The Best Animated Film- Top 10 Pixar Films

This is the first in a series of post which are going to try and find the best animated film out of the major animation studios of Pixar, Disney and Ghlibli, as well as taking into account some other greats outside of that (such as Shrek). Of course, these only include films I have seen so apologies if I miss out favourites and the like. Today I shall kick off with Pixar, with the films listed in alphabetical order.

Cars- 2 Stars

Cars, Theatrical Release Poster

Shame to kick off with a bad one, but Cars is by far the worst Pixar film I’ve seen and is widely recognised as Pixar’s first failure after a sleuth of high quality first films. The biggest problem with Cars is that it feels forced- the humour isn’t clever and doesn’t gel. On top of that, the characters are boring and the plot clichéd (the arrogant champion who gives up his glory to help someone else and, of course, falls in love- boring). It doesn’t help that, as all the characters are literally cars, it requires a lot of good characterisation for us to sympathise with them. Of course, in Pixar’s greatest successes such as Toy Story and 

WALL-E, where the characters are toys and robots respectively, the audience does relate to the characters and their plight but this is why Cars is so disappointing compared to the others- it simply doesn’t generate the same interest. That said, I am willing to concede that it may make a more interesting film for people interested in racing or cars, which I am decidedly not. However, a good film should be able to engage the interests of many different people meaning Cars is probably the worst Pixar film I have seen and is miles off the top spot.

Ratings: Entertainment: 5 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 2= 11/20 **

  

Finding Nemo- 3 Stars

Finding Nemo,
 Theatrical Release Poster

Finding Nemo is widely regarded as one of Pixar’s absolute greatest achievements. I have to say, I have never quite understood the hype around it. It is a good film, there is no doubting that, and its originality in setting a film entirely under the ocean was also a fantastic way to use the medium of animation. However, the plot itself is pretty standard and doesn’t really have a message to it like the Toy Story films, for example. The character arc from Marlon is also completely predictable and a little boring. The plot also feels forced in places to create emotion which is really aggravating, such as when Nemo appears to be dead at the end, just after he’s been rescued- the audience knows he’s not dead and the scene is just pushed in there to try and generate some emotion from the audience which is fake and disingenuous. I just wish they could have come up with more interesting characters and plot for a film which is so visually amazing. I also do not find Dory particularly funny and after the novelty of her character wears off she becomes rather annoying. The rest of the wide cast of supporting characters are varied in their quality with the vegetarian sharks being the best, but there also being many forgettable ones. I do like Nemo and enjoy it as a film, I just wish it had more to say and wasn’t so predictable.

Ratings: Entertainment: 7 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 2= 14/20 ***

The Incredibles- 5 Stars

The Incredibles,
Theatrical Release Poster

The Incredibles is my second favourite Pixar film because not only is it immensely enjoyable and watchable but it also has a sincere and intelligent message about mediocrity and family. I have already written about this film on my blog (see the previous post) and so shall keep this review short, but I shall just reiterate again that this film’s success is down to the fantastic pacing resulting in moving emotional scenes, funny comedic ones, and tense bursts of action. On top of this, The Incredibles contains some of Pixar’s very best supporting characters- Syndrome is one of Pixar’s most memorable villains and its supporting characters of Edna Mode, Frozone and Mr Huff outrank any of the supporting cast from Finding Nemo. On top of all this entertainment, the Incredibles also carries a message about the importance of family and the frustrations of a mid-life crisis, but all uniquely conveyed through the medium of a superhero movie.

Ratings: Entertainment: 10 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 4= 19/20 *****

Monsters Inc- 4 Stars

Monsters Inc, Theatrical Release Poster

Monsters Inc is a Pixar classic but is not quite up there with the very best. It has good characters with Sully and Mike having excellent chemistry throughout the film, creating much of the comedy. It is again another completely original idea from Pixar and has a good depth of supporting characters in Randall, Waternoose, and, of course, Roz, as well as a message about the dangers of corporatism. On top of this, it has a strong emotional heart in the connection between Sully and Boo. So why does it not reach the heights of Pixar then? The problems, as I see them, are as follows: firstly, the predictability of Sully’s character arc is clear from the beginning- in a film made for human children, the ending is going to contain a message about them in a positive light, and hence Sully’s realisation that human children are not the dangers which they have been made out to be (as the audience also knows) is entirely predictable even on a first watch. Secondly, the two antagonists in Waternoose and Randall created a distorted climax as the big fight is between Sully and Randall, yet it is Waternoose, the boss, who is the main villain. This creates a slightly dissatisfying ending and takes away from the dramatic reveal of the Waternoose's hidden evil intentions. Therefore, although Monsters Inc is a very good film, it doesn’t quite sit up there with Pixar’s best.

Ratings: Entertainment: 8 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 3= 16/20 ****

Ratatouille- 4 Stars

Ratatouille, Theatrical Release Poster

Ratatouille has never been one of my favourite Pixar films, although I am still willing to concede that it is very good. Again it is original in that no one has made a film about rats in the same style. The Parisian setting creates a good atmosphere and the characters of Remy and Alfredo are both well defined. It also has an emotional heart in the relationship between Alfredo and his girlfriend, Collette, which helps create the drama. However, I feel that the message of acceptance and non-judgement is a little predictable and certainly not as original as the film’s premise. The villainous characters of the restaurant critic and the chef are also disinteresting. The first, Anton Ego, has such a completely clichéd reversal in character from simply eating a meal which, although some would argue is original and moving, I simply felt was rather dissatisfying, and Skinner, the second villain, is a complete stereotype of the evil bad guy with very few or no redeeming features. The three way relationship between Remy, Alfredo and Collette is also a little clichéd and the result is predictable (that Collette would react badly to Remy, resulting in Alfredo throwing the Rat out, only for it all to work out in the end when she realises Remy isn’t too bad after all- plays like a bad romantic comedy). Therefore, all in all, Ratatouille is one of Pixar’s weaker films although certainly represents a solid endeavour.

Ratings: Entertainment: 7 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 3= 15/20 ****

Toy Story- 5 Stars

Toy Story, Theatrical Release Poster

The first ever Pixar film, Toy Story is also one of the studio’s very best. The characters are brilliant, with both the protagonists, Woody and Buzz Lightyear, being rather dislikeable at first but developing into better people (or toys rather) as the film’s goes on. What is genius about this arc however, is that the two characters change but not so much that their whole personality changes. Woody is still the same Woody from the beginning of the film, he’s just matured and become a better person, and his personality is still the same. The same goes for Buzz who is a less deluded and bossy version of his earlier self. This is how to do a character arc well- the character should change, but still remain true to their inner personality traits. The film also has a very intelligent message about human identity. Buzz’s own realisation that he is an insignificant toy and subsequent depression is comparable to the human realisation that we ourselves are mundane, ordinary men and not special like we supposed. This is a recurrent theme in Pixar’s film, with The Incredibles having a similar theme of the realisation of mediocrity. However, in Toy Story this is, in the end, a cause for celebration. It doesn’t matter that Buzz is only a toy- in the end he still flies Woody out of danger (‘This isn’t flying, this is falling in style’) and learns to celebrate his being toy and accept his purpose which is to entertain Andy. The first Toy Story also has a fantastic villain in Sid and the moment where Buzz realises he is only a toy having thrown himself off the banister is heart breaking putting this very high up the list.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 4= 18/20 *****

Note: Although Toy Story is obviously the least visually impressive of all the Pixar films, it still scores full marks for technical because it was the first ever big budget, computer animated film and so was very technically impressive for the time.

