Roger Moore as James Bond

Whereas Sean Connery was the suave and sophisticated James Bond, Roger Moore added a completely different style of humour and while embodying many of the aspects of Sean Connery’s Bond, he created a unique version of the character. Roger Moore is a close second behind Connery in terms of my favourite Bond, but he does boast two of my favourite Bond films of all time. Sadly, the Bond films in this era started to get a little bit too silly, but nonetheless, the Roger Moore films are, mostly, classics.

His first film, Live and Let Die, was immediately one of my favourite films. I absolutely love the plot. Bond is trying to stop a large batch of heroin being distributed, and goes to San Monique to try and figure out what’s going on. Before long, we are treated to gangsters, voodoo and crocodiles. There are some excellent scenes in Live and Let Die, most notably, the boat chase, which is thrilling and magnificent to watch. Jane Seymour stars alongside Roger Moore as Solitaire, the Bond girl for this movie. She is the source of the voodoo and reads cars for Mr. Big, the heroin kingpin. She is one of the most underrated Bond girls for me, and despite being quite a weak character, she is absolutely stunning. When Mr. Big inevitably catches Bond for the first time, he is left in the middle of an island with crocodiles closing in on him. The henchman, Tee Hee, is immensely sinister, and his detachable arm is a source of tension in nearly every scene he is in. The climax of the film sees Bond confront and apparently kill the Voodoo chief and save the day in true Bond fashion (things explode and such). I don’t really know why I like Live and Let Die so much. I think it manages to get the balance between plot, action and comedy absolutely spot on. It also boasts an incredible theme song, some excellent filming and some unforgettable scenes.

Live and Let Die was a hard act to follow, but The Man with the Golden Gun gave it a good shot (if you’ll pardon the pun). For me, this is where the Bond films start to get a bit too light hearted. On its release it was widely criticised for being too comedic, but I still think it is a good film. Bond has been earmarked by a famous hitman, Scaramanga, and tries to hunt him down and kill him before he is killed himself. Christopher Lee appears opposite Roger Moore in this film, and is dazzling as Scaramanga. I think if it wasn't for Lee then The Man with the Golden Gun would be a terrible film. The problem with it is not that the plot is unfeasible but that it seems assured of its success. The henchman is a dwarf who is about as sinister as a banana. We also see Bond take on a martial arts school, and the re-appearance of Sheriff J.W. Pepper, who was in Live and Let Die. I think his character is meant to be funny, but he just isn't  Nonetheless, Christopher Lee is the perfect opposition to have and instead of trying to kill Bond when he arrives at his island, he makes him comfortable and challenges him to a relatively fair fight. The most unforgettable scene in this movie is the corkscrew car flip. I think I read somewhere that it was done in one take, which is incredible. The only problem is that someone has added a stupid ‘whistle’ sound effect to the sequence, and this is just a drop in the ocean of how cheesy The Man with the Golden Gun is.

Thankfully, The Spy Who Loved Me brings the James Bond stock back up a bit. I think the theme song to this is my favourite of the classic Bond songs. Bond is up against a megalomaniac who wants to destroy the world and begin again underwater. It sees Bond collaborating with a Russian agent to stop Stromberg from completing his slightly implausible plan. This film also sees the introduction of one of the most iconic Bond villains, Jaws. With his incredibly strong metal teeth and his seeming immortality, he is truly terrifying. The classic Bond moment that this film is famous for is probably the cub/submarine scene. This car runs the Aston Martin DB5 very close for the title of ‘Coolest Car’. The Spy Who Loved Me is a refreshing hark back to the more serious Sean Connery films, with a genuine plot, a touch of comedy, and some twists and turns along the way to Bond’s inevitable victory. It seemed to restore many people’s confidence in James Bond after the unmitigated disaster that was The Man with the Golden Gun at the time of release, and yet many people seem to forget about it. It is one of my favourites and for me, it was the last Bond film before Goldeneye that was really enjoyable, rather than silly, annoying or implausible.

Moonraker was a mistake. It is often voted as one of the worst Bond films ever, and it is easy to see why. It sees Bond initially investigating the theft of a space shuttle, and then investigating Hugo Drax who manufactured the shuttle, and then, naturally, in space. In fairness, where the actual film is terrible, the visual effects are very impressive for the time, but this is the only real positive that I can draw from it. Jaws makes another appearance and, once again is sinister and terrifying, but the filmmakers completely deflate this at the end, when he finds a girlfriend (who is actually tiny) and falls hopelessly in love. If there is one thing that a sinister villain should not have it is a love life. You don’t ever see Blofeld getting gooey with an ‘Angel of Death’ do you? Apparently, the filmmakers received letters from children asking why Jaws couldn't be a goodie, and so they decided to listen to the opinions of children. Even the name of the Bond girl screams of how ridiculous this film is. Now granted Pussy Galore is a blatant innuendo, but Holly Goodhead? At least Pussy Galore is imaginative. The less said about Moonraker the better.

