Begin Again review

Begin Again (2013)

 104 min  -  Comedy | Drama | Music

REVIEW BY GREG CLARKE@gregglesonfilm

From the director of 'Once', comes a film about a guy and a girl brought together through their mutual love of music. So the comfort zone may not have been broken through, but all the better for us.

The heart and soul, and real love for music are as present as you could wish for, and it's as easy to love the 'not quite anti-hero' (is that a new thing?) in Mark Ruffalos' man - child Dan as it is to be drifted contentedly along by the Once-esque batch of songs Knightley and Co give us. The songs don't quite hold a candle to those in Once- a film it can't escape in terms of comparison- but are good enough that you can invest in the joyous notion of 'music au naturel' this film promotes. Not even the slightly grating often wildly incorrect guitar miming from Knightly (impressive here as Gretta, a songwiter who follows a boyfriend from Blighty to the Big Apple) can put you off leaping head first into the vibe. She is continuing her trend of getting better and better with age, and the indie-feel of movies like this (also see 'Last Night' from a few years ago) seem to where she comes into her own.

As her boyfriend, in his acting debut, is the cleverly cast Adam Levine of Maroon 5 fame, who impresses in a role not immediately capable of more than a couple of dimensions, but is allowed a little more room to shine later on, and really seems comfortable on screen. Potential for a crossover career there..?

More than able is the very impressive supporting cast of James Corden (you sort of wish he had much more screen time) as funny but untalented pal Steve, Hailee Steinfeld (herself an Oscar nominee at just 13 for True Grit)adorable as Dans' daughter and wannabe guitarist Violet, Catherine Keener (underused fairly criminally, but great as usual) as ex-wife Miriam, Mos Def (wonderful, yet reigned in, as Ruffalos' record company partner) and even CeeLo Green as a sort of 'CeeLo Green' type- extremely likeable.

What director Joe Carney seems to do so well is to offer up to kindred spirits the notion that music will enrich your soul, enhance even the daily banalities (try listening to an epic favorite song on your headphones and see what gravity it adds to people passing by, simply living their lives), and even give you a decent starting point for adventures and relationships exciting and new.

Long and short of it is, if you love music, you'll enjoy this film.

GREGGLESONFILM RATING: 4 FASSBENDERS OUT OF 5.

NYMPHOMANIAC REVIEW

NYMPHOMANIAC   Review by T Baynton


“You can’t wank to it.” – Stellan Skarsgaard.

Ever since world cinema’s enfant terrible Lars Von Trier announced that his next film would be “a celebrity porno”, the rumours flew. It was five and a half hours long! (Four, divided into two parts over here). It featured celebrities doing it for real! (Nope, just some clever cutting between cast and porn actors as ‘body doubles’) It was going to be released in some countries on Christmas Day! (actually that one was true...) Strip away the hype and what you have is an undeniably challenging film that’s both not as graphic and much funnier than you would expect.

The film opens with academic Seligman (Stellan Skarsgaard) walking to his home and finding the badly beaten body of a woman (Charlotte Gainsbourg) lying in the alley outside. Taking her into his home, he aids her recovery and in return she tells him her life story, divided into chapters with titles such as “The Complete Angler” and “The Little Organ School.” Warning him that her stories will reveal her to be a ‘bad human being’, he is none the less hooked by her tales of her sexual exploits, revealing a bit more about herself with each one.

The film’s two parts divide neatly. Vol. 1 focuses mainly on Young Joe (a fantastic debut by Stacey Martin) as she discovers her desire and learns how to put it to use, although this is waylaid by her falling for her schoolmate Jerome (Shia LaBoeuf) and her relationship with her father (Christian Slater). Vol. 2 sees Gainsbourg take over and hit low after low following the inevitable disintegration of her one attempt at a normal life with Jerome.

The mood is deliberately unsettling from the get go. The opening sequence has Von Trier regular Stellan Skarsgaard doing his grocery shopping –to a blast of Rammstein’s industrial German metal - and it’s the feeling that things don’t quite match up that dominates the film. There are several scenes where it feels like the film is almost daring you to laugh, presenting serious situations comically. Amongst the most squirm-inducing moments is a blistering scene where the spurned wife of one of Joe’s conquests (Uma Thurman, terrific) shows up at her flat, children in tow, and demands to see “the whoring bed.” Cue nervous laughter. Later on a proposed threesome descends into farce as the two men argue about positions, Von Trier amusingly films them at waist height so all we see are their genitals, literal swinging dicks. In fact the suprising thing about the much talked about sex is how unsexy it is, lots of unflattering close ups of genitalia but very little in the way of actual action.

