Category: Film Reviews

Starring: Michael Fassbender (Shame), Penelope Cruz (Vanilla Sky), Cameron Diaz (The Mask), Javier Bardem (Skyfall), Brad Pitt (Moneyball)

Director: Ridley Scott (Gladiator)

Writer: Cormac McCarthy (No Country for Old Men [novel])

Runtime: 1 hour 57 minutes

Release Date: 25 October (US), 15 November (UK)

Ridley Scott and Cormac McCarthy. Both of them highly respected in their respective arts. One of them has created some of the most memorable films in cinema history (just not recent memory), whilst the other has written books that have enjoyed great success and both novels and film adaptations. The idea of the two of them teaming up seems like a good proposition. But much like the title character of The Counsellor finds out, sometimes plans like this can fall apart and come back to bite you in the arse.

The Counsellor immediately stumbles out of the starting gate due to its script. Most Hollywood films have the problem of being underwritten, but this film is a rare case of a script that is overwritten, at least in the dialogue department. The characters almost constantly talk in odd metaphors and soliloquies, jumping from one random subject to the next and it all ends up just cluttering up the place. Most of it is rambling nonsense that could easily be excised, and the anecdotes that do end up coming back are brought back in so long after that you’ve forgotten by then. It’s all just pretentious blabbering in an attempt to make the film sound more sophisticated than it is. Because if you strip away all the fancy dialogue, The Counsellor’s plot is pretty basic crime thriller stuff. In fact, a lot of elements of the story are eerily similar to plot elements of McCarthy’s most famous work No Country for Old Men. But where that film managed to balance between story and message rather well, this one is just a shambles. The film’s pacing is very sparse, but does pick up considerably during the more intense moments, and it’s these moments where the film shines a bit brighter. There’s some violent and realistic gunplay on display that really crackles, and there’s some gory moments that truly work. But these elements are scarce in a sea of self-important waffle. I get the feeling that everyone involved was too revering of McCarthy’s work to change it or maybe he had a clause in his contract that the script couldn’t be changed. Either way, perhaps if someone had come in and cleaned up the script then perhaps we’d have a better film.

The Counsellor is jam-packed with recognizable actors. Pity that none of them have anything to work with. Every character is so underwritten that everyone has little to no personality, and that reflects badly on the people who have to portray them. Fassbender, one of the best actors working today, does his best with the material but still fails to create any empathy for a character whose background, motivations and even his name remain completely mysterious. Cruz is stuck with nothing to do, and whose only purpose seems to be to give Fassbender’s character something to live for. Bardem spends the whole movie looking like a coked-up Hispanic Goku, whilst Pitt lounges around in a cowboy hat spouting “words of wisdom”. Actors like Dean Norris, Natalie Dormer, Bruno Ganz and Toby Kebbell all turn up for thankless bit parts, presumably there due to the pedigree of Scott and McCarthy. The only one whose performance stands out, even if it’s due to the insanity of it, is Diaz’s. Her character’s extravagant wardrobe and funky hairdo only hint at a truly deranged and ludicrous character, and her presence provides some of the more memorable parts of the movie. Watch out for a scene involving her and a Ferrari; it is truly unbelievable.

Scott has always been a master in the technical department, and his expertise is very clear here as well. The film is beautifully photographed by Dariusz Wolski, which features some great landscape shots and vibrant, dynamic colours. The editing is occasionally odd; there’s one scene where Fassbender and Bardem are talking, and then we cut to them standing in vastly different positions but the flow of conversation remains the same, almost as if they cut out a big chunk of the scene (which, considering the nature of the dialogue, is probably a good thing). The score is good if somewhat out of place; it sounds like it belongs more in a Robert Rodriguez movie more than a Ridley Scott one.

The Counsellor is a mess of a film. Some good moments do shine through, but most of it is just mediocrity hiding behind pretention. I had flashbacks to the similarly plagued Only God Forgives at several points, but at least this film had a cohesive narrative and some semblance of character. This film is further evidence that Scott is not quite the same man he used to be, as he slowly seems to be following in the footsteps of Oliver Stone. But more importantly, this film proves that perhaps McCarthy isn’t as great as everyone initially thought.

