Garden State review

Sam: Hey, I recognize you.

Andrew Largeman: Oh, did you go to Columbia High?

Sam: No, not from high school, from TV. Didn't you play the retarded quarterback?

Andrew Largeman: Yeah.

Sam: Are you really retarded?

Andrew Largeman: No.

Sam: Ooh, great job man! I really thought you were retarded. I mean, you're better than that Corky kid and he's actually retarded. If there was a retarded Oscar you would win, hands down, kick his ass!

Director: Zach Braff
(2004)

The only reason I decided to watch acclaimed indie film Garden State was for a very ignorant and almost childish reason. It’s the reason why teen girls watch Cronenberg’s Cosmopolis and young women feel the need to watch 2011’s critically revered Drive. The answer? Because the film stars an actor who I enjoy watching. That and Scrubs is a fantastic piece of television. That's right, I watched Garden State solely on the basis of writer/director/star Zach Braff, and this choice was a surprisingly sound one, as Braff’s directorial debut is terrific little film.

The film follows Andrew ‘Large’ Largeman, a little big actor who resides in LA. His career highlight was playing a retarded quarterback in a TV film, but since then the acting well has turned barren. Upon receiving the news of his mother’s death, Large returns home to New Jersey for the first time in 9 years for the funeral that awkwardly collides him with his estranged father (Ian Holm). Soon after catching up with his friends from this previous life he bumps into Sam (Natalie Portman), an incredibly eccentric 20 something who he instantly has a connection to. In the remaining days of his visit to Jersey he attempts to find himself and understand his path forwards in life.

The remarkable themes of self discovery and progress are at the heart of Garden State, and Braff's script tackles such bold subject matter in a remarkably successful way. In different hands the film could’ve veered off into the direction of monologues and nature shots, but the focus is very much on the emotions of the characters. Large feels very isolated in his life, perpetually on medication and unaware of his next move. One hilarious scene sees his new handmade shirt match the wallpaper; a not so subtle metaphor for being lost. Make no mistake, Braff’s direction isn’t particularly subtle, but his choices certainly ring true without devolving into total pretentiousness.

What’s certainly odd to see is Braff in a role that isn’t the recognizable JD from Scrubs. The childish quirks of his medically adept alter ego are missing here, instead Large is filled with a somewhat emptiness. His voice is quiet and movements are reserved, never wanting to be the centre of attention, even when people bring up his successful ventures as an actor. Juxtaposing Large is the oddball attitude of Portman’s Sam, the catalyst in Large’s life that brings him out of his self imposed isolation. Portman certainly pulls it off here by bringing Sam to life and making her simultaneously quirky and incredibly cringe worthy.

In interviews Braff has stated that Garden State is a film about 20 something’s who haven’t planned out their lives past the age of 21. This is employed in full force for the majority of scenes, from the unemployed millionaire friend (“I've never been so bored in all my whole life”) to gravedigger Mark (“I'm only 26. I'm not in any rush”). It certainly allows the film to appeal to the aimless crowd of late teenagers and college graduates, even if Braff’s script becomes incredibly melodramatic in some of the more emotionally intense scenes.

For all its themes of existence and finding ones path in life that takes up the majority of the film, it’s a complete shame that the film’s final third (if it can be called that) is utterly lacking in a multitude of departments. After some strong scenes of Large and Sam bonding, the film goes quite literally on a detour leading the cute couple and Mark to an abandoned quarry. Not only is the journey out of place and a little dull, the film abandons its strongest thematic beats in favour of silly moments of cliché. The climax is a kicker, the films thoughtful groundwork is undone by a hideously generic RomCom ending. If it wasn’t for the quality tarnishing final act, Garden State would be a slice of indie heaven. Instead it’s merely a good film that never truly reaches its full potential.

Moonrise Kingdom review

Sam: What happened to your hand? 
Suzy: I got hit in the mirror. 
Sam: Really? How did that happen? 
Suzy: I lost my temper at myself. 

Director: Wes Anderson
(2012)

In a way, it’s a shame just how little of Wes Andersons work I have seen. A weird and wonderful director, I was instantly drawn to his 2012 film Moonrise Kingdom due to the delightful Fantastic Mr Fox (2008). While my love for stop motion animation did factor somewhat on my enjoyment of the film, the oddball and erratic sense of humour was the true reason for my affection. With what felt like grand expectations I viewed Moonrise Kingdom, a film that’s as challenging as it is wonderful.

The story of Andersons latest is incredibly basic, lacking in any form of narrative complexities. Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman) is the most unpopular member of the Khaki scouts, lead by the often hilarious scoutmaster Ward (Edward Norton). On the other side of the Island of New Penzance resides Suzy Bishop, a young girl with aggression issues and an affection for reading. Both are feeling stifled from their respective lives and hatch a plan to run away together as a storm approaches the island. With the help of Scoutmaster Ward, Police Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis) sets up a search party to find the youngsters before the weather ravages the island.

