Tucker and Dale vs Evil

Tucker & Dale are on vacation at their dilapidated mountain cabin when they are attacked by a group of preppy college kids.

The spoof comedy has been given a bad name over the last few years with some dreadful attempts consistently failing to even raise a smile, often becoming unwatchable. Tucker and Dale vs Evil is quite the opposite, achieving exactly what it sets out to do with both style and irreverence.

This film could so easily have faltered without the instant likeability that the title characters possess. Their enduring friendship and Dale's debilitating shyness endearing them to us within minutes of the opening credits. Two buddies at last fulfilling their dream of a holiday home in the woods. With this anchor in place, as well as a measure of intelligence in execution, the movie's ridiculous plot points are prevented from falling into Scary Movie territory.

Director, Eli Craig, who also gets a writing credit alongside Morgan Jurgenson, is acutely aware of the basis of the amusement. All the usual tropes are present, a willingness to push the conventions to absurd levels in pursuit of a laugh abundantly clear. There's no shortage of jumpy shocks and it certainly doesn't skimp on the gore. Blood is sprayed around liberally on more than one occasion and the excess to which it is utilised is frequently a source of semi-disgusted laughter. It's definitely one to watch with company, these moments in particular being a joy to share.

The references come thick and fast, but always stray on the right side of esoteric, the picture being engineered in such a way that you probably won't even need to have seen half the movies hinted at to be in on the joke. This is a huge advantage. Personally, I don't often sit down with a horror flick, but have seen most of the classics (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween etc.). This seemed to be more than enough background to get the most out of the movie and will likely broaden its appeal to potential audiences no end.

It's not often that a film leaves you hoping for a sequel, mostly in light of how absolutely awful they often are, but I would love to see more of the outrageous antics that we are treated to here. Lovable silliness may seem at odds with horror flick conventions, but Craig and company have managed to pull it off brilliantly.

The Verdict:

7/10
There's no shortage of serious horror tropes here, but it's the endearing characters, cleverness and outright silliness that make this one of the best spoofs I've seen in a very long time.

Bronson

A young man who was sentenced to 7 years in prison for robbing a post office ends up spending 30 years in solitary confinement. During this time, his own personality is supplanted by his alter ego, Charles Bronson.

Biopics can sometimes run the risk of alienating viewers with no prior knowledge of the subject or the events that have inspired such interest. Bronson has no such problems, the recounting of the man's life making for compelling viewing, not least because of its star.

Tom Hardy's recent career is littered with this type of transformative role and for good reason. He throws himself into them with unflinching commitment and fearless temerity, baring all (in some cases more literally than others) in service of the cause. This film is no different, his portrayal of 'her majesty's most expensive prisoner' is utterly engrossing. His Bronson is darkly comic at times, though always retains a fierce menace, the lust for violence and borderline psychosis seeping through every pore. Jason Statham was apparently the initial choice for the role, but ultimately turned it down due to scheduling conflicts. This was fortunate for not only Hardy, but also the formidable piece of work that it produced.

In addition to this, the colourful cast of characters add much to the picture. They run from the quirky to the morally reprehensible, frequently providing inspiration for a number of the often hilarious foul-mouthed tirades from Bronson. The unpredictability with which he puts his questionable social skills to use leaves every scene on a knife edge, the slightest affront (whether tangible or imagined) holding the potential to induce his volatile fury.

Aside from the cast, both the construction of the movie and its ambience have much to do with director, Nicolas Winding Refn. As with his later sleeper hit Drive, the film is infused with an '80s flavour, booming synths pounding along with Bronson's fists. There's no denying that there's much more to the movie than barely repressed violence, but its abrasive nature certainly won't be to everyone's taste. Both Bronson  himself, as well as his mother, are known to be fans should that reveal anything.

How accurate the film is with the details of Bronson's life is unclear, but when all is said and done, this matters little. Whether it be completely authentic, or an embellished account, the film's strength lies in both the techniques and performances used to bring it to the screen with such vigorous force.

The Verdict:

8/10
A film that is firmly rooted in the time period in which it takes place. Hardy's performance is mesmerising, his almost constant seething rage driving the action and making for compelling, if sometimes uncomfortable, viewing.

