Avengers Assemble – 2012

By Ben Keightley

Avengers Assemble might just be Josh Whedon’s finest hour. As the creator of Buffy, Angel, Firefly and a host of other excellent TV shows there isn’t another director/writer better equipped or qualified to handle the behemoths that are Iron Man, Thor, Hulk & Captain America all in one film.

Historically comic book films suffer when they have too many characters, Spider-man 3 being a recent case in point. On the other hand the X-Men films worked mainly because each film focused on Wolverine as the central hero around which the other characters played supporting roles.

None of that for the Avengers. A film in which each member is vital and necessary for the teams success. Where there is no main character but rather an ensemble cast where each character is given their own arc and where each arc is subtly and intrinsically interwoven with the main plot of the film.

That Whedon over achieves so much is credit to his writing and directing. Avengers Assemble is the most super of superhero films ever created. And by definition it therefore may well be the greatest comic book film of all time.

The story itself is simple and pure comic book fare. Loki wants to bring mankind to its knees and needs the Tesseract (feature of both Thor & Captain America films), a source of unlimited power, in order to achieve his evil scheme. Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D bring together Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and Captain America in an attempt to thwart Loki’s plans to destroy the world.

Whedon uses this simple premise as the launchpad for a film less concerned with plot and story than with character. Avengers works mainly because Whedon allows each character multiple times to shine, both as superheros but also as people. The film never gets bogged down in turgid exposition or lost in a story too convoluted to keep up with.

Like Marvel’s recent lead-in films to Avengers, much of the film is about the men behind the mask. Some of the most enjoyable scenes are with the entire cast on screen bantering, bickering and fighting with each. It’s a pleasure seeing Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlet Johansson and Samuel L. Jackson share the screen together.

Robert Downey Jr is typically superb and relishes Whedon’s witty dialogue. Chris Evans develops further as Captain America, a stranger in this new modern world and the most straight-laced of the bunch. Chris Hemsworth (easily the least major star in the film) looks comfortable with arguably the most difficult character. What with Thor being a God, his outlook, appearance and demeanor feels very different the rest of the team and of everyone his performance could have been the weak spot. Then there is Mark Ruffalo. Instantly the best Hulk of the big screen, he brings his usual understated charm to a character who is possibly the most empathetic of them all. With Hulk though Whedon unleashes the best incarnation of the character ever. Whedon’s Hulk is ripped straight out of the comic books and the film reaches its most exhilarating moments when he’s on screen.

Supporting the superheros are Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow who is dramatically improved following her brief role in Iron Man 2 and Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye (seen ever so briefly in Thor). Both are given moments to shine and easily hold their own against the actual superheros.

Samuel L. Jackson, given his biggest role as Nick Fury, is superb. Cool, tough but also pragmatic and wise. It’s Jackson’s best performance in years.

On the other side is Tom Hiddelston’s Loki. Superb in Thor, here he achieves new heights. His gravitas and presence really makes him feel Godly, and he holds his own against everyone else on screen. Most comic book films are usually only as good as their villains and although Loki isn’t quite the best, Hiddleston delivers a great performance and Whedon writes a genuinely dangerous villain.

Comic book films are almost always defined by their great action sequences and Avengers never once disappoints. Each action scene is not only extremely ambitious, explosive and fraught with genuine danger, but also helps progress the story and reveal character. There were more occasions than I can remember where I wanted to punch the sky. In fact I spent much of the film wondering how they could possibly top what I’d just seen. They did, every time.

Whedon’s strength as a writer from Buffy to Firefly was always the humour he infused in his stories and here is no exception. Each character has its own moment to shine (Downey Jr perhaps a few more than most) and its this genuine humour and light-heartedness which makes the film so irresistible. In an age where comic book films seem intent on being dark and brooding, Whedon has successfully found a way to offer serious peril and sharp wit with lighter tone.

If the film has a fault its Loki’s underdeveloped hordes which are essentially canon fodder for our avenging heros. But to criticise the film for giving them more time and character would have either added to the already long running time and detracted from the focus of the film; the Avengers.

Avengers Assemble is near faultless comic book movie (barring a needless post credit sequel set-up) which at 2 1/2 hours never once feels long. It fizzes with ingenuity and jaw-dropping scenes the like of which no comic book film has achieved. Its rare that I leave the cinema happy to turn right back round and watch the same film again. With Avengers Assemble I felt I could do that three or four times. The film is everything a summer blockbuster should be and has set the bar extremely high for what could be a defining summer for comic book movies.