Staying true to form, Moonrise exhibits the same charm Anderson is renowned for. An emphasis on children, who often possess grown up tendencies, a bittersweet tone and lots of quirky situations; it’s all here. Yet in spite of this delightful front, Moonrise Kingdom feels remarkably half-hearted. It’s not as kooky as some of his other works (such as Fantastic Mr Fox) but doesn’t possess a strong core narrative to make up for the lessened charm. It makes for a bizarre film, one that equally hard to define as it is to appreciate. A fine example is Suzie’s parents, played by Bill Murray and Frances McDormand. Both of these talented actors are squandered in almost throwaway roles, their lawyer lifestyles and almost eccentric tics being severely underutilized by a director who smothers his films with such actions.

Other members of the cast aren’t squandered in the same manner however, with both Norton and Willis stealing a good few scenes. They're helped by an extravagant script from Anderson and Roman Coppola (the duo’s second collaboration after The Darjeeling Limited) consisting of some of the oddest humour you’ll ever come across in films. From electroshock therapy for orphans to fishing hook earrings, the use word bizarre would be an understatement. While the dry humour has been retained, Moonrise hasn’t been written to make its audiences sides ache, but rather to make them chuckle instead. The restrained comedy sits well with the overall tone of the film itself, which exudes a gentler, mellower feel. This is unmistakably Anderson and detractors won’t find solace in this latest outing, the humour remains as wet as any desert.

Set in 1965, Moonrise Kingdom is steeped in immersive period touches that bring this small island community to life. Augmenting this is the choice of shooting the film on 16mm, bathing scenes in a smeared, mystical hue. The format’s restrictions rears its ugly head every once in a while-especially with long shots- but Robert D. Yeoman’s cinematography is strong. While the distinguishing visuals may signal otherwise, Moonrise Kingdom is unmistakably a Wes Anderson film. The man clearly has a formula and his love for having focus on youthful characters, whether in age or spirit, is fully intact. Yet the final product feels a tad disappointing, under cooked somewhat. It’s not a bad effort, but doesn’t feel as fleshed out as one would expect from such a talented director. A film to watch and enjoy, but not to love and cherish.

Your Sisters Sister review

Director: Lynn Shelton
(2012)

As effeminate as it may sound, I have a soft spot for romantic indie films. Big budget star studded RomComs are the bane of cinema, but by stripping away the falsities that come packaged with big studio filmmaking allows for talented directors to craft excellent work. Your Sisters Sister is that kind of film, free from the restrictions of generic mass produced shit like Friends with Kids and almost any Rachel McAdams film, allowing Writer/Director Lynn Shelton to make a film that wears true, genuine emotions and resonates with drama.

What helps bring the emotion of My Sisters Sister to the forefront is the use of a simple story. Jack (Mark Duplass) is (understandably) still grieving a year after losing his brother, so his BFF Iris (Emily Blunt) sends him to stay in her fathers spare cabin in the country in order to get some headspace. Upon his arrival at the secluded lodge he meets Hannah (Rosemarie Dewitt), Iris’ older sister who’s also looking for some privacy to clear her mind after a messy breakup. A night of heavy boozing and the surprise arrival of Iris add needed complexities to the tale which is as perversely funny as it is heart-warming.

Shelton manages to make Your Sisters Sister work by bringing together 3 genres and constructs a seamless blend that averts any banality that could crop up. This tone is set from the get go, Jacks botched speech about his dead brother being a sometimes asshole is awkwardly funny, and is followed by a chat from Iris that's tender and comforting in tone. In many directors hands this could cause for some harsh juxtaposition, 2 very differing scenes failing to garner cohesion with one another. Your Sisters Sister possesses no such trouble melding these varying tones, a talent that Shelton intelligently applies throughout.

In its simplest form, Your Sisters Sister is constructed from quality parts; each adding something necessary to the film. Shelton’s script brings the laughs and the tears, but if not for the impressive cast such talent would have been wasted. Duplass, Blunt and Dewitt tackle the screenplay with apparent ease despite the limited location and lack of other characters. When the narrative calls for it, the trio shift into high gear, delivering scenes of real emotion perfectly captured in gloriously long takes. Its scenes like this that elevate Your Sisters Sister to levels above most other indie- and for that matter mainstream- films, the brakes come off and we’re delivered a scene of blistering and memorable intensity. Sometimes this drama is applied a little thick, feeling more heavy-handed and less refined than the comedy elements. Yet this shouldn’t always be seen as a negative, events often call on moments of fierce passion in order to generate a sufficient payoff.

After a relatively fresh 90 minutes, Shelton shamelessly succumbs to the conventions of genre, even making sure to wrap things in a pretty bow. The final shot may suggest otherwise, but events resolve neatly before this attempted curveball aims to throw audiences of the scent. Yet despite this cliché, the way Shelton goes about delivering the resolution works thanks to the time invested into our trio. As a result we care, so much so the generic outcome isn’t as bothersome as one would think. As the credits roll, it becomes apparent that Your Sisters Sister is a powerful and confrontational film, capable of tackling difficult, fresh themes without breaking a sweat. Like many great titles this year, this diamond in the rough was unfairly overlooked and underrated.