Texas Killing Fields

In the Texas bayous, a local homicide detective teams up with a cop from New York City to investigate a series of unsolved murders.

Serial killer movies are a rare breed nowadays and most of these types of narratives end up on TV rather than in cinema. Texas Killing Fields, though not spectacular, is a decent genre flick with a slight twist in the mythology it uses to get the job done.

There's no shortage of tension here as both the pursuit of the suspects, and the deeds they perpetrate, are used as the centrepiece of the movie. This can also make for a few moderately disturbing scenes, particularly when we are shown some of the attacks as they occur. However, these are never gratuitous and serve the plot well in justifying the desperation that overtakes the investigators as they search for the killer.

The film is often very subtle in its approach, which echoes the seeming tranquility of the titular fields. The score very rarely taking control in directing the action, remaining in the background, and used more for augmenting the already eerie atmosphere than attempting to increase the tension. This is one of the picture's strongest facets, creating a creepy sense of danger and planting the seed that evil lies around every corner.

The performances also lend themselves to the formation of this idea, a palpable fear in all but the most jaded of characters. Chloë Grace Moretz is as quietly dazzling as usual, exuding both childish innocence and the strong feeling of a childhood lost to indifferent parenting. She's a pleasure to watch and avoids the common downfall of many child actors, being downright irritating. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the entirety of the cast. Sam Worthington is pretty terrible, and to be honest, how he keeps getting work is beyond me. I find him to be spectacularly wooden in everything he shows up in and this is no exception. In all fairness, this is the best I've seen him, but that really isn't saying much considering what there is to compare it to. Oddly, I didn't find that this detracted from the movie a great deal, which is likely down to some strong showings from those around him.

Overall, I found this to be quite gripping at times. It does have its problems, though. In particular a few of the relationships it struggles to build between characters early on don't really take hold, meaning later references to how they have developed over the course of events fall a bit flat. However, these are such minor aspects of the picture that the impact is minimal.

The Verdict:

7/10
A creepy film that maintains an eerie sense of tension throughout. 

Slaughterhouse-Five

A man tells his story of how he became unstuck in time and abducted by aliens.

I'm ashamed to say I haven't read the source material from which this was made, so can make no comment on its faithfulness or lack thereof to the book. These considerations aside, Slaughterhouse-Five is an accomplished character study that throws up some interesting philosophical questions about the passage of time and the experience of life. 

There's a deliberate pacing to this film that takes its time as it explores the subject. From long lingering shots on lines of soldiers being led to prison camps to Michael Sacks's Billy trying to teach his young dog new tricks, the priority seems always to be in appreciating the moment. 

The movie's structure is completely non-linear, Billy slipping between different points in his life, both into the past and future. What I found particularly engaging in this is how his life is shaped by his experiences in the war. He seems grateful for everything that comes his way, though more attached to his dog than any of the people in his life. There's also a debate to be had on whether his experiences are in fact accurate, or if he is mentally ill in some way. There are scenes in which he is clearly in some kind of institution, but given that he is constantly moving back and forth, it's unclear if that might be the base from which the time travelling is taking place.

This kind of structure could easily make for confusion if not handled well, but there is no danger of that here. Transitions between the different time periods are managed neatly, with the often inventive editing smoothly easing you from one moment to the next. The starkly disparate environments also play a big part in this, suburban America obviously appearing vastly different to wartime Germany.

As far as the atmosphere is concerned, the sense of foreboding is very heavy at times, though there's not much in the way of surprises. The majority of the major events that take place already having been related in earlier scenes, though later in Billy's life. This works in the film's favour for the most part, largely due to the desire this creates to have the vague details fleshed out. It's often very clear which of these moments have had a pronounced effect on him and many of the most interesting questions are raised as a result of them.

This kind of film-making can sometimes be a little too cerebral for some (myself included), but this is a picture that doesn't indulge itself excessively in that respect. The themes are clearly spelled out in a few of the scenes, ensuring that there is no chance of misunderstanding and that the aims are absolutely relatable for all.

The Verdict:

7/10
A film that is thoughtful, but without being unnecessarily overcomplicated. There are just as many answers as questions raised and it fulfils its aims with remarkable clarity, considering the challenging nature of the structure.

Iron Man 3

When Tony Stark's world is torn apart by a formidable terrorist called the Mandarin, he starts an odyssey of rebuilding and retribution.

