Platoon

Platoon is one of those films that I always meant to watch but never seemed to get around to. It is one of the best films about the Vietnam War, which considering how many Vietnam films there are is high praise. It tells the story of one soldier who volunteers for service and follows his development and experience of the war. The film is based upon the director’s experiences in Vietnam and is an absolutely amazing watch.

Charlie Sheen stars as the protagonist, Chris Taylor, who drops out of college and volunteers for Vietnam. To the other men in his unit, he is a complete outsider and doesn’t belong in Vietnam with the other hardened soldiers. However, after time he comes to be accepted and forms a close relationship with the group. Charlie Sheen manages to do a fantastic job in this film. It was (I think) his first major role and puts in an incredible performance. At the start of the film he appears as an innocent young man who is out of sync with the lifestyle of a combat trooper. However, by the end of the film his experiences have noticeably changed him. It is the extent to which this is noticeable that makes his performance so impressive. By the end of the film, he too is a hardened soldier, hence the tagline of the film: ‘The first casualty of war is innocence’.

Given that the film is based on Oliver Stone’s (director and writer) Vietnam experiences, the impact of this film is very powerful. I didn’t know that it was based on truth when I watched it, but when I discovered this, it completely changed my perspective on the film. It goes from a war film showing the effects of Vietnam on a young man to a film documenting how Stone feels the war impacted him. To say that this is profound is understating it a bit. Some of the scenes in the film (like the one where the soldiers reach the village) are very shocking, and reinforces the idea that you cannot know exactly what it was like unless you were actually there.

Aside from Charlie Sheen, the others actors who make up the platoon really complete the film. Tom Berenger is immensely sinister and dislikable as Sergeant Barnes. There is a sense of mystery around his character, in much the same was as there is around Tom Hanks in Saving PrivateRyan, but in Platoon there is a much more grave element to this. His character isn't meant to be disliked though, or at least I don’t think so. There is no doubt that he commits some atrocities in the film, but maybe Stone is conveying a strong message about the impact Vietnam has on people. The scar on his face alone shows the impact the war has on him, and when Charlie Sheen gets cut as well the parallels between the two men are stronger. Many people see Barnes as the villain, but he is made the way he is by the war going on around him. Similarly, Chris Taylor changes throughout the film due to the war going on around him. Either way, Berenger does a fantastic job of conveying the director’s message.

Sergeant Elias is played very well by Willem Dafoe, and is a relative force of good in the film. He seems to be keeping things very much in the ‘good’ camp, and after his death (the classic scene in the movie) things start to get a bit more out of control. In many ways it is his death that is the catalyst for this, as the suspicions start to creep in among the soldiers. In stark contrast to Elias is the character of Bunny (Kevin Dillon) who comes across as simply psychotic. He loves what he is doing in Vietnam and in one very disturbing scene, smashing a Vietnamese man’s head open with his gun before remarking that he’d never seen one pop like that. Bunny seems to represent everything twisted and bad about Vietnam, whereas Elias shows more of the compassion and good intention that Chris starts the film with. There’s a tip of the hat for Forest Whitaker, John C. McGinley and Johnny Depp who also appear in this film.

When you think about the acting, the symbolism, the subject matter and what it was based upon, it is really no surprise that Platoon won the Academy Award for Best Picture. It completely deserves this award, and Stone deserves the Best Director Award. I’m surprised that Charlie Sheen wasn't nominated for the Best Actor award, but both Dafoe and Berenger were up for Best Supporting Actor, again, deservingly. The film is incredibly well made, and really does grip you. Although it is a bit slow in parts, this is intended to reflect the nature of the war, and Stone, building on his own experiences, conveys this magnificently.

If you have an interest in Vietnam or in war films then Platoon should definitely be on your list. If not then I think it is the kind of film that is important to see, just because of the subject matter. You might not enjoy the whole thing, but its importance cannot be understated. I really enjoyed Platoon because it made me think, and thoroughly recommend it. 

Another film dealing with the Vietnam War, but in a more light-hearted way is:

Forrest Gump - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/forest-gump.html

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a legendary film about a man who enters a psychiatric hospital in an attempt to avoid serving a prison sentence. However, while he is in the hospital he becomes more and more part of the daily life, befriending some of the patients. When he attempts to escape, his plans do not go entirely perfectly and he is retained in the hospital until the end of the film. It is an inspirational film which cannot be missed.

