Worst 5 Films of 2011

Until two weeks ago, my Worst Five films of 2011 were set in stone. I'd figured out what would make it onto the list and in which order I would rank them, based on their vulgarity, putrescence, offensiveness and sheer awfulness. My mind was made up. Then a film was released which seemed to be trying to make it onto my list: a film – to quote the brilliant critic Mark Kermode – 'even stupid people will hate'. And so, my Worst Five films of 2011 nearly looked very different. But the list which I present to you now is, in my mind, the definitive selection of films to avoid like the plague (to be honest, getting the plague would be a more enjoyable experience than enduring these appalling cinematic offerings). And you know the worst bit? I paid £36.50 to see them.

5) The Hangover Part II

The most depressing thing about The Hangover Part II is the fact that it took a shed load of money ($581,464,305 worldwide, in fact). Not only was this film racist, homophobic, crass and a total repeat of The Hangover, but people paid to see it in their millions, thus incentivising the producers to make another. Following a very similar plot to the previous film, The Hangover Part II sees 'The Wolfpack' go on a wild night out (but in Bangkok – crazy!) the night before one of them is due to be married. What ensues is a film which, to all intents and purposes, recycles old gags which were barely funny the first time round and ramps up the racism (Bangkok is represented as a place of debauchery, full of racial stereotypes and with a more than healthy helping of ladyboys). The film has multiple uses of the 'n' word – somewhat surprising with a cast and a plot which feature no Afro-Caribbean characters – and is crafted (actually, no, that word gives the film too much merit), botched together with as much subtlety and wit as a chain-smoking monkey – oh wait, there's one of those too. Now, I realise that many will disagree with this and argue that the film did what was to be expected of it (i.e. vulgar and unnecessary humour) but this in no way, shape or form means that it is a good film, or even a good comedy. I only came to realise this a few weeks after seeing it. The reason? It was so bad, it needed that long to sink in.

4) Immortals

The only saving grace of this film was its use of CGI which, as I said in my review, was skillfully executed but was still very flat and lacked that spark seen in good visual effects. Immortals, loosely based on Greek mythological characters, featured several notable actors, most dispiritingly John Hurt who seemed to be drowning against a tide of bad acting and dialogue which would have been more at home in a piece of C– GCSE Media Studies coursework. The costumes verged on the ridiculous and the plot made little sense but, to be honest, I didn't really care. Mickey Rourke's evil King Hyperion was, frankly, comedic and had as much of a threatening presence as the Easter Bunny. But the biggest problem with Immortals was how boring it was. The battle sequences engaged me for all of ten seconds before they became the predictable and run-of-the-mill fare so often seen in films of this nature. However, maybe I'm being overly-harsh. Immortals really did fulfil its aim to make the audience feel as though, along with the characters, their very lives were at stake. I was bored to death.

3) Transformers: Dark of the Moon

A film about children's toys hitting each other over the head. With Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as Megan Fox. And a plot which would have made more sense if the audience were given ecstasy instead of popcorn. The trouble with Transformers: Dark of the Moon is its director, Michael Bay, who doesn't, as I've said before, know how to tell a story to save his life. The film is disjointed in the extreme and Bay seems to think that enough shots of robots attacking each other (for over 25 head-numbing minutes in the final fight sequence) will gloss over the fact that the plot could only be rescued if it was thrown in the bin and totally re-written. Huntington-Whiteley's presence is simply eye-candy and the day the acting wins an Oscar will be the day I cut off my fingers and use them as flakes in 99s as, obviously, I won't need them to type my rants any longer because I'm so out-of-touch with film. The action sequences in the film keep coming, with no sense of cause and effect, and which leads to viewing Transformers: Dark of the Moon being much like watching paint dry, but much less enjoyable. A supremely shocking film.

2) Final Destination 5

Final Destination 5 is, perhaps, a film not made for me. Obviously, I'm the only person who doesn't like gratuitous, defunct and repulsive violence which serves no purpose to the plot (because the violence is the plot). This film is all about people's eyes being lasered out and little else. As the previous films did, Final Destination 5 sees a group of people being hunted down by some supernatural power after they cheat death, this time after a bridge collapse. In a film which sees its main characters being killed not once, but twice (because, hey, it gives the film makers double the fun), the totally over-the-top, vomitous and sickening violence has no redeeming features and leads to a thoroughly unpleasant feeling when the credits roll. To say I didn't enjoy this film is an understatement. Oh and the title's stupid too.

1) New Year's Eve

Here we have it. The Number One Worst film of 2011. Having already slated it in my review, I feel slightly reluctant to use any more valuable words on this supremely atrocious piece of film-making. But I will. Sickly, nasty, offensive, vomitous, abominable, atrocious, vile, putrid, and repugnant are all apt descriptions of New Year's Eve. Following the same formula of Valentine's Day (the two films share the same director), the film is both cheesy and cringe-worthy in the extreme and suffers from a chronic misjudgement which is demonstrated in a plot strand which sees two couples fight over a $25,000 prize if their child is the first to be born in the New Year. Never mind the healthy delivery of the baby, just gimme the cash. I maintain that not a single person will like this film, but if you do, you'll need your head examined. Not many films give me a physically sick feeling (apart from, maybe, the film at Number Two in this list) but as I sat watching a cast which seemed to be comprised of a galaxy of stars, I began to feel the need to retch. Fortunately for the woman sat in front of me, I controlled this urge but only just. There is not a single aspect of this film which I liked or even felt mildly warm to. And so, the best of the worst films of 2011 really was left until last. New Year's Eve is a despicable excuse for a film and one I urge you not to see. Unless, of course you've already been subjected to its putrefied 118 minute running time, in which case, you'll 100% agree with me.

And there you have it, my Worst Five films of 2011. Thanks for reading and for your support over the past six months. The blog has gone from strength-to-strength and I really appreciate every single reader. So, thank you. Here's to a great, film-filled 2012.

Top 5 Films of 2011

I'm well aware that in compiling this list, people aren't going to agree with me but trust me, I've put a lot of thought into it. 2011 has been a really great year for films but it has, equally, produced a huge amount of trash. This list showcases, in my opinion, films which have stood out through their brilliance and which deserve a special mention as I look back on the year that was 2011. To demonstrate just how good a year 2011 has been for films, let me mention some films which didn't make the Top Five. Bridesmaids, for example, reinvigorated the rom-com and demonstrated that you didn't have to alienate all the men in the audience to explore the empowerment of women in modern society. The film had a depth which was not reduced by the humour which was genuinely funny and original and the film was an unexpected treat. Warrior, likewise, surprised with its emotional punch (quite literally) and used the medium of sport to create a feel-good film which was delicately executed. These films, however, failed to make my Top Five – an indication of the quality of the films which did. Whether you agree with me or cry in horror 'how is that film not on the list?!', I urge you to watch my Top Five films of 2011. You'll be a better person for it. Honest.