The Marvel universe in cinema these days is extensive, taking in a number of characters. By and large, you have a rough idea of what you're going to get when preparing for the latest addition. Iron Man 3 doesn't mark a major departure and offers precisely what you'd expect of both a Marvel film and the franchise so far. Wall-to-wall action and pithy one-liners are the order of the day and make for pure popcorn entertainment, though its real strength arguably lies in its star. However, this is not to say it's without its flaws. 

I'm unsure of how many Robert Downey, Jr. haters there actually are out there, but I've always been a huge fan. For me, his sense of comic timing, delivery, and reaction are some of the best in the business and, given the right material, can raise a laugh almost at will. This film revels in his ability and contains more than enough to keep the mood fairly light whilst emphasising the character's best known traits to the full.

The performances range from average to very good indeed, with Ben Kingsley being a particular highlight. His range in the film is not only one of the most memorable aspects of the picture, but also of his recent career. Much like Christopher Walken, he doesn't appear to be a man who says 'no' that often when chosen for a role, which can result in some decidedly dodgy credits to his name. Guy Pearce also stands out in a few scenes, but on the whole it doesn't come close to his best work like Lawless, or Memento.

As far as the action is concerned, it's impressive, and noticeably ups the ante from the first two films in the series. Effects too are superb and not as CGI-heavy as one might expect. Suit animations are obviously going to be rendered digitally, but some skillful use of both miniatures and truckloads of pyrotechnics avoid the awful video game look that has befallen some of the other big franchises of late (Die Hard, I'm looking at you).

The movie's most pronounced weaknesses are to be found in the evil scheme that is central to the plot. The minor twists that overlay it do a lot to distract from its run-of-the-mill nature, but never cleared my mind of it completely. It's more than reminiscent of narratives that you will have come across many, many times before. Though this was a constant source of slight discomfort during the film, it largely serves to propel the action sequences (as is usual for the genre), and doesn't drastically detract from the enjoyment factor.

The Verdict:

7/10
Delivers exactly what you would expect of the franchise, upping the ante in the action stakes and providing for pure popcorn entertainment. 

Hugo

Set in 1930s Paris, an orphan who lives in the walls of a train station is wrapped up in a mystery involving his late father and an automaton.

The family film is a genre that can throw up all sorts of dire nonsense that is difficult to watch, leaving you wondering how it even appeals to the children that it purports to be made for. Hugo is anything but painful viewing and has everything needed to ensure that it will be looked upon with misty-eyed nostalgia by the younger audience members for years to come.

This is a film that marks a huge departure for director, Martin Scorsese. Never before has he deviated so far from the style and content of the work he is so renowned for. Clearly this isn't going to be Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, or Casino, but you can be assured that the gift for storytelling that he possesses, and has worked so hard to perfect, is fully represented here.

There is a real sense of magic in the movie, seeing the world through a child's eyes where the possibilities are endless and adventure lies around every corner. The mood put me in mind of Jean-Pierre Jeunet's Amélie, which is no bad thing, and it has just as much charm as its French counterpart. This is not to say that it's lacking in drama or heartache. The premise lends itself to a wistful sadness that permeates some of the more emotional scenes and provides the backdrop for the youngest of the cast to shine.

In addition to the performances, much of the picture's vitality stems from the use of some older effects techniques that have mostly been replaced by CGI in modern movies. Stop motion animation in particular is used to great effect and shows that, when done well, it can still hold the power to captivate. It also ties into an overwhelming theme of the plot, which is an unreserved affection for cinema as a whole. Harking back to the genesis of film will resonate strongly with lovers of the medium and there is a definite aim to inform in this respect, as well as entertain.

Ultimately, this is a film that does exactly what it is intended to do. There's plenty to keep the kids amused (with a few subtle adult jokes that will go over their heads) and more than enough to make it worthwhile for just about anyone, especially those with an affinity for cinema. This kind of movie magic is in short supply these days and Scorsese brings it back in terrific style.

The Verdict:

7.5/10
A film that is full of wonder and charming as they come. The passion for cinema is clearly evident and both kids and adults alike are thoroughly catered for.

Jack Reacher

A homicide investigator digs deeper into a case involving a trained military sniper who shot five random victims.