When it was first released it was very successful, winning five Academy Awards. Today it is still considered to be one of the ‘great movies’ and I find myself liking it more and more with each time I watch it. It has interesting dynamics between the patients in the hospital, all of who seem to be generally fine, but are more scared of the nurse in the hospital than they are of becoming functional again. There are appearances from Danny de Vito (as Martini), Christopher Lylod (Doc from Back to the Future, as Taber) and Brad Dourif (Grima Wormtongue, as Billy Bibbit). The plot of the film is based on the book of the same name, and is absolutely fantastic. Despite the fact that he is a criminal, the audience (or maybe just me) is firmly on the side of the protagonist McMurphy. He becomes a powerful friend to many of the patients who all seem to revere his confidence and his prominence as a character in the hospital.

McMurphy is played supremely well by Jack Nicholson. This was one of Nicholson’s first major films and cements his status as one of the greatest actors of the day. He has a strange and wonderful ability play the insane character impeccably well. Obviously in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s nest his character is not insane, but in the moments that he needs to be in order to convince the authorities of his illness, he does so very well. A little too well for me, suggesting that there might be some criminally insane element to his personality. However, that is just me speculating. His interaction with the other patients is delightful. His bond with the Chief is the central relationship in the film, but I really love his relationship with Billy. When he is about to escape he stays behind until morning to do Billy a favour, which eventually costs him his freedom. This demonstrates how much McMurphy has come to value the patients of the hospital who are for all intents and purposes his friends.

Nurse Ratched is a subtle, yet despicable antagonist in this film. In 2003 she was voted as the fifth greatest villain of movie history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years...100_Heroes_%26_Villains) and so this immediately sparked my interest when she was placed above classic villains such as Michael Corleone, Amon Goth, the Shark from Jaws, The Terminator and Jack Torrance from The Shining, just to name a few. It says a lot about her character that she makes the villains list so highly, but McMurphy does not feature on the heroes list. It is to the eternal credit of Louise Fletcher that she manages to portray Nurse Ratched so utterly hatefully. The thing is she is not as much of a terrifying villain as Tony Montana or Darth Vader, but she is viciously horrible to the patients in a very subtle way. Her utter power over everything in the ward, from the medicines to the cigarettes, from the daily routine to her control of the patients through humiliation. For example, her treatment of Billy at the end of the film leads directly to his suicide. When McMurphy suggests they watch the World Series she is confident enough to allow a vote, knowing it will not be passed. Louise Fletcher is absolutely phenomenal in this film and the sinister and fearful atmosphere that she creates has become a bit of a stereotype for the hardline nurse.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a masterful film, and this is reflects in the awards that it won. It has a handful of BAFTAs and Golden Globes, but my focus, as usual, will be on Academy Awards. It was nominated for 9 awards, and won 5 of them. It is such a good adaptation from the book that it won Best Adapted Screenplay. Both Nicholson and Fletcher won the award for Best Actor and Actress, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this was completely deserved as both actor and actress are unbelievable in their roles. It also won Best Director and Best Picture. For me, this reflects how much of an amazing film it is. It is one of three films to win the ‘Big Five’ awards of Picture, Director, Actor, Actress and Screenplay and the other two to do so are incredible in their own right. The legacy of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest should be one of incredible film-making, as well as being an exceptional film.

I cannot recommend this film highly enough. It is inspirational and engaging, and the audience cannot help but become involved with what they are watching. I think it is the kind of film that everyone should see, just because of the legacy that it has and because it more than lives up to the reputation it has as one of the best films ever made. That may be too much for the film, but I think it is deserved, so I urge you to watch it. 

A Beautiful Mind

Now regular readers will know that I am not Russell Crowe’s biggest fan. If I’m honest I can’t stand the guy. In the vast majority of roles that I've seen him in he is wooden and bland, and I don’t like him as a person. However, A Beautiful Mind is the exception to this. This is the Academy Award winning film about the life of John Nash and his struggle with schizophrenia.

John Nash starts off as a student of mathematics at Princeton and immediately the audience sees that he is a very dedicated and hard-working individual. He is striving immensely hard for an ‘original idea’ in order to revolutionise his field. His room-mate is his polar opposite, but they get along very well despite him not getting on well with other people. During his teaching of a class at Princeton he meets a student in the typical manner – she is the one who challenges the teacher. After he finishes at Princeton he becomes a codebreaker and is subsequently sought by the secret services to break a Russian code about a bomb that is planning to be dropped on America. He has since married Alicia, the student in his class, and they have a son. However all is not what it seems, and she begins to get suspicious of his behaviour, calling in a psychiatrist to help him. He is subsequently diagnosed with schizophrenia and we wee how his life is dramatically affected by this. His room-mate at Princeton, his room-mate’s niece and the secret services agent are all revealed to be hallucinations, and Nash’s life begins to fall apart. After an incredibly long struggle with his illness Nash is awarded the Nobel Prize for his contribution to modern business and economics, and this is a heartwarming conclusion as he dedicates his achievement to his wife who is ‘his reason’.

