FILM: The Dark Knight Rises (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
The final chapter in The Dark Knight Trilogy was always going to be a massive summer blockbuster. I missed it at the cinema but caught it on Blu-Ray. Nolan raised the mantle of the superhero film forever, firstly with Batman Begins (2005) and then with it's sequel The Dark Knight (2008) so expectations were understandably high.

What's it all about?
The Dark Knight Rises is set eight years after the events of TDK, Batman has retired and Bruce Wayne is a recluse. An army of terrorists is being prepared under Gotham City by super-villain Bane, intent on wreaking havoc on the city, invoking martial law through the threat of a nuclear bomb

Should you watch it?
While probably not quite on a par with The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, bigger and darker than the previous instalments, is certainly worthy of being the closing chapter to Christopher Nolan excellent Dark Knight trilogy.

From the awesome opening plane hijack stunt that introduces Bane, the film is littered with action sequences and really is one huge spectacle. On top of the action, the film is balanced by the soul-searching and recovery of Bruce Wayne, not once but twice as well as reasonably well handled themes of social equality.

Tom Hardy brings an intensity to Bane, a different, more physically imposing intensity than Heath Ledger's Joker, and the character is certainly an improvement on the previous portrayal of Bane (Batman & Robin!). He is given the best lines of the script to deliver through his menacing mask-affected voice. Anne Hathway plays Selina Kyle (never referred to as Catwoman), and here is where I have an issue with the Nolan brothers. I was intrigued how they would adapt Catwoman into their Dark Knight universe, and for me it was a let down. She is not the true villain of the comics, instead she is pitched as an ambiguous distraction from the battle with Bane, chasing anonymity from her thieving background and willing to side with whoever can grant it to her.

At 165 minutes, TDKR is stretching the limits of an action film run time but managed to keep my attention. Some of the film's plot holes have earned some attention from critics, the only one I had a problem with was how Wayne got back to Gotham with no money, connections and with the city under lock-down. 

I imagine Christopher Nolan must have spent many night wondering how to conclude his trilogy. Leave it open ended? Retire Batman? Kill Batman? Anyway, his decision worked for me (despite the ending having remarkable parallels to 2011's Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows).

FILM: The Shawshank Redemption (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
I was getting some grief at work after mentioning that I had never seen this film. So there.

What's it all about?
The film tells of the ordeal faced by one man in surviving a double life sentence in Shawshank prison. Tim Robbins stars as Andy Dufresne, a banker sent to prison for the murder of his wife and lover, and wrongly so according to Andy. Andy befriends fellow life-er Red (Morgan Freeman) as he is put to work by the warden on a financial scam, discovers evidence to clear his name and survives beatings, all the while holding out hope for freedom.  

Should you watch it?
I have been really struggling to put into words what makes The Shawshank Redemption such a truly great film. Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman both give outstanding performances and using Freeman's calm narration throughout the film was an inspired move by director Frank Daramont. But that's not quite it, there's more to it. Robbins' character is so likeable (how can a guy this nice be guilty of double murder!), the story of his enduring hope and the impact it has on his inmates, who are resigned to their fates and actually content with life in the prison, lifts the story above the bleakness of it's subject matter.

Time to kill

Wonderful and uplifting.

FILM: The Birds (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
I watched this as part of my voyage through some of Hitchcock's more famous films.

What's it all about?
San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) visits an isolated Californian coastal town to track down bachelor Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor). What she doesn't bargain for is the town being violently attacked by masses of birds.

Should you watch it?
I hadn't even heard of The Birds until a few weeks ago, let alone just never watched it. Now I am glad I have. In The Birds, Hitchcock created a really suspenseful 'monster' film, not with aliens or the like, but with the common bird fulfilling the 'monster' role. Using vast numbers of birds in some excellent shots, he skilfully gives the bird masses, in particular the crows, a menacing nature you would not think possible.

