Paul

Graham and Clive are two English nerds driving through America in an RV, visiting as many sites of extraterrestrial importance as possible. However, while on their travels, they encounter Paul, an alien on the run from Area 51 and desperate to go back home. As they travel together to reach Paul’s ‘ride home’, they encounter a half-blind creationist and her God fearing father, two inept FBI agents and a dangerous government fed, all of whom provide their own obstacles in the path. Can Graham, Clive and Paul make it in time to get Paul home?

So here it is. Shaun of the Dead was awesome. Hot Fuzz was awesome. Will Paul be awesome? Can it live up to its predecessors? Well, let’s see, it has all the right elements: Simon Pegg. Check. Nick Frost. Check. Edgar Wright. Ch... Wait, no. Indeed, this is Pegg and Frost venturing out on their own, stepping away from the Blood and Ice Cream/Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy and creating a little bit different something for themselves, something they’ve written with Adventureland’s Greg Mottola stepping in to direct. The question is then: How good is a film with only two members of a winning trio? Answer: They need the third man back.

Don’t get me wrong, Paul is an OK film; Pegg and Frost have done a great job in writing a loving homage to all the alien/sci-fi films they’ve ever seen, but based on this evidence, they not only need Edgar Wright behind the camera telling them what to do, but they also need him back in the writing room, telling them what’s funny and what’s not. Pegg and Frost were unleashed to create something they thought was very kitsch and funny, and unfortunately a lot of the jokes, both visual and aural, fall flat. They’ve tried to be too conscientious with the references, it is a 90 minute bombardment of in-jokes and minor references and famous lines and it all just gets a bit too much by the end. Also, it’s a very British script for a film full of American actors, and it becomes painfully obvious at times when the lines are awkwardly delivered and get no reaction.

On top of that, you are bombarded with famous faces in both the starring roles and in mere cameos. Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogen, Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig, Jeffrey Tambor, John Carroll Lynch, Jane Lynch, Jason Bateman, Sigourney Weaver, David Koechner, Blythe Danner, Steven Spielberg; they’re all faces or voices you’ll know from something else and it’s a real clusterfuck, though it is fun trying to spot the famous actor. As far as performances go, Pegg and Frost play sci-fi nerds well, I’d guess because they actually are sci-fi nerds, hence the script and the film. Jason Bateman pulls off the dry and sinister government fed well, showing he’s better when he sticks to his Arrested Development best. Speaking of AD, the funniest cameo goes to Jeffrey Tambor playing a pompous author sick of meeting his fans at places like Comic Con. He got the laughs that I doubt Stephen King (Pegg and Frost’s first choice for the role) could have gotten. Aside from them, Kristen Wiig is funny as the naive creationist who gets her eyes opened, literally at one point, to the wider world. She’s a funny lady, and she’s about to leave her SNL personas behind and make it huge in films. Keep an eye out for her in Bridesmaids later this year.

As for the story, it’s very cliché ridden, but then maybe that’s a good thing for a film which is clearly a screaming homage to every alien film from the last 50 years. It takes every stop and makes every twist and turn you’d expect so it doesn’t really offer any surprises, it really is just an easy watch for an hour and a half. All the sci-fi tropes are tied together nicely by the script, Paul’s image as the classic alien is explained (he actually IS the inspiration for the classic alien image), and it mixes old school with new school nicely, making light of the whole ‘alien probing’ and ‘invasion’ elements of so many alien films previous.

Overall, it’s a nice effort, but Frost and Pegg really needed Wright to rein them in. That’s not to say anything bad about Mottola’s direction, but he obviously just doesn’t understand what Pegg and Frost needed of him and Mottola went ahead and made his own film from the script without even questioning the dialogue or storyline. The acting’s good, and it’s occasionally funny, but the laughs aren’t consistent enough to carry it all the way through to the end. It will, inevitably, be compared to Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz and those standards are just way too high for this film to ever meet. The ironic thing is this is a perfect definition of 'middle of the road'.