Late in Volume 1, Seligman compares Joe’s tale of juggling multiple lovers to the structure of Bach’s ‘Chorale Prelude in F Minor’, complete with visual breakdown. His running commentary on Joe’s story (he also compares her sex to angling and maths amongst many others) and the little animations used to describe them will delight and infuriate many in equal measure. It does give the overall feeling that Von Trier is messing with his audience – a bizarre audiovisual reference to Antichrist at one point doesn’t help. There’s a niggling feeling throughout Vol.1 that the director doesn’t want us to take any of this seriously at all.

But then with all the post-Antichrist hoopla it’s easy to forget that Von Trier made his name with films such as Breaking The Waves which weren’t so visually explicit as emotionally wrenching, and it’s when he goes for the heart that Nymphomaniac works best. There’s a scene with Joe’s dad in hospital that will bring a lump to the throat of anyone who’s had to deal with the illness of a loved one, and later her abusive relationship with a professional sadist (Jamie Bell, brilliant) makes you realise that you are emotionally involved. When she throws the condescending mantras of the self-help group she’s forced to attend back in their faces and storms out to a blast of Talking Heads’ Burning Down The House, you want to cheer.
It’s a shame then that the film’s final scene goes for another cheap laugh which deadens the impact of the preceding climax (of story…), another reminder that we shouldn’t be taking it seriously. Also in a film driven by a strong ensemble cast, one below-par performance is always going to stand out, and sadly Shia LaBoeuf, struggling with a terrible Cockney accent, aims at somewhere between charming and sinister and spectacularly misses both. It’s a shame as Joe falling for his character is a crucial arc of the film.
After Vol. 1 I was certain this was heading for a 3/5 as it’s tonally all over the place. But Vol 2 brings the whole thing together strongly. It’s compelling, funny and infuriating all at once, but parts of it have been returning un-bidden to my memory since I saw it and now I’m looking forward to the DVD so I can attempt to see it in one four-hour lump. Not for the easily offended or squeamish, fascinating for the rest.

4/5

UPSTREAM COLOUR- Review

UPSTREAM COLOUR

Ah, science fiction. One of the oldest film genres there is, the very mention of its name conjures up images of aliens, robots and lasers. But director Shane Carruth has very different ideas. His cult hit 2004 debut Primer is a down to earth take on time travel as two ordinary working stiffs discover it by accident, and now nine years later he’s back with another wonderful take on the genre. Upstream Colour takes complex ideas and dresses them up as a modern day romance, albeit one with mind controlling insects and psychic pigs. The phrase “true original” is rarely more apt.

Film begins as office drone Kris (the brilliant Amy Seimetz) is kidnapped by an unnamed man who force-feeds her a parasite which makes her extremely docile and obedient. Whilst in this state he instructs her to give him her life savings and then abruptly leaves. Another man picks her up and surgically removes the grub, transferring it into the body of a pig. Kris wakes up with no memory of what has occurred and is left trying to piece her life back together with the help of Jeff (played by the director), an awkward man who may or may not have been through the same experience. Together they try and make sense of the mystery. Of course such a basic synopsis only scratches the surface of this film, which is brimming with ideas and subplots only hinted at. Be warned – Carruth requires his audience to do a lot of the work. The film is at times baffling but never incomprehensible, and by the climax those paying attention will be justly rewarded.

The heart of the film though comes from the burgeoning romance between Kris and Jeff. Whereas Donnie Darko dressed up its complex sci-fi ideas as an eighties teen movie, Upstream Colour can essentially be read as a romance between two severely damaged people, mercifully free of the forced quirkiness that infected the likes of Silver Linings Playbook. You root for these characters and badly want it to all turn out well at the end, although in this sort of film that is far from a certainty. The theme of connections runs through the film – Kris has a psychic link to the pig which has inherited her parasite, and even the parasite itself has its own journey to go on. To go further into the many themes and ideas would be to become spoiler-happy, although if all this makes the film sound coldly intellectual it really isn’t. There are some surprising flashes of dark humour, a worm crawls under skin in the manner of an eighties body-horror and the relationship between Kris and Jeff is well acted and genuinely touching. I’d be very surprised if Amy Seimetz isn’t a bigger name in a few years.

For all the strengths though of the writing and acting what has lingered for me long after the viewing is the combination of cinematography and sound. It’s no coincidence that a key character is a sound engineer, seen at various points throughout the film experimenting with recordings. The sound is incredible, mixing Carruth’s atmospheric score with crisp natural sound. Rain has never sounded so menacing. The cinematography is great too, the whole film shot in a harsh bleached-out light and making a fantastic use of space. We would probably be talking Oscar nominations if members of the Academy would ever see such an independent film

Undoubtedly a labour of love for Carruth, who not only directs but wrote, acted, produced, did the cinematography, wrote and performed the haunting electronic score, edited, did the production design and the sound design. Phew. He also stuck to his guns, insisting his financial backers not interfere remotely with any aspect of production; a luxury only afforded the likes of Spielberg or Tarantino. No wonder it took him nine years. Let’s hope we don’t have to wait that long for his third.