The attack scenes vary from somewhat camp and over the top to terrifying, think of the birds pecking through the front door in the final attack. By choosing not to use a score, Hitchcock ratchets up the suspense as the audience listens out for the crowing warning sounds of another attack.

Imagine the droppings

Underneath the bird attacks, the central story passes along a little slowly to begin with, serving only to get the protagonists in place, but I guess this, and the acknowledgements that something seems amiss with the local bird population, only builds up the suspense for what is to come later.

That the bird attacks are never explained only adds to the terror, was it the lovebirds, or was the terrified lady right, was it Melanie herself?

An accomplished horror based on a simple idea.

FILM: The Vow (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
A choice of the missus (I do like Rachel McAdams though).

What's it all about?
Looking for the defintion of a romantic film plot? This is it: based on true events, the lives of a happily married young couple (Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams) are changed forever when a car accident leaves the wife unable to remember the previous five years, during which they met, fell in love and were married. Sound like a Nicholas Sparks book? Surprisingly it isn't.

Should you watch it?
With worldwide box office takings of $196M (IMDB), it's safe to say that plenty of people chose to see The Vow. Romance films sell, and let's face it, women love Channing Tattum. I can't say that I have seen many true 'roms', most romantic films I watch have the obligatory 'com' attached. The Vow's script has some light-hearted moments, however it definitely can't be classed as a 'rom-com'.

McAdams brings her typical sweetness to the role and Tattum does his best, which might not uproot any trees in the acting world, but through his limited abilities, does bring a certain realness to his character.

The plot is inevitably quite predictable, however, the writers deserve credit for not following the stereotypical plot sequence all the way through to the end. When my missus exclaims in horror that "that's not how it's supposed to end!", you know the film has achieved something at least.

FILM: X-Men: First Class (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
I'm a superhero geek (just without the comics). I thought the original X-Men films were a mixed bunch but the concept of a prequel as an origin story was definitely a good idea to refresh the franchise.

What's it all about?
First Class introduces young Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) and explains how, through assembling a team of mutants to assist the CIA in stopping Nazi Klaus Schmidt, their relationship develops and ultimately breaks down, leading to the formation of Professor X's X-Men and Magneto's Brotherhood of Mutants.   

Should you watch it?
First Class is one of the strongest, if not the most enjoyable, members of the X-men film franchise. It's plot is perhaps overly congested, dealing with a range of characters going through the self-doubt and insecurities of being 'different' on top of the relationship between Charles and Erik in addition to stopping Schmidt from causing the Cuban Missile Crisis from going from military stand-off to full blown war. As usual with X-Men, too many characters are included purely for bodies in the fight scenes. Step forward Angel, Banshee, Havok, Darwin, Azazel and Riptide. Avengers leads the way in accommodating a group of major superheroes without shoehorning wafer-thin characters for cannon fodder. Special mentions for January Jones, who gives the flattest, monotone performance I can remember as the Schmidt's female sidekick, Emma Frost and Kevin Bacon, for performing scenes in German and Russian!


On to the positives......Michael Fassbender. It is not often you associate a superhero movie with powerhouse performances, but Fassbender's intense, brooding portrayal of Erik, hinting at the flaws that ultimately come to the surface as Magneto, is just that, and is a joy to watch. Only a few leagues below (and given Fassbender's performance this is still high praise) is James McAvoy's performance as Charles Xavier.

All things said and done, First Class is an enjoyable action film, benefiting from some excellent actors and the curiosity attached to seeing younger versions of familiar characters.

FILM: Lincoln (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
Lincoln was one of 2012's biggest releases and earned Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor. I caught in on a plane before general release in the UK.

What's it all about?
Set in January 1985, with the backdrop of the American Civil War, Lincoln follows the 16th President of the United States as he strives to get the landmark Thirteenth Amendment passed through the House of Representatives, legally abolishing slavery. Lincoln faces friction within his own party, accused of not giving every effort to first end the war, as well as opposition to the bill from the Democrat party.  

