Liberal Arts

Allison Janney will always occupy a special place in my heart. Her portrayal of White House Press Secretary C. J. Cregg in The West Wing (possibly the best American drama series ever) was nothing short of masterful and it was my admiration for her that convinced me to see Liberal Arts – the new film from director/writer/producer/star Josh Radnor. Allison, you didn't disappoint but shame about the rest of the film.

Watching Liberal Arts is an odd experience. It begins with thirty-something Jesse (played by Radnor) returning to his old college to attend a professor's retirement party and meeting Zibby (Elizabeth Olsen), a nineteen-year-old student. From the outset, it's obvious that the two have a connection as they exchange tentative glances, snatched whilst no-one else is looking. As their relationship developed throughout the first thirty minutes of the film, I found myself heaving a largely-cynical sigh. This was going to be a clichéd, predictable romance with shots of the pair lying together in the lush grass of campus, discussing the merits of life, love and being young. Whilst there was plenty of the latter, I was rather surprised (and pleased) as to how their courtship developed.

Before you think that I was deeply moved and affected by their relationship, I wasn't. Never without a book in his hand, the character of Jesse – sixteen years Zibby's senior – was distinctly annoying and seemed incapable of holding any conversation without discussing the existential meaning of life and age. Indeed, I was half expecting him to launch into a monologue about the virtues of post-modernist literature whilst ordering a latte. Zibby, too, was vaguely grating, although Olsen is quickly becoming one of the most vibrant acting talents of the future. Her performance was both nuanced and bold and was utterly convincing as a college student older than her years.

One of the film's main themes is that of ageing and nostalgia. When Jesse returns to the college campus, he seems much more alive than during scenes at his home in New York. This idea of idolising college years and youth in particular, was nicely handled – even if it was mediated through characters I could quite happily have hit with a copy of Catch-22. That said, there were moments of comedy and biting lines of dialogue which always managed to stay good-natured.

Of course, Allison Janney was brilliant as a professor of British Romantic literature with something of a rock-god/cougar reputation on campus. An equally-entertaining cameo from Zac Efron as a free-living Buddhist type raised several smiles and I feel as though he is well on his way to shaking off the High School Musical stigma (and good on him for doing so).

Performances aside, the plot wasn't perfect, and an ill-judged romance between Jesse and a bookshop owner somewhat de-valued an ending which could have been so much more profound. Nevertheless, Radnor created several moments of dialogue about life which were so insightful and so on-the-mark that I almost forgave the weaknesses in plot. At one point, Jesse's bookshop love exclaims that she spends so much time reading about life in books that she doesn't get the time to experience life itself. In many ways. it's the same for this film. If you've got something to do, don't put it off in favour of watching Liberal Arts. But if you've a spare ninety minutes, it might just make you smile...

Clapperboard Rating: * * *

Looper

The most common criticism of foreign films is that they demand too much concentration as one has to watch the action and read the subtitles at the same time. Whilst anyone who thinks this has the cultural aptitude and IQ of an amoeba, some films do require a higher level of concentration to watch. Looper is a case in point and is intellectually stimulating and exciting and will leave you with more puzzling questions than an episode of University Challenge.

Written and directed by Rian Johnson, Looper is an engrossing mix of The Terminator and 12 Monkeys and stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Joe – a 'looper', or contract killer who kills targets who are sent to him from the future by 'the mob'. However, when his future self (Bruce Willis) is sent back in time, he allows him to escape, with life-changing consequences. Confused? You should be. Whilst this plot is, at times, rather confounding, the film excels in its balance between action and a strong sense of narrative direction.

There is a scene in Looper where two versions of the same person sit across from one another in a diner, discussing the complexities of time travel and whose life is being affected by the decisions they make at that moment. Thankfully for the audience's sanity, the older incarnation of Joe brings the conversation to an end by exclaiming that talking too much about time travel and its effects will scramble your brain to mush. It is sequences such as this which highlight the brilliance of a film which has the potential to give the audience a headache to rival the worst of hangovers. Somehow, however, it doesn't.

Johnson's script develops convincing, multi-faceted characters and he draws some fantastic performances from the cast (Emily Blunt in particular, is superb) and makes full use of its central concept. The moral ambiguities of time travel felt fully-developed and were a satisfying juxtaposition to the action sequences in which more people died than during a stampede for One Direction's book signings. Johnson's dystopian future, where cars have solar panels welded onto their bonnets due to the lack of oil and high-rise skyscrapers counterpoint the graffiti-marked streets where murder is an everyday normality is both startling and tense. It is because of this dramatic setting that the time travel theme works so well and the moral decisions made by the characters feel as though they carry true weight.