Rating: ***

True Grit

Mattie Ross is a 14 year old seeking vengeance on Tom Chainey, the man who killed her father before making off with his horses and gold. While collecting his body, she inquires about hiring a US Marshal to track down Chainey, and chooses to hire Rooster Cogburn, a bad-tempered old drunk with one good eye and a penchant for taking the law into his own hands, delivering justice with the barrel of his gun. As they head out, they are joined by LaBoeuf, a Texas Ranger also tracking Chainey and his men. Can the three of them stay together long enough to bring justice to Chainey? Or will Chainey be able to evade capture once again?

True Grit is an institution of cinephiles everywhere. It earned John Wayne, the Duke, his one and only Oscar win for Best Actor, and proudly takes its place amongst the great Westerns in cinema history. So, fast forward 42 years, and here we find Charles Portis’ novel taking to the big screen once again. But why? Why choose to readapt this classic story and timeless motion picture? Is it even a remake? Could it be a ‘reimagining’ perhaps? Or is it a case of the Coen brothers finally relenting, making the genre piece that fans have been begging them to for years and choosing an already famous story to do it with?

The Coen brothers have carved out a niche for themselves; they’ve created their own genre. Intricate plotlines, interesting visuals, unique characters, snappy and witty dialogue, dark themes; there are all standard from a Coen brothers film. You’d think their way of making films would fit the Western genre perfectly, yet they’ve never gone all out with it. They teased a Western with No Country for Old Men, but finally they’ve added their unique skew on filmmaking to an out-and-out Western. I’m happy to report it’s a perfect fit, a match made in heaven truly. Portis’ novel True Grit already provides the unique characters and the dark themes, the setting and the genre provide the interesting visuals, and the Coens have created a script full of the dialogue you’d expect from them: A sly mix of deathly serious and darkly funny, with the occasional full-blown laugh thrown in for good measure.

This brings me onto the performances, which are strong and consistent throughout. Jeff Bridges has a lot to thank the Coens for; they created his most memorable character in ‘The Dude’ in The Big Lebowski and now they’ve brought him in to try and recreate an iconic role forever associated with ‘The Duke’. Bridges is pretty well aware of the shoes he’s stepping into, and so ends up underplaying it throughout, but it still works, the character is too strong to disappear into the background, and thus Bridges steals focus and attention every time he’s on screen. However, he is equalled by Hailee Steinfeld playing Mattie Ross. As the Coen brothers readapted the novel, they made sure they did something which wasn’t done in the original adaptation: The focus stayed on Mattie. The story is told from her perspective, narrating as an adult, and as such, Steinfeld is given a hefty responsibility with most of the dialogue and a more forceful version of the character than before. She lives up to it though, and surprises with just how much presence she has. Matt Damon is good, but outshone, as the brash and arrogant LaBoeuf (pronounced La Beef, of course), but he certainly very easily erases the memory of Glen Campbell from the ’69 version. Josh Brolin is OK as Chainey, but just isn’t as memorable or commanding as his opposite numbers.

As for the direction, it’s standard Coen brothers. What more can I say? You know what you’re getting. And with it being a Western, they give you the huge, panoramic landscapes of the frontier which defined the genre, but they put their own twist on it. While they give you the sweeping panoramas, it doesn’t fill you with hope and wonder, instead it’s all pretty dark tonally and fills you with... I want to say fear? Maybe not, but it’s the opposite of hope... Despair? It’s not a Western as you know it – It’s a Coen brothers Western.

Overall, it’s really terrific, it really is. It’s probably one of the more approachable Coen brothers films for an outsider who either isn’t aware of their work or isn’t a big fan of their work, it’s nowhere near as heavy a watch as A Serious Man or Barton Fink or even No Country for Old Men. For the fans though, it’s brilliant, just what you’d expect with a fantastic return of the Dude, this time doing the Duke as good as the man himself. The Coens have reimagined a classic, and made it... Well, a classic. In a perfect world, all films would be made by the Coen brothers, and they’d all be as good as this.

