The Zero Theorem- 2 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

 The Zero Theorem is wacky and zany. It's problem is that it is too wacky and zany, I know that can actually happen. The Zero Theorem is Terry Gilliam's new film starring Christoph Waltz as Qohen Leth, a rather odd computer programmer who refers to himself as 'we', is tasked with cracking the code of whether life holds any meaning or not, the Zero Theorem. Now although Gilliam is probably known to most people from his work with Monty Python Gilliam has now become a serious film director (Brazil, 12 Monkeys) although he has kept his sense of humour.

 The Zero Theorem has numerous problems. One it is tonally confusing. This film could be really funny but it insists on being deadly serious at the same time which rather ruins the fun. The films second main error is focus. The film can be clearly divided into two halves. The first shows Qohen Leth's relationship with the prostitute Bainsley (played delightfully by Melanie Thierry and I'm not just saying that because she dances around in a very tight nurses outfit). The second shows Qohen's relationship with boy genius Bob the son of the all powerful Management (Matt Damon). Now the problem with this is that the relationships never really fully develop. In the first half there are hints that Bainsley has lost her father but this is never really followed up on. There is never really any explanation of her character or why she might fall in love with this very awkward computer programmer. Then in the second part we start to see a father son relationship develop between Leth and Bob. But again this comes to nothing really. Doesn't do anything for narrative or thematically. It feels like it's for nothing. 'Aha!' you (should) say. 'But isn't the whole point of the entire film that it is all for nothing' Yeah but that's just boring and rubbish. It can portray that theme without making the film really dead. The fact of the matter is that if everything is for nothing there is no tension and no excitement- no point in watching it or, at least no enjoyment watching it. The lack of focus is also shown by the fact that the Zero Theorem basically drops out of the film in the second half.

Christoph Waltz as Qohen Leth

The next criticism is that the film feels either too packed or not packed enough. What do I mean by that? Well I'm saying it's kind of half baked. Gilliam obviously wants to show the world of his imaginings in full but he just doesn't have the budget. This restricts us to only glimpsing images of the outside world. And the problem is those moments are the best. It's where Gilliam's talent as a visual artist shines through. But the with the budget restrictions we only see a little bit of the outside world and most of it is set in Leth's bizarre monastical house. This is frustrating as we are invited into this intriguing outside world and then shut out and dumped in Leth's house. The solution on Gilliam's budget would have been to have it all set in Leth's house. That sounds boring but in a world where you only have to connect yourself to a computer through a less organic version of the hairs in Avatar you can go anywhere from inside the house without having to spend money building street sets. This would also make the dream sequences a starker contrast and more engrossing because we would suddenly be experiencing something new. It would also reflect Leth's character- socially awkward and never going outside.

Melanie Thierry as Bainsley

Another criticism of the film is that it doesn't flow well as a narrative. At the end I was left thinking 'Is that the end or is there more?' This is partly due to its lack of build up to a climax. It kind of just happens. That makes for rather unsatisfying viewing. My final criticism of the film is the lack of any sense of paranoia created by the security cameras and constant surveillance that Leth is faced with. You kind of forget they're there which means when he dramatically destroys them it really means nothing at all. Again lacks any tension or engagement.

Ok so the film does have some good bits. If this film is anything to go by Melanie Thierry would make an excellent prostitute. Her performance is captivating and breathes life into the character and the film. If her character made sense it would have made her performance even better. Waltz is also fairly good as Leth. The film's main strength is its humour. It is genuinely funny. However, this is rather undermined by the poor characters and lack of a narrative really. There are also some nice visuals such as Jesus's head being replaced by a security camera representing the fact that Jesus has become 'the man' as it were- he has determined so many of societies laws through his teachings that he has become the representative of the establishment. The film does have serious points to make about the meaning of life but this is all rather lost in it all.

The Zero Theorem is a confusing film and certainly not one of Gilliam's best but it does still provide laughs and some food thought. Although, like many of Gilliam's this film is probably better after second watching and considerable thought, this is unlikely to be a classic.

