Godzilla

Daikaiju! In the Philippines 15 years ago, two scientists discover two pods in a collapsed mine; one is closed, but one is open and something's clearly dragged itself away. In Japan, a nuclear power plant picks up seismic activity before a disaster happens and Joe, an engineer, loses his wife to a radiation leak before the entire plant goes into meltdown. 15 years later, Ford, Joe's son, returns from the army and gets a call; his dad has been arrested in Japan for trespassing in the quarantine zone around the power plant. Joe is convinced it was no accident that caused the meltdown and cost him his wife, he's convinced something ungodly caused it. As he and Joe re-enter the zone to retrieve data, they find themselves in the middle of a crisis: Whatever crawled out of the cave 15 years ago has been hibernating and feeding on radiation, but now it's about to hatch and cause havoc. But where does Godzilla fit into all of this?

I'm a big fan of big monster films. They can be terrifying, but mostly they can be really entertaining and silly. I'm no expert on the Godzilla series, but I know enough to get by, and I still remember going to the cinema in 1998 and watching Matthew Broderick battle the tiny Godzilla shown in the American version of the film. The series seemed dead and buried after that, but then 12 years later, something special happened: A special effects guy made a cracking film about monsters on no budget and off-the-shelf VFX and editing software. It was called Monsters, and I bloody loved it back in 2010. So who better than that man, Gareth Edwards, to bring back the daikaiju himself, the daddy of all monsters? Here's the immediate problem: Monsters was written by Edwards, this was not.

So, I usually start off my reviews by summarizing the plot, and I think I did a pretty good job of it above. The problem? I had to shoehorn Godzilla into the plot description. This film does not revolve around its title character. Instead, Godzilla is something that happens in concurrence to the main plot. That's not right! There's a lot of other things that happen, with a lot of other characters and a few other monsters, and the action jumps all over the world from Japan to the Philippines to Hawaii to mainland America. All the while Godzilla is spoken of in hushed tones, all respectful like. But where is he? Where is the king of all monsters? Then, there's the problem not just with Godzilla films, but with monster films nowadays. Monster movies are the Kobayashi Maru of modern cinema.

Monster movies work better when you see less of the aforementioned monster, allowing the audience's imaginations and fears to fill in the gaps that VFX couldn't possibly achieve, hence why 'Monsters' worked so well 4 years ago. However, people pay to see the monster, especially in a film like Godzilla, and as big and intimidating you make the monster, it loses its impact the more you see it. God bless them, they try their best here, as they spend a lot of time focusing on the two MUTOs and less on Godzilla until he's needed to come into play, and they treat him with respect when off-screen, making him the ultimate monster... There's just no balance that will ever satiate everyone, and even as I write this, I'm still not sure if I'm unhappy I didn't see Godzilla enough, or unhappy I saw too much. All I know is I'm unhappy.

I was completely unaware that Aaron Taylor-Johnson was the lead actor in this film, as everything revolves around his plot line. Did anyone else think it was Bryan Cranston after all the trailers? And did anyone else know that Sally Hawkins would have such a big role alongside the legendary Ken Watanabe? Well, they are, and they do, and they're both great, along with Watanabe and Cranston. Juliette Binoche is, unfortunately, relegated to a brief (but important) cameo. Elizabeth Olsen is good too and has good chemistry with Taylor-Johnson (which makes me excited to see them together as Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver in Avengers 2 next year). The score is grandiose, and also carries the feel of an old-school action film, especially at its action points. The direction is spot on, and even the dialogue is non-cheesy and somewhat logical. The problem lies within the plot and the writing thereof.

Overall, I was really looking forward to this film, and the trailer promised something incredible. In all fairness, the film delivered on the trailer, there was no misrepresentation. So then why do I feel let down by this film? Is it because there was too much Godzilla, or too less? Is it because it tried to replicate Monsters by focusing on personal stories instead of the creatures when it really should have been focusing on 'daikaiju'? I like that it stuck to the canon more than the 1998 treatment, and the little things like the blink-and-you'll-miss-it Mothra reference made me smile, but the only thing that really got me excited in this film was the initial reveal of Godzilla and that first, initial, ear-splitting scream. After that, though, it was business as usual, this could have been any other disaster film. Have we been ruined as a 21st century movie going audience? I fear yes, but I have hope that revolution can still happen, and there'll be a film one day that reviews and revises all disaster movie canon. This just isn't it though. Maybe Godzilla 2 will be a bit more daring...