FINAL VERDICT: 4.5/10

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Looper), Scarlett Johansson (The Avengers), Julianne Moore (Crazy Stupid Love), Tony Danza (Crash)

Writer/Director: Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Runtime: 1 hour 30 minutes

Release Date: 27 September (US), 15 November (UK)

Many actors have attempted to make the leap into the director’s chair. Sometimes, they make great films; George Clooney and Ben Affleck are great examples of this. Other times, the results are mixed such as the spotty filmography of Mel Gibson and Kevin Costner. And then there’s William Shatner. Need I say more? So now that Joseph Gordon-Levitt has gotten his chance to call the shots, which camp does he fall into?

Don Jon does follow the typical structure of the romantic comedy almost exactly, but it gets away with it because it is aware of it; an early scene where Jon (Gordon-Levitt) deconstructs the plot of every rom com shows that the filmmakers are very aware of the genre conventions and the film certainly knows when and where to go off the beaten track. The film is very well paced, mainly thanks to the efficiency of the film’s set-up. Gordon-Levitt never lingers too long on things, giving you everything you need to know and keeps things moving forward; he briskly moves you through the story without ever making you miss a beat. The comedy is well written and down-to-earth, and the film also manages to pack an emotional punch when it needs to. But in other areas, it is clear that Gordon-Levitt is still learning the ropes. The film gets itself into a very repetitive rhythm, repeating certain shots and types of scenes; by a certain point, you can almost predict how one scene leads into another. Sure, I can get what they were going for and it makes more sense by the end, but it did start to grate on me by the seventh bloody time this guy goes to church. And, whilst I did find the conclusion to be satisfying, I don’t think the ending is as original as they think it is. But all in all, this is for the most part a well-crafted picture with plenty of drama and laughter.

With the man wearing three hats here, you’d think Gordon-Levitt’s acting would take a hit. Nope. He’s as great as ever. The character of Jon is a change of pace for the man; a character that isn’t quite as pleasant or as intelligent as roles he has played before. But he remains convincing throughout, making you sympathize with his situation but also wanting him to develop and get past his issues. Johansson is also wonderful here, portraying perfectly that kind of woman who can play a man like a fiddle without either of them realising it. Moore is as good as she always is, though I feel she isn’t stretching as far away from her usual persona as everyone else is. Danza and Glenne Headly are brilliant as Jon’s parents, making the concept of the bickering couple seem fresh again. The only casting choice that had me somewhat puzzled was Brie Larson as Jon’s sister. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the part or Larson as an actress; I just found it odd that they cast a recognisable face like hers in a part that requires her to do almost nothing for most of the movie. She’s like a female Silent Bob, and honestly anyone could have played her.

In technical terms, Don Jon doesn’t do anything astounding but it’s not that kind of movie. There is some simple but good cinematography on display here, and some nice lighting touches such as the way Johansson’s character is always lit in glowing light no matter how dark the environment is. The soundtrack is well done too; it’s cheesy at points, but I think that was the point.

Don Jon isn’t just a good effort from a first-time director. It’s a pretty good film on its own too. It’s funny, it’s engaging, it makes some good analysis on the conventions of the romantic comedy and it twists them around to fit a more real world. It’s certainly not perfect, but for a first effort it is pretty astounding. With more time and practice to hone his skills, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has the potential to be up there with the high echelon of actors-turned-directors.

FINAL VERDICT: 9/10

Starring: Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side) and George Clooney (Ocean’s Eleven)

Director: Alfonso Cuarón (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban)

Writers: Alfonso Cuarón & Jonás Cuarón

Runtime: 1 hour 31 minutes

Release Date: 4 October (US), 7 November (UK)

It has been seven long years since Alfonso Cuarón last graced us with a film. The last film he made was Children of Men, a bleak but wonderful piece of cinema and one of my all-time favourites. Since then, he has been hard at work on Gravity, a film that has had an especially long production period due to its heavy use of visual effects. Does all this time and money spent pay off, or has it all been wasted effort?

