The Sixteenth Pictureshow

The Violent Media

&

Antiviral Advance Reviews

Sundance Film Fest

Contents February Features Page 4: The Violent Media Page 8: Antiviral Interview Page 14: Sundance Feature

February 2013

Reviews Section Page 38: The Look Of Love Page 39: Sound City Page 40: Arbitrage Page 41: Stoker Page 42: Flight

Regulars Page 3: Editor’s Note and Contributors Page 48: Things To See

Page 43: Hyde Park On Hudson Page 44: Django Unchained Page 45: Lincoln Page 46: Pitch Perfect Page 47: Warm Bodies

Contributors Editor’s Note Editors

Joshua Hammond: Editor-in-Chief joshua@pictureshow-magazine.com

Dale Pearson: Editor

dale@ pictureshow-magazine.com

Words

Joshua Hammond Alice Sutherland-Hawes Ben Ostell Katie Driscoll Josh Sutherland Owen Seth

Online

Find us at pictureshow-magazine.com Like us on facebook Follow us @PictureShowMag

Welcome Back to PictureShow Magazine!

There are no words that can accurately describe how incredible Sundance Film Festival was. Though PictureShow is only 18 months old, we somehow managed to wangle a press pass for this amazing festival.

After having immersed myself in this amazing event, I feel all the more confident about Pictureshow and being a film critic and journalist.

We’ve got some fantastic articles alongside the monster Sundance coverage. One of our reviewers has stepped up to writing a feature and Katie Driscoll’s look at screen romance is a great read in the week before Valentine’s Day. Kieran Owen’s music documentary article is a great recap in the run up to the Oscars.

We’ve got more and more advance reviews every month and February is no exception.

Reviews of The Look of Love, Flight, Klown are all wonderful.

Joshua Hammond Editor-in-Chief

Violent Media

JOSHUA HAMMOND

It is unusual for Pictureshow to take a political standpoint on such an issue, but after having spent two weeks in the USA where we saw our favourite media demonised and blamed for America’s obsession with violence, we felt that it was time to put our thoughts into print. The point of this article is to try and curb the current discourse around violent films and the nature in which the media and gun lobbies demonise and vilify a mode of expression they are unfamiliar with in order to remove themselves from the spotlight. The CEO of the NRA has gone on record saying “Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?” in reference to violent movies. This argument is irresponsible and unnecessary.

The current situation is of shirked responsibility, the media is engulfing itself in blame. Recently, The Washington Post published an Opinion piece entitled “Hurt: An open letter to Christopher Nolan, Sean Penn and Warner Brothers” which rather brazenly stated that “Your (the director’s) celebrations of diabolical mayhem and pornographic violence prey on the fantasies of sick, fragile minds. You insulated them from the painful reality of bloodshed.

You have inspired mass murder.” The piece later goes on to compare the directors to Bin Laden.

How pleasant. The CEO of Endgame Productions, the studio behind Looper (a film involving a scene where an individual is literally dissolved in incredibly slow motion) said “If you’re playing a game and learning how to shoot in a simulated environment, that may push you over the edge more than something else” despite there being “no CAUSAL relationships found between violent games and vio-

lent behavior, just CORRELATIONS” according to a study by Massachusets General Hospital of 1214year olds in 2004.

It is essential to the rest of this article to reinforce the lack of any basis for these spurious links. The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2009)124 found that “violent movies deter almost 1,000 assaults on an average weekend.” And that following the Columbine shootings, one of the largest scientific studies examining 100 cases, including the Columbine massacre, found that:

“ While the killings have caused many people to point to the violent aspects of the culture, a closer look shows little evidence that video games, movies or television encouraged many of the attacks. In only 6 of the 100 cases did the killers have a known interest in violent video games. Seven other killers showed an interest in violent movies.”

All evidence that points to links between the media affecting real world actions is either hypothetical or coincidental. Videogames that involve driving dangerously have no relation to worse drivers either.

While some people that play racing games are more dangerous on the roads, it’s because they’re teenage boys, a group already deemed more dangerous by insurance companies. Using the same example, The Fast And Furious franchise has taken billions at the box office but it hasn’t been decared to be dangerous to society because the central characters regularly speed. Having watched over a dozen Ryan Gosling films, Pictureshow is no closer to becoming a chiselled, charming rogue. Why is it only violence in films that can effect the audience?

For years the news media has focussed on the role of films on crimes committed. From the “Clockwork Orange Gangs” of the 70s to the “Menace II Society” and “Matrix” crimes of the 90s, focus has fallen on whether a person was influenced by a film rather than the more tangible links between the crime and the motives. In Aurora 2012, a mass killing at a showing of The Dark Knight Rises hit headlines across the world, and the reporting largely followed the Batman link. At the turn of the Millennia, The Matrix was making waves because of its apparent relationship with a series of killings across the US. Josh Cooke of Oakton Virginia was widely reported to believe that he was “in” The Matrix as he slew his mother and father. The film was also connected to Lee Boyd Malvo, one of the Washington Snipers, who has been reported to have been obsessed with The Matrix.

Looking at the tragic killings in Aurora in 2012, there is a link with films, those that died were film fans who had queued up throught the night to see the latest Batman film as early as possible. The shootings at a Batman screening at a cinema in Aurora sent shockwaves across the industry, and almost immediately the media began reporting that the killer had been inspired by the Batman movie (despite that fact that this was opening night). As coverage continued, the news began looking at the killer in Aurora as being inspired the Joker. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said: “It clearly looks like a deranged individual. He has his hair painted red. He said he was the Joker, obviously the enemy

of Batman.” Though this quote was never official, it was blazoned across every single news channel and tabloid rag across the world. What the media failed to realise that the crimes on screen and those in real life, hardly resemble each other at all. The Joker doesn’t use guns. A fact that is constantly reiterated on screen, when arrested, he had “nothing in his pockets but knives and lint”, something that can hardly be said for James Holmes. Due to the fact that this event this occurred at a cinema, and the unqualified statements of a police officer, an entire industry has been demonised and set upon by the media.

For the best part of two decades, Quentin Tarantino has been questioned because of his use of violence in his films. A week prior to the release of Django Unchained, Krishnan Guru-Murthy interviewed Quentin Tarantino and in a moment that was to become a viral sensation; Murthy broached the same question. Unsurprisingly the director’s reaction was less than dignified. While Tarantino’s films ARE violent, they are violent as a form of homage.

Quentin Tarantino is a walking reference, even his films are named after films that have been and gone. The Inglourious Bastards was originally released in 1978 and Django was released in 1966.

It’s unrealistic to say that his own brand of violence is brand new, the most extreme elements of Kill Bill, such as the House Of Blue Leaves Showdown and O-Ren’s backstory all borrow stylistically from other films. This month’s cover is inspired by both Goodfellas (1986) and The Great Train Robbery (1903).

The increase in graphic violence in films has been drawn together with these mass shootings without any real statistical evidence. It could be seen that films are more violent now, I will concede that they’re certainly more gory, the majority of American news channels have failed to notice that violent crime in the US is actually on the decrease! And it’s falling incredibly fast, at a rate of around 5% each year since 2008. While it would be arrogant to suggest that violent movies has caused this, it seems outrageous that violent films are being demonised and blamed for these apparent film-related killings and the unscientifically supported “effect” on people. It needs to be realised that in countries aside from the US, we have exactly the same violent films and videogames and the internet has led to wider access to very violent films, but the homicide rate is considerably lower.

What Pictureshow will suggest is that very violent movies actually have the opposite effect to what the media is suggesting. Graphically violent films inhibit violent tendencies by showing the realities of death. Recent releases such as Zero Dark Thirty and Django Unchained (yep, I’m going there) demonstrate that violence and torture are reprehensible.

Zero Dark Thirty could be based entirely in fiction and it wouldn’t change the fact that the scenes of torture are hard to watch. Likewise, the treatment of slaves in Django show the violence of the era in a fashion previously unseen and the effect is one of disgust. Nobody left the theatre thinking “Well, that Candie sure did have it right, didn’t he? Maybe I need some slaves.” Likewise, nobody watched The Killer Inside Me and left approving of domestic violence, nobody saw Straw Dogs and thought that the the rape was acceptable. Violence in movies has the power to turn people OFF violence in the real Film has been an extreme medium for the last cen- world and shows the consequences of such actions tury, directors have been pushing the envelope for in a safe setting. over 100 years by causing a reaction in the audience. There are reports that showing L’arrivée d’un It is unfortunate that violence is still a part of modtrain en gare de la Ciotat (1896) caused people ern society and that gun violence and mass killings to think that a train would actually come out of the in the US are seemingly commonplace. It should not screen. Filmmakers are provocative, spiky charac- be forgotten that these are horrendous, abhorrent ters and so are their creations, but there is no evi- crimes and the cause of them should be sought out dence of a relationship between exposure to vio- and eliminated. However, the assertion that violent lent films and to violence. Directors of some of the films are at the root of these crimes is unfair, unmost disgusting or disturbing are incredibly nice realistic and unjustified. The issues of gun control, guys, they may make twisted films but even with poverty and mental health legislation are all bigger the amount of power they do wield over actors and issues than what a murderer caught at a multiplex they’re not sadists. before he went on a rampage.

Brandon Cronenberg

JOSHUA HAMMOND

Antiviral Dosage - Once Every February, particularly effective against celebrity obsession.

Acclaimed director, Brandon Cronenberg took time out to speak to Pictureshow about his debut feature, Antiviral.

What inspired the concept behind this film?

Have you already started writing another project?

I was really sick and it was 2004, I was at film school and I had this extremely bad flu and I was semi conscious and having this delirious fever dream getting obsessed about the physical nature of my illness. The fact that I had something in my body physically that had come from someone else’s body and how that is a very intimate thing, if you think about it that way. Then I tried to think about the character of the disease and how our celebrity obsessed fan might want Angelina Jolie’s cold or someone’s virus as a way of feeling physically connected to them. The fact that that was not really so far fetched is what got me thinking and it developed into what I thought was an interesting metaphor that can be used for discussing celebrity culture.

Just barely. I’ve been travelling around, this is the end of three weeks of travelling around with this film. We haven’t had too much time to really dig into it, but I am working on something and hopefully I’ll get a chance to make it.

A lot of people I speak to have like a giant drawer full of notes and stuff [laughs] I have a massive file of notes but they’re all scattered and all over the place so assembling them into some coherant structure is kind of a task.

Were you at any point intimidated by taking on a feature length film?

Not really, not because it’s not a huge undertaking That metaphor, continues in your film, and not because I assumed I would be good at it. what do you see as the progression of I guess the consequence of failure would be that that world?

I wouldn’t be a filmmaker which would be sad. I mean, you can only find out by doing it. In general Well, in the film there’s the skin grafts and the meat i’m an uncomfortable person but I didn’t feel THAT and everything. That stuff was just all to drive the much more uncomfortable taking on a film. satire, everything in the film is something that I see in our culture that is just kind of exaggerated … Some of the actors in Antiviral are terslightly, but not too far. rifying, especially Malcolm McDowell, he’d scare the shit out of me. Was that a You said you see Antiviral as a satire, do problem for you? you find that bleak humour interesting? [laughs] You know what, he’s a really nice guy, Yeah, for sure. It’s meant to be critical of that cul- he’s a really cool guy and he was really supportive ture but in a kind of funny way. You know there are and funny on set. Lovely to work with. Not as scary aspects of our culture that have become so com- as one might think, I actually had a lot of fun with monplace that are now grotesque and absurd. So him. you kind of have to laugh at that stuff, but at the same time bear in mind that we are defining our How did you go about directing Caleb culture and we have to take responsibility.

Landry Jones? His performance is just wonderful.

Why did you opt to both write AND direct your first film?

