Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom

The cynic in me would say that studio bosses would have received the news of Nelson Mandela's death with mixed feelings. Sadness and respect, of course, but I can't help wondering that the timing of his death could be seen as something of a positive for those with a financial and a creative interest in Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom. People will go and see the film for many reasons: to reflect on Mandela's life and legacy, to see Idris Elba's performance or, like me, to simply learn more about the man and his achievements. From this point of view, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom is an informative biopic and will give the audience a run-down of the major milestones and events in Mandela's life. This, however, does not necessarily make for a great cinematic experience.

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom can't be knocked for its ambitious scope: it attempts to tell Mandela's story from his coming-of-age ceremony in the South African savannah, to his election as President in 1994. Idris Elba takes on the role and, for the most part, gives a nuanced and accomplished performance which captivates the audience from the very beginning. He is a commanding screen presence and, placed alongside Naomie Harris as his headstrong wife Winnie, is certainly one of the film's strengths. Harris' portrayal of Winnie's transformation is also very interesting to watch: from doting and vulnerable new wife and mother, to militant campaigner, Winnie's story is just as engaging as that of Mandela.

Elba is particularly assured when playing Mandela as a young man, charting his involvement with the ANC and exploring his attitudes towards violence and his experiences in prison. The problem here, however, is that the film feels a little too referential and merely skims the surface of Mandela's personal conflicts. Of course, a film charting the monumental events of Mandela's life was never going to have enough time but it often felt that the film was going through the motions, ticking off the milestones: a whistle-stop Mandela Tour.

The film is shot beautifully by Lol Crawley and the images of rural South Africa are particularly striking. Some have criticised the film's score as being too emotionally manipulative but I feel that it fits with the film's tone: this is not an exposé of some aspects of Mandela's life or a revelatory film: it is a dramatic summary, if you will, of Mandela. Its primary function is to be an emotive drama and its score reflects this. During scenes of prison visits by Mandela's family, the prison guard demands that the visits are conducted with the proviso that the conversations will include “no politics”. Some will disagree, but I think that, similarly, the film's own politics are less evident than they could be. This is not necessarily, however, a weakness.

Perhaps the central issue is this: does the film's subject-matter – based on the life and achievements of one of the most influential figures of modern times – automatically create a film of value and importance? The answer is no, it doesn't. Many will, perhaps, be disappointed with Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom because it fails to offer any more information than Mandela's Wikipedia entry. South Africa may look stunning, the cast may be captivating and the events portrayed may be exciting and affecting. But it's all too neat. At the beginning of this review, I asked whether or not biopics can make great cinematic experiences. Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom is not a triumph of cinema because, paradoxically, it is too cinematic, too polished and too referential.

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom is released nationwide on 3rd January 2014 

Top Five Films of 2013

Unlike previous years, I'm afraid (or should that be glad) that there won't be a “Worst Five” films of 2013, simply because, I haven't seen that many bad ones! This is partly due to my absence over the summer when I was gallivanting around the world and partly due to the fact that 2013 has been a stunning year for cinema. Testament to this are the films which didn't make it into my list: Les Misérables, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Saving Mr Banks and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. It has been difficult to pick my Top Five but I have done it. Disagreements on the back of a postcard please...

5) Philomena

“Fantastic”, “affecting”, “poignant” and “potent” were some of the words I used to describe Philomena, the true story of Irish seventy-something Philomena Lee (Judi Dench) who, with the help of journalist Martin Sixsmith (Coogan), sets out to find her child who was put up for adoption by Catholic nuns in 1950's Ireland. The film balances wit with emotion and has two superb performances from Dench and Coogan (who is at his very best in this film). Some suggested that the film was an attack on the Catholic church: something which is patently untrue. But Philomena wasn't reluctant to address hard-hitting issues. A gem of a film which will pull at the heart strings.

 

4) Prisoners

If a film can be judged on levels of tension, then Prisoners is a sure-fire hit. Starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Hugh Jackman, Prisoners starts out with a fairly standard kidnap narrative but soon becomes dark, suffocating and very, very intense. Despite its 153 minute running time, the level of tension is sustained throughout and Gyllenhaal and Jackman give very assured performances. A word of warning though: you might just need to watch something with fluffy bunnies in it after seeing Prisoners.

3) The Place Beyond the Pines

In many ways, this film would make an interesting double-bill with Prisoners. Hollywood heartthrob Ryan Gosling plays a bike stunt rider who is constantly moving from one town to the next. He discovers he is father to a son and is determined to provide for both the child and its mother, Romina (Eva Mendes). The way in which he does this has fateful and far-reaching consequences for both him, his son and for Avery, an ambitious cop played by Bradley Cooper. Directed by Derek Cianfrance, The Place Beyond the Pines is epic, in all meanings of the word. Its frenetic changes in tone may jar with some viewers and its ending is a little too neat, but it is a film which speaks with dramatic lyricism and uninhibited ambition. It is unnerving, emotive and reassuringly human: all things which you want from a trip to the cinema.

2) Zero Dark Thirty

Creating more controversy than Miley Cyrus popping down to the local supermarket, Zero Dark Thirty surprised many in taking subject matter which we all thought we knew (the killing of Osama Bin Laden) and making it exciting and unsettling in equal measure. Jessica Chastain, as a CIA operative determined to track down Bin Laden, is fantastic and Katherine Bigelow's direction mixes espionage, action and drama together to create an intelligent film about intelligence gathering. Fantastic.

1) Gravity

And here it is: the Number One film of the year is Gravity – the only film that I think has to be seen in 3D. Its B-movie feel, short running time and immersive visual effects create a film which will have you gripping the edge of the seat from the very beginning. Sandra Bullock is at the top of her game and, despite the high-tech, wondrous special effects (which are ground-breaking), Gravity feels like a very personal, intimate film which will mean different things to each individual. It will make you fall in love with cinema all over again. 

Happy New Year from Clapperboard Film Reviews!

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

At some point over the festive period, many of you will watch Will Ferrell in Elf, the Christmas comedy which has become a family favourite in recent years. If, however, you're something of a Scrooge or simply have no desire to watch a man prance about in an over-sized elf costume, you can also catch Will Ferrell in Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (albeit in a rather different role). The original Anchorman was released nine years ago and secured broad praise from both critics and audiences. Anchorman 2 follows much the same format, and here lies both its successes and its biggest flaw.