Sadly though, it doesn't pick up after this. The next three films are all as silly and disappointing as before. The only saving grace across these films is Roger Moore, who still has his roguish James Bond charm thankfully. In For Your Eyes Only, Bond helps out a woman who is investigating the death of her parents. It is incredibly clichéd, and incredibly forgettable for me. There’s a parrot that talks to Margaret Thatcher though, and this is one of the better moments of the film. Sadly you have to sit through nearly two hours of film before. For Your Eyes Only is quite enjoyable, but in the context of the Bond films that came before it, it is a couple of metres down the slippery slope to comedy. Octopussy cements this further, and sees Bond trying to investigate the death of 009, stop a bomb and do something with a Faberge egg. The villain, Kamal Kahn, is quite sinister, but never actually threatening. However, the serrated spinning wheel thingy that is used to kill people is quite scary. The problem is that in just don’t believe in the story with Octopussy. At one point, Bond bursts into a circus tent, dressed as a clown, shouting about a bomb. It is too silly and has too much of a focus on the comedy aspect rather than creating what could have been a classic Bond film.

Finally in Roger Moore’s collection is A View to a Kill which sees Bond trying to stop Max Zorin (played masterfully by the incredible Christopher Walken) from blowing up Silicon Valley. In my eyes, this shouldn't have been made by Roger Moore. He looks noticeably older in this film, and generally slower too. Grace Jones makes an appearance as the henchman (or henchwoman) in this film and is absolutely terrifying. However, this isn't a credit to her acting skills, more she is cast in a role that just scares me. A View to a Kill at times seems to be dragging Bond up a notch from where the previous two films left it, but then with a poor character name (such as the French detective Achille Aubergine or the English gentleman James St. John Smythe), the revelation that Zorin is the result of Nazi medical experimentation or a chase through San Francisco in a fire engine it drops it right back down. Once again, Roger Moore shines through as a charming and witty James Bond, and Christopher Walken creates a classic Bond villain, but the film is another one that should be dropped on the scrapheap.

It is strange that, despite having roundly criticised the Bond films of Roger Moore, he is my second favourite. There is no doubt in my mind that Sean Connery is the best, and Daniel Craig will be second best soon enough (if they are all as good as Casino Royale and Skyfall), but Roger Moore makes an excellent Bond too. This may be more to do with the failings of the other actors though, which I will get on to in the next Bond related post. If there was one film I’d advise you to watch from Roger Moore’s time as James Bond it would be Live and Let Die. I think that is the most enjoyable and the least laughable of all his Bond films.

Reservoir Dogs

One of my favourite types of film is the good old gangster film. Reservoir Dogs was one of the those films that people told me I needed to watch, but I had just never go round to it. Then I came across it in a shop for under £5 and thought it was too good an offer to pass up. So I watched it, and found myself amazed that I hadn't seen it before. It was incredible.

Some of my favourite films ever have been directed by Quentin Tarantino, and Reservoir Dogs joins the list of fantastic films he's directed. This was his first film, and shows so many of his characteristics, most notably, the violence and the story which does not take place in the order of time.

The film itself depicts the events around a diamond heist which goes wrong. We don't actually see the robbery itself, but the assembly of the team of men and the aftermath of the robbery are the focal points of the film. One character, Joe, is assembling six different men to do this robbery for him. These men don't use their real names, and none of them actually know each other. However, something goes wrong and Mr Orange gets shot. The rest of the film explains how the team was assembled, and then the attempts of four of the men to work out who it was that tipped off the police about their robbery.

The casting in this film is brilliant. Tarantino himself makes an appearance as ever portraying Mr Blue, but the rest of the cast includes Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi, Harvey Keitel and Lawrence Tierney. It's a great collection of actors who all work so very well in their roles. I thought Tim Roth, who spends most of the film lying on the floor surrounded by an expanding pool of blood, was brilliant, and Michael Madsen was entrancing as the psychotic Mr Blonde. For the majority of the film Tim Roth is in a state of pain, and he portrays this, as well as his fear of dying so exceptionally well it is astounding. Michael Madsen is also terrifying and his dancing in the build up to the stand-out moment is horrifying in the light of what he is about to do.

Every great film has a stand out moment which everyone will recognise. Star Wars has "No, I am your father", Pulp Fiction has the image of Samuel L Jackson and John Travolta with the guns. In the case of Reservoir Dogs it's the infamous 'ear scene'. Michael Madsen is so convincingly psychotic that I was a little bit scared of what he would do to the policeman he's captured, and I was right to be. Cutting off his ear with a razor blade and then talking into it, asking if he can hear? Terrifying.

The shoot-outs in this film are epic. At the end of the movie, Joe, his son, and Mr White are all pointing guns at each other, and all three end up being shot. The relationship between Mr White and Mr Orange was brilliant. Mr Orange is 'just a kid' whereas Mr White is older and more experienced. There's clearly a bit of father-son chemistry between the two after Mr Orange has been shot, to the extent that Mr White 'bonded' with him, and told him his real name, which was forbidden. Also, Mr Orange reveals that he is the mole to Mr White just before the end. This clearly impacts on Mr White, and understandably affects Mr White who has thrown away everything in defence of this kid, who turns out to be a traitor.