He’s just a really good actor! (laughs) Caleb loves to go all the way with things, he really got into it One of the things was that I wanted to be a writer, and gave us a huge variety of stuff to work with. i’m a book nerd and I kind of collect books. So I So it made my job really easy actually. We talked wanted to be an author for a while, I don’t think i’m a lot, it was really collaborative and I gave him a very good fiction writer but I like that element of guidance but I never had to draw it out of him if it, playing with my own ideas. It’s not that I would you know what I mean. He had it there. He gave us never direct someone else’s script, but a big part such a wide variety of performances that we could of my interest in film is about coming at it from the just pick and choose what we needed. When my idea of different perspectives and starting from the editor first assembled the film, that Syd character ground up. was almost a completely different chasracter

because we almost shot three versions of him and and the black. Is Caleb’s physical apwe could have cut him very differently. We just had pearance, with that bright red hair, what immediately drew you to him? an abundence of material to work with.

What were these other versions like?

It was just a happy accident, that was always the look we were going for and we happened to find The version that he cut, he had Syd be a little more this great redhead (laughs). I did want someone wisecracking. I didn’t think it was quite as intense pale because I thought it would be easier for them to go that way. It changed the tone of the charac- to look sickly and we could do more with the make ter, y’know? And with this cut it becomes a bit of a up. So I wanted someone pale and we desaturated monster movie with Syd as the creature. But there the film also so I think it’s at about 20% colour, so were some takes where he really pushed that to a he’s even more pale in the film than he is in person. really extreme place. After we got what we wanted But the fact that he has red hair as well as that pale we’d play around and go to the very extreme. I complexion was something of happy accident. think it’s most effective to be a bit realistic with it Hannah Geist’s name has a symbolic elewhile still pushing the subject. ment to it, was this intentional?

We noticed the monster movie allusions, the scene in the cafeteria, he genuinely Yeah it was interesting, because it means Ghost in appears like a completely different per- German, but it’s also a legitimate last name. There are “The Geists” so I thought I couldd get away with son. it, without being too on the head. It is a little bit, but Yeah! He totally transforms into this creature and in it’s also a real surname. the basement when he steps out into the light with Looking at Hannah Geist as a ghost or a his face all covered. He’s pretty monstrous. spirit, what did you want her to repreThe film seems to have a very limited col- sent? our pallette, between the red the white

I guess it’s that she is the celebrity as an immortal soul. Not in an actual spiritual way, but in the sense that celebrities are really these fictional characters but they’re infinitely young and live on forever and continue to haunt us for years after the human has died.

With the imagery in the film and the emphasis on illness, is the thermometer the new cigarette?

Yeah, in the film for sure.

thing of a double edged sword, this is the kind of industry where it’s hard to draw attention to what you’re doing. There are people who are interested in what i’m doing purely because of my father, so getting more interest in the film is positive. On the other hand people are also framing what I do in the context of my father and his career. Which affects how they see me and how they see the film, which isn’t a positive thing. But it was inevitable I knew that would be the case before I got into this.

At any point, would you try and distance yourself from that reputation?

If you could see Antiviral on a double bill I don’t know, the thing is there was a brief period with any other film, what would it be? in time where I was worried about that as I was Oh man, I don’t know. That’s a good question. I getting into film. Then I realised that if I worried too have no idea. Sorry, i’m terrible at answering those much about avoiding comparisons, which would probably be impossible anyway, I would be definquestions. ing myself totally in opposition to his career, which A lot of attention gets given to the fact would still be defining myself in terms of his career. that you’re David Cronenberg’s son, are I’ve found that the only way to make films openly you grateful for that attention or does it and honestly, from a satisfying place is to just not worry about it. This film represents my interests, it bug you? wasn’t an attempt to avoid or embrace his work. I Well, I don’t know because that’s been my life since just tried to not think about it as much as possible. before I got into filmmaking so I’m kind of used to it at this point. In terms of film it’s probably some-

Do you enjoy working the film festival circuit? You’ve been travelling for three weeks now, are you enjoying it or has it taken it out of you?

A bit of both, it’s a huge privelege to be able to travel with the film and for it to get into festivals like Cannes, London, Toronto and other places we’ve been. Sitges was amazing. So I feel hugely honoured and priveleged to be supporting the film. But i’m intensely introverted and a total hermit so it’s very unnatural for me so it is a bit strange to have to psych myself into an unnatural mind set in order to roll with it. When I get back to Toronto I will have travelled, in the last three weeks, literally around the world. I just kept going west.

festivals but you’re there for two days and you do a lot of press so there’s no time. I’m at each place to work so I don’t have much time to enjoy them.

I’d love to come back to these festivals when I don’t have a film at them so I can see some stuff.

Did you go to a lot of film festivals before you were working at them?

I never travelled around for festivals, I spent some time at TIFF. I’m not a huge festival guy but I’ve got a better sense of them since I started going with the film. Sitges is amazing, have you ever been?

I haven’t.

It’s incredible, first of all, the place is amazing. It’s this resort down by the beach but it’s a huge genre festival so everyone there’s either a horror geek or a sci fi geek and they play all these cool films so No I haven’t seen a single film since I started travel- there’s a great vibe to the place. I had never been ling. there, but i’d love to go back and just stay for a week.

Nothing at all?

Were you not tempted to try and bring No that’s the downside of this, you’re at these great the film to Frightfest in London?

Are you never tempted to just disappear off and see a couple of films?

Yeah well, the thing is, I don’t have control over which festivals I go to. The Frightfest guys have been really supportive and they wanted the film but I don’t know if it’s because it got into London or whatever. There’s some plan that our distributors have. I hear that there’s another Firghtfest in Glasgow, I don’t know if we’ll be there. But those guys are really cool and supportive of the film so whatever the plan was, it didn’t allow for it. I don’t know what that was.

We’re massive fans of Frightfest, we did a huge feature on it, the atmosphere’s insane.

Yeah, Karim Hussain our cinematographer, shot and directed sections of The Theatre Bizarre, this omnibus horror, and he was at Frightfest LAST year and said he just had a big, crazy time.

don’t know if it’s because i’m too busy and I really have to focus, that means I don’t have time to feel weird about it. But I feel very comfortable directing.

What was it that really pushed you towards being a film director? especailly after you said you wanted to be a writer.

Well, while I wanted to be a writer and was also doing a lot of visual art. Illustrations and paintings and then I was into music too, I was playing in bands so I was too scattered and wasn’t focussing on one particular thing. So film seemed like a good way to kind of collect all of those interests into one art form that I could work on enough and eventually become good at. But it isn’t that way. I was wrong not to think of it as it’s own art form. It doesn’t satisfy the things that I was involved in. It became really interesting to me as I studied it so now I really like it.

You said earlier that were introverted and a “hermit” how does that work on Would you ever be tempted, like John set?

Carpenter, to put your own music into your films?

I’m not totally sure... I don’t know if it’s because there’s so much to do on set that I begin to feel very I was never a good enough as a composer. I was a comfortable. Even though in theory I shouldn’t be bass player. I think composing a score is something comfortable. I was worried about that when I was else, I mean I wrote songs but I was never a comgetting into film because it seems like it would be poser. I like working with other people and I had against my personality, but when I’m actually there a good relationship with the composer on my film I enjoy getting into it. Especially with people I like. I and so I just want to do that again.

JOSHUA HAMMOND

The Necessary Death Of Charlie Countryman This Bucharest set action thriller, follows the titular Charlie Countryman (Shia Laboeuf) after his mother’s death sends his life into disarray. After following the advice of an hallucination, Charlie’s life spirals out of control, getting involved with the organised crime rings of Bucharest.

Shia Laboeuf has been trying his very hardest to shed his image as the clean cut kid from Transformers and Disturbia. With this and Nymphomaniac around the corner he may finally get his wish. Rupert Grint and ^^^^ are clearly trying to shift the images they’ve cultivated in Harry Potter and The Inbetweeners.

The soundtrack is as thrilling as the action itself.

Moby’s music has been utilised in everything from adverts to installation art, but on screen it always

feels cinematic. When coupled with the stunning visuals, The Necessary Death Of Charlie Countryman is exhilarating and hard to forget.

While the film isn’t very serious, or indeed particularly well written, it’s a great deal of fun. Set up like a fairy tale, the opening act is narrated by John Hurt, the film follows Charlie as he learns to become the hero he has always wanted to be. The Hurt voiceover is quickly forgotten about, but the fairy tale influence remains. It becomes obvious that the director’s previous experience has been in advertising, he has a real eye for style and is more than happy to shoot set pieces in slow motion. The action sequences are gloriously gory and Roman Vasynov’s cinematography is spectacular capturing the essence of Bucharest in all of it’s neon lit glory.

Who Is Dayani Cristal?

This strange documentary details the final days of a traveller found in the Arizona Desert with tattoos found on his chest saying Dayani and Cristal. Giving him that moniker the documentary searches for the story behind the man. The film struggles with its own narrative, set up like a mystery the documentary immediately plays it’s hand by utilising the considerable skills of Gael Garcia Bernal to recreate the journey undertaken by the anonymous traveller.

calibre in such a low profile film. His appearance is disconcerting and a different actor could solve the issues about being thrown out of the drama.

The central mystery set up by the title is never really presented as such during the film. Within 20 minutes the film shows you that they’d found those closes to the myster man and they just don’t reveal his name. The moment family and friends are interviewed it becomes clear that the documentary is The strange narratoive set up of the documentary dragging itself out, when the family appear you’re has an alienating effect. With Gael Garcia Bernal aware that they know who the young man was. appearing as the titular character in recreations of his journey, the real people involved in the case A political discourse is fused on top of the story and such as the forensics experts and he family, seem the film gets away from its premise and starts trying out of place. Almost as though the director wanted to make a larger point than it necessarily deserves to create a narrative film but couldn’t quite get the to. There are two films here, presented as one. It’s story in order. It’s strange to see a star of Bernal’s interesting but confusing viewing.

Crystal Fairy

One of two Michael Cera/Sebastian Silva features at this years festival. The film follows a group of friends on a pilgrimage to find a mescaline infused cactus. Michael Cera plays Jamie, the driving force behind the groups motivations. The group are joined by the mysterious Crystal Fairy after Jamie, infused with alcohol and chilean cocaine, invites her along for the ride.

Michael Cera is the film’s main attraction, on screen his role as Jamie is simple, he has to be as vile and unlikeable as physically possible while desperately seeking San Pedro. Jamie will be familiar to anybody who knows someone with a penchant for drugs, his desperation and single focussed mind ring true. It’s one of Cera’s best perfomrances. Crystal Fairy marks a change in Cera’s usual choices playing a lovable and quirky but clueless

individual, the closest to this is Cera’s role as the dastardly rogue hinted at in Youth In Revolt.

However the film does have its drawbacks, once the group of friends find the allusive cactus and they draw out its hallucinogenic quaalities it completely loses any real focus. Crystal Fairy’s direction doesn’t become trippy and hazy instead it remains completely sober, the problem is that the subjects lose focus and for the final act they are no longer compelling characters. Their actions have no reason.

The film does have a great central performance in Cera’s Jamie and it’s an impressive debut feature from Sebastian Silva, but it fails to keep you interested all the way through. This may be an issue with the motivator or a lack of foresight.

The Moo Man

In order to turn a profit at his family farm, ^^^^, has begun selling raw milk to generate money without selling to supermarkets. The Moo Man looks at the state of dairy farming in the UK and the hardships that modern farmers have been going through.

Using ^^^^’s farm as a microcosm for the rest of British farming, The Moo Man looks at the uncertain nature of Dairy Farming and the problems that farmers can encounter. ^^^^ is a compelling central character for a documentary. Unassuming but still engaging, he is a pleasure to watch. As the film progresses, the directors do try and give personalities to the cows and explain the relationship between a farmer and his cow but it does feel a little heavy handed. It is easy to see where the narrative of the film is going, the story of life and death on a farm is a cammon one.

The film has the tendency to be a bit repetititve, though this the nature of the industry.