Games of Thrones Season 1 – 2011

By Ben Keightley

Game of Thrones was sold to me as The Lord of the Rings for TV produced by HBO. It was also said to be fantasy TV for people who don’t like fantasy. Well I love fantasy, and I love The Lord of the Rings, and I love HBO. But what I love most about Game of Thrones is that none of these descriptions do it any justice. Game of Thrones is simply must watch TV of the highest order.

Based on George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Fire & Ice series of books Game of Thrones tells the story of the seven kingdoms of Westeros. A mythical realm which borrows from Lord of the Rings, Greek, Roman and Nordic myth without ever feeling like a rip of or a poor imitation. This is achieved on screen by the incredibly well realised world and believe, well-rounded characters who inhabit it.

The show opens and goes straight for the jugular. Three mean-looking horse-riding men venture through a dark tunnel into a cold, snow covered wilderness. Then the horror kicks in, then the fear and then its over. Mysterious, beautiful, scary and violent the pre-credits sequence is one of those salivating moments which finds you creeping toward the edge of your seat in excitement for what is to come.

That no scene in the entire series lets you down is a testament to the writing, acting, directing, editing, cinematography and music. Shows like Game of Thrones often fail due to over-acting, an unconvincing world or being played too much like fantasy. Game of Thrones succeeds because it takes what made Shakespeare so utterly compelling – great characters amidst great stories – the kind legends are made of – and offers possibly the richest and most rewarding cast currently on TV. There are more recognisable faces and stunning performances in Game of Thrones than ten shows deserve. Its a treat which you can feast on.

The writing is superb. Rarely are there dull, slow scenes of exposition explaining how one character is related to another, or how some historical event has led to some grievance. Instead the HBO stamp of quality ensures that audiences are treated like intelligent people who will pay attention and understand the subtext of conversations. So characters come and go, all with difficult names to remember, houses and realms are discussed as though you already knew everything you needed. Eventually, through the excellent writing, you piece together the relationships, the geography and the history so when major twists and revelations come you don’t feel spoon fed.

Game of Thrones is also one of the boldest TV shows around. Sex, nudity, extreme violence, despicable characters and most shockingly of all a slew of major deaths all in the first season ensure you are never of safe ground. So where a more predictable show would find a ways to save characters who seem too important to the story, Game of Thrones remains loyal to its harsh, unforgiving world and when events unfold in certain ways, there is last minute reprieve.

The title sequence and music by Ramin Djawadi is instantly iconic in a way so few TV shows are anymore. Its simple, elegant, dramatic and bold. The title sequence navigates across Westeros placing each realm and kingdom in context. This makes great economy of setting the world up and saves on some unnecessary deep gravelly voiceover explaining the world of Westeros to us.

Game of Thrones is one of the finest and most accomplished TV shows of all time. It could potentially do for fantasy what Battlestar Galactica has done for science fiction. Its rewarding and compulsive. At only 10 episodes its staggering how much story it gets through and how none of the 20+ characters feel short shifted. It is quite simply indispensable.

Lovefilm vs. Netflix – My Two Cents

By Ben Keightley

As a subscriber to Lovefilm I was curious to hear at the end of last year that Netflix would be launching their streaming service. Netflix has now been available in the UK for a couple of months and for me its clear the impact it has had on the market place.

I don’t use Blinkbox, apple, YouTube, Sky or Virgin Media and Zune, for various reasons. Blinkbox has not done enough to imprint itself on my mind (much to my loss it would appear after discovering their recent array of silent and free films). I have apple TV but don’t like the model of paying for films per film. Watching films on YouTube to me just seems wrong. Sky and Virgin Media? Well I have BT Vision. Virgin Media isn’t available in my area and I rent so having a dish for Sky is an issue. Zune? Zune I’ve barely even heard of.

But Lovefilm. Lovefilm for me the perfect rental service for the type of film lover I am. I don’t take advantage of streaming but that’s because I like receiving a physical disc through the post. There’s something in the anticipation, the excitement of awaiting that next disc which still overshadows the ability to watch films instantly. For me watching films instantly presents the same problem as a fat kid in a sweet shop – too much choice is no choice.

And then Netflix came along. Owning an Xbox I’m in the fortunate position that I can watch both Lovefilm and Netflix online. I was curious and with a free trial I decided to delve into the world of Netflix and see what the big deal was about.