After the robbery, Mr Pink takes the diamonds and stores them in a 'safe' location. At the end of the film we see him take the diamonds and sneak out after everyone has been shot. It is assumed that he makes off with them and successfully avoids capture. However, this is not the case, and if you turn the sound up really loud after he walks out you can hear him being captured.

Reservoir Dogs will be popular with any one who likes Tarantino, like gangster films, likes a twist in a movie, and doesn't mind a bit of violence. It's definitely not a quiet night in film, but it's well worth watching it.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

I first came across this film when revising for my second year exams. I had a unit on memory and the textbook I was reading used Eternal Sunshine as an example of memory research in popular culture. I reasoned to myself that if the textbook told me to do so, then watching the film must count as revision. I found myself watching a film that was not only thought-provoking, but mysterious and quite touching at the same time. Sadly (or not as the case may be) it is one of those films that dramatically divides the attention of its viewers, and so my opinions will doubtless be dramatically different from those of others.

Eternal Sunshine tells of a couple who have a procedure which erases each other from their memories after they break up. However, when they start to lose each other they realise that they don’t want to forget. The film is quite difficult to follow because it doesn't go in a linear fashion, however, it’s not an absolute mindbender either. There is a story within the story and this plotline has the ‘twist’ of the film in. This moment is brilliant because up until that point the film has entirely focused on Joel and Clementine, and the audience assumes that the ‘memory staff’ are simply background characters. However, the twist reveals that there is much more going on than you initially think.

Jim Carrey is so delightful to watch in this. Before I watched Eternal Sunshine my only previous experience of Jim Carrey had been of the hilariously silly star of Ace Ventura, Batman Forever and Bruce Almighty. I was very surprised to see him take on a much more serious role, even if there are some scene where his comedic acting shines through. His character is very deep I think, and after he breaks up with his girlfriend and realises that she has erased him from her mind (perfectly plausible) he decides that the memory if her is too painful, and wants it removed himself. However, he soon comes to realise that he doesn't want to lose these memories. This is an interesting idea, as I’m sure we've all been there. After a break up it might be easier to simply erase the person from your memory, but what comes through in the film, and what shone through for me, is that the happy memories you had, while painful, are what has formed you as a person. You cannot let that go because without the memories you wouldn't be the person you are. For me, this is the most important message of the film.

Kate Winslet, as ever, shines alongside Jim Carrey. While the way her character is portrayed has a lot to do with the way the film is put together, Winslet does a great job over conveying how changeable and impulsive Clementine is. At times she comes across as very uncaring toward Joel, but when faced with the prospect of losing the memories, even in Joel’s head, she becomes a completely different person. When Patrick (Elijah Wood) begins to take Joel’s place in her memories the film takes a bit of a dark turn. I found myself thoroughly detesting Patrick, and while I think this is the general idea, the idea that someone can take your place in someone’s life by erasing you and repeating your actions is quite a nasty prospect.

The film turns out to be quite a nice love story though. Throughout the film there is the sense that Joel and Clementine’s relationship was tumultuous to say the least, and their break up was probably for the best. However by the end of the film I found myself finding the unfolding story to be quite touching. Despite the fact that both the characters had their memories of each other erased they find themselves attracted to each other again. Clementine told Joel to meet her somewhere in his memory, and their eventual meeting paints the picture of a couple who, despite having a difficult relationship, really love each other and seem to be meant to be somewhat.

The supporting cast of Elijah Wood, Kirsten Dunst, Tom Wilkinson and Mark Ruffalo are all glittering as well. Kirsten Dunst’s emotion in the final scenes as the twist is revealed is perfectly conveyed. The fact that Elijah Wood comes across as utterly detestable in this film is also a credit to him. In many of the roles he has played he is very likable, and to be able to play character that is widely disliked by the audience is a rare talent.

Overall, Eternal Sunshine is a wonderful film, and many, many paragraphs could be dedicated to me analysing it. All the sub-plots, sub-memories and different levels of looking at this film create a movie which I still find myself discovering every time I watch it. I can strongly advise that you watch it, but be prepared for a bit of a heavy film. The message can be whatever you make it, and personally I think the message is quite simple: whatever happened, it is not best to forget about your partner after a break up because your experience of them has made you who you are today.

The Exorcist

The Exorcist is a classic horror film, and seems to be the one that most people ‘break their horror duck’ with. It was hugely controversial when it was released, and continues to be very scary to this day. Although the parts of the film which provide the background and set the scene are beyond dull in my eyes, the actual action of the film is wonderfully chilling, scary, uncomfortable and imposing.