From the moment the film begins, you are immediately sucked in to one of the scariest environments imaginable: space. Though these opening moments are quite calm and use their time to set up our characters, there is always a strong sense of tension as you wait for something to wrong. And, eventually, something does. When the sh*t hits the fan, the film becomes a non-stop rollercoaster. It moves along at a perfect pace, making its short running time feel even shorter but still knowing when to stop for slower character moments. The few characters we meet aren’t exactly deep, original people but they are relatable and likable in spite of their unordinary predicament. This is a film where the harshness of the environment is your antagonist; there is always something that could kill Ryan (Bullock) at any moment, and the joy of the movie is watching her overcome these obstacles and keep moving.

Speaking of Bullock, whether you’ve liked her in previous movies or not, you cannot deny that she gives a spectacular performance here. She carries the whole movie on her shoulders for the most part, and surprisingly she manages to keep you engaged, mainly thanks to her naturalistic performance and her character’s status as an everyman (well, the closest thing to an everyman in this situation). George Clooney may be playing himself as usual here, but he also puts in a great performance, contrasting Bullock’s fear with a good dose of humour. Other than some voices on the radio, they are the only characters you see and the lack of friendly faces only adds to the emptiness of the environment.

Where Gravity truly shines is in the technical department. This is a beautiful looking film, mainly thanks to Cuarón’s incredible direction and some of the most involving and inventive camerawork I’ve seen in a while. Sure, it’s all probably been majorly touched up with CGI, but if it has been its some of the best CGI work around. All of this is well complimented by the great sound design or, for a good chunk of the film, lack thereof; this is space after all. The score by Steven Price is also suitably sparse and chilling, amplifying those moments of danger to maximum efficiency. Gravity is also one of the few films in recent history that actually benefits from the use of 3-D; it really puts you into the action and makes the deadness of space seem that much more scary. This is a film that must be seen on the biggest screen possible; if you have an IMAX anywhere near you, go see this there. Combined with the 3-D, the only way they could have made this any more immersive is if they screened it in special zero gravity cinemas. Actually, that would be pretty cool.

Gravity is a cinematic marvel that is just begging to be seen. It’s got all the spectacle that your average audience wants to see, but also has enough thought and artistry to satisfy the true cinephile as well. It’s one of the best films of the year, and easily could snag some Oscar nods, at least its technical prowess.

FINAL VERDICT: 10/10!

Starring: Chris Hemsworth (Rush), Natalie Portman (Black Swan), Tom Hiddleston (Midnight in Paris), Christopher Eccleston (28 Days Later), Anthony Hopkins (The Silence of the Lambs)

Director: Alan Taylot (Game of Thrones)

Writers: Christopher L. Yost (The Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes) and Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely (Captain America: The First Avenger)

Runtime: 1 hour 52 minutes

Release Date: 30 October (UK), 8 November (US)

The God of Thunder was always a difficult character to make sense of in cinematic terms, but Thor turned out to be a pretty decent movie thanks to the skilled direction of Kenneth Branagh and the great casting of Chris Hemsworth as the title character. After meeting up with fellow heroes in The Avengers, Thor is back on his own and without Branagh. Does it match up to the quality of Marvel’s other projects, or is this franchise unworthy to wield the power of Mjolnir no more?

Thor works well as a continuation of the first film and of The Avengers, picking up almost all the loose ends from both pictures and continuing. The story of The Dark World is the weakest aspect of the picture unfortunately; it’s your standard fantasy fare complete with a powerful MacGuffin that the villain needs to take over the world and blahdeblahdeblah. The film’s first act drags a bit, taking too long to get going and spending too much time on needless exposition. But once the plot gets rolling, the characters get interacting and sh*t starts to get real, you begin to forget how trite the material sometimes gets. The dialog is consistently witty, though certainly dialled back from the wacky antics of the first film; Joss Whedon’s influence can certainly be felt during certain pieces of dialogue. The film is also much darker than the first in both look and tone, though I do feel they could have gone a bit further with it. It all adds up to a great climactic showdown full of badass action and some funny gags interspersed throughout. And be sure to stay during the credits for probably the most bizarre post-credits scene of any of the Marvel films. I’m sure it will confuse those who aren’t aware of where the next couple of films are going, but the nerds should be satisfied.