The cinematography is standard, the film is set in the beautiful British countryside but there is little to really demonstrate the beauty of the area. The film does adeptly demonstrate life on a farm, from out characters home life to the lives of the cows.

The Moo Man certainly manages to display the harsh realities of dairy farming, from the calving process to the butcher. While the film does bring a political message, it’s not utilised to its full extent and seems somewhat forced. The Moo Man has a very repetitive quality to it, but this only serves to mirror the lives of the farmers involved.

Newlyweeds Spending 87 minutes in a movie theatre watching Newlyweeds is a lot like spending 87 minutes in the company of people getting high while you remain sober, they people you’re with begin to get on your nerves and aren’t nearly as funny, profound or original as they think they might be. The act gets dull, fast. While the acting is competant it’s the material that the issue’s with.

The plot of Newlyweeds revolves around ^^^^ and ^^^^ a young couple with dreams of travelling and escaping the confines fo their tiny flat in a stifling city. The only thing inhibiting their dreams is their taste for mary jane and the apathy they suffer as a result. After ^^^^ suffers a meltdown after not being able to score some fresh weed and ends up in Prison and their relationship crumbles beneath them.

There is a considerable amount of skill behind Newlyweeds, but it’s wasted on irrelevant plot points and misguided developments. The film can’t tear itself away from thinking it’s hit on some wonderfully profound point about weed. But it’s all bluster.

There are some strange political mativations behind Newlyweeds. The film tries to put forward the idea that Marajuana is a gateway drug to alcohol and that the real danger in the world is alcohol.

This is despite all of ^^^^ and ^^^^’s problems being created by their marajuana habit. There are some fun musical cues and comedic set ups, but the film really can’t manage to drag itself away from its own agenda. This film has nothing new to add to the pro Marajuana arguments that have been put forward for the last 50 years, it simply retreads old ground. Like a Bill Hicks tirade on repeat.

We Are What We Are

While based on the 2010 Mexican film, Somos Lo Que Hay directed by Jorge Michel Grau, We Are What We Are doesn’t feel like a straight remake rather it feels like a vast reimagining of the basic concept. Where the original film was incredibly dark and atmospheric, We Are What We Are revels in its deranged humourand utilises Horror movie cliches to great effect.

A great deal of the credit must go to the looming presence of Bill Sage as the central family’s patriarch. Sage’s performance is wonderfully deranged and a climactic showdown between him and Michael Parks is certainly interesting. The performances of the young actresses ^^^^ and ^^^^ are equally impressive and terrifying. You can never be quite sure which way this strange family is going to go.

This film explores the crazed religion behind these traditions and how it came to be. Mixed in with the humour is an incredibly dark subtext about the nature of familial relationships and the power of religion. The cinematography is wonderful and aptly gloomy, the rain seems to drip from every inch of the cinema screen. The soundtrack adds to the gloomy nature of the film with a low humming score that screeches into the upper echelons of audibility for some fun jump scares.

We Are What We Are is pretty far removed from the original movie, but is exactly what you would expect to see from the minds behind Stake Land.

The same bleak humour and wonderful jump scares that are evident in the pair’s previous work is on marvellous show here. We Are What We Are doesn’t reinvent the genre, it just has fun with it.

Mud

Jeff Nichols’ third film concerns two teenagers who, on the lookout for a boat in a tree, discover a man living on an island. After being convinced to help him find food in exchange for a boat they found in a tree, the two young men become enraptured by the mysterious figure’s story and help him reunite with his girlfriend and avoid the dangerous men on his tail.

While there are certainly elements of the film that feel as though it’s been seen before, it’s a fabulous tale about growing up and the consequences to your actions. Jeff Nichols’ story is one that is based in mythology and modern legend. The story takes its cues from westerns and coming of age stories such as Stand By Me. Matthew McConaughey gives further evidence that

he is not only a respectable actor, but one that should be sought out. Tye Sheridan, who is quickly becoming the industry’s child actor of choice after working with Terrence Malick and going on to work with David Gordon Green in Joe, gives a wonderful performance here as ^^^^. Nichols’ use of respected actors from TV backgrounds ensures that there are fantastic performances from all sides. ^^^^ of Sons Of Anarchy and ^^^^ of American Horror Story both give magnificent performances as ^^^^’s troubled parents.

Mud is a magical film by a talented director, this is only Jeff Nichols’ 3rd film and it is a remakably assured directorial showcase. The combination of dreamlike images and a fantastic soundtrack ensure that Mud will take up residence in your mind as well as your heart.

The Look Of Love Paul Raymond was one of the most publicised and controversial figures in late 20th Century Britain.

After having realised that his mind reading shows were more popular when they featured scantily clad women, Raymond preceded to open nude revue shows and eventually launch a publishing empire which included Men Only, Mayfair and Escort. The Look Of Love is not the story of Raymond’s business, rather it is the story of the relationships that defined his life.

Steve Coogan’s performance as Raymond great as is the supporting cast. However, there are certainly issues with the script, which creates a very forgiving and sentimental look at Raymond’s life. Imogen Poots’ performance as Raymond’s daughter ^^^^ is impressive and the role certainly gives her something worthwhile to work with after having worked

in bit parts for so long. Anna Friel does a remarkable job playing Raymond’s first wife ^^^^.

Michael Winterbottom’s direction is again fantastic but presents a very timid look at a man who feared very little. Initially, the idea of Michael Winterbottom, the man behind The Killer Inside Me and 24 Hour Party People, directing a feature on Raymond sounds perfect. But instead of opting for the more realistic, unflinching and beautiful films we’ve come to expect from him, The Look Of Love is a little simpering, looking at Raymond incredibly affectionately.

While the film is wonderfully shot, and the performances from Coogan and Poots are glorious. The film remains confused, not knowing how to really pack its punches.

Mother Of George

Set in a Nigerian-American community, Mother Of George revolves around a newly married couple Adenike and Ayodele, and how they deal with the pressure of having a baby. Pressures from the newly formed family drive Adenike and Ayodele to distraction when it becomes apparent that they cannot conceive naturally and ^^^^ is hesitant to get their fertility checked.

Mother Of George brings the issues of relationship s and family in an often overlooked community to the fore and raises some intriguing issues. There are, however, issues with the scripting and pacing of the film. The script fails to fully reinforce the drama until the final act leaving the conclusion ringing empty. The performances of the cast are credible but the material they’re given to work with doesn’t pass muster. The film has a tendency to lumber on,

and takes a long time to make it’s point effectively and combine all of its wonderful elements.

Bradford Young’s cinematography is wonderful, the opening scene of a traditional Nigerian wedding is alive with colour and wonder and the rest of the film is shot using different motifs to ensure that the coldness of the relationship is relaised in the images on screen. Bradford Young was given the Sundance award for cinematography at the final Sundance awards ceremony for this and for Ain’t Them Bodies Saints which is thoroughly deserved.

Depite the issues with pacing, Mother Of George is a well made movie with some beautifully shot imagery. It brings to light some concerns with the Nigerian-American community and is an impressive feature from ^^^^.

Don Jon’s Addiction

Joseph Gordon Levitt’s début feature as a director is a remarkably assured and confident film about modern relationships. Centred around “Don” Jon a bartender, ladies man and porn addict, whose life is strictly compartmentalised, everything in his life is treated like an object, from his car, to his religion, his family and his girlfriends. After he finally lands the girl of his dreams, everything he had becomes compromised especially his relationship with porn.

Levitt’s script is hilarious and stays close enough to reality to make sure the emotional beats hit home.

Those of us, unfamiliar with the New Jersey party scene are given a crash course in how to pull in a bar (being smoking hot seems to be a good start). However, even though the film is set in a very specific region, the characters are universal even though their accents are thick.

Levitt has undoubtedly called in as man y favours The film’s narrative does raise questions about our as he could to fill his film with great performances. relationship with the media, with sex and with each From Tony Danza playing his ultra aggressive faother. Levitt’s script works hard to ensure that Jon ther, to Anne Hathaway appearing in a fantastic isn’t a villain, which he could easily be. The realisa- little cameo satirising the modern romantic movie. tion that people are trying to control Jon as much as With a scorching soundtrack from Nathan Johnhe’s trying to control them. Brie Larson has a fan- son, accompanying the fresh images from Levitt’s tastic role as Jon’s sister, who’s one line of dialogue camera Don Jons’ Addiction feels like the voice of a genuinely fresh talent beautifully sums up the entire film.

Virtually Heroes Virtually Heroes feels like a 3 minute sketch drawn out over 90 minutes. Revolving around two characters in a First Person Shooter game, it follows them as they try to find the big boss and win the girl.

The two lead performers are completely lacking in chemistry and any comedic timing. Their delivery of jokes (even though the script is partly at fault) is dreadful. It’s the kind of acting you’d expect in a very poor school production. Mugging at the Though the idea behind Virtually Heroes is quite fun- camera and pulling daft faces seem to have been ny, especially with the jokes about glitches, lagging encouraged. And while it’s nice to see Mark Hamill internet and online trolls, but the jokes are waaaay on screen again in a cameo, it’s not enough to save to far apart to really consider the film a comedy. this movie from being an utter disaster.

The script doesn’t really know how to present the leads. Even a casual gamer would understand that There are few redeeming qualities to Virtually Hethese characters don’t echo modern video games. roes, while it probably felt like a good idea in a Instead we have a scrpit that feels about 16 years script meeting, this film was out of date long before old, the jokes about online gaming are squandered it began shooting. Modern video gaming has been in favour of pathetic jokes about cheat codes, hid- the object of ridicule from programmes such as den rooms and how to change your characters cos- The Simpsons and frankly Virtually Heroes doesn’t tume. The game in the script feels as though it was even get the laughs the broadest jokes on television makes sure it hits. A wasted opportunity. made far too long ago to still be relevant.

Breathe In

Breathe In feels like a film you’ve seen many times before, it’s the story of a family whose lives are turned upside down when an 18 year old british girl on an exchange programmecomes to stay with them. At the centre of the drama is Keith, played

by Guy Pearce, a father and a man who feels cheated out of his dreams of becoming a musician.

When Sophie, played by Felicity Jones, moves in and demonstrates a prodigious talent for the piano Keith re-evaluates his life.

12 years her junior especailly after having watched her play teenagers for the last decade. The dialogue is snappy and the family relationships are considerately crafted. There is a worry that the film could blame the mother, ^^^^, for all of the problems in the family’s home life, but the film quickly bypasses that.

The craft behind Breathe In is wonderful, the film is well acted, directed and scored. The images are incredibly natural and relaxed. However, the story While the film is deftly acted and wonderfully shot, is so predictable that it takes away from everything the script often feels like a retread of other movies. positive about the film. The startling lack of origiThe film hits the same beats as American Beauty, nality on the part of the story means that you can Garden State and Sabrina. Guy Pearce’s perfor- feel every plot development comming from a mile mance as Keith is impressive, you can feel his frus- away. Following the opening few scenes you could tration with his life throught the cinema screen. It probably write the movie yourself and end up with does feel odd that Felicity Jones is playing a girl something similar to what’s on offer in Breathe In.

Kill Your Darlings

Daniel Radcliffe plays the young Allen Ginsberg as he moves from his parent’s house to Columbia University and meets Lucien Carr, William Burroughs and Jack Kerouac. Ginsberg’s life gets turned upside down as he discovers his sexuality and is introduced to the underground world of New York City and the vibrant community of poets in the 1940s.

Kill Your Darlings explores Ginsberg’s relationships and the burgeoning style of writing that would come to the fore in less than a decade.

This début feature from John Krokidas is an intriguing look at the formative years of the beat poets.

Radcliffe’s performance as Allen Ginsberg is a revelation and his American accent actually seems more genuine that his alienating British one. However, Dane DeHaan steals the show as the magnetic and troubled Lucien Carr. Ben Foster (who

seemingly can play any age he chooses) is great as William Burroughs and manages to pin down his allusive accent perfectly.