Anchorman 2 sees Ron Burgundy (Ferrell), the famous 1970s news anchor and infamous chauvinist, being dropped from his news show in favour of his wife (played by Christina Applegate). Washed up and disillusioned with the world, Ron receives an unexpected offer to feature on the world's first 24-hour news channel and the old gang from the first film is reunited. This set-up plays well for the laughs and gives enough of a reason for a sequel to be made.

Ferrell is most certainly the moustachioed glue for the film and his dead-pan delivery of lines, coupled with Steve Carell's rather simple Brick Tamland, was very entertaining and Ferrell's writing credits are clear to see. Kristen Wiig as Brick's love interest was a great new addition to the gang and her scenes with Carell managed to be awkward and hilarious at the same time. The off-the-wall, slightly bizarre humour seen in the first film continues and when it works, it is really rather funny. The issue, however, is that the film is what I would call “securely funny”: it has enough laughs in it to keep its head above water but it is never outrageously, raucously funny. Indeed, the chuckles are well-paced and are sustained throughout the rather too-long 119 minute running time, but I think I just wanted the wit and satire to be that little more biting.

The central problem with some of the gags is less the sexual politics (which were central to the first film) and more its racial politics which just felt like a target for cheap laughs (a scene where Ron meets his lover's family around the dinner table was laughable but, with hindsight, was somewhat misjudged). On a further level, the film's final quarter lacked direction and fell apart. In a mystifying park fight sequence between news readers from different countries, the screenplay seemed to be grasping at straws, hoping that if enough celebrity cameos were shoe-horned in, then the audience may be distracted from the script's shortcomings.

The biggest obstacle for Anchorman 2 is its prequel. The original film was arguably more funny, felt novel and had more of a spark. Anchorman 2, whilst it does have enough jokes to sustain the audience through shots of Will Ferrell wrestling with a shark, the film remains less coherent and more problematic than the first. Securely funny it may be, but sometimes that just isn't enough.

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

Frozen

Things are getting Christmassy. If television adverts are to be believed, it has been Christmas for about three months but, finally, it's acceptable to be in a festive mood. And what better way to do so than by popping down to your local cinema and enjoying a Yuletide flick. As you may have guessed from the title, Frozen offers the perfect winter wonderland for children and plenty for the grown-ups too.

Disney's animation output has been rather hit-and-miss of late. Cars 2 suffered from a poor storyline, Brave soared with its female protagonist but Monsters University failed to live up to the standards set by its predecessor. Frozen, however, is a genuine and entertaining film, and is one of Disney's best in recent years. Directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee, Frozen sees the headstrong Princess Anna (Kristen Bell) team up with ice salesman Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) in search of her sister, Queen Elsa (Idina Menzel), who has banished herself from the city of Arendelle after accidentally causing an eternal winter as a result of her icy magic powers. On the way, we meet the talking snowman Olaf (voiced by Josh Gad) who charms and delights in equal measure. Frozen is most certainly a children's film and has to be judged as such. Disney has always been a leader in children's entertainment and Frozen will certainly enchant younger generations for years to come.

The animation in Frozen is beautifully realised and creates a winter world which will captivate children, as will the characters which are full of personality and appeal. Olaf, the magical snowman, was a personal favourite with his eccentric one-liners and delightful ignorance of just what a summer would mean for him. The two sisters at the centre of the story share a nice chemistry which drives the emotional side of the story, as well as Anna's search for love. This is a film with real heart. I saw the film in 3D (and it was my friend's first experience of the medium – she was, unsurprisingly, not very taken with it) and I'm sure it will look just as beautiful in 2D.

In terms of the screenplay, the whole film is expertly-paced and never drags: indeed, the opening exposition races through Anna and Elsa's childhood at a pace which would make an Olympic bob-sleigh team look sluggish. This is to the film's benefit as it allows the audience time to engage with the central message of the film early on and thus allows a real empathy to emerge with the characters. The film has several musical numbers, all of which will have children dancing along in their seats and adults enjoying the lyrics. At times, the whole thing did begin to feel like a Broadway show (a result of, I think, Idina Menzel's distinct – but powerful – vocals) but the songs were, nevertheless, very catchy.

Frozen is a delightful, captivating and refreshing Disney film which, I believe, will become one of its Christmas classics. It has everything that children will love: trolls, ice palaces, reindeer, princesses and magic (as well as enough material for adults to engage with as well). You'd really have to have a heart of ice to not enjoy it. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * * 

Saving Mr. Banks

The more cynical amongst you will claim that the release of Saving Mr. Banks is timed to increase DVD sales of Mary Poppins for Christmas and, you'd probably be right. Charting the problematic and protracted gestation of the 1964 Disney classic, Saving Mr. Banks is a wonderfully warm and unapologetically saccharine account of Walt Disney's courting of P. L. Travers for the films rights to her famous children's book. They say that fact is stranger than fiction and, in this case, it really is.

John Lee Hancock (The Blind Side, Snow White and the Huntsman) directs this part-biopic, part-comedy of the pre-production hell of Mary Poppins which saw Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) woo the book's severe English/Australian author, P. L. Travers (Emma Thompson). One of the first things to say about Saving Mr. Banks is that Emma Thompson is absolutely glorious as the brusque Mrs Travers (“It is so discomforting to hear a perfect stranger use my first name”). I have long been a fan of hers (Thompson, that is, not Mrs T), and her performance is captivating and hilarious in equal measure. 

P. L. Travers was very reticent to give her beloved characters away to Walt Disney, a man whom she saw as vulgar and childish and was only prepared to do so should she have the final say in any production matter. The results of this are brilliant rehearsal and production meeting sequences in which Mrs Travers insists on a tape recorder being present to prevent Mr Disney from going back on his word of giving her artistic control. During the end credits, the audience is assured that Thompson's waspish and outspoken portrayal of P. L. Travers is not over-egged when the actual recordings of these meetings are played – a joy to hear in themselves.

Tom Hanks is convincing as Walt (and is actually a distant cousin of Disney) and plays the balance between idealistic entertainer and businessman very effectively. Interestingly, the development of the script for Saving Mr. Banks had no direct input from the Walt Disney Corporation who only intervened to ask that Walt was not shown smoking on-screen. The resulting screenplay (written by Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith) is very funny, insightful and rather moving. Two worlds exist in the film: P. L. Travers in 1960s Los Angeles during the pre-production of Mary Poppins and flashbacks to her early childhood in rural Australia.