Les Miserables review

Javert: Now Prisoner 24601, your time is up and your parole's begun. You know what that means? 
Jean Valjean: Yes, it means I'm free. 
Javert: No. 
[hands him a yellow paper] 
Javert: Follow to the letter your itinerary, this badge of shame you wear until you die. It warns that you're a dangerous man/ 
Jean Valjean: I stole a loaf of bread. My sisters child was close to death, and we were starving... 
Javert: And you will starve again unless you learn the meaning of the law! 
Jean Valjean: I've learnt the meaning of those nineteen years; a slave of the law. 
Javert: Five years for what you did. The rest because you tried to run, yes 24601... 
Jean Valjean: My name is Jean Valjean! 
Javert: And I'm Javert! Do not forget my name. Do not forget me, 24601. 

Director: Tom Hooper
(2012)

The first trailer I saw of Tom Hooper’s Les Miserables was before a 70mm screening of P.T Andersons The Master. At the time the ambition of the trailer was impressive, yet in retrospect this positive opinion was undoubtedly because of my excitement for Andersons impending film.  The Les Mis trailer rubbed off on me though, and the idea of the cast singing ‘live’ while they perform as opposed to a pre recorded track was certainly intriguing, enough to warrant the price of admission for a genre I despise. While there’s no denying Les Miserables possesses good performances, great songs and a heartbreaking narrative, the entire film is marred by some sloppy work from behind the camera.

Based on a play that’s adapted from a book, we follow criminal Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a man who’s spent 19 years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread. His captor is the ruthless Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe)a man who will hound him for the rest of his life. After being freed Vajean breaks parole, becomes a factory owner and helps prostitute Fantine (Anne Hathaway) by saving her daughter Cosette (the wonderfully talented Isabelle Allen) from 2 cruel foster parents (Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen). As the years pass the student rebellion gains momentum in France and the charismatic Marius (Eddie Redmayne) leads the fight, all while becoming entangled in a love triangle with Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and Eponine (Samantha Barks). This conflict will change all their lives in the most drastic of ways.

Operatic in tone, Les Mis has next to no dialogue, but instead portrays its entire story through song. Many are fantastic, both enjoyable to listen to and exemplary at developing the characters and story. Yet some are borderline harrowing, no thanks to some poor singing and acting. In fact, despite the star studded cast, very few actually live up to their high billing. Crowe performs a double act of looking bored and singing like he’s been punched in the throat, Seyfried’s voice is too shrill and Bonham Carter and Baron Cohen trash every scene in that they appear. Their scene singing “Master of the House” could be used as a form of torture to the sane and tasteful.

Yet despite lacklustre performances from a large chunk of the cast, Hugh Jackman steps up and saves the day. He is a tour de force here, the spearhead that tears through the film in a brilliant, admirable fashion, dominating every scene and every song. His inspired acting holds the film together at the seams, making up for the poor singing from Crowe and Seyfried and the poor performances from Bonham Carter and Baron Cohen. Jackman has sacrificed much to appear in his beloved stage musicals and performances making Les Mis is the perfect role for him, a combination of his 2 professions an apt demonstration of his underrated talents. You’ll never look at Jean Valjean or Wolverine the same way again.

Complimenting Jackman’s stunning performance is the riveting Miss Hathaway, bringing so much to a character whose screentime is all too brief. Her Fantine is wracked with worry and despair, all of which Hathaway emotes to a brilliant level of precision. While she doesn’t put a foot or a note wrong, she’ll almost exclusively be remembered for her rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream”, gloriously executed in a single unbroken take. While such a moment of resonance happens little too early in the film, it doesn’t detract from what will most likely be a winning performance come Oscar night.

What isn’t up to the standard of Jackman and Hathaway’s commitment to their roles is the directing of Tom Hooper. He has a stern insistence on shooting the majority of the film in constraining and stifling close ups, focusing solely on characters faces. While there is truth in his belief that emotion is centred in the face, this is taking matters to the extreme. Take the opening number “Look Down” for example. Valjean and a myriad of other prisoners are pulling a ship into a massive dock as they sing of their hardships. Such a song and event caters to the sense of scale that's needed to do the narrative justice, yet instead we’re served facial shots of Valjean and some other no name prisoners. It’s a maddening decision, singlehandedly destroying some very important scenes as the camera jerks around, barely keeping in focus. Even Hathaway’s film stealing solo is tarnished by Hooper’s poor judgement; the depth of focus is so high her powerhouse performance often becomes blurred. When you’re directing a committed actor in such a spirited scene, the decision to shoot in such a way is bewildering.