Toy Story 2- 5 Stars

Toy Story 2, Theatrical Release Poster

Toy Story 2 is not only the most underrated Toy Story film but also the most underrated Pixar film in general. Often it is dismissed as doing not much more than introducing Jessie, but in fact it takes the same characters and themes from the first film and builds upon them. Buzz’s revelation that he is a toy in the first film, here is magnified as he realises the implications of this- that he is only one of many identical Buzz Lightyear’s. This reflects the human realisation that we are not special and are in fact part of a much larger whole. However, there is still a celebration of the individual in the fact that although visually identical, the two Buzz’s have distinguishable personalities, which in the end is what counts. On top of this, Toy Story 2 contains two excellent villains in Stinky Pete and, the often overlooked, Emperor Zurg. Out of these two, Zurg provides the comic entertainment (the Star Wars Darth Vader parody being the particular highlight) whilst Pete represents a new theme. His sheltered life within his box means he doesn’t understand a toy’s true purpose- to be loved by a child. This reflects the purpose of human life- not to live one secluded from all real experience, but to live it to the full and thereby build human relationships which provide life’s most valuable experiences. To cap it all off, however, Toy Story 2 has the excellent addition of Jessie and her heart breaking account of abandonment by her previous owner. One of Pixar's absolute best.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 5= 19/20 *****

Toy Story 3- 4 Stars

Toy Story 3, Theatrical Release Poster

Toy Story 3 is a good film, no doubt, but it is not as good or original as its proponents often claim. It is inferior to both other Toy Story’s as it does not bring much new to the series, and the stuff that it does is either insignificant or a rehashing of previous ideas. Ken and Barbie are in my opinion the best things about Toy Story 3 as they are not only hilarious but also provide a different theme to the ones we’ve had before in that they criticise the superficial- both are visually perfect but that only masks deep insecurities (Ken is mocked for being ‘a girl’s toy’). However, they only form a relatively small part of the story and so cannot be cited as a major improvement. On top of this, the villain, Lotso, has a rather clichéd backstory- he was given up by his owner so doesn’t want anyone else to have a nice owner (rather like an evil Jessie). This is such a basic motivation, especially when compared with Stinky Pete’s sheer incomprehension of Woody’s love for Andy in Toy Story 2- what Lotso does out of the well-trodden path of spite, Pete did out of a more original fear of the unknown. Moreover, the evil ,and then Spanish, Buzz idea rips off Toy Story 2’s alternate Buzz with only a slight twist and although amusing at first, the joke slowly wears off. On top of this, the love story between Jessie and Buzz feels rather forced and out of place- rather as if the Disney executives demanded a love story and Pixar just randomly matched Buzz and Jessie. The single biggest problem, however, is the much lauded emotional ending. Not only could this apply to two moments- either the holding hand bit or the scene where Andy hands over his toys- but both of these scenes feel like manufactured emotion designed to make the audience cry, especially in the hand holding scene where the audience knows the toys won’t die undermining any emotion- it’s a clichéd sad moment before the victory. The manufactured feeling takes the audience out of the moment and therefore, ironically undermines any attempt at emotion for the perceptive viewer. Therefore, although Toy Story 3 is an enjoyable film and brings some new stuff to the table, it is overall not as good as the others because it has less to say and relies heavily on the previous films.

Ratings: Entertainment: 8 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 3= 16/20 ****

Up- 4 Stars

Up, Theatrical Release Poster

Up is one of the Pixar films that I do think is slightly overrated, although it is still very good. Ironically the film’s greatest moment is its biggest problem, as the very first scene’s brilliance is not matched by the rest of the film. Excluding that first scene, Up would be remembered as a pretty good but not particularly outstanding film. Sure it has some funny moments and the characters are well defined, but the climax is a little forced and to be honest the film’s pacing is slightly mixed as well as a clichéd and not very memorable villain. No point in the film really has the same emotional impact of any of Pixar’s other films or, indeed, the first scene. That said, although the hype around it makes it almost impossible to live up to expectations, the first scene is absolutely brilliant in its depiction of a couple growing old together and the pain of the husband after the death of his wife. Told through a simple montage after some introductory scenes it stirs emotion like no amount of dialogue could do. It shows a maturity and respect for the audience not present in many blockbuster films- things are not explained to the audience but shown to them which is what the medium of film is all about and contributes to the emotional impact. However, the rest of the film does not live up to the same standard and so, despite the first scene, it does not reach the top of my list.

Ratings: Entertainment: 8 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 4= 17/20 ****

WALL-E- 5 Stars

WALL-E, Theatrical Release Poster

It is a complete coincidence that in a list done by alphabetical order, the very best film has been saved till last. I first watched WALL-E when it came out in 2008 and didn’t think that much of it. I have since rewatched it twice and have loved it both times. It is not only Pixar’s most original film but also by far its most moving and intelligent. The love story, although it repeats well-trodden ground, has a simple genius in that it takes place between two robots whose vocabulary extends to their own names. As in Pixar’s best films, every character is fleshed out and we understand their feelings without any need to rely on dialogue- we understand that WALL-E’s loneliness on the now ruined earth is what causes his infatuation with the glamourous Eve, and WALL-E’s loyalty and sweetness is what causes Eve to like him. The fact that this is between two not especially humanoid robots makes it all the better. On top of this, WALL-E raises concerns that are entirely new to Pixar in its worries about the environmental damage done to the earth by human activity, and the dangers of consumerism. The only criticisms of the film I can think of are fairly insignificant in comparison but consist of the fact that the antagonist, the ship’s autopilot, is perhaps a little weak (although does have an intriguing motivation as it is not motivated by maleficence but rather simply by a misplaced duty) and that the humour in the film is not as funny as in, say, The Incredibles. However, both of these points do not take away from the film’s brilliance as they fit its style- that of a romance (unusual for a Pixar film), as a romance does not require either the same humour or fleshed out antagonist as a simple adventure film. I will say that these negatives perhaps limit the enjoyment for children, which is of course a large part of Pixar’s target audience. However, that does not reduce the quality of the film in a more objective sense, although I admit that it is a flaw. Overall though, WALL-E combines a touching romance with serious environmental and corporate themes making it not only Pixar's most original, but also its best.