The Exorcist was the first horror film to be nominated for the Best Picture award at the Academy Awards. This is unsurprising when you consider that in the context of 1973, this film would have been absolutely groundbreaking. There’s quite a lot of backstory to the movie, but it basically focuses on a little girl who has been possessed by a demon and the attempts to exorcise her of this demon. There are some unforgettable scenes, some chilling moments, and some amazing special effects (for the time) which all add up to create the film which arguably first brought horror into the consciousness of the general public.

Ellen Burstyn plays the mother who is the focus of the initial part of the film. She is an actress and doesn’t believe in God. I have a feeling this might have changed somewhat by the end of the film though. Her character is fairly mundane to be honest. One day she notices her daughter is behaving oddly and so she tries to find some answers from neurosurgeons, psychiatrists and then, when all else seems to provide no solution, an exorcist. She does manage to convey the terror that a mother, or anyone, would experience in the situations she finds herself in perfectly, and this is to her credit. The exorcist she calls is played by Jason Miller. Miller does very well, and considering that Jack Nicholson was the original choice for the role, I think Miller brings something to the role that Nicholson wouldn’t. If Nicholson was cast I fear the film would have focussed too much on him and would be less of a classic. As it stands, all the cast perform on a level playing field, and this contributes to the overall success of the movie, at least in my eyes.

Max von Sydow plays the other priest at the exorcism, and does so marvellously. His character is depicted in a manner very faithful to the novel by William Blatty. His character, Lankester Merrin, had previously encountered the demon featured in the film many years ago. This means that naturally, he is the only one who knows enough to defeat the demon. However, during the exorcism Merrin dies, and so it is up to Miller’s character to complete the exorcism himself. Von Sydow is a fantastic actor and his casting in The Exorcist can only have been a good move. The little girl in this film, Regan, is played by a young Linda Blair, who is phenomenal. I’m not sure how much of her performance was actually her, but she is incredible throughout the film and is genuinely terrifying in the scenes where the demon has a stronger hold on her.

As with any popular horror film though, there is always a series of ill-advised sequels, and The Exorcist is no exception. Now I haven’t seen these sequels, but a quick search on IMDb tells me that The Exorcist sequels were a bad idea as well. The original film has a rating of 8.0, and Exorcist II: The Heretic has a rating of 3.6. One to steer clear of I think. The Exorcist III is rated at 6.0, and Exorcist: The Beginning is a 5.0. Personally, I’m not going to make any great effort to watch the sequels.

There are so many aspects of The Exorcist that make it an absolutely classic film, and the music is definitely one of them. The Tubular Bells score is so chilling and the film was so iconic that it took what was a piece of music by Mike Oldfield and turned it into one of the most recognisable pieces of music in cinema history. For me, it is the horror equivalent of the James Bond theme. Anyone who has seen The Exorcist will know how chilling the score is, and this contributes massively to the general atmosphere and experience of watching the film. I've searched for it on YouTube in an attempt to link it here and within seconds of the piece starting I have chills, it’s that imposing!

Another reason why The Exorcist is so popular is the number of ghost stories and legends around the film. The author of the original book has said that there were a number of ‘strange occurrences’ during the filming. There was a fire in the studio, and on several occasions a priest was reportedly brought in to bless the set. On one occasion the crew was blessed. There were a number of accidents around the harness used to film some of the ‘hovering’ scenes, and shortly after one actor has finished filming he died of the flu. While these are probably simple coincidences that can occur on any film set, the nature of the film in question is such that everyone is looking for an extra chill to make The Exorcist a little bit more terrifying.

The Exorcist is an absolutely classic film, and one that any horror fan simply has to see. It’s success is not only measured in terms of its reputation, but also on its box office takings. It had a budget of around 10.5 million dollars and since its release in 1973 it is estimated to have made 441 million dollars! Now that’s not bad for a horror film. If you do watch this, and I can only recommend it, make sure you have someone there with you, because there are scenes where you will be horrified.

The Hurt Locker

The Hurt Locker is Kathryn Bigelow’s Academy Award winning masterpiece which follows a bomb disposal team in Iraq. It is a fantastically engaging film which you almost can’t help but get involved with, and as such you end up with a magnificent appreciation of the film afterwards.

The film follows one bomb disposal team and we are initially introduced during an attempt to deactivate a bomb. Bigelow immediately conveys that the three members of the team are incredibly close. The initial bomb disposal scene is incredibly tense, but this is just a sign of things to come. I was watching this with my flatmates, and we all remarked at how tense we were feeling at this first scene alone. Little were we to know that this would not be confined to the first scene, and that for the majority of the film we were still very tense. You cannot help but feel like you are there with the three guys throughout the film, and when the lead character finds a series of bombs arranged in a circle around him there was an amazing sense of fear flowing through me.

Jeremy Renner stars as Sergeant William James who is the new team leader of the bomb disposal unit. Throughout the film I found myself worrying about this character. While I rarely got the sense that he was likely to be killed there is a dangerous element to him. He is pointed out throughout the film to be an adrenaline junkie, and this is conveyed expertly by Renner. He starts off as being a thoroughly dislikable character, and with the progression of the film I wouldn't say that he becomes more likeable, but I found myself sympathising with him more and more. The scene where he is back at home and looking for cereal is one of the most poignant pieces of filmmaking I have seen in a while, and perfectly reflected how mundane everyday life is after a tour in Iraq.