Ratings: Entertainment: 4 Technical: 2 Intelligence: 3= 9/20 **




http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/zero_theorem.jpg
http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/zero-theorem-christoph-waltz-570x294.jpg
http://www.cubecinema.com/media/diary/uploads_6426fbd0-da7f-4f0f-97c5-f02abb70a360-the-zero-theorem-2013-lff-terry-gilliam-christoph-waltz-melanie-thierry-david-thewlis-movi.jpg

Her- 4 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

 Her is a film that I really, really want to love. And it is a very likable and enjoyable film. It's funny, moving and intelligent. It made me laugh, (almost) made me cry and made me think as well. Her is also a film for just about anyone. For those of you who don't know what it's about, it stars Joaquin Phoenix as Theodore Twombly a lonely but not especially weird guy who, when he gets a new upgrade to his computer, falls in love with his new thinking and feeling OS called Samantha (basically Siri with Scarlett Johansson's voice). Now you may be thinking 'that sounds completely creepy' and you would be right but the completely believable way it is done makes you almost fall for the strange relationship that Theodore has with his computer (also it does help that Scarlett Johansson has the most erotic voice out there). They laugh together, play weird 3-D video games with a foul mouthed ghost and have phone sex with each other. The film works because the two characters interact with each other in such a believable and real way that it doesn't feel awkward at all. OK well it does, especially when Samantha hires a random woman to be her body when she has sex with Theodore. What Her does brilliantly is reel you in with this very touching and believable relationship in one minute and then make you realise how completely ridiculous and awkward it is in the next.

Joaquin Phoenix as Theodore Twombly

 The film however does have some failings which are so disappointing because this is a really brilliant film. There are three major flaws. The first is that Theodore does not feel real, in fact less real than Samantha. Now this may be intentional to make the audience consider whether Theodore and his feelings are in fact any more real than Samantha's but the problem with this is that it does wreck the whole real feel of the relationship. This means that the contrast between the moments when their relationship is natural and when their relationship feels awkward is lessened because they're relationship never really feels completely real. It is obvious that the director and writer Spike Jonze has tried to make Twombly believable, real and relatable. Well he obviously fell at the first hurdle by calling him Twombly. The stupidity of that name makes me want to cry. Then the geeky twitches in Phoenix's performance and the deliberately awkward delivery of dialouge just makes 'Twombly' unrelatable to and unreal. The performance isn't even off that much, Phoenix just needed to make the character a little more real and use fewer stereotypical mannerisms. As it is I was not convinced by the reality of Twombly and that made it hard to engage in the film.

My next criticism involves the ending which contains SPOILERS so if you haven't seen it is sufficient just to say that the ending feels contrived. So at the end the OS's all leave, including Samantha, leaving Theodore alone. The way this was done, in literally one scene where she tells him that she's going to leave, just made me go 'Wow, someone didn't know how to end this film.' It felt like a cop out, as if Jonze didn't know what he wanted to happen. OK there are numerous occasions when we're informed that Samantha isn't happy and is more advanced than Theodore meaning this wasn't completely out of thin air but it was still quite unsatisfying. My other criticism of the film, and my last, is that the second part of the film felt less focused and too rushed. The first part is very focused on the building up of the relationship and is perfectly paced. As a result it is engrossing and enjoyable watching. The second half however, is more of a bumpy train ride. As the relationship hurtles from problem to problem the film becomes less engrossing because none of the problems are resolved. The lack of any real resolution to these problems made me frustrated. The combination of several different problems means that by the end of the film it becomes harder to care about and empathise with the relationship. Again, perhaps Jonze is doing this to make the viewer realise how naive they were in just accepting this strange relationship between a man and his computer in the first half. However, it is alienating and creates a distance between the viewer and the film meaning that at the end it is hard to feel any pity for Twombly.