The technical failings don’t end here, as Hooper is just as sloppy with his editing. While not as detrimental as the dire cinematography, it gives the film a horribly rough finish, like an amateur had taken the reigns for the first time on a high school project. It’s painful to see Hooper act so sloppy, especially considering the phenomenal costume and set design from (Eve Stewart). 19^th century France is a grim and disgusting location, expertly captured through the filthy streets and rundown buildings. The costume design follows similar suite, impeccably designed to fit the era and the character who dons them. When taking into consideration how hard many people worked on these aspects for them to be ruined by some awful direction, it starts to make The Kings Speech seem like a fluke.

By the time its painfully long running time has reached the credits, Les Miserables will have shocked, confused, elevated and disappointed practically every member of the audience. Beyond the abysmal camerawork and direction there gleams a strong musical lead by some equally as strong actors. In the hands of a more competent director this could have been a masterpiece. Instead we get a mess, albeit a passionate one.

Titanic review

Jack: I'm the king of the world!

Director: James Cameron
(1997)

When about to watch a film like Titanic, it’s easy to get a little caught up with the films impressive stature and overwhelmingly positive reception. 14 Oscar nominations, 11 wins (both of which are records), a 3d rerelease and 2.1 billion dollars at the box office, a record only recently broken by a certain other Cameron film. Such success often bears down heavily on a film, the weight of expectation the audience carries can be the key ingredient in a recipe for disappointment. Yet oddly, 15 years on and on my first proper viewing, Titanic holds up remarkably well.

However, Titanic isn’t a film that is instantly engaging. In fact, we don’t even begin in the correct time period. Instead we’re introduced to Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his crew of deep sea explorers. Some strong underwater photography shows us the wreckage of the Titanic and through some drawn out scenes we learn of the priceless Heart of the Ocean, a rare diamond that Brocks employer wants to recover. This is all being broadcast on TV of course, piquing the interest of 101 year old Rose Dawson (Gloria Stuart). A few scenes later she’s aboard Brocks ship and recounts a story that astonishes all who hear it. Cameron chooses to tell the story of the unsinkable ship via a framed narrative which, while implausible, brings us to meat of the film, starting in 1912. This is where penniless artist Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) meets Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and marks the start of the star crossed lover’s affair on such a fateful voyage.

There's no denying that Titanic is a film that's colossally expansive in scope, a vast challenge that Cameron doesn’t quite wrangle at times. The script is a gargantuan one, the ambitious groundwork to a film that's 3 hours and 14 minutes long. With the sinking of the Titanic Cameron had some impressive putty to mould something incredibly and emotionally moving, potential he squanders in favour of a cliché and predictable love story. When Rose asks Jack to “draw me like one of your French girls” it’s easy to snigger at how silly it sounds. This slack writing extends to the primary antagonist, Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane), the misogynistic, unloving fiancé to Rose. Much like the majority of the upper class characters present, he’s a snooty, stuck up arsehole that could only be more generically evil if he were stroking some dastardly facial hair. Jack isn’t much better, portrayed penniless and happy, a far cry from the miserable rich folk who judge him. When it comes to writing, Cameron gets so very little correct it’s a miracle how the film didn’t fall apart before shooting had even finished.

Despite its almost laborious running time, Cameron manages to get Titanic to work by making the romance between Jack and Rose believable, but this remains the limit of his success. While there is a certain degree of chemistry between them, we don’t feel for them in a way that's particularly engaging. Winslet and DiCaprio share a slight chemistry, but this doesn’t extend itself to bringing genuine emotion onto the audience when things begin to go pear shaped. The fact that our tragic lovers knew each other for mere days does question the plausibility of their bond, thankfully it doesn’t negate the effect of any of the couples more meaningful encounters which at times act as Cameron’s saving grace.

Titanic’s saving grace is its final 3^rd where Cameron shows us the true definition of filmmaking on an epic scale. The romance is cast aside, now acting as a backdrop to the tremendous special effects and burning intensity that create a perfect climax. From the scenes in the flooded lower decks to hundreds of extras scrambling for lifeboats, every scene feels incredibly impressive. While a hefty amount of CGI is used, the love for practical effects is wonderful, a factor that adds an essential element of realism to the horror. Even 15 years after release these scenes are impressive, a considerable feat when you take into account how technology has advanced over the years.

Despite its famous reputation, Titanic isn’t a tragically sad film, something that Cameron’s screenplay sees to. The acting is barely passable and the majority of characters are either unlikable or stereotypes, with the worst being both. But where these departments lack quality, a ferocious finale saves the day with grand scope and even grander direction, offering scenes that will never be forgotten.

Brokeback Mountain review

Jack Twist: I wish I knew how to quit you.

Director: Ang Lee
(2005)

Upon first glance, I perceived Ang Lee’s 3 time Oscar winner Brokeback Mountain to be shameless awards bait. I mean, gay cowboys who must conceal their love throughout their lives to avoid hurting/offending their loved ones appeared, to me at least, as incredibly cynical. After actually watching the film for the first time, I can safely say I couldn’t have been more wrong with my short-sighted judgement; Brokeback Mountain is one of the finest love stories ever committed to celluloid.