Both Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty (the other two members of the bomb disposal team) work perfectly with Renner to create the unit. Bigelow is on record as stating that the unknown nature of the actors leads to a level of uncertainty in the film, and this is evident throughout The Hurt Locker (Time’s Up: Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker by Nick Dawson – filmmakermagazine.com). There is no sense of knowing what an actor will do, or how they will react because you have never seen them before. The emotion and engagement that the audience feels towards the three characters (particularly Mackie and Geraghty) is an obvious parallel to the intimacy of the trio, but cracks are obvious, and they are both concerned about James’ state of mind. When this climaxes in Eldridge (Geraghty) being injured and taken home, harsh words are exchanged between him and James which Mackie does nothing to console him about. However, by the end there is almost an entente between Mackie and Renner as the film takes an almost cyclic turn to leave us right back where we started. This is beautifully indicative of the ongoing nature of the Iraqi conflict, and is another piece of expert filmmaking.

Another thing about The Hurt Locker is how authentic it is. While it wasn't filmed in Iraq, the whole thing was shot in Jordan, very close to the Iraqi border, and the cast and crew all experienced life in the Middle East. From the heat to the illnesses to the tension on set which is conveyed to the screen this film is as authentic as safety allows, and this is excellent. When you consider some of the films that The Hurt Locker beat to Best Picture in the year that it was released this should give you some idea of how good it is. I mean Avatar isn't a ‘great’ film in my opinion, but it is the highest grossing film of all-time, and it didn't win Best Picture because The Hurt Locker did. Inglorious Basterds, District 9 and Up are other examples of films nominated for Best Picture that lost out to The Hurt Locker. Bigelow also won Best Director, but if you've already seen it, this is not hard to see why.

There is so much more to say about the Hurt Locker, but to fit it all in would make for very long and tedious reading. There are some very memorable characters, from the little boy ‘Beckham’ who plays such a big part in the later scenes of the film to the surprise appearance from Ralph Fiennes who always manages to brighten my day. There are a lot of parallels to Zero Dark Thirty in The Hurt Locker, and they both have incredible cinematography behind them. Kathryn Bigelow’s footprint on both movies is unmistakable, from the casting of relative unknowns to the reflection of the war in the scenes that follow from the action.

There is little doubt in my mind that The Hurt Locker will be remembered for a long time to come. It is without a shadow of a doubt one of the best films I have seen in a while and I can only encourage you to watch it if you haven’t already.

The Bourne Identity

After I watched The Bourne Identity I immediately wished that I have watched when I was a few years younger. In my teenage years I know I would have absolutely loved it. It is an action packed film about a man who is on the hunt to find out exactly who he is. The combination of intrigue, mystery and action all combine to create a film that should appeal to the kind of person who likes James Bond and other similar movies.

The plot is very clever. To start with, a man is pulled out of the sea with two gunshots in his back. This is Jason Bourne, but he doesn't know this, as he has no memory of anything that has happened to put him in this situation. What follows is a desperate attempt to discover who he is and how he got there. What he doesn't realise is that the CIA are tracking him as well because of his involvement in an attempt of the life of an exiled African dictator. The twists and turns in the plot make this a very worthwhile watch and definitely made me want to watch the rest of the ‘Bourne’ films.

Matt Damon stars in the role of Jason Bourne, and puts in a good performance. He does a good job of creating a character who desperately wants to know who he is and what he has done, and creates an air of two separate characters. There is the pre-memory loss Bourne and the post-memory loss Bourne, and for Matt Damon to make these two characters so distinct is quite an achievement. It’s very difficult to be ‘incredible’ in this kind of role, and as a result I will settle for ‘convincing’. Matt Damon is very convincing as Bourne, and the success of the subsequent films must indicate that he is doing something right.

As with every film of this kind there is always a girl. The Bourne Identity manages quite well not to fall into the typical ‘Bond girl’ trap though. Throughout the course of his journey of self-discovery, Bourne is assisted by Marie, played by Franka Potente. Now it’s nothing to do with her acting, and is probably more to do with the nature of the film, but absolutely nothing jumped out at me about her role in this. I feel that you could have replaced her with any other female actor and she would have done an equally good job. In this kind of film, there is a lot less of a focus on the acting in general. It says a lot that despite its huge success across the world, the James Bond films have never won an Academy Award. They’re just not that kind of film. However, despite being quite anonymous, Potente does a good job of being ‘the girl’ in the film.

Throughout the film, Jason Bourne is being followed by Conklin from the CIA. Played by Chris Cooper, he is a difficult character to work out as you start to watch the film. This is where the twists and turns come in because I wasn't sure whether he was a good guy or a bad guy, and this makes the big twist at the end (about Bourne’s identity) quite interesting. Cooper does a very good job of playing Conklin, but I found it quite difficult to ‘believe’ in him. It may be that I’m trying too hard to analyse what is basically an action film, but I thought the character was just a bit fake. He seemed too artificial, and while this may have been the point, I couldn't help but notice it.