5) The King's Speech (and yes, the official release date was 07/01/2011)

A surprise hit and the winner of four Oscars, The King's Speech, directed by Tom Hooper and starring the ever-versatile Colin Firth, is an example of a film which appealed to an audience wider than Julia Robert's smile. Rarely could you walk into a cinema screen and see a such a mix of people; from armies of geriatric cinema-goers complaining that the seats were uncomfortable, to teenagers flashing their phones at the back, the wide demographic who went to see The King's Speech left the cinema almost unanimously won over by a charming script and performances which were both humorous and sensitive. Hooper's direction was dynamic and retained the edge of the costume-drama which the British do so well. Firth's tongue-tied monarch was the classical example of the everyday man (okay, maybe not) overcoming a personal problem with the aid of an unlikely friend. Standard stuff but superbly executed. It's little wonder that the Americans loved it.

4) Hugo

You'll know by now that I hate 3D. It's the work of the devil. So it may be surprising that a film which relies so much on 3D has made it in at Number Four. Martin Scorsese's Hugo is crammed full of good, old-fashioned fun with a magic which replicates that felt by the pioneers of cinema. The beautiful art design and stunning cinematography, combined with engaging performances (especially from Asa Butterfield in the title role) created a film which will appeal to both adults and children alike. Scorsese's love for cinema is plain to see in this film and the film's 3D element works because of this love for the mechanics of cinema. 3D distances the audience from the film and makes them aware that what they are watching is simply a mechanical process. This ties in nicely with Hugo's themes and leads to an enjoyable and enchanting family film. I'll say it once, and once only. I liked the 3D. You'll never hear me say that again. Ever.

3) Super 8

In at Number Three we have Super 8 – a joint venture between Star Trek's J. J. Abrams and one of the most successful directors of the twentieth century, Steven Spielberg. Set in 1970s small town America, the film follows a group of children who witness strange and unsettling events as they try to make their own film. Released back in the summer, Super 8 is a warm, nostalgic and solid piece of film-making which is a throwback to Spielberg's earlier children's works. The characters are engaging and the acting solid, whilst the ending is genuinely uplifting without spilling into over-sentimental rubbish which is so often seen. Beautifully shot and scored, the film deserves to be seen by as many people as possible and rarely does a family film such as this come along: I applaud Spielberg and Abrams for their work. If you haven't seen it, you're missing a treat.

2) The Help

Some have called The Help, based on the best-selling book by Kathryn Stockett, mawkish and sloppy with a tendency to skirt over the issue of civil rights. Um, no. Whilst I did feel that the subject matter was not explored to its full extent, the charm and good nature of the film is more than enough to take you on an emotional rollercoaster. A touching script and a moving soundtrack, together with a fantastic mise-en-scène, created a racially-prejudiced world which should have never existed but this is, perhaps, the film's greatest achievement. Its focus on black segregation ensures that the issue is never forgotten and is highlighted for a new generation who may not be fully aware of the darker side of American history. With terrific performances, especially from Viola Davis, and a potent mix of humour and tragedy, The Help is a worthy adaptation which deserves all the praise it has garnered. If you're not crying by the end of the film, you've either had your tear ducts surgically removed or you're simply dead inside.

1) We Need To Talk About Kevin

And so, my Number One film of 2011. We Need To Talk About Kevin. Many of you won't have seen it. Many of you should see it. It is a supreme example of film-making at its very best and everything about this film screams quality. Eva's struggle after her son commits a terrible crime is both moving and disturbing, and the dialogue and performances (Swinton in particular) are first class. Adapted from a novel by Lynne Ramsay, the film's most unsettling aspect is Ezra Miller's performance which is manipulative, chilling and all-to-real. The haunting cinematography, with its distinctive colour palette and the use of flashbacks works wonders and shows just how powerful the medium of film can be. As I said in my original review, it is difficult to say whether you will 'enjoy' the film in the usual sense. But I reckon you will. We Need To Talk About Kevin is certainly the film event of the year. And you need to promise yourself to see it. Or, even better, make it one of your New Year's resolutions. Come on, it'll be much easier to keep than your other one to not eat as much chocolate. 

Agree/disagree with this list? I'd love to hear your ideas. You'll be wrong, but still.

New Year's Eve

Michelle Pfeiffer. Robert De Niro. Jessica Biel. Sarah Jessica Parker. Hilary Swank. Ludacris. Halle Berry. Zac Efron. Lea Michele. More stars than on your average Christmas tree. And certainly more than this film deserves.

New Year's Eve is the latest offering from Garry Marshall, whose previous cinematic delights (cough, cough) include The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement and, crucially to this film, Valentine's Day. Now, anyone who has seen Valentine's Day will know what to expect with New Year's Eve as it follows the same style: a significant day is used as the backdrop for the personal and professional problems of various characters to be overcome. Last year, it was finding love. This year, it's a ball dropping. The main plot of the film is centred around Hilary Swank's character who is in charge of the New Year's Eve celebrations in New York's Times Square. She must, at all costs, make sure that the giant ball (which marks the start of the New Year and is apparently a big thing in the States) drops as the countdown to 2012 begins. Throw in some interweaving storylines and enough shots of Lea Michele singing to rival your average Glee episode, and you've got yourself the perfect film to end the year. Right? Wrong.

No words can describe how dire this film is. Fact. But I'm going to try anyway. First off, the characters are the most annoying bunch of people you're likely to meet. Their two dimensional, materialistic, shallow and totally defunct lives leave the audience totally apathetic to their situations which, quite frankly, are ridiculous. Take two of the 'branch-out' story lines. The first concerns two couples who are about to become parents. They hear that if their child is the first to be born in the New Year, they win $25,000. Now, any normal person would be happy enough with a healthy baby and mother, but no, these characters are more concerned with getting their hands on the cash. It doesn't matter if the mother feels pressured and anxious about being the fastest to give birth because, hey, it's all about the money. The supposedly 'emotive' and 'feel-good' ending to this pathetically sickening plot strand is enough to put you off the whole film. But no, there's more! The second vomit-inducing plot features Robert De Niro, who, it could be argued, did this film to pay the bills. He plays a dying Vietnam veteran, who wants to make it to the New Year, with supposedly no family to be with him during his final hours. It turns out (and this is not a spoiler because if you didn't see this coming, you really weren't trying) that Swank's character is his daughter. So, what do you do if your father has a few hours to live? Devote your entire time to making sure the New Year's Eve ball drops in Times Square of course! Never mind good old dad...

No-one, and I mean no-one, will enjoy this film. With more product placement than in an ad break for The X Factor, it is clear that the film is simply a commercial vessel, aimed at printing money at the expense of any artistic merit. Hilary Swank's 'inspiring' speech to the waiting crowds in Times Square was nothing short of farcical and raised more than a few chuckles in the audience I endured the film with. The last five minutes of the film, i.e. the bloopers, were the most bearable of the entire 118 minutes, during which time I had worked out exactly how to kill myself by using my ticket to paper-cut my wrists. New Year's Eve is so misjudged as a piece of film-making, so sickening and so superficially focused on sentimental drivel that it seems to be drowning in its own ghastliness. However, there is one redeeming feature. Should the NHS ever need an alternative to stomach pumping, showing patients this film will more than suffice. 