Ratings: Entertainment: 10 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 5= 20/20 *****

My final Top 10:

10) Cars- 11 **

9) Finding Nemo- 14 ***

8) Ratatouille- 15 ****

7) Toy Story 3- 16 ****

6) Monsters Inc- 16 ****

5) Up- 17 ****

4) Toy Story- 18 *****

3) Toy Story 2- 19 *****

2) The Incredibles- 19 *****

1) WALL-E- 20 *****

https://andrewblog1.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/pixar-cars-large.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/Up_(2009_film).jpg

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130420022756/disney/images/b/ba/Finding_Nemo-_2003.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Monsters_Inc.JPG

http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/ratatouille-2007/large_taAPNsf6G4EXBYSG7Jyvd9HHKnH.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Toy_Story.jpg

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/toy-story-2-poster.jpg

http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/toy-story-3-2010/large_ocdzo5jXxYngxhQM38vzNr3Ezco.jpg

http://www.roxie.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/wall-e-poster.jpg

The Incredibles- 5 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

The Incredibles has easily got to be one of the most watchable films of all time. Amongst all the gems of early Pixar, The Incredibles sits alongside WALL-E and the Toy Story series as the best. It effortlessly blends action with comedy and a thoughtful meditation on mediocrity and family. Although dressed up as a superhero film, The Incredibles is not typical of its genre despite being one of the best superhero films ever made. It rather uses the medium of the superhero film to explore the character dynamics, which is the true genius of the film.

For those of you have never seen The Incredibles the basic plot summary is that Bob Parr (the secret identity of superhero Mr Incredible) has taken forced retirement from hero work and is now living an unfulfilling life selling insurance, married to Helen (formerly Elastigirl) with three kids Violet, Dash and Jack-Jack. However, the old days come knocking when he gets a mysterious call from Mirage...

Mr Incredible, voiced by
 Craig T. Nelson

Even from a basic plot summary The Incredibles does not sound like your average Superhero film. How many Marvel movies have you seen where the protagonist is a middle aged man with kids and a wife? What is so brilliant about the film is the fact that the romantic interest is not some attractive young woman, but rather Bob's middle aged wife who he reconnects with by the film's end. Also important is his relationship with his children. At first Bob is a disinterested parent, barely engaged with his family's lives. By the end, he is much more involved and the family's problems resolved. Although the character arc may seem cliched, the way it is executed at first through Bob's deception and later through his remorse is done with subtlety not present in most blockbusters. Even cleverer is the way each hero's power represents their personality. Bob's strength represents his crisis of masculinity, Helen's flexibility her elegance, Violet's invisibility her shyness, Dash's speed his youthful arrogance, and Frozone's ice his, well...cool. Two of the best scenes in the film are when Mr Incredible and then, later, Mrs Incredible, break into the villain's secret base. Mr Incredible goes in smashing the pods and beating up guards left, right and centre. Mrs Incredible, however, is much more stealthy reflecting her own rational, more practical personality (although she does end up in caught in an awkward position by several automatic doors). It's subtleties such as these that help define the characters and flesh out the film. That said, Mr Incredible is not made to be stupid or brutish as is the comic stereotype of the superhero muscle man (e.g. Hulk or the Thing). Instead he finds alternative solutions to force and is a touchingly sensitive man. The contrast between the arrogant (in his dismissal of Buddy) but charming man at the beginning of the film and the world weary, mid life crisis stricken Bob of the majority of the film helps the audience to sympathise with Bob and understand his frustration with his own impotence.

The Incredibles' Family

The main reason for the film's success and watchability is it's effortless blending of tone. It manages to be funny one moment, moving the next, and then straight onto a perfectly timed, tense action scene. Take, for example, the scene where Helen goes to visit Edna. There is a comedic bit with the suits, then a moving scene where Helen finds out she's been lied to and Bob discovers the deaths of the Supers, and then a burst of action as he triggers the alarm, and then back to comedy with Edna. This tonal diversity can be attributed to the perfect pacing of the film. None of it feels out of place and each scene flows into the next. This is helped along by generally flawless dialogue, full of humour and generally devoid of cliches. Although there are some slightly irritating lines (for example, when Helen sees the rocket and says...'a rocket!'- the audience can see that, there is no need for the line and it feels forced), the scenes which could have been cringey- generally the scenes where Bob apologises for not being strong enough- are undercut by a certain humour that gives it self awareness and are also relatively short- there are no grand monologues (except for Syndrome's monologing of course). The humour underlining serious moments are often some of the film's best moments such as when Mr Incredible hurts his back fighting the Omnidroid, or when Mrs Incredible stops to look at her reflection in the middle of Syndrome's base.

Frozone, far right, is one of the Incredibles'
most memorable characters

The film's supporting characters and bit parts also contribute to the film's watchability. Aside from the main family of Bob, Helen, Violet and Dash, memorable characters such as Frozone, Edna and Mr Huff populate the world and provide the necessary humour. These characters flesh out and develop the main ones as well as driving the film along. They also help with another of the film's triumph's in that they ensure that every plot point is sufficiently set up. Too many blockbusters don't even bother to create build up to their events. For example, in the last part of the Hobbit series, lots of events and different enemies just appear with no build up- Gandalf just says 'Oh no the horrible mud worms' and the audience just has to accept they're a thing. In The Incredibles, every point is set up perfectly from the password to the super computer to Mr Huff's tirade against Mr Incredible (he is introduced briefly in a previous scene which establishes his character).

Holly Hunter's voice portrayal of Elastigirl/Mrs Incredible
is amongst the best in the film

If I have one criticism of the Incredibles it's that the final act is not quite up to the standards of the first two. This is because, during the final battle, only the skills of Mr Incredible, Dash and Frozone are properly utilized. Mrs Incredibles flexibility is not really used and as for Violet, other than a pathetic period of invisibility and one, admittedly crucial, forcefield, she might as well not be there. This creates a rather unrewarding climax, or certainly takes away from it somewhat. That said, the action in the film is generally perfectly executed with the action scenes intense, personal and short- the best combination. There is nothing worse than an action scene that drags on too long and so becomes boring, or one that takes such a wide scope of what's going on that you can't tell who's doing what. The voice acting is also some of the best around with special shout outs to, of course, Frozone (Samuel L Jackson) and Edna (the director and writer, Brad Bird), but I think most of all to Holly Hunter as Mrs Incredible. She does a phenomenal job of portraying Mrs Incredibles' strength but also her vulnerability. She is helped by the fact that, in my opinion, Mrs Incredible is one of the most complex and likeable characters in the film, but still she does a very good job and deserves a lot of credit.