Christopher McQuarrie is much better known for his writing than directing, The Usual Suspects being the most famous product of his imagination. He has only directed once previously, The Way of the Gun, in 2000. There is much of that film's darkness as this begins, but it gives way to far more standard fare. Jack Reacher is an enjoyable ride overall, but is let down by a half-baked plot and some lazy story progression.

I was pleasantly surprised by the opening of the film, as the sniper attack that will become the basis of the investigation is presented as it occurs. However, there is something to be desired in the way in which it is brought to the screen. As is usual for movies desperate to attain certain film board classifications, the action is very much sanitised for a younger audience (think people just sort of falling over). In spite of this, the atmosphere retains a certain gravity and sets a very specific tone, which, had it been retained, could have made for a very different outcome.

Once the initial setup has been dealt with, the movie gradually shuffles closer to Hollywood territory. There are several scenes that hark back to the promising beginnings, but in the main, the action thriller conventions take over. The character himself is fairly uninteresting, but his hazy back story provides some motive for the action sequences. His vague military past having just enough substance to account for his skill in combat.

The focus is mainly held on the investigation, rather than Reacher's prowess with firearms or his fists. It's quite successful in that the first half of the film holds a decent amount of suspense at times, punctuated by any violence that does take place. It's in the second half that the creativity seems to dry up and it struggles to keep its head above average. I was disappointed to find myself rolling my eyes involuntarily at key points due to the banality of it all. Fortunately, the action also ramps up in this period, which distracts from the mediocre narrative and keeps things from falling apart.

All things considered, there's enough here to make it worth a watch, but it's not something that will stick with you. There is some good work as far as some of the action scenes are concerned, a frantic car chase being particularly worthy of note. The cast is passable, but with nothing spectacular to report, it's mostly just Tom Cruise being Tom Cruise. 

The Verdict:

6/10
Worth a watch for Tom Cruise fans or those who appreciate the genre. Starts out well, but slides into mediocrity in the second half, kept afloat by virtue of its decent action sequences.

Everything Must Go

When an alcoholic relapses, causing him to lose his wife and his job, he holds a yard sale on his front lawn in an attempt to start over. A new neighbour might be the key to his return to form.

Indie flicks can sometimes overdo it on the emotional side of things, which would have spelt disaster for this picture, particularly given the themes that are being dealt with. Everything Must Go avoids this pitfall and manages to be sweetly tragic without becoming saccharine or unduly sentimental. Much of that success is down to its star. 

Will Ferrell is not a name often associated with any degree of subtlety, but with this film, he again shows he is capable of more than just madcap comedy. As many will be aware, this wasn't Ferrell's first foray into dramatic acting. His appearance in 2006's solid outing Stranger than Fiction being a prime example of what he can achieve outside of the style he is best known for. The plot here provides a lot for him to work with and he doesn't disappoint.

The focal point of the movie is Ferrell's Nick, a relapsed alcoholic struggling to come to terms with the impending break-up of his marriage and losing his job, both in the same day. If this doesn't sound like cheery subject matter, it's because it's not. There's a weighty sense of sadness that hangs over the initial scenes of the film, but this is tempered well by Ferrell's subtle injections of humour. The balance between the two is carefully maintained and the tone that is struck is pitch perfect.

As the movie progresses, the role becomes ever richer, with both his denial of what he has become and the subsequent drive to better himself coming to the fore. The yard sale shifts from being a technicality to avoid arrest to a metaphor for his need to 'let go' and move on with his life. There's a strong correlation between the two, which really works in the film's favour. His reticence to part with any of his possessions mirrors the desire to patch things up with his wife, though it's clear that this is highly unlikely to happen. It's imperative that the character be likable in light of the scenario, and it's no accident that he is. So pathetic is his downward spiral that you can't help but feel for him, willing him to get his life back on track.

The supporting cast bring another dimension to proceedings, Rebecca Hall and Christopher Jordan Wallace playing the biggest parts. Both are important components in Nick's recovery and there are some interesting dynamics at play in both instances. Their performances complement the tone well and their interactions with Nick make for some of the finest scenes in the movie.

The Verdict:

7/10
A sweetly tragic film that avoids undue sentimentality. Ferrell shows himself to be more than capable of drama, the strong supporting cast assisting him ably in bringing the character to life.