Overall though, The Bourne Identity is a very good film, and it is part of a series which I’m going to have to invest a bit more time and money in. In many ways it is similar to James Bond, in that it probably appeals more to men than to women, but I think it has a more engaging plot. If you sit down and get into it, you’ll find yourself enjoying it, and that can be no bad thing surely? 

Bronson

It is quite difficult to review Bronson, for a number of reasons. The first reason is that it is a very weird film. It’s very ‘artsy’ and suffers in many people’s eyes as a result of this. The second reason that it is quite difficult to review is because it is hard to not draw strong comparisons with ‘A Clockwork Orange’ and view it in the light of that.

The film tells the story of Charles Bronson, Britain’s most violent criminal, and stars Tom Hardy as the lead character. The film is basically set with Bronson telling his story to a room full of people, in a series of scenes which are vividly parallel to A Clockwork Orange. It tells how Bronson came to become imprisoned for seven years, and how he has not left prison in the thirty-odd years to follow. It’s an interesting film, but it’s not really the informative piece I was expecting.

Tom Hardy is absolutely fantastic as Charles Bronson though, and conveys every aspect of his personality expertly. Not knowing that much about Charles Bronson to begin with, I think it would be unfair of me to cast aspersions on his character (he is in prison for repeated violence etc so I think the damage as already been done). However, Tom Hardy is slightly terrifying when he changes mood so rapidly. For example, in one scene he goes from the sinister inmate who is threatening an officer to the man having an awkward chat, and then flips out when the officer sits in the wrong place. He is marvellously talented when it comes to playing the sinister characters in cinema (Bane is just one example), and his performance in Bronson should have earned him more critics than it did.

Hardy’s performance is let down slightly by the fact that the film is definitely not for everyone. I decided to watch it because it looked like a gripping film about a violent prisoner, and I thought it would tell me more about Bronson. While it did tell me a little bit about his history, Wikipedia told me much more. The film seems to focus much more on the ‘alternative’ and arty aspects of cinematography. There is no denying that this is impressive, and the scenes in which Hardy is talking directly to the ‘theatre’ are quite strange. The audience gets the feeling that Bronson is talking almost directly to them, rather than speaking to a crowd, and this is quite intimidating. I particularly like the scene where Bronson is explaining his parole hearing. His swapping between the two characters he is re-telling is both brilliant and reflective of the insanity of the character at hand.

Nicholas Winding Refn does a great job of directing Bronson. It is definitely one of the more ‘arty’ films that I have seen, and the focus on Bronson’s artwork towards the end of the film is very thought provoking. He strips naked, ties his instructor up and paints on him, saying that he reflects himself in what he has done. This is followed by a large scale fight with the prison officers. This is a continuous theme of the movie, and Bronson is often seen to be fighting with the authorities. These scenes are wonderfully directed, and Tom Hardy really throws himself into these fights. If nothing else, his facial expressions reflect the disdain and hatred that Bronson has for the authorities.

I thought it would be difficult to write about Bronson before I started, and I’m finding it increasingly difficult now. The problem I have with it though is that I just don’t get a lot of it. It’s a good film, yes, but a lot of the art direction is very subjective, and in my opinion it spoils what could be a magnificent film. This is the main problem that Bronson will face as a movie I think. Maybe it would be a very popular film if it focused on Bronson’s life more, but I think the art nature will not appeal to many. At times it comes across as very pretentious, and while this may reflect something or other, this isn't very apparent to the audience. When I watch a film, I don’t want to finish watching it and need to have an in-depth think about what this aspect meant. Bronson made me do this, and this sort of spoiled the impact the film had on me.

Bronson is definitely not one for everyone. It will not really appeal to those who don’t know who Charles Bronson is, and might not appeal to those who are ‘just curious’. If you are reading this and wondering whether you might like to watch it, I would suggest you give it a go, but be warned because it is quite strange. 

Forrest Gump

Forrest Gump is a classic movie. Released in 1994, and starring Tom Hanks as the lovable Forrest Gump, it is a light-hearted film about a simple man who has been surprisingly influential in the history of the United States. He is hopelessly in love with his best friend, and in contrast to his influence on history, often has a negative effect on her life.

The plot of Forrest Gump is absolutely magnificent. From very early on in the movie it is plain to see that Forrest is not your ‘average’ person, and as he tells his life story the audience, as well as the characters listening to his tale, begin to realise just how extraordinary he is. For example, teaching Elvis how to dance is just one of the prominent roles he has to play in shaping American culture. It is exceptionally well-written and the audience cannot help but become emotionally attached to the character. However, the amount of humour in the film is refreshing. It contrasts to other films about special needs (such as Rain Man) or the Vietnam War (such as Platoon) because the way it deals with these subjects is serious, but funny at the same time. You find yourself laughing lovingly at the little quirks in his character and the effects they have on the world.

