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: *