Clapperboard Rating: * 

Hugo

I'll make no bones about it. 3D is not, and will never ever be, my thing. I find it (as loyal readers will know) annoying and totally unnecessary and it is only there to make money and to make films more difficult to pirate. And yet, as I sat watching Hugo (in 3D), I found myself enjoying the stereoscopy element of the film. I felt slightly guilty in this enjoyment, as you do when you laugh at someone who trips over comically but, nevertheless, the 3D (and I never thought I'd say this) added to the film. Oh dear. Next I'll be saying that any Jennifer Aniston film is a metaphysical critique on social conventions...or maybe not.

Hugo is the latest offering from Martin Scorsese and is slightly unusual for a director whose past work includes Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and Shutter Island. Starring the epic Ben Kingsley and the promising Asa Butterfield, Hugo examines the magic of the beginnings of cinema by following Hugo, a young orphan child who winds and repairs the clocks in a 1930s Paris railway station. Scorsese and the production designer, Dante Ferretti, have created a distinct visual world, where even the snowflakes seem to have been touched by cinematic enchatment. Of course, these snowflakes were flying out of the screen 'at' me but, as I shall explain later, it kind of worked. Much of the story was set in the station which, with its bustling atmosphere and beautiful sets, was an enchanting focal point for the narrative. The narrative itself was engaging and was surprising in that it favoured dialogue rather than action sequences which seem to be the default in many children's films. Studios need to remember that little Charlie can sit still without an action set piece being rammed down his popcorn-filled throat every five minutes.

One of the stand-out aspects of the film was the performances which were, for the most part, impressive. Sir Ben Kingsley plays Georges Méliès, the pioneer of early cinema, and commands the screen with a sensitivity and forcefulness which allows fourteen year old Asa Butterfield to excel in his delightfully engrossing role as Hugo. Butterfield's ability to capture both the optimism and uncertainty of youth in a single glance leads me to think that he has a bright future as the face of British acting talent. A strong supporting cast gelled with the central performances, although I felt that Sacha Baron Cohen's role as the station inspector was slightly misjudged. Although his performance wasn't bad, his presence in a film such as this was like inviting your grandma on your honeymoon: unsuitable. On another level, there were some pacing issues in the first hour and the scene where Hugo's friend (and the god-daughter of Méliès), Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), is knocked over by the passengers in the station seemed to jar with the rest of the film.

And now, to the 3D. As I thought about the film on the way home from the cinema, I realised why I had found the 3D bearable, even enjoyable. Every poster for a 3D film proclaims that it will 'immerse' you in the world of the film. However, the 3D effect does quite the opposite. Putting on those silly glasses reminds the audience constantly that what they are watching is, indeed, only a film; a mechanical process. 3D is more self-conscious than the feeling you get when you walk past a policeman. But this is why Hugo works. The film focuses on the mechanics of cinema – the noises of the film projector, the whirl of wheels, the clunk of ratchets and the click of cogs, all of which play an important part in the sound design. Scorsese's love of cinema is clear in the film. And it is because of this that the 3D works. Hugo is about the magic, the mechanics and the technicalities of cinema and as you sit in the audience, looking like a member of a Where's Wally? convention, you become aware that the 3D is complementing these themes. And when you go with it, it's quite good fun.

So Hugo. Go and see it in 3D. Pay that little bit extra, even if it means that studio bosses will be laughing all the way to the bank this Christmas. Oh, and Scorsese says he wants to make all his future films in 3D. Whatever next...?!

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *

The Deep Blue Sea

I've always thought that one of the qualities of film which sets it apart from other art forms is the power it has to transform the mundane and banal into a visual masterpiece. Every now and again, a film comes along which is so dazzlingly brilliant in terms of its visuals that it puts the iPhone as a piece of design to shame. The Deep Blue Sea is one of those films. Masterfully directed by Terence Davies and adapted from an original play by Terence Rattigan, The Deep Blue Sea not only showcases a wealth of British talent (in the form of Rachel Weisz and Tom Hiddleston) but it does so in a way which lifts the film from being your average period drama. The atmosphere of the film is brilliant and every shot seems to have been meticulously planned and constructed to within an inch of its life. But, you know what? The end result is nothing short of beautiful.

Rachel Weisz plays Hester, the wife of a powerful judge who embarks on a self-destructive affair with an RAF fighter pilot, played by Hiddleston. This type of story has, of course, been tackled before but The Deep Blue Sea brings a totally new quality and dimension to such a plot. The performances, especially by Weisz, were superb and really allowed the audience to engage with the characters and empathise with their situations even though, at times, their actions could be quite vexing. It was unsettling to see a female protagonist who, whilst having a strong will, seemed incapable of controlling the situations around her – something which made the plot all the more believable. Hiddleston's performance, also, was confident and the supporting cast added depth to the film. The narrative was not perfect and at times got a bit confusing due to the use of flashbacks but, on an overall level, it worked. The central relationship of Hester and Freddie (Hiddleston) worked well and offered a dynamic counterpoint to the life she had led with her husband. One of the most powerful scenes, for me, was when her husband gave her a belated birthday present even though she was with her lover Freddie. Such a simple act spoke volumes and demonstrated the skill which Davies has as a director and screenwriter.

One of the most striking elements of The Deep Blue Sea is its cinematography. The most commonplace items were shot in a way which made them a pleasure to watch – even the cigarette smoke seemed to have had to audition to prove its visual brilliance. This was largely helped by the lighting which created an oppressive yet optimistic atmosphere to mirror the characters' emotions. Not since you walked round the lighting department at Ikea have you seen such a glorious display of light. Furthermore, the sound design was interesting as there was very little music throughout the film. Instead, the dialogue of the characters was very harsh it terms of how it sounded and this not only reflected their attitudes towards one another but almost negated the need for a musical accompaniment. Yeah, I know I'm comparing dialogue to music (what an idiot, you must be thinking) but, genuinely, the effect was marked. All of these elements, combined with solid acting and beautiful cinematography creates a film which, although not perfect, is simply a joy to watch. However, The Deep Blue Sea will divide opinion (RottenTomatoes.com gives it an 86% critic rating compared to 46% of the audience). You will either love it or hate it. Me? Take a guess...

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1

I am well aware that in writing this review, I am addressing an army of teenage girls the size of which hasn't been seen since Justin Bieber was spotted doing a kissogram in Blackpool. The seemingly religious following which the Twilight Saga has created has bemused many but obviously reflects a certain quality which runs throughout all the films and which appeals to a very specific demographic. The first three Twilight films made over $1,800,900,000 and have become one of the most financially successful film franchises of all time. The second film, New Moon, broke box office records by having the biggest midnight screening and opening day receipts in history. Not bad for a series which many critics have dismissed quicker than an offer for a free massage from Edward Scissorhands.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1 (what a snappy title!) has been eagerly anticipated by the fans and, for the most part, positively received by them. However, the vast majority of critics have given it very unfavourable reviews and, for the most part, I disagree. In order to give Breaking Dawn a proper appraisal, it is necessary to watch it bearing in mind the audience at which it is targeted. Directed by Bill Condon, the fourth instalment follows Bella (Kristen Stewart) as she marries vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and falls pregnant. As the child grows inside her, it soon becomes clear that Bella's life is in danger and that the birth of a vampire-human will create new problems for the vampire coven and their rivals, the werewolf pack. The film started with what has become the Twilight trademark; Taylor Lautner took his shirt off, Robert Pattinson gave his 'I'm about to eat you' look and Kristen Stewart delivered her lines with as much enthusiasm as if her pet dog had just died. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh. But what I'm trying to say is that the first half of the film follows the formulaic style which has made the previous films so popular – that is to say, a focus on Bella and Edward's relationship. Many have called this first half slow, dull and uneventful. I have to say that, whilst it did have some pacing issues, the first half explored Bella and Edward's relationship in a way which had not been done before. Condon brings a sense of inwardness and intimacy to the two characters and their predicament which, by definition, takes a lot of screen time to develop.

