Gran Torino- 4 Stars

Gran Torino is a refreshing and original drama film about a cranky and racist Korean vet, Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) who, when a Hmong family move in next door, realises that perhaps immigrants weren't as bad as he thought. The trouble starts however, when relatives of the Hmong family start disturbing the teenage son of the Hmong family, Thao (Bee Vang), things soon escalate causing Walt to intervene.

Theatrical Release Poster

Gran Torino is an enjoyable, very watchable and, on occasion, a moving film. However it does have several problems. The first is I am not sure how one dimensional the racist and bigoted character of Walt is. He is at first a grumpy old man who hates his Hmong neighbors but eventually (and predictably) he realises that the Hmong aren't actually too bad after all. Now this isn't too one dimensional and at least Walt has a character arc. The only problem is you can basically see this arc from the first 10 minutes of the film. Now whether or not this is a problem or not is up to the viewer and their expectations of the film. If you are simply looking for a feel good drama then this is fine and indeed preferable. However, if you are looking for something more intelligent and darker, as the dark and brooding lighting of the film and poster portend, then the predictability of Walt's character arc may frustrate. It does feel rather Hollywood. This normally wouldn't be a problem and as I said in a classic Hollywood film it would be fine. But the film pertains to be something more by its dark lighting and religious imagery and message. Therefore I would say that Walt's character arc does let the film down somewhat.

Thao getting mugged by the baddie Hmong gang

I also feel that the film suffers more generally from cliched Hollywood drama writing. Even though the film is showing up white-supremacy attitudes, it does take the elderly and white Clint Eastwood to save the day. In the end many of the Hmong characters are either annoying, underdeveloped or played off for laughs. Sue Lor (Ahney Her), Thao's older sister, is obviously meant to be a real and strong woman. And at first she is, with her verbal sparring with Walt being entertaining and the kick starting his realisation that perhaps the Hmong aren't quite as inferior as he first thought. However, about halfway through the film she disappears for about 20 minutes. Then, when she reappears and makes the same jokes, she seems slightly annoying and irrelevant which means the dramatic moment (SPOILERS) when she gets raped is not quite as hard hitting as it might have been because we don't care for the character as much as we should do. I like the character of Thao/Toad, he feels real, but the mother and Toad's girlfriend Yamyam (I have no idea if that's how you spell it or not, apologies) are both underwritten and Toad's grandmother is played off for cliched and not very funny moments of comic relief. Therefore, in a film that purports to be supporting the Hmong and raising awareness of their culture, there is only one convincing and real Hmong character...and even he is badly acted! That is another point, the actor who played Thao, so the second biggest role in the film, was very shaky and there were times where I was not convinced by his acting.

Clint Eastwood, director, producer and star

Now onto the good bits. Well whatever doubts I have about the character of Walt I have nothing but praise for Clint Eastwood. Eastwood has an amazing screen presence and, to put it bluntly, when he is not on screen the film sucks. The entire film is carried on the back of Eastwood's performance in a role he truly owns. He makes an impressive action hero considering he was in his 70s at the time. The thing I liked most about this film was the way that Eastwood was almost satirising his earlier roles such as Dirty Harry and The Man with No Name. He still kept the masculine power and authority of these characters but at the same time, with his coughing up blood and not being able to move his dishwasher, he is also weak and old. The ending of the film, my favourite part, nails this on the head even more so spoilers until the end of this paragraph. SPOILER ALERT. At the end of the film Eastwood and the gang harassing Thao have a stand off (much like the one at the end of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly). Eastwood uses his hand as an imaginary gun and pretends to shoot every gang member in turn. He then goes in his pocket to, we presume, pull out a real gun (he did the finger-gun thing earlier in the film and on that occasion he pulled out a real gun straight afterwards hence our expectations this time). He is then shot by the gang but it is revealed he was, in fact, reaching for his lighter- he didn't even have a gun on him. This first of all shows how stupid and unrealistic the whole hero vs a gang situation is. The other theme is that the childish act of using the hand as a gun shows how childlike and just stupid this kind of suburban violence is, or even violence in general perhaps. It is also the final step in the character arc. Walt has come to terms with his age and weakness- he knows he can't win by fighting. This is in contrast to the still young and naive Thao who wants to rashly fight the gang. It's amazing how one simple thing can mean so much in a film.