Tom Hanks is a fantastic actor, there is no doubt about that, and Forrest Gump is the crowning example of this. The character that he becomes is so perfectly complete that I cannot help but admire him. It is very rare that an actor putting on an accent talks with this accent for the duration of the film, but Tom Hanks is flawless. Most impressive though is how convincing his character is. Forrest is completely believable and once you get into the film you stop noticing Tom Hanks is the actor. It is almost as if Forrest becomes a person in his own right. To be able to do this to a character is an incredible achievement, and Tom Hanks undoubtedly deserves the Academy Award for Best Actor for this role. This is even more impressive when you consider that he was up against Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption) and John Travolta (Pulp Fiction) for the award.

The character of Jenny, played by Robin Wright, is a source of heartbreak, both for Forrest and also for the audience. Because Forrest is so lovable, and it is obvious that he doesn’t understand certain things the audience is very sympathetic when he makes a mistake around her. However, during her youth she begins to get quite impatient with this as it affects her relationships with others. Despite being such a pivotal figure in American history, this man is unable to marry the woman he loves. When they eventually do ‘get together’ it is under a dark cloud, and when this dark cloud bursts it is genuinely sad.

The character of Lieutenant Dan Taylor is another interesting one. After surviving Vietnam, he and Forrest go into the shrimping business and make a lot of money. However, he is very bitter and it is only the shrimping business that manages to brighten his spirits. Gary Sinise is very good as Dan Taylor. Playing a character with no legs is not easy, and Sinise manages to be as convincing as Tom Hanks in this role. Dan Taylor is a typical soldier, and seems to wish that he had been killed in battle, just as his ancestors had. The interaction between Gump and Taylor, and Hanks and Sinise, is very good to watch, and added to my enjoyment of the middle part of the film.

The visual effects in Forrest Gump are marvellous. It won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects, and this is unsurprising after you watch it. The ability of the film producers to splice two separate film streams together is masterful. Although at times it is glaringly obvious, it is more often than not a very entertaining segment of the film. The particular highlight is when he is presented with the Medal of Honour by the President and bares his backside. The actual CGI isn't anything to write home about, but the video splicing is exceptional.

Forrest Gump is an absolute must-see film. I know I say this about a lot of films, but it is an absolutely magnificent piece of film-making. It beat both The Shawshank Redemption and Pulp Fiction to the Best Picture Award in 1994, which says more than I can about how good it is. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Carnage

Carnage is a film which I was persuaded to watch after a recommendation from a friend. It basically revolves around four characters: two sets of parents who have come together to talk out the issue of their two boys having a fight. One child has hit the other with a stick, and the parents are discussing what the best thing to do is. Throughout the film we see more and more of the character of these individuals, and we see shifting dynamics among the four of them, as well as more and more childish actions.

The highlight of the film for me was Christoph Waltz. I've only recently discovered Waltz's talents, but I think he’s a fantastic actor. He plays the father of the boy who has attacked the other. Throughout the film he is attached to his phone, only communicating with the others through generally sarcastic or snide comments, and providing me with a source of near-constant amusement. His character is devoted to his work, and Waltz does an excellent job of reflecting the kind of father who is too busy to really care what his child does. His response to the ‘destruction’ of his phone perfectly reflects how broken he is without it. Also, when his wife is sick he spends more of his time worrying about the state of his suit and doesn't even ask if she is okay. His character remains vaguely constant throughout the film, providing an amusing antagonistic note to Jodie Foster on many occasions.

Jodie Foster plays the mother of the attacked child, and for me, she is wonderful. Some consider her to be ‘over-the-top’ in this role, but I think she does magnificently. Her character is just the over-concerned, over-protective mother everyone has had experience of at some point. Her concern for her son and her moral beliefs become somewhat accentuated throughout the film, and Foster does an excellent job. She clearly regards the other parents as lesser to her and comes across as a very strong mother initially. However, there are continual signs of weakness, most obviously when the alcohol starts to come out. On occasion she makes very pointed and forked comments about the incident in defence of her son, and her very maternal attitude is in direct contrast to Kate Winslet.

Kate Winslet comes across as the perfect wife for Christoph Waltz. She too is a career-driven woman and considers the talk that these four parents are having to be little more than a distraction from her work. However, in many ways she is the fulcrum of the film. It is her that is sick (hilarious, by the way), producing the first major conflict. It is her that walks out on numerous occasions. It is her who flies off the handle and drops her husband’s phone into the water. She is often the source of many of the conflicts. Her attitude starts out as very reconciliatory but as the film progresses she becomes much more likely her husband. Towards the end of the film she comes across much more of an infant, and her reaction to her bag being thrown reflects much about her as a character. Kate Winslet also shines in this role, and her antagonism of John C. Reilly is almost a direct parallel of her husband’s antagonism of Jodie Foster.