This instalment has lost a certain edge that the first film had and looks less distinctive in terms of cinematography. Gone are the blue filters which permeated Twilight, to be replaced by a warmer, more aesthetically-pleasing colour scheme – a nod to Bella and Edwards deepening relationship? I think not. But either way, the visuals looked a bit too Hollywood and a bit too polished and I think this is a shame as the original film almost had a Gothic-esque look to it which I liked very much. I was also unsure about the soundtrack which at times felt obtrusive and totally unsuited to the drama playing out on screen. On another level, the 12A certificate was a surprise as the content of the film (not so much the sex, but the blood and body horror) was definitely bordering on a 15 rating. I reckon the distributors slipped the BBFC a cheeky tenner and a signed Taylor Lautner calendar. These issues aside, my overall response to the film was positive. I am in no way a fan of Twilight and Breaking Dawn is not the sort of film you'd go to see (having not seen any of the others) on a rainy Sunday afternoon if there was nothing else on at your local multiplex. The film, by its very definition, requires the audience to be a fan.

And that is what annoys me the most about critics' reviews of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1. The vast majority make no attempt to consider the film in terms of 'fandom'; there's nothing seriously wrong with the film and it works within the context of a fan audience. The fact that (as this goes to 'print') on RottenTomatoes.com, Breaking Dawn was liked by 28% of critics compared to 92% of the audience, speaks volumes. The phrase 'this film wasn't made for the critics' is banded about all too frequently but in this case, I think it is adept. The teenage girl audience is often ignored by Hollywood which, instead, tends to produce series of films for teenage guys (Transformers, Star Wars, Die Hard) and when the occasional teen girl flick does come along, it is lambasted by critics as infantile drivel. Breaking Dawn, Part 1 is not high art. But that's okay. It works within the context in which it was produced. And you know what? It's high-time some critics got over themselves. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

Immortals

My viewing of Immortals (in 2D!) will always stick in my mind. Why, I hear you ask? Well, it was the first time I'd been to the cinema where I'd been the only person in the audience. And boy, was it good. I could pick my own seat, right in the middle of the auditorium, with no-one sat in front of me to disrupt my view and no inconsiderately tall person sat behind me, kicking my seat every two minutes. There were no rustling crisp packets, no buckets of over-priced popcorn and no mobile phones constantly vibrating and illuminating the auditorium as if guiding a plane into land. Perfect. If only the film had lived up to this.

Immortals is loosely based on Greek mythological characters, namely Theseus (Henry Cavill) and his struggle against the evil King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke). Throw in a few gods, more topless men than you could shake a bottle of baby oil at and you've got yourself Hollywood's answer to Homer's Iliad. Now, I'll start off with the positives. The film, directed by Tarsem Singh, has an unusual visual style which almost works. There's a heavy use of CGI and, whilst it's proficiently executed, it lacked the flair which would have lifted the film up a level. In general, the costumes and sets were interestingly constructed, although the costumes of one or two of the characters looked as if they'd been hired from the Old Vic's Christmas production of Aladdin (and no, this isn't a good thing). The key to any film of this nature is, of course, its action sequences which, I have to say, were paced rather well. The violence in these sequences was graphic, but not totally over-the-top and worked within the context of the narrative. In general, however, the narrative felt slightly disjointed and the action sequences seemed to occur in isolation. Things were not helped by sections of dialogue which could have been written by a primary school child.

The performances were flat and forgettable and even John Hurt seemed to be floundering against a cast which had as much twinkle as a wet sparkler. And then there's Mickey Rourke. As the megalomaniac King Hyperion, his performance is suitably dark but, at times, I found it difficult to understand what he was saying. His trademark 'my-vocal-chords-have-been-attacked-with-a-cheese-grater' voice may have suited the dark character he was portraying but at times it verged on the comedic. But again, his character (along with all the others) lacked a depth or back story which would have made the film all the more enjoyable. Cavill's Theseus was also very two-dimensional and this resulted in an overall absence of empathy towards his predicament. It would seem that the writers bypassed characterisation in favour of muscle.

An obvious point of comparison for this film would be Leterrier's Clash of the Titans or Snyder's 300 (the Immortals poster boasts the same producers as 300). Whilst Immortals lacks the distinctive visual punch of 300, it is certainly comparable in terms of violence. As I've said, I felt the violence in the battle sequences was justified but I was slightly unconvinced by certain scenes in King Hyperion's court. It's interesting to note that the BBFC cut the film at the request of the distributor in order for the film to achieve a 15 rating. In the words of the BBFC, cuts were made to remove 'the bloody focus on a throat being cut, reducing the focus on young women dying, having been burnt...the focus on eye gouging...the shot of a beheading, and reducing some focus on large splashes of blood resulting from characters being killed'. Whilst the cut version is still graphic, I think, contextually, it's much more appropriate. Full marks to the BBFC.

So, my overwhelming feeling towards Immortals? It's as flat as a Yorkshireman's cap and it could have been much tighter, deeper and more emotive. Basically, I sat down on my own, in a deserted cinema, some stuff happened in front of me and I left. That's it. But one thing's for sure: immortal they ain't.

Clapperboard Rating: * *

The Help

This film should never have been made. In fact, it's a sad testament to humanity that it was. I don't mean that it's a bad film: merely that the events portrayed in the film are based on fact. The film shouldn't have been made because there shouldn't have been a history for it to take place in. But the fact remains that there was. And this is what makes The Help all the more heartbreaking.

It was with a degree of trepidation that I went to watch The Help as I had read, and very much enjoyed, the book by Kathryn Stockett on which it is based. Film adaptations of novels are always a risk – they can go one of three ways. The film can capture the essence of the book perfectly, remaining faithful to the original text and therefore become as celebrated as the book itself. On the other hand, a film adaptation can re-interpret the original text, approaching the themes from a new and exciting angle. Or, finally, a film adaptation can totally destroy the heart of the original text as if the film makers decided it would be a laugh to reinterpret something in the manner of Katie Price's cover of 'A Whole New World' (for example, the awful film that was The Time Traveler’s Wife). I can happily say that The Help does not fall into this last category. As with the novel, the film follows aspiring author and society girl Skeeter Phelan as she attempts to write a book giving the view point of the black domestic help in white households in 1960s Mississippi. At first she finds it difficult to find any maids willing to open up and tell their stories but when Skeeter's best friend's maid, Aibileen, agrees to talk, it soon becomes clear that they are playing with fire.