Olivia Wilde as 'The Blind Date'

 Anyway, on to the good bits! The best thing about this film is the way the relationship is handled, especially in the first part. The first part is brilliant cinema: uplifting, funny and moving. The relationship between Theodore and Samantha is very touching, especially when compared with the terrible relationship of Theodore's friend Amy (Amy Adams), his ex wife Catherine (Rooney Mara) and a terrible blind date with Olivia Wilde. It is funny and engaging cinema made even more real by the imagination of Jonze. Jonze's imagining of the future is one very similar to our current world. Everyone walks around with their heads buried in their phones/OS's, wear slightly retro clothes and play mindless video games (albeit 3-D ones). However, the best part of this futuristic imagining is Theodore's job. People send him samples of their handwriting and what kind of content they want in the letter. Theodore then dictates a letter of his imaginings to a computer which 'writes' it out on the screen and then prints it off with the persons handwriting used. This small detail just puts even more emphasis on the fact that we, the human race, are losing contact with each other- so much so that we go to the extent to have other people write are letters. Theodores's letter are also horribly cringey although everyone in the film lauds them as a masterpiece. This again shows that people are so out of touch with human emotions that they regard Theodore's over the top and melodramatic letters as works of art. There are also themes of what it means to be human in this film. Samantha is constantly questioning what she is: is she human, is she merely a computer, is she more than human?

Spike Jonze, director and writer of Her

Samantha is evolving all the time (or so she claims)- does this make her superior to Theodore. What is it that makes someone human? Is it having a body? Is it having feelings, thoughts, emotions? Are all Samantha's feelings just controlled by a computer or is she independent of that? There are many more questions like this brought up by Her. There are no conclusions offered but I like that- when a filmmaker offers their opinions on a subject it feels patronising and negates any need for thought after the film. It is interesting to read some reviews of Spike Jonze's previous films however. Spike Jonze's other successful films (Being John Malkovich and Adaption) have been scripted by Charlie Kaufman who is, in my opinion, the most exciting script writer in the world at the moment (or at least in the mainstream). However, many critics have wondered whether the intelligence in Being John Malkovich and Adaption has stemmed from Jonze or mostly just from Kaufman's screenplay. Her certainly proves that Jonze is an intelligent and exciting director and perhaps future screenwriter. If I have one criticism of the themes it is that the film is not very focused thematically. There is never any real development of the themes throughout the film. However, that is not too major a problem as it leaves it more open to interpretation. I certainly am looking forward to Jonze's next projects.

So in conclusion, Her is an ambitious film with various laughs and moving moments but also thoughtful too. It suffers from lack of focus in some places and can occasionally feel alienating but I would certainly recommend this film to anyone who likes romance films, not too action orientated sci fi or anyone just looking for an enjoyable film.

Ratings: Entertainment: 8 Intelligence 4 Technical 4= 16/20 ****



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Her2013Poster.jpg
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/12/17/her-fp-0864_wide-1921514ec201ced0a9f0385827ba5e1b7bf29287-s6-c30.jpg
http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/her-olivia-wilde.jpg
http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/J/Spike-Jonze-9542284.jpg

12 Years a Slave- 5 Stars

 12 Years a Slave was film that I wanted to hate. The hype surrounding it and the overly positive nature of the critical reception of the film put my back up immediately. I wanted to watch the film and find as many flaws as possible. Only problem was there are no flaws. Well ok that's a lie but they are few and far between to say the least. 12 Years a Slave is a brilliant film fully worthy of it's Best Picture win in both the Baftas and Golden Globes and should, rightfully, walk away with the Academy Award for Best Picture too.

 12 Years a Slave is the true story of Solomon Northrup (Chitwetel Ejiofor), a free born African-American in the 19th Century, who is kidnapped and sold into slavery. Amongst the various characters in the film which Solomon meets are the 'good' slave owner William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch), his head carpenter John Tibeats (Paul Dano), fellow slave Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o), 'bad' slave owner Epps (Michael Fassbender) and nice guy Brad Pitt (Brad Pitt). 

