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: * 

The Dark Knight Rises

A little over seven months ago, I sat in a packed BFI IMAX screen, surrounded by people who would have sooner disembowelled you with an ice cream scoop than if you'd said anything negative about the preview footage which was about to be screened. That footage was the first six minutes of The Dark Knight Rises and the excited anticipation in the cinema was palpable. Personally, I was certainly impressed by the opening sequence's visuals and its introduction of Batman's new nemesis, Bane: an altogether more serious vision of Gotham's reckoning than the Joker. But as I walked out of that preview and reclaimed my phone from the scary security guard, I couldn't help wondering whether the excitement and the film's hype (which had just been stepped up by releasing those first six minutes) was going to lead to a rather disappointing destination. I'm glad to say that – if anything – the full film was even better.

I'm acutely-aware that in writing this review, I must steer clear of anything that remotely resembles a plot spoiler and I will do my very best not to spoil anyone's experience of what is a tremendously-enjoyable film. Set eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne has hung up his cape after taking the rap for Harvey Dent's death. But as Bane, a new terrorist leader, surfaces and begins to threaten the city of Gotham, Batman must wrestle with his personal conflicts in an effort to save the city that made him an outcast.

I'll begin by saying that everything in this film is big – biblical, in fact. I reckon it's the loudest film I've ever watched and every bang, crash and note from Hans Zimmer's epic score shook my seat – and myself – to the core. Such an overwhelming assault on my ears brought out the imagery on-screen even more: the aerial shots of Gotham and the screeching of high-speed chase sequences left me awe-struck. The film's director of photography, Wally Pfister, has done a superb job on the cinematography, which was almost a character in itself. The composition of each shot was comparable to any work of art hanging in the Louvre and really helped to set the dark, brooding and exhilarating tone of the film.

Christian Bale is, once again, on fine form as Batman and Tom Hardy's Bane was rather menacing. Much has been made of his unusual voice (speaking, as his character does, through a mask) and all I have to add to the subject is that I've heard many a call-centre operative who has been more difficult to understand. Anne Hathaway's Catwoman was a nice injection of the feminine into a world which has, up-to-now, been male-dominated. Creating many laughs and commanding the screen in a way only she could, Hathaway's performance was energetic and focused. With quite a few Inception alumni in the cast, Nolan's direction has drawn fantastic performances.

At 164 minutes, The Dark Knight Rises is Nolan's longest film and as it progressed, the tension seemed to ratchet up a notch every time Bane appeared on-screen. Whilst I did feel that the narrative slipped slightly during the middle section, the fantastic beginning and end sections acted as strong bookends and held the whole film together. Most importantly, the film never felt as though it was dragging, although it wouldn't have suffered by losing fifteen minutes or so. In terms of the plot (and again, no spoilers), the screenplay concentrated enough on the emotional dimensions of the characters to make the action sequences and their outcome more exhilarating and, crucially, matter to the audience. I'm not going to go into the politics of the film because, quite frankly, more articulate and intelligent articles exist online about the subject and are much better than anything I could write.

I did, however, have some reservations. The film did, in places, feel as though it had grasped too many ambitious ideas and had let several slip through its fingers, without ever fully dealing with them. Certain issues were never completely engaged with and appeared sidelined in favour of another punch up that had little relevance to their resolution. On another (and perhaps more critical) level, I felt there just wasn't enough of Batman himself. Sure, his name isn't in the title and yes, Nolan's trilogy was always about more than just a man wearing a bat suit, but at the end of it all, that's what the main attraction is: a millionaire fighting bad guys with all his cool bat weapons.

Nolan has clearly triumphed with the last film in his Batman trilogy. Jaw-droppingly spectacular, intelligent and incredibly loud, The Dark Knight Rises deserves every praise and is definitely a superhero film for adults. Dark, beautiful and enthralling in equal measure, things would have been just a little bit better had the Batman made more of an appearance in his suit. Nevertheless, those six minutes last December promised much and Nolan and his team have definitely delivered. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *  (I've just spent twenty minutes deciding on this star rating. Would love to give it another half-a-star...) 