The soundtrack, featuring the likes of Bloc Party, The Libertines and TV On The Radio alongside music from the time is an intriguing mix and works by using themes of sexuality and camaraderie to link the music. While the soundtrakc may be anachronistic, the cinematography apes the hazy quality of early colour photography.

Kill Your Darlings is a great film about the early days of the Beat Poets, while it may be that the Hollywood market is getting stifled with films of 60s experimentation and of sexual freedom this is still an example that there might be life in this kind of period drama yet.

Ain’t Them Bodies Saints Casey Affleck is one of the greatest actors working today, while his brother has moved onto directing, it is clear that Casey’s talents lie in acting. Affleck’s face has the same intensity as someone like James Cagney’s. Meaning that you never know whether he’s going to kiss or kill on screen, he constantly walks that knife edge. As such his casting as ^^^^ worksd beautifully. You can never be sure which of which accounts to believe, whether the police are right in their accounts or whehter he’s harmless and just wants to see his daughter. As ever, a mixture of the two seems likely.

a young couple who are separated when one gets sent to jail for armed robbery. The doesn’t centre around the action, this isn’t Bonnie And Clyde, the film works in the moments in between the robberies and the jail breaks to look at the consequences of violence. The cinematography by Bradford Young, who also shot Mother Of George, is wonderful and dreamlike, which is in contrast to his work on Mother Of George.

Lowery’s direction is fantastic, a conscious decision was clearly made to avoid any kind of distinguishing time marker. The fashions, cars and sets could Ain’t Them Bodies Saints is a fantastic vehicle for Af- as easily be from 1950s, 70s or 90s America and fleck and his co stars Rooney Mara, Ben Foster and that gives the film a real timeless quality that aids Nate Parker. Written and directed by David Low- the telling of a story of young love. Ain’t Them Bodery, who also edited the elusive Upstream Color, ies Saints is one of the defining films of Sundance the film revolves around the relationship between 2013.

Upstream Color Shane Carruth exploded onto the Sundance scene in 2004 with his debut feature, Primer. Almost a decade later, he returns to the bright lights of Park City to showcase his latest work, the elegant and poetic Upstream Color. Centred around a young woman, Kris, whose life is shattered when a man she meets on a night out hypnotises her in order to rob her. The film then follows Kris as she tries to comprehend what happened that night and how she can get her life back on track.

fiction tone and direction. As the film moves away from this kind of narrative it begins to meander and get bogged down in Kris’ relationship and fragile state of mind. There are less examples of a clear cause and effect, the film is less of a straight narrative and becomes distracting.

In the film’s final act, it almost becomes entirely silent, Carruth utilises the actions of those involved to tell the story in an unconventional fashion. This isn’t silent in the same fashion as Hollywood before Upstream Color has a tendency to lose it’s own the 1930s, this is silent in another mode. The plot narrative, exploring seemingly inconsequential comes together in this final silent third and it when subplots. The opening third of the film is magnet- it does come together there is a fantastic feeling of ic viewing as the story shows the tale of magical payoff and relief even if the film remains dense and properties distilled from a series of maggots utilised often impenetrable. Repeat viewings are a must, by a thief to get what he wants. Carruth’s direction but only to ensure you can fully wrap your head and sound design work beautifully with the science around the basic plot of the movie.

Metro Manila

From British director Sean Ellis, Metro Manila is a taught thriller set in the urban landscape of Manila.

The film revoves around a family who struggle to make a living as farmers and decide to move to the cinema in order to make some extra money.

As they quickly move into employment and a good apartment, there is a price to pay that they may not be able to sacrifice, their integrity.

Showcasing wonderful cinematography and great story work the film is a gem. The initial hour does have a tendency to drag especially as the hardships and trivialities of moving to a city are realised. But Metro Manila certainly picks up the pace in the second hour as the tale shifts from a drama about a family suffering due to poverty and a low standard of living to a tense crime drama about a young father who works in a high risk job for a

security company with a corrupt superior and the high chance of being attacked.

Demonstrating a real flair for direction, Sean Ellis is clearly making the most out of the cheaper costs of filming in a foreign country. Though the film is a relatively low budget flick, it looks as good as any of Hollywood’s mid budget movies that cost almost ten times as much to release. The performances from the unknown cast are intriguing and full of emotion that is uncommon in mainstream works.

Metro Manila is certainly the work of a great new talent, after seeing the transition of other young British directors working abroad such as Gareth Huw Evans (The Raid) and Gareth Edwards (Monsters) it will be interesting to see where Sean Ellis goes from here.

Stoker

Stoker’s narrative follows India Stoker after the death of her father and the sudden appearance of an estranged Uncle Charlie. As her mother and Charlie become closer and closer, India goes in search of her missing father and the reasons behind his death.

Park Chan-Wook’s first english language movie is a wonder of a film. The director himself has described it as both a dream and a nightmare, leaving it up to you to decide how you interpret the events that take place. While the events may seem somewhat horrific, there are elements that could lead ou to believe that India is in fact a hero at the centre of her of own movie.

Stoker features a terrifying performance from Matthew Goode, getting to the depths that he should

have reached for Ozymandias in Watchment. Mia Wasikowska is compelling as India, a violently independent young woman who certainly seems to enjoy the attention her father’s brother is giving to ger. There is a suggestive quality to the dialogue and action, though the film never goes as far as to actually show anything untoward.

The drama is compelling and keeps a tight grasp on your attention. Featuring a fantastic score from Clint Mansell and exquisite cinematography from Chan-Wook’s regular collaborator Chung HoonChung it is an interesting addition to Chan-Wook’s filmography. If only because it’s one of the less aggressive and gory films he has released. In the english language, Chan-Wook is restrained and seems to be relying heavier on the power of suggestion and the central performances.

Sound City

Dave Grohl’s documentary about the Sound City recording studio is a strange animal, a hybrid of sorts. The first hour or so of the documentary are devoted to the history of the recording studio, using interviews with the owners, studio managers, runners and interns to tell the story of Sound City as well as possible. The story spans several decades from the late sixties, through the punk and grunge eras into the modern day. Various studio alumni and music legends such as Neil Young, Rick Rubin, Butch Vig, Stevie Nicks and Josh Homme all contribute interviews to the picture and their love for the studio is palpable.

ing styles and the use of Pro Tools are peppered around the narrative but with little consequence.

For 20 minutes each contributor blasts the use of Pro Tools and digital recording, which is fine, but the film then proceeds to show Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross disproving all of their arguments. There’s obviously a kick ass soundtrack and some great interviews.

Sound City isn’t a cohesive work or a very in depth look at Sound City. Now that can be put down to Grohl’s inexperience as a director and as a debut effort, Sound City is impressive. But it’s tendency to slip into using overly sentimental voiceovers about The second act of the movie is a considerably more how young and foolish everybody was. As a docuindulgent affair, showing Grohl just hanging out mentary about Sound City, the film is incomplete, and jamming with his very impressive friends. Mod- but it definitely has some strong redeeming qualities ern topics such as the analogue vs digital record- and raises questions about the nature of recording.

Wikileaks: We Steal Secrets Alex Gibney’s look at the growth of WikiLeaks is an impressively researched and crafted documentary.

While this film has generated some addtional attention because Julian Assange has publicly claimed that it is anti Wikileaks, what it should be seen as is a documentary about the realities of the secretive organisation and the cult surrounding the big man himself.

In the years to come there will be a tidal wave of projects revolving around the organisation and its shady front man, including a drama starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Daniel Bruhl. Gibney’s documentary succeeds in showing the history of the organisation and the controversy surrounding it from different angles. The use of different talking heads to look at the same issues from different points of view is effective, especially in allowing the

audience come to their own opinion. The doc is neither pro or anti-Wikileaks and opts to present the news surrounding the organisation from worldwide perspectives. The story of Bradley Manning, one of Assange’s key informants is the emotional heart of the movie, but the documentary does lack a real gut punch moment, a moment where everything falls together and becomes clear. While informative, it’s not particularly engaging.

It would not surprise me if in the years and features to come more compelling Wikileaks movies are made and as the drama finally collapses in on itself we’ll be given a clearer imeage of what actually happened behind the doors of this allusive operation and whether Julian Assange was a troubled genius, saviour of the people or a wannabe media personality with a dangerous God complex.

Before Midnight

The third installment of Richard Linklater’s “Before” series, after Before Sunrise and Before Sunset returns to the same central couple, Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy), from the previous films. Utilising the same meandering aesthetic, central theme and structure that revolves around a series of conversationd from one afternoon. The film simply follows the couple and documents their encounters with others and after listening to them speak for over an hour a real picture of their life becomes whole.

sible, a significant period of time passes between each film.

Coming 18 years after the original movie and a full 9 years after its sequel, Before Midnight still has plenty of great dialogue and the chemistry between Hawke and Delpy is palpable. The ageing process is more than evident, and that feel important, that instead of banging out a sequel as often as pos-

While it’s certainly not as flashy, shocking or complicated as many other Sundance film, it revels in its simplicity and gives you time to recognise the beauty of the world around you. This isn’t cinema designed to shock or confront, it just transports you to another couple’s world for 100 minutes.

Richard Linklater has been something of a Sundance darling, his early work Slacker was received well as the festival and his independent streak has lead to him becoming something of a poster boy for the Sundance methods of filmmaking. The original Before Sunrise had its premiere at the 1995 Sundance Film Festival. The sequel premiered at Berlin, but for Before Midnight, they returned to Sundance.

Prince Avalanche For the last few years David Gordon Green has been the provider of brash, outlandish stoner comedy in the form of Pineapple Express, Your Highness and the HBO series Eastbound And Down.

However before these huge commercial projects, he was known for smaller indie comedy fare and Prince Avalanche is a return to those roots. The story revolves around Alvin (Paul Rudd) and Lance (Emile Hirsch), two road workers who spend their days painting lines and pitching tents. Their peculiar friendship is explored and various bizarre characters rear their heads every now and again.

pressed about how “old and fat” he’s got, despite still only having the demeanour of an 18 year old.

The film’s action is interspersed with surreal imagery from pigeons nesting in a 4x4 to an alderly lady searching her burnt out house for remenants of her former life. The relationship between the two friends is the main attraction, while they bicker and argue about what’s a worthwhile use of time they are inherently endearing despite their own failures as people.

Prince Avalanche is a welcome return to David Gordon Green’s initial work. Don’t mistake us, there is The film is incredibly slowly paced, this is about definitely a place for the crude and often vile huas far away from Eastbound and Down as it could mour of Eastbound and Down but Green’s focus on be possible to get. Prince Avalanche makes a lot this more independently spirited fare seems more out of character’s inaction. Alvin stays as far away worthwhile. The less said about Your Highness the from his girlfriend as is possible and Lance gets de- better.

Lovelace

This Linda Lovelace biopic follows her transition from sweet natured and coy 21 year old to the most famous porn star in the world in the 1970’s. Looking at her relationships with Chuck Traynor, her friends and her parents, this film doesn’t shy away from the grittier elements of the story behind the notorious porn movie ever produced, Deep Throat.

Lovelace is presented in two halves, showing Linda Boreman being seduced by the world of pornography and the glamour of it all and then recaps looking behind the curtain showing the mafia connections of her business and the domestic violence that Boreman was subject to during her relationship with Traynor.

The performances from Amanda Seyfried and Peter Sarsgaard are particularly impressive. The emo-

tional toll that the role had taken on Sarsgaard was evident at the post film Q&A where his speech was broken and stuttery. Their supporting cast also has a wonderfully varied range of actors from James Franco to Robert Partick and Sharon Stone. By utilising two different perspectives on the events, it allows each actor to flex a range of acting muscles within one film. So they can deomnstrate the surface and the reality.