First off, the performances are terrific, with Viola Davis as the tortured and life-weary Aibileen giving a performance which is surely an Oscar-contender. A strong cast, including Emma Stone as Skeeter and Bryce Dallas Howard as the fearsome Hilly Holbrook, makes the story all the more touching and creates a world which seems removed and alien but unnervingly real. The cinematography is graceful and perfectly captures 1960s small-town America, as do the superb costumes and hairstyles, with more beehives in sight than in an episode of Winnie the Pooh. The script worked well and struck the right balance between comedy and drama and this coupling of humour and serious drama worked wonders. The sad moments in the film (and trust me, there more than a few) work so well and have such an effect on the audience because, five minutes previously, you were laughing. However, this mixing of emotions is where the film fell down slightly. Such a serious issue such as civil rights deserves to be treated thoroughly and I felt that, in general, the film seemed to gloss-over the issue, giving a prettified and superficial representation of the troubles. This is not to say that the film did not try to address such issues but I felt that it didn't go far enough.

At 2 hours, 26 minutes, The Help is longer than your average film but the plot is so well paced and the narrative so engaging that it is hardly noticeable. The interactions between the maids and their employers are at times confrontational, funny, disturbing, warm and uplifting and it is these scenes which are the stand out moments in the film. The second half of the film is, no doubt, both powerful and devastating. If you fail to be moved by Aibileen's denouement then, I'm sorry, you're not a fully formed human being. Even though I'd read the book and knew what was coming, I was still an emotional wreck by the final shot and, you know what, I don't care. Even though every opportunity to tug at your heartstrings is exploited to the full, the nature of the film demands that you go along with it and that, in my mind, is no bad thing. Viola Davis' performance demonstrates just how effective a look or gesture can be and how it can replace a thousand words of dialogue. This performance was the highlight of the film. A sensitive score by the incomparable Thomas Newman reflected perfectly the domestic drama which was unfolding and certainly aided in tear production levels.

It is a sad fact that the film is based on reality – a reality that most Americans would rather forget. But The Help should be celebrated, just as the book is, for addressing such an important and emotive topic and I'm glad it has been made. This film will climb the Box Office Top Ten, as it deserves to, and the characters, performances and overall narrative make it worth seeing. Be prepared to have your heart broken, laugh uncontrollably and be taken on an emotional ride which is worth twice the ticket price. But ladies, please, wear waterproof mascara.

Clapperboard Rating: * * * * 

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn

First off, let me hold my hands up and say that I haven't read any of the Tintin Adventures and I'm sure I'm missing out on a rich, vibrant and exciting series of comic books which have been lovingly read by generations. So it was with this general ignorance of all things Belgian-related that I watched The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (the colon suggesting there are more films to follow). And let's say I was pleasantly surprised.

From the directorial juggernaut that is Steven Spielberg and producer Peter Jackson, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn follows Tintin and his faithful dog Snowy on their first adventure with Captain Haddock as they track down the lost treasure of Haddock's ancestor. What ensues is your fairly run-of-the-mill adventure with more smashed booze bottles and fights than down at your local Wetherspoons on a Friday night. The most interesting aspect of the film has to be its animation. Using motion capture cameras to film live action and then convert it into digital animation, the film is very striking. The locations are visually stunning (especially during the harbour chase sequence in Bagghar) and the attention to detail breathtaking. The animation is so realistic that I kept having to remind myself that I wasn't watching a live action film. This may sound a bit weird but, genuinely, it looks so real. If you're the type of person with a bit of a hand fetish, go and see this film as the characters' hands really are a thing of beauty (blimey, I never thought I'd say something like that!). Anyway, enough of how good it looks. Trust me, it's amazing. It's just a shame that other aspects of the film don't live up to the visuals.

The plot was...um...okay. Just okay. Nothing special, just...adequate. It took a little while to get going but, once it did, the plot did produce some spectacular set pieces (such as the fantastic fight on the pirate ship) which were made all the better by the fantastic animation. Spielberg's stamp was all over the film, both in terms of style and the slightly nostalgic and warm script which was fairly witty and did raise a few chuckles. Some solid voice acting from Jamie Bell in the title role, along with cinema giants such as Daniel Craig, Toby Jones, Andy Serkis and Simon Pegg, made the film very enjoyable. And yet, I felt that the character of Tintin was a bit of a let down. The character felt a bit flat and, ironically for a film in 3D, slightly two dimensional. There was no emotional depth and no back story to Tintin's character and it felt like he'd lost his personality somewhere between filming and the editing studio. In other words, Tintin's character had as much personality as a school dinner lady with gastroenteritis. Hopefully, however, this will be resolved in the next film which, I have to say, I am already looking forward to. And why am I looking forward to it? Because it's a good, Sunday afternoon film which you can just sit back and enjoy. Not effort required. And I mean this in a good way.

I liked the approach to the action sequences, specifically the fight scenes, where there was no shying away from violence which is often seen in films aimed at a younger audience. I don't mean it was very violent, just that the violence was justified in context and made the situations seem more realistic. In terms of characterisation, children will obviously love Tintin's dog Snowy who, in many ways, had more of a spark behind the eyes than Tintin. Moreover, I felt that the bowler-hatted Inspectors Thompson and Thompson could have made much more of a comedic impact than they did: the potential was there but, ultimately, the two characters served little purpose in the narrative. Despite its flaws, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn remains a fun and enjoyable film, which provides enough for both children and adults to keep them entertained and demonstrates what good animation can do to a film. However, a word of warning. Don't stare at Tintin's quiff for too long – it gets scarily hypnotic.

P.S. See it in 2D. Much better than 3D. And you'll save some money for the bus home.

Clapperboard Rating: * * *

We Need To Talk About Kevin

Some things in life are scary. That creaking floorboard you hear in the middle of the night. The moment you realise you've forgotten to do your homework. The first time you meet your future in-laws. Gordon Brown's smile. All of these can instil fear into the hearts of even the toughest men. And yet, nothing quite compares to the terror of parenthood. Now, I don't mean the normal apprehension of 'will I be a good mother' or the worry that 'Cordelia's little one has already begun to play the piano and my Jack can't even walk yet'. I mean the fear of not connecting with your child, of not bonding with them, or, heaven forbid, not loving them. We Need To Talk About Kevin addresses this issue head on and, in doing so, becomes one of the best films this year.

Directed by Lynne Ramsay and based upon the best-selling book by Lionel Shriver, We Need To Talk About Kevin follows the life of Eva (Tilda Swinton) who, after giving up her career to have Kevin (Ezra Miller), fails to bond with her child and becomes increasingly alienated from him. When Kevin commits a terrible crime at his high-school, Eva's life falls apart and she holds herself responsible for his actions and tries to come to terms with her grief and her ever-growing guilt. First off, this film is a tough watch. From the moment it starts to the moment the credits roll, the film grabs you emotionally and doesn't let you go. Indeed, for days after watching it, it will still hold you in its powerful grip. The film most definitely belongs to Swinton and she commands the screen with a haunting and tormented presence which is both beautiful and disturbing. Ramsay's and fellow screenwriter Rory Kinnear's adaptation of the book gave Swinton the room and scope to give a performance which is one of her best to date. The way in which she carried herself throughout the film made the character of Eva all the more believable and demonstrates what a brilliant actress she is. A strong supporting performance from John C. Reilly as Eva's husband made the film all the more enjoyable and Miller's Kevin captured perfectly a psychologically-disturbed teenager, seemingly with no redeeming qualities.