Rating: **

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Two years after the events of Avengers Assemble, Steve Rogers is living in modern day Washington DC and working for S.H.I.E.L.D. whilst struggling to adapt to contemporary society. Whilst on a mission with Black Widow, he discovers Nick Fury has given her a separate mission, which infuriates him, and leads to nick Fury showing him Project Insight, a series of Helicarriers linked by satellite to eliminate threats. Fury, however, is becoming frustrated as he is unable to decrypt recovered data, and an attempt is then made on his life. Rogers then meets the enigmatic Alexander Pierce, a senior official within S.H.I.E.L.D., in order to work out who ordered an assassination on Fury. However, before the attempt, Fury had met with Rogers and revealed his doubts about the organisation, and when Rogers refuses to reveal that information, Pierce dismisses him and makes it known he and Black Widow are wanted dead...

Is it just me or has Captain America always felt like the odd one out? Maybe it's just because I'm British and can't completely associate with the American propaganda character, or maybe it's because Captain America is the least super superhero to get his own franchise. Granted, all Hawkeye can do is fight a bow and arrow really well, and Black Widow is just good at fighting, but in the context of the Avengers, they have their place. Captain America has the super serum going for him, but there's nothing overly special about him. He has no real powers or abilities over than his super strength and the fact that his shield is indestructible (and is the only one like it in the world despite its incredible properties...) Regardless, here we go with Cap 2, an important step towards Avengers 2. Question is, can it justify its creation? Annoyingly, yes.

I thought Captain America 1 was good because it was something different, it was an origin story in a completely different era. In a way, it made it more alien than if it were set on an actual alien planet. Unfortunately, that's come to be the expectation of every new Marvel film: It has to be something different. Iron Man 3 closed the book on what was an extremely series of films up to that point. Now, the MCU needs to diversify to survive, and they've done a stand up job with Cap 2, making it the American equivalent to a James Bond film. It's full of suspicion and espionage and mistrust within an organisation, whilst retaining the superhero element which the James Bond series of film must now strive to steer clear of. It's good that they've found a niche for Captain America, a unique place for him amongst their ever-growing resume of superheroes brought to the big screen. Fittingly also, I feel the good Captain is being used in the same way now as he was back when he was created: A propaganda tool for the boosting of American morale in a time of need. Cap stands as the morale compass of an organisation that has become decayed and poisoned, and stands up to the seemingly insurmountable threat. But then maybe all superheroes are fit for that purpose, and I'm just picking on Cap because he dresses in the stars and stripes?

Regardless, Steve Rogers is played well, again, by Chris Evans. To be honest, there's nothing new or exceptional about any of the leads. That's another essential requirement now  to nay new Marvel film: They need a strong cast of refreshed characters around them for every film. Therefore, Captain America, Black Widow and Nick Fury are assisted ably by three new MCU characters: The Winter Soldier, Sam Wilson, and Alexander Pierce. Big spoiler here: The Winter Soldier, aka Bucky Barnes, is played well by Sebastian Stan again; emotionless, ruthless and near-demonic, and it's more impressive as he's playing against his instinct to revert back to the Bucky character he played so well in Cap 1. Sam Wilson is s great introductuon to the franchise as Falcon, and never grates as sometimes sidekicks can. He holds his own, and is never overawed by the fantastic Steve Rogers, rather he sees him as his equal, a fellow serving officer with whom he can share his horror stories of time on the front line. Also, Robert Redford is great as Alexander Pierce, but you'd expect nothing less from a veteran like him. Cool, unnerving, friendly and deceitful; he's a great choice for the lead antagonist here.

Here's my problem with the film though: While the plot holds up and creates an exciting and unpredictable (to a point) story, it's all very convenient. Now, I realise I'm saying this about a film, a superhero film no less, but it's true! HUGE SPOILERS HERE, READ OWN AT YOUR OWN PERIL. It's the fact that the main plot driver is the fact that Hydra, Captain America's foes from the first film set almost 70 years prior, is alive and well within S.H.I.E.L.D. and the man who helps uncover it is Cap, 70 years later. Hmm. It's lucky it wasn't Thor who found out about Hydra, he'd have had no idea what to do. That aside, I think it was an extremely brave move on Marvel's part to shake up the MCU by essentially obliterating S.H.I.E.L.D., especially since they concurrently have a TV series entitled 'Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.' which deals exclusively with the inner workings of the organisation. Where they go on TV next will be interesting, especially since Agent Jasper Sitwell appeared in the last broadcast episode (1st April 2014) and then appeared in Cap 2, becoming a very important part of the plot. One last thing too: I think it was an EXTREMELY smart move to shift Black Widow from the now-defunct Iron Man series into this one, she added a new dimension that Captain America wouldn't have been able to achieve either on his own, nor I doubt with anyone else.

