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: * * *