Another stand-out feature of the film was the way in which it was shot. Bordering on an art-house style, the cinematography was immensely striking and the sound design was very effective (Ramsay places great thought into the sound of her films). Never before has a garden sprinkler sounded so threatening. Visually, the colour red seemed to permeate through the film as though the camera itself had been contaminated by Kevin's actions and this made it all the more unsettling to watch. The tight camera framing reflected the sense of entrapment that Eva felt and allowed Swinton's distinctive facial features to show a thousand emotions in one moment. Kevin's relationship with his mother is, of course, an integral part of the film and superb script-writing and dialogue highlighted this struggle. Even as a toddler, Kevin is in total control of his mother and, although at times I was willing Eva to be more defiant in her treatment of Kevin, it is impossible not to find sympathy for her and her situation. The clever use of flashbacks carried the narrative forward and made the events of 'now' even more effective (for example, when Eva has to hide in the supermarket from the mother of one of Kevin's victims). Such scenes demonstrate what film-making is all about: creating a connection with the audience that can't be found anywhere else.

And so, as I reflect on We Need To Talk About Kevin, I'm left with a question. Was it entertaining? It almost seems inappropriate to use language such as 'entertaining' about a film which is so dark, so disturbing and so thought-provoking. It would be like saying people become undertakers 'for a laugh'. But the more I think about the engaging plot, the first-class acting and the atmospheric cinematography and lighting, the more I think yes, it is entertaining. After all, you're not going to pay the best part of a tenner to be bored are you? But I feel no review can do the film justice. We Need To Talk About Kevin is film-making at its finest and it is a film that you need to see. Then, and only then, can you talk about Kevin. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * * * 

Johnny English Reborn

I never know which is better: to see something you've been looking forward to and for it to disappoint you, or to never see that something and to hold a happy idea in your head of what it would be like. To be honest, I wish I had never set foot in the screening of Johnny English Reborn. I wish I hadn't had all my positive thoughts about it shattered more quickly than a Currys window during the Summer Riots. I wish I had left that cinema the moment I was asked to pay £7.30 for the privilege of watching a dreary and predictable re-hash of something which had been done before but so, so much better. They say hindsight is a wonderful thing...

Johnny English Reborn follows a similar premise to the first film, Johnny English, which was released all the way back in 2003. Having been expelled from MI7 following a bungled security operation, the misfit spy Johnny English (Rowan Atkinson) is recalled to help track down and stop a group of international assassins, intent on killing the Chinese Premier. So, pretty standard spy/espionage stuff and, to a certain extent, it worked. Atkinson's skill in comedic timing and facial expressions helped keep the film from slowly sinking to the depths of total banality and the humour did make me chuckle a fair few times. And yet, it was this humour which was one of the main problems with the film: it could have been so much funnier. Jokes were drawn-out, over-played and I couldn't help thinking that the writers had thought of some of the set-ups as they were doing the school run and listening to Thought For the Day on Radio 4. The joke set-ups were so obvious and predictable that I found myself wondering why the middle-aged man sat next to me found everything so hilariously funny. Not even a canned-laughter audience would have laughed as much as he did. It's a real shame because, as I have already said, certain bits were genuinely funny. But these glimpses of what could have been were overshadowed by the run-of-the-mill trash which would have been more suited to the clown at a children's birthday party.

The predictable plot could have been written in a GCSE media studies class and the overall narrative lacked a drive and sense of purpose, with scenes seeming to exist on their own, rather than fitting in to an cohesive scheme. And don't get me started on some of the acting. Not since you assembled that Ikea wardrobe have you seen anything more wooden (I am thinking in particular of the MI7 boss played by Gillian Anderson). It was not an Oscar-winning performance. However, Atkinson's talent for physical comedy redeemed some of the other performances but even his efforts were slightly disappointing and a bit flat. Actually, you know what, that's the word I would use to describe the whole film. Flat. The script was flat, the acting was flat, the jokes were flat and the action was flat. In fact, the film could have been made in the Netherlands. It could have been so much better. It should have been so much better. I had had such high hopes for Johnny English Reborn but walking out of the cinema I just felt let down. If you do want to see it, watch the trailer because it's one of those trailers where all the funny bits have been used. Think of it as the comedy highlights. Despite all this, a young audience will find it funny and I'm sure it will take a load of money at the box office, but I wish I hadn't seen it. Ignorance, it would seem, really is bliss. 

Clapperboard Rating: * *

Midnight In Paris

Paris. 2010. A man, Gil, wanders the streets aimlessly. He is lost and slightly drunk, but fully relaxed and untroubled. He loves Paris at night. He stops on the corner of a street. A nearby church chimes midnight and a car is heard approaching. The man turns to see an old, vintage Landaulet 184 round the corner and drive towards him. It stops. A beat. The door opens and a man, dressed superbly in a fine jacket with a glass of some expensive champagne beckons to him to get in the car. He speaks in French and Gil doesn't understand. The man in the car insists and Gil yields, climbing somewhat awkwardly into the car. We see the car pull away slowly, down the street and into the magical night of Paris.

And so could read the screenplay for Woody Allen's latest film Midnight in Paris. It describes itself as a comedy/romance/fantasy and follows a young American couple on holiday in Paris. Gil (Owen Wilson) is a successful Hollywood writer and is trying to finish his first novel. When his fiancée Inez (the enchanting Rachel McAdams) goes dancing with friends one evening, Gil takes to walking around the city at night and falls in love with it. But in doing so, he discovers something strange and magical which makes him fall even more for the city but which wrenches him further from his future wife. First off, the Paris portrayed in the film is so American that you could pick it up, drop it in Florida and fool the locals that it was a new theme park. This is not to say that Allen hasn't attempted to capture the beauty of Paris (the opening shots did this very well) but this is eclipsed by the focus on the clichés of Paris which adorn so many a postcard. Gil hasn't fallen in love with Paris. He's fallen in love with the tourist veneer of Paris. It would have been nice to have seen the other, slightly darker, side of Paris, even for just a moment and I felt that the whole portrayal of the city was just a bit too Hollywood. Maybe I'm missing the point. This is meant to be a rom-com, not a social realist film. But even in that department, it seemed to be slightly half-hearted. Sure, there were some funny moments but these were few and far between and the comedic element in general was a bit underwhelming and flat.