In conclusion, this film has flaws, but it is has a star in Eastwood and its well paced drama and heartfelt emotion means it is well worth a watch despite some dodgy acting and cliched character arcs.

Ratings: Entertainment: 8 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 3= 15/20 ****




http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/clint-eastwood-gran-torino.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhiiJQjn0-UxH7vgRKlvObOcKwRd_piOQg-TKa29I0Yef8QixnAcpiS34dwJkxjusYHmy3_VOWqFqkvG-vNhb8rixLgMHxzYe17dgbhIY1HqGgXYOJur1zO4tKpZlcgPtViwP02ZrslwU/s1600/6a00df35215aa888330111685060af970c-500wi.jpg
http://www.masculinity-movies.com/wp-content/gallery/gran-torino/gran_torino_3.jpg

Vertigo- 3 Stars

In 2012 Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo was voted the best film of all time on the critics Sight & Sound poll composed of all the major critics in the world. I do not agree.

Theatrical Release Poster

I am a big fan of Hitchcock (Psycho is one of my favourite ever films) but this film, concerning John 'Scottie' Ferguson (James Stewart) a retired policeman with acrophobia and vertigo tasked with tailing his old friend Gavin Elster's (Tom Helmore) wife Madeleine (Kim Novak) because he is afraid she is being possessed by the spirit of her dead-by-suicide great grandmother, is not Hitchcock's best.

So what's not to like about it? Well the first half of the film is quite good. It's a Hitchcock film so of course it's brilliantly (and even beautifully) shot with music ratcheting up the tension. The mystery is gripping. However, the problems start coming when Scottie falls in love with Madeleine. The romance is all done in a very melodramatic style with bursts of music playing every time they kiss. This rather put me off the film although I suppose it was very typical in its day taking inspiration from popular films such as Gone with the Wind and Casablanca. It also could be redeemed through its use of contrast with Scottie's relationship with his girlfriend Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes). As opposed to the melodramatic, completely unreal relationship of Scottie and Madeleine, Scottie's relationship with Midge is very down to earth, real and touching. Their scenes together are certainly the best scenes in the film with Barbara Bel Geddes lighting up the screen. But the problem is Midge is basically not in the second half of the film yet the cringey, over the top and melodramatic romance scenes continue although this time with a different woman, Judy Barton.

James Stewart as Scottie and Kim Novak as Madeleine

My main problem with Vertigo involves basically spoiling the plot of the film so be warned that this next paragraph contains spoilers. SPOILER ALERT. Okay so when Madeleine commits suicide, supposedly because her dead great grandmother told her too, Scottie is left distraught and starts to obsess over Madeleine seeing her everywhere. He eventually meets a woman by the name of Judy Barton who looks exactly like Madeleine. It is revealed (although not to Scottie) that she was in fact playing Madeleine and the whole suicide was arranged by the real Madeleine's husband for as Barton ran up the tower pretending to be Madeleine Mr Elster was at the top with his wife who, when Barton arrives at the top, he promptly pushes off the top of the building and then hides with Barton making Madeleine's death look like suicide. Due to Scottie's acrophobia he cannot reach the top of the tower meaning he witnesses the 'suicide' but does not see that it was actually murder. Did I explain that well? No? Yeah that's because it is so contrived and complicated that it is laughable and as a result rather difficult to explain. When watching it unfold I laughed out loud because I thought it must be a false story it was just so laughably forced and contrived. After that point in the film I stopped being interested because it was quite obvious where the film was going and, especially now Scottie was rather unrelatable due to his obsession with Madeleine, the film became boring, melodramatic and predictable. When it came to the ending you couldn't predict what exactly was going to happen but at that point I was really beyond caring. There was little of Hitchcock's trademark tension. I will admit the startling appearance of the nun at the end was good- it certainly sent shivers up my spine- but this was then ruined by the underwhelming death of Barton as she trips and falls off the edge of the same tower Elster's wife was pushed off. Although of course this death was clever as it mirrored the real Madeleine's death showing that Barton was becoming her (also shown through Scottie's obsession with getting Barton to dress exactly like Madeleine).