John C. Reilly is an interesting addition to this film. It is quite a change from many of his other films, but he is marvellous in it nonetheless. His character undergoes perhaps the most dramatic change throughout the course of the film. He starts off as a very welcoming and loving father, but there are obvious cracks beneath the surface, and his attitude towards vermin is another source of conflict. However, he soon develops into a thoroughly dislikeable character that shows little consideration for anyone else in his life, with the possible exception of his mother. His character change causes the group dynamic to change, resulting in a gender split to the group.

The whole dynamic of the group is magnificently set up by Roman Polanski, and I think that ‘Carnage’ is one of his better films. The alliance shifts and character developments are a joy to watch and I’m quite surprised that it wasn’t nominated for any Academy Awards. I think it is quite a subtle film but one that is very enjoyable once you get into the nitty-gritty of it. Browsing through some of the films that were nominated for Best Picture in 2011, there are a couple of recognisable films, but none that fly off the screen at me. I think Carnage is good enough to have been nominated, and at least good enough for one of the actors to receive a nomination.

I think Carnage is a good film, and one that I’m glad I was recommended. I can only pass on the recommendation to you reader. I would strongly suggest that you see this film, not because it’s a Hollywood blockbuster, not because it has a deep underlying meaning or anything like that. I think you should watch it because it is enjoyable. 

Senna

‘Senna’ is a documentary film about the life of Formula One racing driver Ayrton Senna. It is a film which tells you all about his career as a driver, his personal life as a hero in his home country, and his relationship with many different people, from the drivers he raced against to the people of Brazil. It is a fantastic film, and best of all, it can appeal to non-racing fans as well.

Personally, as I mention in the introduction post, I am a massive Formula One fan, and so naturally, a documentary about (arguably) the greatest driver to have ever lived is right up my street. However, it is not entirely about motor sport. A lot of the time, I got the feeling that it was a documentary about the trials and tribulations of a man who happened to be a racing driver. I think I’m going to review Senna from two points of view: the racing fan and the non-racing fan.

Firstly, for a documentary about Formula One, Senna is an absolute must-see. The footage in the film presents a journey through Senna’s career which you just cannot get from the history books. The way it presents his breakthrough race at Monaco is wonderful, and even the non-racing fan can find themself emotionally engaged in the film. It’s a weird experience when you are watching a film and you find yourself viewing the world through the eyes of the protagonist. At one point during his career, Senna and Prost collided at a corner in Japan, and Senna was forced to use the exit road to rejoin the race. He went on to win the race, and the world championship as well. However, his use of the exit road was deemed to be illegal (because it was) and he was disqualified. This is where the film gets fantastic because you find yourself genuinely disappointed, and with a distinct sense of injustice.

The racing side of the film generally focuses on the rivalry between three-time world champion Senna and four-time champion Alain Prost. This is one of the most famous and most thrilling rivalries of racing history. Because the film focuses on Senna, it inevitably portrays Prost as the bad guy, and the audience seems to develop some feeling of dislike towards him. While it is good that the film is so emotionally charged and engaging, many have criticised its portrayal of Prost, and the man himself even spoke out about how the film neglects to mention that they became good friends in the last months of Senna’s life. As a result of this, when you see Prost bearing Senna’s coffin at his funeral, you are a little bemused. The film presents Prost as ‘the enemy’ and so it’s a bit strange that he’s carrying the coffin.

However, this is the only real downside about the film. I thought that the coverage of the death of Senna was absolutely incredible. This is a subject that many have tried to cover, and many have failed. ‘Senna’ absolutely nails it. The build up to his crash is very imposing, and there is a distinct sense that something bad is about to happen. Those with foreknowledge about what happens will feel a big sense of foreboding, and those who do not know about Senna’s death can tell that something is about to happen. Some of the footage of his death is dealt with absolutely magnificently. It is in perfect taste, not focusing too much on what killed him, but not shying away from the details of his death.

However, Senna was not just a racing driver. The film tells you all about the massive contribution he made to Brazil, especially his hometown of Sao Paulo. This is where the non-racing fans can fill their boots. Just seeing the way that Senna was thought of in Brazil is absolutely incredible. The emotion that the public showed upon his winning the Brazilian Grand Prix, or just a simple visit is incredible. You definitely have the sense that this man was a national hero whose popularity transcended his success. Senna devoted a lot of time and money to improving Brazil at a time when the only thing worth celebrating was his success. Simply the number of people that lined the streets when his body was returned home is emotional enough. There is a good balance of racing and home life, and this serves to remind people that, while he was one of the all-time racing greats, he was also a wonderful philanthropist who never forgot where he came from.

Overall, Senna is a magnificent film, and a superb documentary. It is such an emotional journey through his life, and I think it would be very hard to watch this film and not engage to the extent that you feel emotions in line with what’s happening on the screen. It can appeal to racing fans and non-racing fans alike, and this is why it is so good. It is not just a film documenting Senna’s racing career, or the story of an incredibly charitable man, but both. It marries the two characters perfectly to produce an absolutely wonderful film. If you are interested in finding out more about this man then Senna should be your source of information.