Theatrical Release Poster

 Well let's get my few negative comments about the film out of the way first. Several of the characters in this film are boring and one dimensional. Benedict Cumberbatch's nice slave owner has so little screen time that it is impossible for even an actor as good as Cumberbatch to create a believable character of William Ford. Instead we get a fleeting glimpse of a 'nice' man who preaches from his bible yet still keeps slaves. Paul Dano is again the not very likable guy who gets too worked up (haven't seen that before) and beats people (although I'm sure John Tibeats would debate that the slaves are in fact people). Brad Pitt has two scenes where we realise that he is nice guy who will help the poor black man. These characters do serve a thematic purpose. Ford shows the hypocritical nature of the nice slave owner, Tibeats the ferocity of the overseers and Pitt that not all white guys are evil (and some are so nice that God allows them to marry Angelina Jolie). The problem with these characters being completely one dimensional is that it makes the film boring and predictable in places. I managed to guess the exact way in which Northrup was going to leave Ford's ownership the minute that I saw that John Tibeats was a sadist who likes to beat the slaves with very little provocation. I know that this is all historical and actually took place but the way the characters are presented in the film makes it blindingly obvious what will happen. This, for me anyway, detracts from the film and makes me lose interest. It also meant the actors gave a worse performance. Benedict Cumberbatch was awful. His accent was appalling as compared to his fellow Briton Chitwetel Ejiofor. His failure to produce a convincing accent, when coupled with his underwritten character, meant all I saw was Benedict Cumberbatch flouncing around in tails being nice. Now, however much his thousands of fans may enjoy that, I would say that is generally not good for the film. There is a problem with selecting well known actors for small roles in that it takes you out of the film and makes their character less believable. For example, when Brad Pitt appears for about 2 scenes I just couldn't see past Brad Pitt. There was no character there at all. This casting detracted from the film in my eyes as it made me see not characters but actors.

The Holy Trinity? Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyong'o and Chitwetel Ejiofor

 Anyway on to the numerous good things! The question is where to start. I'll start with the acting. Chitwetel Ejiofor is amazing in this film. His performance is not big and bold like,say Heath Ledger as the Joker in the Dark Knight, but, much like Christian Bale's in American Hustle, he creates a believable character that audience actually cares about. He not only does that but he portrays each of Solomon's emotions perfectly at every stage in the film. The only way to say it is that Solomon feels like a real human being and in a film which is all about the degradation of human beings that is the most important thing that an actor can bring. There are lots of contenders for Best Actor at this year's Academy Awards but in my opinion Chitwetel Ejiofor has given a towering performance in 12 Years a Slave and would well deserve the Oscar for Best Actor. Michael Fassbender is also astounding as the slave owner Edwin Epps. When Michael Fassbender is on screen the film feels tense. His character is completely unpredictable and this is brilliantly portrayed in Michael Fassbender's electric performance. He well deserves his Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor and although it seems unlikely that he will win it he nevertheless has given a brilliant performance. Lupita Nyong'o is also great in her full length feature debut as put upon slave Patsey. Now I have had a friend say to me 'She is good but all she has to do is cry'. Whilst this may be true for many scenes she actually brings much more to her performance. It is her ability to show exactly what her character is feeling with just one look that makes this an extraordinary performance but also one that is easily overlooked or dismissed. 

Solomon Northrup (Chitwetel Ejiofor)

The film is not only well acted however, but beautifully shot, sometimes in a horrific way. What do I mean by this? Well when, nearing the end of the film, Patsey is being whipped by Epps and Solomon it is captured in only one vivid shot with the destruction of Patsey's back only being revealed at the end of the shot. The uncut nature of the shot creates an unflinching reality to the scene which in turn makes it almost unbearable to watch. This film excels in making the viewer feel uncomfortable. This is such a brilliant thing in a slavery film because it makes the viewer sickened and distraught at the cruelty of it. Another example of the tension in this film created by the shots is when Epps takes Solomon out in the dead of night and questions him about whether he was considering running away after a tip off. The audience feels the tension in the scene but it is only after Epps has been convinced that Solomon was not going to run away that it is revealed that Epps actually had a knife pressed against Solomon. My favourite scene in the film, but also the most uncomfortable, is when Solomon is left with a noose round his neck dangling from a tree with only the tips of his feet touching the ground. The horrible gagging sound he makes and small circular motion of him him walking around on tip toe in the mud trying to stop himself from choking to death makes the viewer feel disgusted and deeply uncomfortable. I have never seen a film which so effectively makes the viewer feel that way. The fact that this scene continues for a long time prolongs the scene to a point where it is unbearable but still engrossing. 