Because Netflix is a big deal. Regardless of the reality of whether its a good service or not Lovefilm’s reaction has inflated Netflix’s place in the market. Now I don’t know what effect Netflix has had on Lovefilm’s subscriptions but over the past few weeks it has been disconcerting to see how aggresively Lovefilm has tried to cement its hold over the market.

It all started about a month ago when I received an email from Lovefilm asking me if I would like to sign up to 1 months free subscription. I’m against email marketing generally but I accept some brands marketing themselves, Lovefilm being one of them. But as a subscriber I don’t understand why I would receive such an email.

Then things took a turn for the worse. I’ve been overwhelmed by the amount of advertising on the TV and tube I’ve seen from Lovefilm not to mention the constant radio ads. But Lovefilm dropped in my estimation when two salesmen came into my office to offer us two months free subscription. Door to door sales! Really? That strikes me as worryingly desperate. Do Lovefilm really fear Netflix that much.

Things took a upturn when I saw Lovefilm had also begun producing their own content promoting their streaming service. This is a smart move. Netflix is only a competitor of Lovefilm Instant in reality so Lovefilm producing a weekly breakdown of the best films to stream makes sense. It simplifies how to find what is available online, gives Lovefilm more of a personality and engages me with the brand more.

This reinforces what I already love about Lovefilm. I feel I can relate. The brand has personality. I feel it is run by people who love film for people who love film. Beyond any other element of Lovefilm’s service I love how akin the brand appears to be to my affection for cinema.

So all the advertising and the door to door sales seems to me (a brand advocate) to have sullied their reputation. This action may be a result of now being owned by Amazon. But Lovefilm should stick to what they do best. Being the most indispensible place for film lovers to go.

So how does Netflix compare? Initially are a quick scan and becoming addicted to Breaking Bad I thought Lovefilm might need to worry. But on closer inspection Netflix really has little to offer. Their TV selection is great and a number of my TV cravings will be satisfied over the coming months (Breaking Bad/Firefly/Arrested Development – recently recommissioned by Netflix) but for the most part the film selection is poor. Some classics are included and there are a number of films I haven’t seen which now I can.

The problem with Netflix is its so impersonal. A look at its website reveals this. Where’s the personality, the passion. For me this reveals Netflix approach to the market. They might be planning to build this up over time but they will also need to build their offering. Anyone with the knowledge and passion I have for film will soon run of films to watch. It might be easy to use; the Xbox app certainly outshines Lovefilm’s but really what I’m looking for depth of quality and personality.

Ultimately Netflix’s introduction to the UK could be the shot in the arm Lovefilm needs to ensure it offers its customers a service they deserve. Their model for Lovefilm instant is good but there should be moe films available across a wider range. Netflix seems to have scared Lovefilm and they may become more liberal with their releases offering a better service. Which, as far as I’m concerned is great news.

The Hunger Games – 2012

By Katrina Jackson

It's like Battle Royale... for kids.

Borne over to these shores on a tsunami-level crest of hype, The Hunger Games has been pitched to all and sundry as the teen franchise to take over from Twilight (before Twilight has even officially completed). It seems like every review I’ve read of the film has made mention of two other franchises – Twilight, and Battle Royale. Direct comparisons with the second might seem unavoidable, but I’ll do my best to resist, especially as I highly doubt the vast majority of movie-going audiences have experienced the latter (I have, and it’s brilliant).

It should really go without saying that The Hunger Games is a very different beast from Twilight. It might cover some of the same themes – teens in peril (at least in THG, it’s not of their own making), teenage love triangles being just two. Both the book and the film – which follows the source material rather slavishly, give or take some supporting characters here and there – however, have much bigger themes in their sights than pre-marital abstinence and bucket loads of angst. Set in a futuristic dystopia (why is the future always such a grim, unpleasant place?) where a pair of teenage avatars from their downtrodden districts are selected at random each year to fight to the death in a televised gladiatorial version of the Truman Show for the benefit and widespread acclaim of the rich and flamboyantly dressed, The Hunger Games could never be accused of lacking in scope. And yet, this is a film that doesn’t beat the audience over its collective heads with satire, preferring instead to allude to the broader themes at play.