There is something curious about the current state of the biopic, so frequently are we introdiuced to a new film that aims to get into the mindset of a particular character in a certain time or place, that they are quickly becoming passe. This shouldn’t take anything away from Lovelace, it’s does just remain as an ordinary biopic with very extraordinary performances and that should be applauded.

The Way Way Back

A gentle hearted comedy in the vein of Sundance’s other successes such as Little Miss Sunshine or Garden State. As a fractured family move to the seaside for the Summer their relationships begin to crumble and Duncan, an introverted and shy teenager, finds a calling working at a Water Park for the enigmatic Owen (Sam Rockwell). Under Owen’s tutelage, Duncan grows in confidence and begins to become a more well adjusted and brave individual.

much all of Sam Rockwell’s other roles, he does all the time. Steve Carell’s performance is interesting, Pictureshow has always maintained that Carell is at his best when he’s playing bad people and in The Way Way Back his role as Trent is one of the most despicable. Trent is a genuinely unlikeable guy, not someone who’s motives are questionable, or whoo just got the wrong end of the stick, he’s an abusive, aggressive and unfaithful individual.

Like a few of the offerings at Sundance, you kind of feel like you’ve seen The Way Way Back before.

The central theme of an introverted youn kid becoming more confident due to the influence of a slightly off kilter older presence is familiar. Sam Rockwell’s role of Owen is typical Rockwell role, he’s carefree, funny, a bit of a dick but ultimately endearing.

Oh and he dances too, which if you watch pretty

The Way Way Back is another script from Jim Rash (Community’s Dean Pelton) and Nat Faxon who won Best Adapted Screenplay in 2012 for The Descendants. But The Way Way Back sees them in a directorial fashion as well, making sure that their words are communicated best on screen. The Way Way Back is a quiet comedy, but very funny. It’s not Sideways funny. It’s funny funny.

A.C.O.D.

After trying to get his parents to be civil for his younger brother’s Birthday, Carter inadvertantly pushes them back into a romantic relationship together while simultaneously discovering that his childhood therapist was actually a pop psychologist who was using his screwy childhood as a basis for one of her books.

Adam Scott does deserve this kind of vehicle more often, as he’s certainly one of the main reasons to watch NBC on a Thursday and though he may have worked with Scorsese 9 years ago his more recent roles have been less than brilliant. The plot does begin to go a little haywire in the last third as everything becomes a little overdramatic and shouty.

Adam Scott’s motion picture career has been somewhat stunted, while he has shone in American series, Parks And Recreation and Party Down, his roles in Step Brothers, Piranha and Our Idiot Brother have been somewhat forgettable. However, in ACOD he takes centre stage and relishes the opportunity to do so. Playing the seemingly well put together restaurant owner Carter, Scott finally gets a more meaty part to play as he explores Carter’s neuroses and insecurities that stem from childhood.

ACOD has a killer supporting cast including, Richard Jenkins, Catherine O’Hara, Clark Duke and Amy Poehler all working together to try and pry as many laughs out of the script as possible. Jankins and O’Hara are wonderfully deranged as Carter’s parents and are enough to send anyone to distraction. This is a good debut from Stu Zicherman and it’s incredible that he managed to pull together such a collossal cast and even though the film does get lost it manages to pull through and remain funny.

Big Sur

An adaptation of Jack Kerouac’s 1962 novel, Big Sur, revolving around the author’s later years as an alcoholic struggling with the attention that his novels have brought him. Kerouac’s narrative is framed by his relationships both with friends and romances.

Big Sur’s problems all stem from its source material, of which it is quite a realistic adaptation but without a great deal of the charm Kerouac imbued into his writing. Big Sur can ape Kerouac’s style as much as it wants, but it cannot capture that genius accurately. The narrative takes great swathes of the novel and vocalises them on screen, but it rings holWith a droning narration from Jean-Marc Barr the low and without conviction. film aims for profundity but ends up wallowing in its own insular universe. Big Sur’s cinematography Big Sur feels inferior to the other Beat Generation is beautiful and Jean-Marc Barr’s “Kerouac” voice movie at Sundance this year, Kill Your Darlings is impressive, but the film is long winded, unevent- which feels modern and relevant despite it being set ful and in dire need of an edit. The supporting cast over 70 years ago. Big Sur looks impressive but the are an assortment of low key indie actors like Josh dialogue feels stiff and clunky, which would indiLucas who plays Neal Cassady and bigger stars cate that the film has actually got its priorities vastly such as Kate Bosworth playing BIllie Dabney. The wrong, if anything it could look rough but it has to soundtrack is sparse and does nothing to aid the sound right. Like Kerouac in his final years, Big Sur rambles on and on with nothing like a goal in sight. events of the film.

Pandora’s Promise Those opposed to nuclear power rank in the millions, largely because of the perceived environmental dangers and the hysterical news reporting of nuclear meltdowns in Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Pandora’s Promise looks at how nuclear power could be the most environmentally friendly solution to generate power. Utilising expert opinions from those previously opposed to nuclear power and explaining how much it took to convert them to supporting further nuclear power.

ral background radiation levels the documentary shows how the levels of radiation outside reactors and waste storage facilities is no different to regular levels. The film is clearly doing its best to present a case in favour of Nuclear Power and it is convincing. However it would be more convincing if a rational discussion with the anti Nuclear protest groups could be established instead of pouncing on them at rallies or in the street which feels like a bit of a cheap tactic.

While it is not unusual to see a series of talking head experts, Pandora’s Promise ensures that those who have spent decades protesting about the dangers explain their current position on the issue..

Pandora’s Promise is particularly good at dispelling the notions and fears propagated by the news and the anti-nuclear movements. By checking natu-

Pandora’s Promise is a great documentary for anyone with a passing interest in environmental issues and a great starting point for anyone who wants to begin supporting the campaign for more Nuclear Power. Robert Stone’s direction is clearly informed by his own experiences with the environmental groups and his previous documentary Earth Days.

xxxxxx The Spectacular Now Teenage drinking is a national concern here in the US.Sundance is held in an incredibly conservative state when it comes to alcohol (you can’t buy a double, you have to buy two separate drinks under the guise that someone else is having one) it’s still surprising to see so many billboards and ads revolving around the topic. The Spectacular Now is an attempt to try and present underage drinking in a new light.

The Spectacular Now deals with this apparently national concern, Sutter is an 18 year old man who enjoys a drink, he’s fun, smart and often profound but rarely is he seen on screen without a drink in hand. After he’s dumped by Cassidy, the girl of his dreams after she misunderstands why he’s in a car with another girl, Sutter tries his best to move on with his life. After meeting, Aimee Finicky, played

by Shailene Woodley, he embarks on a new kind of relationship based on learning and discovery.

Sutter’s new relationship helps him to explore his own potential and his crazed family life. Miles Teller’s performance as Sutter is revelatory, Teller uses his charm and his easy grin to mask Sutter’s burgeoning alcoholism.

It’s useful to see a film about the less headline grabbing effects of drink, this isn’t Leaving Las Vegas or Crazy Heart, it’s much more toned down and subtle. As such it’s considerably more effective. The Spectacular Now doesn’t have any grand montages demonstrating the depths people sink to after having become a drunk. The Spectacular Now is about a guy who’s still fun when he drinks, he hasn’t reached rock bottom, but his drinking still has an effect on his life.

Blue Caprice There are a number of flaws with Blue Caprice, from the dialogue which often feels forced, to the strange cinematography, it feels like an exercise in alienation. However, this may be it’s point. Revolving around the men behind the Washington Sniper attacks and the campaign of alienation that young Lee Boyd Malvo (Tequan Richmond) was subjected to in the care of John Allen Muhammed (Isaiah Washington).

Blue Caprice seems to have its priorities all mixed up. A particularly jarring moment is a scene involving a young assassin being “desensitised” with Doom and The Matrix, Pictureshow may be a little biased against this kind of portrayal (check out page 4) but it still feels tacked on to try and fit in with the current discussions about Violence and Entertainment.. While there may be strands of truth

to the portrayal of the operation, it’s borderline offensive and reduces the campaign of brainwashing the young man underwent to a side note and political comment about the effects of movies and video games on young people.

Aside from the film’s misplaced subtext, Blue Caprice holds up rather well. The performances of Richmond and Washington are of a high calibre and are certainly watchable as Lee and John.

Washington’s performance is particularly impressive, Blue Caprice’s John Muhammed is a cracked individual, constantly muttering to himself about how best to cause a nightmare situation. Washington’s performance is equal parts fatherly and equal parts demented. It’s a shame that so much good work has been put into a film that may not have been designed to incense, but still feels out of place.

Touchy Feely

Touchy Feely is centred around Abby, a massage therapist and 21st Century hippy who undergoes a mid life crisis for ... well, for no reason at all really.

Her brother, Paul, is a dentist with minimal social skills whose surgery is going under, finds a new lease of life for both himself and his surgery using Raiki healing on his patients.

about how lovely her life really is.

Lynn Shelton’s previous work, Humpday and Your Sister’s Sister both managed to maintain a comedic line while also keeping the dramatic elements in check. Touchy Feely seems to lose all sense of reality and both the comedy and the drama go out of the window. Touchy Feely seems like an exercise in There are boat loads of films about middle class generating apathy. people with very middle class problems and Touchy Feely is certainly one of them, but the unfortunate Breakdowns and personal crises explode through thing is that Touchy Feely tries to generate some the movie for little need or consequence. The lack kind of sympathy for completely unsympathetic of emotional feeling is a strange thing from Lynn characters. There are no motivations for the re- Shelton, director of Humpday and Your Sister’s Sisactions of any of the characters. Abby’s personal ter, both of which were notable for their emphasis crisis seem to be sparked by a feeling of dissatis- on real character development. Touchy Feely does faction with her current, lovely life and her actions have a fantastic cast, it’s just a shame the script is begin to grate due to their sheer lack of recognition of such a low calibre.

Jobs Where to begin...jOBS falls into the same traps as every lacklustre biopic of the last twenty years. It focusses so much on the “iconic” moments of Steve Jobs’ life that it completely sacrifices any character development. Jobs in 1972 is exactly the same as Jobs in 1996, or so the film suggests. There is little exploration of his familial relationships, but the film somehow still has a run time of over 2 hours.

The score is monstrously bad, sounding like it took cuttings from The West Wing and just decided to throw random elements of “soaring” music.

Through dialogue and imagery, the film consistently compares Steve Jobs to Einstein, Gandhi, Jesus and Bob Dylan without any kind of justification. Key players in the Apple universe are also vastly overlooked such as Jonathon Ive and Ronald Wayne.

Though Kutcher does look a great deal like Steve

Jobs, he certainly fails to master his charisma and mannerisms, looking like a trained monkey when he walks. This is a simpering, pandering, wretched lump of a film that aims to generate some kind of revenue out of simply trotting out the pop culture moments of Apple’s rise to become one of the biggest companies in the world.

Ashton Kutcher made a great choice of person to play for his latest film role, especially as Kutcher himself is a very technologically minded individual.

However, the script, direction, soundtrack are all outrageously bad. It wouldn’t surprise me if even Steve Jobs hated his own biopic because it shows very little of the work that went into Apple and just shows this computer and that computer. By the time the film’s over you are no closer to knowing anything about the man himself.

xxxxxx Pit Stop

This story of three relationships all at different stages and all running parallel to one another is a quiet movie. There are no grand gestures, no fist fights or shouting, it’s simply the tale of people searching for love in different ways. Searching for love in people they know are wrong for them, in exes and in colleagues. Centring around two men in equally disruptive relationships, with chequered pasts. Pit Stop explores the nature of romance and modern relationships in small towns.

men as they try and navigate their love lives and try to avoid hurting those around them.

Bill Heck plays Gabe, a father and gay man who still lives with his ex for the good of his child. Gabe suffers from the affair he had carried out with a married man and resents being shut out of his life.