Hemsworth is as good as ever playing Thor, though not much has changed with him. Unlike Tony Stark in Iron Man 3, the events of The Avengers don’t seem to have affected him as much and he mostly goes through the motions. By the end of the film, I didn’t really feel like much had changed in Thor as a character. This is more a fault of the script than Hemsworth, but it does reflect badly on him. Natalie Portman, Kat Dennings and Stellan Skaarsgard all return from the first movie as well, and Anthony Hopkins once again has fun hamming it up as Odin. Hiddleston steals the show once again playing Loki; once he joins the adventure, the film really comes to life thanks to his performance and his banter with Hemsworth. It really makes you wish the movie was about him, as he is not only more interesting than Thor but he is the one with the bigger character arc. Unfortunately, the weakest aspect of the film is the villain Malekith, played by Christopher Eccleston. He is very much a stock bad guy, with no more real motivation than “he is evil and hates Asgard because they beat him”. What he lacks in definition, he more than makes up for in threat thanks to his army and power, but it left me wishing for a villain that really interested me beyond spectacle. And be sure to look out for some fun cameos from the likes of Chris O’Dowd, the obligatory Stan Lee, and a certain fellow hero that provides the best gag of the entire movie.

The action scenes in The Dark World are certainly more adventurous than the first film. Battles are much larger and involve many more characters, creating much more variety and spectacle. The final battle is certainly inventive, taking advantage of the fantastical nature of the film and having fun with it. The design of the world feels very consistent with the original and still manages to translate the mad designs of Jack Kirby into reality, though the cinematography and lighting has changed somewhat; the more mystical aura that Asgard had has been lost here and ends up feeling more like a generic fantasy world. Certain scenes even feel like they’ve been ripped from a Lord of the Rings movie, especially the prologue battle sequence. Director Alan Taylor’s background in television could explain this, but otherwise he has done a good job with the look of the film. The visual effects are as good as ever, and the score works with both original compositions and those recycled from the first.

Thor: The Dark World is good. Not great, just good. It entertains, it continues the story, and sets up for a potential third picture with a good hook. It is certainly one of Marvel’s weaker efforts, but considering they already gave us the masterpiece that is Iron Man 3 this year I can cut them some slack. Now to wait until spring for the arrival of The Winter Soldier…

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10

Starring: Asa Butterfield (Hugo), Harrison Ford (Raiders of the Lost Ark), Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit), Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine), Viola Davis (The Help), Ben Kingsley (Iron Man 3)

Writer/Director: Gavin Hood (Tsotsi)

Runtime: 1 hour 54 minutes

Release Date: 25 October (UK), 1 November (US)

Based on the classic science fiction novel by Orson Scott Card (which, for the record, I have not read), Ender’s Game is a slightly different breed of young adult book adaptation. Not only is its source material much older than brethren like Harry Potter, The Hunger Games or Twilight, it also deal with much deeper themes and issues than any of those tales; themes and issues that are just as prevalent now as they were when the book was written nearly thirty years ago. Does this make the film a much more relevant piece of work than its contemporaries, or is it all a load of gobbledegook?

The story of Ender’s Game does follow a format familiar to the average YA story: a young boy is told he is destined for greater things and goes off to a place full of other gifted people to learn to become the greatest of them all. Sound familiar? Just remember: this one came first. But saying that is severely underselling the film. Ender is not only burdened with a great sense of responsibility and pressure, but he is also put under the scrutinising eyes of his superiors; his behaviour and actions constantly monitored and occasionally even tampered with. This makes for a compelling character story, and the film does a great job of making us sympathise with Ender. The film tackles the subject of war from a different perspective, and it luckily doesn’t try to beat you over the head with it like, say, Elysium did with its message. Where some may find the film falters is how the most of it lacks great stakes. A good chunk of the film is spent in battle simulations; whilst thrilling and inventive, they lack consequence because it is all just a game. It never bugged me much, as the spectacle of the simulations kept me engaged, but I’m sure some may find it makes the film lack tension. However, the film does somewhat acknowledge and play with this in the finale in a series of plot turns that are very well put together. The film also suffers from moving at too quick a pace, especially at the start. Events pass by so quick that is sometimes hard to figure out how long it has been between major plot beats, and certain elements (such as Ender’s relationship to his brother) feel brushed over. I’m sure this all comes from having to squeeze the book down into a manageable length, but these moments did jar me. The ending is also abrupt, somewhat setting up for a potential sequel, which is a big recurring problem with these kinds of films: they all try to set up for the next one even though there’s no guarantee there will be a next one.

