Ironclad (2011)

A medieval blood-bath, from director Jonathon English, starring Paul Giamatti as the inglorious King John who seeks revenge against England, after the land barons forced him to sign the magna carta, giving away a lot of his power.

During the battle between land barons and the crown, the Knights Templar were used as fierce warriors against the King’s Men. However, once the King was defeated, and forced to sign the magna carta (which gave basic rights to every citizen), the Knights Templar became a useless entity. That was until King John began his ruthless search for all of those who conspired against him, including the Knights, who were also viciously hunted.

In the film, King John enlists the help of Romanian troops to help restore “order” to his Kingdom, as he goes on a violent rampage across England, killing all the land owners and any other traitors. There is only one hope for the freedom of the English people, a small group of men, including a Templar, who manage to seize Rochester Castle, which is the last bastion of hope for the rebellion. If King John is able to take the castle, his troops and influence will be able to spread across the land like wildfire.

It is a story of David versus Goliath, an underdog tale, but one that has more in common with a film like 300. Though their number are small, the rebellion has the benefit of location: Rochester Castle is a fortress, built to withstand the mightiest of attacks. Also, just like 300, the men are trained killers, and not some band of fist fighters. Unfortunately, the film takes a few too many similarities from 300, including the outrageously comical gore. The blood-splattering frenzy begins early on in the film, and doesn’t ever let up. People are spliced in half, blood rushes from bodies, and at one point, a man is hurled from a catapult into the side of the castle (that bit was quite funny).

The film is a decent ye olde English tale, with lots of battles and blood. Don’t expect any realism or any deeper meaning, but rather a movie that gives you a simple story, plenty of fighting, and enough blood and guts to swing an iron mace at.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

An army of British heavyweight actors brings this spy-drama novel to life.

Set during the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union, the film focuses on an top-secret group within the English government called The Circus, whose job it was to infiltrate the communists, and retrieve any information useful to safeguarding Britain.

However, there is a suspected mole within The Circus, and now it is up to a recently-fired member to discover who it is. Gary Oldman plays George Smiley, a former member of The Circus, who was fired after an important mission in Budapest went tragically wrong. He is brought back in by a man known as Control (John Hurt), who is the head of this group, and now wants answers.

A jaw-dropping host of British talent fills the screen in this film, including the aforementioned Oldman and Hurt, as well as Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Mark Strong, Toby Jones, newcomer Benedict Cumberbatch, and even Kathy Burke makes an appearance! Few could be unhappy with the sheer magnitude of stars in this film.

In terms of plot, it is a complicated story of political espionage, backstabbing, and paranoia (themes that encapsulate the Cold War). The director, Tomas Alfredson, makes no attempt to give in to typical filmic techniques, and instead displays bold defiance by creating a film that is intensely confusing, and unashamedly longwinded, even during these difficult financial times for cinema. Viewers may find it difficult to maintain their attention, as the story makes its slow way through minor events.

The enjoyment factor for this film, however, comes from the performances. Oldman is undoubtedly spectacular, creating a compelling character without actually saying much. Firth is his usual brilliant self, and it is wonderful to see John Hurt again…a true legend.

There are some beautifully shot scenes, and the attention to detail in bringing the film back to this era was superbly done. Probably a film worthy of a second watch to fully grapple with the storyline, but one to avoid if you have a short attention span.

Che: Part One (2008)

A film about the first part of Ernesto “Che” Guevara’s time as a revolutionary in Cuba, and his attempts to assist Fidel Castro in overthrowing the totalitarian ruler Batista.

Few political entities have had the same effect on popular culture than Che Guevara, his face has become unbreakably linked to ideas of communism, revolution and uprising. We have all seen the red and black banners, the t-shirts, and the caps with the red star on. However, the irony is that few people actually know anything about Guevara other than that he was a Cuban revolutionary. I myself must admit that I knew very little about him going into this film, but the experience has made me want to know more about this fascinating political figure.