Cloud Atlas

An exploration of how the actions of individual lives impact one another in the past, present and future, as one soul is shaped from a killer into a hero, and an act of kindness ripples across centuries to inspire a revolution.

Making more than one plot line cohesive, whilst also ensuring that the audience can keep up with you is a very difficult task. After dropping you in at the deep end over the first twenty minutes, Cloud Atlas achieves this admirably and goes on to reveal a cleverly formulated and intriguing film.

The Wachowskis are best known for writing and directing The Matrix and that sensibility can certainly be found in the more futuristic of the settings on offer here. This is by no means an action picture though, and is far more cerebral in both content and intention. It's ambitious in both structure and scope, but in large part fulfills what potential there is in the material, keeping you engaged throughout. It also provides a bit of a playground for those involved in bringing it to life.

The cast is impressive, not least because each of the main stars takes on several roles. Tom Hanks seems to relish in this and gives it his all, whether it be as a valley-dwelling tribesman, a nuclear physicist, or a thuggish Irish author. In addition, each role is differentiated not only by the sets and costume, but often by heavy prosthetics. As each story is introduced, half the fun of the movie is trying to figure out who is under the layers of make-up. Some of the transformations are very well done, taking a few closeups to recognise who it is that's actually in the scene. Hugo Weaving in particular can be tough to identify, his turn as the formidable battleaxe Nurse Noakes being a highlight.

The performances hold the film together, but not so much that they end up carrying it. The details of the different story-lines and how they converge and connect, whilst at times hard work to calculate, are rewarding and on occasion profound. There's a lot to think about as the action plays out and the ease with which you might get lost if not paying full attention may put some off. There's an emphasis on life choices dramatically changing the outcome of events, and the consequences of the characters' decisions are often heavily focused upon, whether the outcome be good or bad.

There's so much to get to grips with here and I'm not going to pretend that I completely understood everything that the picture had to say. I suspect that more would come to light with repeated viewings. I also feel that it's a movie that would grow in stature the more you see it, not least due to the layered nature of the plot. However, even on first viewing, there's much to enjoy and I would recommend it wholeheartedly.

The Verdict:

7/10
A huge undertaking that is very successful on the whole. Concentration will likely be needed to keep up with the structure, but the film is plenty enjoyable to prevent this from becoming a chore.

Cherrybomb

Three teenagers go on a wild weekend of drink, drugs, shop-lifting and stealing cars that quickly spins beyond their control.

There's not much in cinema more awkward or embarrassing than a film that tries to be contemporary, but misses the mark by a mile. Cherrybomb has all the hallmarks of an attempt at cool, but gets it so horribly wrong.

You can be sure that disassociating himself from Harry Potter's Ron Weasley is pretty high on Rupert Grint's list of things to do before he hits thirty. I personally enjoyed those films, but being typecast as the weedy ginger kid will do him no favours as far as his career is concerned. This, then, was one of several opportunities he has taken to show that that's not all he can do. In this instance, he could have chosen much better. 

First and foremost, the film absolutely reeks of trying too hard to be 'edgy' (though I hate the term). It's all here. The drink, the drugs, the partying, the devil-may-care attitude, the raging hormones. However, this isn't where my issues with it lie. There's also a constant recourse to cliché in both the framing of the plot and in the presentation. The obligatory club scenes (look how much fun we're having!), extreme closeups on random people and objects, scores of teenagers that appear from nowhere, onscreen graphics that show the contents of text messages being sent and received. The editing too tries to follow the Skins school of film-making and frequently comes up short. This leaves the cringe at an unbearable level for large chunks of the movie.

I can sort of see what the narrative is going for, but it never quite makes it. There appears to be little in the way of a relationship between the characters and the journeys they take, all coming out of it much the same way as they went in. As well as this, the conclusion doesn't seem to be in tune with anything else that occurs previously. It was unclear to me if this was intended as a shock tactic, or if it's just shoddy writing. 

As for the performances, Grint is by no means terrible here and gives a good account of himself, in spite of the context. Kimberley Nixon is also decent, considering the material. The pick of the bunch is Robert Sheehan, who is incidentally the only Irish actor among the three main roles to star in this, a film set in Northern Ireland. It's an odd one - he can be very irritating at times, but when he shows his vulnerability, he blows everyone else off the screen. His scenes with the superbly natural Lalor Roddy are by far the best of the movie.