Overall, The Incredibles is one of my very favourite Pixar and animated movies. Not only is it hugely entertaining, but it also has, for an animated superhero film, an important message about families, mediocrity and accepting yourself for who you are- not deep philosophical themes, but worthy ones. It must be said, that the film is probably fairly right wing in it's approach to people's value (that people are inherently unequal), and the traditional concepts of marriage- however, even for a lefty like me the politics doesn't bug me at all as the values are thoughtfully espoused and ones that most people would generally agree with- the value of family and of learning to not get depressed by life's challenges. In conclusion, it's fair to say, The Incredibles is...really good.

Ratings: Entertainment: 10 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 4= 19/20








http://www.imdb.com/media/rm915381504/tt0317705?ref_=tt_ov_i
http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/36800000/Disney-Pixar-Posters-The-Incredibles-walt-disney-characters-36836763-3523-5000.jpg
http://risus-mysterymen.tripod.com/adm/interstitial/remote.jpg
 http://images2.static-bluray.com/reviews/4076_5.jpg
 http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/screenshots/the_incredibles_2.png

Game of Thrones Season 5- 3 Stars

Release Poster

I'm a huge Game of Thrones enthusiast so as this season has ended I thought I would write up a summary of my feelings. In many ways, season 5 has been a deeply flawed season and Game of Thrones really needs to improve in order to keep its audience. That said, there have been some brilliant moments this season, which are what keep me watching. So first I shall address the flaws, then the good points and finally where I think it will/should go. This review will contain spoilers up to the ending of Season 5.

The main flaw with this season and, in my opinion, with seasons 3 and 4 as well, is that it has no drive- it doesn't feel as if it is heading anywhere and is simply tangled plot lines with rather arbitrary climaxes at the end of seasons. This is especially true of Dany's story line during the past seasons (basically every season since s1) where her story seems to be being delayed in order for her arrival in Westeros to be at the right time. That said, I do like the way we have seem her develop from a well intentioned young girl, to an inexperienced tyrant and now, possibly, to a more benevolent and capable ruler. But still, in plot terms, her story seems to be being incessantly and unnecessarily delayed. This lack of drive doesn't engage me as a viewer, as I don't feel the plot is going anywhere. Compare the latest seasons with s1, which I believe is the best Game of Thrones season. Everything was fairly united and driving along to the end of the season- Dany's story line was moving towards the death of Drogo and the birth of her dragons, King's Landing to Ned's death and the wall to the beginning of the expedition to find the White Walkers. Season 5, in contrast, has bumbled along without much direction. King's Landing has simply been leading up to Cersei's literal walk of shame which, although brilliantly done and very moving, does not lead anywhere plot wise compared to Ned's death which sparks the whole of Robb Stark's rebellion and the war of the 5 kings.

 Peter Dinklage as Tyrion, Joel Fry as Hizdahr and
Emilia Clarke as Daenarys

The second biggest flaw in this season has been the way the key moments have been integrated. A lot of the most shocking scenes seem to have been filmed in such a way as to generate the most outrage. For example, the rape of Sansa, although possibly justifiable in terms of plot, seemed very much to me an attempt by Game of Thrones to generate the kind of mass attention on social media that TV shows thrive off. Another example would be the burning Shireen, again another incident that was not in the books. Although both these incidents had been built up to and were executed well, GoT's reliance on these shocking incidents shows that they are failing to find other ways of engaging their audience. Previous seasons had fewer of these shock moments, and when they did occur they were only at keys points (e.g. in season 1 there are practically no shocks or dramatic deaths till episode 9, excepting perhaps Robert Baratheon, although his death was not gruesomely shown on screen). I think this increase in shocking scenes has come about because the shock factor has become a major part of Game of Thrones- it is known for it's brutal and surprising deaths so, naturally, it increases them as the best way to engage the viewer. But this is the wrong way to go about it- what was so original and fresh about GoT was its harsh but realistic brutality, but when it is overused the audience becomes numb and frustrated with it. It no longer maintains engagement and simply ends in alienating viewers as the numbers of brutal deaths increase with less emotional weight.

 Lena Headey as Cersei and Jonathon Pryce as High Sparrow- two of
the best performers this season

However, the season has had its moments. The battle with the White Walkers was fantastically done and in fact the wall's story line has probably been the best part of this season. I've never been a Jon Snow fan- his character has always seemed a bit of repetitious conflict between his duty to the Night's Watch and his emotions (s1 tries to desert to help Robb, s3 to help Ygritte, s4 to help Ygritte...again)- but he's really grown on me this season. He's become a leader trying to do the right thing which is not always possible in Game of Thrones. Dany's story line was also the most interesting its been since probably s1, although still rather uninteresting compared to other events. I'm beginning to feel as if she could make some progress across to Westeros and the tensions between the Sons of the Harpy and Dany's new order were also engaging in their own right. King's Landing has been a bit of a weak spot this season, although Jonathon Pryce's performance as High Sparrow was brilliant and elevated the whole story line. That said, the clash of the faith with the crown was quite interesting and Lena Headey once more put in very good performances as Cersei. Her walk of shame in the final episode was a brilliantly executed set piece made even better by the fact that it made you feel sorry for a character who has done so many despicable things. Stannis' story line was also well done in showing the gradual breaking of a strong and dutiful man. The thing the Game of Thrones series has done badly in previous seasons is their poor treatment of Stannis' character, making him unsympathetic and overly cold. However, this season Stannis was made much more human, partly down to Stephen Dillane's increasingly confident performances as a man who loses his soul for nothing.

Liam Cunningham as Davos and Stephen Dillane as Stannis

That said, I thought his end fate was poorly done- how did he manage to survive the battle to be killed by Brienne? It seemed like more of an attempt to appeal to fans with Brienne's vengeance- personally I would have preferred to have just seen Stannis' body after the battle. Brienne's story line has perhaps been the worst this season with no direction at all and very little to do. On top of this, I am unsure about the Ramsay/Sansa storyline. I very much like Littlefinger and so was naturally disappointed to see him go, but there is more than that to why I don't feel this story line works. I think it's down to the fact that Ramsay is basically just another Joffrey- we've seen it all before and so now this pure evil character interests me less. You could argue that this mirroring is deliberate, and shows something about human nature or whatever but I think you would be giving the GoT writers more credit than is perhaps their due. I also feel that Arya's story line has been quite uninteresting- it's so disengaged from everything else that it feels less relevant and even boring. Dorne has been equally forced with the battle in the sun gardens being comically bad (How did Jaime and Bronn get in without guards noticing? Why was the fight choreography so awful?). The sandsnakes are equally boring and interchangeable, with the only distinguishable one being the girl who shows her tits to Bronn (what a well rounded character she is...). That said, I did enjoy Myrcella and Tristain's relationship- nice to see a little lightness in Game of Thrones once in a while. Also, the scene with her and Jaime at the end was very touching (even if it was Jaime basically justifying incest) making the subsequent tragedy even more heartbreaking.

