaut on his last mission, evoking any number of sci-fi space films with a veteran commander. He's charming, charismatic, brave, bold, smart, all of the above and more. But it's Sandra's film, despite some dodgy dialogue.

If anything, that's the only fault with the film. The dialogue, technical space mission stuff aside, sounds like it was lifted straight from a 1950s B-movie adventure. However, I dare say this film overcomes this because it's such a non-important part. It's not about what they say, it's about what they do and where they do it. Alfonso Cuaron is a fantastic director, and this proved it. How he creates the situation, how he lets it play out, how he resolves it, it's all spot on and really engages the audience with its characters. He calls upon a number of sci-fi tropes and themes, especially in the hiring of Ed Harris as the voice of mission control (think Apollo 13), to make the audience know what kind of territory they're in with this film: As soon as you see Sandra Bullock essentially becoming Ripley from the Alien films in one scene, you know Cuaron's influences here. It explains the B-movie dialogue: Gravity is a big budget, effects laden, sci-fi B-movie that surpasses its inspirations. It even out does Wall-E at one point.

Overall, this film is an event, an experience that needs to be seen in the cinema. Don't download it illegally, don't even wait for the legal download or the DVD or Blu Ray. This film needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible, with the biggest sound system possible, and as much as I hate to say it, it needs to be seen in 3D. Being set in space, you don't really lose that much light from the 3D glasses, and the 3D effects, which were done post-production, are essential to the experience. Cuaron has managed to portray both the sheer beauty and the sheer terror of open space. I'm giving this film 5 out of 5 stars because I've never seen a film that has immersed me in the watching experience as much as Gravity did, I don't think I've ever left a cinema screen so exhilarated and near-breathless. It may lose a star, star and a half once it leaves cinemas because this film was made for cinematic viewing, not for home viewing. If you're going to watch Gravity, do it in the next 5 weeks at a cinema in 3D. Don't wait until you can see it at home, because you'll be missing out on what makes this film great.

Rating: *****

Gravity was released on 4th October 2013 and is no longer being shown in cinemas.
This review was edited and updated for its inclusion to Best Picture Nominee Season.

Thor: The Dark World

Eons ago, Bor, father of Odin, defeated the Dark Elves led by Malekith and hid their weapon for plunging the universe into darkness, the Aether, leaving Malekith and the Dark Elves to enter suspended animation until the Aether is found again. Meanwhile, in the present day, Thor is almost at the end of a two year war to bring peace across the realm while his brother Loki languishes in prison, and Jane Foster is still on Earth, now living in London. However, while investigating an anomaly, she is pulled into a portal to another realm where she discovers the hidden Aether, which takes residence inside Jane Foster. When Thor finds her, he realises she is ill and brings her back to Asgard but it's too late, the damage has been done and Malekith has been reanimated and is coming back for the Aether. Thor needs a plan to stop him, but that involves having to trust the one man he can't trust: Loki...

Can you believe it's only been two and a half years since Thor came out? It really seems like the kind of film that's been around for longer than that, especially since The Avengers was only a year and a half ago. Nonetheless, we're now into Phase Two of Marvel's Cinematic Universe, and here's film number two after Iron Man 3. I'll be honest, the trailer made the film look as epic as any other Marvel offering, but I came into Thor: The Dark World with tempered expectations. Where do they go from what we've already seen? How do they make any epic series of films even more so? For the first time in a long time, I came into a film ready to be disappointed and looking for its faults. I liked the first one, and I'm a big fan of what Marvel have been doing and comic book films in general. Well... long story short, I was wrong. This was fantastic. Let me explain why.