Alfred Hitchcock, the producer and director

I've been very critical so far and that is because the film, especially the second half, was not particularly enjoyable. However, this is a Hitchcock so there are of course redeeming features. Vertigo is reasonably intelligent with its idea of identity. Madeleine is obsessed with Carlotta showing her desire to be someone else and for those who have watched the film or read the last paragraph the pretense is also obviously referring to the theme of identity. It is also, as I have previously stated, beautifully shot and the first half of the film is intriguing and tense in areas. I was also pleased that, however contrived the resolution was, that it was not supernatural, although it being a Hitchcock film maybe it was naive of me to think it would be. The acting was also good although perhaps slightly wooden in places. However that is most likely to do with the lines rather than bad acting.

I am of course aware that perhaps my negative review of this film stems from my expectations that this film would be a masterpiece. In light of this I will watch the film again and update my review accordingly. My first impressions, however, are that this film is overrated.

So in conclusion, Vertigo is a very visually good film, with tense areas and some good characters and performances, but plot contrivances and the melodrama surrounding the love story mean this film does not live up to its lofty praise.

Ratings: Entertainment: 6 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 3= 13/20 ***







http://jonbateswrites.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/vertigo-poster.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Hitchcock,_Alfred_02.jpg
http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/WanadooFilms/Thriller/VertigoBos.jpg

Slumdog Millionaire- 4 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

Slumdog Millionaire is a rare film in the fact that it is very feel good and moving but at the same time extremely tense and paints a very good picture of extreme poverty in India. Comparisons with Danny Boyle's  previous film trainspotting are inevitable in its simultaneously bleak but optimistic picture of poverty.

The films protagonist is Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) who competes on the Indian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Due to his background as a street urchin or slum-dog he is arrested on suspicion of cheating. In order to clear his name much of the film is told in flashbacks as Jamal tells the police how he came to know the answers.

Dev Patel as Jamal

So let me start by saying that this film was a lot better than I was expecting. I thought it would be a rather naive rag to riches tale but in fact it showed the poverty in India very well but at the same time was uplifting. However, it does have some flaws. So firstly there is some questionably dialogue in place such as 'We are destined to be together' which made me cringe no end. Some of the characterisation was also pretty basic, with there being several just straight bad guys. Now obviously that is necessary for the plot and isn't too major an issue but still, human beings are never all bad so I would've liked to see some more complex characters. Another flaw is the quite heavy handed theme of destiny with the beginning shots asking why Jamal won in Who Wants To Be A Millionaire style with 4 answers with letter D being 'Destiny'. This whole idea of destiny was made insultingly obvious and just felt cringe inducing and out of place in this otherwise very good film.

Danny Boyle, the director of Slumdog Millionaire

Now onto the good things. Well all the performances are good, with special praise going to the very solid child actors. The presentation of poverty is also well done. Striking enough to make the average well off western viewer feel uncomfortable and to show the class divide inherent in India but also not so depressing that the film is prevented from being uplifting which leads me onto my next point. Through the use of well developed character arcs, a well thought out, moving and fairly realistic love story and a tense climax followed by a well done resolution the film manages to be engrossing and uplifting. The relationship between the 3 main characters of Jamal, Latika (Freida Pinto) and Salim (Madhur Mittal) feel realistic, are well developed and are moving. The love story, although slightly ridiculous at times and predictable at others is well done and such is the attachment to the characters that it makes even a stony hearted guy like me feel warm inside. Technical wise it is fine -there are some nice shots although during the opening stage there was a bit of an overuse of side shots. But this is a Danny Boyle film, it is of course fine technically.