Season 5 consistently got its fight scenes right with engaging battles which focused around characters and didn't simply descend into a CGI gore fest. This is perhaps one of GoT's greatest successes in that it manages to produce epic, large scale battles, yet keeps the focus strongly on the characters involved giving us the thrills but not losing our engagement after 5 minutes of what-the-bloody-hell-is-going-on-in-this-fight-scene like Transformers. The battle at Hardhome and in Meereen's fighting pits were great examples of this, even if the latter's dragon CGI was a little off.

Kit Harrington as Jon Snow- will he be back?

So what about the future? Well first off I don't believe Jon Snow is dead. Not only has George R.R. Martin said, in response to a question about Jon's murder, 'Oh you think he's dead do you?', but the rather contrived reappearance of Melisandre at the wall after the battle (a witch whose red priest powers have been shown to be able to bring people back from the dead by Thoros of Myr) suggests perhaps Jon might be saved. On top of this, from a purely story perspective, with Sam having left the Wall, if Jon Snow is dead then there is no one left at the Wall for us to care about, which will be a problem as the narrative is building towards a white walker invasion. There are also less convincing theories that Stannis may be alive- his death has not been confirmed by the books and we did not see him die (in GoT you always need a body as proof) but I am less convinced of this theory. In terms of the overall story, we need the narrative to start becoming more unified again. I feel as if GoT only really has a couple more seasons left in it before it runs out of steam, and so it needs to start building towards a conclusion. This means war- specifically between the Lannisters and the Martells (as a result of Myrcella's death). Not only that but we need to see Dany invade from across the narrow sea, Arya come back to Westeros to use her new assassin skills wisely and some kind of white walker invasion. Season 5 felt more like a build up season than anything else- not much has really significantly changed since the start but there is a heightened sense of tension and anticipation for the future that perhaps wasn't there with season 4. The question now is- will this build up be used wisely?

Overall, season 5 has had its flaws but also good moments too. There has been significant progress for characters (e.g. Cersei) even if there has been little change in terms of plot. Hopefully this build up will pay off in next seasons and I hope that they continue to streamline George R.R. Martin's work- although the books perhaps manage individual moments with a little more subtlety than the TV show, the later books especially are too expansive and slow so the TV adaption has done a good job of speeding the narrative up.

Ratings: Entertainment: 7 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 3= 14/20

N.B. I was going to give the season 8/10 for entertainment but the first half of the season was much less engaging than the second, dragging the score down. I could be accused of simply loving action too much and therefore being disinterested in the politics of it but my love of the first season, where there is very little action in the first half, disproves this- I love the scheming and politicking, just only when it's well done and engaging.












https://pmctvline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/got-s5-poster.jpg?w=600&h=889
http://s.orzzzz.com/news/7d/93/54bf43e63b3a3.jpg
http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2015/news/150105/game-thrones-3-800.jpg
http://media.melty.com/pmedia-1827-ajust_640/cersei-teamed-up-with-the-high-sparrow-but.jpg
http://lovelace-media.imgix.net/uploads/273/023a89d0-d734-0132-4613-0ebc4eccb42f.jpg?w=780&h=439&fit=crop&crop=faces&q=70

Whiplash- 4 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

Whiplash is an intense thriller about a young jazz drummer called Andrew (Miles Teller) who is driven over the edge in his quest for greatness by his band conductor Terence Fletcher (J. K. Simmons). I watched this film several months ago but have been thinking about it again recently and so wanted to write a quick review.

There are very few problems with Whiplash but the most obvious and glaring is the role of Andrew's girlfriend who is in the film irregularly and really is not a well defined character. Her presence is slightly distracting for very little pay off. I understand that her inclusion in the film was to demonstrate Andrew's sacrifice of his personal life in his quest for professional greatness, and I suppose we do feel as if Andrew is being a dick when he dumps her (and therefore question his pursuit of greatness), but I still maintain that she needed more screen time if the conflict between their relationship and his drumming was to really have any meaning. I think in fact that this absence of a meaningful relationship strikes at the core of Whiplash's main problem- that there is only the relationship between Andrew and his teacher. We needed another relationship to tantalise us into thinking there could be a way out for Andrew and to give us a sympathetic character we could empathise with. Although the girlfriend could have fulfilled this role, I believe it would have been better to cut her out entirely and instead focus on Andrew's father. In this way we would have the clash of Andrew's two father's- his biological one and his jazz one. It would also provide an alternative- his father would represent the kind of mediocre middle class life as a music teacher that would inevitably await Andrew if he failed but he would have a family. On the other side, Fletcher represents the quest for greatness or utter anonymity and destruction (as evidenced by the suicide of his former student). I am aware that both the father and the girlfriend have several scenes in the film anyway, I would have just preferred to focus on one of them and have them more developed as a character, to contrast with Fletcher.

The final confrontation...

However, I did very much like this film, especially the ambitious and intense ending. Instead of the usual physical confrontation that one might expect in a thriller, the final set piece is one long and incredibly intense jazz drum solo. The filming of the drumming strangely reminded me of the boxing in Raging Bull in the way it was filmed- every muscle of the character aching and pounding away in the pursuit of greatness. It was a fantastically original ending to the film and it avoided any risk of a cliched final confrontation between master and student, whilst still providing the raw physicality demanded by a climatic set piece. On top of this, J.K. Simmons was very good in his role as Fletcher, although I did think he was a little overrated (but perhaps that was because it was impossible to live up to the hype). Miles Teller is also fantastically impressive as Andrew, well portraying the downward decline of his fraying mental and physical state.

J.K. Simmons' intense performance provides much of
the film's tension

But what is the film actually about? Well, quite simply, it's about greatness and the lengths we go to obtain it. Fletcher's teaching, brutal as it is, reflects the sacrifice that greatness requires- if you're not prepared to give heart and soul, and possibly a few limbs as well, then you're never going to hit the heights of the greatest. What the film asks is- is this worth it? I think the final conclusion is no, it does not. The biblical phrase 'what doth it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul' could readily apply to this film. Andrew is Faust trading his soul with Fletcher, the devil, in exchange for greatness. But why? Why does Andrew want to become a great drummer? Well, in part, the film suggests that it is purely to impress Fletcher. The final scene, where Andrew seems to win having foiled Fletcher's plan to embarrass him on stage, is actually Andrew trying to prove himself to Fletcher. Throughout the film we see Andrew trying to impress Fletcher until it comes to the point where it is unsure whether he really wants to become a great drummer, or simply wants Fletcher's acknowledgement as the best. This is Fletcher's secret method- he doesn't teach greatness, it is simply his demands for greatness that drives Andrew on to achieve his potential. By making Andrew envious of other drummers shown his attention, by belittling Andrew at every opportunity and through his constant criticism, Fletcher makes his praise golden, the ultimate prize to be obtained. In this way, Fletcher manipulates Andrew into focusing solely on him and driving him to obtain the levels he, Fletcher, demands from him, Andrew. But this draws into question Fletcher's motives- does he really want to teach greatness or simply love the attention of his pupils? I think Fletcher genuinely does want to teach greatness- he's a bastard in going about it but his final nod of approval to Andrew shows his acceptance and recognition of that greatness. Fletcher becomes an idealist- an embodiment of the requirements for being great.