Benicio Del Toro stars as Che, and we see his early movements as an exile in Batista’s Cuba, how be co-founded an armed resistance to the regime that was in charge, and how, ultimately, his myth among the common people grew. He was a doctor, and used his knowledge during the battles against Batista’s men to care for the wounded, but he also became a great tactician, as well as a thorough idealist. His principles for freeing the Cuban people from the shackles of oppression are what made him become a living legend.

Throughout the film, we see Che in an interview with an American reporter, where he talks about his life working for Castro, as well as his political motives. He also mentions his opposition to any international influence within Cuba, in particular the U.S., whom he sees as using a downtrodden country to bolster its own economy.

As a film, it was quite heavy, and demanded a lot from the viewer. More than half of the dialogue is in Spanish with subtitles, and the cut scenes between battles and the interview can be quite confusing. It is, however, quite an interesting historical representation of what is largely an unknown political struggle. Benecio Del Toro is perfect for this role, and he does well to encapsulate what is essentially one of the most charismatic politicians of all time.

Watch this if you have a deep interest in political/war films, or want to know more about a fascinating time in history, you should enjoy it. But, you will have to work for it.

The Accidental Husband (2008)

A renowned radio therapist, whose expert solutions to people’s love problems, becomes entwined in a problem of her own, after one of her listeners breaks off their engagement with an enraged fireman, who now wants revenge.

Uma Thurman plays Dr. Emma Lloyd, a radio presenter/writer, who is on the cusp of greatness. Her popularity with listeners keeps growing, in particular with vulnerable women seeking an answer to their woes, and her new self-help book is predicted to be a huge success. Also, she is due to marry Richard, her publisher, who is the perfect match according to her stringent criteria of what a good mate should be.

However, when NYFD worker Patrick is dumped by his fiancé after she is told to by Dr. Emma, he plots a way to ruin her life like she ruined his. His pal downstairs hacks into a database which allows him to be married to Emma, meaning that she cannot legally get married to Richard. What ensues is a desperate attempt by Emma to resolve this issue before the wedding, whilst coming to terms with exactly why she wants to marry Richard. Alongside this, Patrick begins to fall for Emma, and a frenetic ménage-a-trois follows.

It is an appalling film for several reasons. Uma Thurman seems completely miscast in this film, and her character goes through some inexplicable changes of mind that seem totally unfounded - first she is this confident feminist who would put your balls in a vice, and then she becomes this sappy puppy who abandons all of her ideals simply because this roguish fire fighter comes onto the scene. Her feelings for Richard (Colin Firth) go out the window, who seems to just accept his wife-to-be’s insane actions.

The story is a typical Rom-Com no-brainer, and the acting is equally lacking in energy.

Some of the music is good, and there are a few moments of good old slapstick comedy, but overall it was an hour and a half I wanted back.

Beastly (2011)

A tale of vanity set in the modern world, when a promising young socialite is transformed into a scarred and tattooed monster until he can get someone to love him and break the spell.

Kyle (Alex Pettyfer) is one of the beautiful people. He is handsome, smart, has a rich dad, and can pretty much do what he wants. Until one day when he chooses to tease the class freak (Mary-Kate Olsen) one too many times, and she ends up putting the aforementioned curse upon him. Now he has until spring to make someone utter the words “I love you”, or he will be stuck like this forever. Having been abandoned by his dad (who seems to believe in the power of beauty a bit too much), Kyle has to rely on the help of his blind tutor and foreign maid, in order to find true love.

It isn’t too long before Kyle is on the trail of a hopeful, luckily for him, a kooky chick at his school (Vanessa Hudgens) kind of had the hots for him before the transformation, and doesn’t seem too put off by it afterward…But will he be able to break the spell before spring?

A modern day Beauty And The Beast, this is like a made-for-kids-TV film, one that fails to put in any effort at being innovative or original, and instead settles with the same old rehashed themes. By the time you have been beaten over the head with “beauty is only skin deep” a billion times, you will start rooting for some shooting. Also, Kyle is apparently transformed into something “ugly” by giving him scars and tattoos? I though girls dug those things?

This film is quite beastly throughout: a shocking script and terrifying acting make it one of the scariest things I have seen for a while! Avoid.