To sum up – stick with it and it will reward you. In a week where the big cinema releases include the latest Michael Bay explosionfest and a documentary about One Direction this provides something genuinely original, challenging and ultimately moving. Brilliant.

5/5

T. Baynton

Only God Forgives REVIEW

ONLY GOD FORGIVES

First things first - this is not Drive 2. Yes, it comes from the same director and lead actor, boasts an electronic eighties-style electro score from former Red Hot Chili Pepper Cliff Martinez and is set largely at night but there the similarities end. With its long takes, slow pacing and general feeling of dread it more closely resembles Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut with violence instead of sex. Whereas Drive always had an element of hope provided by Carey Mulligan's character, Only God Forgives follows a group of people for whom any hope of redemption evaporated a long time ago.

Film centres around Julian (Ryan Gosling), an American living in Bangkok who runs a kickboxing club and deals drugs on the side with his detestable brother Billy (Tom Burke). When Billy murders a 14 year old prostitute the police turn him over to the girl's father with predictable results. Enter Crystal (Kristin Scott-Thomas), the Mob boss-like mother of the two boys who demands Julian exact revenge. As Julian begins to pursue those responsible for his brother's death he finds his path crossing with the mysterious Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm), a policeman with almost supernatural abilities.

The characters are fascinating. Julian is beset by hallucinations of his arms being cut off and is clearly haunted by a past not fully revealed until the end of the film. Chang on the other hand is a different beast altogether, gliding around the film like a ghost, dispensing his own version of justice and then chilling afterwards in a karaoke bar. There are continual hints that he may have special powers - on more than one occasion he pulls a samurai sword from nowhere and in one scene is actually slightly see-through. He's a brilliant creation and deserves his own film. Both performances and technicality are strong - Gosling adds another near-silent troubled brooder to his repertoire but there are few who do so much with just a look. His scenes with Scott-Thomas are incredibly tense as she alternatively seduces and humiliates him. After decades of playing posh Englishwomen (or Frenchwomen these days) KST relishes doing a Lady Macbeth type figure. I won't spoil it here but her reaction upon finding out why her son was killed is priceless and brought gasps from the audience.

The true revelation though is Pansringarm, who had small parts in The Hangover 2 and, er, The Prince and Me 4 (no idea.). He makes effortless work of Chang's odd mixture of spirituality and brutality, and will undoubtedly skyrocket after this. Director Refn and cinematographer Larry Smith make fantastic use of both space and colour, evoking Kubrick not only in the aforementioned Eyes Wide Shut (which Smith also worked on) but with its bright red corridors, tracking shots and ambient music calls to mind The Shining on more than one occasion. Every shot is fantastically composed - special mention to the karaoke scenes where an impassive Chang sings to his police colleagues - sat bolt upright as if they were at debriefing. Refn never allows his audience to truly settle. It's certainly not for everyone though.

The first screening at Cannes was notoriously divisive - half the audience on their feet applauding, half heading for the exits booing. This kind of slow, serious filmmaking requires total immersion from the audience which can backfire. The serious tone (if anyone cracked a smile in the entire film I missed it), lack of dialogue and multiple shots of Gosling staring occasionally run the risk of having the reverse effect - there were some stifled giggles at times in the screening I attended. Also the much talked about violence which had people heading for the exit at Cannes is pretty brutal, although more infrequent than you may have heard. If you're squeamish, close your eyes when the chopsticks come out. However if you do allow yourself to relax into the films world it's a rewarding experience - a simultaneously beautiful and terrifying neon dream-world about guilt and the notion of justice.

It may be too slow for some and too intense for others but give it some patience and enjoy a true original from one of the most interesting directors working today. One thing's for sure - love it or hate it, you will want to talk about it afterwards.     4/5

T Baynton

MAN OF STEEL Review

MAN OF STEEL

 This should have been so good. The writing team behind the critically acclaimed Dark Knight trilogy and the director who managed to make the "unfilmable" graphic novel Watchmen into a pretty good film team up to reboot the Superman franchise - all but killed off by Bryan Singer's 2006 megaflop Superman Returns. Movie fans everywhere have been salivating since this was announced. Sadly who turned up was the writing team behind Blade: Trinity and the director of Sucker Punch.

 It starts well, pretty much jumping straight in with the death of the planet Krypton and a failed rebellion by General Zod (Michael Shannon) which sees him imprisoned for his inevitable return later, although sadly for fans of the seventies films not in a giant piece of glass. The planet duly collapses and Superbaby is sent to Earth - where we cut straight to him as a young adult drifting around, taking part-time jobs in restaurants and on oil rigs whilst trying to keep his powers under wraps. The childhood years are glimpsed in brief flashbacks - which is a shame as these are some of the best sequences in the film as we see the young Kal-El confused and upset by his emerging superpowers.