Opening in 1963, we’re silently introduced to Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis Del War (Heath Ledger) 2 ranch hands that get work on the titular Brokeback Mountain during the summer. Ennis tends to the camp and supplies while Jack vigilantly watches over a herd of sheep from predators. Soon love blossoms between the 2, as excellently portrayed in a rough and passionate love scene. While the feelings they harbour for each other are ferocious, they both understand that society won’t accept their love, along with Ennis’ impending marriage and the fact that they initially don’t consider themselves “queer”. We follow the duo’s lives for 20 years as they try to juggle their wives, families and the intense, perpetual feelings that they share.

At its core, Brokeback Mountain works because its centre is completely filled with intensity and genuine passion. As time passes Jack and Ennis’ feelings grow in stature, first witnessed after the summer of 1963 has finished and the 2 men go their separate ways. Ennis walks into an alleyway, collapses to his knees and smashes his fist into the adjacent wall, sobbing fiercely. There next encounter together results in a passionate embrace upon first sight, much to the horror and anguish of Ennis’ wife Alma (Michelle Williams). Such a fate doesn’t befall Jacks wife Lureen (Anne Hathaway) a housewife who is rather career focused and emotionally cold, a possible explanation for her husband’s constant lust for the embrace of another human being. These four performances dominate the film thanks to a fantastic script and sublime acting. While Gyllenhaal, Hathaway and Williams all steal their fair share of scenes, its Ledger who comes out as top dog, his portrayal of a man who is unsure of his feelings becomes more engrossing by the minute.

Passage of time does an incredible job of showing the strength of their love. Excluding the opening scenes, Lee never beats us over the head with abrasive title cards that declare the date, instead choosing for a much more natural way of informing the viewer of the scenes location in time. A calendar here or a banner at a dance there, there's certainly trust in the audience to pay attention. To match this change in times, the art direction and costumes are restlessly changing, a transition that doesn't feel gimmicky thanks to the great work from many talented characters behind the camera. Said brilliant work is matched with equally as brilliant cinematography. Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto captures every scene perfectly, from the extreme long shots of Brokeback Mountain itself (actually shot in the Rockies and not Wyoming) to each conversation and scene of intimate passion. There is barely a shot out of place and while this isn’t the most ambitious film visually, the script doesn’t call for such frivolous work.

Despite a couple of middling scenes during the second act, Brokeback Mountain is a consistently engaging, emotional portrayal of 2 men whose love is resented by society. Lee has crafted a truly special film here, his talents shining through every frame. On reflection this finely tuned effort melts into a beautiful, seamless whole, bound to leave a strong lasting impression on anyone lucky enough to view it. Essential.

Silver Linings Playbook review

Pat: You have poor social skills. You have a problem. 
Tiffany: I have a problem? You say more inappropriate things than appropriate things. 

Director: David O.Russell
(2012)

Mental conditions are a very difficult, and often serious subject to commit to film. When making a film that deals with such illnesses, it’s undoubtedly going to be a challenge for any director. Play things too dark and the audience may feel stifled and melancholic. Conversely playing events solely for laughs will cause viewers to scratch their heads or even be offended. Much like last years The Descendants, Silver Linings Playbook is a jarring mix of comedy and drama. The only difference is Director David O. Russell has the deftness of a sledgehammer.

The film opens with Pat (Bradley Cooper) in a mental institution. His mother (Jacki Weaver) intends to bring him home after 8 months of his spell, his incarceration caused by a nervous breakdown after his wife cheated on him. This, coupled with his Bi Polar has caused him to realise he needs to reinvent himself in order to have any chance of being with the woman that he loves, despite the  restraining order she has on him. Upon returning home, Pat meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a desperate, depressed widow who forms a bond with the eccentric Pat as the 2 of them help each other solve their problems. If first impressions were any indication of a films overall quality, SLP has a very unconvincing start. Characters are poorly developed, the plot is stop and start and the story is introduced simply isn’t satisfying. The first 20 minutes are a total grind, and things don’t seem to be getting any better until Lawrence’s Tiffany appears, finally events shift into a higher gear.

The performances are easily the best thing about Silver Linings Playbook. Bradley Cooper, Hollywood’s leading funny man is redefined here in a more serious, dramatic role. It’s a vast departure from the half baked lounging that he did in the Hangover films, and he does have some scenes where he shows he can, ya'know, act. His performances won’t be removing your socks ala Joaquin Phoenix in The Master, but it’s a solid, if inconsistent turn. 2012’s new girl Jennifer Lawrence on the other hand, is easily the star, giving the finest performance in the film, an academy Award contender and rightfully so. Since her tremendous work in The Hunger Games earlier this year she has proved her consistency, once again taking her characters nuances and troubles, displaying them with dramatic authenticity. It’s one of those performances where she embodies the character completely.