This leads nicely onto my next point which is about the pacing of the film. The film is exactly the right length. It is engrossing throughout and can be seen leading to an overall conclusion by the end. This makes for satisfying and compelling viewing and although, as I have previously mentioned, it is occasionally dull when the 1-Dimensional characters are on screen they are fortunately not around for long and such is the performance from Chiwetel Ejiofor that this does not detract from the film as much as it might have done because the viewer is so caught up with the character of Solomon Northrup and his plight. This is what I believe makes the film great- it is the development and relateable nature of Solomon Northrup to the audience. Solomon, when he is first kidnapped, wants desperately to escape or at least not be broken by his captors as is shown when he replies to being told to keep down his head and survive 'I don't want to survive- I want to live' However, Solomon changes and although he is ever looking for escape he begins to grow more accustomed to keeping his head down and working (for example when Solomon comes back to work again for Epps he stands head bowed, silent.) However, the horrific experiences that Patsey suffers at the hands of Epps starts to change Solomon back into wanting more again resulting in him approaching Brad Pitt to try and free him.

Michael Fassbender as Epps

What I found most interesting in watching 12 Years a Slave and I would like to focus on for a paragraph is the comparison between it and Schindler's List. Both films deal with the dehumanisation of a particular ethic group. Both film's also have a 'nice' and 'bad' Nazi/Slave owner. The good guys in both films are slightly different with Schindler being the 'good' Nazi and Ford being the 'good' Slave owner. They are different mostly because of the difference in character development and screen time. However, the 'bad' Nazi (Amon Goeth, played brilliantly by Ralph Fiennes) and 'bad' slave owner (Epps) both have an attraction to one of the very people they are oppressing so callously. Goeth has, in the best scene in Schindler's list a very tense scene where he at first professes his love for a Jewish holocaust victim and then kills her in his anger when she does not return his love. This is essentially what happens to Epps throughout 12 Years a Slave. He falls for Patsey, one of his slaves, and rapes her. Then, under pressure from his wife and (fairly well founded) suspicions that Patsey does not particularly like him (can't think why) he has her beaten to within an inch of her life. Both characters are also both extremely volatile, uncaring and frankly sociopathic. The similarities between these two characters were so extreme that I began wondering why this was so. I think it because both characters represent the hypocrisy of their respective causes/ideologies. They hate this ethnic group so much yet they still find that they can fall in love with them as easily as a white or Aryan woman (if not more in Epps's case after we see his strenuous relationship with his wife).

12 Years a Slave is an ambitious film on an epic scale effectively giving the viewer an insight into the horrific time of slavery. With brilliant acting, camera work and direction any flaws this film has are forgiven and forgotten. I would not go as far to say that this film is an instant classic but whatever may be said it is a brilliant film worth seeing.

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





http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/S40XSAtt7mG1JhrETExZaw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/blogs/movietalk/original5-jpg_183032.jpg
http://www.jambands.com/images/2013/11/12/48007/12_years_a_slave_soundtrack-353x.jpg
http://blog.sfgate.com/mlasalle/wp-content/blogs.dir/2272/files/2014/01/12-years-a-slave.jpg
http://images.contactmusic.com/images/feature-images/12-years-a-slave-michael-fassbender-600.jpg

American Hustle Review- 3 stars

 American Hustle is a baffling but ultimately enjoyable film. The main problem with the film is it's overly complicated story line. The plot of the film is so complex that by the time I had figured out one plot point the story had moved on and I was left again trying to puzzle out what the hell was going on in the film. Then at the end of the film, when I had finally sorted out the finer detail of the film's plot, there was an overly complicated plot twist which left me even more baffled. Now, you may be thinking that this is just my own stupidity and although it is true that I have an IQ below 69 I have spoken to other, more intelligent people who were also thrown by the film's plot. I have also read the Wikipedia summary of the plot which I will admit cleared things up. However, if a film is not understandable whilst being watched that surely reduces its' quality?