Sadly the film - having built this emotional momentum - all but loses it completely from the moment that Zod returns, threatening to destroy the planet unless Kal-El is handed over. This leads to a series of all-Kryptonian punch ups as the superpowered tourists smack each other about for what seems like an eternity. Whilst full credit has to be given to the effects team, for these scenes are technically very impressive, after a while the fights get repetitive. The first time we see Superman throw a punch, smashing his opponent through layers of buildings before they crater on the ground, it's exciting. When it happens for the 100th time in the same fight, it's become a bit dull. When we eventually arrive at the Supes-Zod climax, it's just more of the same and as the buildings collapse to Hans Zimmer's pounding percussion (no John Williams thematic development here) it starts to resemble to soulless destruction of a Transformers sequel.

However the most crippling flaw in Man of Steel is that it lacks a basic second act.
Something is needed to establish exactly why Superman would go to such great lengths to defend a race whose reaction to his appearance is throw him in chains and interrogate him in an army base. A few sub-inspirational flashback moments with Kevin Costner's adoptive dad don't quite do it I missed the scenes of him doing simple rescues/ bank robbery foiling and seeing the look of wonderment on the faces of the ordinary folk. It just feels like the necessary transition between the guy struggling to come to terms with his identity and the guy saving the planet is missing. The lack of humour here is also a major problem. One guesses that the Nolan-Goyer writing team decided that the nerdy japes of Clark Kent wouldn't fit with their darker Batman-esque take on the character. But even the Batman films provided some humour, either from Alfred or Bruce Wayne's obnoxious millionaire playboy routine.

Here Superman has no-one to play off. Lois Lane (Amy Adams) is introduced early as if she could be such a foil but then turns out to be as soul-searchingly serious as the rest of them whilst the script struggles to give her something to do. Ultimately the one attempt at a funny line is given to a minor character near the end and it bombs. It's a shame as there is some good stuff here, namely the aforementioned effects and the key performance is good too. Henry Cavill is a strong Superman - there's a terrific scene where he debates putting the jerk who just threw beer in his face in the hospital - combining the human and alien sides of the character well. Michael Shannon take on Zod as less of an authorative god-figure and more as a soldier doing what's in his nature is intriguing but he's hampered by his dialogue (mostly consisting of variations on "I'm going to destroy Earth/Kal-El/everything). Adams, Costner, Laurence Fishburne etc. are fine in underwritten roles.

 Given that this is the first film in history to turn a profit before it opened (due to product placement and marketing tie-ins) then a sequel is inevitable. Let's hope that they can come up with something on both character and emotional levels to match the special effects. Oh, and some chemistry between Clark and Lois wouldn't go amiss. Well he needs something to stick around for.  2/5

T. Baynton

Gatsby Review

THE GREAT GATSBY

Ah 3D. Geniune cinematic tool or pointless excuse for cinemas and studios to charge extra for tickets and glasses-hire? The debate will go on. But, if like me, you find yourself leaning towards the latter, you opinions may well be changed by the opening shot of Baz Luhrmann's latest. A flat 2D title card suddenly morphs into 3D and gives way to a shot of a green light blinking through mist across a body of water. Sounds simple enough? Words cannot describe how realistic this one shot looks - it feels like you could dive in and swim across. Arguably the opening shot of the year so far.

But then what else would you have expected from Baz Luhrmann? This is the man who had Romeo meet Juliet in an Ecstasy - induced haze and turn-of-the-century Paris bourgeoisie belting out Nirvana. Subtlety was never going to be on the cards. Which makes him at first glance an odd choice to adapt F. Scott Fitzgerald's complex class satire (personally I always thought Woody Allen to be a good choice, Fitzgerald references are rife in his films and he even appears as a character in both Zelig and Midnight in Paris). Or does it? Doomed romance and extravagant parties have been hallmarks of Luhrmann's output to date so it's safe to assume that it was these that appealed to him.

We meet our protagonist, Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) in a sanatorium being treated for alcoholism as Fitzgerald himself was to be, flashing back to the time he met Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) and became involved in his attempts to woo the love of his life (Carey Mulligan) now unhappily married to the rich, racist, affair-having Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). Aside from the flashy visuals (more on them later) the film's main strength is DiCaprio's performance as Gatsby, perfectly nailing a difficult character. You can practically see the flood of emotions continually threatening to tear away the flashy outward façade. The fantastic moment leading up to Gatsby and Daisy's reunion when Gatsby's excitement and nervousness overwhelm him should have landed him some sort of nomination alone.