In terms of a comparison with Trainspotting both films depict extreme poverty and an individuals struggle to get out of it after falling into ill habits- in Slumdog Millionaire Jamal's struggle to get out of the slums after his involvement in crime and his friend Salim's gang experience, and in trainspotting Mark Renton trying to leave his drug addled life behind him.

So in conclusion this film serves as both an uplifting, moving and tense drama as well as offering a striking presentation of poverty in India.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 3= 16/20 ****





http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Slumdog_millionaire_ver2.jpg
http://andrewsteele.co.uk/reviews/slumdogmillionaire/jamal.jpg
http://thefilmstage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/slumdog.jpg
http://topnews.in/light/files/Danny-Boyle01_0.jpg

Apocalypse Now- 5 Stars

Apocalypse Now is the best film I have ever seen. It is probably as flawless as you can get with a film. It is brilliantly entertaining, intelligent and gripping. Just fantastic in every way. So this review is going to be a little different from my last ones because it is basically going to consist of me running my mouth about how good Apocalypse Now is.

Theatrical Poster

Okay, so for those of you who are completely uncultured Apocalypse Now is a 1979 Vietnam war film from director Francis Ford Coppola (the director of The Godfather) loosely based on Joesph Conrad's book 'Heart of Darkness'. The basic plot outline is that Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) is sent on a mission down the river Nung to kill the American rogue Colonel Kurtz (an excellent Marlon Brando) who has allegedly gone insane.

Well what to talk about first. Let's start with the characters. The protagonist Willard is a soldier at breaking point. We first see him at his hotel room completely wasted and destroying everything. He lacks the purpose or drive that war gives. Already here we are seeing the dark allure of war. So he requests high command to give him a mission, which they readily give him- to kill Kurtz. During the film Willard is completely passive towards everything, only intervening in order to aid his mission e.g. killing an injured Vietnamese woman so that the crew won't waste time helping her and will instead press on with the mission. However, during the course of the film we see Willard begin to develop a fascination for Kurtz. It becomes more and more ambiguous as to whether he will kill Kurtz or join him. Willard's obsession with Kurtz displays one of the films major themes- an idea of not lying about the brutality of war, or at very least recognising the arbitrary laws of being able to kill a man one way but not another. Willard is so obsessed with Kurtz because it seems to him that Kurtz is just like every other man in the war- killing violently with obscene acts of brutality. The difference is however, that Kurtz is honest about it and does not operate within the superficial bounds set by the military.

Martin Sheen as Willard

The character of Kurtz also shows this idea of truth and lies. Coppola said about the film 'It is not so much an anti-war film than anti-lie...' What Kurtz represents is the man who has a moral compass and realises how  destructive the war is. But what he also ultimately accepts is that war is no place for morals. That the ultimate soldier must be moral but must also simultaneously be a man who is prepared to do anything. Kurtz has become such a man and the question by the end of the film is will Willard become that man too? Of course Kurtz's madness has been caused by his indulgence of this destructive instinct. His final words in the film 'The horror. The horror.' create an ambiguous idea of whether he regrets the fact that he has been consumed by the depravities of war or whether he is still enchanted by their powers and dangers.