Should you watch it?
Don't let the above plot put you off. Yes, its politics but it's so much more. It's a character study of the highest order. We get to see Lincoln's political machinations, frustrations with public office, as well as his personal strife behind the White House's doors. The narrative never feels dull or anything other than monumentous. 

No, its not an early episode of Suits

I haven't seen any of the films featuring other nominees for Academy Best Actor but I just cannot imagine that any of the performances come close to Daniel Day-Lewis' as Lincoln. Just when you think the guy can't get any better (There Will Be Blood), he steps up to another level. His performance as Lincoln is simply wonderful. Patient, stoic, inspirational, determined, regretful, melancholy, Day-Lewis manages to capture everything.

To heap all the praise on Day-Lewis would be disrespectful to the rest of the cast. Credit where due, Sally Fields is excellent as the Mary Lincoln, Tommy Lee Jones turns in a strong, sombre performance and with the cast on offer I could go on all day.

FILM: Bridesmaids (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
Heard good things about this from friends and the missus so I gave it a go. Judd Apatow produces and he generally knows funny when he sees it.

What's it all about?
Annie (Kristen Wiig) is a single, mid-30s woman with a failed business venture behind her. She is asked by best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) to be her maid of honour but quickly finds a rival for the position in Lillian's new friend Helen (Rose Byrne). As the wedding preparations continue, Annie and Helen spar with each other while Annie struggles to overcome her past difficulties and be the perfect maid of honour.

Should you watch it?
Before seeing Bridesmaids, I genuinely thought it was just a female Hangover rip-off. Maybe that was the marketing or maybe I was being lazy. Having seen the film, the truth lies somewhere between the two. Yes, its about chaotic pre-wedding festivities, the gang intend to go to Vegas and yes, there are some moments of hilarious toilet humour, but that's about it. 

Melissa McCarthy steals most scenes she is in with her brazen vulgarity, a supporting role for which she was Oscar nominated. Prior to his appearance in Lena Durham's Girls (also produced by Apatow), Chris O'Dowd appears as a traffic officer and Matt Lucas has a cameo as Annie's landlord. After reading that Rose Byrne and Wiig ad-libbed most of the speech scene, Byrne's stock has increased in my eyes, as I would never have thought her capable of a comedy role. 

What sets Bridesmaids apart is that as well being hilarious, it's script has heart, and genuine heart, not the over the top contrived heart usually found at the end of most comedies. 

Over everything else, Bridesmaids is a showcase for Kristen Wiig's sharp co-written script and funny portrayal as the flawed and troubled maid of honour. Her inclusion in the upcoming Anchorman sequel is surely down to the success of Bridesmaids.

I would even go as far as that the girls have outdone the boys and produced a comedy better than its closest sibling, The Hangover.

FILM: Limitless (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
This was one that the missus recorded, presumably just because it had Bradley Cooper in it. Still, I remember seeing the trailer when it came out and wondering if it was worth a watch.

What's it all about?
Based on The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn, Limitless tells the story of frustrated writer, Eddie (Cooper), who is offered a pill with the ability to enlighten senses and increase the brain's capacity for memory and awareness beyond that of human beings. Having taken the drug, Eddie's success improves dramatically, and his life along with it, but problems arise at the top when he attracts attention, struggles with the side effects and realises his supply cannot last indefinitely.

Should you watch it?
Limitless is an above average thriller, not without its flaws, but nonetheless well anchored by Cooper's versatile performance as both bum and success story. The film earns points for its varied cinematography and effects, giving clear distinction between the times when Eddie is experiencing the drugs illumination and not. The plot is a little thin, the ending feels almost tagged on as an afterthought and while Abbie Cornish doesn't really have much to do, Robert De Niro doesn't bring as much gusto as you would expect to his role as the investment kingpin who takes an interest in Eddie's success.