Overall, this was a surprisingly good film. This was the second Marvel film in a row where my expectations have been low and have been exceeded with ease. I need to have more faith in Kevin Feige. I wasn;t sure where they could go with the Cap character and to put him in a James Bond-esque film was probably the best move they could have made for him. I can't see how Cap 2 would have worked had it been just a bog standard superhero film, but this is definitely something more. It's not my favourite, but it is good, and it sets things up well for the biggest risk/experiment Marvel have made so far: Guardians of the Galaxy. A film which contains no pre-established characters and has no bearing on the Avengers (that we know of yet). It's a gamble, and my expectations are high, so let's see what happens in July. Also, why do people still leave before the very end of Marvel films? Half the audience left before the first post-credits, and there were only 5 of us for the second one! Stick around, damnit!

Rating: ****

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Deep in the mountains of the republic of Zubrowka lies the Grand Budapest Hotel which, in the late 60s, lies in disrepair and guests are few and far between. However, in it's glory days in the 30s, it was home to one of the finest concierges of the day, Gustave H. Gustave spends his days courting a series of aging, wealthy blondes; one of whom is Madame D, who dies under mysterious circumstances and leaves a valuable painting, Boy with Apple, to Gustave, leaving her family enraged. Thus begins the family's quest to prove Gustave is Madame D's murderer and reclaim the painting for themselves. However, Gustave has a plan: He and his faithful lobby boy, Zero, have stolen the painting and hidden it, so when Gustave is arrested, it's down to Zero to formulate a plan to both escape and clear Gustave's name...

I love Wes Anderson and his films. I love his style of storytelling, his visual style, his colour palette, and his style of dialogue. It's unconventional, mainstream-indie cinema at its finest. If you're unclear as to who Anderson is, here's his filmography: Bottle Rocket. Rushmore. The Royal Tenenbaums. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. The Darjeeling Limited. Fantastic Mr Fox. Moonrise Kingdom. And now, The Grand Budapest Hotel. All of his films are distinct, no-one makes films quite like Anderson, you know almost immediately whose film you're watching once you see one. However, The Grand Budapest Hotel is unlike any other Anderson film previous. Why? In the past, he's co-written his films with one of his friends. The Grand Budapest Hotel is his first solo writing venture, and it reveals an entirely different side to Anderson's sensibilities.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is, without a shadow of a doubt, Anderson's most adult film to date. This is definitely not a negative, but as much as there are still all the tell tale signs of this being an Anderson film, the screenplay makes this film the most non-Anderson Anderson film yet. Make sense? There's a lot more swearing in this than any of his other previous work, and there's a lot more references to sexuality and representations of naked human bodies. It makes you wonder how different his previous films might have been had he not had Owen Wilson or Jason Schwartzman or Noah Baumbach (his frequent co-writers) in the room with him. His distinctive style is still extremely evident however, nothing else has changed and that's a blessing because it makes The Grand Budapest Hotel another of his grand adventures made up of various minutia with a whole host of characters on board to deliver vital parts of the overriding story arc. I think that's one of the things I like most about Anderson's films: He always creates an entire town's worth of characters to create a grander scale in which to tell his story, rather than focusing on two central characters and only bringing in other characters for a spot of Basil Exposition.

With that being said, the lead character is played by an actor making his debut in an Anderson film, which is strange as the key roles are usually reserved for either his favoured co-collaborators or talented child actors making their debut. Alas, it falls to Ralph Fiennes to bring to life the eccentric Gustave H. and does so with aplomb. I never thought Fiennes had an ear for comedy, but perhaps all it took was the right script to convince him to step out of comfort zone and show another side of his acting skills. Along side him, Tony Revolori is the perfect straight man to compliment Fiennes' eccentric Gustave H. The pair of them share a great on-screen chemistry and it's evident they're enjoying the crazy adventure their characters go through as much as the audience did. Also along for the ride are a host of big name cameos, all of whom are surprisingly integral to the outcome of the film; there's no wastage here. Tilda Swinton, Jason Schwartzman, Jeff Goldblum, Jude Law, an uncredited Bill Murray, F. Murray Abraham, Owen Wilson, Edward Norton, Saoirse Ronan, Harvey Keitel, Adrian Brody and a terrifying Willem Dafoe are all great in their unique roles. Also, as a side note, I believe that Anderson has found the perfect bumbling yet commanding authority figure for his cinematic universe in Edward Norton. In both this and Moonrise Kingdom, Norton played an authority figure who was clearly in charge, but bumbled and became likeable. Don't be shocked to see Norton re-appear in Anderson's next project.