Magic Mike

I'm sure that I'm not alone in thinking that the British public have a tendency to get overexcited about things. The Olympic Torch relay, for example, seems to have whipped thousands of people into a state of excitement which is totally disproportionate to the event itself. Watching a total stranger, flanked by grumpy officials, run with a bit of gold metal that they're going to flog on eBay as soon as they get home is not my idea of something to get excited about. But then again, what do I know? This deranged state of excitement seemed to have wormed its way in to a screening of Magic Mike, a film about male stripping. My fellow audiences members (mostly women, I have to say) were literally shouting and whooping at the screen in a manner which would have been more suitable at a Take That concert. They were, in short, an over-excitable bunch. I, on the other hand, was rather dreading the whole thing.

Let me begin by saying that my decision to see Magic Mike was rather forced. It was the only film showing at my local cinema that I had not seen and, knowing that you, my loyal readers, would be up in arms (or hugely thankful) if I didn't do a review this week, I thought I'd have to go along on my own and embarrass myself by watching a film about guys taking their clothes off. Magic Mike stars Channing Tatum as Mike, a stripper at the Xquisite club which is run by Dallas (Matthew McConaughey). Mike is trying to save enough money to get his handmade furniture business off the ground and befriends nineteen-year-old Adam (played by Alex Pettyfer) who, down on his luck and generally not going anywhere in life, sees stripping as an exciting way to get women, status and cash. But, as with all exploitation films of this type, things aren't as glamorous as they first seem.

This plot is as well-worn as they get and you've definitely seen it all before. The love interest between Mike and Adam's sister, Brooke (Cody Horn) is predictable and safe and certainly doesn't shock in any way. This is, however, no bad thing. A screenplay by Reid Carolin creates characters that are deep, meaningful and multi-faceted. The audience care about their predicaments and their back-story and the film's director, Steven Soderbergh, has done a great job of drawing fantastic performances from Tatum in particular. I was originally unconvinced by Tatum in the early stages of his career and felt that his on-screen presence amounted to little more than eye-candy. Magic Mike, however, has changed my mind and demonstrates the huge emotional range that Tatum is capable of. Soderbergh's lingering close-ups on Mike as he ponders his future backstage at the club really helped the audience to engage and care about his character. McConaughey put in a great and funny performance as the club's owner and Pettyfer was perfectly credible as the uninitiated youngster. Only Cody Horn left me feeling slightly unconvinced but on the whole, her portrayal of concerned sister was fine.

If you're a guy and you see this film, I guarantee you will leave the cinema feeling rather inadequate. The stripping scenes were...erm...nicely done and there was certainly no shortage of rippling male torsos. I shudder to think about the number of gym hours that had to be put in by the cast. The cinematography was effective and distinctive and helped create a world which was attractive on the surface but which had a sinister undercurrent. Had the film been solely stripping sequences with a flimsy surrounding narrative, its female target audience would have been the only people singing its praises. But Magic Mike works because it had substance behind the innumerable of shots of male buttocks. The lives of the strippers off-stage was the film's main focus and, as such, there was something for the guys in the audience as well as the girls. I did feel that the film's darker issues were a little under-developed but they were, nevertheless, still engaging.

As a portrayal of masculinity (or, at least, one facet of it), Magic Mike is an enjoyable escapade and I was, on the whole, pleasantly surprised. The film succeeds because of its engagement with darker issues and focus on the characters themselves, rather than simply being a chick-flick about good looking guys taking their clothes off in all manner of ways. Sure, some people will go and see this film simply to see a naked Channing Tatum. But for guys, there's definitely something more to take away from this film than simply a feeling of physical deficiency. Take my advice, though. See it with someone else, otherwise you will look like a total weirdo like I did. The things I do for this blog...

Clapperboard Rating: * * *