Ender’s Game benefits greatly from a good main cast. Butterfield is great as Ender; his portrayal of the character is cold and firm, but you completely sympathise with him given his situation. He isn’t immediately likable but, like the other characters in the film, you come to respect and appreciate him. Harrison Ford is finally given a role where his newfound grumpy persona fits well, and he plays off well with the like of Butterfield and Viola Davis. Hailee Steinfeld and Abigail Breslin aren’t given the greatest amount of screen time, but they does well with the time they are given. Ben Kingsley enters the film quite late and in the end feels somewhat inconsequential, but he gives it his all as he does these days. The only person who really stands out as an odd casting choice is Moises Arias as Bonzo; his physicality and demeanour feel out of place with the character he plays and it sometimes seems laughable that so many people would find this kid threatening.

This film contains a lot of visual effects, and the film relies greatly on them. For the most part, they’re pretty good; standouts being the zero gravity sequences and the final battle. However, certain parts look iffy such as the much-repeated footage of the initial alien attack. The film’s production design is reminiscent of JJ Abrams’ Star Trek movies with its sleek architecture and balance between stark whites and bright colours; balanced with the cinematography and lighting, it makes for a pretty looking film. The score is also effective, bringing the intensity when needed but also helping to accentuate the quiet moments of the piece.

I cannot judge whether Ender’s Game works as an adaptation, but as a film in and of itself it works. It by no means breaks any grounds on a narrative or technical level, but it entertains and gets across the message serviceably. I wouldn’t say it is a must-see film, but it got me interested in reading the book and is a lot better than lesser YA adaptations like Percy Jackson or I Am Number Four.

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10

Starring: Tom Hanks (Saving Private Ryan), Barkhad Abdi, Catherine Keener (Being John Malkovich), Michael Chernus (Men in Black 3)

Director: Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Ultimatum)

Writer: Billy Ray (The Hunger Games)

Runtime: 2 hours 14 minutes

Release Date: 11 October (US), 18 October (UK)

Films based on true events are always a tricky subject; you have to balance both trying to make an entertaining movie and making sure the film is accurate. Inevitably, concessions have to be made and that pisses off certain people. Considering I know next to nothing about the real Richard Phillips and his ordeal with Somali pirates, I can’t confirm whether Captain Phillips is the most accurate representation of a true story ever or a bunch of Hollywood-ised bollocks (though from what I’ve heard, I’d say its closer to the former). But no matter how accurate it is, one thing is certain: this is one hell of a flick.

Captain Phillips takes a little too long to get going; the film opens with a couple of scenes with Phillips (Hanks) before setting out to sea, and they are pretty pointless other than setting up some very standard stakes and exposition. But, once the plot finally kicks in, you are in for one hell of a ride. Whilst the proceedings never quite reach the nail-biting intensity of something like Prisoners, it comes damn close at points. In case you don’t know the story already, I won’t go into much more detail. My only problem is I think the film could have been a little tighter. When the stakes are high and the plot is moving, the film flies by at break-neck speed. But when the storm subsides, it fails to keep up the slack. Certain scenes go on a bit too long, some hold-your-breath moments ask us to hold for too long. It’s not too annoying, but I think a good five or ten minutes could have been trimmed and helped keep the story chugging at a consistent speed.

Tom Hanks has always been one of our finest living actors, but he hasn’t really had a chance to show off his chops for a while now. Luckily, his performance here fits the bill and is one of his best in a long time. Richard Phillips is by no means an extraordinary man, but Hanks imbues him with enough humanity that you do care a lot by the film’s conclusion. It’s a performance that only gets better as the film’s intensity increases, before blossoming into several wonderful tear-jerking moments as the film comes to a halt. The film is certainly Hanks’ show, but newcomer Barkhad Abdi as the lead pirate Mewes manages to brilliantly keep pace with our lead throughout. His gaunt face, threatening demeanour and determined attitude make for a truly chilling antagonist, but also one whose motivations you can understand. The rest of the cast gives it their all as well, but in the end it is Hanks and Abdi that make the movie.