So while these young actors shine brightly, the more experienced ones suffer at the hands of minute screen time and a poor script. Robert De Niro plays Pats violent OCD suffering father who, like the entire family, possesses an almost unhealthy obsession with the Philadelphia Eagles. The choice to play his OCD almost solely for laughs is a bad one that's not improved by another one of De Niro’s half arsed attempts at acting. I struggle to look at this man and remember that he once gave the world Travis Bickle; his fall from brilliance has indeed been a great one. Still, at least the script asks something of him, a colossal contrast to Jacki Weaver’s character. Weaver is a great actress relegated to a worrisome mother figure that possesses all the backbone of a jellyfish.

Russell’s slack script tarnishes other aspects of the film too. His characters unhealthy obsession with the Philadelphia Eagles is. Using characters mental disorders to generate laughs is certainly questionable, but the laughs it produces are out of guilt, not the witty script. After the 4^th time Pat remarks about Tiffany’s dead husband, we kind of get the point. This repetitious nature stretches to the character obsession with their local team too, the Philadelphia Eagles. It’s a quirk at first, but soon becomes a rather irksome aspect of the film. What's more bewildering is the part they play in the plot. De Niro’s character insists on betting his life savings  in a parlay the depends on both the Eagles winning and Pat and Tiffany achieving a 5 out of 10 in a dance contest the pair have been practicing for. It’s utterly absurd, the shit that any sane writer would steer clear of due to its pure ridiculousness. I understand that Russell adapted from a book, but why he didn’t refine this terrible aspect of the plot is beyond me.

So after some good scenes between Pat and Tiffany, the friendship they forge through dancing, we arrive at a finale that pulls the whole film into cliché. Will there ever be a film where a man and woman can be just friends? Considering how SLP does well at distinguishing itself from other RomComs, Russell totally bottles it. Coupled with a terrible plot full of convenience, contrivance and plain bad writing, Silver Linings Playbook falls back on its strong performances and guilty humour for all of its 2 hour runtime.

Twilight review

Isabella Swan: Will you tell me the truth? 
Edward Cullen: No, probably not. 
Edward Cullen: I'd rather hear your theories. 
Isabella Swan: I have considered radioactive spiders and kryptonite. 
Edward Cullen: All superhero stuff right? But what if I'm not the hero? What if I am the bad guy? 

Director: Catherine Hardwicke
(2008)

It’s hard to go into a popular and commercially successful film with an open mind. After legions of teenage girls call it the ‘best movie evar’ and consider it the second coming of Jesus, its difficult to take said film seriously. With my best efforts, I completed my first viewing of Twilight, a film shamelessly engineered to hoover up money from its easily manipulated target audience.

The story is a simple and relatable one, a major reason why twilight is the success that it is today, a multibillion dollar franchise. Our protagonist, Bella (Kristen Stewart showing all one of her facial expressions) is an average girl, burdened with the hardship of moving schools from Arizona to Washington to live with her father. Soon she falls for Edward Cullen, a mysterious and impossibly attractive student who, as it turns out, is a vampire. Bella and Edward begin a relationship that not only endangers her, but also both their families.

As a romance, Twilight sucks. The pairing of Bella and Edward possesses no chemistry, a fatal flaw that can be attributed to both the terrible script and the dire acting. Edward is a poorly written character, hormonal to the point of having mood swings that effortlessly shatter any character development. Pattison has a degree of talent lurking under this shoddy character, but director Catherine Hardwicke completely fails to coax it out. The first half of the film involves Edward being nice to Bella, followed by being a total dick to her in the next shot. A prime example of the abysmal chemistry between the pair is when they get put together in biology. There’s no tension, romance or even awkwardness, just bad acting and writing.

Kristen Stewart is indescribably bad in the lead role, almost effortlessly ruining every scene she’s in. It may be a shock to her, but perpetually pouting, face devoid of emotion and mouth slightly parted doesn’t constitute as acting. Especially when it was her attempt at showing happiness. She was passable in Adventureland (2009, just a year later) but here she is abhorrent. The rest of the cast don’t fare much better, from her friendship group of stereotypes, her almost equally expressionless father (Billy Burke) to Jacob (Taylor Lautner), another teen idol with little in the way of actual talent. In all honesty the best character is the Washington countryside itself, a stunning collection of emerald greens and muted browns that still portrays emotion better than the entire cast.

This insipid storyline drags on for far longer than it should, until Bella’s scent is caught by the more malicious Vampires in the region, and must flee with the rest of the Cullen family to safety. The barely cooked romance is temporarily disposed of in favour of an interesting escape; the family splits into groups in an attempt to lure these antagonists away from Edward's new love. This burst of adrenaline is the undoubted highlight of the film, although this is still ruined by a final fight that has some hideous special effects. These hideous visuals match the quality of the rest of the film; cheesy and unimaginative.

With so little in the way of redeeming qualities, it’s truly perplexing as to why it’s garnered so much success. Any teenager who wants to watch good fantasy films needs to look no further than Harry Potter, and the yearly release of trashy RomComs still offer more emotion and heart than this insipid mess. If terrible acting and laughable writing is your thing, Twilight may well be the film for you.