For the first time in a long time, Marvel hasn't tried to outdo the previous film in terms of scale. Don't get me wrong, there's still multiple big battle scenes and the enemy our hero has to vanquish is great, but they haven't tried to "Man of Steel" things by destroying absolutely everything in order to better the amount of damage and to make the final boss fight more epic than the one in the last superhero film. What we see in TTDW doesn't try to outdo its predecessors, it builds upon them to tell a surprisingly compelling story. What we get is a far more compelling drama than we've seen before from Marvel where we get to see more of the characters than ever before. Thor 2 is unlike Thor more than any other Marvel sequel is unlike its predecessor. The only film that comes close to being like Thor 2 is Iron Man 3; they deal with similar themes and the characters are given more time to develop and allow more of their traits and personalities to emerge. I like where Phase Two is heading.

All of this is down to a script that relies extremely heavily on its main cast of actors pulling off fantastic performances, but not its leading stars funnily enough. Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman are not anything special in his film, they do their thing and get the job done. Instead, it's Tom Hiddleston's Loki who steals the show AGAIN. The performance is great and the character is developed so well in this film, it's hard to see them not bringing back the character at least one more time. Anthony Hopkins is given more screen time as Odin, and plays an ailing and embittered king really well. Plus, Christopher Eccleston is fantastic as Malekith considering he doesn't speak English for half the film. He's menacing, and presents a true threat to Thor which is what a story like this needed.

What I like about this film, is that as dark as it gets at times, there hasn't been a funnier MCU film to date, and that includes all films featuring Iron Man. The character of Darcy, Jane's assistant, was the comic relief in the first Thor and she's given the chance to step up that role where she has some of the best lines in the film. Dr Erik Selvig makes a welcome reappearance, but they've shifted his character That, and the development of another side of Loki's character means he's able to more playful and funny in this film. There's some great writing at work here too, allowing for a random, hilarious, un-natural yet un-forced Captain America cameo in the midst of a serious piece of drama. The film is, of course, wonderfully shot and looks amazing, and never goes too over the top with the effects given this is a film about a man with a magic hammer. A majority of the action that occurs in London is non-CG, which is nice, and its always nice to see a film like this take place somewhere other than America, just another thing that sets this film apart from its predecessors.

Overall, I was impressed with this film. I didn't think I'd like it, I thought Marvel had reached the end of the road in terms of innovation, perhaps naively so. Marvel have a multi-arc, multi-year, multi-film plan for their MCU, and this is only the beginning of Phase Two while they're already planning for the end of Phase Three. As far as I'm concerned, this is the first film that makes me think there is life for Marvel after The Avengers; Iron Man 3 dealt with a character shift but the action remained much the same, whereas Thor represents the beginning of a complete shift of focus from non-stop action onto character development and drama. I think there's still some ways to go with Phase Two before we reach The Avengers: Age of Ultron, but I think this film represented the first of three films to initiate the change of direction for the MCU. The next two? Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy. Only time will tell if these are as successful as Thor: The Dark World, but if the post-credits sequence is anything to go by...

Rating: ****1/2

Prisoners

It's Thanksgiving, and the Dovers have been invited to spend the day at the Birches. After dinner, their two young daughters Anna and Joy go to play, but later the parents and siblings realise the two young girls are missing. After they track down a suspicious RV that was parked in the area, the driver is revealed as Alex Jones, a man with the IQ of a ten year old. The evidence isn't there and Alex is released, but Keller Dover refuses to believe Alex didn't do it, and so tracks down and imprisons Alex in his former house, torturing him relentlessly until he gives up the location of the girls. However, Detective Loki is more interested in the suspicious character he witnesses at a vigil being held for the two girls...

The Black List is a list produced every year of the most exciting unproduced screenplays without any studio attachments. Previously the list has contained gems like Juno, Lars and the Real Girl, The Social Network and Up in the Air. Prisoners is another such film, ranking fourth on the Black List way back in 2009. Almost immediately after its inclusion, X-Men's Bryan Singer signed on to direct with Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale on to star. Then, Wahlberg and Bale were forced to leave after a scheduling clash with The Fighter, and Singer departed soon after. Next up was Antoine Fuqua on to direct, then Daniel Espinosa who would have had a fan of his, Leonardo DiCaprio, star. Finally, Denis Villeneuve signed on to make his English language debut with Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Terrence Howard, Viola Davis and Melissa Leo on board to star. Finally, after nearly 5 years of production turmoil, Prisoners has come to the screens, but can it deliver the heavy punch it promised to deliver back when it was on the Black List? Overwhelmingly yes, yes it can.