Jennifer Lawrence takes on her first real blockbuster lead and carries the film with aplomb. While never “acting” (some people you can actually see grit their teeth and thesp on screen) she manages to convey a wide range of internalised emotions which in the book are entirely taken care of through a first person narrative – no mean feat in itself. That she has also been held up as a “Great Strong Female Lead for Teenagers To Look Up To” is a matter for some debate. It’s also notable that she manages to make the central character of Katniss a much more relatable and human character than she is in the book, creating a divergence away from the film’s other by-the-book plotting and characterisations. In my view, that’s a shame, as Katniss is much more interesting when you view that her actions in the arena are almost all motivated by a pure desire to stay alive as best she can and manipulate the Hunger Games audience by so doing. However, I can see how this shift in character gears makes the long-game dynamics of her character much more effective. It’s quite obvious from watching the film after all that the studio behind it sees it very much as the first in a series rather than a standalone in its own right. While admirable – the last film to adopt such an approach was the Golden Compass, and look where that ended up. This decision does leave you departing the cinema screen feeling that the story is unfinished and rather unsatisfying. There’s no fist-punching-the-air, triumph against adversity or relief. It kind of ends on a …meh.

Chief among the downsides to the film’s approach is the pacing and tone as a whole. It’s clear that the studio made this film entirely for the Fans Of The Books, hoping they would flock in their droves to the ticket booths to see it. The results of this approach are threefold: a bum-numbingly slow pace not helped by a musical score so sparse that the instances where incidental music does kick in is almost jarring; an almost unforgivable amount of exposition dropped in throughout; and ultimately a severe lack in tension. Sadly, while the teens on display are set up as lambs to the televisual slaughter, the threat never entirely feels real, especially to Katniss. This is largely due to a lack of gore precluded by the need to make the film accessible to a young teen audience (there were definite under 9 year olds in my screening). In terms of the exposition, Stanley Tucci’s character, initially introduced as a kind of blue-haired Jonathan Ross of the arena to introduce and showcase each tribute to the Capitol’s baying audience, becomes a mere voice throughout dropped in to explain some of the book’s sci-fi future creatures to any non-book readers in the audience. This attempt to remind the (movie) audience that this is all staged for TV is admirable but mishandled – it’s simply not utilised enough for the pop-up commentary to seem natural. This exposition results in a patchy approach, with some features from the books explained through talking head commentators on screen, while other plot drivers more richly deserving a little background are left to speculation.

Still, the overall film is by no means a misfire and if all blockbusters upcoming this year turn out so successfully, we’re in for a cracker. Its an intelligent result overall which is well worth some post-film pub-based discussion and analysis of character development and structure. When the film does diverge from the source material is to give the viewer a greater perception of the impact of the Hunger Games on the broader society – something which is never really comprehended through Katniss’ solo perspective. This is undertaken by giving lead Gamemaker Seneca Crane (played by the seemingly perennially typecast as sinister Wes Bentley, behind comedy beard) and Donald Sutherland’s suitably creepy President Snow more screen time in terms of interim discussions of the Games as they unfold, as well as a riot scene bringing more fully to life just how ingrained and important the tributes’ actions and success or otherwise in the arena is to their Districts. What’s left is a lingering sense of a stewardship of the source material and desire to remain faithful, while enhancing the story rather than detracting from the book’s success by squeezing it for cash with both hands. If only all films with a pre-built target audience were quite so diligent

2012 – Could it really be that bad

I haven’t been to the cinema is quite some time. The last film I watched was Alexander Payne’s excellent The Descendants. Since then we’ve had the BAFTAs and the Oscars, neither of which have inspired me to visit the cinema. Its not that I haven’t wanted to go to the cinema its just I can’t help thinking I’m going to emerge from the darkness disappointed.

My problem in 2012, which has come unexpectedly, is simple; apathy. I’ve been wondering why. Films just don’t seem to excite me anymore and looking ahead to what the year has to offer leaves me feeling evening more worried.

The film calendar is a predictably beast. Like the seasons there are peaks and troughs of quality. The beginning of the year promises the years must award worthy fare. That’s not a guarantee of quality but it does at least offer some level of intellectual stimulation. Then there is the post awards dip. A period in the film year which isn’t known for its sterling quality. Then we enter the summer of the big behemoths.

Yet when I look to the summer I feel a growing sense of despair. Too many sequels, too many cash-ins and too much potential dross. Even the films which appear to be great offer me little excitement.
Yes 2012 is the year we will finally see Nolan’s final Batman film and Ridley Scott returns to science fiction with his prequel to Alien. We even have Joss Whedon’s Avengers films which is threatening to overshadow everything coming this summer.

But for me I can’t help thinking 2012 is going to be one of those years where everything is mediocre.