Short review: Bridget Jones’s Diary

Director: Sharon Maguire
(2001)

Renee Zellweger is the Bridget Jones of the title in this awkwardly funny British RomCom. As an office working woman, she worries about the same issues that every single her age worries about, ranging from her weight to her inability to give up bad habits. Soon she becomes involved with her boss, Daniel Cleaver (Hugh grant) and romance blossoms. BJD is fairly humorous throughout, yet never to the point of being genuinely funny. This tone mixes with the romance aspect successfully, although both are brought down by some very predictable writing. When Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) also comes onto the scene, Bridget is torn between these 2 men, one utterly charming but untrustworthy, the other perfect but boring. The resolution isn’t heavy handed, and despite the horrendous cheesy music and incompetent cinematography, BJD is a success, if only a minor one.

Amour review

Director: Michael Haneke
(2012)

Love is a complicated emotion to capture with a camera. The biggest failing in attempts to capture such an emotion is to be soppy, overly sentimental or just plain false. Very often, these efforts fall flat. But there aren’t many directors with the sheer talent of Michael Haneke. Aptly demonstrating his mastery of film, he has delivered the Palme d'Or winning masterpiece Amour, undoubtedly the finest film of 2012.

Opening with a group of firemen smashing down an apartment situated in Paris, Amour is a personal, engaging piece of art. The apartment under inspection belongs to Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva), 2 retired music teachers living happily together in their old age. It’s immediately clear that the couple have a small amount of wealth; their home is spacious, complete with a baby grand piano in the living room. The comfort of their existence is shattered after Anne suffers an attack that renders her to the support of a wheelchair, as well as afflicting her with dementia. For the remainder of the film Georges cares for his beloved wife, trying to make her as comfortable as possible in what they both acknowledge as Anne’s final days.

Amour succeeds due to its heartfelt and genuine performances from these 2 experienced actors. Riva is physically constricted for a large portion of the film, but performs small miracles as she slowly disintegrates into a hollow shell of the woman she once was. Trintignant is even more impressive. While Georges isn’t a physically strong person, the way he himself struggles to help the person that he loves is utterly overwhelming to the emotions. Simply getting Anne from her wheelchair into bed is an arduous task; his struggles to lift her are expressed perfectly. He spends a great amount of the film caring for her needs, from cutting up her food into manageable portions to taking care of her toiletry needs. Seeing a man give everything he has to care for the woman that he truly loves was an utterly devastating experience to watch, made even more crushing by Haneke’s decision to make the outcome so plainly obvious.

This pure emotional attachment to the viewer is sentimental however, and is undoubtedly one of the finest achievements of the film. Nothing is forced, Haneke’s faith in both actors and script are integral to the real feelings that Amour strikes its audience with. The film has no soundtrack at all, and the only music that we hear is completely diagetic, further augmenting the raw power on display. Haneke further demonstrates his ability with a screenplay that excellently portrays the love between these 2 characters. He shows the history of the couple not through cheap montage but small scraps of dialogue. We learn of their jobs as music teachers when a former student comes to visit. The information we glean from this is slight, but does wonders at fleshing out the length and strength of their love.

The cinematography of Amour is easily some of the finest of the year so far. A great deal of the film is from a static camera, often capturing long takes at a time. Back and forth conversations are often captured this way, putting focus on the importance of that characters dialogue. While this almost perpetually static camera may sound like a boring decision, we get reset by a perfectly pitched pan, refreshing the scene completely. What's more impressive are the number of long takes and the tracking shots that usually accompany them. These flow perfectly, also showing the remarkable ability of both Trintignant and Riva, who stay in character flawlessly. The films climax consists of 1 shot, making for an utterly engrossing and mesmerising scene.

Amour is close to being a perfect film, marred so slightly by the rate in which Anne deteriorates. The films emotion is at its rawest when Georges and Anne are conversing about the life, both past and future. When her dementia takes a firm hold, she becomes a babbling mess, reverting to an almost childlike state. This in itself provokes such distressing emotions, but isn’t quite as powerful as the long conversations that are captured in long, unbroken takes. Other than this, Amour is a flawless work of art, easily the best film of 2012.

The Vow review

Leo: How do you look at the woman you love, and tell yourself that its time to walk away? 

Director: Michael Sucsy
(2012)

Another year, another RomCom. What sets The vow apart from the others is that it has a reliable cast who give this film the potential to be quite good. What makes it similar to other films in this boring genre is that it isn’t very good. In fact, that's a colossal understatement; The Vow is a mess of a film.

Centring on the relationship between Paige (Rachel McAdams) and Leo (Channing Tatum, wasting his potential in another dime a dozen RomCom). The film focuses on Leo’s attempt to get Paige to regain her memory after a car crash induced bout of amnesia. From then on the predictability sets in, and The Vow becomes a vile concoction of soppy, generic and horrendously boring. For the most part the film feels like its progressing in slow motion; mainly because it is. An excessive use of slow motion shots almost tricked me into thinking Zack Snyder had made a RomCom. Scenes that have very little relevance to the overall narrative are needlessly cranked down to a grinding slog, a flaw that crops up repeatedly. What's worse is its application during the crash that causes Paige's memory loss. We see her flaccid body launch through the windscreen, chunks of shattered glass hovering around her head. For such a serious event, it reeks of poor taste and excessive exploitation. Although it sets up the remainder of the film perfectly, as The Vow is a nonstop slog through endless clichés and terrible attempts to force an emotional response from its audience.