In conclusion, Whiplash is a very good film but perhaps not a great one. It has intensity and a focus on an important question but I feel that the lack of that key second relationship perhaps damaged the film. Andrew is never given an alternative, never given a proper way out which cheapens the conflict slightly. This criticism is especially limiting as I think both the characters of the girlfriend and the father within the film were intended to provide this alternative, but because they were not developed enough, they could not adequately fulfill this role. I did still very much like it however, and certainly look forward to seeing Damien Chazzelle's following films.

Ratings: Entertainment:8 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 4= 17/20 ****








http://www.impawards.com/2014/whiplash.html
https://filmfork-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/content/whiplash3.jpg
http://lynncinnamon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Whiplash-Scream.jpg

Ocean Waves- 3 Stars

Release Poster

Ocean Waves is in some ways a very good and ambitious film but unfortunately it doesn't quite work perfectly. There are too many characters, the narrative is disjointed and this leads to the film not quite flowing as it should. That said, there are positives- it is one of the first anime films (exploiting the success of Studio Ghibli's Only Yesterday) to explore a serious drama written for adults. On top of this, the film does have it's moments and the lead characters feel like real people not simply romantic stereotypes.

For those of you who don't know, Ocean Waves is a 1993 TV movie produced by Studio Ghibli and was a chance for younger animators to make a film cheaply and quickly (although ironically it ended up going over budget and schedule). It concerns a high school love triangle between friends Taku and Yutaka, and the new arrival at the school, Rikako.

In Tokyo...

However, the romance is not played out as it would be in your normal Hollywood romance flick. None of the romantic leads ever get together and all of the emotion is played under the surface- Taku, for instance, never really admits his feelings for Rikako at all or even gives any clear indication of them to anyone. This is one of the strengths of the film as it does not go for simple melodrama and sentimentality as one might see in something such as Twilight's love triangle, but instead explores the repression of those feelings. Taku and Rikako are the main leads with Yutaka being more of a supporting character and it is the interaction between these main two where the film works best. Both like each other on some level, but several things conspire to keep them from admitting these feelings- foremost is Taku's friendship with Yutaka who is the original admirer of Rikako, but there are other reasons as well such as Taku's nervousness, sense of honour perhaps, and a simple inexperience with how to deal with his own feelings. Similarly, Rikako also never admits her feelings and often in fact pushes Taku away as a mechanism of disguising how she feels. In this way, the romance between the two feels genuine- it is awkward, slow and develops over time. To illustrate this point I ask you to contrast this romance with the aforementioned one in Twilight, specifically between Bella and Jacob in the film New Moon (I was forced to watch it). It is a physical attraction between two people who have little or no reason to actually like each other- there is no development, it is immediately passionate and it simply is not real in the slightest (one could argue that it's a fantasy drama so doesn't need to be real but relationships within those fantasies do need to be real in order to ground the rest of the film). In contrast, Ocean Waves feels completely real- the leads have chemistry, both are characters who act selfishly at times and selflessly at others and the film makes it obvious that there is an attraction without forcing it down our faces. Of course, being a better love story than Twilight is no big achievement, but I could pick many other examples of cliched, undeveloped Hollywood romances that could illustrate the same point.

Rikako and Taku

On the other hand, Ocean Waves does have its flaws, perhaps the biggest of which is its disjointed narrative. Around halfway through the film the two leads go on a trip to Tokyo together- they don't really like each other at this point although it's obvious there is some attraction. We, as an audience, understand that this trip is likely to be the bonding point between them. And it is...kind of. The trip is probably the best section of the film as we see both characters develop and grow- for example, we see Rikako as a strong lead in her decision to go to Tokyo and visit her father, her weakness when her father rejects her, then her selfishness and vanity when she pretends Taku is her boyfriend to impress her ex, and finally her intelligence and insight when she realises her selfishness and the superficiality of her ex. Both leads are well rounded characters not simple cardboard cutouts. However, we don't really see that Rikako quite likes Taku in the way he does her. There needed to be some small indication of her feelings so the audience understands where the relationship is at. This is especially important because the relationship is not developed after the trip- Rikako pushes Taku away from her, perhaps afraid of her feelings- and the two do not really interact again until the very end. The film really needed to give us some expectation that this was it and the romantic leads were finally going to come together which would have meant the dashing of these hopes would have had more of an impact. As it was, I wasn't completely sure that Rikako did like Taku cheapening the following scenes. The whole point of the film is to illustrate the missed opportunities we have because of our inaction or awkwardness but it never really seemed as if anything could realistically happen. This, in turn, disjointed the narrative, as I was still expecting a scene giving an indication of Rikako's feelings for Taku. It could be argued that as we see the story from Taku's perspective, and he is not certain of Rikako's feelings, that that is meant to translate back to the audience. However, there is simply no indication that Rikako feels anything for Taku- all it needed was a look or smile or something but, having rewatched the last scene of the trip again (which was the scene in which I was expecting to see some acknowledgement from Rikako of her feelings for Taku), I am quite certain there are none. We do not need certain proof, just a hint.

The final encounter...

The trip also causes other problems in the film. Firstly, the trip to Tokyo itself seems a little contrived as if the filmmakers couldn't find a way to get Rikako and Taku alone together for an extended period of time. In summary, Taku lends Rikako money for a concert not realising she actually intends to use it to go to Tokyo to visit her father. When he finds out, he doesn't want to let her make the trip all the way to Tokyo on her own, so goes with her on the extra ticket she bought for her friend who gets scared and abandons Rikako. It didn't seem realistic to me that Taku would fly to Tokyo for several days just like that without telling his family or preparing for anything. It's made clear he does it because he feels sorry for Rikako and perhaps feels something for her but I still think him dropping everything to fly half way across the country on a whim does not fit with the realistic, awkwardly romantic style of the film. On top of this, the fact that the trip is pretty much in the centre of the film and lasts about a third of the total running time means that Yutaka, the third lead in the love triangle, is left out of the film for about a third of the time and therefore his development suffers as a result. Personally, I didn't think the love triangle worked at all well as Yutaka was not in enough of the film to be adequately developed as character and it seemed like he was only in it to provide conflict between Rikako and Taku. I understand that Rikako and Taku needed motivation not to jump into a relationship and Yutaka, as the third point in the love triangle, provided that, but I think it was unnecessary- the awkwardness of young, inexperienced couples should have worked as more than enough to keep them apart and would in fact have been more interesting and true to life.