These flashbacks explain the reasons behind key plot points in Mary Poppins and add a level of emotional depth to the film. Recounting Traver's close relationship to her playfully-imaginative, alcoholic bank manager father and his early death, the flashback sequences work well to explain the roots of Mary Poppins (after her father's death, her distraught mother's sister came to help the family and, in turn, became the inspiration for Mary Poppins herself). Traver's attempts at redemption for her father act as the central theme of the film. The flashbacks are at times, however, rather uneven and their meaning is spelt out too obviously for the audience. Hancock needn't have been so unsubtle in his treatment of Traver's back story. 

I was surprised to learn that the majority of the plot is, indeed, factually-accurate and I'm sure you'll Google the fierce P. L. Travers when you come home from the cinema. Emotionally-manipulative and syrupy as these scenes are, they ultimately work because the film is not ashamed to be supremely idealistic and sweet: everything that Disney was and Travers was not.

Aside from the flashbacks, the film excels in its 1960s sequences which are engaging and very funny. The genesis of the 1964 film's legendary songs is shown to be a tough one: Travers demanded that there were to be no songs in the film and no “silly animations” either. A decision which, obviously, she later had to reverse. Thompson treats these arguments and demands with an immediacy and conviction which was compelling to watch and which produced some very humorous moments. Traver's character transformation is obvious from the outset but this does not make it any less enjoyable or affecting. Indeed, I shed a tear at the end.

Saving Mr. Banks manages to be both funny and emotionally-powerful and recounts a story of film production which is immensely enjoyable to watch. Emma Thompson is undoubtedly the cornerstone of the film, giving a nuanced and enchanting performance in a film which will make you rush out and buy the DVD of Mary Poppins. I loved it, and so will you.

Clapperboard Rating: * * * * *

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

My review of The Hunger Games finished with the conclusion that its strong and dynamic central character bucked the trend of the hapless teenage heroine in need of a man to save her and was, as a result, hugely refreshing. This central character is Katniss Everdeen (again played by the immeasurably wonderful Jennifer Lawrence) and I stand by my original thoughts. The primary reason that The Hunger Games worked so well was because it was grounded by Lawrence's enthralling performance and, to my delight, the same is true for the second instalment of the trilogy.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire has a new director (Francis Lawrence - I Am Legend) and a new set of tributes who must fight it out in the 75^th year of the Games. Every twenty five years, the Hunger Games sees a new twist and, this year, the twist is that previous winners will again be offered as tributes. The hugely-unlucky Katniss has to, once again, enter the arena, although this time she has the support of loyal Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). It is a fairly large plot contrivance but if it produces performances and action as seen in the film, then I'm all for it.

First thing's first: Jennifer Lawrence is captivating as the dark-haired, defiant and beautifully vulnerable Katniss whose determination to protect those she loves is a joy to watch on screen. There is no doubt that Catching Fire succeeds because of Lawrence. Without her, it would be very difficult to imagine how a film such as this – the dystopia of children killing one another – would work in a cinematic context over a series of films. The final shot of the film is a perfect example of this and is, dare I say it, the finest piece of close-up camera acting I have ever seen. Without giving away spoilers, Lawrence is...well, stunning.

When the first film was released, it was accompanied by much debate over the level of violence and whether the film's subject matter was suitable for a 12A certificate. Catching Fire carries on its predecessor's attitude towards violence: it is an intrinsic part of the story and is treated in a careful and appropriate way. Gruesome injury detail is minimal and much of the violence is implied or cut away from. This does not make it less affecting, however, and it was still genuinely disturbing to see (or, sometimes, not see) the violence. To remove any more of it would have weakened the intrinsic value of a film based on moral issues such as repression, fear and aggression. Catching Fire is, perhaps, slightly less shocking than the first film. This is due to the fact that the audience are more aware of the film's ideas and subject matter. Furthermore, the first half of the film is set outside of an arena context and focuses on the PR campaign conducted by the Capitol when Katniss and Peeta embark on the Victor's Tour, aimed at keeping down rebellion. There are still, however, plenty of shocks.

A strong supporting cast, displaying the vivid and extravagant costume design of Trish Summerville, works well and helps to create depth in the world of Panem. Fans will be delighted by the love triangle between Katniss, Peeta, and Gale (Liam Hemsworth) although the whole triangle had be rather confused: can't Katniss just decide who she wants to go out with?! All rather unfair on the boys... Anyway, that's beside the point.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire blends great action with insightful moral commentary and a compelling personal drama. The brutality of the Games and the Capitol once again propels the narrative and results in a film which is, arguably, more accomplished than the first. Jennifer Lawrence is, however, the integral component which holds the film together and is an awesome screen presence. The final book in the trilogy will be split into two films (as with so many adaptations these days) but hey, I don't mind. If it carries on like this, you'll find me at the front of the line...

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *

Gravity

There's probably more chance of my wedding reception venue being a fast food restaurant than me going into space. Indeed, I can't ever say I've ever wanted to strap myself into a metal tube and blast off into an environment which wants to kill me in every way possible. Space may be a fascinating and thrilling place and a space mission may be a once-in-a-lifetime experience but, like a Somali cruise, I have no desire to go on one. And, after seeing Gravity, my mind has been solidly made-up.

Gravity stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. It had a budget of $105 million and was produced by Warner Bros. It is strange, then, that despite these blockbuster credentials, the film seems to be a very personal, intimate affair. Many are describing the film as a work of science-fiction but, to me at least, there seems to be very little fiction. In fact, there's not an alien to be seen anywhere. The plot centres on medical engineer Ryan Stone (Bullock) on her first shuttle mission and veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski who are the only survivors of an accident during a space walk. The pair, out of contact with Mission Control, must use all their determination and skill to try and make it back to Earth in one piece.

In many respects, this film has parallels with horror. I'm sure that drifting endlessly in space, with no hope of rescue would be most people's idea of a nightmare. From beginning to end, the film grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go until the very end. You'll leave the cinema feeling like you've been spun around in a washing machine and beaten about the face. The tight camera shots which focus on the actor's faces, framed by their space helmets is very claustrophobic and instils a real sense of fear in the audience. Director Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) works masterfully with director of photography Emmanuel Lubezki to reflect, on a technical level, the thematic and narrative elements of the film.

The average shot length must be close to four minutes and the camera moves around with a fluidity and precision which makes the film very engaging. It was almost as if the studio had actually sent up a film crew into space. The special effects are breathtaking and I urge everyone to see it in 3D. Yes, I know I have voiced my personal dislike of 3D in the past but, when it is used in a film such as this, with subject matter and a setting which lends itself to stereoscopy (the arena of space), it is fantastic. Space has never looked so stunning.