There were some pacing issues, especially during the farm house scenes but in general, the film had a taut and dramatic feeling, aided by the combined talents of Gordon-Levitt and Blunt. Their performances created an emotional depth to the characters which underpinned the brain-frying of time travel and even Bruce Willis aimed for a bit of emotional tenacity.

Looper is a thrilling, perplexing and satisfying sci-fi picture, which works because of its engagement with meaty ideas and abundance of gritty action and multi-dimensional performances. Just don't pop to the loo half way through otherwise you won't have a hope of catching up...

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *

Anna Karenina

If there is one word most used to describe the literary works of the Russian author Leo Tolstoy, it is 'long'. His most famous novel, 'War and Peace', is over one thousand pages long and could certainly be used as an offensive weapon. Anna Karenina – at over eight hundred pages – is the latest cinematic adaptation of Tolstoy's work and stars Keira Knightley in the title role. Love her or hate her, Knightley is certainly one of the most successful British actors of recent years and seems perfectly cast as the self-destructive Anna. Shame, then, that the rest of the film is emotionally-inert.

Directed by Joe Wright (who has collaborated with Knightley on two previous films – Atonement and Pride and Prejudice), Anna Karenina is set in nineteenth-century Russian high society and sees aristocrat Anna Karenina embark on an affair with the affluent Count Vronsky (played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson). From the opening scene, it is clear that this adaptation is rather unlike Wright's previous costume dramas which have been played straight-down-the-line. Much of the action is set in a theatre and the characters weave in and out of the sets with a balletic fluidity which was very impressive. Combined with innovative editing, the theatricality of the film is both its greatest strength and weakness.

There is no doubt that Anna Karenina oozes quality. From the sets to the costumes, the exuberant mise-en-scène is both enticing and distracting. In many ways, such a theatrical approach distances the audiences from becoming emotionally-engaged with the characters and, given that this is essentially a love story, this is a problem. Things are not helped by the performances which are rather uneven and Anna's moustachioed love interest is somewhat miscast and wasn't as magnetic as he should have been. Knightley, on the other hand, settles comfortably into the role of Anna and commands the aristocratic role with confidence. Her performance is, however, difficult to engage with – as is the narrative which is hugely overshadowed by the film's theatrical nature.

Wright's decision to pursue such an extravagant tone may reflect the novel's original intention: to depict the falsity and excesses of Tsarist Russian high society. The director of photography, Seamus McGarvey, has done a fantastic job reflecting this society, where people take pleasure in seeing Anna's downfall. His lyrical camera movement was first-class and I could have quite happily watched this technical aspect of the film at the expense of the story. A dance sequence really showed his flair for dynamic camera movement and certainly impressed.

The fundamental flaw with Anna Karenina, however, is its overt theatricality. Whilst this makes the film pleasant to look at, it swamps any sense of a meaningful, emotionally-charged story. Ultimately, this should have been the film's focus and no matter how 'nice' everything looks, the vacuum left by the lack of electric performances and any sense of realism left me as emotionally cold as a Russian winter. 

Clapperboard Rating: * *

Lawless

What do Boris Johnson, Dark Shadows and new Minis all have in common? Before you start making jokes, the answer is that they have all been accused of having style over substance. John Hillcoat’s new film, Lawless, suffers from this very problem but as I left an early afternoon screening of the film, I faced a dilemma. Does extraordinary style ever negate the need for real substance? Or does the weight of a film’s screenplay dictate how stylish it can be? Writing this review, several hours after seeing Lawless, I still have no idea.

Set in Prohibition-era rural America, Lawless is an adaptation of Matt Bondurant’s 2008 novel ‘The Wettest County in the World’ and follows a trio of bootlegging brothers (Tom Hardy, Shia LaBoeuf and Jason Clarke) whose business is threatened by a new deputy (played by Guy Pearce) who is determined to bring their monopoly on moonshine to an end. Hillcoat (who directed apocalyptic thriller The Road) has certainly assembled a tour de force of a cast, with Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska playing pretty girls attracted to bad men, and Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce as fantastic villains on both sides of the law.