In the same town, Ernesto struggles with having his ex partner living in his house even though the relationship has disintegrated. Pit Stop follows the two

The work here is all in the acting rather than in showy camera work or an overbearing soundtrack.

This drama is wonderfully low key and embodies the independent ideals behind Sundance. It’s a film with a great deal of heart, emotion and not a lot else. Pit Stop is a very quiet film about quiet moments in life.

While Pit Stop is certainly not one of Sundance’s more controversial or outlandish features, it works well as a nice independent drama about love. The soundtrack and cinematogrphy are standard affairs and don’t do a great deal to elevate the film beyond its status as a simple drama and the acting is simple and understated.

Escape From Tomorrow Shot both inside a Disney theme park and on green screen, Escape From Tomorrow is a psychedelic and fantastical journey through one family’s escapades around the Happiest Place On Earth. Roy Abramsohn plays Jim, a father who’s eye and concentration is constantly drawn away from his family and towards the psychedelic and fantastical nature of the park. Jim’s journey involves young Parisian girls, an ex-princess and an aggressive man in a wheelchair.

The first hour of the film is incredibly promising, highlighting the crazed nature of theme parks and the failed dreams they can represent, but the film takes a considerably more surreal turn and begins to lose its way a little. As the film begins to concern itself with modern paranoias about virus’ and pandemics it begins to flail and lose focus. Escape

From Tomorrow seems to be concerned equally with the nature of theme parks and the onset of a mid life crisis brought about by the place itself.

Jim’s obsession with a pair of young French girls becomes more than a little creepy as the film continues, especially as they younger of the two seems more interested in him. There is a creeping feeling that Disneyland is a malevelant force.

Escape From Tomorrow is a very strange film about the worlds within theme parks and whether The Happiest Place On Earth is just that. The film is certainly experimental and it will be interesting to see how Disney respond to how their park and “princesses” are portrayed. Escape From Tomorrow isn’t designed to do anything other than take you a fantastical ride around a theme park and show all of the strange encounters that occur along the way.

Fruitvale the the tragic events in 2009 rather than focus on the controvery following those events and as such ensures that the focus is on the individuals immediuately affected. The characters aren’t perfect. Oscar is aggressive and at the start of the film is an unemployed drug dealer, though the film looks as though he might turn his situation around for the good of his daughter. Octavia Spencer pulls anFrutivale is a competant and solid drama from other remarkable performance as Oscar’s mother a new director and this is the kind of film that who has to treat him with respect and still try and Sundance is primarily known for. Sundance has take care of him. been championing the unheard voices of American cinema for the last 30 years and 2013 was Frutivale is a well made and effective dramatisano exception. Fruitvale isn’t extreme cinema in the tion of a man’s final days. While his legacy may fashion of previous Sundance breakouts such as be felt in the years after his death, it’s the tiny Reservoir Dogs, El Mariacchi and Saw, rather it is moments before it that are now immortalised on an astute and solid drama that brings the best out screen and they’re more effective than any protests or documentaries that drown in talking heads. It of those involved. seemed appropriate that the final defining image That the film is based in reality ensures that the of Sundance 2013 for Pictureshow was the final vague details of the events are fresh in people’s image of Fruitvale, because frankly, it is absolutely memories. However, the film concerns the lead up devastating.

Taking both the Sundance Grand Jury Award and the Sundance Audience Award, Fruitvale has been one of the defining films of the 2013 festival. Debut director Ryan Cooger aims to retell the final hours of Oscar Grant III, a young man who was shot by a police officer following a night on the town for New Years Eve.

whose performance as Raymond’s daughter Debbie is full of emotion and promise. Poots has been making small waves in films such as 28 Weeks Later and Fright Night, but in The Look Of Love she really gets the opportunity to work in a role of some substance. Poots’ performance is the saving grace of The Look Of Love, simultaneously glamourous and tragic. Poots’ singing is also very impressive, her rendition of The Look Of Love is astounding.

Tamsin Egerton plays Raymonds second wife and has an equally impressive performance.

Due to the format of the film, a whole host of supporting players are brought in and then exit after one scene or two. Stephen Fry, David Walliams and Sarah Solemani all appear and disappear within the blink of an eye. As a result, the story becomes fragmented and harder to follow. The only consistent character is Paul Raymond and he’s not as engaging as the whirlwind that goes on around The Look Of Love him. Winterbottom’s direction is as stylish as ever Michael Winterbottom’s biopic of Paul Raymond, utilising different styles to represent different eras. looks at the life of the publishing mogul, through the The soundtrack apes the kind of easy listening mueyes of himself as an old man. Raymond, played sic that plagued the 1960s and 70s.

by Steve Coogan, looks back on his life through the relationships he maintained over his life. The The Look Of Love seems hesitant in its portrayal of Raymond businesses don’t feature as prominantly Raymond, whether it’s because Coogan was the in a decision to show his relationships in more de- driving force behind the production, but it doesn’t tail than his business maneouvres. The story spans have the impact or display the gruesome realities approximately 5 decades following Raymond in his of the business. Instead The Look Of Love is a sentwenties up until his final reclusive years, covering timental look at a porn baron who might not nechis relationship with his first and second wives and essarily deserve this kind of retelling. Raymond’s eldest son is working on his own biopic of his famost importantly, his daughter Debbie. ther, currently titled The King Of Soho, which could Michael Winterbottom is a director of two extrmes, provide a very different look at Raymond. The Look his work can vary wildly from the sexually explicit 9 Of Love has great performances from Imogen Poots Songs to the hyper violent The Killer Inside Me and and Tamsin Egerton. JH then to the softer comedy of The Trip and A Cock And Bull Story. Those expecting something closer to 9 Songs or 24 Hour Party People in this tale of sex, drugs and top shelf magazines will be sorely mistaken. The film takes a very softly focussed look at Raymond’s life, the script largely relinquishes him of most of the terrible things he can be accused.

While there are moments of real darkness, the story is relatively light in compartison with the reality of the situation. The focus of the film moves is keenly moved away from looking at Raymond’s employees and the swathes of women that were paraded around like show ponies.

Though Steve Coogan gets the central role of Paul Raymond, the main attraction is Imogen Poots

Sound City Dave Grohl’s documentary looks at the past, present and future of the Sound City recording studio where legendary albums such as Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours, Nirvana’s Nevermind and Tom Petty’s Damn The Torpedoes were recorded over it’s vast 40 year history. The documentary looks at three different key moments in the studios history, the formation of Fleetwood Mac, the purchasing of the Neve sound board and the dawn of digital recording devices that could effectively bypass the studio recording system.

Grohl tries his best to be an engaging narrator and competant director but his tendency to slip into cliches and overly emotional sentiment can leave the viewer cold. Whenever the words “I was just a kid and I never knew...” are mentioned, you can be sure that what comes next will be overwraught and unnecessary and to an extent it is, Sound City is one mans love letter to the studio that changed his life. The structuring of the documentary is a problem, too little time is spent on the history of the studio. Grohl only gives a very brief overview of the history with a few brief interludes from people that recorded in the studio. Too much time is given to the concluding section of the film that I like to call “Fun Time Dave & Friends”. The final half hour of the movie consists of Dave Grohl jamming with his friends and idols, the section is over long, very indulgent and struggles to settle alongside the rest of the film.

The digital vs analogue style of recording begins to dominate the rhetoric in the middle of the documentary. Though digital recording may have had a considerable role to play in the downfall of Sound City Studios it feels like a bigger discussion for a different movie. Something similar to the Keanu Reeves and Christopher Kenneally documentary Side By Side might be more relevant and rewarding in the long term.

Sound City is a competant documentary about a recording studio, like the ramshackle studio itself the film is rough around the edges but it is fun to watch. For someone with a passing interest in music, this film is a worthwhile watch, it has a kick ass soundtrack and some great interviews. But it’s There are things to admire about the film, for the structuring and slightly self indulgent nature on the moments where Grohl focusses his camera on the part of Dave Grohl let it down. JH studio itself, the informtation is illuminating. The history of the Neve board is incredible and you’d never suspect that an inanimate object had such a ruch past. The testimonies from the people that recorded at the studio are also wonderfully timed and edited with images of the studio at the time and paint a vibrant picture of recording there in the 1970s. The producers that are brought in to talk about the studio, such as Rick Rubin, Butch Vig and Keith Olsen are fun to watch and the way they discuss the recording procedure is certainly informative. The rest of the documentary kind of skips over the 80s and 90s despite the fact that Grohl himself was recording there in 1991.

Sound City does have a tendency to bring a political narrative on top of the events that take place.

film is set in the world of big business and economics the majority of the thrills come from the set up involving an extra marital affair and a car crash.

The score by Cliff Martinez is quietly tense, but has nothing on his more recent work on Drive, The Lincoln Lawyer and Contagion. Martinez’ score for Spring Breakers and Only God Forgives are likely to be more pulse pounding. Yorick Le Saux’s cinematography lacks the flair seen in I Am Love and Swimming Pool.

Arbitrage Nicholas Jarecki’s debut feature, Arbitrage, is a financial thriller starring Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon and Brit Marling. After working on a deal to sell his company and leave his family incredibly wealthy, Robert Miller’s affairs and a criminal investigation leave the deal in doubt and Miller facing jail time.

Richard Gere’s performance is erattic at best, there are moments where his performance is intense and works well with the tone of the movie, but occasionally it does have a tendency to slip into melodrama. Sarandon’s performance suffers from the same problems, at times it is of the calibre that one would expect from an actress like Sarandon but it just slips into hysteria every now and again. However, Brit Marling and Tim Roth have a tendency to over egg the “intense” elements of the script.

Nicolas Jarecki’s debut feature is a competant thriller. With solid performances from Gere and Sarandon, Arbitrage manages to keep you entertained. The direction and editing keep the movie ticking along nicely but the soundtrack and cinematography aren’t close to the crew’s previous work.

After having penned the script to The Informers There’s little in Arbitrage that you haven’t seen elseand producing some of the more well known docu- where and that can be ideal for a certain mood, but mentaries of the last few years, Jarecki has made if you want something to raise your pulse and get the leap into writing and directing his first narra- you all fired up, you’d be better finding something tive feature. Arbitrage is a debut like few others, else. JH instead of concerning himself with visual flair or an experimental structure, Jarecki nails down the basics as well as he possibly can. As a thriller, Arbitrage works well and delivers the beats required of a financial thriller, there’s the questionable protagonist, his clueless associates and the one cop that’s “got his number”. What it lacks in originality, it makes up for in story.

This kind of financial thriller has become increasingly common in the wake of the series of financial collapses over the last few years. Films such as The Company Men, Margin Call and Wall Street 2 have brought this kind of film to the fore. Martin Scorsese’s upcoming Wolf Of Wall Street starring Leonardo DiCaprio will likely cement it as a valid sub genre that can be as experimental as any other. The financial technicalities in the dialogue don’t inhibit the film, because despite the fact that this

Stoker India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska) is a girl like few others, she’s introveted, perceptive and a killer hunter.

When her father, Richard (Dermot Mulroney) dies, her Uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode) reappears after many years of being absent and India’s home life starts to become uncomfortable. Stoker follows India’s progression into adulthood and all the consequences this can bring.

Park Chan-Wook’s english language debut displays the same visual inventiveness and flair that he displayed in his Korean successes, Oldboy, Thirst and Lady Vengeance. Chan-Wook has once again crafted a stellar cast, from the Oscar nominated Jacki Weaver to Nicole Kidman, Matthew Goode and Mia Wasikowska. Chan-Wook utilises some of his more regualr collaborators and new artists for this change in direction. This is the first film Clint Mansell and Chan-Wook have worked on together and on the evidence on this soundtrack, the two could form a relationship like Mansell and Darren Aronofsky. The editor on Stoker, Nicolas De Toth has more experience editing action films and that experience can be seen on screen.

of the fantastic supporting roles Kidman has taken recently alongside her performance in The Paperboy.