McAdams, an actress who has some degree of talent, doesn’t even seem to be trying here, switching expression from confused to smiling throughout the films painful yet relatively short running time. You’d think that with the abundance of RomComs that she’s been in that this shtick would’ve been nailed down to a tee, but if anything she’s regressed in terms of ability. While this doesn’t bother me that much, the very inclusion of Channing Tatum in another soppy mess of cliché that is the modern romance genre is almost a travesty. 2012 has been a good year from him, starring in Magic Mike and proving he’s an able funny man in 21 Jump Street. But much like McAdams, he’s on the saddening path of regression, back to when his performances were irksome rather that enjoyable.

Tatum’s horrific monologuing is another one of The Vows many flaws. He talks about ‘collisions’ (yeah, really) and how they make us what we are. Only this simple statement is dragged out over about a dozen lines, each one more irritating than the last. Despite feeling incredibly false, it still isn’t as frustrating as the films trio of villains. As Paige’s memory loss has caused her to forget the past 5 years of her life, she still has a connection with ex fiancé Jeremy (Scott Speedman), the typical slime ball that is as much of a part of the genre as McAdams is. The other antagonists come in the form of Paige’s parents who, despite not talking to her for 5 years, want to tear her from Leo in order to get her back. These paper thin characters are so obviously evil that the only thing they lack is a dastardly moustache to twirl. For example, shortly after the accident, the doctor informs everyone that Paige should go back to her normal routine in order to help her regain her memory. Seconds after a fully qualified doctor states this, her parents try to force her to go and live with them. The idiocy boggles the mind.

So what happens when you combine bad performances, a lack of chemistry, trashy special effects, one dimensional characters and quite possibly the worst script of the year? A mess designed solely for those women who find every film in the genre to be ‘OMG amazing’ just because the girl is relatable, the guy hunky and they get some sort of pleasure from being emotionally manipulated. While a lot of RomComs are very similar, clichéd and predictable, only a few are truly as bad as The Vow.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World review

Penny: You're a really nice person. 
Dodge: You are an awful judge of character. 

Director: Lorene Scafaria 
(2012)

What would you do if you were told that everything in existence would end in 3 weeks? Some would do all the things that they wish they could before society collapsed, while others, I suspect, would go on living exactly the way they normally would. Seeking a Friend for the End of the World poses this question to its leads, the melancholic Dodge (Steve Carell) and quirky Penny (Kiera Knightly) as they set out fulfil their final desires before the human race is destroyed by a meteor. What's more important is that SAFFTEOTW is a terrific RomCom, as funny as it is emotionally resonant.

As a radio announcer informs of earths demise in 3 weeks, Dodge sits gloomily in his car as his long-time wife Linda opens the door and runs off. It’s a funny scene, but also a sad one, leaving Dodge to sit out the Armageddon on his own. As society becomes liberated from the shackles of decency and responsibility, he encounters his rarely seen neighbour Penny, for the first time. They're both alone, so decide to go on a road trip, searching for those they love before it’s too late. Dodge wants to find his high school sweetheart while Penny is searching for a plane to get back to England to see her family. The biggest initial surprise here is that Knightly puts in a good performance. It’s not up to that of 2007’s Atonement, but it’s a damn sight better than the majority of her filmography. She’s charming, funny and while her performance becomes borderline hysterical a little too often, likeable. She is overshadowed by Carell though, who delivers another great performance, akin to last year’s superb Crazy, Stupid, Love. Playing an almost serious character in a comedy is becoming his forte, and long may it continue. He’s an empty man, purposeless without his unhappy wife, aptly demonstrated by his attendance of his dull insurance job for an entire week.

The pair sees some odd sights on their journey, from orgies in restaurants to others who prepare for the end of the world by hiding away in bunkers and bomb shelters. This is easily the finest aspect of Seeking, how people are portrayed when facing the end of existence. Some riot, fight and steal. Like Dodge and Penny, some take the remaining planes and busses to find their loved ones. But the most interesting is those who continue doing their routine, almost as if they're unable to process the near insanity of the predicament that they find themselves in. Some of these are funny, Dodges boss offers the remaining employees in the office a promotion to CFO, the money is better, but you’ll be dead before you get your pay check. One man has stuck in my mind since I viewed the film; seemingly content with cutting his front lawn. It’s a split second of footage, but it captures the tone of the film excellently; a perfect marriage of odd, funny and endearingly sad.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World has a good ending, though it’s almost spoiled by being needlessly rushed. An ending can make or break a film, and while this is a successful conclusion to a bittersweet story, it’s ripe with underdeveloped potential. The road trip film of the year, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World is a fine example of how RomComs should be done.