Rating: *****

Rabbit Hole

Eight months after the tragic car accident that killed their young son, Becca and Howie Corbett are struggling to cope with the tragedy. Whereas Howie is open about his grief and buries himself in memories of his son, Becca represses her grief and feels the need to systematically remove memories of Danny from their house. As they both seek to redefine their positions within their relationship, both of them start to make decisions which could potentially change things forever...

It’s odd: For 10 months of the year, you get a decidedly standard collection of releases with maybe one or two standouts, but then, come January and February, you get inundated with a plethora of films all stamped ‘For Your Consideration’, all held back for awards season so that they all get lost amongst one another and they’ll all be judged evenly. Or at least that’s the plan. So here’s Rabbit Hole with Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart. So has it rightly been held back for release until now? Ehhh...

My gripe with this is that the story has been done before, and never has a main character in a story like this been such an unidentifiable, disingenuous, argumentative, thoroughly unlikeable cow. Nicole Kidman plays the grieving mother Becca who grieves by starting arguments with everyone around her and attempting to move on with her life by clearing out memories of her dead son. Surely the whole idea of the story is to try and identify with the character and to share her grief? Since Becca seemingly refuses to grieve openly, it makes it really hard to attach yourself either to her or the story, and thus the entire premise of the film is lost.

That’s not to discredit the performance of Kidman, she plays the annoyingly dissociative bint to a tee. She’s probably done exactly what was asked of her and good for her. Aaron Eckhart is great in this, playing a grieving a father they way you’d expect him to be played – Wanting for his deceased son, clutching onto memories of him, gathering support from the people around here. Dianne Wiest deserves a mention here too, playing Becca’s mother, as she plays the mother confused by her daughter’s reaction well. It’s also nice to see Sandra Oh pop up as well in a key role playing off of the main cast, much as she did in Sideways.

There’s nothing particularly stunning visually, so if you don’t mind, I’ll go back to having a go at the writing. There’s nothing wrong than taking a well-worn story like parents losing their child and putting a different spin on it, but you still need to retain the grief element or else it loses its human element. You get that with Eckhart’s grieving father, you get that with the grieving family, you even get that from the support group they go to. Quite possibly the most important person you need it from is the mother. When that goes missing, you take a huge leap of faith and risk stepping into the abyss. This one falls in, head first. Even Eckhart’s character Howie gets so bloody sick of her, he... I won’t ruin it, but he gets sick of her too. She’s just annoying and indifferent to a horrifying situation.

Overall, this wasn’t my cup of tea. Not for the subject matter, but for the way it was told. Call me a traditionalist, but I want to see parents grieving for their lost child rather than act like a callous bitch. Good for them for giving this a go, but it’s just completely missed its mark by my standards. It loses its ability to absorb the viewer by having such a dissociative lead character, and for me that’s just sloppy writing. Acting’s good enough, visually unspectacular, aurally unspectacular, writing bloody annoying. Other people may see this and argue, but hey, this is just my opinion, it’s not gospel. You want to tell me where I’m wrong then go ahead. Will I read it? Probably not. Will I care? Definitely not. I know what I like, and it isn’t this.

Rating: **

The Fighter

Micky Ward is a young boxer who’s trained by his half-brother Dicky, a former boxer himself but currently struggling with a crack cocaine addiction, and managed by his mother Alice, an overbearing matriarch who seems to favour Dicky over Micky. Micky’s career is in a slump, as he’s seen as a stepping stone for other fighters to further their career. But when he starts a relationship with a bartender called Charlene, he realises there may be more options in his career other than his family. Can he kickstart his career, or will the tension growing between his family and his new girlfriend ruin everything before they’ve begun?