Sandra Bullock's performance shines through and – whether you love her or hate her – there's no denying that she is very assured in the role and displays just the right balance between vulnerability and defiance in the impossibly-desperate situation in which she finds herself. Clooney...well, plays Clooney.

Alongside all the technical wizardry and jaw-dropping special effects (which are certainly ground-breaking), Cuarón's direction constructs an involving and thoughtful film. The thematic elements of the film will be the subject of much debate, partly due to its striking visual imagery. Sandra Bullock floating, foetal-like in an air lock or being umbilically tethered to Clooney during the space walk will certainly provide food for many a Film Studies student's essay. In many respects, the film's simplicity is born from the technical brilliance: the effects are so well executed that they become totally believable and you don't sit there wondering “I wonder how they did that”. As far as I'm concerned, they did do it.

Gravity is a tense and technically-wonderous film. Indeed, it is one of the best of the year and will make you fall in love with cinema all over again. It's one hell of a ride but hugely enjoyable and really rather jaw-dropping. It isn't, however, going to do anything good for the Space Tourist Board. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * * * 

Philomena

For Judi Dench's character, Philomena, one of the worst things her long-lost son could be is obese. And so the tone is set for a film which is both humorous and heartbreaking and (so we are told) largely true. The film's poster may look slightly odd and the pairing of Steve Coogan with the inimitable Judi Dench may raise a few eyebrows, but Philomena is a genuine and affecting film with all the charm, wit and emotion that the true story on which it is based deserves.

Philomena is directed by Stephen Frears (who brought us The Queen in 2006) and his directorial style – understated, wry and relaxed – allows the actors to really shine in the film. This room to act and to truly discover their characters produces two fantastic performances from Dench and Coogan. The film follows the true story of Irish seventy-something Philomena Lee who, with the help of journalist Martin Sixsmith (Coogan), sets out to find her child who was put up for adoption by nuns in 1950's Ireland. Their search leads them to America, where the two develop an odd but charming friendship. The success of this central relationship is down to the ease with which both Coogan and Dench interact: Coogan's slightly arrogant, cynical journalist bounces off Dench's outwardly simple but warm-hearted and forgiving Philomena and the pair make for some fantastic on-screen chemistry.

As the film progresses, their relationship produces many laughs and – it has to be said – quite a few tears along the way. Perhaps the true success of the film lies in Frears' ability to perform emotional hand-brake turns in a single scene, moving from intense mother/son issues to laugh-out-loud comedy from both Coogan and Dench in a single scene. The pair really are a delight to watch.

The script has a brilliant tension between humour and sadness and I found my eyes misting up on more than one occasion. One such scene, set in a Washington hotel room sees Sixsmith recounting seemingly-insignificant details about Philomena's son to her: his firm handshake, how politely he said hello (or was it hi?). Dench's delight at hearing this mundane but exhilarating information is hugely affecting. Moments of discovery such as these are the stand-out sequences from a film which, on an overall level, retains a low-key tone but with an undercurrent of intense and heart-breaking emotion.

Coogan not only stars in the film but has also co-produced and co-written the screenplay and his investment in a story of loss and re-discovery such as this is plain to see. The film's raw feeling is punctuated by flashes of comedy which catch you off-guard but which always delight. The film doesn't have to try hard to set the tears going because the story's roots in real life events are so emotive.

Philomena is a fantastic, affecting and potent film which mixes comedy, tragedy and reconciliation to great effect. The film is, undoubtedly, sustained by Coogan and Dench who are one of the most delightful on-screen pairings seen this year and it will charm, devastate and delight in equal measure. Frears certainly knows how to pull at the heart-strings. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *

Philomena is released nationwide on 1st November  

Prisoners

From its opening shot, it is clear that Prisoners is not going to be a barrel of laughs. Indeed, I'm sure there are more chuckles to be had at a reading of a will. Starring Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal, the film has soared to the top of the US box office and is one of the most harrowing cinematic experiences of this year.

When Keller Dover's (Jackman) young daughter and her friend go missing from their home in small-town America, the police investigation – headed up by Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) – seems to be making little progress. Dover decides to take matters into his own hands in a desperate attempt to save his daughter. However, it soon becomes clear that he will stop at nothing to get his family back.

Directed by Hollywood-newbie Denis Villeneuve, Prisoners is certainly a powerful piece of cinema and really rather harrowing in many places. Let's begin with the two central performances from Jackman and Gyllenhaal which are absolutely superb. Jackman's morally-ambiguous and tormented character is powerfully rendered by Jackman, whose face seems to grow more and more drawn and haggard as the film progresses.

Gyllenhaal's turn as the detective with a troubled past was also impressive and I don't think it would be an overstatement to say that he gives a career-best performance. The subtleties that he creates in the character, complete with a convincing nervous facial tick, were very engaging to watch and Gyllenhaal has established himself as an actor with significant screen prescence. Placed opposite Jackman, the two really are the major strengths of the film.

The level of tension which is sustained throughout the film is, at times, quite unbearable: just what a thriller should be. Thanks to this, the 153 minute running time never drags, even if the film-makers could have been slightly more economical and shaved fifteen minutes off (even if only for the sake of my nerves). Some brilliantly-conceived sequences kept the action and drama alive as the plot took more twists and turns than a bob-sleigh run. My attempts at guessing where the plot was heading invariably failed and this is a sure sign that a thriller is working.

Aside from this, the film is violent and doesn't shy away from creating some very difficult-to-watch scenes (especially in the torture sequences). Jackman's transformation from the loving father to the desperate and merciless vigilante helped in strengthening the violence depicted: this isn't inconsequential, entertaining violence. You really will wince. The film's subject matter was, of course, going to be highly emotive but at no point does the film exploit this fact by 'free-wheeling' cinematically: the focus is on the reactions of the parents and authorities, rather than on the predicament of the children themselves.

The supporting cast were fine, although the female characters felt a little under-written and seemed to spend most of their time either crying or under the influence of sleeping pills rather than playing an active part in the drama. Perhaps the biggest problem in the film is its unevenness: yes, the film maintains a high level of dread throughout, but some sequences seemed to lose the tension which kept the audience engaged. I found myself wondering about the practicalities of what was happening ('shouldn't he be calling for back up now?!'), rather than being caught up in the moment. A sign, I think, of the film not being as engaging as it should have been.

These minor issues aside, Prisoners is a convincing thriller with some performances which are truly outstanding. From the minute it starts to its surprising ending, it grabs you by the throat and never really lets go. A taut and intense experience which may just make you rush home and stick Mamma Mia! in the DVD player...