The rest of the performances are less complex but still good, Mulligan managing to make Daisy sweet and vacuous at the same time, Edgerton a brilliant bastard as Tom and there's a superb cameo from Bollywood legend Amitabh Bachchan as Gatsby's shady associate Meyer Wolfsheim. Only Tobey Maguire's bland Nick doesn't make an impact, but given that he's called upon to do little but look wondrously around him that may not entirely be his fault. However for all the performances the real stars of any Baz Luhrmann film are always going to be the visuals and soundtrack and Gatsby doesn't disappoint. Cinematographer Simon Duggan and production designer Catherine Martin (Baz's wife!) both deserve credit for their outstanding work here. The film simply looks amazing, from the wild party leading up to Gatsby's entrance to the industrial smoketown outside of the city. Also the controversial soundtrack - mixing jazz standards with Jay-Z - does actually work, bringing the film vividly to life. A gorgeous original score from Luhrmann regular Craig Armstrong is worth a mention too, really lending the romantic scenes impact.

Put simply, if you're a Baz fan you'll probably love it. If however you're a Fitzgerald fan you may be left wanting. The film adapts the most basic version of the story, relegating most subplots to a passing mention or dropping them altogether. I particularly missed the scene from the end of the book where Nick meets Gatsby's father. Also some key characters (Wolfsheim, Jordan Baker and Gatsby's butler) are more or less completely sidelined. Whilst some sacrifice was necessary to get the film down to a manageable running time, when the central plot does emerge from under the fireworks and dancing it does seem a little thin on the ground. And yet for all this I still consider the film a success. It's an adaptation that Gatsby himself would have approved of. It's loud, flashy, romantic and emotional, pure cinema as spectacle. And all the better for it. Old sport.   4/5

Review by T. Baynton.

Les Miserables- REVIEW

Les Misérables (2012)

 157 min      Director- Tom Hooper

If you are even a smidgen theatrically bent(oo-er), it is hard not to have at least a basic knowledge of Les Miserables. 

RSC musical...yeah yeah yeah....critically mauled when it opened...yada yada yada...gone on to be the most successful musical in history etc etc etc... 

I had heard extremely mixed opinions on Les Miz, THE MOVIE-CAL(I'm copyrighting that), ranging from the 'life-changing' to the 'woeful misjudgement'. I was nervous before it started, as I out and out admit it- I LOVE Les Miserables the stage musical. I am a fan. I know every word of it. It is almost perfect. Seriously, almost PERFECT. It stirs up the kind of irrational, overwhelming emotions in me like few other stage productions have managed to do.

'Look down, look down, don't look 'em in the eye...', sings Hugh Jackmans' Jean Valjean at the top of the movie. 

Would these be the very words going through my head when I bumped into friends of mine who'd appeared in the film? 

I hoped not...

From the moment the film started, with a fantastically impressive CG assisted sweeping opening shot taking us into a living hell of a prison work camp in torrential rain, set to the (still thrilling after 27 years) opening bars of the 'prologue', my hopes were high. Jackman is reassuringly rough and ready, a man beaten down by his 19 years hard labour for the tragi-comically sentenced crime of stealing a loaf of bread. Right off the bat the relationship between Valjean and Javert (Russel Crowe) is clearly established, and, importantly, is strongly maintained throughout.

A trained singer and seasoned musical theatre star, Jackman excels in the part. This won't be the role that defines his career- a certain metal clawed mutant has claimed that accolade- but it is his best screen performance yet. Expect awards season to be a 2 horse race between him and Daniel Day-Lewis. His 'Soliloquay', a mere 10 minutes in, is a highlight, devastatingly acted, at times it is to hell with singing, and quite rightly, that's not what it's all about, it is pure emotion. A cathartic release, ending with another truly epic shot sweeping us off a cliff, across the ocean, and forward in time to a grimy street full of desperate, dirty unfortunates. 

Anne Hathaway as Fantine

It is here we meet Fantine, played by Anne Hathaway, giving the film its standout performance. Forced into a life on the streets, having sold her hair, her teeth, and her body, she is a broken woman as she all but whispers the words 'I dreamed a dream in time gone by...'. What follows these words is overwhelming. A virtuosic piece of acting through song, elevating the potential of the movie musical to heights it has seldom achieved in many many a year. Director Tom Hooper knows how to capture a good thing too. He doesn't cut away even once, even- bravely- sticking on Hathaway in brutal close-up for the whole song. A young woman, head shaven, screaming her woes through tears in extreme close-up, it was hard not to see the comparison with Renee Jeanne Falconetti in the 1927 film 'The Passion of Joan of Ark', and I wonder very much whether this was the directors' inspiration for the handling of this key scene. Sob inducing stuff. 

Renée Jeanne Falconetti in The Passion Of Joan Of Ark

So good is Hathaway that her brief screen time is enough to leave its mark for the rest of the film, and as the story moves on, we see her daughter rescued from the hands of the vile Thenardiers, played almost entirely for laughs, (but maybe a tad safe?) by triple barrelled duo Sasha Baron-Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. 'Master of the House' is a joy, and pleasingly for fans of the show, the raucous, heightened theatricality is maintained from stage to the big screen, and it really works. Tick. 