Say what you will about the Academy, they’re a sucker for a good boxing movie. Rocky won Best Picture, Best Director and Best Film Editing as well as being nominated for 6 others. Raging Bull won Best Actor and Best Editing as well, picking up 6 more nominations on top of that. The Fighter has, inevitably, picked 6 nominations this year including Best Picture, Best Director and a few acting nominations. So will it be able to take its place amongst the great boxing movies? Going by the evidence on show, it’s almost certain that it will.

Though it may not win Best Picture or Best Director, it seems a shoe-in to walk away from the Kodak Theatre with Best Supporting Actor for Christian Bale at the very least. Bale is phenomenal in this, I’ve seen no other supporting actor who delivers such a strong performance, completely stealing focus from Mark Wahlberg, the leading actor. He delivers a raw, genuine performance as a man engulfed by a crack cocaine habit living off of his former glory (He once knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard, you know) and it’s hard to see anyone denying him the accolade he deserves for this. He mimics the actual Dicky perfectly, nailing the movements and mannerisms, as well as his distinct Bostonian accent.

Of course, The Fighter seems almost certain to walk away with Best Supporting Actress as well, with both supporting ladies picking up nominations. Amy Adams is great as Charlene, a brassy Boston bartender with a strong will and dominating attitude, completely going against type here. But, even this is outshone by Melissa Leo’s Alice, the dominating matriarch. Her and Bale are, without a doubt, are the main focuses of the film, they grab the attention of the audience in whatever scene they’re in. Melissa Leo plays what is essentially, to an outsider, the mother from hell – Unwilling to trust anyone outside the family, managing Micky’s career with the family’s financial interests at heart rather than progressing Micky’s career further and choosing the right opponents for him. There’s nothing wrong with Marky Mark’s turn as Micky Ward, the calm centre within a crazy family, but it’s just not strong enough to compete with Adams, Leo and Bale. He’s actually quite a good boxer in this, has a good style and pulls off his role of Micky pretty darn well.

Visually, it adopts a documentary style, and it suits it completely, looking somewhat similar to The Wrestler (Yes, I keep coming back to it, it’s one of my favourites, shut up) and giving the feeling of a true-to-life documentary, which is pretty much is, being a dramatised version of the events in the life of Micky Ward. The real Micky and Dicky even make an appearance over the credits, following the tradition of the real-life dramas we’ve seen this year, what with Aron Ralston appearing at the end of 127 Hours. The direction is top notch, and David O. Russell deserves recognition for that but he will, inevitably, be the forgotten man in this. The script is strong, and tells the story of the Ward family without any irony or ludicrousness, it stays with the emotion that the story delivers and deserves.

Overall, The Fighter is a really top class drama, but it’s not really about the boxing. It goes deep to the heart of the Boston family construct and deconstructs it, making it relatable and heartbreaking to watch at time, before becoming a joyous celebration at the end. The strong performances by Bale and Leo (and Adams) will involve you and keep you glued to the screen for the films’ two hour duration. It’s enjoyable, if tough to watch in places, but it’s really top draw stuff. This is why I love awards season, it’s an absolute bloody joy to watch so many great films all at once, even if the rest of the year is filled with crap. It would seem Christian Bale can do no wrong right now, behind the scenes tantrums aside. Maybe that’s why he was cast? A temperamental bastard playing a crack addicted ex-fighter, it fits, right?

Rating: ****1/2

Tangled

Rapunzel, the young girl with the long hair, lives in a tall tower with Gothel, an elderly witch who kidnapped Rapunzel as a baby after learning her hair had the magical power to heal the sick and to keep her young, and now raises her as her own. Yet, she yearns to leave the tower to watch the floating lights which appear every year on her birthday. When Flynn Rider, a young thief looking for a place to hide, turns up, an opportunity presents itself for Rapunzel to leave the tower and begin an adventure which has repercussions for everyone involved...