I'll be honest, the trailer is extremely deceptive. I was not expecting Prisoners to be the way it was, but in a way, I'm glad it didn't deliver on the trailer. Having watched Prisoners, I felt more rewarded than I probably would have done had I seen the film I was expecting to see. Confused? Don't be. Prisoners is certainly a thriller, the trailer got that right, but it goes far darker and twists and turns more than the trailer lets on. Perhaps that's a good thing, it doesn't divulge any of the films secrets (I'm not spoiling anything, it's a thriller, there are going to be secrets which are ultimately revealed). It's an extremely clever script, with multiple threads running concurrently along one plot line. It's all kept under control, and everything ultimately comes together, there's not a thread left untied and that's something that's hard to come by in today's modern cinematic efforts. However, it is able to tie everything up by extending its running time. This is a long film, and it feels like it. You realise two or three times during the film that you've been there a long time and it still  doesn't look like being over any time soon.

What makes the long running time feel even longer is the fact the film deals with some extremely dark material; kidnapping, missing children, psychopaths, torture, forced imprisonment... This is not a light hearted film. The film is bright and sunny for roughly 10 minutes, until the children go missing. After that, you know it's downhill from there, much like Mystic River, except this explores territory unseen in a film that deals with child abduction before. You get the grieving parents, of course, and the tough determined cop, but the film branches out into scenarios you wouldn't expect, scenarios which are at times extremely difficult to watch. But, it's a cracking mystery, one that leaves you guessing right until the very end and one that comes together nicely over the space of two and a half hours. There's a lot to get through, and there's a lot of time to do it. All the while, the cinematography in this film is great, there's a lot of contrast between man and nature on display as decrepit buildings and mother nature steal the frame. It all ties into the heavy theme of the film, and so relies on some top draw performances from its leads to be able to carry out this traumatic experience.

Hugh Jackman, unfortunately, seems out of place as Keller Dover, a man who's lost his daughter and is desperate to get her back by any means necessary. He doesn't fit the character very well, no matter how hard he tries. Don't get me wrong, it's not a lazy performance by any means, he just doesn't ever seem comfortable with what he's being asked to do, which leaves him unable to deliver the necessary emotion required for such a sensitive role. However, on the flip side, Jake Gyllenhaal is fantastic as Detective Loki, performing a gruff outsider role that goes against type, and he delivers in spades; this may even be on of his best performances I've ever seen, and he's had some good ones. Aside from these two, Terrence Howard and Viola Davis are unremarkable as the Birches, as is Maria Bello as Keller's wife. Paul Dano never goes full retard playing Alex Jones, and he does well in an extremely difficult role. Finally, Melissa Leo is surprisingly good as Holly Jones, seemingly a bit-part character who Leo truly makes her own in the second half of the film and makes her one of the stand outs in this film.

Overall, Prisoners is an extremely hard film to sit through, not that it's bad, it's just an extremely uncomfortable subject matter and viewing experience. The subject matter is dark and continues to get darker as the film progresses. However, this is all necessary to tell what is ultimately a very clever story which utilizes its characters and surroundings well. It hasn't received much attention, and it'll probably disappear into the ether, but you can do a lot worse than to sit down for a few hours and watch this. Like Sympathy for Mr Vengeance, it's a dark story that'll make you sit up and pay attention. It never exploits, it only ever tells a story. Good luck.