Marlon Brando as Kurtz

A recurring motif throughout the film is the question of the god vs the animal. Kurtz has become to his native people like a God, living in a pyramid and having them worship him. But his brutality is of such a nature that the audience is left questioning is he really any more than an animal? Okay now for this next point there is a spoiler and it will continue to the end of the paragraph so SPOILER ALERT. Right so this idea of Kurtz as both the animal and the God is backed up during his death for when Willard hacks Kurtz to pieces in the temple, outside Kurtz's worshipers are sacrificing a cow. This obviously links Kurtz to the cow. Perhaps Coppola is trying to say that in the end we are all animals and we will all die like animals? However, there is always this Godlike image in the background. For instance at the end of the film, after Willard has killed Kurtz, the natives lay down their weapons and bow to him as if he, Willard, is now a god too. This idea of white supremacy is obviously a stab at American interventionism thinking that they are gods doing as they please. However, it also shows something about mens passions during war. The weak want to be led by the strong. Kurtz was consumed by this own power because it put no restraints on him allowing him to kill at will. The ideas in Apocalypse Now are very unholy as they place no hope in punishment after death or at least show people are not constrained by their fear of God's retribution.

'I love the smell of Napalm in the morning' Robert Duvall as Kilgore

The film has a blatant anti-war message which is why I am so surprised that some critics thought that the film was pro war. The best example is when Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore (Robert Duvall) orders a search and destroy mission on a village, killing lots of women and children, purely so he can see a famous surfer at work on the better waves in that area. During the previous scene there are blatant anti war images as well such as a Vietnamese soldier lying on the floor holding his guts in when Kilgore comes across him, offers him water and then is immediately distracted by the news that a famous surfer is in the company. The fact that death has become so much the norm that you could leave a dying man just to see a sports star just shows the baseness and depravity of war. Another example is when two American soldiers are standing in the village centre telling the villagers 'we're here to help you' as the rest of the US forces destroy these peoples homes.

One of the main themes in Apocalypse Now is that why is the destruction of entire villages with Napalm less mad than Kurtz's own brutal methods? Again the only difference is that Kilgore remains in the arbitrary laws set down by the US military whereas Kurtz doesn't. This theme of the lies of war are again shown here. This is why Willard is so drawn to Kurtz- because at least Kurtz is open about his methods, he does not seem false.

Basically I could rattle on for days about Apocalypse Now without even touching the surface of all there is to say about this truly amazing film. But for those of you who are perhaps less intellectually minded Apocalypse Now is also a brilliant film in 'regular' film terms. Production wise it is epic- everything looks completely real. It has a compelling plot and it is shot with beauty which is ironic concerning the brutal content of the film (that's another point- during the famous search and destroy scene Kilgore plays Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries. The juxtaposition of this highly artful and skilled piece of music with the complete and brutal destruction of a village again shows the films anti war leanings).

So in conclusion, this film is utterly compelling, tense, intelligent and on rare occasion moving. After watching Apocalypse Now you will never think the same way again.

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






http://3.bp.blogspot.com/M06z3N8QXzk/TXVAwAQro_I/AAAAAAAAADg/czvWr3RJCcA/s1600/Apocalypse%2BNow%2BPoster.jpg
http://cdn3.whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Martin-Sheen-in-Apocalypse-Now-sheenism-religion-for-sheen-addicts-31901524-1222-617.png
http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Brando,%20Marlon/Annex/Annex%20-%20Brando,%20Marlon%20(Apocalypse%20Now)_15.jpg
 https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwQGEMa5DbuVKPdaMnxuecTe6DRs2TnkMimq0A0puAmSYXS-0vAlarwy_XthGfweLKQ6FHEkIvZGdt6ww6qzXkp-GDS_aTVrTlTFpayoei-rROZzSkPZaTxRYImKCCyi2NdfC8ewsQgKRu/s800/ApocalypseLanceKilgore.jpg

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind- 4 Stars

The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a beautiful sci-fi romance from brilliant screenwriter Charlie Kaufman. It stars Kate Winslet and Jim Carey as a couple in an alternate universe where it is possible to remove someone from your memory.