Part of my apathy comes from the apparent early arrival of the Summer blockbuster. Both John Carter and Wrath of the Titans are released in March. March! Really? I know the sun is out but really. Now neither of these films can genuinely compete with the heavyweights of the summer season, but still, the studio insistence of creeping into spring for their big budget releases is becoming a worrying trend.

John Carter looks like Avatar, but it’s definitely not Avatar. Being set on Mars is the first indication of jus how bad it might be. Name one film set on Mars which is great? (Total Recall is the exception that proves the rule) John Carter’s trailer doesn’t hint at anything worthwhile cinematically. Yes its CGI might be great, but is it offering anything we haven’t see before.

From there things just crank up. Coming in April/May we have The Avengers, which could be great fun, but looks way too much like it might be the new Fantastic Four. Men in Black 3 reeks of Why? Will Smith doesn’t seem in need a boost to his career, and it feels like a step back for everyone involved. A pointless and predictable exercise from the studios to assume a known and popular franchise will guarantee a hit.

Battleship looks like the worst possible alien invasion film ever made, and that’s saying something. Originally it appeared to based on the popular boardgame, but recent revelations have shown its is something almost worse. The Amazing Spider-Man feels like a franchise relaunch too soon. Andrew Garfield could be great as Peter Parker but Tobey Maguire & Sam Raimi’s excellent Spider-Man franchise is still so fresh in the memory. It also appears to be an origin story. Is that necessary. Time will tell, and being Spider-Man it will probably rake in th cash, but that doesn’t mean it’ll be any good.

The Bourne Legacy might include the always brilliant Jeremy Renner in the lead role but it feels like trading on a franchise when surely, if the story is good enough, it shouldn’t need to.

And finally The Expendables 2 is the kind of film which should always and only exist in the mind of the audience. The reality, based on the original, means it almost certainly won’t be the film we all dream it could be. Instead it will be a bunch of past it, aging action heroes reminding us that the films that made them action heroes where never really that good.

There are possible signs of hope. The Hunger Games could be great. Prometheus might just achieve something resembling Alien and The Dark Knight Rises promises to be at the very least interesting. Nolan has produced two excellent Batman films and I can’t see him dropping the ball on the finale. Brave from Pixar boasts the most impressive trailer of the year so far and looks like another giant step forward for a studio which seems unstoppable.

But will any of these films achieve the entertainment and excitement a Hollywood blockbuster should. I blame the audiences, and marketing. It seems that films don’t have to be made anymore for any reason other than being made.

Review of the Year 2011

2011 feels like something of a vintage year for cinema to me. As its just ended it would be easy to look back on the predictably bloated summer with its seemingly endless assault of sequels, prequels, threequels and see the year as another disappointingly brash year. But looking away from the summer there was a constant stream of interesting, thought provoking and genuinely exciting cinema. And then there was 3D.

2011 was in many ways supposed to be the year 3D finally conquered cinema and although many of the films biggest successes were shot in 3D the general excitement around 3D seems to have dissipated to be replaced with apathy or mild agression.

For me 3D is at best enjoyable, at worst a distraction. I can think back to Pirates of the Caribbean and remember only the awful, annoying 3D making what was already not enjoyable, unbearable. But 3D did develop and take interesting developments this year. Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson all went 3D this year with mixed results. Perhaps most interestingly though was Werner Herzog’s amazing Cave of Forgotten Dreams, which utilised 3D to bring to life the contours of the earliest cave painting known to man which made a serious case for 3D.

Beyond Hollywood and 3D cinema tapped a deep vein of artistic excellence in 2011. Most notably in Britain where The King’s Speech collected countless awards. The King’s Speech success would have been enough for a film industry which suffered its biggest setback in terms of development and financing in decades. But from adversity came wonderous films such as Kill List, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, We Need To Talk About Kevin and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy, Never Let Me Go & Attack the Block. Also from Britain we had Senna which has wowed audiences. Then there was the final chapter in the most successful film franchise of all time. Harry Potter finally went toe to toe with He Who Can Not Be Named, and for the most part the film and the franchise was a great success.

The film event of the year though had to be Terence Malick’s The Tree of Life. Malick carries such a reputation that his films feel more like events than mere films and The Tree of Life was no exception. Things started strangely as its release date was announced to be before its Cannes premiere. That soon changed and Malick’s film went on to win the Palme D’or. The film was as much reviled as it was worshipped, but released in a summer of mindless nonsense it offered something deeply spiritual and honest.