The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)

A street lawyer whose office is the backseat of his car, finds himself caught in a deadly game when he needs to defend a wealthy client charged with a violent crime.

Matthew MacConaughey plays Mick Haller, a defence lawyer who is willing to break more than his fair share of the rules in order to win in court. Utilizing every loophole in the system, buying off courtroom workers for his own ends, and even badgering witnesses, Mick plays dirty. But when one of his clients, who is charged with rape and attempted murder, begins to force Mick into clearing his name, the street lawyer must use all of his wits in order to not just win, but to stay alive.

It is a knockout film, plenty of urban grittiness and realism. The streets come alive with thugs, criminals, and corruption, and the there is a stench of seediness about the whole film that is both repulsive and entertaining. It has a similar cinematography to a film like Training Day (2001), and the soundtrack is just as flamboyant.

MacConaughey is spectacular as the sharp attorney, whose street smarts only get him so far, and his leading lady, played by Marisa Tomei is equally as impressive.

A brilliant legal thriller, with a superb life-force about it that emanates from the streets of this town, and spills out across the screen.

Love and Other Drugs (2010)

A pharmaceuticals salesman falls in love with a woman who suffers from Parkinson’s.

The premise of the film may seem quite serious, but this is actually a very funny Rom-Com, starring Jake Gyllenhaal as the salesman Jamie Randall, as well as Anne Hathaway as Maggie Murdock, his new girlfriend. Their relationship begins when Jamie is shadowing a doctor (Hank Azaria) in the hope of selling more of his stock to the patients. During one of the doctor’s appointments with Maggie, Jamie is introduced to the patient.

The two start an energetic romance, consisting mainly of recreational intercourse, but the two ultimately begin to fall for each other. With his new girlfriend on his arm, and a brand new exciting drug to promote called Viagra (the film is set a few years back), everything looks like its going up for Jamie (the pun was intended). But all unravels as the two begin to argue about the nature of their relationship, and Maggie does not want Jamie’s pity.

It is a film that could easily be skipped over, but one that actually delivers on quite a lot of levels. The performances are good, Gyllenhaal playing the comedic role very well, and Hathaway offers a compelling portrayal of this tragic woman. The funny moments are often laugh-out-loud worthy, and the sad moments may make you well up. The music is well chosen, and there is a lot of nudity and sex…what more could you want?

Buried (2010)

Claustrophobic thriller in the shape of Ryan Reynolds, stuck in a coffin for 100 minutes.

The premise is extremely daunting: to create a film that takes place entirely within the confines of a small box, buried underneath a few feet of sand. The result however, is a wonderfully tense drama, with a brilliant script to drive it home.

Reynolds plays Paul Conroy, a contracted truck driver in Iraq, whose convoy is ambushed and he is taken prisoner, placed in a box and buried. The only things in the box with him are a phone, a few light sources (such as glow sticks and a torch), and a ransom letter. The kidnappers want $5 million from the U.S. Embassy within two and a half hours or they will leave Paul buried. What ensues is a frantic attempt by Paul to contact all who may be able to help him, whilst also trying to get in touch with his wife who seems to not be around to pick up the damn phone!

The developments during the film are very entertaining, making the film seem like one fast rollercoaster, rather than a slow and dreary waiting-for-death sort of movie. Reynolds’ depiction of this seemingly doomed character is worthy of particular note. Gone are his usual comedic, smart-ass hero lines, instead being replaced with a humble, terrified portrayal that is very realistic and appealing. It is exactly how I would react in that situation.

It is one of those films definitely worth watching if you like tense thrillers where the location is deadly inescapable, such as Phone Booth (2002). But be warned, you will probably not want to sit through it again, the journey is extremely wearying and bleak.

Rope (1948)

Another Hitchcock hit, this time a film that attempts to show a whole story in one, fluid camera shot without cutting. The result is one of the most compelling films of the twentieth century.