Stoker is an intense visual treat of a movie, shot using the luscious eye that fans of Park Chan-Wook’s work have become accustomed. With great performances from Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode Chung-Hoon Chung’s cinematography is incred- and Nicole Kidman and the intense script, Stoker is ibly vibrant, the use of distinct, bright colours book- certainly a taught thriller that aims to be as beautimarks each chapter of the narrative. Chung has a ful as it is electrifying. It’s not clear if Chan-Wook knack for making incredibly violent and deranged will contiunue to direct in the english language, but action look beautiful and Stoker is no exception Stoker makes one hell of an argument that he needs to this. Though Stoker is nothing close to being as to continue his work. JH physically violent or as gory as Chan-Wook’s previous works, the violence comes in smaller doses and is more effective because of it. The intensity remains, but the nature of the film ensures that the violence has to be in concentrated doses rather than extravagant set pieces.

Mia Wasikowska and Matthew Goode’s performances are delightfully deranged. It becomes remarkably clear that India and Charlie are cut from the same cloth due to the performances. Wasikowska and Goode utilise the same visual ticks and body mannerisms. Goode’s performance in particular is standout, bringing the malevolent Charlie to life using just his eyes and permanent smile. The relationship between Charlie and India can be interpreted different ways, and without the allusive performances from both Goode and Wasikowska the same discussions might not exist. Nicole Kidman’s role as India’s mother, Evie, is another one

descent is to be applauded, and will test the most steely of nerves. Whip’s skill, aided by a little Dutch courage, sees him pull an outrageous manoeuvre which ends up saving hundreds of lives. Not everyone walks away, but he is branded nothing short of a miracle worker.

Flight Robert Zemeckis’ Flight is not an aircraft disaster movie. There is very little debate amongst film critics as to films that fall in this particular genre and after much research it boils down to the two requirements that there is a) an aircraft, which is b) involved in some form of disaster. Flight does happen to fall into those categories, but the film’s true strength lies in what follows its ill-fated set-piece, which occurs early on in the film. Those expecting a conspiracy thriller will be pleasantly surprised by the revelation that it is instead a powerful character study of an individual struggling with self-control.

Its intelligence lies in the bold attempt to deconstruct that most archetypal of Hollywood protagonists, the All American Hero, and forces us to abandon the preconceived dichotomies of ‘good and bad’ that many films are so simplistically imbued with.

Denzel Washington inhabits the role of fantastically named Captain Whip Whitaker with the swaggering braggadocio of a man in total control of his life. He exudes machismo from the moment he appears on screen, hooker in tow, skipping a continental breakfast in favour of a few lines of coke and some hard drink. In his mind, this does not conflict with his professional role as a commercial pilot– a skilled veteran whose experience is tested by a monumental equipment malfunction in the middle of a storm. What follows is an extraordinary piece of cinematography; to be expected from a special effects guru such as Zemeckis, but the verisimilitude and graphic realism of a plane’s uncontrolled

This flight, however, acts as a microcosm for his character’s trajectory through the rest of the film.

Turning to drink to guide him through the stress that follows, he finds his self-control diminished, and he is powerless to stop a sudden and unrestrained free-fall into alcoholism. Worse yet, if discovered to have been under the influence whilst flying the plane, he could be legally responsible for the deaths of those involved. Flight offers an interesting ethical dilemma, and enters the grey zone of moral ambiguity which confounds a preternatural desire to label actions as right or wrong.

If it weren’t for the superb acting and thought-provoking script, Flight could have a tendency to err towards a heart-warming tale of coming to terms with addiction and the twelve step programme to redemption -an excellent comic performance by John Goodman as a hedonistic drugs aficionado ensures this is not the case. Whip’s rather troubling attitude towards women, who are constantly fulfilling a role of direct servitude in his eyes, also prevents any appraisal of his character from being clear cut. It is difficult to fault the film as a classical tragedy charting one man intent on self-destruction (DW has picked up an Oscar nomination for best actor), but there is a real fear that its marketing as a disaster thriller may mean it ends up going over the heads of many, and fly under the radar all the way towards the end of the awards season. (Get it?

Because it’s called ‘Flight’. Nevermind.) DG

Hyde Park On Hudson Every so often a film comes out of nowhere to sweep the audience off their feet with charm and a handful of excellent actors. Hyde Park On Hudson is one of those films. It has quietly crept out of nowhere but is an inoffensive, funny and sweet film with an impressive cast. It follows Roosevelt’s (Bill Murray) affair with his distant cousin, Margaret Stuckley (Laura Linney), during a visit from the King and Queen (Samuel West and Olivia Colman). That’s the official synopsis; in actual fact, the film is about King George IV eating a hotdog, but more on that later.

Bill Murray has an inability to play anyone but Bill Murray, and yet it will never be a bad thing. He plays FDR with a comic conviction that saves the film from trailing into something that would belong on ITV. Of course there’s an amount of fun-poking at the expense of the Brits; one standout moment shows King George absently waving at a confused American who has no idea who he is. The blank look of the American, the oddly bemused look on George’s face and his wife’s exasperated expression sets the tone of the visit, and starts a series of very entertaining moments, including the hotdog subplot. At a picnic held in His and Her Majesty’s honour, hotdogs are to be served. Elizabeth believes it is to humiliate them but after much deliberation, George eventually exclaims he’ll stuff them up his nose until they’re coming out of “every orifice”.

There are two stories set up here. One looks at the relationship between Roosevelt and Margaret and the other is the royal storyline. Laura Linney, whilst good, is cast to one side as the monarchs arrive with much running time being devoted to the relationship between the President and King. The synopsis leads you to expect a storyline that isn’t entirely fulfilled or given enough time to warrant existence. In fact, she isn’t necessary; the better plot is the political relationship as it makes for much more compelling viewing. When the film jumps back to the love story it feels disjointed, out of place and a bit random. It isn’t helped by how dreary Margaret is. For want of a better phrase, she’s a bit wet and falls into the shadows as the more interesting storyline appears.

They also manage to avoid giving any backstory. If you don’t know your history, you may be confused

by Elizabeth’s frequent sighs and occasional tirade.

However, it isn’t enough to ruin Hyde Park On Hudson. Such is the level of charm, comedy and excellent storytelling that this is a hard film not to warm to. It won’t break any barriers but as a period piece it is very well observed. Everything from the costume to the cinematography is lovely to look at, and the characters are easily likeable. There’s nothing massively wrong with it, it just isn’t the excellent film everyone was hoping for. But at least it has Bill Murray playing Bill Murray, this time with added pipe and a grin to rival the Cheshire Cat. ASH

filmic eye, it is hysterical.

Similarly, Tarantino’s style of referencing a plethora of films from the chosen genre enhances the sheen. The danger of making a film highly referential comes in the potential for alienating an ignorant audience, but by not leaning on the technique, Tarantino avoids this. Of course, referencing is heavy in Django Unchained, but there is so much quality in the rest of the film. It is there for those who get it, and for the blissfully ignorant, there is plenty more to enjoy.

Django Unchained Quentin Tarantino is the bane of every screen-writing teacher’s life. There are rules to writing. There are things that can be done, and there are things that cannot - or rather things that would ruin a film if you attempt them. Whenever such things (like narrative, plot or structure) are taught, there is inevitably that guy who will comment rather smugly, ‘but what about Tarantino? I can’t impose your stupid rules on Tarantino’.

Django Unchained is yet the latest example of this.

If judged on the merits of its adherence to the rules of script-writing, it would do abysmally. It is for a start far too long. Worse, it is too long because it has more than one plot (approximately three), and no, these are not sub-plots: these are full on narrative sequences that come pretty much one after the other, stitched together like some sort of Frankenfilm. But let it be stated in the boldest terms possible: this is not an exercise in formal screen-writing.

Django Unchained is absolutely superb.

What Tarantino is good at goes part of the way towards explaining this. As all his other films, the dialogue is superb. With a knack for making even the mundane sound interesting, Django Unchained was always going to be good in terms of dialogue.

In actuality, it is excellent - one scene about the Ku Klux Klan stands out in particular, deriving its hilarity almost entirely from the dialogue. In a film, which is such an obviously visual medium, this is rare - and when combined with Tarantino’s keen

The acting is superb, particularly by the leads Jamie Foxx and Christoph Waltz. Leonardo Di Caprio lights up every single scene he’s in, beautifully characterising the brutal Calvin Candie in a way that demands fascination. But the star of the show was Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson is usually thought of as a performer rather than a deep character actor, so his roles tend to be similar in the way that say, Will Smith’s or Hugh Grant’s are. In Django Unchained, however, Jackson brings something else, something a bit deeper, and in combination with his skill at performing, the result is breathtaking.

Django Unchained is a spectacle on every level.

Yes, it’s great to see Tarantino take a baseball bat to each rule of writing, and yes, it’s a wonderful feeling of recognition to be part of his in-joke references to Westerns, and yes, the sound-track is inspired. But these things are heaped on a centre that is rich, fun, and above all, entertaining. Without that, it is nothing. BO

Lincoln It’s not easy to write a good historical drama, especially one about an event a lot of people know about. The heart of the problem is this: if everyone knows the outcome of the film, how can there be tension? With Lincoln this is doubly so: in both American and our society, the actions of Abraham Lincoln are self-evident - it’s not exactly a spoiler to say that slavery is not legal in our societies. As you’d expect from someone with a reputation like Steven Spielberg’s however, Lincoln avoids these pitfalls skilfully, and comes out the other side smelling of roses.

The other potential road-block is convincing the audience that these people are real. Nobody knows with any real accuracy what Lincoln and his compatriots sounded or acted like, so it is all too easy for an audience to reject the efforts of the actors, especially if they are recognisable figures in their own right. It is therefore a major credit to the actors, costumiers and set-designers that this was never a problem. The world was not only entirely convincing, but captivating.

It almost goes without saying that Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln was beyond excellent. A character-actor thrives in an historical drama, simply because the bulk of the interest must come from the character actors. While some actors may simply have been good at blending with the believable back-drop of the film, Day-Lewis captured something almost indescribable: he gave the impression that he was behaving exactly like Abraham Lincoln did, despite there being no precedent for the audience to base this on. The stereotype of deep method acting is very insular and narcissistic, but Day-Lewis brings a love and care to the role that is absolutely infectious and spell-binding. It will go down as one of the great contemporary acting performances.

This is possibly why some less character-based actors struggled somewhat. Tommy Lee Jones did his job interestingly and well, but he was by no means excellent. In a film named Lincoln, however, it is only fitting that all are in the shadow of Abraham Lincoln. Even Sally Field and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who were excellent in their own right, paled in comparison. But for the good of the film, perhaps rightly so. An actor’s other job is to let his colleagues excel.

Ultimately, however, credit must also go to the script. It has its faults, namely it is overlong, but its characters expertly executed. Because the outcome of the film is known, raw tension is not an option.

Instead, the script opts for characters. The crux of the film is Lincoln and his cabinet’s quest for votes in passing his thirteenth amendment to the constitution. By concentrating on the characters of the congressman that need to be persuaded rather than relying on a ‘will they, won’t they’ device, the film gains the audience’s attention in their development.

As the outcome of the vote is already a foregone conclusion, the script must find something else, and it gets this from by showing the shift in their characters as they go from voting ‘no’ to ‘yes’. The result is a difficult film that works, and one that is propelled into excellence by Daniel Day-Lewis. BO

mutters, “oh, no backing dancers?” before unleashing her vocal chords while Jesse, having made it to the chorus, gets a shock when he finds out how high it is. On paper it might not sound funny, but in practice it’s a brilliant few minutes that sets the tone for the rest of the film.