Paul Greengrass has shown he can make one hell of an intense picture with films like Bourne Ultimatum and United 93 under his belt, but with Captain Phillips he may have finally perfected his style. Greengrass was one of the first filmmakers to make heavy use of shaky-cam, and for my money I’d say he’s the only one who does it well. He uses it to increase the tension and uneasiness, not as a lazy gimmick. It never pulls you out of the movie and it is always clear what is going on. For a film whose latter half mostly takes place in a tightly compacted area no bigger than the average car and is still able to make a movie this gripping and tense, the director has to be doing something right.

Captain Phillips is a stupendous thrill ride that should not be missed. Hanks’ performance alone makes it worth the price of admission, but Abdi and Greengrass sweeten the deal. An Oscar contender for certain and one of my favourite movies of the year so far too. And to anyone who is about to speak up about any potential inaccuracies, I have this to say: as long as the film itself is entertaining, does it really matter whether it is 100% accurate or not?

FINAL VERDICT: 9.5/10

Starring: Danny Trejo (Desperado), Michelle Rodriguez (Avatar), Amber Heard (Drive Angry), Sofia Vergara (Modern Family), Demian Bichir (A Better Life), Mel Gibson (Braveheart)

Director: Robert Rodriguez (Sin City)

Writer: Kyle Ward

Runtime: 1 hour 47 minutes

Release Date: 11 October (US, UK)

When Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino teamed up to make Grindhouse, included in between Planet Terror and Death Proof were several fake trailers. Among such potential classics as Don’t, Thanksgiving and Werewolf Women of the SS was Machete. So popular was this trailer that the full movie was eventually made by Rodriguez in 2010, the end credits of which promised two sequels. Well, here’s the first one.

If you go into Machete Kills actually expecting something meaningful, you’re obviously in the wrong place. Machete Kills throws out any sense of logic and just does whatever the f*** it feels like. Whilst this does often lead to some fun moments, it also means the film is a bit of a disorganised mess. For a film with barely any plot, there is too much going on; too many characters who just come in and out with very little baring on the actual plot. If you cut out everything that doesn’t relate directly to the story, I doubt the film would make it to an hour. I’m perfectly fine with throwing logic and physics out of the window, but you still have to have some sense of cohesion. To top it all off, the film ends on a cliffhanger, setting up for what looks like an infinitely superior sequel. I get the feeling that Rodriguez could only come up with one good idea for a sequel and decided to pull a Hobbit by stretching it out into two. Either way, the film does move at a very fast pace and throws just enough good moments in that you will never be bored. It’s just kind of sad that the best part of the second Machete movie is the trailer for a third Machete movie that may not even get made.

Rodriguez loves shoving his films full of recognizable faces, and Machete Kills is no exception. Trejo is as good as always, but it is clear he’s on his last legs; whether he’ll be fit enough to even do a third movie is questionable. Michelle Rodriguez is the only other major player from the first film to return, but she shows up far too late and doesn’t get much to do until the rushed climax. The rest of the cast seems to just use the movie as an excuse to play it so over the top that they break through the ceiling and/or wear incredibly provocative outfits. Sofia Vergara chews so much scenery that there’s barely any left after her every appearance, but her and her gang of pissed-off prostitutes feel bafflingly useless by the end. The only reason you’ll be glad they were there at all is because it provides you with more opportunities to stare at Alexa Vega’s half-naked body (and then get creeped out when you remember she was the girl from Rodriguez’s Spy Kids series). Amber Heard again also feels like she’s here just for the sex appeal, but a scrap between her and Michelle Rodriguez at the end makes it worth it. Lady Gaga makes her film debut here (playing a role shared with several other name actors) and she doesn’t do a bad job, but her character is again just a superfluous distraction from the plot. Bichir and Gibson ultimately steal the movie as the main villains, providing the right amount of crazy and menacing; considering they’re the “classiest” of the acting talent here, that’s not surprising. Oh, and there’s some guy called Carlos Estavez in the movie. Don’t know much about him, but he certainly looks like he’s winning.