The story is of two friends who decide to complete the “perfect” murder, simply to prove that they can. They choose to strangle their other friend David, and then throw a dinner party afterwards with a selection of their other friends, as well as David’s parents and girlfriend. As David’s body lies in a box in the middle of the apartment, the guests continue to talk amongst themselves, and discuss the possible reasons for David’s tardiness. Suspicion soon starts to form, in particular with the inquisitive Rupert, a former teacher of the two murderers and David, who notices many peculiarities in the situation…

One of the most suspenseful films you could watch, Rope is an amazing piece of drama that has all the best aspects of theatre, but with the modern conveniences of film. The script is endlessly witty and well written, the characters fit together seamlessly, and the big questions about society which the story raises are extremely pertinent. Issues such as class, crime & punishment, and the idea of equality are explored in this so-called “civilised” gathering. The fact that Phillip and Brandon think they can remove someone “beneath” them just because he is inconvenient is utterly terrifying, and Brandon’s remorselessness is unyielding throughout, making him seem like a true monster.

While the idea of filming the whole story in one take seems very romantic and lovely, there are several moments during the film where it could have been cut. It happens when the camera goes behind someone’s back, the screen goes black in their jacket, and then emerges on the other side. This technique, while nothing new to a modern audience, would have seemed unnoticeable in 1948.

It is still a brilliant achievement though, using one long camera shot creates this amazing feeling of being an actual fly on the wall in this scene. Also, without cutting, the impressive abilities of the actors is really put to the test, but they all shine brilliantly. In particular James Stewart as Rupert.

A great film, definitely one to watch if you are new to Hitchcock.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

A truly authentic Western, one that brings to life an amazing story and two of the most powerful performances in cinema.

Robert Redford and Paul Newman star in this film about two outlaws in the American West, who rob banks and trains for a living. Butch Cassidy (Newman) is the brains of the outfit, constantly thinking up new and exciting adventures for the duo, as they try to achieve the American Dream, while the Sundance Kid (Redford) is a man of simple tastes, but also has an incredibly deadly shot with a pistol (his reputation across states is notorious).

After robbing one train too many, the owner of the rail company puts together a posse to hunt down and kill Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The two must outrun their pursuers across the untamed landscapes of the west, and in their attempts, decide to flee to Bolivia in order to start afresh with Butch’s girl Etta Place (Katharine Ross).

Quite a simple story, but what makes this film a classic is the relationship between these two extraordinary character. They are constantly jibing each other, undermining each other’s decisions, and yet there is an immense brotherly bond between them that sees them through so many difficult and dangerous situations. Both actors portray these rogue, manly cowboys with a touch of sensitivity; creating a very compelling viewing experience.

There are some very funny moments in this movie, as well as some thrilling action. It stands up with the greatest films of the twentieth century, and not just Westerns. There are moments that make the film seem dated, but like many classic films, it is the story and the performances which make them great, and this film has two of the finest actors in a perfectly timeless story.

Watch this if you like Westerns, classic films, and brilliant acting.

Rear Window (1954)

An Alfred Hitchcock classic, about a photographer who is housebound after breaking his leg, who spends his days watching his neighbours through his apartment window, and soon finds himself seeing more than he bargained for.

Voyeurism is one of the most interesting themes to depict on screen, as watching movies is an activity that seems to fall into this seedy category. Hitchcock has created a hugely compelling social drama, based on a short story, about the way we all like to look into each others lives as unseen observers, and how this can become dangerously addictive.

James Stewart plays L. B. Jeffries, a successful photographer for a magazine, who is also in a relationship with a stunning socialite called Lisa (Grace Kelly). Having been confined to a wheelchair for weeks, Jeffries has occupied himself by staring into the windows of those who live in the apartments around him, and has become intensely interested in each of their lives. It soon turns dark though, as he begins to suspect one of his neighbours, Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr), of murdering their wife. As Jeffries becomes convinced of his theory, all the evidence seems to mount up, that is, until a detective friend shows up and begins to discredit all of the photographer’s findings.

Undeterred, Jeffries, Lisa and his insurance nurse Stella (Thelma Ritter) become a detective power of their own, scouring the “crime scenes” in order to find damning evidence against Thorwald.

One of Hitchcock’s best films, it is revered for its unyielding suspense and absolutely bold approach. To have the whole film take place from one room is inspired, and the film has a unique sense of claustrophobic character: we feel as housebound as Jeffries!