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *

Prisoners is released nationwide on 27^th September

White House Down

If Hollywood is to be believed, it would appear that the safest house in the world is anything but. White House Down is a reincarnation of the straight-faced Olympus Has Fallen which saw Gerard Butler save the President of the United States as the White House crumbled amid rocket launchers and machine guns. This time, it falls to Channing Tatum to protect the President (Jamie Foxx) from attack and does so in a much more playful and bonkers manner than Olympus Has Fallen. That, however, doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

You only need to see a few films from director Roland Emmerich's back catalogue to realise what sort of territory we are in with White House Down. Emmerich has attempted to destroy the White House once before in Independence Day and his other disaster films Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow and 2012 are all equally as crazy and hectic as his latest. Channing Tatum plays a Capitol policeman who, whilst on a tour of the White House with his daughter, becomes entangled in a terrorist attack and must protect the President whilst also looking after his daughter.

At first, Channing Tatum may seem like an odd choice to play the central role in an action blockbuster such as this and he has come under a fair amount of criticism (most of it quite unfair). Whilst it's true that Tatum often dances between cinematic eye-candy and brute muscle, his performance in White House Down does make some attempt at creating character depth – helped by his character's relationship with his daughter (played by Joey King). For a film of this type – absurdly ludicrous, bonkers and chaotic – Tatum puts in a perfectly adequate performance and becomes quite likeable (even when doing doughnuts in the presidential limo on the White House lawn). Aside from Tatum, Jamie Foxx appears to be having great fun as a rocket launcher-branding president and the ever-reliable Maggie Gyllenhaal stays cool in what can only be called a bad day at the office.

The action moves along at a fair old pace and never really drags. Indeed, it is so stupidly mad that it never really has the chance to lag. Emmerich is clearly in his element when making films such as this and, as these type of films go, it really is watchable. What makes this film much more enjoyable than Olympus Has Fallen is the fact that it appears to take itself less seriously. I found myself chuckling throughout the film (not at it, but with it) and the on-screen interaction between the two leads was amusing to watch. Yes, the action is outrageous, yes, the script is a case of painting (or should that be writing?!) by numbers and the editing could be tighter, but when the film-makers are clearly having so much fun with a genre film such as this, what's the point of moaning about its lack of lucidity?

If you have to pick between the two, White House Down is more enjoyable than Olympus Has Fallen. But let's hope that the studios have had enough of blowing up the Oval Office because, let's face it, more than two such films in a year could really become grating. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

Man of Steel

Sam Ring and James Jones write:

The trailers built it up to be one of the film events of the year. Produced by Christopher Nolan and directed by Zack Snyder, Man of Steel hit screens around the world with the impact of a freight train thrown by the man himself. The latest DC character to receive the dark and gritty treatment (akin to that of Nolan's Batman trilogy), Superman is back and this reboot is certainly more commercially successful than 2005's rather lacklustre Superman Returns. But the question is, can Man of Steel deliver the deep, thrilling and multi-faceted film that the trailer promised?

Man of Steel definitely comes out near the top of this summer’s super hero smack down. It's by far better than Iron Man 3 (I’m not sure about that – Ed.), with stunning visuals and gargantuan super powered smack downs, which do not look cheap and cartoonish after 3D rendering. Nor does the film's cast, who all deliver measured performances. The casting of Russell Crowe as Superman’s biological father was a clear success, as was Kevin Costner’s performance as his ‘Earth’ father. Henry Cavill’s efforts in the title role were largely convincing. Even though at some points he seemed to have walked straight out of Eton (if you ignore the Mid-West American accent), Cavill’s sincerity and commitment to the role was plain to see.

From an aesthetic perspective, the Terrence Mallick-esque look of the film is also a welcome departure from the overly kinetic, glossy, and cartoonish visual style of films from the DC universe. The film makes great attempts to ground its principles in reality (somewhat ironic given the film’s subject matter), for example giving Superman a sonic boom when he speeds off into the sky. Snyder’s hallmarks are also plain to see. It is not fair to debate whether or not he is a better director now, even though some of his earlier efforts were not as well received as the brilliantly-bold Watchmen.

There are, however, some fundamental flaws. Man of Steel does not, to quote Star Trek, "boldly go where no one has gone before". In fact, the creative team of Goyer and Nolan can be accused of being a bit slack when it comes to story crafting duties. The film is essentially just another incarnation of the duo's first collaboration in the DC world, Batman Begins.

For some reason, Man of Steel doesn't show enough conflict in the character of Superman or attempt to show much of his struggle to work out what he should do with his life. Instead the film plods along with exposition about the character’s heritage and background, with little focus on his emotional conflict. This was one of the key issues in the Batman series which made the character such a bankable and engaging figure: it established everything about the character, making him troubled and flawed. In Man of Steel, despite wonderful performances from child actors Cooper Timberline and Dylan Sprayberry as the deeply frustrated and lonely boy, little true depth is established. Kevin Costner lends brilliant weight to the conflict of a younger Superman by enforcing his own paternal instincts to protect his foster son from the world, but Costner’s talents are massively underused, with Russell Crowe's Jor-El being the super parent who receives the most amount of screen time.

Cavill's Superman is immaculately humble, charming, polite, decent and honourable, both when he is in character as Superman or Clark Kent. He cuts a splendidly heroic and inspiring figure, and can also deliver the emotional super-punches when given a few woefully brief chances to do so (a wonderfully shot family car argument before a tornado strike in particular impresses). Watching a still-learning-to-fly Superman take out half a mountain is undeniably satisfying and spectacular, and there are plenty of destructive set-pieces. However, here is the fundamental issue with the film. The final battle sequence is relentless: skyscrapers are razed to the ground with enough decibels to deafen even the most enthusiastic death metal fan and the film seems to favour explosions over character depth.

For all its spectacular action and effects, Man of Steel does feel, at times, rather slow and superficial. It's constrained in terms of character and its creative team have lost touch with some of the fundamental principles with which they set out to rebuild the franchise. But anchored by its impeccable leading man and steady direction, this reboot packs class, coolness, and a whole lot of heart. To rephrase a line used during the promotion of Christopher Reeve's first outing as Superman, when watching Man of Steel, "You'll want to believe a man can fly".