 Ok well the plot is the films' major problem. Now I'll get my only other slight problem out of the way. Now this will be quite controversial because of the huge amounts of praise that the actors have got but I did not think that some of the acting in this film was quite as good as the reviews and award nominations would suggest. I thought Christian Bale was amazing in making the not very likable and sleazy Irving believable and sympathetic whilst keeping the character's eccentricity and comedic value. Amy Adams was also good although her performance might have been hampered by the fact that it was impossible to work out what her character was meant to be doing or who she liked or just about anything. Now we get into slightly more critical territory. Bradley Cooper was very good throughout the majority of the film. In comparison to the Christian Bale, Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner however, he did not create a believable character. I could never forget that it was Bradley Cooper on screen whereas ,with Christian Bale for example, I instead saw the character. The same goes for Jennifer Lawrence who again, although very good, never convinced me that she was her character. This could be dismissed in saying that it is OK to create a hyper realistic character in return for comedy but as the other characters are funny yet are also believable surely it is possible? Also as the film has a very clear romantic streak in it so it is important to make the characters relatable in order for the audience to invest in any relationships. This works in the case of Irving (Christian Bale) who the viewer feels genuinely sympathetic for in his relationships with both Amy Adams' and Jennifer Lawrence's character. In comparison I found the relationship between Bradley Cooper's FBI agent and Amy Adams' character slightly ridiculous and uninteresting apart from when it affected Irving.

 However, the film is fun and entertaining. It is very funny in places and as I have already said many times, I found Irving's plight touching and engaging. There is a lot of witty and quick banter in this film which makes for enjoyable watching and several laughs. It is also intelligent in questioning peoples aspirations in life: what is it that we want? Love, money, respect? The film's overall conclusion is not clear although I'm fairly sure it wasn't money. Perhaps if the plot was more clear I would be able to say for certain...? It is also a study in dissatisfaction. None of the character's in the film are satisfied with their lives. In the end they realise that actually they will never be satisfied with their life (it will never be perfect) and as a result they become satisfied.

American Hustle's main problem is it tries to be too many things at once: crime drama, romance and comedy which all crowd the film and make the plot and characters confusing. It also actor-whores (jamming a film full of Hollywood superstars e.g. Robert De Niro appearing for about 5 seconds) in the extreme but that might not be a bad thing, I just find it annoying.

Now for the ratings: Entertainment: 6 Intelligence: 3 Technical: 4 =13/20  ***



http://cdn-media.hollywood.com/images/433x650/2069933.jpg
http://blog.ctnews.com/meyers/files/2014/01/lawrence.jpg

First Post- How this Blog will work

The other day my friend told me to stop moaning about films on twitter (something of a rather regular occurrence). So, in order to keep the few followers that I have on twitter I have been persuaded into writing a blog instead. On this blog I will review films both new and old. I will also comment on award wins and other film related things.

For every film reviewed there will be a score out of 20 which will then be scaled down to a star rating out of 5. There will be three contributing factors to the score out of 20: enjoyability (out of 10), intelligence (out of 5) and technical* (out of 5). The reasoning for this is that these 3 factors generally govern how good a film is. The best of films will have high scores on all of them but films can be lacking in one department and still have a high score. For example the 2012 film Lincoln would score highly on intelligence and technical but would have a fairly moderate enjoyability score giving it a fairly high overall score. The Avengers Assemble however, would have both a high enjoyability and technical score but would lack in the intelligence department.

Anyway I hope to post fairly regularly but of course it will be dependent on how many films I watch.

*technical being good camera work, acting etc