Since I’ve started this blog, I have (somewhat) voluntarily lifted my self-imposed embargo on animated films; I’ve been catching up on the Pixar films I’ve missed – I’m yet to see a bad one of those. I’ve also watched Shrek 4 (atrocious) and Shrek 1 (OK, not as great as has been made out) due to finally developing an interest. This brings me to this: My first Disney film in at least 10 years, which just so happens to be Disney’s 50th animated feature. So what did I think? It was... Interesting.

Rapunzel is a story that has been done to death in various mediums, appearing in Shrek the Third and even Barbie got her own version in 2002. Now, we have a Disney version, but is it really? All the marketing suggests not: Calling the story Tangled makes it far less gender specific, and there’s been an awful lot of focus on the male lead as well as Rapunzel. You might think they were trying to market a princess film to boys. So what’s different? Well, this time, Rapunzel’s a confident and assertive young woman who isn’t technically rescued from her tower but choose to leave of her own fruition. Also, this time around, her hair has magical qualities, able to heal the wounded and restore youth, which explains why the evil witch Gothel kidnapped her and kept her in the tower.

In a way it’s good that Disney have taken their own twist on a classic story, but it almost feels wrong that they’ve messed around with folklore and legend; it’s almost akin to the Twilight series messing around with vampires. The difference is, whereas Twilight is trash, this was actually alright. It’s got something for everyone really: Rapunzel is obviously for the girls, along with all the musical numbers. Flynn Rider is for the boys, as well as all the fighting/action sequences. For the adults, the film’s a nice combination of comedy and drama, or at least there’s enough to keep you sitting through it for its 90 minutes without wanting to claw your face off. Particularly at the end, there’s a scene which could potentially be tear-inducing: it’s no ‘toys in the incinerator’ but it might set a few people off.

As for the film itself, the animation looks very sharp and it’s the first animated feature I’ve seen which has gotten hair and water pretty near perfect. The hair was, of course, pretty important to get right, and they’ve achieved it. I get the feeling their quest to perfect digital hair was the main reason why Tangled has become the second most expensive production of all time, costing a huge $260 million. What, 260 million dollars on drawings?! Did they colour it with gold?! Never mind that, yes, it looked really good, but I did not see this in 3D, so I can’t attest to how god that’ll be, though if Toy Story 3 was anything to go by, it’ll probably be top class with plenty of hair-whipping back and forth.

One thing which is troubling me is the voice cast. The voice of Rapunzel is Mandy Moore, someone who has been out of public consciousness for years, and the voice of Flynn is Zachary Levi, the guy from Chuck. They’re fine, but it just seems like a couple of weird choices for such a high-profile film. Mandy Moore was obviously chosen for her singing ability, which has become an important part of Rapunzel’s legend, and Zachary Levi chosen to give a comic twist to the bravado and masculinity of Flynn. There aren’t really any big names in the supporting cast either, only Brad Garrett (from Everybody Loves Raymond), Ron Perlman (from Hellboy) and Jeffrey Tambor (from Arrested Development) – No major Hollywood celebrities. In comparison, Dreamworks had Will Ferrell and Brad Pitt in their last feature. Can you see the disparity?

Overall, it’s not the best animated film I’ve seen the last few months, but in no way is it the worst. It seems like this might be Disney’s attempt at creating their own Shrek, and I would say this one’s better, but that’s not really saying a lot given my opinion of Shrek. It’s nice, good combination of everything you’d want to see from a modern family film, and it doesn’t seem to drag at any point, it keeps itself going all the way until the end. Unfortunately, there are about five different stories going on all at once, so at times you do face the risk of becoming tangled in the plot. See what I did there?

Rating: ***1/2

Black Swan

Nina Meyers is a part of a New York City ballet company, casting a new star for the lead role in their production of Swan Lake. When Nina is given her chance, she struggles with the duality of her position; her innocent White Swan is near-perfect, but her seductive Black Swan lack the necessary passion, and her director Thomas is losing patience. But when Lily, a new recruit to the company with a dark side, begins to catch her attention, can she unlock her own darker side in order to pull off the Black Swan?