Speaking of Cannes, 2011 also saw the pre-eminment agent provocateur Lars von Trier get himself banned from the festival, possibly forever, by calling himself a Nazi and claiming to understand Hitler.
It’s credit to von Trier’s film Melancholia that when it eventually reached the screens talk was only of its brilliance.

In other controversial news cinema was shocked by the sentence handed Jafar Panahi in late 2010. Facing 6 years in prison and a 20 year ban on making films it revealed to us the censor and restriction still enforced in one of the most creative cinematic countries of recent years. Despite this though artistic creativity prevailed as Panahi made This is Not a Film – a documentary about a day in his life under house arrest.

As we look forward to 2012, the same old juggernauts are already gearing up to grab our attention and whet our appetites for the forthcoming year. The films which are currently looking most exciting in 2012 include The Dark Knight Rises, Prometheus, The Avengers and of course The Hobbit. Whether these films will live up to the expectation and hype remains to be seen. Inevitably though it will be films like this years Drive & The Artist which prove cinema is still pushing forward and creating works of genuine class.

Review of 2011 – Top 10 Films

With so many great films coming out in 2011 it was a particularly tough choice to make this year. Not just in ordering the 10, which was painful enough, but also which films didn’t make the cut.

So, below is my Top Ten films of 2011. If you haven’t seen some or all of them I strongly urge you to seek them out.

10. True Grit
dir. Joel & Ethan Coen

A re-adatpation rather than a remake, the Coen’s first foray into the Western threatened to kick start the genre with its first classic in nearly two decades. Jeff Bridges is amazing but its Hallie Steinfeld who stills the show. Brutal, funny, moving. Everything you come to expect from the Coens.

9. The King’s Speech
dir Tom Hooper

If someone had said to me there would be 8 better films in 2011 than The King’s Speech I would have found it hard to believe. A delight from start to finish with a career best turn from Colin Firth. By the long final walk I could barely contain my nerves.

8. The Fighter
dir. David O. Russell

The best boxing film since Rocky? You damn right. Wahlberg and Bale shine as brothers in this familial drama about real life boxers Micky Ward & Dicky Edlund. Raw and intense, the bouts outside the ring provide enough of a punch to dwarf anything that happens in the ring.

7. Kill List
dir. Ben Wheatley

It doesn’t get much more terrifying than Kill List. Unnerving, unsettling, violent and bloody weird, Wheatley’s 2nd feature is the cult classic of the year. Part social realism, part hitman, part something entirely different. It demonstrates a mastery of genre and subverts them all magnificently.

6. Melancholia
dir. Lars von Trier

Putting aside von Trier’s comments at Cannes, Melancholia reveals a director at the peak of his artistic brilliance. An art house apocalypse film. von Trier’s Melancholia once again focuses on strong female characters persecuted – this time by forces greater than anything before. The opening sequence alone merits its inclusion on this lists.

5. We Need To Talk About Kevin
dir. Lynne Ramsey

Very few films are ever this powerful. Based on the best selling novel the film treats its subject matter indirectly, instead creating a film about a Mother’s hatred for her son, rather than about a high school massacre. Ramsey’s fractured structure reveals character and plot whilst simultaneously placing the audience directly in line with Tilda Swinton’s magnificent Eva/

4. Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy
dir. Tomas Alfredson

Alfredson’s perfect spy thriller provided the years best ensemble cast, Firth, Strong, Hurt, Jones, Cumberbatch, Hardy. It marks Alfredson out as one of the best emerging directors in the world and provided a film which was serious, adult and contemplative. A welcome break from the dross cluttering cinema over the summer.

3. Drive
dir. Nicolas Refn Winding

The coolest film of the year, starring the coolest actor in the world currently. Drive belongs with those classic crime films which the 70s did so well.

2. The Artist
dir. Michel Hazanavicius

Silent cinema returns to our screens in what is simply one of the most joyous cinematic experiences for longer than I can remember. A true masterpiece which is as inventive and filmically interesting as it is purely entertaining. Film as art and entertainment in the best possible way.

1. The Tree of Life
dir. Terence Malick

A masterpiece of cinematic vision. Flawed yes, but so ambitious, so audacious and so deeply personal that it became more than just a film. The best evocation of growing up and memory ever commited to film, Malick may have delivered his most ambitious film to date, but he also created his most revealing and emotional.

Ten films really isn’t enough in 2011. The films which nearly made the list nclude Never Let Me Go, the most underrated film of the year. Attack The Block – the funniest British film of the year. The Guard, the funniest film of the year and Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Herzog’s awe inspiring documentary.