FILM: Looper (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
I liked the look of this sci-fi thriller when it was released and always intended to catch it when it came out on DVD. Also, I think that it's star Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an actor with the world at his feet at the moment.

What's it all about?
In the future policing techniques have made it impossible to get away with murder. Time travel has been invented but outlawed, only used by the mob to send its hits back in time 30 years to be taken out by hit men known as 'loopers'. Loopers  however, have a limited shelf life and the mob retires them by sending their future selves back for termination, giving the looper 30 years of retirement. Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as a looper facing his future self, Bruce Willis, when his employers decide to 'close his loop'.

Should you watch it?
Writer/director Rian Johnson has hit the big time with Looper, a really polished and original clever sci-fi thriller that succeeds by focusing more on its characters and slick action than tying the narrative in loops to explain the intricacies of time travel. In fact the film makes it clear that the time travel discussion is off the table, Willis makes this point abundantly clear to his younger self when the pair discuss their past/future in another great American diner scene. It simply isn't allowed to distract from the film.

Knowing me, knowing you

The action is stylish and the film carries a genuine sense of almost low budget indie cool throughout. Armed with his awesome blunderbuss, Gordon-Levitt copes with playing a lead action man well and is ably supported by Bruce Willis and Emily Blunt. Blunt, in particular, gives a strong performance as a single mother resolutely protecting her son.

I have seen some comments to the contrary, but I found the film's ending to be excellent and thought provoking. 

TV: SouthLAnd (S4) (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

I've watched every season of SouthLAnd since it first aired in the UK only a few years ago and rate it as one of the finest police shows on TV. Hugely underrated on this side of the Atlantic.

What's it all about?

Season four of the character focused LAPD cop drama, SouthLAnd. Detective Lydia (Regina King) has a new partner and changing personal circumstances, John (Michael Cudlitz) returns clean from rehab and is partnered with new character Jessica (Lucy Liu) and Sammy (Shawn Hatosy) returns to patrol to partner recent P1 graduate Ben Sherman (Benjamin McKenzie).

Should you watch it?

Yes, SouthLAnd consistently delivers a raw, gritty and unfiltered adult cop drama week after week. The acting is superb again as you would expect from the small but experienced cast and although procedural, the small cast allows great attention to be given to all the characters, giving the show a more rewarding experience in comparison with the likes of Blue Bloods. What I particularly enjoy about SouthLAnd is the focus given to the officers of the LAPD, every cop show focuses on detectives solving cases, but SouthLAnd gives as much time, if not more, to Officers Sherman, Cooper etc. and their gritty dangerous day to day jobs.

Taking a leaf out of The Shield's book and then running with it, SouthLAnd has always stood out with its brutally realistic, almost documentary style approach to filming and the fourth season is no different.

FILM: The Campaign (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
The trailer looked vaguely funny when it came out last year and I hoped that Zach Galifianakis would bring the best out in Will Ferrell.

What's it all about?
Ferrell is 'true American' congressman Cam Brady, about to run unopposed for North Carolina for the fifth time. After a public relations gaffe by Brady, scheming political financiers decide to find someone to run as a rival candidate, in order to achieve their end goals. Enter Galifianakis, as mild mannered pug owner local Marty Huggins.


Should you watch it?

Those expecting sharp political satire need look elsewhere. The Campaign is a typical Will Ferrell vehicle that greatly benefits from the added presence of Galifianakis. The duo provide ample laughs throughout and there are some really funny scenes and lines such as Brady trying to recite the Lord's Prayer from his aides actions or Brady's assertions that everything seems to be 'this nation's backbone' including 'Phillipino tilt-a-whirl operators'.

"Seductively approved by Cam Brady"

While the film does laugh, and laugh well, at the expense of mud slinging campaigns, expectations of the electorate of a 'real American' politician including portrait of a majestic eagle in the home and of the lack of genuine political discussion, the writers of the likes of The Thick of It need not lose any sleep.