At this point the new song 'Suddenly' arrives. It is decent, and I can see its benefits-not least making the writers eligible for a 'Best original song' Oscar- it does strengthen the 'adoptive Father-Daughter' relationship nicely, but it does feel shoehorned slightly. The daughter of which I speak is Amanda Seyfrieds' Cosette. If this were not a musical, you'd have to say that she was the perfect choice for the role. But it is, and therefore, casting someone with a voice that sounds like Alvin and the Chipmunks' dog whistle is not the best idea. I know it is harsh, but this was one of the only things that actually grated on me, so whilst her performance was great, sadly her voice was, for me, jarring.

Her love interest is played with shaky-headed-when-he-sings earnestness by Eddie Redmayne. And he is a fine choice for the role. A grown up, but not quite a man, his Marius is a vulnerable, passionate ball of emotion, and whether it is wooing Cosette through the garden gates or torch song-ing it up with audition pianists favourite 'Empty Chairs At Empty Tables', he hits all the right notes vocally and tonally, and we really care about his journey, which can't always be said in relation to the character in the stage show.

Gazing longingly at him is Eponine. Samantha Barks is well versed by now in the role of cute girl in beret, but the big screen is a whole different ball game. In another single shot, 'no cutaway' number, the camera leads her through the rain drenched streets of Paris as the agony of unrequited love seeps, then positively bursts out of her, as she delivers another standout moment full of beautiful heartache, gut-wrenching honesty, and kick-ass vocals. Indeed, her final screen moment, the duet, 'A Little Fall of Rain', brought a tear to my eye. A star is born.

There is fine support from the rest of the revolting french students (no offence), with Aaron Tveit as Enjolras, and Daniel Huttlestone as Gavroche turning in particularly strong efforts. The latter in particular, proving just what 'Little People' can do, especially when putting a certain Inspector Javert in his place. Ah yes, Russell Crowe....

Whilst Crowe seems to be perfect for the role, with a rare physical power and intimidating intensity befitting the to the letter of the law Inspector, and has even had some musical theatre experience in his younger years, you can't escape the fact that he, on many occasions, looks uncomfortable whilst singing. No doubting he is good here at times-and while not the best singer, he could be worse- he is without question miscast. Missed opportunities are rife, and key moments such as the beautifully constructed 'Stars', played out on a moonlit rooftop somehow fail to come alive. Clearly not through any compositional fault; the direction, shot selection, lighting, design, cinematography are all beautiful. It is the performance which falls flat, and given what the number clearly could have been with a different actor, you'd have to think that someone better suited to the full demands of the role could have- and should have- been found.

The film, like the stage show, does suffer a little from final act drag. From Javert ending up in the water, through to the final moments of Valjeans life, there is not a great deal of plot, but still a fair bit tying up to do, it all feels a bit sullen, so it is a shame the Thenardiers' final moments are edited a touch heavily, as they have a brilliant knack on stage of appearing at just the right time when a big laugh is needed, and are robbed of the chance to fully entertain here. Such sacrifices I'm sure had to be made purely for running time sake if nothing else, with the final cut clocking in at a whopping 157 minutes.

ALMOST perfect, as I said.

Minor grumbles though, and I personally approve of the running time. You couldn't cut down this story much more without losing something essential. What makes Les Miserables great are the many stories which make up the eventual sum of its parts. Good on them for not bowing down to potential studio snippings. 

I must round off this review by giving credit to the stars of the show. The music, lyrics, and orchestrations. It is the combination of these 3 elements which produce in me the most irrational, overwhelming emotions and feelings of awe. To me, they are one of the finest examples in history of how it is done. No matter how many times I hear this score, I still seem to be moved by it. And not just the sections which are intentionally emotive. To me, it is the quality of the work that grabs me so hard. Add to that the characters, the story, the performances and direction, and you have something very special.

The leap from stage to screen is often difficult to get right, but this is an example of how it can work beautifully. With the raw edge achieved by the cast singing live on set, this avoids the polished, safe feel of the film it could have easily been. The rousing final chorus of 'Do You Hear The People Sing' will ensure there's not a dry eye in the house.

It isn't perfect, but it very nearly is.

RATING:

4 FASSBENDERS (OUT OF 5)

NEW REVIEW- THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)

Director: Stephen Chbosky

Ah, the 'Teen high school drama-comedy coming of age issues' type movie. Yes, I know. Not normally a genre known for its classics. Or is it? 

In the golden eras of such films (the 50's, then the 80's), you could expect new and exciting things from your angst-ridden 'yoovs' movies, whether it was James Dean being angry and rebellious, a film-acting-game-changing Marlon Brando squinting and mumbling at the lens in a leather jacket, or the brat pack striking poses, slumping back and taking everything way too seriously, there was much to enjoy where 'teen' flicks were concerned. There have been some wonderful offerings over the years, the best of the more recent examples being Almost Famous, released 12 years ago. But none have I enjoyed more-since these 'golden era' examples-than The Perks Of Being A Wallflower. 