Overall I would say Ocean Waves is a good film, although not at all up there with Ghibli's best. The romance is fairly well done and the characters likable and interesting, but the narrative feels disjointed and the love triangle did not work as intended because Yutaka was not a developed enough character. Strangely, this film is rather similar to the last one I reviewed (In the Mood for Love) as it is again a romance in which the leads do not get together out of a sense of duty and awkwardness (perhaps inadequacy).

Ratings: Entertainment: 7 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 3= 14/20 ***








http://www.shuqi.org/asiancinema/pics/oceanwaves/oceanwaves07.jpg
http://thepinksmoke.com/images/miyazakiocean1.jpg
http://org.ntnu.no/anime/img/serie/upload/20110923223913_281_43_ghibli-1997-12_The%20Ocean%20Waves.jpg
 steviegamingworld.wordpress.com

In the Mood for Love- 5 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

In the Mood for Love has been the first film I have properly enjoyed for a long time. I always say that to properly appreciate a film you must a) be in the right mood for it b) give it your full concentration. Sometimes a) can be a little difficult because it is difficult to exactly pinpoint your own mood and even then you may not pick a film that precisely resembles it. But when a) and b) come together with a great film that is when you can truly enjoy cinema and maybe that is why I so enjoyed In the Mood for Love because (incoming awful pun) I was in precisely the right mood for it.

Anyway, enough of my musings as onto the actual review. What is In the Mood for Love about? Well, it's set in 1960s Hong Kong and details the relationship between Mr Chow (Tony Leung) and Mrs Chan (Maggie Cheung). As you may have guessed from their names- they are both married to different people, i.e. their relationship is an affair. But their partners are actually having an affair with each other anyway (Mrs Chow is having an affair with Mr Chan)- that makes their own affair okay right? Well that is actually the fine point the film is based on. Are Chow and Su (Mrs Chow's first name) actually having an affair in the first place and if so- is it wrong? Put very simplistically the film explores love, loneliness, passion, death and human relationships. Now that may sound pretentious but it's not really- it's simply a love story about two very lonely people but in that there is a sort of tragic quality that elevates it above the arena of good, oscar-bait film making to a level of artistic endeavor that few films achieve.

Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung as Zu and Chow

What do I not like about this film? Very little in fact. Perhaps I felt it dragged on slightly towards the end with there being multiple points at which I thought the film could have ended but didn't. That said, the director, Wong Kar-Wai (who was also the screenwriter), does manage to pull it off and make the ending feel satisfactory despite the numerous cut off points where I, as a viewer, felt that the film probably could have ended. I can't really detail fully what I mean without spoilers so I won't try, suffice to say if you watch the film you probably will know what I mean. Other than that I really have no other complaints. At first I thought the way Chow and Zu acted out how their spouses got together to have their affair was a little cliched but the tenderness of the acting (Leung and Cheung have fantastic chemistry) and the combination of the enchanting score with the beautiful cinematography won me over.

Maggie Cheung as Zu (note the
wonderful mix of colours)

In technical terms the film is a masterpiece, largely thanks to the genius of the cinematographers Wong collaborated with- firstly Christopher Doyle and then Mark Lee Ping Bin. The slow motion walks of Cheung and Leung as they leave their apartment to eat alone at the rice bar outside put to the beautifully haunting 'Yumeji's theme' is so striking that it really puts all the CGI-advanced shots of blockbuster cinema to shame. The long, lingering shots of Chan and Zu's form as they slowly walk, alone or together, gives us a feel of their loneliness. I cannot really put into words how hauntingly beautiful the cinematography of this film is. However, the cinematography is used in other interesting ways. For example, when Chow and Zu are sitting in a restaurant and Chow asks Zu where she got her handbag the camera at first cuts in between the two. When Zu then asks Chow a question we feel the palpable tension in the air as we feel she may ask him something...sexual- I don't really know how to describe it. Perhaps ask him if he has any feelings for her- again it is difficult to describe. But anyway, as she asks him this there is some quick dialogue- 'Chow?' 'Yes' 'Can I ask you a question?' 'What?' As this quick dialogue goes on the camera quickly flits back and forward between the two increasing our anticipation as an audience. However, when she simply asks him where he got his tie the camera goes back to cutting between the two (a basic A camera, B camera). What this does is again emphasise their loneliness (the cuts of the shot only showing one of them at a time) but also the desire for some kind of relationship between the two (when the camera flicks back and forwards between them without cutting showing them together) as well as the increase in tension and anticipation which I mentioned before.

Tony Leung as Chow

I would say the film's most complex theme and that which separates it from the pack is it's idea of the fleetingness of human relationships. The themes of loneliness and love have been explored in any number of films but this idea of the restraint between the couple which eventually leads to nothing really happening is the most tragic aspect of the film. I'm not sure if Zu and Chow would really be happy together- they seem drawn to each other more because of their joint loneliness and the infidelity of their spouses than shared interest- but that they do love each other and yet decide not to act upon those feelings and therefore remain lonely for the rest of their lives is the real tragedy of it. Their relationship is just a blink in their own lives yet one that they will always regret and can never come back to as shown by the subtitles that say 'the era is over.' The idea that actually this person who you have such intense deep feelings for is really just a small section of your life really struck me as something quite original in film making. Of course, it is a well done cliche to have the protagonists part never to see each other again at the ending of the film but to insinuate that they have forgotten each other and the relationship may not have worked in the first place is a more realistic but bitter approach. Of course, one could refute this claim by saying that Chow's act at the end of burying his secret in the stone of Angkor Wat shows he has not forgotten Zu. But to that I say that yes, although he still remembers her, he is trying to bury her deep down and forget about her. Therefore, my original statement still stands- she was just a brief moment in his life. This is reinforced by the fact that they could probably track each other down if they wanted- there's nothing to stop them other than this sense that they don't want to. Their loneliness has changed and their relationship cannot go back to the way it was- Zu has even had a child. It's tragic but a very real picture of life.

I realise that I really have not explained myself well in this review. That is because the film itself is so evocative in its emotion that it would take a great writer to really put these feelings into words. I sadly lack that skill but hopefully, if you have seen the film, you will know what I mean and if you haven't, you will be inspired by my enthusiasm to go and watch it anyway.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 5= 19/20 *****











http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2011/12/19/1324311117793/In-the-Mood-for-Love-007.jpg
http://heracliteanfire.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/tony.jpg
http://mmimageslarge.moviemail-online.co.uk/mood.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/In_the_Mood_for_Love_movie.jpg

The Godfather- 5 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

Though the Godfather is often cited as one of, if not the, greatest films of all time, I wasn't blown away by it like I was when I saw Apocalypse Now or 2001: A Space Odyssey but nevertheless, the Godfather is a great film.