BOOK: Clear and Present Danger, Tom Clancy (9/10)

Why did I read it?
Following on from The Cardinal of the Kremlin, Clear and Present Danger is next up in my odyssey through Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series. This story is new to me as I have never seen Phillip Noyce's 1994 film adaptation.

What's it all about?
In an election year, the US administration authorises the CIA to begin legally ambiguous covert operations against the Medellin Cartel deep inside Columbia, with intentions of impacting the import of drugs to the US. In parallel, the FBI uncovers and shuts down the Cartel's global money laundering scheme at a cost of millions of dollars to the drug kingpins. This provokes an angry response from the Cartel and endangers the lives of the men on the ground in Columbia. Previously kept out of the loop, newly appointed Deputy Director (Intelligence) Jack Ryan discovers the clandestine operation has been blown and works to get the teams out before it's too late.

Should you read it?

Clear and Present Danger is one of Tom Clancy's strongest works. All but one of the previous Jack Ryan stories were inspired by Soviet-American tensions but with the Cold War thawing out, Clancy turns his attention to the drug epidemic in the US in the eighties to good effect.

Covert operations in the jungle, assassinations, shady Presidential orders, drug kingpins, Clear and Present Danger is exciting from start to finish. Clancy's high level of technical detail is not as evident here, allowing the story to flow back and forwards from Washington to the jungles of Columbia.

Clancy introduces a wealth of characters throughout the book resulting in Jack Ryan's role being the most limited of all his books so far. The CIA operations ghost John Clark (played by Willem Defoe in the film adaptation) plays a far more prominent role this time around.

FILM: There Will Be Blood (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
A more appropriate question would be 'how has it taken me so long to watch this?'. I've had this on DVD for several years, read positive review after positive review but I never found the time.....until now.

What's it all about?
Daniel Day-Lewis is Daniel Plainview, a determined and ruthless Californian oil driller, out for his piece of the freshly baked oil pie at the turn of the 19th century. Having unintentionally struck oil when mining for silver, the opening act shows Plainview building a steady portfolio of oil claims across California, unafraid of shamelessly using his adopted son to present the image of a family business. Following a tip, Plainview purchases claims for a large expanse of land where he clashes with a local pastor (Paul Dano) in his unquenchable thirst for oil.  

Should you watch it?
Where to start, on the first viewing There Will Be Blood has comfortably become one of my favourite films of all time. From the dialogue-free 15 minute opening of Plainview mining alone, to the intense and violent conclusion, There Will Be Blood is unrelenting. You cannot take your eyes off Daniel Day-Lewis. He is quite simply fantastic as the fiery, vengeful and driven oilman and deserved his . Plainview becomes so dislikeable he is likeable, and I found myself routing for him, after all he is the film. The scenes between pastor Eli and Daniel, in particular the two where each humiliates the other, are worth the price of admission alone.

I....drink....your.......MILKSHAKE!!!!

Maybe I'm biased, maybe Daniel Day-Lewis is one of my favourite actors, maybe because I work in the oil industry the film's subject appeals to me more, maybe great shots of drilling derricks and flaming oil gushers set against the American West just do it for me. Or maybe not, maybe Paul Thomas Anderson has just created a truly great film, full of memorable images and lines. Although central to the film, the themes of religion and capitalism are allowed to exist without heavy handed interference from Anderson. Ultimately, neither come out of the other side smelling of roses.

The reason this film only scores 9/10 is due to the score. Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood is responsible for the score which Tarantino complimented as "one of the great modern original soundtracks of the last decade" but it just didn't agree with me.

FILM: To Catch a Thief (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
So this was it, my first Hitchcock film. After making a New Year's resolution to dedicate some time to The Master of Suspense, I had the opportunity to watch To Catch a Thief on a plane recently.