Darren Aronofsky has acquired a reputation of making beautiful looking films throughout his career, but it’s only in the last few years, specifically with The Wrestler, has his ability to create a strong and engaging narrative been recognised. Indeed, The Wrestler set a high bar for him to reach with his new film, Black Swan. So does he match it? CAN he match it? No. He surpasses it. Black Swan is, quite simply, a piece of art. The visuals are epic, the story is insane and the performances are fantastic. I was blown away.

The Wrestler was a rich story with heart and an exceptional lead performance by Mickey Rourke. Black Swan is a descent into madness with an equally exceptional lead performance by Natalie Portman, all scored by Clint Mansell. It’s easy to compare The Wrestler with Black Swan, stories about theatre and how the performance affects the character, but the comparison ends there. Whereas The Wrestler is a documentary-style story with heart that leaves you feeling with that warm, glowing feeling afterwards, Black Swan is a documentary-style story which takes a dark twist and just leaves you feeling stunned. Honestly, stunned. Is it a psychological thriller though? I dare say it’s more of a psychological horror, though you’ll have to take your own interpretation from this.

Natalie Portman plays Nina, the new Swan Queen, and it’s an unbelievable performance. She looks painfully thin, showing a lot of dedication for the role. On top of that, her ballet dancing is great. I’m no expert, and I’ve heard reactions of professional ballet dancers saying it’s sloppy, but through my amateur eyes? It was great. It was never going to be perfect, but then neither was Mickey Rourke’s wrestling – It was good enough to pull off the role. But besides that, Portman plays the role of someone slowly spiralling into madness with great aplomb. The ballet becomes secondary, taking a back seat to the study of this character as she begins to fall apart when her moment to shine arrives. Saying that, it’s also an excellent showing by Mila Kunis, playing Lily, her rival. Portman and Kunis play off of one another, emphasising the contrast between Portman’s repressed mummy’s girl and Kunis’s darker wild child. Vincent Cassel is an odd bit of casting as the director Thomas, but his role is less as the director and more of the sexy guy to flirt with Nina, and he does that well enough. Special mention to Winona Ryder for what is, surprisingly, a fantastic fleeting cameo as the replaced star of the ballet company, look out for her.

What makes this film great is Aronofsky. Whereas he starts off with a typical Aronofsky-esque story, he takes a left turn halfway through and introduces a certain amount of Hitchcock-ian psychological thriller with a dose of Argento-esque horror. It’s an intriguing mix, and it’ll keep you fixed and engrossed, or at least it kept me hooked. How he portrays Nina’s descent is masterful: It’s not just the hallucinations, it’s the little things. Things like switching Portman and Kunis’s roles for just the most fleeting of glimpses, things like the ongoing saga of Nina’s rash/scratching. It builds up nicely throughout, including a highly passionate (and well spoken of) lesbian sex scene, and keeps on building and building, leading to an intense finale that I haven’t seen the likes of since... The Wrestler.

I feel it only right to give you fair warning though: This film will not be for everyone. Experience tells me that a film like this will attract just as many haters as it will lovers, it is cinematic Marmite. A fair amount of viewers will not be attach themselves to this and just won’t get it. Some people will find it too odd or too slow or too different. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World suffered from the same problem. Sometimes, films can be a bit too visually unique for people and that’s totally understandable. Me? I love it when the boundaries are pushed, I love seeing experimentation and uniqueness. It’s what drew me to Scott Pilgrim, and it’s what’s drawn me to this.