As with all years, there was just too many films to see in 2011 and below is a list of the top ten films I missed (in no particular order)

Super 8
Warrior
A Separation
Incendies
Senna
Animal Kingdom
Cowboys & Aliens
Pina
Once Upon A Time in Anatolia
Red State

The Dark Knight Rises Prologue – IMAX

Before Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol there was the prologue to The Dark Knight Rises. Easily the most anticipated film of 2012, it would not have surprised me to see droves of fans leave the cinema after the prologue ended.

At around 6 minutes long the prologue (I believe) will open the film next year. Rumours have been flying around that the prologue would be an origin story for Bane, Batman’s newest villain. That it would position him as a member of Ra’s Al Ghul, that he was trained like Batman, and that he was coming to Gotham to finish off the league of shadows work. There was even word that Liam Neeson would making an appearance.

I’m not going to tell you whether this happened or not. That wouldn’t be far to those who want to go in blind, spoiler free – if that is even possible – to Nolan’s final Caped Crusader film.

I will say this. I was and have been unconvinced about Bane as the villain. And from all the footage and images of him, I worry he might be the least convincing villain to date. Yes, the story might make him bigger and badder than previous villains, but I just haven’t found any of the images of him that impressive.

Following the prologue, none of these concerns have been alleviated. In fact new concerns have surfaced which may spoil the film entirely.

The prologue is ambitious, epic even. It heart stopping stuff. Shot on IMAX it look and sounded impressive in the cinema. What it didn’t feel like though was Batman. Although Nolan has managed to turn Batman from a comic book movie into a series of epic crime dramas, this felt almost like a step too far. It also has Nolan’s penchant for over the top, elaborately plotted storytelling. Those who like this will probably lap up the prologue. Others may be infuriated before the film has even started.

For me though I felt it let me down in two ways. One, as an opening scene. It didn’t do enough to set up the story of the film. It didn’t tantalise. What it also failed to do was tell me anything particularly special about Bane. Beyond the loyalty of his minions, and how wel trained said minions are, I left the Prologue wondering who Bane is and whether the marketing campaign is being used to create a character who should have been revealed in the opening.

I have high hopes for The Dark Knight Rises. Everything about it suggests it will be a great film. But this prologue failed to live up to the already masive hype. I just hope the film doesn’t suffer the same fate.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol @ IMAX – 2011

You can always rely on Tom Cruise to deliver the summer blockbuster you never got in the summer. Along with Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, MI4 has taken the mantle of summer blockbuster and turned it into a winter blockbuster. Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol may well be the best and most entertaining Mission yet. At the very least it is as good as part 1 and 3.

Returning for a fourth instalment MI4 is a classic sequel. Bigger, better and bolder than the previous versions (it did leave me wondering how they could top this film) as well as not being bloated, ridiculous or cringe worthy.

The story is complicated like all the Mission films try to be. A terrorist called Cobalt has managed to get access the Russian nuclear arsenal. Ethan and his team are sent to Moscow to prevent Cobalt from attaining the extra information he needs to launch the missiles. Disasters strikes (this becomes a common and admirable theme) when part of the Kremlin is distroyed and Ethan and his team are blamed, then disavowed.

With no IMF to stop him, the terrorist is planning to begin a nuclear war in the hope that peace can come out of the devastation. A classic example of twisted logic which makes these type of films so endlessly entertaining. Hunt, along with a small band of remaining IMF agents (Simon Pegg, Paula Patton and Jeremy Renner) set about stopping him.

Directed by Brad (The Incredibles) Bird, MI4 promised to be entertaining, original, action packed and extremely humourous and its this balance, handled so brilliantly by Bird that really sets it apart from its predecessors. Where Mission 1 through 3 have had an airy light hearted quality there has always been a pseudo-seriousness which has often hampered the films. Bird and his team decided to give Hunt a sense of humour, and many of the best scenes are either the funniest, or diffused with humour.

That’s not to say the film doesn’t deliver on seriousness. We’re talking about the end of the world here. Nuclear war. Also, the odds are stacked so heavily against Hunt and his team; as the tagline declares – No Plan, No Back Up, No Choice. This is seat of your pants action. And what makes it so great is that at every corner something seems to go wrong. The expected style and slickness which plagues Bond for example is missing. The team are excellent at everything they do. Pegg is new to the field. Patton is awful, despite her beauty, at seducing a necessary asset. Even Hunt, usually so perfect, is fallible. His plans are hair-brained. On countless occasions he misjudges and makes mistakes. But the no choice mentality means somehow they muscle on, push through and keep going.