I think one of the things I like most about The Grand Budapest Hotel is the structure of the narrative: It's a story within a story within a story within a story. That's four layers. The film is told as if being read from a book by a young girl. The book concerns a mysterious author relaying the story of when he visited the hotel as a young man. The younger version of the author then retells the story told to him by the owner of the hotel whom he met upon his visit; the older Zero. The older Zero then tells the story of how he came to acquire ownership of The Grand Budapest Hotel and, in turn, the story of his mentor and closest friend, Gustave H. Who else would be brave enough to layer a story like that? All of this occurs in the first 10 minutes, by the way, so no spoilers. It clearly shows Anderson's fondness for the medium of storytelling, how a story can be told and retold to generation after generation and still have the same effect if told the right way; something I dare say Anderson has now perfected. Aside from this, the film is told in chapters as if from a book, much like his other films, with title cards introducing the next 'part' or 'chapter' with a brief descriptive title. Anderson's films are like reading different novels by the same author: You know his distinctive style, all the characters seem like they should know one another, it's broken down into easily manageable chapters, and they all take place within the same unmistakeable universe. Literally, the Wes Anderson colour palette does not change, the hotel itself is immediately recognisable as an Anderson creation.

Overall, The Grand Budapest Hotel is such a lovely and charming film, I find it hard to fault it, although I am biased as a fan. (I even got a copy of his out-of-print book shipped from America. I could sell it on eBay for a high price!) The plot never gets overly complicated, even when the characters on-screen make it out to be so. The characters, numerous as they are, never overwhelm the action and fit right in to the tone and pace of the story. The dialogue is somewhat different to the usual Anderson fare but an intriguing change of direction for the director. It's his most adult film to date, but it still has a child-like mentality at heart. I'm fascinated to find out where he goes from here.

Rating: ****1/2

Philomena

Academy Award Nominations: 4

• Best Picture
• Best Adapted Screenplay (Jeff Pope, Steve Coogan)
• Best Actress (Judi Dench)
• Best Original Score (Alexandre Desplat)

Philomena Lee has been keeping a terrible secret for 50 years: After a love affair as a young woman and falling pregnant, she is sent away to Sean Ross Abbey, where nuns make her work hard while raising her illegitimate son, but eventually the child is sent away and adopted. Philomena has been searching for him ever since, but only recently decides to tell her daughter. By chance, her daughter works as a waitress at a party attended by Martin Sixsmith, a recently fired former government advisor, who's looking for a new project. At first Martin rejects the idea of writing a 'human interest' story, but soon warms to it, and he and Philomena begin the search for her long lost son Anthony...

Philomena is the story of a number of talented actors and creators collaborating on the real-life tale of Philomena Lee, whose story was told and published by Martin Sixsmith back in 2009. First, the writers: Jeff Pope has had a highly successful career writing TV dramas for ITV including Pierrepoint and Dirty Filthy Love, whilst Steve Coogan is known worldwide as the writer and creator of Alan Partridge and other characters. Then, there's the stars: Steve Coogan assumes the role of Martin Sixsmith alongside Philomena Lee played by Dame Judi Dench, renowned as one of the world's finest actresses, appearing in the most recent Bond films, Shakespeare in Love and Mrs Brown. Then, the director: Stephen Frears has directed some of Britain's most famous film exports, films such as My Beautiful Launderette, Dirty Pretty Things, The Queen and now Philomena. All the elements are in place to take a charming story to the big screen, and they've done a wonderful job translating it.

This film is focused directly on the relationship between Philomena and Martin, with the hunt for her long lost son becoming inconsequential for well over the first half of the film. It's only as elements of Philomena's son's life are revealed that the plot focuses back to Philomena's struggle. In fact, it's because things shift in the middle of the second act that it's hard to pinpoint just which relationship this film is supposed to be about. Either way, both relationships rely heavily on the extraordinary story of Philomena Lee, which is told in a way which never becomes overly sentimental but is not a cold document of the facts either. Stephen Frears has filmed it wonderfully, and Coogan and Pope's screenplay tells the story of Philomena in a heartwrenching yet light hearted way. Also, the films has been wonderfully scored by Alexandre Desplat and helps enhance moments of whimsy and heaviness in equal measure. It's easy to see why the Weinsteins picked it up and championed it: It's extremely similar in style and form to The King's Speech, and clearly they were hoping for some form of repeat success.