Helped massively by being a completely single artistic vision, (how many page-to-screen examples can you think of where the author of the novel is also the screenwriter AND director of the film) this is an uncompromising adaptation from Stephen Chbosky from his novel of the same name.

The story focusses on Charlie (Logan Lerman), a quiet, intelligent boy who begins the film about to start his first day at high school, and whose already troubled past is hinted at from the outset, mostly via his own voiceover, in which he is writing letters to an unknown acquaintance(essentially, us, the audience). When his fears of 5 more years of not fitting in seem to be coming true, Charlie suddenly finds hope in the form of two new friends, class clown Patrick (Ezra Miller) and his 'sort of' sister, Sam (Emma Watson). What follows is a delicate exploration of how fragile, adaptive, susceptible, single-minded, irrational and often in need of the right support and guidance we are as teenagers. In terms of character arcs, Charlie is one which sort of goes full circle, revealing all the expected frailties and discovering brand new emotions, but with some unexpected revelations along the way.

In the role, Logan Lerman pulls off something a bit special. To play a shy, introverted, mono-syllabic character for much of the film, yet still carry the film on his leading man back and keep us thoroughly engrossed, wanting to follow him all the way is no mean feat, for sure. We delight when he does, we find hope, and re-live familiar awkward, embarrassing moments through him, and remember our first kiss and the pains of being in love for the first time. 

Equally impressive is Ezra Miller. A true rising star, with a sprinkling of lesser known films to his name, he was simply stunning as the title role in last years fantastic 'We Need To Talk About Kevin,' his every glare and flicker of the eye every bit as disturbing as his evil smirk and terrifying stillness. Patrick is a far nicer character, a quick witted, genuine, thoughtful guy with a passion for Rocky Horror and mischief. A much easier ride than 'Kevin' perhaps? Well, maybe not. Certainly not reaching anything like such darkened depths as serial murder, Patrick is also not without his own complexities. The only openly gay kid at high school undoubtedly brings with itself a need for a thick skin and uncompromising self-belief( which Miller expresses perfectly) yet here we are again with the 'teenage emotions are fragile' chant, and at one stage in the film his outgoing sense of humour and huge amount of 'wise beyond his years' charm and control are quickly and ruthlessly undone, in a matter of hours, and the ensuing scenes showcase-just as much as the flashier stuff-what Miller is capable of.

Much has been made of Emma Watsons first proper grown-up post-Potter leading role. Keen to see if she had anything more to offer, it is her performance in this film which has been scrutinized closest. I'm happy to report she has chops. As Sam, the free spirited, independent one with an eye on good grades and a more mature taste in music (count how many times Morrissey appears in this film in one way or another) Watson is superb, proving she should be able-given the right roles-to shake off Hermione Granger without too much hassle. She is given the best 'trailer' shots too, to further assist in this, be it shaking herself about at a high school dance, or with arms outstretched, standing tall through the roof of a speeding car, wind rushing trough her hair to the sound of David Bowie at full blast. It's pretty cool. While some may take a short amount of time to adjust to hearing that familiar voice speaking with an American accent, most will surely just delight in a great performance, never hammed up even when the more serious scenes come along.

It is in the mixture of scenes-the funny and quirky with the weighty and heartbreaking-that we see 'Perks' truly triumph as more than the usual independent teen fare. The sucker punches to the emotional gut come thicker and faster as revelations start to unfold as the story progresses. Satisfyingly, it doesn't flinch from its dedication to exploring the darkest elements each character has to live with, even though it may whizz past some at too fast a pace to really explore. What we find so endearing about these characters is that we are all at that age kindred spirits, making life up as it goes along, on the 'island of misfit toys' says Sam. Who can't relate to feeling that way from time to time?

For a quirky 'teen high school drama-comedy coming of age issues' type movie' is this a film that takes itself too seriously? I think BECAUSE it really dares to bare, in terms of its darkest elements, and still manages to remain funny, classy and very cool, it elevates itself above the crowd, onto the shoulders of brilliance. SEE IT.

Rating:   

    5 Fassbenders out of 5

Searching for Sugar Man (2012)

 86 min  -  Documentary - Dir Malik Bendjelloul

Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Donovan, Sixto Rodriguez, Simon and Garfunkel.

One of these peeps is doing their own thing, one of these acts is not quite the same.

Of these 60's/70's folk singers with a 'message', one stands out.

Yes, I know Baez is the only woman, but no, closet sexists among us.

Step forward Sixto Rodriguez, forgotten star of the folk legends hall of fame.

Forgotten may even be too kind a word. Unknown is closer to the truth.

Except in South Africa, that is...

In late 60's Detroit, Rodriguez was spotted playing and singing in a bar, with his back to the audience.