The script is magnificent, lots of quick humour, sarcasm, and pointed comments about society, and the music, which comes from a songwriter in one of the apartments, adds a wonderful sense of harmony to this little cross-section of urban life. Also, there are many technical uses of the camera, which are truly impressive considering this film came out over fifty years ago.

A marvellous addition to my 50 Films To See list, and definitely one of my favourite Hitchcock films.

Limitless (2011)

A pill that enables the user to access all of their brain wreaks havoc on the life of one deadbeat writer.

Bradley Cooper plays Eddie Morra, a writer living in the big city, whose procrastination and lack of motivation are making his career ambitions seem like unachievable dreams. He lacks the concentration to write pages for his book, he fails to inspire any confidence in the girl he loves, and his previous failings have left him feeling like a loser. But, when the brother of his ex-wife comes to him with a new super-drug called NZT, it sparks a fire in Eddie, as the pill will enable him to engage his brain to maximum strength, making his possibilities limitless.

Like all good highs, there is the inevitable crash, however, this one involves murderous eastern European gangsters with a thirst for mutilation, high rolling stockbrokers with the means to kill Eddie professionally, and the looming damage this drug seems to have on anyone who takes it. Eddie must play this game just right in order to avoid falling off the edge.

This was a film that seemed like a great premise, but one that would be unable to deliver on the potential. However, it must be conceded that this is a worthwhile film. The director, Neil Burger, does well to create a very modern feel to a film about drug use. He combines all the trappings of substance-abuse movies, such as the initial high, the short-term benefits, the long-term damage, and the difficult “cold-turkey” dilemma, but he does it in a way that seems fresh. There is a scene where Eddie goes on a long, drug-fuelled bender, and the way that the scene played out, seemed like a new-age homage to the trippy scene in Easy Rider (1969).

There are some excellent special effects in this film, such as the constant use of zooming into a scene, and then through the city, which creates this unnerving feeling of having super powers. This constant zooming also begins to become a burden as you watch it, which only reflects the subject matter.

My one big criticism is the narration: it is written half-heartedly, and seems to be there simply to keep the viewer up to speed with the plot, rather than offering insight into the plight of the characters.

Apart from that, though, this is definitely worth a watch if you like an interesting story, artistic directing, and enduring themes like dependency, greed, and self-determination.

Source Code (2011)

A race against time, as Jake Gyllenhaal attempts to prevent a major terrorist attack on Chicago by entering a machine called the Source Code and living the last eight minutes of a man who was blown up in a previous attack.

After a train is blown up en route to Chicago city centre, the American military believe that this is a pre-warning for a bigger, more catastrophic attack that will take place later that day, and therefore need to find the culprit before they strike again. Gyllenhaal plays the unwitting soldier who has been chosen to enter the Source Code, and constantly relive a man’s last eight minutes on the train that was blown up, in order to find clues about the terrorist. The Source Code manages to utilize a newly killed body, and use the synapses in the brain to create a startlingly realistic template for that body’s last minutes on earth.

Gyllenhaal attempts to figure out, not only who this terrorist is and what they have planned next, but also how he ended up in the Source Code, as he has no prior knowledge of the last two months of his life. He endures countless journeys on this same train, getting to grips with the bomb, learning about the passengers, and trying to make sense out of this chaotic “reality”.

It is a marvellous film to have emerged this year, one which went largely unnoticed at cinemas, but it is definitely worth a watch. It takes many aspects of time-oriented films like Vantage Point (2008) and Groundhog Day (1993), as well as ferocious action movies like Mission Impossible (1996) and Unstoppable (2010). Gyllenhaal has a history of providing excellent performances, and this film is no exception: he has a gift at portraying vulnerable yet heroic characters. His two supporting actresses Michelle Monaghan and Vera Farmiga are a well chosen duo, who give talented displays in very different ways.

If you like action adrenaline films, plenty of revelations, and enough twists and turns to keep you guessing, then this is a brilliant choice. It delivered far more than previously predicted, and is a film to revisit.