It's not hard to see it being successful either; the strong female lead of Philomena Lee is excellently filled by Dame Judi Dench, one of the finest actresses in the world. A stubborn, deeply religious woman who just wants answers after 5 decades of holding this terrible secret, Dame Judi's performance is touching and underplayed, whilst also providing moments of light relief. As for Steve Coogan, the character of Martin Sixsmith is two dimensional in the film, and Coogan is the man to blame; either he underwrote the role, or failed to deliver the performance needed to match Dame Judi's dominating presence on screen. Either way, Sixsmith is never emotionally relateable and is a poor companion to Philomena Lee. Beyond that, there aren't any other stand out supporting characters, other than the evil nuns, who are so generic they could ahve come from any other motion picture where nuns are depicted as repressed and out of touch with humanity.

The main problem I have with this film is, I fear, in the writing. Where Pope and Coogan have received many a plaudit for their adaptation of Sixsmith's book, I feel that so much of their focus has gone into recreating Philomena for the big screen that they forgot to create any other character of depth to allow Philomena someone to create a rapport with. They do their best with Martin and Philomena, bbut Martin is so repressed and unrounded, that the character can never truly connect with Philomena, and even when he appears to, it seem forced and unnatural. Indeed, like another recent film Her, the best relationship on screen is between one of the actors and someone who never appears on screen with them. Philomena's relationship with her son feels real because of Dench's performance; her emotions are the only ones the audience has to play off of whereas an actual interaction between Dench and her onscreen son might have come across as forced and overplayed.

Overall, this is a lovely story, one that is certainly worthy of being told to a potential audience of millions, and Dame Judi Dench's performance is wonderful, but that's where the buck stops. Everything else seems flat and run of the mill, there's nothing spectacular about the way the story is told and the visual style, while good, is something we've seen before in films such as The King's Speech, a film which Philomena clearly aspires to be. Steve Coogan has made a charming little film, but it's so unspectacular that I hasten to say that this is probably the weakest of all Best Picture nominees this year. Two years ago, I had Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Last year, I had Beasts of the Southern Wild. This year, unfortunately, I have Philomena.

Rating: **1/2

Philomena was released on 1st November 2013 and is no longer being shown in cinemas.

Her

Academy Award Nominations: 5

• Best Picture
• Best Original Screenplay (Spike Jonze)
• Best Original Score (William Butler, Owen Pallett)
• Best Original Song ('The Moon Song')
• Best Production Design (K.K. Barrett, Gene Serdena)

Theodore Twombly is a lonely, introverted man going through a divorce. Luckily, it's 2025, and operating systems now have artificial intelligence which can fill the voids in everyone's lives. So, when Theodore buys OS1, he immediately strikes up a friendship with the OS which begins to call itself 'Samantha'. As he gets closer to Samantha, his work writing personalised love letters for people who can't be bothered improves, as do his friendships in the real world as he becomes more extrovert. However, after a meeting with his soon-to-be ex-wife, he doubts the reality of a relationship with a piece of software, especially when it hires someone to act as a human surrogate...

15 years ago, Spike Jonze made one of my favourite films of all time. Being John Malkovich is a wonderfully weird and surreal film from the pen of Charlie Kaufman, so to be able to translate Kaufman's eccentricity onto screen and do it successfully exemplifies why Jonze was given so much praise. The crazy thing is, after Being John Malkovich, he teamed up with Kaufman again for Adaptation, which is equally as weird, if not even weirder. Another one of my favourite films, Adaptation showed that Jonze had some creative eccentricity in him himself; it wasn't just Kaufman's script that made Adapatation and Malkovich wonderfully quirky and enjoyable. After his collaborations with Kaufman, it took him 7 years to come back with Where the Wild Things Are, based on the children's book. Here, he didn't just direct but also co-wrote the screenplay, and showed he had other talents too. Now, he's back with Her, his first solo screenplay about a man who falls in love with his OS. I wonder where he got his inspiration from...