Cruise in particular is excellent. I seem to be the only person I know who really likes Tom Cruise and considers him a great actor. He might not emote or feel like De Niro or Pacino, but he is committed to his roles with equal vigour. Cruise has for a long time filmed all his own stunts, and it still amazes me. He is, in my opinion the best action star around simply because when you see him jump of a building, slide down a wire and land on a moving van, you know its actually him.

This reaches its apex (quite literally) when the plot dictates that Hunt climb to the server room on Burj Khalifa from the outside. Being the tallest building in the world (over 800m) you have to give credit to Cruise for actually doing it. This is a type of acting which isn’t recognised, or it if is, isn’t considered as high brow or refined as say method acting. The great thing about cinema is that it offers all different types of performance. For me Cruise is a modern day Buster Keaton. He may not act with humour in mind, but Keaton was so impressive partly because he did his own stunts – the scene when he sits at the front of the train in The General is still for me the best stunt ever committed to celluloid.

In MI4 (and on the IMAX) Cruise climbing and then running down the Burj Khalifa is breathtaking. Easily the best action scene of the year, and played so perfectly by Cruise – he is acting whilst hanging off the side of the building for crissakes!!!! that it makes the scene so much better than it could have.

I saw Mission: Impossible 4 at the IMAX so its impossible not to mention it. Sitting on the front row it not ideal, but its was fantastic. An immersive experience if ever there was one. The IMAX scenes themselves were superb. The aforementioned Burj Khalifa giving me Vertigo as you realise just how high it really is. I’d recommend MI4 on the IMAX. The cinema was invented to show films of this ambition and entertainment.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol suggests there is still life in the franchise yet. And that if Cruise and his producers continue to seek out directors of Abrams and Bird’s quality there is no knowing just how long it can run.

Hugo – 2011

Hugo is both a departure for Martin Scorsese whilst simultaneously being a film in keeping with his current trajectory as a one man celebration of all things cinema. Adapted from Brian Selznick’s gorgeous and incredible children’s book The Invention of Hugo Cabret, the film tells the story of Hugo who lives alone in a Paris train station. His job is to ensure all the clocks work in the station. Also at the train station is an elderly toy shop owner. Over the course of the story Hugo uncovers a secret which goes right to the very heart of cinema.

It’s easy to see why Scorsese fell in love with The Invention of Hugo Cabret. Its tale of the golden age of silent cinema, a celebration of one of the great magicians of cinema would have appealed to Scorsese’s love of cinema, whilst allowing him to explore an era he’s yet to focus on in his oeuvre. It is interesting as well that Scorsese choose this film to be his first foray into 3D. It makes sense. The film is a children’s story and many of its great scenes (both in the book and film) lend themselves to adding a third dimension.

The 3D is good. Not being a fan I either find 3D an annoyance and distraction or I just don’t notice it. It works for animated films and Hugo feels almost like an animation. Scorsese uses his wealth of cinematic knowledge and mastery of the art form to deliver a vibrant film made richer through some inventive and original uses of 3D.

The cast is strong. Ben Kingsley in particular is magnificent as the aging toy shop owner. His bitter loss is palpable and he comes across both as stern, mean and cantankerous as well as frail, vulnerable and insecure. For adults watching this he is will the emotional core. Sacha Baron Cohen is good fun. In one of the many sub plots his unrequited love for Emily Mortimer’s flower shop girl is one of many delights.

The two central characters Hugo (Asa Butterfield) and Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) are the two weakest links but still manage to stay on the right side of cutesy and saccharine. The real problem with them is that most of the dialogue is lifted straight from the book, and often is suffers in the new form.

The other cast, particularly Ray Winstone and Jude Law as Hugo’s uncle and father, are annoying only because of their brief inclusion. I’m of the opinion that bit part characters should not be played by famous, recognisable actors as it breaks the allusion of the film. A single scene starring Jude Law is simply that. But this is a minor niggle and didn’t distract from my enjoyment.

Hugo is a great success. It is entertaining, exhilarating and moving. Scorsese has, for him at least, created something I would have previously thought impossible. A children’s film. Like all great children’s films though Hugo appeals to adults just as much. That it is also a love letter to early cinema and one of its great pioneers marks it out as an important film. That Scorsese choose to go back into the early days of cinema through 3D just makes it all the more interesting.