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: * * *

Final Destination 5

I am now the proud owner of a pair of 3D glasses, which cost me the princely sum of 80p. I would have much preferred to spend the money on getting my teeth pulled with a piece of string and a heavy door. It was not through choice that I saw Final Destination 5 in 'glorious' (cough, cough) 3D but I was left with very little option as I had missed the once-a-day 2D screening (remember the good old days when all films were in 2D? I do.) Anyway, I can now join the hoards of university students who use the glasses when dressing up as 'nerds' for fancy dress. A much better use for them if you ask me. As to be expected, the 3D did nothing for Final Destination 5 but, to be honest, little could have saved this diabolically bad film.

The problems started from the very beginning when the title sequence started. Credits appeared on screen with various objects being thrown 'at' the screen, smashing it into little pieces of glass which appeared to fly out into the audience. A classic example of 'oh yeah, it's meant to be 3D, we'd better put something in that rams the fact down the audience's popcorn-filled throats'. Sorry, this is becoming a bit of an anti-3D rant. I shall not mention it again...well, maybe. The Final Destination series has always been the poor-man's Saw, offering teenage audiences blood, gore and cheap scares. The fifth instalment of the franchise has all three of these in great supply, at the expense of any sense of a solid narrative or convincing acting. The so-called 'plot' of the film centres around the efforts of survivors of a suspension-bridge collapse to cheat death as it hunts them down one by one. I would love to say there's more to it than that, but I'm afraid folks, there isn't. The plot shuffles along like a one-legged sailor whose had rather too much to drink and, as a result, has no idea where it's going and this was one of my (several) problems with the film. It never seemed to decide whether it was a straight-forward horror flick, a slightly...okay, very misjudged supernatural thriller or simply a sadists paradise on screen. At the beginning of the film, the main character, Sam (Nicholas D'Agosto) has a vision of an impending disaster but this point is never explained, nor features in the rest of the film which begs the question, did the writer simply think that splattering enough blood at the audience to rival the average give blood session in the local village hall would

make them not notice?

I have a real problem with these sorts of films where violence is so graphic that it goes beyond the point of serving a useful purpose. Sure, I don't mind a bit of gore now and then if it's in context but this was just beyond reason. Why would anyone in their right mind find a laser-eye-surgery-gone-wrong sequence in the least bit entertaining? I know that the point of these films is to be bloody and violent but there are, as with anything, limits. The BBFC's 15 certificate may well raise a few eyebrows, as will the bridge collapse sequence which featured horrendous, vomit-inducing, vile, ghastly, appalling, disturbing...I could go on...abhorrent injuries which would make even the most die-hard slasher fan look down at the floor in horror. But you know what, 'it's okay' because it was all in lovely 3D. Addressing other aspects apart from the gore, and there aren't that many, the acting is really rather bland and did nothing to help me engage with the plight of the characters. The 'twist' near the end of the film (and believe me, a ruler is more twisty) was so pathetic that I won't even bother to carry on with this sentence... In fact, the whole damn film was a waste of £8.50 and two hours of my life. In summary, due to its totally over-the-top level of gore, don't go and see this film if you have a phobia of needles. Don't go and see this film if you have a phobia of eyeballs. Don't go and see this film if you have a phobia of heights. Don't go and see this film if you have a phobia of gymnastic accidents. Actually, you know what, don't go and see this film. 

Clapperboard Rating:  *  (and that's generous!)