Now, much as it pains me to say this, Russell Crowe is absolutely incredible in A Beautiful Mind. A few posts back I compared Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean to Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man and Robert de Niro in Awakenings. Well now Russell Crowe can be added to that list. He is spectacular at getting the little parts of the character right. His gait and the manner in which he walks so consistently throughout the film is brilliant, and his speech and accent, which I have criticised Crowe for before, is almost nailed on throughout the movie. Despite being a thoroughly unlikable character, the audience immediately takes to John Nash as the underdog of life, and Russell Crowe brings a strong sense of engagement and emotion to the role. The emotions that Nash experiences when he is first committed is conveyed beautifully by Crowe, and even better is his emotion at the end. I watched  A Beautiful Mind recently with my Mum and she was saying how tragically sad it is at the end, and I agree. I can only praise Russell Crowe for his acting in this film, and am genuinely surprised that he missed out on the Academy Award for Best Actor. Having said that, I haven’t seen Training Day, so I can’t possibly comment.

Jennifer Connelly plays John’s wife, Alicia Nash, and she does a very good job. By no means can it be easy to play the wife of a schizophrenic man, and Connelly does fantastically well to convey the emotion, frustration and difficulty that this illness brings to the lives of everyone affected by it. Now the film embellishes the finer details of John and Alicia’s marriage a bit. In reality they divorce during the stages of John’s illness, but John lived in her house after his was discharged. They re-married in 2001, but the film doesn't mention any of this. I think that whether or they were married doesn't matter though. To me, them not being married is incidental as she still devotes a substantial amount of her time to taking care of him. I wouldn't have tipped her for an Academy Award based on A Beautiful Mind, but I am not going to begrudge her it. She puts in a very good performance in a very tricky role.

The other supporting actors are fairly incidental, and like the other films with actors that steal the show, Ed Harris, Christopher Plummer and Paul Bettany sort of fade into the background. Their roles in the film aren't especially exceptional, and while none of them put in a staggeringly bad performance, they are massively overshadowed by the fantastic character that Russell Crowe creates. I cannot think of a single aspect of his character that I don’t like. From his dedication to his work, through his dismay at losing, his joking about hallucinations, his determination to ignore the hallucinations and his mannerisms when he reaches old age and is accepted and lauded by everyone I find his character so charmingly lovable that I am always rooting for him. It might be my background in psychology or the fact that this type of film is my absolute favourite, but I really like the character.

John Nash is undoubtedly a genius, and undoubtedly not enough people are aware of his influence. A Beautiful Mind is the opportunity to find out about someone you might not have heard about. If you have heard about him then it is an emotional and enjoyable journey through the struggles of a man whose difficulties many of us cannot begin to comprehend. I rate this film so highly, and consider it to be one of the best winners of the Best Picture award. There is no-one that I wouldn’t recommend it to, and would encourage everyone to watch it. I myself watched it again yesterday, and already I want to see it again.

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.

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.

The Departed

Once again I find myself writing about a film I've been dying to see for ages and finally have. With an all star cast, a fantastic director and great reviews from nearly everyone I know who has seen it, Academy Award winning film The Departed promised to be a very well spent two and a half hours. And it didn't disappoint.

While it was quite hard to follow at times, the plot was fantastic. It was full of little twists and turns that made for a brilliant anticipation of the climax at the end. With Leonardo di Caprio working his way closer to finding out who the mole in the police was, and Matt Damon working his way closer to finding out who the mole in Frank Costello's crew was, the realisation of the identity of the two traitors was brilliant. The way they solved it was equally exciting, and just when you thought that everything was going to work out, something happened to throw that into doubt.

The cast of this film is incredible. Jack Nicholson is always fantastic, and I don't think I've ever not enjoyed watching him act. As the leader of the gang in this film he came across as an extremely powerful and dangerous man (which I guess was the point), but there were hints of his performance as The Joker as well. He came across as slightly unhinged at one point, but generally exuded the power of a man who will smash another man's cast and broken hand repeatedly just to make sure he's not a policeman.

Leonardo di Caprio is very strong once again. Although he was a policeman of sorts for the whole film, his integration into Costello's gang meant that he came across as a bad guy, and this was refreshing because I don't think I've ever seen him as a bad guy. Nevertheless he was very good and was perfectly cast in this role in my opinion. His ability to flick between 'member of the gang' and 'convincing undercover cop' was good to see and the whole resulting scenes from his discovery of the police mole were thrilling.

These scenes would not have been complete without Matt Damon. One reason that the film is so thrilling is because right from the start the audience knows that Matt Damon and Leonardo di Caprio are the two traitors, and so you find yourself willing them both to discover the other, and urging them to pick up on clues, and admiring the irony of the police putting Matt Damon in charge of the hunt for the police mole. Generally I can't make up my mind on what I think about Matt Damon as an actor, but with The Departed I think I may have found a starting point for my appreciation of him. His role in the conclusion is thrilling, as I mentioned before, and he plays his part to perfection.