The Verdict:

4/10
Spends so much time trying to be trendy that it forgets about more or less everything else. Dull and uninteresting along with huge servings of cringe. Avoid.

Broken City

In a city rife with injustice, ex-cop Billy Taggart seeks redemption and revenge after being double-crossed and then framed by its most powerful figure: Mayor Nicholas Hostetler.

Broken City is a film that can't really decide what it wants to be. From the beginnings of a story centred on Mark Wahlberg's character, Billy, it evolves into a standard conspiracy thriller, but never really gets going with either of them. There are vague stabs at joining the dots here and there, but without much success. 

The first forty-five minutes are largely a throwaway and only loosely connected to the much stronger second half, the tenuous link mostly going through the character of Billy. This poses a big problem. Due to the fact that the role is so flimsy, what little attempts there are at filling him out in the early stages are completely redundant once the plot finally kicks in. Wahlberg does his best to give the guy some personality, but it's a constant uphill struggle. This leaves any efforts at poignant references to his past that come later feeling not only forced, but also unnecessary.

Once the movie begins to focus on the conspiracy, it becomes much more watchable, the dodgy character development holding less sway over the progression of the narrative. This isn't to say that it improves things hugely, just that it holds the attention much more effectively. It's tolerable and won't make you wish you'd defrosted the fridge rather than sit through it, but you've definitely seen it all before. There's no real sense of urgency about the whole thing and the mystery that is unraveled is positively trite and lacklustre. Having said that, the process of reaching the conclusion is executed reasonably well at times.

Despite the distinctly average presentation, there are a few scenes worthy of note. Barry Pepper's range in the film caught my eye, particularly as there is unsurprisingly very little in the way of fleshing out his character. Russell Crowe too, manages to dig out some of the menace that marks his best performances, but these occasions are very few. Other than these sparse moments, it's a very dreary outing for all concerned. 

In addition to these issues, the resolution of the plot had a nasty habit of introducing new players into the mix that seemingly had not been mentioned previously. I'm not entirely sure if this was because I wasn't paying enough attention in the less agreeable sections of the picture, or if they were genuinely tacked on in wrapping things up. Either way, this should never be a complication in mainstream cinema and only confirms to me my opinion on the opening as uninteresting and superfluous, given where the film ends up.

Overall, it's not terrible, but it's almost certainly not worth the time. More or less everything about it is wholly ordinary and I was ultimately left disappointed.

The Verdict:

5/10
A disappointing film that only gets going once your interest has waned. Poor character development and average presentation result in a dull, lacklustre experience.

Hereafter

A drama centered on three people -- a blue-collar American, a French journalist and a London school boy -- who are touched by death in different ways.

I'm not sure if I've just missed the bad ones up until now, but generally speaking I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood's directorial output. Hereafter is a little overambitious, though I'm sure there's an aim in mind, but to be brutally honest, whatever that aim was, it missed.

Sweeping themes of death and the possibility of an afterlife are under discussion, but they're never really examined in any great detail, as the rush to cram an awful lot of plot into a small space of time takes precedence. At just over two hours, the running time isn't especially short, but the nature of the structure makes rapid-fire exposition a necessity.

The film is made up of three distinct plot lines, all taking place in different parts of the world. Stylistically speaking, these are differentiated by different colour tones. London is grey and washed out, France vibrantly warm, and San Francisco sort of normal. It's not a particularly tough task to keep up with the constant changes in locale, but it can be jarring at times when the film appears to arbitrarily move between locations for no apparent reason. This is a major problem given the structural considerations and, rather than feeling like different parts of a whole, there was a definite sense that I was watching three different films that had been cut together. 

In addition to the constant back and forth between the narratives, some scenes rely heavily on some decidedly iffy CGI. This can be very distracting and shatters any sense of engagement that may have been present. Fortunately for both film and viewer, the most marked implementation of this occurs in the first twenty minutes and can be forgotten as the action moves forward. However, there are intermittent shots later on that also make use of it and will cast your mind back with a shudder, although thankfully they are few and far between.