This cast – and its performances – is certainly one of the most striking aspects of the film. I’ve never warmed to Shia LaBoeuf as an actor (nothing to do with Transformers…cough, cough) and I have always found him difficult to take seriously. But his performance as Jack, the youngest and most eager of the brothers to prove himself, was startlingly convincing and charged with an emotion which I hadn’t seen before. Tom Hardy is, well, Tom Hardy and produces an intimidating performance, made even more incredible through his ability to pull off ‘menacing outlaw’ whilst sporting several styles of cardigan. Guy Pearce, however, steals the show and is fantastic in his role as the villainous deputy. The female roles, on the other hand, felt very under-developed and it was a real shame to see Chastain and Wasikowska being sidelined in favour of a more macho plot and even the terrific Gary Oldman seemed to be a mere token.

The screenplay obviously aimed for a greatness which it sadly never achieved. The dialogue was unmemorable and the plot and its development felt rather average, a disappointment considering its basis in fact. Despite its graphic violence (and trust me, this film is as violent as your mother-in-law when you tell her the gin has all gone), I felt that the screenplay was far too safe and straight down the line for any real brilliance to shine through. These issues aside, Lawless truly excels in terms of style and beautiful cinematography. The set pieces are theatrical, the locations vivid and the whole mise-en-scène feels rich and exciting, if a little too glossy.

Lawless isn’t as intoxicating as it wants to be and falls into the old ‘style over substance’ category. Its style is enough to carry what is still an entertaining and enjoyable watch. Ultimately, however, the film’s vacuous nature overshadows some terrific performances and the effect of the moonshine soon wears off.   

Clapperboard Rating: * * *

The Expendables 2

It was with a certain degree of excitement that I went along to an afternoon screening of a film I knew was going to be one of two things: over-the-top or, well, over-the-top. That film was The Expendables 2, and I can happily say that I wasn't wrong.

You only have to watch The Expendables to know exactly what you're getting with The Expendables 2 and that, I'm afraid, is damning with faint praise. The Expendables 2 reunites the old gang from the first film (Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren) and throws in some more action-heroes for good measure in the form of Chuck Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The result is certainly explosive and it's safe to say that a drag act is more understated and reserved than The Expendables 2.

We'll address the plot first, which sees Mr Church (Willis) send the expendables on a mission which should be a walk-in-the-park. But when one of their men is killed in cold blood, the need for revenge leads the ageing heroes deep into enemy territory. I'll begin by stating the obvious: subtlety, nuanced performances and intricate story lines were not this film's forte. This is, however, kinda the point. Audiences don't go to see an action film expecting anything less than all-out, full-throttle madness. This madness took the form of action sequences which were tautly-edited and (although it shames me to say it) really quite enjoyable. From the opening sequence to the film's denouement, the explosive violence and crazy fight scenes were so over-the-top and so excessive, that I found myself sitting in stunned consternation. There was also, I'll admit, a grin on my face.

With the outrageous action to one side, there was a serious issue with plot exposition which felt rather stagnant. In many ways, it felt as though scenes in which Arnie muttered one-liners and Stallone tried to pull off convincing emotion were mere padding and I kept wanting the film to get back to the thing we'd all come to see: a group of OAPs blowing things up. At one point, Stallone exclaims that his new aeroplane belongs in a museum. “We all do” returns Schwarzenegger. Never has a piece of cinematic dialogue rung more true.

To the film's credit, the screenplay (co-written by Stallone) was suitably self-aware of all the tropes of B-movie action films and wasn't afraid to send itself up. Then again, to have done anything else would have been seriously silly. As the body count rose higher than an episode of Midsomer Murders, I came to the realisation that despite the camp action, predictability and feeling that I could have been watching an advert for Age Concern UK, The Expendables 2 really is rather fun. Its indulgent, no-brain attitude to violence and fighting can't be applauded for insight or originality but that's no bad thing and it is certainly an entertaining watch. Roll on The Expendables 3 (!). 

Clapperboard Rating: * * 

Brave

There are two giants within the world of animation: Disney Pixar and Dreamworks. Both studios have produced massively-successful films over the years and this summer, it's the turn of Disney Pixar to step up to the metaphorical plate and continue its brilliance, inventiveness and superiority when it comes to things that don't exist in reality. And their offering? Brave.

It's been two years since Pixar released Toy Story 3 and cemented the trilogy in the annals of film history as being one of the very few trilogies where, arguably, every film gets better than the last. It may seem a little odd at first that the American studio have chosen the Highlands of Scotland to set their latest film, Brave, a story of self-determination, punctuated by every imaginable Scottish stereotype. The film charts the fortunes of Rebekah Brooks look-a-like Merida (played by Kelly Macdonald), a princess whose impassioned personality matches her fiery red locks. When her mother (voiced by Emma Thompson) decides it is time to find her a suitor, Merida is far from happy and sets out to take her fate into her own hands. What you have here is, in many ways, typical Pixar: a film with a moral message at its centre, with enough laughs along the way to retain a certain charm for which the studio has become known. But, behind the cheap gags and visually-arresting shots of a Scottish countryside which could only exist in a CGI world, there is something very genuine and really rather touching about Brave.