Now, to the positives. The film is shot in a beautiful soft light and Allen certainly knows how to create a mise-en-scène (even if it is a bit too Disney at times). Having just slated the script for its absence of real comedy, I will commend it on its treatment of ideas, specifically its approach to the idea of harking back to a different time. Allen has skillfully addressed the idea that 'things were always better in the past' and that the characters are never fully happy in the time in which they live even though, to others, it is the perfect time to be alive. It is quite difficult to talk about this further without giving away plot spoilers, a bit like explaining the story of Titanic to someone whilst trying to avoid the fact that, yes, it does sink in the end. The attention to detail and high production values made the film a treat to watch and I was quite happy to just sit there and take it all in. Now, there is no doubt that the film is silly (or, if I were writing in some high-brow publication, surreal in its immutable treatment of transcendent human emotions). Yeah, let's stick with silly. But, if you're willing to go along with this, it really does start to work. The ideas, the plot and the location all begin to fit together and make for, ultimately, a satisfying film which is both light-hearted and fluffy. The ending is rather strange and sudden and may not appeal to everyone but in general, the film carries itself very well. A cameo by Carla Bruni may raise a few eyebrows and Michael Sheen's American accent is, well, interesting to say the least, but it is the film's sentimentality, its nostalgic and, in some cases, charming, look at the present and past which makes this a film worth a watch. Oh, and if you're learning English from this film, Parisian is not pronounced like friesian (as in cow). Just saying.

Clapperboard Rating: * * *

Drive

I've never really liked excessive gore. Loyal readers who have read my Final Destination 5 review will know that by now. It's not that I'm squeamish or offended by brain matter being splattered against a bathroom wall or someone's eyes being gouged out with little more than a rusty teaspoon. I just find it unnecessary. Some of the best cinematic violence has occurred off-screen and becomes all the more effective when it is implied and the audience interprets it in its own way. When I was looking for a film to review this week, I decided to throw caution to the wind and pick a film at random, without researching it or hearing anything about it previously. I happened upon Drive, an action/crime thriller about a film stunt driver who, in his spare time, drives get-away vehicles for various robberies. However, when he gets involved in a heist which goes badly wrong, he soon finds himself the target of a criminal gang. Rated 18, the film is very violent and, as the BBFC puts it 'the strongest gory images...are at times accompanied by an emphasis on the infliction of pain and injury'. Nice. However, it would be unfair to let the violence dominate the film as there are several interesting points about it.

Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn and starring Ryan Gosling as the Driver and Carey Mulligan as his love interest, Drive demonstrates Hollywood's attempts in recent years to try and make action films which are more meaty in terms of narrative and moralistic themes. In a way, Drive succeeds in this. One of the stand-out features of the film is the dialogue or, perhaps, the lack of it. Whilst watching the film, I became very aware of the fact that the characters said very little to each other, instead using facial expressions and body language to communicate meaning. Winding Refn's direction and choice to use the awkward smiles between the Driver and Mulligan's character Irene as a replacement for words worked wonderfully and helped to highlight the tension between them. At times, I felt myself willing Gosling to at least say something rather than standing there as if he were at a family reunion making awkward conversation with his great aunt. And yet, this use of visuals to tell a story rather than have a character explain every plot point was very refreshing. I liked the overall feel of the film as well: the cinematography during the robbery sequences really added to the sense of unease and shots of Gosling simply driving provided a brilliant counterpoint to the crazy action of his day-to-day life.

The soundtrack of Drive is worth a mention and, again, lifts the film out of the festering pool of Hollywood action B-movies. The use of synthesised music added a slightly surreal feeling to the film and the repetitive, threatening rhythm in the heist sequences worked superbly well. As you've probably gathered, the level of sadistic violence is far too high and, instead of being realistic, ends up obscuring the real message of the film and, on occasion, prompted laughs from the audience. On the subject of the heist sequences, these were shot very well. But, from the moment the car pulled off to make its get-away, things went down hill. The cinematography was bland, predictable and, ultimately, boring. For a film about a film stunt driver, I was expecting thrilling car chases with crashes, screeching tyres and horrified THINK! road campaigners powerlessly looking on. What I got, however, was very different. The car chases were dull and far too few in number to live up to the film's set-up. When I go and see a film about cars and heists, I want to smell burning rubber, not the petrol fumes of a traffic jam. To be honest, I've seen more exciting action sequences on Antiques Roadshow.

Another problem I had with the film (despite the excessive violence) was its predictability. Now, there's nothing wrong with a generic narrative arc now and again: it serves a useful purpose in helping the audience understand the film. But Drive was a bit too predictable and the ending seemed to wrap-up all the loose ends in a way which didn't quite sit with the rest of the film. The relationship between Gosling and Mulligan was one of the strengths of the film but this, again, could have been exploited further. Please don't think that I'm saying that the plot is poor – it's not – but I just think that so much more could have been made of the set-up. This film will, no doubt, develop a cult following and be applauded for its gritty portrayal of mobs and crime but for me, the whole thing is a little too airbrushed; a little too Hollywood. Despite what Drive strives to be, it never quite makes it but it is still a film which has made a move in the right direction for Hollywood action cinema. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * *

Warrior

Rarely have I been in an audience which, at the end of a film, remains in total silence. Usually as soon as the last line is said, the last plot point is concluded and the characters walk off into the sunset to live happily ever after, there is a sudden rush for mobile phones, bags and nearly-empty mega-sized packets of crisps. All this is accompanied by a loud cacophony of chatter and general verbal rowdiness because, you know what, we haven't spoken for nearly two hours! This common state of affairs was no where to be seen at the end of Warrior. As the credits rolled, not a single person spoke. Sure, people began to collect their personal belongings but not in the usual state of mild panic as if there were a bomb somewhere in Row E and they must run for the nearest exit. People moved quietly and considerately and seemed to have a respect for both their fellow audience members and for what they had just seen. It was certainly a refreshing change.

Warrior follows two brothers who, having not seen each other for many years due to a family break-up, begin training to fight in the biggest mixed martial arts tournament in the world. The younger (Tom Hardy) returns to see his ex-boxer and recovering alcoholic father (Nick Nolte) in order for him to train him up to become the best in the business. Meanwhile, his brother (Joel Edgerton) also begins training in order to better the financial situation of his family. This is fairly standard Hollywood stuff: guy uses sport to improve himself and discover what's important in life. The likes of The Fighter and The Wrestler have recently used the same formula and, on the surface, Warrior seems to be a carbon copy (albeit without the definite article). However, I was pleasantly surprised. The first plus point of the film is the strong cast. The relative new-comer Tom Hardy (recently seen in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) is excellent as the troubled younger brother and really does deliver a multi-faceted performance. Edgerton as his brother is also convincing and the two, presided over by Nolte's shattered and unstable father figure, work extremely well together.

In terms of narrative and plot, the film is rather sentimental (in fact, you'd probably get less sentimentality in a Victorian love poem) and does, at times, over-do it. The denouement can be seen from miles away and, if you didn't see it coming, then you're frankly not trying. That said, Hardy and Edgerton just about hold it together and prevent the whole thing from crashing an over-emotional ball of flames. Sometimes (and only sometimes, mind you) there's nothing wrong with a bit of a corny story as long as it only rears its head occasionally and all the other elements surrounding it are strong and effective. The fight sequences in Warrior certainly did-away with any sentimentality and you know what, they hurt. Every punch, kick and blow was felt in high definition by every audience member and this made the fight scenes all the more involving and effective. The cinematography during these fights really was beautiful and captured perfectly the pain, chaos and thrill of a fight. Clearly, the cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi had planned each shot with surgical precision. On a general level, the close-up shots of the actors' faces throughout much of the dialogue gave the whole film a claustrophobic edge, with the characters been trapped in their problems as well as serving to mirror their entrapment in the boxing ring. This cinematography, combined with skilful direction, ensured that the audience remained engaged with both the characters and their plight. Even though a blind bat wearing ten pairs of sunglasses could have seen the ending coming, it still had enough emotional punch (pardon the pun) to move me, not to floods of tears, but to a (slightly compromising) heightened eye-moisture level. The film's real skill lies not in its set-up, not in its portrayal of sport but in its use of violence as a way of bringing two men together and conveying a powerful message on an emotional level. This juxtaposition was totally unexpected and yet, worked brilliantly.