Her is one of those films that comes with stigmas attached to it. It's written and directed by Spike Jonze, it stars Joaquin Phoenix. Translation: It's going to be one of those quirky, indy films that's over pretentious. Well, it's not. Considering the subject matter, it stays pretty well grounded, it never goes over the top at any time which only goes to make this entire film feel creepily realistic. This could happen in 10 years time. The entire film is extremely poetic, the screenplay is littered with winding monologues and love letters and poetic speeches, but it fits the tone of the film so it never feels pretentious. The direction is top notch, and perfectly shows Jonze's aptitude as a director; there's almost certainly a big project coming his way soon. The film looks great too, as if the film had been shot through an Instagram filter. The cinematography and the editing work together to create a feel for the film that's almost dream-like, like this entire film is a giant fantasy whilst staying firmly rooted in reality. Where Jonze chooses not to accentuate the ludicrosity of the plot in the action on screen or the performance or the dialogue, it's certainly accentuated in its visual style.

The entire film is pulled together by a good central performance by Joaquin Phoenix. Phoenix is good, but the problem is he's playing one of those characters who you can't really relate to. Theodore Twombly is introverted and a bit creepy, there's evidence of underlying psychological problems caused by his impending divorce, and he falls in love with some software. The moustache alone is enough to put you off. What works in Phoenix's performance, though, is his relationship with a disembodied voice from Scarlett Johansson. He's able to make a single performance with an inanimate object feel like something real, so definitely deserves credit for that. Amy Adams makes a lovely few appearances as Theodore's friend Amy, a character who mirrors Theodore and is destined to be the 'perfect match' for Theodore; it's just as shame she's not on screen more than she is.

One of the best things about Her, though, is its soundtrack. A quirky film has been given a wonderfully quirky soundtrack by Arcade Fire, it's a perfect match between band and film/director. The soundtrack moves between diagetic and non-diagetic states constantly throughout the film, and it really fits in well with what's happening on screen, you can tell a lot of hard work was put into getting the tone of the music correct. Another of the good things is the emotion the piece evokes. One of the few, but fiercest, criticisms of the film is that it keeps the audience at an emotional distance because of the main character and the nature of the relationship portrayed in the film. I would wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Although Theodore is hard to pinpoint emotionally, the best scenes in the film are when he shares a moment with Samantha, whether it's positive or negative. The structure and content of the screenplay have made sure that an emotional bond is established and reinforced between man and technology, to the point where the last 20 minutes are actually truly heartbreaking, even I was amazed by the strength of the screenplay.

Overall, Her is a wonderfully quirky and melancholic and melodramatic and unique and heartbreaking and entertaining and joyful film to watch and enjoy. That's a lot of adjectives all at once, but there's no way to really narrow down what exactly this film is. It's a Spike Jonze film, that's about as best as I can do. It's got Jonze written all over it, both in its writing and its direction. Joaquin Phoenix is confident yet unsettling in the main role, and Scarlett Johansson is surprisingly good as a disembodied voice. As much as this film could be seen as a warning about where humanity is headed with its relationship with technology, it never veers off its light-hearted romance path. Some people have called this a science fiction. These people are wrong. It's a romance about a blossoming relationship, it just so happens that one half of the relationship is an operating system called Samantha.

Rating: ****

Her was released on 14th February 2014 and is still being shown in cinemas.

Dallas Buyers Club

Academy Award Nominations: 6

• Best Picture
• Best Original Screenplay (Craig Borten, Melisa Wallack)
• Best Actor (Matthew McConaughey)
• Best Supporting Actor (Jared Leto)
• Best Editing (John Mac McMurphy, Martin Pensa)
• Best Make-Up and Hairstyling (Adruitha Lee, Robin Mathews)

Ron Woodroof leads a bachelors lifestyle in the late 80s with strippers, cocaine and booze... Until he gets HIV. Then, he becomes a pariah, and is told he only has 30 days to live, but he refuses to give up so easily. The latest drug to fight HIV hasn't yet been approved, but he's eager to get his hands on it, so he ends up stealing it from the hospital, but when the supply run dry, he goes to Mexico. When he gets there, however, he finds a former doctor who's leading the fight against HIV symptoms in his own run down 'clinic' with drugs and remedies which are unavailable and unapproved in America. Ron sees an opportunity, and sets up the Dallas Buyers Club: A club where you pay for a monthly membership to receive as many drugs as you need. It's only when he teams up with transgender woman Rayon that business really begins to pick up...