What's it all about?
A string of jewel thefts from wealthy holidaymakers on the French Riviera lead the police to suspect that retired American burglar and Riviera resident John 'the Cat' Robie (Cary Grant) is not as retired as thought. Whilst protesting his innocence, Robie schemes to expose the copycat thief by getting close to a wealthy mother and daughter (Grace Kelly) with valuable jewels but can he be trusted?

Should you watch it?
Frankly speaking I was more than a little disappointed with To Catch a Thief. Watching it without knowing what to expect, the film seemed more style than substance and where provided, the substance is more romantic comedy and sexual innuendo than thriller. There is no doubt that Grant and Kelly have good chemistry as they flirt with each other throughout, using the witty script to good effect. Neither is there a doubt that the film must have looked impressive upon release, full as it is of shots of the Riviera and its grand hotels. Hitchcock manages to maintain intrigue over the question of Robie's intentions until the film's finale, but it would be kind to call this true suspense.

Enjoyable though the film was from a romantic adventure point of view, perhaps To Catch a Thief was not the best Hitchcock film for me to start with. 

FILM: The Adventures of Tintin (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
Spielberg's first animated film, produced by Peter Jackson and based on the popular children's books, it seemed worth a watch.

What's it all about?
After buying a model of a famous ship, The Unicorn, Tintin becomes entangled in the villainous Sakharine's attempts to discover the ship's secret treasure. After being kidnapped by Sakharine (with Snowy obviously), Tintin escapes with Captain Haddock and helps him to unravel the mystery of his ancestor's sunken ship.   

Should you watch it?
Based on the books of the forties, The Adventures of Tintin is good clean fun and is a genuinely enjoyable film suitable for all the family. Spielberg's team of British writers, Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz), Stephen Moffat (Sherlock) and Joe Cornish (Attack the Block) combine elements from three Tintin stories to produce an exciting adventure   but simple mystery.

Watching the fantastic looking animation, it's easy to forget that with the motion-capture, the actors aren't just providing voices but are responsible for all character movements. In terms of performance, Andy Serkis steals the show as the largely inebriated Captain Haddock. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost pop up as bumbling Interpol officers Thomson and Thompson for comic effect.

One thing I couldn't shake from my childhood was how serious, self-righteous and frankly annoying Tintin can be. Obviously that's a criticism of the character not of the movie, but this version didn't go anyway to changing my opinion.

Spielberg evokes pleasant memories of Indiana Jones in several chase sequences and action set pieces, none more so than the intrepid reporter and Haddock riding in a motorbike and sidecar. Not a bad thing at all.

BOOK: The Cardinal of the Kremlin, Tom Clancy (6/10)

Why did I read it?
Book number four of my Tom Clancy odyssey.

What's it all about?
Cardinal of the Kremlin combines a cold war race to develop Strategic Defence Initiatives (so called 'Star Wars' by the media) with arms reduction initiatives, the Soviet war in Afghanistan and most prominently, the exposure of the highly placed US intelligence source in Moscow, Cardinal. Once exposed, Jack Ryan develops a plan to rescue the source without interfering in the political battle taking place at the very top of the Soviet Politburo.

Should you read it?
An expert at what he does, Clancy manages to weave the various plot elements into a reasonably taught thriller. Although the book takes it's place in the Jack Ryan chronology, Cardinal acts as a direct sequel to Clancy's first book The Hunt For Red October, with Captain Marko Ramius making a reappearance. Jack Ryan actually only plays a small role for the majority of the story, only coming to the forefront for the final act.

The story is definitely most absorbing when in the USSR, either following the Cardinal, his US contacts or the KGB's counter-intelligence officers, especially once the Cardinal becomes compromised or when concerned with the political scheming of the Politburo's top officials, including the KGB chief, for whom the discovery of an American source is political gold-dust. I found the 'Star Wars' laser weaponry side of the story and the detail in which Clancy describes it considerably less interesting and nothing more than a distraction from the cut and thrust of the espionage action.