Clapperboard Rating: * * *

Behind The Candelabra

Sam Ring writes:

"Not bad for an old bag huh?"; quotes Michael Douglas during his introduction to Matt Damon's young, star struck Scott Thorson. Despite the actor's struggle with throat cancer in recent years, this film quite clearly showcases that Douglas is anything but an old has been, something that major Hollywood stars can sometimes slip into after a long and glittering career like Douglas's. Douglas owns this film in his performance as the enigmatic "Mr Showmanship", Liberace, revealing a side of the legendary man who epitomises the glitz and glamour of show business. Through the revelations of Thorson's memoirs (which make up the basis of the film), some of the darker trappings of the celebrity life, such as the never-ending quest for privacy from the prying eyes of the public is also shown.

As it turns out, Liberace had a lot to want to keep private, and Douglas brings these behind-closed-doors trappings of the character to life with buckets of charisma, enthusiasm and seductive persuasion. He lures the young and naive Thorson into his world only to ultimately turn on him and cast him aside. Damon takes a backseat for most of Behind the Candelabra, but still performs solidly as the earnest, devoted and totally delusional lover, who sees his own life warped into a twisted orgy of sex, plastic surgery, and drug addiction. Another compelling element of the film is the love affair between the very young Thorson (aged just 17 when he first met Liberace), and the ageing Liberace (then 57). The dream team of Douglas and Damon sparkle together and turn what, on the surface, may be viewed as a very sordid and scandalous affair, into an emotionally engaging and practically functional, genuine relationship. The chemistry between the two appears warm and affectionate, without ever becoming too sleazy and spoiling what can be seen as a genuine insight into not only a real relationship, but one which gives insights into the practicalities of living-in with one's partner and the difficulties that any couple (irrelevant of sex) might face in this age, or the next.

Aside from its two outstanding leading men, there is solid support from Dan Akroyd as Lee's long serving and watchful manager, and Debbie Reynolds playing his sharp, disapproving Mother, but both are not given much more to do with their performances than to fill out the ranks. Rob Lowe steals most of the laughs as the potentially deranged (and somewhat disfigured by his own experiments) plastic surgeon brought in by Lee to do some work on Thorson. Lowe's humour and fun playing the character is infectious, and apparently he underwent training to perform actual surgery on extremely life-like fake bodies of Douglas and Damon.

Steven Soderbergh's attention to detail in recreating the wonderful lavishness of Lee's opulent lifestyle is highly commendable. The diamonds, the gold signet rings, the portraits, the marble floors, the outrageous costumes and stage entrances all echo an emperor Nero-like extravagance and excess which serves as a reminder that Lee is a larger-than-life figure, although we see him stripped of most of this thanks to the focus on his relationship within his home, with his young lover. The film is beautifully shot to boot, with Peter Andrews incorporating a similar, grainy look to the film's more mundane scenes, before switching to brightly lit and dazzling show pieces, as was seen in last year's equally extravagant Magic Mike.

Tonally, the film may confuse some with its fusion of biopic and black comedy. It works tremendously well as a look at the darker side of celebrity, and an exposé on the life of one of entertainment's most extravagant stars. And yet, it is a very odd film in choosing to focus solely on this part of Liberace, and not being able to widen its perspective and go deeper into the routes of the man's life. A lot of the humour in it as well comes from the awkwardness of Damon's Thorson entering into this heavily sexualised world where he is not immediately comfortable, but this awkwardness can sometimes fall completely flat and be just plain awkward and unfunny at times.

Behind The Candelabra is a film which will definitely not be everyone's cup of tea. It's a bizarre, challenging, and outrageous take on celebrity, but is also a factually driven account of a man who epitomised celebrity, and a touching look at the battle he faced to hold on to his façade at the expense of his personal and romantic life. The fantastic performances of Douglas and Damon is what makes the film worth watching, with their passionate (albeit brief) romance lending the film what it needs to be an emotionally gripping and solid drama. Providing you can get on board with the subject matter, you will not be disappointed by what is certainly Douglas's best performance in recent years.


Clapperboard Rating: * * * *

After Earth

Businessman James Caan, of Dragon's Den fame, recently stirred up a controversial debate when he was found to be employing his daughter in one of his companies, having previously suggested that job opportunities should be offered on merit, rather than through family connections. Questions of morality aside, it is clear that the mantra 'it's not what you know but who you know' applies to many things. Film casting, apparently, is one of them. After Earth stars Will Smith and his fourteen year-old son Jaden. The audition process for the film may have been rigorous (no sign of nepotism here folks) but the end result is a flat and dull film.

After films such as The Sixth Sense, M. Night Shyamalan was lauded by critics as one of the most promising and exciting up-coming directors. Disappointingly, his success didn't continue (Mark Kermode calls him M. Night Shameaboutmylastfilm). With the box office name of Will Smith, After Earth had the potential to re-establish Shyamalan's reputation and make for a thrilling space opera. Unfortunately, it does neither. After crash-landing on Earth, which has been abandoned by mankind, an injured General Cypher Raige (Will Smith) must entrust his son Kitai (Jaden Smith) to make a dangerous journey to signal for help. Apart from all manner of human-eating creatures which now inhabit the planet, Kitai must conquer his fears to defeat the Ursa, a monster which attacks by detecting human fear.

The potential for a good narrative existed (current issues such as human-driven climate change could have been explored) but the film ends up jumping through hoops which have been seen time and again and quickly becomes rather dull. The film opens with more exposition than in an IMDb plot synopsis, explaining why humans had to leave Earth and establish other settlements in space. Even with its Star Wars-like set-up, the exact reasons for which Earth becomes uninhabitable remain rather vague, as does the plot contrivance which results in Cypher and Kitai on board a space ship with an Ursa. Now, these Ursa things were bred to kill humans so, of course, they're blind (not a great example of genetic modification) and can only detect prey by sensing pheromones released by fear. Even though the aliens who bred the creatures are long-dead, humans have chosen to keep the Ursa creatures alive as training tools for soldiers to learn how to 'ghost' (conquering fear, therefore becoming invisible to the Ursa). Of course, Cypher has mastered this but his son is emotionally-immature and must eliminate his fear to save both himself and his father.

What you have, as a result, is a film which basically says: emotion is bad, being a robot-like, inert person is much better. And boy, is Will Smith flat in this film. Barking orders at his son, Smith's character is dislikeable and alienating in equal measure. Jaden Smith is an uninspiring lead with a limited range which seems to fluctuate between anger and distress with not much in between. His action scenes seem to have been constructed to within an inch of their life and on an overall level, the set pieces just went through the motions. It is an action film by numbers, if you will. Actually, to use the word 'action' implies some sort of exciting energy and drive. In reality, the film lurches from action sequence to action sequence as if it were modelled on a bad video game narrative.