Theatrical Release Poster

The film is all that you would expect from a Kaufman film- it's funny, moving, thoughtful and even romantic at times. The cast are of course brilliant as you would expect from Winslet and Carey, and with a supporting cast that includes Elijah Wood, Mark Ruffalo, Kirsten Dunst and Tom Wilkinson the acting is very strong. You should be warned, however, that although the film stars Jim Carey, his ability to pull silly faces is kept to a minimum.The film is, like all of Kaufman's films, rather surreal and non linear with most of the plot actually taking place in Joel's mind as he tries to stop his memories of Clementine (Kate Winslet) from being erased from his memory.

OK so is there anything bad about the film? Well Joel is a little hard to identify with, especially at first. He's quiet and rather uninteresting. But of course, as time goes by the character grows on you as you get to know him. Now perhaps the impatient viewer might find this annoying but actually it is a brilliant idea from Kaufman. Just as Clementine gets to know Joel over time so do we the audience. We see him grow and become more out going as a character. Kaufman is of course, very subtle in his character development. There is no cliched hero arc for Joel- his character does not completely change from a shy, generally nice guy to a gutsy action star. No his character rather changes in a more discreet way. Instead of being overly shy he becomes slightly more confident. By the end of the film he is no longer content to watch things pass him by and instead is willing to actually try and help himself out. Not a huge change, but a more realistic and touching one instead.

Are there actually any proper criticisms of the film? Hmm, well the supporting cast, although essential to the films plot do feel a little underdeveloped and certainly the least interesting scenes in are the ones away from Carey and Winslet. The relationship between Mary (Kirsten Dunst) and her boss Howard (Tom Wilkinson) feels a little contrived. The film perhaps slows in some areas, again scenes without Carey or Winslet. However, all in all, the film is very solid and has few flaws.

Eternal Sunshine is full of Kaufman wackiness

So what are the good points about the film? Well the most important point is that the relationship conceived between Joel and Clementine is not only utterly believable but very touching as well. The complete contrast in their personalities (Clementine being very outgoing and forthcoming about her problems whilst Joel is shy and quiet) creates both awkward humour and a realisation that perhaps love isn't about finding someone just like you but in fact someone who fits with you well. The 'you complete me' cliche springs to mind. However, this is a Charlie Kaufman film so cliches are strictly prohibited or if found are done in such a way that you a) don't recognise them or b) they are in the middle of so much wacky stuff that they feel comforting rather than laughable.

Who knew you could do so much with hair?

Kate Winslet's hair is another brilliant touch to this film ( I kid you not). Clementine's hair changes with her mood e.g. red when she's angry. This again fits with her character of expressing herself in contrast to Joel's closed personality which is shown by having his hair over his eyes, trying to bar him from the world.

So before I end this review I do have to talk about the themes of the film. Right, so the main theme of the film is obviously memory. Joel tries to have his erased but then regrets it as does just about every single other character in the film. Therefore, what I think Kaufman is saying is that we shouldn't try ignore or blank out horrible sections of our lives. Instead we should learn from them and move on. Improve ourselves as human beings. This is particularly apparent through the character of Joel. We see how he is before his relationship with Clementine- awkward, shy and slightly creepy. Then his experience of a relationship makes him grow more confident and expressive. Part of the tension in the film is created through the worry that if his memories of Clementine get erased then Joel will go back to being the boring, unexciting guy from the beginning.

Related to memory is the theme of identity. Patrick (Elijah Wood) steals notes from Joel's relationship with Clementine in order to woo her himself. In a way Patrick has assumed Joel's identity. What Kaufman is trying to say is that if we have parts of our memories erased are we still the same person? If our experiences make us what we are surely when we have them erased we lose part of our identity?

In conclusion, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is moving, intelligent and occasionally funny film with brilliant acting and direction, thoughtful themes, sharp dialogue and a genuinely beautiful and realistic romance.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Intelligence: 4 Technical: 4= 17/20 ****





http://derekwinnert.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/355.jpg
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338013/
http://twi-ny.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/eternal-sunshine.jpg

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