This documentary sets out to discover the truth about what really happened to Rodriguez. Most people knew one thing-that he killed himself onstage. Doused himself in petrol and lit himself up. No. Finished his set, pulled out a gun and blew his brains out. No? There is quite some mystery surrounding the exact circumstances of his death, so much so, that you couldn't find a single witness who actually saw it happen. 

This is a twisty-turny affair, and one of those jaw-dropping documentaries that will serve to inform and surprise in equal measure. 

Of upmost importance of course is the music. And Rodriguez was bloody good. A large selection of his 2 and a bit albums is represented here, and every track is eminently hummable at the very least. Some you might say are on a par with the contemporaries listed at the top. 

As well as good tunes and a cracking TRUE story, there is some wonderful footage of the man himself to enjoy, giving a flavour of the natural 'real deal' talent of Rodriguez. 

Do yourself a favour, watch this film with absolutely as little info on its subject as possible, as I did. You will be rewarded tenfold in terms of mouth gapery twists and 'telling' tales.

Rating:

 4 Fassbenders out of 5

The Tree of Life Review

The Tree of Life (2011)
 139 min  ~  Dir. - Terrence Malick

Someone get me a wet wipe, Terrence Malick has just jizzed all over my face.

This was how I felt then-back in July 2011.

 'As I left the cinema feeling like I'd just been brain raped,  I was in awe of three people. The two people who left during the film because they are far smarter than me, and my friend Tom, who managed to find a good film in amongst this sodden, cummy tissue of a movie...'

I've been encouraged to write my review of this film for a while. Ever the endorser of fairness, I have decided to re-watch it some 10 months later in order to give it a fresh crack of the whip. So, do I feel different about it this time around?

Critics have described TTOL as 'experimental' and 'poetic.' I agree. There are few films that look as lovely as this one does. It is part poetry, part experiment, essentially, 'art.'

With that in mind, I wouldn't have had a problem with the director placing this work in some sort of exhibition, at a gallery. Some place where such pretension is celebrated, nay encouraged. I may even have gone to view it, and possibly enjoyed some of the undeniably beautiful visuals contained within. But he has placed his largely tiresome drivel in cinemas. And for that reason he is guilty of-at the very least-wasting my time.

What you get with TTOL in a nutshell is endless datedly cheesy voice snippets which surely have been lifted from some pretentious 90's perfume commercial, sporadically placed over some mostly nice images pertaining to life, growth, creation , etc. So you get that, and you also get Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain and their on screen kids growing up in montages set to classical music. In addition you get Sean Penn (as the grown up version of one of the children) doing serious acting but clearly with no clue why. But what makes it genius, obviously, is the fact that the Director has taken all these elements, thrown them in the air and let them land wherever the wind takes them. Non linear to the point of 'I have stopped caring the fourth time you showed a random shimmering light in the middle of something that could've been watchable' No, critics, this isn't new, and it probably isn't a work of genius. 

I take this film as an insult. That Terrence Malick made this horrible self-indulgent mess, put it out there and expected to get away with it is personally offensive to me, and I'm sure lots of other discerning, ticket paying, knowledgeable filmgoers. What's even worse is that he has. More than just got away with it, his film is SO bad, it has numerous respected, veteran critics insisting it must be a masterpiece. A quick look at the films' critical reception will show you that 15 top critics placed TTOL as their Number 1 top movie of the year, with a total of 70 publishing it somewhere in their Top 10. It's as though not one of them had the guts to stand up and say, 'Now, look here, is it not a bit...shit?' 

It is a bit shit, yes, brave nonexistent critic.

I am judging it as a film, which is how it is presented. As a film, it is terrible. I would rate it higher than Michael Bays' 'Transformers 2' purely for how beautiful it looks much of the time, but below, say, something starring Hugh Grant and Sandra Bullock. Those films may well be pig-swill, but they are honest pig-swill. They waste my time on a far more palatable level because they don't pretend to be anything other than they are. If TTOL had shown itself in its truest form-much like the great and powerful oz, simply a man cowering behind a curtain, reliant on smoke and mirrors-it would doubtless have simply shown the director dropping his pants and masturbating for 139 minutes. Self indulgence.

The sad thing is, I think there was the chance of a really good film in there somewhere. Scenes of Brad Pitts' determined, stubborn father teaching his sons his own skewered, world embittered version of how to be men are beautifully played by all concerned. There are some great moments showing the boys at different stages of growing up; playing, fighting, learning, experiencing; all of which feel very close to home to anyone who has grown up with siblings of a similar age. The complex relationship and ensuing distance between the parents is also clear and acutely handled.

Ending with these positive points is probably for the best. My rating for this film is only as high as it is because of its beauty, and the sections described above. It is as low as it is due to...everything else.

Rating:

1 Fassbender out of 5 

CLARKE CONCLUSION

It's mostly crap. Watch it if you are just wanting something generally pleasant to look at for a while. Any lovers of the type of art where rich people stand around discussing the meaning of a mauve spatula will love it.