And so, as the credits rolled and the girl in F7 sobbed into her mangled tissue and her boyfriend awkwardly fiddled with his phone, I decided that Warrior, despite its over sentimentality and reliance on predictable plot lines, was a film worth seeing. Even if you're a girl. Even if you hate violence. Even if you've no interest in any sport. And that's coming from a guy who thinks kickoff is something angry people do. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * * 

Jane Eyre

Still the staple (and perhaps the bane) of many a school child's English classes, Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre has been adapted for the big screen for what seems like the gazillionth time. Directed by Cary Fukunaga, the film tells the story of Jane Eyre who, after a traumatic childhood, starts work as a governess for the abrupt Mr Rochester. However, as the two become closer and Jane falls in love with her employer, his 'terrible' (many a revision guide's word, not mine) secret is exposed. With a fine cast, sumptuous cinematography and more corsets than you could undo in a lifetime, this adaptation shines amongst the eighteen or so other film versions of the 1847 novel.

There are few things that British cinema does as well as costume dramas. Americans lap them up quicker than a double cheeseburger with free fries and whilst they may not be to everyone's liking, there's no denying the fact that they are an important part of British cinema history. Jane Eyre (co-produced by BBC Films) showcases the best of this sub-genre and boy, does it pack a punch visually. The cinematography is stunning and really adds to the feeling of isolation which Jane feels throughout much of the film. The sweeping landscapes of Northern England, coupled with the bleak castle-like features of Thornfield Hall are shot in a way which reinforces the Gothic elements of the novel and creates an uneasy, desolate atmosphere. Fukunaga's use of natural lighting and the reliance on candlelight gives many scenes a claustrophobic feeling and lights the actors in an almost supernatural way. On the subject of actors, there are some superb performances, especially from Mia Wasikowska who plays the tortured yet defiant Jane. Casting such a relatively unknown actress in a role such as this was a big gamble but it certainly pays off. Wasikowska's ability to reflect a whole life of unhappiness in a single close-up or glance towards her feet was very impressive and her performance, coupled with Michael Fassbender's dominating Mr Rochester really made the film for me. A strong supporting cast including the inimitable Judi Dench helped cement the two central performances and made the whole film ooze quality.

There is no doubt that the production values are astronomically high. From the costumes to the sets, the attention to period detail is breathtaking. Even if you have no interest in the story (either because you were scarred at school or, more probably, because you're a guy) this film is a delight to simply look at. Not since you sat on that beach in Hawaii with your other half as the sun set slowly below the never-ending horizon have you seen something which is so easy on the eye. In terms of narrative, the clever use of flashbacks enabled the audience to understand Jane's behaviour and her reactions to the situations in which she found herself. I was struck by how dark the film was (and I don't mean that BBC Films forgot to pay their electricity bill). The fact that 90% of the audience knew Mr Rochester's secret already meant that it became even more effective and loomed over the action as Jane became more uneasy during her time at Thornfield Hall. Whilst I did feel at times that the plot was rushing through events as though the director was keen not to miss out much of the original novel, it was still an accomplished adaptation especially in terms of dialogue. On an overall level, the film maintains just the right level of emotion and its themes of love, betrayal and the triumph of human spirit are as tightly woven into the screenplay as in the original novel. The story of Jane Eyre is, and will always be, a classic and this most recent adaptation will most certainly stand the test of time and it shows that, as Brits, we're blooming good at sticking actors in breeches and corsets. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * * 

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

I've thought long and hard about how to start this review but for some reason I can't seem to find the words to say what I want to say about Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Based on the novel by John le Carré, the film follows Smiley (Gary Oldman – better know to a younger audience for his role in Nolan's Batman series) as he is recalled to the Intelligence Service to help track down a suspected Soviet mole in the upper-echelons of the organisation. As Smiley delves deeper into the mystery, it soon becomes apparent that the enemy is very close to home.

There are a few main points about the film that I want to make. Firstly, the acting is first-class, with a cast that shines so brightly that it would put a Colgate advert to shame. The mixture of British cinema veterans such as John Hurt and Colin Firth with relative newcomers such as Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy worked fantastically well and Oldman's performance as a controlled, suave and refined Smiley is surely an Oscar contender. The film is wonderfully shot, using a very restricted, washed-out palette (by no means a bad thing) which adds atmosphere and, at the same time, makes the whole thing terribly classy. The stylish framing and intuitive cutting showed how someone had sat down and really thought about what they wanted to create, instead of the confused mishmash of shots so often used in mainstream blockbusters. The production values were, as to be expected, very high and the attention to detail was superb leading to the creation of a tense and taut atmosphere where the acting could really take centre stage. The costumes were impeccable, the detailing reminiscent of the hit US TV drama Mad Men, as were the sets which evoked a by-gone era in British history which could have been drastically different. In terms of the aesthetics and feel of the film, it is certainly a stand-out film of the year so far.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is totally unlike the usual, run-of-the-mill spy thrillers and this was a refreshing change. Instead of urban shoot-outs, high-tech covert surveillance and more car chases than your average episode of Road Wars, most of the action took place in the dialogue and exchanges between the characters (sounds dull I know, but trust me) and the result is a thriller which is intellectually, as well as visually, stimulating in the same manner as films such as Michael Clayton and Inception. The fact that not every other scene was a bare-knuckle fight or a violent chase sequence meant that the acts of violence which punctuated the plot were all the more shocking and all the more effective. And now, I hear you ask, why did I start my review by saying I couldn't articulate my thoughts about the film? I'll tell you.

As I walked out of the cinema, running over what I had just seen and trying to think about what I would write, it suddenly dawned on me why I was finding it so difficult. I was totally apathetic towards the whole thing. I was not emotionally involved with the characters or their plight. The denouement had as much effect on me as jumping out of an aeroplane which is still on the runway and I found myself not really caring about the vast majority of the characters. Whether this was due to the lack of character arcs or an over-complicated plot, I'm not sure but towards the end I gave up trying to understand who-was-doing-what-to-whom-and-why-but-no-he-did-that-to-her-or-was-it-his-fault-but-where-does-she-come-in...?! In short, something didn't grab me. Please don't think that I'm saying this is a bad film: it's not. Maybe on a second viewing something will click. But my overwhelming feeling towards the film is that it's like central heating – on a technical level it's brilliant, but you don't have any emotive feelings towards it. It's just there. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is just there. It exists. And you know what...that's fine by me.

Clapperboard Rating: * * *