The imagined future Earth resembles a Center Parcs forest and the concept of civilisation collapse is avoided completely. Although the Ursa monster showed some attempt at artistic imagination, the other animals thirsty for human blood were disappointingly normal and non-threatening. Superficial characterisation and nonsensical dialogue did nothing to help the situation.

Fundamentally, After Earth is neither inspiring, enthralling nor particularly well-written. Will Smith may have some box office clout but has all of his appeal sucked out of him. Jaden does his best but the film feels tired and struggles to find something meaningful to say. The cumulative effect of this is a disappointingly two-dimensional experience with little merit and which leaves the audience with an overwhelming apathy towards the whole thing. If this is what happens when humans leave Earth, then we may as well not return at all. 

Clapperboard Rating: * *  

The Hangover Part III

Sadly, I hadn't started this blog when I saw The Hangover Part II and therefore, I can't consult my review of it in preparation for writing this critique of The Hangover Part III. Not that this much matters as the painful memories from that film are still strong. Crass, vulgar, homophobic, racist and offensive are some of the words which spring to mind when considering The Hangover Part II. Anyway, to say my expectations for director Todd Phillips' third outing with the Wolfpack were low, would be...um, hugely accurate.

The IMDb plot summary for The Hangover Part III begins: 'This time, there's no wedding. No bachelor party. What could go wrong, right?'. And herein lies the first problem with the film. No-one has a hangover until after the credits! This happens to be the least of our problems, however. I'm not going to go through the plot because that will mean wasting more time on this film. Suffice to that the Wolfpack is reunited through the most contrived of plot points and the result sees the film become more of a thriller/action film rather than a comedy. It does neither well.

The overwhelming feeling I experienced when I watched the film was boredom. The film has the engaging energy and dynamism of a static caravan and with jokes about as funny as a blocked toilet. For a comedy, it does remarkably well at being totally unfunny. I didn't laugh once. Indeed, the film suffers from a fundamental lack of humour: comedic set-up is non-existent and it's as if the jokes were written by committee. Zach Galifianakis' annoying and socially-inept Alan felt tired and relied too much on character traits which were established – and quickly became boring – in the previous films. And then there's the character of Mr Chow (Ken Jeong). It's not even worth getting angry about.

You're probably thinking that it's just me: I don't find things funny that most normal people do and in reality, The Hangover Part III is a very funny, nice end to the trilogy. Indeed, two out of the three other people I saw it with found it hilarious. But they're wrong. In so many ways. The film washes over you and suffocates you with its lethargic, unfunny script and attempts to beat you into submission with the character of Mr Chow. In many ways, I'd love to get angry about the film; I'd love to berate its suffocating lack of laughs; I'd enjoy criticising its reliance on ill-judged characters and plot; I'd try my hardest to convince you from not going to see such a poor excuse for entertainment. But really, it's not worth it. I even got the impression that Todd Phillips didn't want to be doing the film either. But that's what you get if the previous film takes $586,764,305: a depressingly dull sequel.

I'm going to stop there because I've already spent enough of my life considering this hulking failure of a film/thriller/comedy...whatever you want to call it. Bradley Cooper has done some fantastic stuff recently but it is genuinely dispiriting to see him return to Vegas. I've come to the conclusion that having a hangover is infinitely more enjoyable than watching this pathetic film. Let's never mention it again. 

Clapperboard Rating: *

The Great Gatsby

The first time I read The Great Gatsby, I hated it. In fact, I only made it half way through the book and gave up, cursing AQA for forcing me to sit an exam on such a boring, self-important book. Two months before my exam, I felt that I should probably, for the sake of my grade, read the whole thing. To say that I changed my mind would be an understatement. It is my favourite novel and news that Baz Luhrmann was to direct a new film adaptation of F Scott Fitzgerald's most famous work excited me immensely. It's always dangerous to go to the cinema with this level of excitement.

Jay Gatsby is the enigmatic host of countless parties: guests aren't invited, they go. His parties are a whirlwind of cocktails, corrupt morals, glamorous frocks and rumours about the host. Some say that he killed a man, others that he is related to the Kaiser. One thing is for sure, Mr Gatsby is a mysterious host. If anyone was to translate the excess and violent spontaneity of Gatsby's lifestyle through the prism of a film camera, it is Baz Luhrmann. For the uninitiated, The Great Gatsby is narrated by Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), a mid-western war veteran who finds himself living next door to the millionaire Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Nick is drawn to his ambiguous neighbour, whose past and present are intertwined with Nick's cousin, Daisy (Carey Mulligan).

Fitzgerald's novel contains some of the most beautiful turns of phrase and each sentence flows with a lyricism and truthfulness about life. Unfortunately, this subtlety is somewhat lost in Luhrmann's adaptation which opens with a frenetic establishing of Gatsby's world. The camera (in all its 3D glory) swoops down skyscrapers, bounds off the luxurious mise-en-scène and cuts between characters as if lingering too long would reveal too much about them. Ironically, this is one of the film's major problems: Luhrmann seems less concerned with the deep heart of the source material and focuses on the feel of the age in which the novel is set. The excess of the Jazz Age manifests itself in the film through the almost pop video aesthetic and energy and there can be no argument that the film doesn't look beautiful. In fact, it is stunning. Each frame dazzles with a sparkle as if the negatives were processed by Tiffany's and the green-screen theatrics help to set the tone wonderfully. Perhaps this was the director's intention: to create a world which doesn't really exist – Gatsby's parties are a show, a shallow front for his real desire to capture Daisy in a world of chaotic opulence. The CGI and ostentatious soundtrack by Jay-Z are a mirror, reflecting Gatsby's need to maintain his dream. In this respect, the film works brilliantly.

There could be no other current actor to play Gatsby and DiCaprio does a sterling job of portraying one of American literature's greatest characters. Coupled with Mulligan, who provides a nicely tempered performance as the capricious Daisy, the central dynamics between the pair were nicely constructed. Their meeting in Nick's flower-filled living room was a dramatic moment, full of tension, but was a moment which should have been replicated and maintained throughout the film. Joel Edgerton's ill-tempered Tom Buchanan was well cast and tonally suited to juxtapose the character with Gatsby. In narrative terms, the opening fifteen minutes hurtled along so fast that I thought I'd get a headache from the 3D but this pace settled down and the film established a consistent (and more appealing) rhythm.