It's not all bad news though, as the three worlds taken individually are very watchable on the whole. Each one has a kind of 'native' quality to it. London has the atmosphere of a Brit flick, France of French cinema, and San Francisco of Hollywood. Although I liked this aspect of the picture, it's fair to say that it is a major contributor to the lack of cohesion that makes it such a muddled affair. 

In terms of the stars, Matt Damon is the actor of most note to put his name to the movie, though he could have been replaced without much damage. He is capable of so much more and, aside from one or two instances, it comes across as though he's just going through the motions. His effort in the San Francisco plot is overshadowed by that of Cécile De France in the French segments. Her performance here has inspired me to seek out more of her work and I look forward to seeing the results.

The Verdict:

5/10
An overly ambitious film characterised by its messy structure, but also by its largely failed attempts at addressing some of life's biggest questions. 

Robot & Frank

Set in the near future, an ex-jewel thief receives a gift from his son: a robot butler programmed to look after him. But soon the two companions try their luck as a heist team.

This is director Jake Schreier's first full-length feature and, on the basis of this, both he and writer Christopher Ford have very bright futures ahead of them indeed. Robot & Frank is an impressive piece of work, tackling some sensitive subjects and leaving an indelible mark on the memory. 

The two title characters are what really makes this film and there is much to appreciate in both the performances and the writing. Firstly, and initially the most noticeable, is the character of Robot. Voiced by Peter Sarsgaard, it's quite incredible how much of a screen presence it manages to have in the film. It was a sensible choice not to go with CGI and is thoroughly believable, particularly if you've ever seen anything of the robots that are in development today. The second is Frank Langella's turn as the titular Frank. His increasing bewilderment at the world around him as his memory fades is affectingly portrayed and drives the plot early on.

There are several main themes in the movie, the majority of which relate to the challenges that growing old can present. Frank's frequent bouts of memory loss as senility takes hold are responsible for some bizarre behaviour and the story of his life is gradually revealed through his actions. This difficulty in relating to both those close to him, and his environment, results in a disconnect from the world at large as he can no longer remember people and places. The saviour, as it turns out, is Robot.

I can't see that there's any kind of moral to this story in the sense that technology saves the day. It's much more to do with the nature of friendship and how much of a difference friends can make in times of crisis. There's also exploration of other areas, like family and, on a basic level, what it means to be human. On top of all of this, we also end up with a very original take on the heist movie.

I wouldn't exactly class this as a full-on comedy, but its quirky humour offers plenty to make you smile and it made me laugh out loud on more than one occasion. Frank is a very ornery fellow for a sizable portion of the film and his rudeness can be very amusing, much of which can be attributed to his distrust of the modern world and a desire to return to simpler times. The drama is also very successful and the balance struck between the two is noticeably precise.

The Verdict:

8/10
A beautiful film in so many ways that is both quirky and absorbing. An original take on the heist movie as well as doing a great job of exploring the subject matter. I can only urge you to see it. 

Cast Away

A FedEx executive must transform himself physically and emotionally to survive a crash landing on a deserted island.

I was actually put in mind to watch this again by the disappointment of Life of Pi. Much of Ang Lee's effort seemed like a lighter version of Cast Away and didn't carry close to as much weight as the Robert Zemeckis film.

There aren't a great many negatives to discuss, but I do want to get one out of the way early on. This movie has the most product placement I think I've ever seen in the medium. From the firm for which Hanks's Chuck works to the company he keeps on the island, it sometimes comes across as though certain scenes have been engineered to maximise brand exposure. Fortunately, the impact this has on the integrity of the film is minimal. 

Key to the success of the picture is its star. Tom Hanks has gradually drifted away from the comedy roles that launched his career, and by the time this film was released in 2000, he had already established himself as an accomplished dramatic actor. His strength here is to be able to prevent the film slipping into a mire of doom and gloom that would have made for a very different feature. Though the battle to survive is a difficult one, the material allows for him to lift the mood as required, and he does so ably.

There is much made in the first twenty minutes of Chuck's relationship with Helen Hunt's Kelly. They share a woolly taste for dreadful jumpers and the setup is absolutely necessary considering how the plot moves forward. Having said that, it's definitely the weakest section of the film and things don't really get going until we board the plane that will ultimately carry us to the island. 