What in the world happened to Matthew McConaughey's career? Here are the highlights of his mainstream career from 1999-2009: EdTV, U-571, The Wedding Planner, Tiptoes, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Failure to Launch, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past. The jokes were rife: He couldn't appear in a film without being contractually obligated to take his shirt off. He was a laughing stock of sorts. Then, all of a sudden, a renaissance began: The Lincoln Lawyer in 2011 gave us a different side of McConaughey, one that could act. Then followed Bernie. Then Killer Joe. Then The Paperboy. Then Mud, Magic Mike, Wolf of Wall Street and now... Dallas Buyers Club. He's made his Hollywood money, now he's taking on smaller passion projects that allow him to flex his acting muscles, and boy is he ever, because Dallas Buyers Club centers on a phenomenal McConaughey performance.

McConaughey is the glue that holds this film together; it's focused on his character and he's in every single scene, acting his heart out, though at times, you wonder if it wasn't actually a performance as an HIV victim in constant agony; given his dramatic weight loss for the role, his pain may well have been real. Regardless, his sacrifice only adds to the majestic performance. It's hard to imagine a film like this, with a plot as weighty as this, working with anyone else trying to carry the Woodroof character. There's two sides to the character, there's the headstrong homophobe from before the illness and the compassionate, ailing, strongwilled fighter who accepts his fate but fights against it, and McConaughey is able to carry both sides extremely well. There's some cross over with the characters, certainly, but it takes two different performances for the two sides of the film as the same character, something which I've seen actors try and fail to do previously, so McConaughey is worthy of acknowledgement for the hard work he puts into this. That's not to say he isn't ably supported by a strong cast.

Indeed, Jared Leto is the second man grabbing headlines from this film and rightfully so, his performance as Rayon, the transgender woman who helps Woodroof establish and run the Dallas Buyers Club is fantastic, acting as a juxtaposition to Woodroof. It's an extreme departure from what Leto's ever had to do before; the closest he ever got to a role like this before, playing someone so emotionally raw, would be Requiem for a Dream, which was a whole 14 years ago at this point. It's also nice to see Jennifer Garner giving a performance with a hint of emotion and realism for the first time in 10 years. In recent years, in films like Juno and The Invention of Lying, she's always been wooden and emotionless, as if she'd lost her edge, but she seems reinvigorated here and delivers a good performance in support of McConaughey. Other than that though, it's hard to pick anybody else out of the cast as a highlight; that's not to say they're bad, they're merely functional in their job. It just seems everybody else is a bystander to the top three cast members, which isn't hard to see why: It's still hard to talk about HIV/AIDS on film.

HIV/AIDS is still a taboo subject in cinema, even with films like Philadelphia, Precious and Rent becoming mainstream films that deal with the issue. It's easy to show the number of sufferers as Dallas Buyers Club, it's easy to show a queue of people which grows throughout the film in order to give more impact to the seriousness of the situation the developed world found itself in with the virus in the 1980s. It's a lot harder to show the individual, unique impact it has on the sufferers' lives. Even showing two main characters suffering from the virus is an advance for mainstream American cinema, especially as their suffering is shown in two very different ways. It's never glorified, this isn't pornographic in any way regarding the virus, but it shows the harsh reality of everyday life with HIV/AIDS from two unique angles. The editing is superb, and the direction is subtle and understated yet powerful and deliberate. Make sense? Probably not. It's good, it fits well with the themes of the story, which is the overriding story to take away from this film.

Ultimately, everything just fits together so nicely here. The film has been technically well made, the script is powerful yet never explicit or exploitative of its subject matter, and the performances on display are extremely well crafted and have the power to shock, awe and sympathise. It's a tough film to watch, as are most films regarding the subject of HIV/AIDS, but it's got a heart in the middle of it, a story of survival against an indeterminate amount of struggle and it's captivating. But the headline here is undoubtedly McConaughey. Where was he hiding performances like this one 10 years ago, even 3 years ago? He's rebuilt his career to a point where he may well be seen as one of the most respected actors in the industry today. It's an incredibly powerful film to watch, and it only develops in your thoughts as time passes. Ron Woodroof is a bastard, but Matthew McConaughey is an excellent actor.

Rating: ****1/2

Dallas Buyers Club was released on 7th February 2014 and is still being shown in cinemas.

Captain Phillips

Academy Award Nominations: 6

• Best Picture
• Best Supporting Actor (Barkhad Abdi)
• Best Adapted Screenplay (Billy Ray)
• Best Film Editing (Christopher Rouse)
• Best Sound Editing (Oliver Tarney)
• Best Sound Mixing (Chris Burdon, Mark Taylor, Mike Prestwood Smith, Chris Munrod)

Captain Richard Phillips is in charge of taking an unarmed container ship from Oman to Mombasa, around the Horn of Africa directly through Somali pirate-infested waters. Low and behold, two skiffs begin making their way toward the ship. They're able to withhold the initial charge, but when they return on the second day, they can't hold them off and the pirates take over the ship. Abduwali Muse and his three friends hold the ship and the crew for ransom, but Phillips is determined to fight back: He has his crew hide in the engine room, stop the ship, and cut the power. As determined as the American crew are, the Somalis are driven by the prospect of millions of dollars in ransom money and are well armed. It can't end well, especially once the US Navy get involved in the rescue mission...