Recent trends in cinema and in general society have placed the strong, independent woman at the centre of attention. This is the first time that Pixar have elected for a female lead and her character is the epitome of ferocious autonomy: Merida knows how to fire a bow better than any man, is not afraid of speaking her mind and doesn't feel pressured into following the wishes of her mother. This characterisation was refreshing and sat well within the film's plot and overall narrative, which had a nice mix between action, drama and gags. Whilst the film's gags were up to Pixar's usual standards, I did find myself willing there to be more of them and I feel that the script was slightly underdeveloped in this respect. For example, Merida seeks the advice of a witch who, whilst she was on-screen, was spectacularly amusing but her character's appearance was all too short. Flashes of comedic brilliance which would make adults and children laugh at the same joke – but for different reasons – did shine through but (for me at least) there just wasn't enough of it.

The technical animation was executed to a very high standard and managed to retain a realism in the characters' faces which is instantly-recognisable as the work of Pixar. The vocal talent from Macdonald, Thompson, Billy Connolly, Julie Walters and Robbie Coltrane certainly added further life and vivacity to the animated characters and, placed alongside the rich vibrancy of the visuals, the film is a pleasure to watch. In many ways, Brave plays itself straight down the line, evoking little of the early ambition shown by Pixar during its infancy. This doesn't, however, really matter. The film's simplicity is one of its main successes and ensures that the audience can just sit back and enjoy every “aye”, “wee” and “cannae”.

Whilst Brave is nothing startlingly new in the arena of animation and could do with just a few more jokes, its solid plot, convincing morals and superb performances all make for a hugely-entertaining motion picture. Enjoy. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

Ted

I can safely say that my most recent trip to the cinema was one of the most mind-numbing, irritating and, quite frankly, depressing experiences I have had so far this year. Why, I hear you ask? For once it wasn't the annoying 3D; it wasn't my fellow audience members making too much noise as they demolished buckets of over-priced popcorn and waved their mobiles around like they were at a rave in Ibiza; it wasn't even the constant chatter of the two cretins sat in front of me. No, on this occasion, the problem was more fundamental: the film.

Ted is the first feature film from Seth MacFarlane, the creator of the animated TV series Family Guy. It charts the friendship between John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) and his teddy bear who, thanks to a wish John made as a little boy, can talk. As the pair grow up, their relationship begins to be put under strain as John's girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis) becomes unhappy with their situation. And so the stage is set for a 'comedy' about a pot-smoking teddy and a guy who just can't get his life sorted. In many ways, the only thing you need to know about Ted is that it's spectacularly unfunny. Moreover, there are more laughs to be had in an embalming workshop than throughout the entire 106 minutes of Ted.

I really did go into the screening with an open mind and wanting to laugh at the outrageous comedy for which MacFarlane is famous. Instead, I raised a vague smile twice throughout the whole film and didn't laugh a single time. Not once. The jokes in Ted were poorly set-up, lacked any comedic flair and too often relied on crass and offensive material. MacFarlane truly excelled himself by including not one, but two 9/11 jokes which would have needed to have been astronomically good for them to not be hugely offensive. Unfortunately they seemed to have been included to try and get laughs through shock tactics: 'did he really just say that?!'. Such jokes were lazy at best, and criminal at worst.

Wahlberg and Kunis made for a fairly unremarkable couple (although not without merit) and there's no denying that MacFarlane's vocal talents lifted a CGI bear which would have otherwise been annoying. Actually, I take that back: he was as irritating as BBC Olympic commentators who use 'medal' as a verb. The film's narrative stumbles down various avenues which lead to nowhere and I found myself slumping in my seat, willing the torturous meandering from bad joke to no joke to end. This dull carousel of non-existent humour was tempered by the few gags which appeared in the trailer: suffice to say that if you've seen the trailer for Ted, you've seen the best bits.

Ted is supremely unfunny and has the potential to offend pretty much anyone who sets foot in their local multiplex. Fine if this humour has some basis in true wit or satire but the indolent writing and generally misjudged nature of MacFarlane's sense of humour reinforces the fact that Ted is an awful film. If you do have the misfortune to sit through it, I truly pity you. 

Clapperboard Rating: *