Anyone who thinks this is Glee: The Movie should sit back down. Not only does it take the piss out of the majority of teen-film cliches, it even has a dig at Glee itself. Whether it’s through a line delivered by a bitter acappella outcast or scenes from the commentary box (provided by John Michael Higgins and Elizabeth Banks), this is the antidote to Glee, Smashed and High School Musical. Whilst perhaps not meaning to, those on that list tend to take themselves a little too seriously but Pitch Perfect has a lot of fun whilst still delivering a great story.

Pitch Perfect If you’ve ever found yourself thinking, “y’know what? I really fancy a film that’s a mix of Glee and Bring It On...” then Pitch Perfect might well be your dream come true. With a trio of actresses who all look the same but don’t (Brittany Snow, Anna Kendrick and Anna Camp), plus that cute guy from that episode of Girls (Skylar Astin) and the always wonderful Rebel Wilson, Pitch Perfect chronicles the journey of two rival college acappella groups from a regional competition to national finals. The storyline isn’t groundbreaking; ‘alt’ girl freshman with overbearing, disapproving father must find extra-curricular activity so he’ll back down. Naturally, she must overcome obstacles, this time in the form of a group leader who is stuck in her ways, to win the hearts, minds and ears of the acappella world. There’s also a romantic strand thrown in for good measure and way more rapping than Kendrick should be allowed to do.

For a film that is so hugely predictable, it certainly manages to stop itself from descending into the standard chick-flick/rom-com that it could so easily become. Instead, it happens to be incredibly self-aware and with the slightest movement from a character, the tone shifts from soppy to hilarious. Take, for example, the audition montage. This is something Bring It On managed brilliantly and Pitch Perfect has successfully harnessed the same vibe. Using Kelly Clarkson’s Since U Been Gone, various characters are added into the mix as way of introduction. Fat Amy (Wilson) looks around and

This is the kind of film that will easily hold itself up against the best of the genre, meaning romantic-college-comedy with music for added fun. It’s mindless without being forgettable and has a cluster of actors who bring comedy with an edge to it, whilst also being wonderfully cheesy, and there’s nothing wrong with some cheese. The music is well put together and it’s surprising how many of the cast can actually sing; they’re not the people you would expect to be able to. Overall it’s a great film that is well worth your attention for ninety minutes, if for no other reason than studying how Kendrick sees through all that eyeliner. ASH

Warm Bodies If you think zombies are the hideous beasts who can run forever in Dawn Of The Dead or the mindless brain-chompers from any of the zombie films you’d like to take your pick from (bar ParaNorman), then you need to watch Warm Bodies. Based on Isaac Marion’s book of the same name, it tells the story of R (Nicholas Hoult) and Julie (Teresa Palmer). Having been a victim of a zombie apocalypse, R exists in an airport, shuffling around and grunting at fellow zombies with the occasional trip outside to forage for the living. Meanwhile Julie is locked in a human colony and only leaves to forage for supplies. After an encounter, R kidnaps Julie and takes her back to the airport where she’ll “be safe”. Over a week or so, they grow to trust each other and as they do, changes appear in R which trigger a chain reaction amongst the other zombies.

hards, it would be a completely different film with Despite a few people complaining, as they always extra Bonies (skeletal-zombies) and guts. Given a do, about the 12A rating, it actually works very well choice between heartwarming humour and extenfor the film. It might not have the exact same tone sive footage of brains being ripped out of skulls, as the book but it knows the target audience and the right choice has been made. It’s a love story does a good job of keeping in line with it. Nicho- and really, who needs blood, guts and all that with las Hoult is something of a revelation. He doesn’t it? ASH have a lot to work with other than shuffling and the odd zombie-groan but he somehow manages to inject so much heart and charm into the character that it’s hard not to love him. That’s also helped by his eyes but anyway... Never before has a zombie warranted so much sympathy. On the other side of the wall, Teresa Palmer could do with some help.

There’s nothing worse than knowing an actor is acting, and with her it’s so screamingly obvious. She’s upstaged by two people who shuffle and grunt, her hilarious best friend (Analeigh Tipton) and John Malkovich as her father. It’s incredible; somehow she manages to be more zombie-like than the zombies themselves, so it’s just as well Hoult is on hand to save the film from her clammy grasp. She’s not helped by her character who is “really into vinyl” because “it’s just so cool”. She’s one of those, and she appears not to feel any sadness towards her boyfriend’s death, but there you go.

It might be led by a guy who can’t speak, and when he does could do with subtitles, but the script and feel of the film are both excellent. It’s got a dry humour to it, most of which comes through Hoult’s narration, and a tenderness that whilst borderline awfully cheesy, is right for the film. Whilst the 12A rating may cause a problem for the horror die-

Things to see in February As February rolls around Cinema’s of Hepburn and Peck travelling around Rome are iconic and the story is a wonderfully sweet treat for fill up with goofy new couples on Valentine’s Day. first dates and those of us still very much in love with the experience Scotland of going to the cinema. While Dumfries there are hundrreds of showings Robert Burns Centre Pulp Fiction of Casablanca and Annie Hall, 25 February there are Pictureshow’s picks for Those of you who’ve seen Django Unchained will this month. know how brilliant Quentin Tarantino can be at his Wales Aberystwyth

Aberystwyth Arts Centre Repo Man 25 February

very best. Sacrifice three hours of your life to his masterpiece with career defining roles from Samuel L Jackson, Uma Thurman and John Travolta. Tarantino’s on screen cameo is less indulgent as well.

Dundee

Dundee Contemporary Arts The Dead Not to be confused with Repo Men, the 2010 For- 17 February est Whitaker and Jude Law debacle, this is the 1984 neon fest starring Emilio Estevez and Harry John Huston’s final film is an adaptation from a Dean Stanton. After stealing a car, Otto (Estevez) James Joyce short story taken from the Dubliners descends into a world of lunacy. Definitely an al- collection. Directed when Huston was 80 years ternative to the heavy Oscar fare in cinemas at the old, The Dead is a sumptuous affair. Set in Dublin in 1904, the film takes place over the course of a moment. party held by two sisters.

Cardiff

Chapter Roman Holiday 14 February Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck star in the 1953 romantic comedy about Ann, a young princess who decides that she wants to see Rome for herself only to fall asleep on a park bench and get taken in by a reporter who doesn’t recognise her. The scenes

Edinburgh

Filmhouse Enter The Dragon 28 February Bruce Lee’s most iconic role and final film outing is this fantastic 1973 martial arts flick. Featuring some of the greatest martial arts work and impressive fight scenes this side of the millenium, it is imperitive that you see this on a big screen.

Glasgow

Lancaster

One of James Cagney’s most iconic and certainly most violent roles is of Tom Powers in The Public Enemy. The film follows Powers and his rise from being a petty thief to a successful bootlegger in the middle of American prohibition.

The 1952 musical comedy has remained as endearing as ever and is frequently listed as being one of the greatest musicals ever released. Three silent actors try and make the transition into working on the talkies in 30s Hollywood. While the film may seem passe or the comedy out of date, this film is full of vitality.

Glasgow Film Theatre The Public Enemy 15 February

North West Kendal

Brewary Arts Centre Blow Up 17 February Michaelangelo Antonioni’s first english language flick is the story of Thomas, a photographer in 1960s London who believes he may have witnessed and unknowingly photographed a murder. Featuring wonderfully surreal imagery and an incredibly sexy photo shoot with a young Vanessa Redgrave, it’s a feast for the eyes.

Manchester

Cornerhouse Lawrence Of Arabia 24 February One of the greatest films ever committed to celluloid, the Lawrence Of Arabia restoration doing the rounds is a wonderful print. David Lean’s greatest ever film, a hard title to take, and Peter O’Toole’s defining performance ensure that this has to be seen on a big screen. Plus with a 4 hour run time it’s a bargain!

Penrith

Rheged Back To The Future 16 February Those of you who’ve seen Flight at the cinema recently, mighthave an overwhelming feeling of depression or guilt about how much you drink. If this is the case, then Going back to one of Zemeckis’ original movies might be the solution. From the opening chords of The Power Of Love, by Huey Lewis and The News you can’t help but be taken on a whimsical journey with Marty and Doc Brown.

The Dukes Singin’ In The Rain 14 February

North East Berwick Upon Tweed

The Maltings The Life And Death Of Colonel Blimp 18 February This fantastic 1943 Powell and Pressburger feature never features a Colonel Blimp, instead it relays the life and death of Major General Clive WynneCandy. Candy is a relic, out of time in the modern warzone of World War Two. Following capture by the opposition Candy’s life flashes before his eyes.

Leeds

Hyde Park Picture House The Shining 23 February An updated print of The Shining has been doing toe round in Britian since Halloween in last year.

This is your chance to see the epic Kubrick horror on a big screen which is the only way to fully appreciate the incredible cinematography and the wonderful opening helicopter shot. A must if you caught the strange Room 237 last Winter.

Newcastle

Tyneside Chinatown 17th February One of Roman Polanski’s most impressive films and certainly one of the works that cement his reputation as an auteur. This 70s detective story takes the style of Film Noir and sets it in a modern environment.

One of the defining pieces of modern cinema, it has been referenced in everything from Rango to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Sheffield

An unconventional Valentine’s Day screening. This screening of the 1962 Truffaut film concerns young friends with an interest in Bohemian living who come across a statue with an ineffable beauty only As scientists try and create a device to enhance to find a woman with an uncanny likeness to it. people’s sixth sense, they inadvertantly open up a With an ending that still shocks to this day, Jules Et portal to a hostile paralell universe. Definitely not Jim might not be an ideal first date movie. a cult classic in the same vein as Re-Animator, this film, based on a Lovecraft short story still has its fair Leicester share of surprises.

Phoenix Square American Beauty 26 February Showroom From Beyond 19 February

Central Corby

The Core Monsters Inc 23 February In anticipation of the upcoming release of Monsters University, The Core at Corby is showing the original film so you can get reacquainted with Mike, Sully and Boo and remind yourself of Pixar at the height of it’s creative powers. Even a decade later, this is funnier than Wreck It Ralph and Brave combined.

Leamington Spa Royal Spa Cinema Jules Et Jim 14 February

American Beauty is Kevin Spacey’s defining role.

His performance as Lester Burnham is greater than his portrayal of Lester Vincennes in LA Confidential, greater than Verbal Kint in The Usual Suspects and considerably better than his Lex Luthor in Superman Returns. This is essential viewing.

Warwick

Warwick Arts Centre Repulsion 27 February Another Roman Polanski film enjoying the benefit of a recent rerelease, Repulsion is an intense psychological horror starring Catehrine Deneuve as a manicurist who has a strange relationship with men. It has to be seen and experienced to fully appreciate it

Warwick

Warwick Arts Centre Repulsion 27 February

South East London

Shortwave Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

17 February

Another Roman Polanski film enjoying the benefit of a recent rerelease, Repulsion is an intense psychological horror starring Catehrine Deneuve as This legendary piece of exploitation cinema from a manicurist who has a strange relationship with Russ Meyer rarely gets to see the light of a projector men. It has to be seen and experienced. due to its gratuitous violence and sexuality.

South Hastings

Electric Palace I Married A Monster From Outer Space 27 February Yep, you read that right, that’s the title of a film you know you can’t resist.

South West Bristol

Watershed The Red Shoes 17 February

The Phoenix My Neighbour Totoro 21 February Possibly Studio Ghibli’s most enduring film, My Neighbour Totoro is a fantastic tale of the endless curious nature of youth. Featuring some of Ghibli’s most iconic animation and delightful script work this has to be seen by eveyone. Adults, children, badgers, it doesn’t matter: fill that cinema up!

Saffron Walden Saffron Screen Chicken Run 24 February

Aardman Animation’s first feature length production was directed by Nick Park and Peter Lord, the Powell and Pressberger’s defining film follows the guys behind Wallace And Gromit. With a cracktale of a young ballerina who becomes lead dancer ing script and great voice work from Mel Gibson of an established ballet company. and Victoria Wood it’s worth seeing.

PictureShow Magazine will return in March 2013