The Godfather follows Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) as he goes from family outsider to a ruthless mafia leader known as the Godfather. His father, Vito (Marlon Brando), is the Don at the beginning of the film but when he barely survives an assassination attempt his eldest son Sonny (James Caan) takes charged advised by Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall), the family consigliere (counselor).

My only criticism of the film is that it isn't really saying anything. The only themes in it seem to be that just because you're a violent mafia boss doesn't mean you can't be a nice family man...okay so I'm being overly dismissive- it is concerned with moral judgement (if all the main characters are essentially murderers and criminals then why do we root for them?), it does have ideas about duty and honour, but these ideas are not really expanded upon. The only reason we sympathise with the mafia is because of the closed world that the film is set in. What do I mean by that? I mean that the only people we really know are in the mafia and all outsiders are shown to be bad (an example would be the corrupt police chief). I suppose when the film was first released it was really cutting edge in the fact that it showed the mafia sympathetically as no other film had really done before. But now the idea of honour and a sympathetic portrayal of the crime bosses is no longer original and instead seems a little cliched. In this way I would claim that The Godfather has aged slightly.

 Now is it really necessary for a film to have themes to be great? I would say the answer is no, but to really reach the heights of excellent film making then I would say that yes, your film has to be saying something. That is when your film becomes art. In the same way that a novel without some kind of message can be good but is not art on the level of Tolstoy or Goethe, a film without themes can be good, great even, but is not art on the level of the best films. Now the Godfather does have themes but a film for intellectuals it is not.

(Pretty much) The Full Cast of The Godfather

So having got my small complaints out of the way lets move on to just praising this film to heaven and back. Stanley Kubrick said of the cast- 'This could be the best cast in a film ever'. I am inclined to agree. The four main actors (Brando, Pacino, Caan and Duvall) are simply superb. When thinking about an actor and how good their performance is I always try and think of someone who could play the role better than them. No-one could play these roles better than the actors in this film. Although Pacino and Brando are the acting greats among this cast, Duvall and Caan form a brilliant masterclass in contrast when playing their characters. Caan plays the rash eldest son Sonny whilst Duvall plays the cautious and methodical Tom Hagen. These two actors have a lot of screen time together and we constantly feel the difference between them whilst also believing in the characters. The brilliant acting is, of course, only made possible by the screenplay which makes each of these characters completely real and believable- there are no cardboard cut outs in this film. Pacino is also on top form as Michael Corleone brilliantly showing his character arc of nice guy to the ruthless Godfather.

I am going to devote an entire paragraph to Brando's performance because, quite frankly, it deserves it. I have already mentioned the importance of the screenplay in creating real characters which then allow the actors to give such brilliant performances. Now, out of all the characters mentioned, Brando has, in my opinion, the most difficult job yet, indisputably, gives the best performance. Vito Corleone would be, in the hands of a lesser actor, the most one dimensional of the major characters. He's all powerful, he has almost no weaknesses- he's almost like a sort of mafia God. He's moral, respectable, powerful, balances his family and criminal life expertly- in short he's simply just good at everything. Now of course this is a crime boss- a man whose living is made by killing people so that already does make the character slightly more complex. But still I maintain that it is Brando who gives Vito depth and makes him real. Marlon Brando is brilliant at playing strong, powerful men who also have humanity. In On the Waterfront, he plays physically strong boxer Terry Malloy yet for all Terry's hard-man attitude we see his sadness and deeply connect with him because Brando is so good at portraying emotion just through one facial expression or word or something. In The Godfather he does the same. Vito is an all powerful man but Brando gives him an emotional depth whilst staying true to the character.

'I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse'
Marlon Brando as Don Vito Corleone

There are three scenes which I would like to specifically mention. Firstly, the scene where Vito is advising Michael of how to find a traitor in the family. He tells him a method, they then pause and discuss something else and then Vito relays the method again. It is clear Vito is losing his memory but Brando doesn't make a big deal out of it. He speaks softly and with authority but there is a kind of physical weakness about him showing that he is beginning to get old. In this way Brando stays true to the strong nature of the character whilst also letting the audience identify with his weakness. Now the other two points I wish to discuss contain spoilers so skip to the next paragraph if you haven't seen the film. SPOILER ALERT. The next scene I would like to draw your attention to is just after Sonny dies and Vito is comforting Tom. We see the sadness in Brando's face and the tears fall freely. But this is Don Vito Corleone. He still maintains his dignity, his honour. Brando stands upright and strong and comforts the sobbing Tom. Brando just exudes great strength by his mere presence. Again this is about the contrast of weakness and strength. Lastly, I want to discuss Vito's death. Vito is playing in the garden with his grandchild but pushes himself too far and falls dead. Brando plays with his grandchild so touchingly that we feel Vito's great love for his family. Yet, he also is slow and deliberate in his movements- he is still powerful we feel. Then, when he falls down dead, we have a sense of loss- that someone great has just passed on. I can only attribute this to Brando's amazing screen presence. You know when Brando is on screen and as he leaves it for the last time in this death, we feel the loss of that magnetic presence which is reflected in the film. My overall point is that anyone can play the all powerful strong Godfather, perhaps not quite as well as Brando did but good enough. But no-one could play the omnipotent but human Godfather other than Brando.

Al Pacino as Michael Corleone

Another scene I would like to focus on in more detail is the famous baptism scene. In this scene, Michael Corleone becomes Godfather to his sister's child whilst mafia members kill the rest of the crime bosses in the city on Michael's orders. So the obvious comparison here is that whilst Michael is becoming Godfather to this child, he is also becoming Godfather to all his loyal fighters. This begs the contrast of Michael belonging to a religion in which one of the most important commandments is 'Thou shalt not kill' yet he himself is a mafia leader. This scene sums up the whole thematic point of the film really- can a criminal overlord be a good, honourable person? On the basis of this film, the answer is probably yes...probably.

So in conclusion, this is a brilliant film full of superb performances, good direction and a intriguing plot. Despite it being almost three hours long you will be so gripped the time will just fly by. I've gone into a fair amount of detail and I haven't even mentioned my favourite scene in the film so you can tell how good it is just from that.

Ratings: Entertainment: 10 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 4= 19/20 *****














http://ia.mediaimdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjEyMjcyNDI4MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDA5Mzg3OA@@._V1_SX214_AL_.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01452/thegodfather_1452836i.jpg
http://screen.planetivyltd.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/al-pacino.jpg
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8n09kyHQm1qzy1su.jpg