Tom Hanks has, really strangely, become the quiet man of Hollywood. After a few quiet years, he's only recently returned to the limelight in films such as Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and Cloud Atlas. He had time to write and direct his directorial debut, Larry Crowne, as well. It just seems as if Hanks has reached the point where, quite frankly, he doesn't need to take any project that comes his way; he's being extremely selective about which projects he takes on board. It was lucky, then, he chose to come on board this film based on its screenplay without a director even attached. Luckily, Paul Greengrass was offered the chance to bring his Bourne trilogy magic to this highly tense drama about a hostage situation. Initially, Tom Hanks and Paul Greengrass seems like an odd combination on the surface, and you'd be right to think so, but don't worry, even with Hanks on board, this is unmistakable Greengrass. I'll leave it to you to decide whether this is a good thing.

Here's the thing that grabbed me most of all about this film: The trailer is maybe the most mis-leading of the year. Here's why: 1. The trailer doesn't give away the fact that half the film doesn't even take place on the massive container ship you see for 90% of the trailer, and 2. The trailer in no way gives away how much involvement the US Navy has in the proceedings. The story of one man facing adversity is what everyone came to see, but as the film progresses, the Navy becomes a larger and larger part of the story to the point where Captain Phillips is almost forgotten by the conclusion, becoming a secondary to the overriding message that "America saves the day again." The focus is most definitely on Captain Phillips and the pirates, but as the movie creeps on, the Navy becomes more and more of a factor. It's a shame, because as soon as they become involved, you know how this is going to end and the film becomes a drag while you wait for how it plays out while the inevitable conclusion finally arrives.

This is, however, not really about that. This is a film that focuses on characters and the relationships that are formed between them. Therefore, it's down to Tom Hanks and Barkhad Abdi to carry this film, and they're both excellent. Tom Hanks is extremely sympathetic as Captain Phillips, he really carries this film without ever going over the top. At the end, there's certainly scope for Hanks to go OTT but he keeps himself in check and keeps his reactions and performances rooted in reality, which is most certainly an impressive feat. However, it is Barkhad Abdi who steals the show as Abduwali Muse, leader of the band of pirates who take over Phillips' ship and take Phillips hostage for a ransom. He's smart and evil and calm and collected and he's a real joy to see; a proper movie villain who, again, doesn't go OTT. He is the equal opposite to Hanks' Phillips in that they're both strong, confident leaders with wits and intelligence, but they're working on opposite sides of the spectrum. Aside from these two, though, the supporting cast is surprisingly underwhelming, with no-one really given a chance to shine or any real purpose in the film.

It is, then, that the film has an over-reliance on its core relationship between good and evil, and everyone else is mere cannon fodder. But then Paul Greengrass has never been one to develop characters, his films centre on action and fit nicely within his trademark quasi-documentary style. It's guns and explosions stuff that anyone could do, but the guns and explosions are hidden behind a shaky camera. Sure, there's certainly tension in this and all of his other films, but there's nothing spectacular or particularly memorable about Captain Phillips. It's argued that Greengrass' involvement with the Bourne franchise made the producers of the James Bond films rethink their franchise, and yes, you can see where Greengrass' directorial touches have been incorporated into every action film since The Bourne Supremacy, but is it really much different? Guns are still fired, things are still blown up, people still die, and America still rules.

Overall, it's nice to see Paul Greengrass attempt a proper drama instead of an all-out action film for once, but he just can't help himself, and he's turned a tense hostage drama into a head-dizzying action film. Captain Phillips got punched in the gut! CUE FRANTIC CAMERA MOVEMENT! It's the same but different from Greengrass; it's got Tom Hanks and Barkhad Abdi putting in some good work and it has some brief moments of tension, but it's unspectacular and surprisingly similar to what we've seen before. People love the Bourne films, but I didn't, and the same thing has happened here. Maybe I'm missing something? It's the same! Show me what's new and different and noteworthy and I'll happily write a retraction. Until then, Captain Phillips was good, but it could have been great.

Rating: ***