Rodriguez’s films of late have a very homemade feel to them that is now starting to grate. I get it; you’re a notorious Rebel Without a Crew, but your stuff is starting to look even cheaper that the movies you’re paying homage to. Not only does the gore look really fake, it has been considerably toned down from the first one. I know he has a preference for digital filmmaking and doing everything himself, but at this point it’s starting to hurt his films rather than make them cooler. Next time he makes one of these kind of flicks, he needs to shoot it on film, have a decent sized crew and do as much stuff practically as possible. Only then will his films look like a genuine grindhouse product.

Machete Kills is like junk food: fun at the time, but ultimately doesn’t satisfy; it’s easily the least enjoyable of the grindhouse homages. If you’re a Rodriguez fan, there’s just enough for you here for it to be worth a watch; anyone else should just stay away. Machete was a concept that honestly only had one good movie in it, but I still want to see another one is just so I can get some closure. I’m going to give Rodriguez a pass on this one, but if he doesn’t step up his game he could end up killing the notion of intentionally bad movies for everyone.

FINAL VERDICT: 6/10

Starring: James McAvoy (X-Men: First Class), Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot), Eddie Marsan (The World’s End), Imogen Poots (Fright Night), Jim Broadbent (Hot Fuzz)

Writer/Director: Jon S. Baird (Cass)

Runtime: 1 hour 37 minutes

Release Date: 4 October (UK), N/A (US)

Adapted from the book by Trainspotting author Irvine Welsh, Filth’s marketing has played the film up as a debauched insane flick (just try watching the film’s “suitable for all ages” trailer; it basically shows nothing). But does this promise add up to anything meaningful, or is it just a bunch of shocking imagery for the sake of attention?

Filth’s premise is most comparable to Bad Lieutenant (both the Ferrara and Herzog versions): the life of the dirty, drug-addled, sex-loving cop. That premise has lot of promising opportunities for some good set pieces or dark humour. Unfortunately, the film is too scatterbrained to follow up on it. The film’s pacing and structure feels like McAvoy’s character himself: unstable and unfocused. The film seems to have a clear goal at the start, but it meanders through several underdeveloped plots before landing to an abrupt and unsatisfying conclusion. Through hallucinations and dream sequences, the film attempts to foreshadow several major reveals, but does it so much that it becomes more like a hammer to the head; I figured out pretty much all of them about ten minutes before they happened, no matter how bizarre and unthinkable they were. The loose structure of it feels much more suited to the novel format (having never read the book, I can’t confirm that is true). But if it is, it makes me wish they had actually taken some more liberties with it and streamlined the plot into something more cohesive. The humour of the film is lacking: it’s mostly just a lot of cussing, sex references and homophobia; exactly what you’d expect from Scotsmen. It is much more vulgar than your average film, but it doesn’t make it any more funny. There just wasn’t anything to grab onto to keep me interested, which led to a monotonous experience that felt much longer than it actually was.

If there is any saving grace to the movie, it is the cast. McAvoy carries the film with his performance, bringing his usual go-hard-or-go-home attitude to the proceedings with mostly good effect. He’s not playing a likable guy for sure, but he brings so much energy to the performance that he does hold your interest through the duller moments. Eddie Marsan does well playing a shy, bookish type; the antithesis of McAvoy. But he keeps disappearing from the film and his subplot ends up feeling pointless. Bell, Poots, Broadbent: they all similarly deliver the material with gusto and determination, but it never really adds up to anything. There are a bunch of interesting characters with quirky traits that could provide some humour, but it all feels superfluous. For example, the chief inspector is an aspiring screenwriter. What purpose does this serve? Other than a brief gag where he gets interrupted reading Robert McKee, absolutely nothing. It’s odd that almost an entire film’s main cast is utterly pointless in the long run, but it does feel that way. No matter how hard the actors try, the film just has nothing for them to do.