Maybe it's just me, but I find any and all air crash sequences terrifying when they're done well and this most definitely is. The aftermath of the crash also makes brilliant use of light and darkness in rattling the senses and accentuates the peril being faced on the open ocean. This is complemented throughout the film by the juxtaposition of raucous storms with tranquil images and birdsong, which is also very effective.

The score is conspicuous by its absence in all but the most emotional of scenes, emphasising the loneliness and desolation of what is essentially a paradise prison. Supporting this is the wise creative choice of never leaving Chuck's side, joining in all his hardships, small victories and heartache. Never do we see the ongoing search for him, nor the affect his disappearance has on those closest to him. Further to this, I'm also a big fan of the character dynamics in play towards the end of the movie. It's atypical, but not so much that it endangers its appeal to a wider audience.

The Verdict:

7.5/10
A well-crafted film that makes it impossible not to identify with the fight for survival. Characterised by inventive plot devices and smart writing, it's a film that lingers long after viewing. 

Murder by Numbers: 'The Verdict' Explained

The Verdict:

0 - The worst film in the world. Ever. Unlikely to be given to anything, but we'll see.

1 - Godawful, absolute tripe, suckiness of the highest order. 

2 - Slightly less awful, but not much. Able to get to the end of the film without passing out through boredom/disgust.

3 - Some okay/good moments perhaps, but still worthy of opinionated criticism.

4 - Not so bad. Probably contains medium to large segments that are passable and possibly even enjoyable. Painfully average on the whole. 

5 - Just... Average (although not painfully so). Moments of enjoyment or excitement, but nothing that lifts it above, well, average. 

6 - Slightly above average, i.e. enjoyable and worth watching once, but nothing special.

7 -  This is for films that I would deem 'good' and would recommend to others wholeheartedly. Satisfying flicks that I would purchase for my own collection. Worth owning.

8 - Very good. Something I would describe as a 'must-see' to others. 

9 - Fantastic, amazing. Films that would make my top 100 list.

10 - The rarest of the rare. This accolade is bestowed upon those films which move me in a way I cannot describe. The pinnacle of film-making.

Promised Land

A salesman for a natural gas company experiences life-changing events after arriving in a small town, where his corporation wants to tap into the available resources.

There's a fine line between preaching and making a point in an unobtrusive, intelligent way. Promised Land sidesteps the former to a large degree, but by the same token doesn't quite achieve the latter. The themes being explored certainly aren't mutually exclusive and bleed into one another as the plot unfolds, but there is some clumsiness in reaching the heart of what the film is really about. 

Aside from these minor misgivings, I found it enjoyable. It can be quite charming at times and there's enough light relief to keep things from becoming too bogged down in the specifics of what, to a large number of us at least, could seem a boring subject. Whilst a principal point in question is very much a topical issue (the practice of 'fracking'), there are never any judgements made in this regard and the movie is stronger for it. Also, the narrative is as much about the character of Steve as any moral consideration, and his soul searching has a big role to play in keeping everything relatable. His motivations and inner conundrums form a solid basis for everything else that takes place.

Matt Damon not only stars, but is also credited as a screenwriter for the film, as well as a producer. Furthermore, he was apparently originally slated to direct, but for one reason or another, this didn't come about. I would have been very interested to see the results of his taking the chair with his own material, given the success of co-conspirator Ben Affleck, but I'm sure the time will come. The presence of Frances McDormand is an added bonus, as she is among my favourite actresses. Those of you familiar with the Coen brothers' back catalogue will know her well and she is characteristically arresting here.

The dialogue is surprisingly snappy, mainly between Damon and McDormand's Steve and Sue. There's a very organic feel to both the tone of their conversations and the reactions that are provoked. It seems clear that there must have been at least some improvisation in the construction of those scenes, and there is no doubting they are a big contributor to the movie's charm.

Overall, what really stood out for me was a love of the rural, whether it be in the lavish aerial shots of open fields and farmland, or the focus on a small town's inhabitants and their sense of community. There's little that deviates from this concern and it serves as the context in which the rest of the film is anchored. It's evident that this is a picture that has something to say, but this doesn't override the sensibility to entertain.

The Verdict:

7/10
A thoughtful film that tackles a contentious subject without judgement, and reveals itself to be both charming and entertaining in the process.