Ultimately, however, the emotional tenacity of the source material seemed to be suffocated by the visuals. Literary purists will not be won-over by the film but perhaps this isn't the point. Luhrmann's Gatsby is an interpretation, an element of the novel which captures the essence of an age where men wore beautiful shirts and the best a woman could do was to be a beautiful little fool. But the novel's real messages are somewhat lost in the aesthetic fervour of the film. Behind the three-piece suits and the glimmering jewels in Daisy's hair, there's little real comment. In interviews, Luhrmann has talked of the film's relevance to today's society, not just to the 1920s but there's a severe lack of comment in the film.

In the end, The Great Gatsby is an impressive spectacle, but a superficial spectacle at that. DiCaprio fits perfectly into the role of Gatsby but there is little real weight behind the camera zooms and digital magic. Fitzgerald's moral comments seem to be lost or merely acknowledged in passing, something which prevents the film from delivering an experience to match the novel. Gatsby may be great, but the film, I'm genuinely sorry to say, is not. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

Star Trek Into Darkness

Every time I walk around my local Waitrose (as all students do), I like to think that I'm in Star Trek. Not because the automatic doors open with a satisfying “swish” noise or the fish counter is covered with clouds of dry ice which look like a special effect from a far-flung planet. It is the self-check handsets which remind me of the phaser weapons from the TV series and, as I carry one down the cereal aisle, part of me is hoping to run into a Klingon so I can zap him to smithereens. More often than not, I run into a security guard who is convinced I'm going to steal something. Anyway, that's enough of my strange ideas. Here are my thoughts on Star Trek Into Darkness.

J.J. Abrams is the king of lens flare. Watch any one of his films and you'll think that someone has drawn a big white line across the screen. Okay, it's not that extreme and I rather like it, but it's certainly a director trademark. Abrams has returned to the Star Trek franchise which he first rebooted back in 2009 and has reunited the same cast for his second outing at the helm of the Enterprise, with some new faces. Benedict Cumberbatch plays super bad guy Khan, who threatens the very existence of the Federation and Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) is the only person who can stop him. The ensemble cast worked well and Abrams' direction felt assured and confident in developing characters. Zachary Quinto was great as Spock and Zoe Saldana as his 'girlfriend' Uhura made a nice duo and Simon Pegg's Scotty provided some great laughs. Cumberbatch's bad guy performance was genuinely threatening and you know he's angry when his hair flops over his face. Seriously, he makes for a great villain.

The film's plot was nice and easy to follow which allows the audience to focus on enjoying the action and special effects which, just as in the previous film, were spectacular. I saw the film in 3D and, I have to say, was somewhat won-over by a few of the effects. The Star Trek universe is glossy, technical and vivid and the 3D effects in the outer-space sequences were very involving. Nevertheless, I could quite happily have seen it in 2D (and it would have been much brighter for a start!). Leading man Chris Pine is an appealing screen presence and fits the role of Kirk well: an intelligent, genuine and action-loving captain. Abrams definitely has an innate talent for constructing action whilst driving it with characterisation and a confident use of the camera.

In terms of narrative, never has there been a bromance so strong since Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Kirk and Spock's relationship – a central pillar in the TV series – cements the action, adventure and drama of Star Trek Into Darkness. Thousands of words have been written on their relationship, more informed and insightful than anything I could hope to write. I'll just say that Abrams' film places much importance on it (and rightly so). Kirk and Spock's relationship provides a touching moment towards the end of the film although I felt the plot's development after this moment could have been bolder and it felt as though a set up for a third film was being developed. There will most definitely be another film – at the time of writing, the film was targeting $100 million after four days in the US alone. To say studio executives must be delighted would be an understatement.

Star Trek Into Darkness had to be good, if only for the sake of Abrams' other space adventure, Star Wars: Episode VII which is due for release in 2015. Fans need not worry. Star Trek Into Darkness is a non-stop and exhilarating blockbuster which offers some engaging performances and plenty of spectacle. And next time I'm in Waitrose, I promise not to shout 'beam me up, Scotty'. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * * 

Iron Man 3

For one time only, I'm going to give you permission to disagree with me about this review. Indeed, I've most probably got it all wrong in the manner of IBM's chairman, predicting in 1943 that there was a world market for “maybe five computers”. Okay, maybe not that bad but you get the idea. I have to confess that I haven't seen Iron Man or Iron Man 2. So, naturally, this puts me in rather precarious position when it comes to making assertions about the latest film, imaginatively titled Iron Man 3. Nevertheless, here are my thoughts, even if you know better. Enjoy this feeling whilst it lasts.

Iron Man 3 is the latest film from Marvel and Paramount (he most definitely is a Marvel character - I was recently berated online for accidentally calling Superman a Marvel creation) and opens on New Year's Eve 1999, an evening which will create far-reaching and serious consequences for Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Fast-forward to the present day and everything Stark knows and cares about is ripped apart by the fearsome terrorist, the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley). Hitting cinemas with an almighty bang, Iron Man 3 will no doubt dominate the box office for many weeks to come. And that is perfectly fine. As a whole, the film has all the elements which make for an all-out romp of a superhero film, and combines them with plenty of energy and surprises, under the assured direction of Shane Black.

It is Robert Downey Jr.'s performance which, no doubt, assures the success of the film. His portrayal of the forward and verbally-volatile billionaire industrialist was engaging and a pleasure to watch. The film's script zips along at a fair old pace and its writers, Drew Pearce and Shane Black (who achieved recognition with the Lethal Weapon screenplay) have written some great gags which Downey delivers with great conviction and comedic vigour. It was not only Tony Stark who was given some great one-liners – Ben Kingsley's role is casting genius and a highlight of the film. As many have pointed out, Iron Man 3 is the only superhero film to contain a reference to Croydon. Inspiring stuff.

The action is proficiently executed and one of the Iron Man films' strengths (excuse the pun) is the shots looking inside and outside of the mask. These point-of-view shots allow the audience to be thrown right into the centre of the action and make for enthralling viewing (and no thanks to the 3D). The assault on Stark's Miami home was heart-pounding stuff and the film's themes of human relationships rallying against technological advances and compromised masculinity were nicely approached. Without his suit, Tony Stark is stripped of power but Downey manages to remain a commanding screen presence. Gwyneth Paltrow as Stark's long-suffering partner gave a very confident yet naturalistic performance and complemented Downey's eccentricity.

So there you have it. My ill-informed, misjudged, mistaken and rather poor review of Iron Man 3. However, I genuinely found it to be a funny, full-on and satisfying superhero flick. Downey and Kingsley steal the film and, for once, a third film in an action franchise doesn't feel forced. But what do I know? Disagreements on the back of a postcard. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *