Change Your Image
imdb-783-507847
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
La vie d'Adèle (2013)
Is it special? Only for the commitment of the two leads to two wonderful performances
For anyone with any tolerance for very typical French cinema, BITWC starts out well. As well as the immediate presence in every frame of something blue (more on that later!), there's some foreshadowing of events to come in the subtext of a long opening scene as students read passages on 'being a woman' and 'love at first sight' etc in a literature class.
This is where we first meet our heroine, Adele. Now, this is not a rom-com (by any stretch of the imagination) so if you need to 'like' your protagonist, this may be a tough watch. Adele is not the most endearing of leading ladies. She's in turns reticent and chatty, though has an annoying habit of eating with her mouth open and talking with her mouth full. Pedantic? It's far from aesthetic, let me tell you! Furthermore, for all the fuss about the sex and nudity in this film (more on that later too!), there's far more time (and that's a lot!) spent watching people eating (mostly spaghetti - is there a visual euphemism there?). Eating and dancing. There's a lot of that in here. OK, the food thing is a conceit - there's a heavy handed metaphor equating eating with sex/love, appetites and tastes etc, even to the extent of eating oysters being compared to eating 'you know what' - which they then do. So the pouting adolescent girl that doesn't like oysters meets the annoying self righteous blue haired lesbian artist (who loves oysters), and before long Adele gets to eat some of those metaphorical shellfish in a seriously long grunt and arse slapping filled sex scene that really could have been half the length, if not less.
That said, after all the fuss about the long intimate scenes in the film, this was the only one that felt too long in the context of the piece. I say in the context of the piece, which bear in mind is three hours long, and DOES NOT NEED TO BE! Everything in this film is drawn out beyond reason. Overlong scenes of people dancing. Long shots of Adele sleeping or smoking or eating. Always eating, but then she does admit to her love of eating.
I tell you what, thank goodness for subtitles - saves trying to understand what people are saying when they're too busy stuffing their gobs to say their lines cleanly! Of course, the relationship inevitably goes pear shaped (since oranges are not the only fruit) and in some ways that's when the real drama begins. Both leads nailed the neuroses of young love turned rotten, and I would have rather seen more of this and less of the explicit sex, which can only serve so much narrative purpose before it becomes stagnant and something teenage boys will put on in isolation. OK, don't get me wrong. BITWC is wonderfully performed. The two leads deserve the praise heaped upon them. The film is well shot and very watchable. It is typically French in a lot of ways, which I love as well as find frustrating.
It would be easy to say that it should be an hour or more shorter, and that the editing is sloppy and undisciplined, but no - that's the film the filmmaker wanted to make. That aside, it's actually far more televisual than cinematic. It's almost exclusively told in medium close-ups of people, with wide shots few and far between, which makes it feel intimate and tells you it's about 'people'. That's great, and it does indeed draw you in so that you feel 'inside' this sometimes clandestine relationship, but is it great cinema? I was yearning for some wider shots and something more visually evocative, some respite from the characters even. There is something 'blue' in almost every frame of the film, be it a blurry poster in the background, a front door, or a bus station - this began to seriously irritate me after about the first half hour, as it became apparent it was either just unimaginative production design or the title of the film is wrong.
It sounds like a damning condemnation, but if this was a three part TV drama, it would have been perfect. As a single helping, three hour opus about something as familiar and straightforward as someone coming of age, it's just too long, too ponderous, and too everyday. And hey, I love Betty Blue! For all that, the performances alone are more than enough to keep you in the story, and I'd personally far rather watch three hours of this than nearly the same of some convoluted, badly plotted and full of inane action like The Dark Knight Rises.
That's hardly high praise, I know! In all, when a film picks up plaudits as this one has, it's hard not to go in with high expectations and ultimately be disappointed. Is it a good film? Yes, of course it is. Is it special? Only for the commitment of the two leads to two wonderful performances. Is it a 'great' film? No, not in the slightest. Still better than most
How to Survive a Plague (2012)
Staggering
David France's documentary following a small group of gay activists relies heavily on archived videography to capture the essence of what we know today to be the most efficient drugs in the halting of the HIV virus.
Starting in 1986, a group of homosexual men (including Peter Staley and Mark Harrington) are recently diagnosed with the HIV virus, along with many of their peers, and actively protest the government – and specifically the FDA – to come up with a drug. Or better still, a cure. The group becomes known as "Act Up!" and quickly – some may say even like a virus – spawns a lot of active participants as they lose their jobs (health insurance), mortgages (ironic, considering the first four letters of that word) and future (i.e. none), rustle up enough cash and embark on the biggest battle against the oncoming zombie-like apocalypse.
This plays like a movie, with its requisite three acts. The final plot point is staggering – and too late for many of our journeymen who die along the way. The mostly historical footage comprises to make this seem as if we're in a time machine; digging out old VHS tapes and revisiting the past. We suspect many of these youngsters won't make it, but will go down with a fight. George Bush Snr, Jessie Helms, all try their best to don the antagonist's shoes. It's like a Michael Moore propaganda piece, but this time, Mr. Moore's affected. And not central stage.
That final twist (occurring as it does around 1995) is gobsmacking, but exemplified into the curiously hitherto-unseen narrators of the movie. After absorbing death, illness, frailty – a future promised to our visual on screen protagonists – France wisely saves his best trick for the last twelve minutes. It's a triumph of storytelling through the documentary medium.
The postscript here is bittersweet. Once you've won the fight, and fought for your future – where do you stand, now? And yes, there's the old "but the Catholics don't advocate contraception" but wisely this is kept to a minimum. How to Survive a Plague wisely circumvents the religious debate – a tactic employed by Act Up, and then by its sister offset TAG, and actually garnered results for many. But for some, not soon enough.
Doctor Who: The Day of the Doctor (2013)
Finally Doctor Who gets back on Track...
The Review: It's fair to say that I haven't been the greatest fan of modern Doctor Who. From a confidant start under the stewardship of Russell Davis and Christopher Eccleston, the show slowly fell under an odd spell of inconsistency, slipping from genius (Blink) to terrible ( River song). In fact I've given up on the show twice, only to be tempted back by the promise of greatest. But after the second half of season 7 I'd officially given up.
Then along came the trailer for 50th anniversary episode The Day Of The Doctor. It looked epic. It looked clever. It looked like the Doctor Who I enjoyed all those years ago. Then came short film The Night Of The Doctor
. retuning Paul McGann to the Tardis, adding that missing link between old and new Who and sending expectations through the roof. Surely The Day Of The Doctor couldn't deliver
We'll actually yes. In spades.
It stated shaky. A stupid stunt hanging Smith from the Tardis over Trafalgar Square had me reaching for the remote, as thoughts from all the worst bits of the Moffat era came flooding back but remembering all Dalek action in the trailer I stuck with it. Glad I did.
The story involves a mystery at London's National Gallery in the present day, as well as "a murderous plot" in Elizabethan England in 1562 and a look back at events that shaped the Doctor as we know him today. Written by Executive producer and Head Writer Stephen Moffat, the episode teams up two of the three new Doctors (sorry captain grump Christopher Eccleston is absent)
The Day Of The Doctor is a rollicking good adventure. Not perfect by any measure, but with it's mix of epic adventure and humour that has typified the best episodes of New Who it's certainly up there with some of the best episodes. At the heart of the episode is, of course, said teaming up of said Doctors and, as you would expect, this worked very well. Tennant and Smith sparkle on screen together, their bickering being a highlight of the show. But it's the genius casting of Hurt that makes this episode a winner. Damaged & broken, Hurt brings the expected gravitas but when needed shows he can be just as witty as his younger counterparts.
After years of promise events of the oft mentioned Time War are finally addressed, which means lots of Gallifreyans, lots of Daleks and lots of explosions. Which was rather nice. Alongside the return of the Rubber suited Zygon's, and the need to celebrate a rather key milestone the danger was this episode could have been far too many nods back to the 50 years preceding in lieu of an actual story. Thankfully, Moffat avoids that and throws in a more than a few twists and turns to boot. And just a few nods back to the rich history of the show (not least a cameo from a very familiar face from the past as well as one that come Christmas we'll get to see rather a lot of). Even better we had no Jack Sparrow. No Catherine Tate. And no River Song.
Initial cynicism and low expectations aside, this is truly British pulp at it's best. Entertaining, silly and epic whilst managing to maintain a sense of fun and adventure. For me this is the Best Who episode since Blink, certainly Smiths bets outing in the role, and one that (for now at least) has restored by rather dwindling faith in this classic of British institutions.
Well down Doctor Who. Well done Mr Moffat. Well done BBC. Now. Please. Try not to mess this up
Reviewed By: Phil Hobden
Join the debate on our Facebook Group (www.facebook.com/groups/Filmsploitation) or on our website (www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk)
Gravity (2013)
Technically great but missing something...
The Review: In what seems like a very short space of time, the 3D experience has become a huge part of both the cinema and home viewing experience.
However, very few films have used the technique to its full potential and studios have seen it as merely a cash cow by churning out last minute conversions on films that have left the public jaded and cheated by this lazy attempt to justify a more expensive ticket.
So now we have the latest in 3D wizardry in the shape of Gravity. A much hyped sci-fi tale of stranded astronauts in space.
Alfonso Cuarón directs after a 7 year gap since his masterpiece Children of Men, resulting in a great deal of attention from the industry as to what he would produce next.
The story revolves around two astronauts, Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) who are carrying out routine repairs above the earth's atmosphere.
A freak accident suddenly causes a vast amount of satellite debris to be knocked into their path resulting in Stone being detached from the crew and fighting for her life.
To say any more about the plot would spoil the experience, but what is important is to focus on the breathtaking visuals in the film.
This is a film that is all about the audience experiencing a thrilling 3 dimensional ride.
As soon as the film begins we are presented with a silent beautiful view of earth from above. We then begin to see the shuttle and Clooney drifting into shot where we continue in one take and witness the crew go about their repairs.
The fluid one take shots are outstanding, the camera never staying still and drifting with the crew as they communicate with each other and with NASA. I've no doubt this is as close as you will get to experiencing what these brave individuals go through from the comfort of a chair.
Sound design and score have been carefully crafted with moments of deathly silence only to be jolted from your seat with the booming sound and sights of space debris.
The film does however have some issues with pacing and also character development.
The focus is very much on Sandra Bullocks' character, a novice astronaut with a tragic past. However it is Clooneys' character that needed more development. His wisecracks and charisma work early on in the film but later on when the situation turns even darker, his reaction to the situation simply didn't ring true for me.
The film is saved however by the final act, a truly nerve shredding and emotional finale that sees Bullocks' character fighting for her life.
Visually the film has certainly done something that I have never seen before and to an extent has restored some faith in 3D filmmaking. However, the hype machine is simply not justified and that comes down to the script which needed to go through a few more drafts to develop the characters more.
Alfonso Cuarón is a masterful director no question, but I do hope he doesn't focus too much energy on pushing the technology in his future work and lose the human touch that he has displayed in his previous films.
Reviewed By: Daryn Castle
Join the debate on our Facebook Group (www.facebook.com/groups/Filmsploitation) or on our website (www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk)
McCullin (2012)
Powerful, challenging, Brilliant
The Review: To be honest I have a soft spot for documentaries in general (despite my reputation as a lover a tat & blockbusters). So whilst I'm often impressed, I'm rarely wowed. But with a powerful story and captivating subject matter, Mccullin managed to do just that. And more.
The story: Celebrated photographer Don McCullin worked for The Sunday Times from 1966 to 1983, at a time when the newspaper was widely recognised as being at the cutting edge of international investigative photo-journalism. During that period he covered wars and humanitarian disasters on virtually every continent: from civil war in Cyprus, the war in Vietnam and the man-made famine in Biafra to the plight of the homeless in swinging sixties London.
Simply put McCullin is one of the most interesting films I have seen this year and certainly one of my top 5 favourite documentaries of all time.
Don McCullin is a fascinating subject from the start, open and honest about his time on the front line yet haunted by what he has seen and done (or not), a personal conflict the filmmakers capture perfectly.
McCullin arrives care of the producers of Award winning Senna. Which gives a long way to explaining the style the film takes and the successes it shares. A near perfect mix of archive footage, contemporary interview, and (naturally) his photographic work to tell a story that spans not just decades but some of the bloodiest and most heinous moments of modern history, all captured in their horrific detail by McCullin and in turn the filmmakers. And be warned this film shows some of the most horrific and disturbing of these images, from dying children to the true horrors of conflict, making it at times a very unsettling watch.
A run time that doesn't allow the film to hang around, backed up by some excellent editing make this technically interesting as well but none of this would count for anything (much like Senna before it) without the man at it's core.
So a brilliant, captivating film of a brilliant and captivating man and one of my Top 5 (maybe 3 ) films of 2013 so far.
A must see.
Reviewed By: Phil Hobden
Join the debate on our Facebook Group (www.facebook.com/groups/Filmsploitation) or on our website (www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk)
Thor: The Dark World (2013)
Actually really rather good...
The Review: For me the original Thor film was my second , least favourite Marvel adaptation after Captain America (sorry Capt.). It wasn't bad but it always felt like it was missing something special. Now, two years later and bolstered by an appearance alongside his Avengers buddies, the Blonde, buff god returns in what is a far more well rounded and successful movie.
The Story: Faced with an enemy that even Odin and Asgard cannot withstand, Thor must embark on his most perilous and personal journey yet, one that will reunite him with Jane Foster and force him to sacrifice everything to save us all.
Firstly let's get this out the way. Thor 2 is actually really good. Excellent in fact. Of all the Avengers films, it's probably the most 'together ' . It has a simple story, which moves at pace, with action and drama but keeping it tight enough to come in at under 2 hours. It even manages to get around (at least MOSTLY get around) the standard CGI monster fighting CGI good guy trope that has hobbled the end of every Avengers film since Iron Man.
A large reason why the film works so well is the sublime decision to once again sit an unlikely candidate in the director's chair. Be it Jon Favreau for Iron Man or James Gunn for the upcoming Guardians Of The Galaxy, Marvel have a knack of picking the right man for the job. This time out respected TV and Game Of Thrones director Alan Taylor brings a more even vision to the film, much more suited to the material than Kenneth Branagh, and obviously revels in having a larger that his usual budget to play with. The action is clean and well shot, and best of all you can see every punch, every explosion and every insane flying spaceship moment.
Oh and talking of flying Spaceship moments
director Taylor is obviously a fan of 80's cheese fest Flash Gordon, being that he borrows a considerable part of the films finale for the attack on Asgard. Not that I'm complaining as the mix of sci-fi, Norse legend, super hero and action make for a pleasant change form the usual Earth bound Marvel world.
Hemsworth once again proves he is a man of considerable talent, delivering action alongside comedy and the occasional pathos. Naturally Natalie Portman has little to do (as is the female role generally in a Marvel film) but she remains a welcome addition, as does the returning Idris Elba, Tom Hiddleston (once again a stand out as Loki) and Anthony Hopkins (as his most gravelly). Rene Russo even gets to kick arse, which is nice. As for former Dr Who and professional grump Christopher Eccleston he does good with his limited bad guy role, but in reality with the added make up and FX it could have been anyone as Dark Elf leader Malekif.
In truth the film has little against it, other than maybe an element of familiarity, and ends up being one of the best blockbusters of the year. Maybe not as good overall as Iron Man 3, but certainly more fun. For the most part.
So overall a good script, great characters and some snappy dialogue alongside standout action sequences and a fast pace mean that deservedly Thor The Dark World will be another hit for Marvel. Truly a studio that cant seem to get it wrong.
Reviewed By: Phil Hobden
Join the debate on our Facebook Group (www.facebook.com/groups/Filmsploitation) or on our website (www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk)
Family Weekend (2013)
Give it half an hour, it takes a while to get into.
The Review: Teenage-life is full of highs and lows-especially for females. Girls we have all been there. Persistence of hormonal episodes including; tantrums, selfishness and alterations of personality may put some strain on the family home from time to time. 'Family Weekend' elicits this strain through the character, Emily Smith, role-played perfectly by Olesya Rulin, she is a hugely competitive and strong-minded teenager who speculates her parent's roles and determines to change their parenting style-claiming it is simply not good enough and teaches them a lesson.
'Family Weekend' has a very straight forward plot; Emily Smith, an energetic and dedicated sporting champion, who practices daily, wins the Rope-Jumping Championship. As she is awarded the trophy, she scans the crowd and realises her parents have not attended. She immediately deems the situation to be a result of bad parenting due to them not having believed in her passion for sport. She decides to confront them about the importance of this achievement in her life.
She begins the confrontation with: "Where were you both at 3.30 today"? This is just one of the lines where she seems to put her parents into grovelling situations, some where they are detained speechless. Her parent's react rather relaxed and hope to shake the discerning situation affecting their parenting off by simply claiming they had 'work commitments'.
At this point, Emily bribes her younger siblings and her elder brother ,who pretends to be homosexual, into tying the parents up to chairs and holding them hostage to teach them a lesson about parenting. During the 24hour hostage, the mother's boyfriend arrives at the house. A younger sibling lets him in. Emily smacks him over the head with an object near to her and he is knocked out unconscious- this was caught on one of the younger siblings phone-camera and uploaded to Youtube, which seemed funny at the time.
"Emily Darling, I think it's time to loosen the ropes and listen as a family". This line construed several interpretations in my mind. Loosen the rope or loosen the controllability?. Irony springs to mind here.
More about Emily and her frightful attitude is learnt as the film continues which leaves her in a tricky situation at the very end which makes her realise that parents aren't all perfect and the 'knitty gritty' of being in trouble and having to be 'bailed out' , quite literally, peels the wool away from her eyes.
If you enjoy films where the protagonist summons a reality check and ones with 'happy family' endings then this film may be right for you. Though give it half an hour, it takes a while to get into.
Reviewed By: Rachael Gilbert
Join the debate on our Facebook Group (www.facebook.com/groups/Filmsploitation) or on our website (www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk)
This Is the End (2013)
Humane and prophetic-laugh
The Review: As a student , I always tend to have one thing on my mind and that is... if this film does not match the trailer, which persuaded me to come and view this film in first instance, then I have literally thrown my money down the drain and will be most displeased.
Fortunately this was not the case. 'This is the End' was a film which ,until I became fully engaged ,after the first twenty minutes approximately I exceeded past a worst- fear cine-experience.
Many movies evolve around actors who play themselves in comical situations as a new and exciting comedy endorsement against their successes but this is the first one I have seen which places high-profile celebrities in a career-shaking reality. Canadian Actor, Jay Baruchel who appeared in 'Million dollar baby' and 'She's out of my league', American Actor, Craig Robinson who starred in 'Shrek forever after' and 'Hot tub time-machine' and James Franco who featured in 'Rise of the planet of the apes' and 'Oz, the great and powerful' all have comedic roles which fused, in places, high levels of 'cringey' audience laughter.
The plot sees the Director, Seth Rogen and Actor, Jay Baruchel drop in at a house-warming party at James Franco's home. The party starts with many famous guests indulging in extremity where Celebrities 'let their hair down' and continues even when the apocalypse starts outside. This is where the funnier scenes arise.
Blue-light rays onto some characters and their bodies are detracted from earth. Characters are taken to either heaven or hell depending on their life as abiding citizens of God through their life-long good deed and will. Soon there are only a handful of actors left trying to survive. The party dies to a feeling of character indecency and begins an aspiration for them to change their ways.
I would encourage film-fanatics to give this one a go and give it time to pick up to the funnier scenes which really will make you giggle. On the other hand, I would also encourage those sensitive to envisaging sex, drugs and alcohol that this film is just not for you.
The film exerts a compelling plot within the first two-thirds but by the end it seems like the writers began running out of ideas when creating hell on earth.
Some of the jokes I did not understand- to fully understand them you need to have seen the films referenced especially 'Pineapple express'.
However, why not give this film a go and share some humane and prophetic-laughs.
Reviewed By: Rachael Gilbert
Join the debate on our Facebook Group (www.facebook.com/groups/Filmsploitation) or on our website (www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk)
Captain Phillips (2013)
A fine piece of work from Greengrass
The Review: The combination of the words "True story" and the name Tom Hanks will always result in immediate Oscar buzz for a project. But is the hype justified?
Captain Phillips tells the story of the 2009 hijacking of a ship by Somali pirates and the military operation to rescue the crew led by Captain Richard Phillips.
Paul Greengrass (Bourne Supremacy, Bourne Ultimatum, United 93) takes a similar angle as Clint Eastwood did with Letters from Iwo Jima, refusing to paint the villains of the film as merely one dimensional characters with no background.
After introducing Phillips and his wife as they reluctantly part ways when Phillips is called to duty, we are immediately thrown in to the world of the Somali pirates.
Living in squalor, the pirates are ordered by "the elders" to get into their boats and seek out ships to be hijacked. Organised and determined, the pirates waste little time in pinpointing the lone vessel at sea and embark on their mission to approach and takeover.
You can guess from the title that this film is all about the experience of Captain Phillips. The film makes no attempt to get under the skin of his crew, instead focussing on the pressure building on the experienced Captain, desperate to protect both his crew and get home safely to his family.
Like with all of his previous work, Paul Greengrass shoots the hell out of this film with quick fire editing and a pumping score. Some have grown irritated by his shaky camera technique but his style always delivers a sense of urgency in his films, never wasting a single frame and keeping the film ticking at a furious pace.
The hijacking itself is an incredible piece of filmmaking. Armed with merely water hoses and flare guns, we can feel the world crumbling around the crew as the armed pirates eventually board the ship.
However, it is when Captain Phillips is taken hostage in a lifeboat that the film begins to falter.
The breakneck pace set at the start slows down to an exhausting crawl, resorting to longwinded scenes of the hijackers shouting orders at Phillips and threatening to execute him. Now I don't doubt that this happened in real life but the scenes are simply too long for the screen.
With 20 minutes left of the films running time, I started to feel deflated that the film had lost its momentum and simultaneously baffled at the hype surrounding the supposedly Oscar worthy performance of the leading man.
But then something miraculous happens. The film changes gear yet again as the military attempt their rescue which results in one of the most nerve shredding and emotional finales I have seen in some time.
For a mere 5 minutes of screen time, Hanks delivers a performance so raw and full of emotion it left me in tears and completely changing my opinion of the film as a whole.
Let us not forget the performances of the Somali pirates led by untrained actor Barkhad Abdi. Their performances are so flawless and so natural that they deserve equal credit.
Overall, the film is a fine piece of work from Greengrass that attempts to show a human side to the pirates rather than the usual faceless stereotypical villains we have seen in other films.
Reviewed By: Daryn Castle
Join the debate on our Facebook Group (www.facebook.com/groups/Filmsploitation) or on our website (www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk)
Twixt (2011)
No new ground but worth a watch...
The Review: Legendary filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola has delivered some iconic films including the Godfather trilogy, The Outsiders, and Apocalypse Now, but when he decided to step back to start doing independent features again everyone wondered would he be able to keep producing these amazing films. His latest Twixt takes him into the world of horror and bring along Val Kilmer to lead the charge. Dose this strange looking film live up the quality we are used to or could this be the downfall of a once great filmmaker?
Twixt follows a struggling writer who arrives in a small town for a book signing but instead gets caught up in the mystery of a young girl's murder. As he gets deeper in the mystery the help of a mysterious ghost takes him on a journey that leads back to his own past and the truth of the story. This is one of those films that are going to be more of an acquired taste, you either like it or you don't not too much in the middle. The story is actually well crafted with the mystery being laced with the supernatural and never quite letting you know where it's headed until the very end. That doesn't mean it offered all that many twists and turns that you probably won't see coming, but everything works well together.
I think that this movie is for people who appreciate obscurity and uncertainty in films. This film was visually strong and haunting from the start. Val Kilmer plays his role well. He was cocky, depressed, and stressed all in one. The kooky sheriff Bruce Dern was also good. The entire cast performed well.
In the movie Val Kilmer starts to have these dreams, and the sequences are glorious. They are visually attractive, yet spooky. The encounters with people are creepy and quirky. Even the scenes in which he is awake share the same qualities, but there just not as intense. The story felt like homage to Gothic horror films, and there was some vampire content in it. Francis Ford Coppola has been making more personal films, and its noticeable here.
The ending of the film is up to interpretation, but has an old school feel to it that makes for an interesting experience. Is this a great film? No, but it is a brilliant filmmaker taking some chances to do what he wants and he succeeds. Coppola isn't breaking any new ground, and most will look at this film as the end of a much respected career, instead of the personal passion project that it actually is.
Reviewed By: Julian Connelly
Join the debate on our Facebook Group (www.facebook.com/groups/Filmsploitation) or on our website (www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk)
Bad Grandpa (2013)
Head on over to YouTube and save 82 minute
The Review: Wednesday night, 2-for-1, Kevin Bacon adverts, 25 minutes of commercials, lights dim down (small black mark on the centre of the screen which you can choose have distract you, especially if the picture is white) and – boom – Bad Grandpa's first reel rolls and there's an ei9ght year-old kid in a doctor's waiting room telling an unsuspecting, genuine punter, that his mum is a crack whore. The unsuspecting woman shrugs her shoulders and isn't sure how to respond. She's also unaware that she's being filmed.
In fact, everyone who isn't the eight year-old stooge (Jackson Nicoll) and Bad Grandpa himself (Johnny Knoxville) is not in on the game. Did you see Borat? Okay, you get the general idea.
And the general idea – i.e., the interaction between Nicoll and Knoxville – sadly, are the weakest moments in this 85 minute movie. By turns shocking and hilarious, but for long, long stretches merely tedious and long-drawn-out. The 'story' goes that Knoxville needs to transport his eight year-old grandson across country to his deadbeat father, who's only too happy to take him because of the child benefit pay out. They carry Grandpa's wife's carcass in the trunk of the car and hightail it across – wherever. And when the public aren't involved, God damn is this tedious stuff. Why? Because the film's glue – its narrative – is unfunny because both participants are in on the same joke we are.
Funnily enough, this is where the Jackass movies got it right. It had no pretensions that it was anything other than a series of skits. Bad Grandpa (which reunites director Jeff Tremaine, Knoxville and Spike Jonze in their usual roles) hasn't understood why Borat has worked, and made a movie out of the least funny parts of their Jackass movies. If Bad Grandpa was a series of skits without all the faffing around, then it'd have been way funnier. The central conceit just doesn't work – as evidenced by the other audience members, who sat for prolonged periods of time in stony silence. The funeral scene near the beginning of the movie is so desperately unfunny, as is the drink machine "incident" – I started to wonder if the film had crossed the line into downright surrealism.
Perhaps this film is best viewed as a psychological and sociological experiment. Some of the reactions aren't funny at all, but rather worrying – a woman overreacts, we suspect, to Knoxville's prank at his in-house sale. A fascinating reaction, in my view. But hardly funny.
That's not to say that the film isn't funny. I think I laughed about four, maybe five times throughout the movie. Dickhouse and MTV productions, also responsible for Jackasses 1, 2, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 3, 3.5, 3×15-8=16 etcis famous for including behind-the-scenes material during the closing credits. In Bad Grandpa, we're treated to Knoxville and co. revealing that they were 'punking' the public, and their reactions to it. While this is a nice touch, it's not terribly funny. And Bad Grandpa doesn't come close to Borat's crescendos, or the sheer balls-out lunacy and bravery of Bruno.
If you're really planning on a trip to the cinema for this one, then see it for the wonderfully stoic performance from newcomer Jackson Nicoll. How on Earth he has the mettle and temerity to keep a straight face during the thick of the pranks is astounding. I'm tempted not to spoil any of it, but the trailer for the movie has done a damned fine job of doing just that – so if you want the skinny on the best of the funny, then just head on over to YouTube and save 82 minutes
Reviewed By: Andrew MacKay
Join the debate on our Facebook Group (www.facebook.com/groups/Filmsploitation) or on our website (www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk)
Fright Night 2 (2013)
Ho and Hum...
The Review: So just what you needed right? A direct to video sequel to the remake of the 1985 cult horror film 'Fright Night'. Not that it is a sequel as much as a remake of the remake as well as a remake of the sequel to the original
Oh hell I have no idea what this film is. Other than a bit pointless.
By day Gerri Dandridge is a sexy professor, but by night she transforms into a real-life vampire with an unquenchable thirst for human blood. So when a group of high school students travel abroad to study in Romania, they find themselves ensnared in Gerri's chilling web of lust and terror.
So does this seq-make ( or re-qual) offer anything new? Well other than heaps of nudity ( although oddly not from the seemingly perpetual professional nude Jamie ) no. Not really. Even the blood isn't that forthcoming.
Murray and the mostly unknown cast are fine, as are the FX (when they do happen). The payoff is well handled but it's all a bit seen it all before.
Don't get me wrong- this isn't a terrible movie BUT if you have seen the original, it's sequel or it's remake, very quickly you will notice almost every element is borrowed from one or more of these far superior films. Yup this is DTV Lost Boys 3 territory fun at times but instantly forgettable. As original as a Katy Perry song and about as interesting, at least for those people who don't get their kicks from bargain basement horror films.
So if you are a horror fan who (gasp!) has yet to see a Fright Night movie
Watch the 1985 original. Or it's better than expected remake. At least that had Colin Farrell and David Tennant.
For more check out www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk
Curse of Chucky (2013)
Chucky's back... and yes it IS something to be happy about
The Review (Contains Mild Spoiler):It's been almost 10 years since the last Child's Play film graced our screens and it's fair to say a lot has changed since then. Freddy, Leatherface & Jason have all returned, only to fall foul of a fate much worse than their teenage prey- the box office Goliath's of the Saw and Paranormal Activity franchises. In fact in this world of cheep scares and found footage jump shocks, Child's Play seems very... 90's. So can the now 25 year old little demonic doll franchise compete with the shaky cam shocks of modern horror? Well yes. Just.
The Story: After her mother's mysterious death, Nica begins to suspect that the talking, red- haired doll her visiting niece has been playing with may be the key to recent bloodshed and chaos.
Director Don Mancini has been responsible for all the Child's Play films to date, from writing the 1988 original and the heavily publicised Child's Play 3 directing the less well received Seed Of Chucky (2004) so it's only right that he should bring the devil doll back once again to cause chaos. For the most part he does a bang up job. The film's tense at times, and builds a good level of suspense working as both a sequel to the earlier Child's Play films and a reboot to kick off a whole new franchise.
Okay so it does feel a little long and the kills are a little too long in arriving but for a second time director Mancini does a good job. It's also fun seeing (and hearing through the voice of the returning Brad Dourif) Chucky back in action, be it rat poison or the usual carving knife. The film is also expertly shot, with some glorious cinematography for what is a very modestly budgeted a DTV sequel. The story is simple but effective and throws in some nice curve balls near the end, which sets the franchise off in a promising new direction. However for all the good and fun this film delivers, the biggest issue is the film just isn't bloody enough. You don't expect more than a few cheap jump scares (which even those are few and when they do arrive signposted a mile off) but an early beheading sets a grisly tone that the film doesn't quite pay off from, leaving it feeling like it needed a little something more. The film just feels a little safe at times.
But just as you start to wonder if bringing Chucky back was a good idea, the knife comes out and the blood flows once more and you remember how much fun it is seeing a 3 foot high doll stalking adults to their inevitable and grisly death.
In conclusion: it's good to see Chucky back in action but you cant help but ask the question, is this a film 10 years out of place? Is this an old school late 90's early 00's horror movie that doesn't quite fit with the world how it is now? But then you find yourself asking, what would I rather watch? Someone throwing a camera around, inducing motion sickness for a half arsed jump scare 80 mins into a 90 min film OR a psychotic, possessed demon doll pushing a woman in a wheel chair off a landing or electrocuting a baby sitter? And with that in mind... I can;t wait for the next one.
Djúpið (2012)
A Film That Will stay with you for sometime after viewing.
The Review: Based on a true story, The Deep is a very simple, but incredibly moving film. There's nothing really out of the ordinary when it comes to Gulli. He's a chain smoking, hard working man, who lives a rather uneventful life with his friends. It's this seemingly tedious lifestyle that makes the tragic ship accident so much more powerful. When Gulli does his best to rescue his friends, and eventually is left in the ocean alone, it's his rather normal life that shows what a regular person can be capable of to survive.
Audiences don't just watch Gulli bobbing around in the ocean for the entire film, although it certainly creates some of the most tense scenes of the movie. When Gulli finally finds his way home, this is where the real challenges start to appear. Hailed as a hero for what Gulli views simply as trying to stay alive, he quickly becomes a science oddity. One scientist convinces Gulli to basically be studied in an attempt to find out how he survived. At first, Gulli almost seems excited to be considered different, but he quickly realizes that it's not important how he survived, only that he did and his friends didn't.
When Gulli finally returns to his home, the film becomes intensely emotional. While out in the ocean, Gulli made a number of promises, reasoning with God to give him just one more day. He begins to make good on those promises, and it's impossible to not become teary eyed. When Gulli visits the home of one of his friends who died on the boat, and consoles his wife and children, you'd be better off bringing some tissue with you to stop the waterworks. It's an amazing performance from Ólafur Darri Ólafsson as Gulli, and a stunning film from director Baltasar Kormákur.
This will stay with you for sometime after viewing.
For More Check out www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk
Citadel (2012)
A Riveting, low key work of greatness
The Review: One day, Tommy's (Aneurin Barnard) pregnant girlfriend Joanne (Amy Shiels) is attacked by hoodied adolescent thugs outside their flat in the decrepit urban apartment building known as the Citadel. She's left in a coma, but doctors are able to deliver the baby girl, whom Tommy raises alone for nine months. By that time, he's moved out of the building but has become an agoraphobic shell, petrified to leave his home except to visit Joanne in the hospital and to attend therapy sessions.
However, Tommy's safe haven is violated when the hooded figures track him down and break into his home. He's able to ward them off, but thanks to a belligerent local priest (James Cosmo) who's had dealings with the seemingly supernatural entities, he determines what they're after: his baby daughter. Tommy must thus overcome his anxiety to protect his child and uncover the truth behind the dark and demented beings that are haunting his every moment. Citadel is a film that shifts gears sharply but never clumsily, gingerly skipping from drama to horror to introspection. There's a quiet sadness to the scenes that establish Tommy's new way of life and his descent into madness is played subtly, patiently. In trajectory and execution, Ciaran Foy's relentlessly intense ode to urban paranoia, Citadel, is much like a nightmare in its refusal to ground itself in a relatable, or safe, framework for the duration of its runtime. Even the quieter moments away from the central chaos and threat are staged with unease and an unnerving unpredictability, adding visceral viability to a story that is as irreverent and socially conscious as it is psychological and character driven. This impressively-rendered unease is apparently from the opening when soon-to-be parent Tommy (Aneurin Barnard) watches his pregnant wife get attacked by hooded youths from within a malfunctioning elevator. Pulling a needle from her stomach, his ensuing panic and disbelief ultimately defines him for months to come when he's left alone with a baby after his wife succumbs to an "undetermined infection." Agoraphobic and riddled with self-doubt about parental abilities, Tommy starts seeing hooded youths outside of his window and eventually inside his home. And because Foy avoids establishing a separate style for reality and inner psychological environment, we're never sure if the constant attacks are paranoid delusions or an external threat. While his nurse and potential love interest (Wunmi Mosaku) believes his fear is irrational, a foul-mouthed priest (James Cosmo) asserts that these slum-dwelling youths are actually infected with a virus and will stop at nothing to steal Tommy's baby.
The film astutely captures the nature of victimhood as juxtaposed with nascent parental anxieties, Tommy's character arc of controlling fear and escaping the cycle of passivity is in itself a driving force. But beyond this, there's the added sociological element of generational class system repetition, noting that the infection these youths actually have is that of a morally abject upbringing sure to define them as lifelong predators, looking for weaker targets like Tommy.
In such, the parental subtext proves circular as our protagonist makes literal the metaphor of stealing back his child from the confines of a lower class fate. Here, needles and infections mirror the drug-addled and grim futures of erratic, dejected youths, just as Tommy's eventual quest to rescue his son from their clutches—and their cyclic social deprivation—works as a satisfying and cathartic (but politically incorrect) bit of caustic honesty.
It's rare for a film to capture visceral intensity, psychological complexity or cultural relevance with much lasting aplomb. But in the case of Citadel, Ciaran Foy has scored a hat trick by smartly interweaving all three elements into a riveting, low key work of greatness.
Prisoners (2013)
One of the best thrillers in a long time.
The Review: The abduction of children is something we read about in the news on a horrifyingly regular basis. The image of desperate parents on the TV clinging to the hope that their missing child is still alive is something we have all seen at some point in our lives.
Prisoners revolves around two working class families who are presented with the unthinkable reality that their children have gone missing only yards from their home.
Hugh Jackman plays the central character of the protective father Keller Dover, desperate to find answers to the whereabouts of his missing daughter. He is joined by a second father of a missing child, played by Terence Howard.
The story wastes little time in kick starting events with the girls disappearing after leaving the home without consulting their elders.
A mysterious camper van parked merely yards from the family home at the time of the abduction results in the driver Alex, played by Paul Dano being branded the key suspect in the case.
Here we are introduced to local Detective Loki played by Jake Gyllenhaal, a rough and ready, tattooed loner with a history of solving missing children cases.
When Alex is brought in for questioning, the police are unable to obtain any information from the mute suspect or have enough evidence to make a conviction.
Infuriated by this, Dover embarks on a dark and brutal mission to force Alex to confess to the whereabouts of their missing daughters.
Prisoners is a riveting atmospheric thriller that pulls no punches in its depiction of what is without doubt one of the most unforgivable crimes that can be committed.
Stylishly directed by director Denis Villeneuve and with Roger Deakins on top form with some gorgeous cinematography results in a film drenched in dread from the first frame to the last.
Hugh Jackman delivers without doubt the performance of his career. The sheer weight of his need to find his daughter is etched on his face throughout. His time playing Wolverine has served him well with bursts of violence both physical and verbal as he grows more and more frustrated with the search.
Gyllenhaal also delivers one his finest performances in a long time. He has the look of a man who has been to some very dark places, the former missing children cases having visibly taken their toll.
Comparisons have been made to the brilliant Zodiac and like that film Prisoners takes its time, refusing to be rushed and avoiding cliché.
As the credits rolled I felt exhausted like the characters up on the screen but also confident enough to shout from the roof tops that I had just seen one of the best thrillers in a long time.
Jobs (2013)
TV Movie of The Week... Not The Jobs Movie we want
The Review: When the sad news the Apple creator and tech wizard Steve Jobs had died, most people figured it would only be a matter of time before his life was turned into a movie. With the popular book by Walter Isaacson released short after his death, a movie announcement followed. West Wing & Social Network writer Aaron Sorkin would be in charge of the script, guaranteeing this studio backed film would be a must see. But whilst almost two years later the Sorkin film is still being developed, another Steve Jobs film slipped out into the world. And unfortunately this one stars Ashton Kutcher.
This story of Steve Jobs', tells of his ascension from college dropout into one of the most revered creative entrepreneurs of the 20th century, through his initial tenure at Apple, his controversial ousting and his eventual return to what would become a golden age at the Palo Alto based company.
Very much an independently produced love letter, Joshua Michael Stern previously best known for his film Swing Vote with Kevin Costner (no, me neither) directs his own screenplay, in a film he produced and no doubt made the tea on as well.
And in a sentence that's what's wrong with jOBS
whist it flirts with being an interesting film , due to its TV movie of the week feel and overblown musical cues, it never quite makes it. Even more so it makes the critical error of skirting around the 'real' Jobs, polishing the rougher edges that made the man what he was, and what he was liked and loathed for in equal measure.
If you have read Isaacson's book (which I have), this film adds very little to the mix. In fact what it does add is probably embellishment , rumour and supposition rather than fact and often shown through such rose tinted glasses (Steve is Good! The Apple board were bad!) that you'd think the renownedly difficult jOBS hardly ever put a foot wrong.
Also in compressing such a dense and event filled life, the film often skips over massive chunks of his story, leaving out the things that made Jobs the man he was, both good and bad.
It's not all bad. The cast is very good, not least Kutcher, who shares more than a passing resemblance to his subject matter and manages to mostly drop the irritating ticks and traits that made his more recent career almost unbearable to watch. Whilst the film never shakes off it's TV movie feel, the story it tells is an interesting one. Just one that also could have been better served by a writer-director with a slightly less rose tinted view of events and people, with a willingness to do something less linear or narratively predictable (someone like Aaron Sorkin maybe!)
In short: If jOBS had been an Apple product, it would no doubt have been sent back for more refinement. Well at least under the regime of Steve Jobs, anyway.
Tong que tai (2012)
Contrived, confusing, boring film
The Review: The Assassins tells the tale of Chancellor Cao Cao (Chow Yun Fat), who in the early stages of the Chinese Han Dynasty mercilessly defeated China's greatest warlord and crowned himself King of Wei. Twenty years pass and Cao Cao's son urges his father to overturn the despot Emperor and snatch total control for himself unaware that the children of Cao Cao's victims have been kidnapped and trained as assassins to take their bloody revenge.
On the face of it, The Assassins looks like it is in the same vein as Crouching Tiger, House of Flying Daggers and Red Cliff; it cannot be further removed from these classics if it tried. My main issue with the film is that it is extremely difficult to follow as there are so many flashbacks and cutaways, poor editing also contributes to a linear shambles of a film.
Chow Yun Fat has slowed down in the past dozen or so years and seems to be quite picky about what he stars in as it looks like he is trying to re-invent himself somewhat by appearing in historical films, Crouching Tiger aside, he has made the wrong decision.
I was waiting to see beautiful opulent visuals and stunning scenery, sweeping camera shots, seasonal changes, fantastic wire work and a sweeping love story at its core, sadly, this failed on all counts. The action, when it comes shows nothing more than close ups of 3 or 4 people fighting instead of thousands, the scenery (what there is of it) is cold and barren (like Chow Yun Fat's performance) one on one swordplay is badly choreographed and sped up to a ridiculous degree in that I thought that the disk was skipping in my player!
Do not go into this expecting a visual feast of a film interspersed with frenetic swordplay, at most this is a slow burning political drama with a love story badly tacked on, in short this is a contrived, confusing, boring film that looks as tired as Chow Yun Fat's career.
Reviewed By: Matt Duddy
THE ASSASSINS is out on home release now. Join the debate on our Facebook group
http://www.facebook.com/groups/filmsploitationpodcast/
For more check out www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk
Dark Skies (2013)
Deeply Average
From the director of Legion and Priest and the Producer of Insidious and Sinister comes the latest mass produced, minimal budget shocker that audiences the other side of the pond seem to lap up.
Dark Skies focuses on the Barrett family who start to have unexplained things happen in their house. During the night, objects mysteriously move and pile on top of things at incredible angles without falling or tripping the motion detectors of the intruder alarms. The Barrett's youngest son starts saying that he is visited in his sleep by the Sandman who will steal his eyes if he tells anyone. The whole family then experience hallucinations and are prone to a bit of sleepwalking.
Is there a supernatural force at work here?
No.
It's Aliens.
From the moment that you see the alien beings the film looses all suspense and almost becomes jokey, the aliens are stereotypical and are not at all scary, think Roger from American Dad.
I actually preferred watching Signs and The Fourth Kind as they ramped up the tension far greater than this, the ending was reshot to please audiences and really sells out, my advice is to watch the original ending in the deleted scenes as this is far bleaker and would have made the film so much darker.
For more reviews check out www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk
The Way Way Back (2013)
Brilliant indie comedy drama
The Review: The way, way back revolves around a 14 year old boy called Duncan who is holidaying with his mother (Toni Collette) and her new over bearing boyfriend played by Steve Carell and his bitchy daughter.
Feeling detached from his family and having to endure their eccentric alcoholic neighbour played by Alison Janney and her one eyed son, Duncan secretly flees his holiday home to take solace in a local water park.
This brilliant indie comedy drama marks the directorial debuts of duo Nat Faxon and Jim Rash who co-wrote the outstanding Alexander Payne movie The Descendants.
The film wastes little time in creating some excellent scenes as we are introduced to the central character and his relationship with his mother's cruel and insensitive boyfriend. The opening scene with them in the car paints a clear picture of just how insecure Duncan feels and how he has no adult role model to support him.
As Duncan later flees to a local water park he meets the charismatic but unprofessional park manager Owen played by Sam Rockwell. Owen immediately takes Duncan under his wing and attempts to bring out the best in him whilst simultaneously infuriating his co-workers who brand him as an incompetent manager.
Sam Rockwell has never been more charismatic and funny in his delivery. His character is someone you would love to hang out with and have fight your corner but at the same time you know you would be at your most unproductive when spending any time with him.
As Duncan spends more time at the water park we see his character change, gaining more and more confidence enabling him to challenge the people in his holiday home who are making his life miserable.
All of the cast deliver exceptional performances in a film that delivers a perfect balance of laughs and genuinely touching moments and drama.
There are inevitable comparisons to Adventureland starring Jesse Eisenberg but this film more than matches that film as a quality coming of age story.
The direction is very unflashy but the pacing is perfect, relying on the brilliant script and performances from the cast.
It was also great to see Steve Carell playing a very unlikeable character, showing that he has a great range if given the right material.
Overall if you are looking for a film that will put a huge smile on your face and present you with characters that you would happily hang out with in real life then this is a film I urge you to check out.