Rating: ****

Only God Forgives

Billy and Julian live in Thailand and run a boxing club. Except they don't. They run an underground drug smuggling operation. When older brother Billy rapes and kills a young Thai prostitute and surrenders to the police, it's not the police who take revenge, rather Lieutenant Chang, the "Angel of Vengeance", brings in the girl's father and allows him to beat Billy to death. As Julian goes on the hunt for the man who killed his brother, their mother Crystal turns up demanding vengeance. When Julian realises the man who killed Billy is suffering enough after losing an arm at the hands of Chang, he lets him go, but Crystal has other ideas for the people who have wronged her family...

I'm not going to lie to you, I thought Drive was spectacular, and thoroughly under-respected outside of critical and academic circles. Everyone I know loves it, then again most of my friends are the kinds of people who like obscure and over-looked films. It's one of those films people will tell you is good and that you need to watch it. Much like any other work by Nicolas Winding Refn. The Pusher trilogy, Valhalla Rising, Bronson... Art house cinema that attempts a mainstream audience yet couldn't find it until Drive. Starring Ryan Gosling. Now we comes back with Only God Forgives. Starring Ryan Gosling. Rest assured, Refn is sticking to his now most popular style and only goes deeper and darker.

Firstly, Only God Forgives is a beautiful film to watch. It's been lavishly shot with the same stylistic verve and clinical precision that Refn came to perfect in Drive, and it makes the seedy underworld of Bangkok look stunning and, frankly, attractive. Secondly, there's little to no dialogue in roughly 90% of this film, which places the emphasis on two things; the aforementioned beautiful visuals, and the physical acting performances of its leads Ryan Gosling and Vithaya Pansringarm, playing Julian and Lt. Chang respectively. Essentially, Only God Forgives is a 90 minute game of cat and mouse played out subtly and violently. That may seem like a contradiction of terms, but here they combine to create a unique beast that's captivating and essential viewing.

The story is basic, and one that's been played out in a million gangster films: Crime family searches for revenge after family member murdered whilst constantly fighting poice. Except this is different. We're in Bangkok now, the police don't work the same way, and Lieutenant Chang thinks he's God, dishing out justice with a samurai sword. Plus Ryan Gosling never speaks, he acts. And he lusts after a prostitute. It's Julian's mother Crystal who causes the trouble. It's as if Julian understands the culture he lives in and that justice has already been done before Crystal searches for a higher justice. It's subtle storytelling, done largely through Gosling and Pansringarm's acting, and an incredible performance by Kristin Scott Thomas as Crystal acting largely as the mouthpiece for the action on screen. Even the film's use of music is minimal. Everyone remembers the soundtrack of Drive as much as the film. Here though, the action is kept as real as possible, the heightened reality is dampened by the sounds of real life, with music only used to punctuate particular sequences.

However, as I mentioned before, one of the two most important things here is the acting, and the quality on display here is immense. Ryan Gosling all but revives his character of the driver in Drive by playing a character without any emotion outpouring on the surface, but clearly feels sympathy and remorse and anger under the surface. However, he is equally matched here by Vithaya Pansringarm, who plays Lieutenant Chang, or the "Angel of Vengeance". Cold, emotionless, logical, and justice delivered at his fist or at the end of his samurai sword. He's a great find by Refn to match Gosling's gritty integrity here and only goes to make this a thoroughly darker, murkier affair to sit through. However, it's Kristin Scott Thomas who steals the attention here. Wearing a blonde wig and playing a role that contrasts both to every other character in the film as well as every other character she's ever played in her career, Crystal is a unique character who acts as the touch paper that starts the fire and keeps it burning to the bitter end through her dialogue and expressive visual acting.

Overall, it would be a lie to say I'd never seen a film like this before, because I have, made by the same director and starring the same lead actor. However, this goes further and way, way darker than Drive ever dared to go. It's an unrelenting and emotionally draining 90 minutes, which sounds short, but it's really not when you're sat in front of this visceral treat. It switches between the dark, the odd, the blackly humorous and the surreal with the greatest of ease and it all makes perfect sense. It makes sense because once you enter the world of Winding Refn, you're in for the full journey. And I am loving every minute of it at the moment.

Rating: *****