The film promises depravity, and it does deliver on that somewhat. There’s heavy drug use, lots of nudity, some violence; pretty much what you expect. But again, it feels underwhelming. The marketing promises more crazy than the film actually has, and it just feels like it’s all there to compensate for a lack of meaning. The cinematography is gritty and rough, with a particular penchant for blowing out light from windows that gets annoying after a while. The movie gets the chance to go nuttier in several hallucinations, but they all end up looking like a dream sequence from The Big Lebowski or any music video for My Chemical Romance. The film presents a very exaggerated view of Edinburgh: it definitely looks and feels like the place, but as a native I don’t think it is as dangerous as the film depicts. For that, you go to Glasgow. Overall, the presentation again feels all show, no meaning. It’s got a nice soundtrack though.

Filth is by no means a bad film. It does nothing to offend me nor does it feel incompetent or without effort. It just doesn’t really do anything, and that is almost worse. James McAvoy’s genuinely great performance is the only thing worth watching, but other than that there isn’t much more to it.

FINAL VERDICT: 4/10

Starring: Hugh Jackman (The Wolverine), Jake Gyllenhaal (End of Watch), Terence Howard (Iron Man), Melissa Leo (The Fighter), Paul Dano (There Will Be Blood)

Director: Denis Villeneuve (Incendies)

Writer: Aaron Guzikowski (Contraband)

Runtime: 2 hours 33 minutes

Release Date: 20 September (US), 27 September (UK)

Leading up to its release, Prisoners was not on my radar. I had seen the trailer and didn’t really think much of it; it just seemed like another crime thriller to me. But then the buzz came in from all the critics. What was the big deal? I had to see for myself. So are the critics right, or was my initial judgement true?

The story of Prisoners is very simple when you get right down to it, and honestly it isn’t that original either. But when you are in the moment, you don’t even notice. The film keeps you guessing, distracting you from the obvious and keeping you on the edge of your seat. Whilst someone who has seen a lot of these kinds of movies will probably piece everything together before the reveal (even I did to some extent), it is still incredibly thrilling. For those who’ve seen the trailer and think it showed too much, don’t worry: that trailer was just the tip of an iceberg full of intrigue and suspense. What mainly keeps Prisoners going though is the characters and their reactions and interactions. The emotions fly high in this movie; everyone reacts to the drama differently and has different ways of coping with it. The film feels natural and treats the subject matter with an eye for realism; even in its opening moments before s*** begins to hit the fan, the way these characters talk and interact, you’d swear you’re watching a documentary. The film is long, but never feels as long as it actually is. The pacing is perfect; it never rushes anything but lingers just long enough to create suspense without falling into tedium. I can’t say much more without spoiling everything, you just have to see it yourself. Go in as blind as you can: you’ll enjoy it much more that way.

But none of this would mean anything if the film didn’t have a good cast, but thankfully they have an excellent one. Jackman is at his best here, playing a very complex individual that, despite some of the horrible things he does, you wholly sympathize with; that’s a very fine line to try and balance but he pulls it off flawlessly. He certainly deserves another shot at an Academy Award for this. Gyllenhaal is equally impressive, playing a cop struggling to cope with the drama around him but never giving up hope. Terence Howard gives his best performance in a long time, but his role does fade as the movie begins to focus more on Jackman and Gyllenhaal. Maria Bello and Viola Davis are also great, but like Howard they get relegated to the sidelines. But this didn’t bother me. This is Jackman and Gyllenhaal’s show, and when either of them is on screen (doubly so when together) you just can’t get any more invested than you will be. Paul Dano’s performance is great as well, saying very little but telling us a lot through his confused, despairing face. Melissa Leo is almost unrecognizable in the film, and she again proves why she got that Oscar.

Prisoners isn’t a technical marvel, but it does have a simple but effective visual aesthetic. Legendary DOP Roger Deakins gives the movie a very gritty, down to earth feel that compliments the sombre naturalism of the picture. The film doesn’t make any attempt to dazzle you with camera wizardry, but it certainly doesn’t need to. The music is also minimal but effective, coming in just when it needs to.

I know this review has been vague, and that’s because I don’t want to tell you everything. Just know this: Prisoners is my favourite movie of the year so far. A movie hasn’t made me this emotionally attached to its events in a very long time, and it is also one of the few movies that has almost moved me to tears. It’s that good. Whenever you can set aside a few hours for this thing, go and see it. Just be prepared for it: this ain’t a movie you can just casually watch.

FINAL VERDICT: 10/10!