For more check out www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk
Rush (2013)
Rush? Rush to the cinema...
In over 60 years of official competition, there have only ever been a handful of movies about what is one of the worlds most popular sports. It's not through lack of inherent drama – just the last few seasons of F1 alone we've seen a no hoper team come from being scrapped to winning the world title, a championship won on the last corner of the final race of the season and racers walk away from what should have been life ending crashes. But whether it be the subject matter often being almost too extraordinary or the fear that recreating the sport on screen could almost be as expensive as running a team for a year, in general cinema has steered clear of the sport.
So with RUSH arriving in cinemas, from Imagine Entertainment, Working Title Films and in the hands of director Ron Howard, have they achieved what few had dared challenge previous and created a heart pounding thrill ride of a movie or was the task too much for what is a modestly budgeted British film from a company best known for making Hugh Grant rom coms?
RUSH tells the extraordinary story of the 1976 Formula 1 world championship, and the merciless 1970s rivalry between the cool, calm playboy Brit James Hunt and methodical, driven Austrian Niki Lauda. Starring Chris 'Thor' Hemsworth and Daniel Bruhl, director and former Happy Days star Ron Howard has crated a film of such brilliance that, much like documentary Senna, it transcends interest of the sport it focus on and presents what is one of the best performed and most gripping stories of the year so far. It helps that this truly was a fascinating year – from Lauda's near fatal crash, to behind the scenes political manoeuvrings and some of the most fierce on track racing ever witnessed in the sport, a year if someone wrote it down without the facts to back it up you'd probably never believe it.
But is this anything more than a love letter to the glory days of a sport now controlled by corporations and banks? Yes, in fact whilst the racing is expertly handled and form some of the films most intense moments, it's the story of two men's bitter rivalry (and friendship) that sit firmly at the heart of this story. Hemsworth, who no doubt will set hearts a fluttering all bare chest and flowing haired, proves he more than a man with a large hammer and tights matching his charismatic subject matter James Hunt smile for smile. At the same time not to be outdone Bruhl, whose credits mostly include European films few have seen other than a turn in QT's Inglorious Basterds delivers a performance layered and emotionally grabbing that you just know he will rightfully end up with a trophy cabinet of awards come silly season next year.
The positives don't stop there: From the lovingly recreated period detail (and not just the numerous F1 cars dragged out if retirement and museums to once again roar for the crowds), to the sense of danger at every turn, Howard and his team recreate the era almost perfectly and when the cars do race, the film pulls no punches. Actual arial photography taken at the time, mixed seamlessly with some of the most innovative racing cinematography ever placed on screen, every gear change, every button push is a thing of beauty. RUSH's cinematography (by Anthony Dod Mantle) is genuinely a thing of beauty and does well to hide what is, by all accounts, a low budget by Hollywood terms. But don't forget this Isn't a Hollywood movie. It may be directed by Ron Howard but this is a Working Title film. A British film. Okay so at $40million USD it's the biggest film working title have put together, but this is more British that Potter or Bond could ever hope to be.
In short RUSH is a directorial triumph and probably Howard's best movie for some years.
Also special note should go to Peter Morgan, writer of The Queen and Frost/Nixon, for a excellent screenplay that allows the story to take shape through the characters whilst allowing the actors enough space to add their own flair to the film.
Is the film perfect? No. It takes liberties with actual events, being more a story inspired by the truth rather than representing the truth and at times it's both predictable and obviously when it strays from what is obviously the facts. But these things rarely matter against the backdrop of a film that tells the story of one of sports best rivalries, presenting in what is probably the best film of the year so far.
Like Senna, RUSH tells a story that transcends the sport that works as the backdrop, a story of dedication, desire, competition, death defying acts and men willing to give everything for the glory of success. In doing so it opens itself to a wider audience that it could have hoped and, when awards season comes, should hopefully see itself recognised accordingly.
For more Check out www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk
The Place Beyond the Pines (2012)
A haunting quality with a power and intensity that impresses
Gosling is Luke, a bleach blonde drifter and high-wire motorcycle performer who moves from town to town with a travelling carnival. He shares a connection with former lover Romina (an unglamorous Eva Mendes) but his world is turned upside down when he realises that she's had his son while he's been gone.
With a new family thrust upon him, Luke throws in the adoration of the crowds and the uncertain lifestyle of the carny to try and provide for them. But Romina believes he's unstable and despite Luke's efforts, rejects his push to provide.
Working as a car mechanic, Luke's thrust into the world of crime by his boss (played by Animal Kingdom's Ben Mendelsohn) and takes part in a string of bank robberies. But that puts him on a direct collision course with cop Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper) and sees their lives intertwined in ways they could never imagine as the tale unfolds.
the film swells into three interrelated stories, beginning with that of stunt biker Luke (Ryan Gosling), confronted after a performance by a young woman, Romina (Eva Mendes), he met on a previous tour through this dusty, forgettable outpost.
Though there is much mystery about Romina, there's an undeniable magnetic pull for Luke and curious about this fleeting affair that might have amounted to more, he hangs around, especially after discovering her young child is tied to him by blood. He feels impelled to stay and perform peripheral parental duties but has neither the social skills to ingratiate himself into Romina's good graces nor negotiate the mine field her current relationship with new flame Kofi (Mahershala Ali) poses.
The Place Beyond The Pines is a film whose three rich narrative strands don't get pulled together until the final third – and when the realization comes, it's devastating. Beautifully shot, compellingly acted by all those within, it defies expectations as this generational tale of fathers and sons slowly reveals its hand.
As his displayed to stunning effect in Drive (2010), Gosling has the ability to convey deep emotions and impressions without uttering a single word: a portentous gaze, the ominous ebb in a conversation – these are treated as means to stress his character's non-verbal, intuitive reading of events. Flawed reasoning may ensue, leading to an eventual downfall like that of the enigmatically cool Driver in Nicolas Winding Refn's stunning film, but Gosling's directness of gaze and startling magnetism are now valuable assets for any filmmakers utilising his multi- faceted appeal.
The focus of the second part of the film's then shifts to a police officer caught up in the preceding case. Played by Bradley Cooper, Avery fights both internal and external demons: his wife (an underused Rose Byrne) is desperate for him to leave the force, whilst some less than scrupulous colleagues, headed by Ray Liotta's Deluca, would like to steer him down a path that illegally exploits his recently acquired but unwanted fame.
In conclusion I really enjoyed this movie, it has a power and intensity that impresses. It has a haunting quality which endures and is a drama which is weighty, compelling, intriguing and an insightful. It gives a reminder of the bonds which tie us together long into our years.
For more check out: www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk or listen to our podcast On iTunes ('Search 'Filmsploitation') or Stitcher.