Overall, it’s hard for me NOT to be glowing about this film. Yes, it’s a film about ballet, but it’s a ballet story in the same way The Wrestler was a film about wrestling; it’s more about the character and the study of. It looks great, it sounds great, it’s acted superbly, it’s been written brilliantly and it’s all directed astutely and sharply. Aronofsky doesn’t miss a beat; he may well be the new king of film psychology. Just think of this as The Wrestler as written by H.P. Lovecraft and directed by Stanley Kubrick and you’ll be somewhere near what this film achieves. That’s right, I just compared Aronofsky to Kubrick. THAT is how good this is. In fact, it’s so good, there’ll be no catchy line to finish, simply a word: Breathtaking.

Rating: *****

The King's Speech

The Prince Albert, The Duke of York, is blighted by a crippling stammer and lives in the shadow of his father, King George V, and his brother, The Prince of Wales. When his wife Elizabeth finds a speech therapist in Lionel Logue, an Australian now living in London, it seems finally The Prince (or ‘Bertie’) is finally making progress in conquering his affliction. But when his father dies, his brother seems more concerned with an American divorcee than his kingly responsibilities and the threat of war looms once again, Bertie finds himself ascending to the throne. Can he fight his numerous problems and concerns and be the commanding voice his country needs him to be?

I warn you, this may not be a long review. Everything that has to be said about The King’s Speech has already been said. Numerous times. Repeatedly. Nonetheless, I shall give this a go. So what can be said of The King’s Speech? It is a rather British film about a rather British story, you’ll understand. But does that mean it’s good? As fun as it would be to go against the consensus, the consensus is right. It IS good.

Straight off, I’ll hit the nail on the head. Yes, Colin Firth is excellent, he will probably win Best Actor at the Oscars this year and it is fully deserved, he’s completely convincing and plays Bertie absolutely to a tee, straight down the line. Amongst all this high praise for Firth though, it seems Geoffrey Rush is the forgotten man of The King’s Speech. His turn as Lionel Logue is masterful, delivering a heady mix of humour, emotion and eccentricity, becoming not just Bertie’s therapist, but his confidant as well. The relationship the two of them build is strong, and the two actors have a great chemistry on screen, playing off of one another to deliver a couple of fantastic performances. It’s a shame only one of these performances will be remembered. Even Helena Bonham Carter deserves praise here too; she’s not in the same league as Firth and Rush, but she’s still very good. To be honest, it’s just nice seeing her in something other than a bloody Tim Burton film.

What this film constantly falls back on is its source material: The script. It’s really well written, and is well informed by a stringent following of the history. Now clearly, things had to change for the sake of the film; the timeline of events is shortened somewhat and certain attitudes towards certain German dictators are played down, but that was inevitable. It’s the great attention to detail and reconstruction of these events which make the film so engaging. You can certainly tell that this started life as a potential stage play, what with the large focus on dialogue and a de-emphasis on action and change of scenery. That probably works in its favour, as it allows Rush and Firth to explore their characters, it allows the story to be more subtly told and it allows for the pace to remain slow and methodical, which is absolutely appropriate for the subject matter.

This now means that more praise needs to be heaped upon Tom Hooper, the director. He’s definitely established a ‘look’; this film is visually akin to The Damned United, his previous film. In many ways, they’re both very similar as far as they both portray historical events with a commanding lead character, producing fine performances from the actors. Michael Sheen and Colin Firth both owe Hooper an awful lot. Stemming from his years of experience directing TV dramas like John Adams and Longford, his eye for placing focus in the right place at the right time becomes evident, as does his unique visual style of placing characters against an emphasis on the grand scale of the environment the characters find themselves in. It’s not conventional, but it works: Never before has a microphone become such an object of intimidation.

Overall, though it may be a conventional story of a man overcoming his fears and problems with the help of another man against a historical context, it transcends that and becomes something more, something strangely reminiscent of Rain Man. It’s serious drama with a hint of humour thrown in, charming and witty, almost touching; it's never a chore to watch, it's a joy. This all results in this becoming somewhat of a feel good film, due in no small part to how Firth commands the screen and attaches the audience to the plight of his character. But enough of Firth, I’ll let the Academy praise him on my behalf.

Rating: *****