Now those three names: Nicholson, di Caprio and Damon, aren't bad names to have as the first billed actors on any film. The amazing thing about The Departed though is that they're not the only stars. Mark Wahlberg is brilliant as the wronged police officer who seeks his vengeance on the man who replaced him. Martin Sheen is the initial chief of the police who gets a bit too close to one of his moles. The appearances of Alec Baldwin, Ray Winstone and Vera Farmiga were delightful, and the roles that each of them played helped make this film that little bit more memorable. Obviously Ray Winstone was a non nonsense enforcer with a bit of an accent and taste for violence as ever, but in The Departed this works so well with the rest of the storyline that it fits perfectly.

Martin Scorsese is a genius. He has directed far too many of my favourite films for me not to absolutely love him, and with The Departed he does not disappoint. One thing I noticed was that several characters who die in the film is warned of this with a little 'X' in the shot before they die. This little tip of the cap to the 1932 'Scarface' is fantastically applied in The Departed, and with so many people dying, this helps the audience keep up, but only if they notice it. This is widely considered by film critics to be Scorsese's finest work since Goodfellas. While I cannot argue that it is a fantastic film, there are others that I prefer more. However, anyone who likes a Scorsese film has to see The Departed.

The Departed is a action-packed thrill ride of guns, blood, twists, turns and terrific actors. Yes it's difficult to follow at times. Yes it's quite heavy to watch. Yes you should see it though. It won 'Best Picture' for a reason, and what that reason is does not take much working out. It's simply fantastic and I would strongly recommend giving it a watch.

Slumdog Millionaire

Before I watched Slumdog Millionaire I was a bit wary of it. A lot of people have seen it and really like it, and I was worried that it was going to be a case of a movie suffering from over-hype and I wouldn't enjoy it. However, this wasn't one of those movies, and it lived up to the quote on the front of the DVD box: “the feel-good film of the decade”.

The film basically revolves around the Indian version of ‘Who wants to be a Millionaire?’ and starts off with the contestant being questioned about how he has got so far into the game. It emerges that he knows all the answers to the questions because of the experiences he has had throughout his life. He then takes to the stage for the next day, but overnight several things have changed in his life and the girl he has loved since he was a young man comes back into his life. When faced with the final question he does not know the answer, and elects to phone his brother. However, his lost love answers, and she does not know the answer either. He doesn't care about the outcome now and takes a guess, knowing that it will work out for him no matter what happens.

It’s a fantastic film, and one of Danny Boyle’s best works without a doubt. The flashbacks to Jamal’s early life provide a roller coaster of emotions through uplifting, funny and tragic, and the feel-good factor when Lakita comes back into his life is as enjoyable as the moment that you first hear that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father (no apologies will be made for spoilers there, if you didn't know that you must live under a stone).

I remember Dev Patel from back when he was in Skins, and it’s always nice to see an actor from your youth do well. In this he excels though. He firmly cements himself as a serious film actor in Slumdog Millionaire and, though I’m sure he will pop up on television from time to time, he has a glittering film career ahead of him. The children who play young Jamal are also fantastic, and a particular highlight is when he tries to get the autograph of a Bollywood star. However, Dev Patel takes the limelight, deservedly, for his ability to reach out and touch the audience’s hearts in Slumdog Millionaire.

The girls who play Lakita are very good as well. To begin with I wasn't sure about where the story could go with Jamal, his brother and Lakita, but then found that as it provided the backbone to the whole film, it was most enjoyable. The three of them seem immensely close until one night everything changes and the two brothers take two very different paths. Jamal’s devastation at Lakita following his brother makes the finale even more uplifting. As with the other two characters, the children who play Jamal’s brother are fantastic, but I wasn't so sure about the actor who played him in his older years. By this point I didn't really care what happened to Salim because I was more focused on the emerging plot with Lakita and Jamal.

My absolute highlight of the film though comes right at the end. Once they are together and the game show is over, Jamal kisses the scar she has on her face. This provides the perfect demonstration that, despite everything they have been through, both individually and together, he loves every single part of her and is just happy to finally be with her.

Slumdog Millionaire is the kind of film that, once you've seen it, you will rave about it. It’s a fantastic feel-good film, and can be watched with both family and friends. IF you haven’t seen it by now then I would encourage you to because it’s a cultural must-see. For me, it marks the start of the emergence of Indian-based films made for the public, which continued with The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. Slumdog Millionaire is a deserving Academy Award winner, and that should be enough for most people if you needed a reason to watch it.

Lord of the Rings: Part 3

With the magnificent scale of the first two films there was a lot of excitement for the third film, and it delivered on to an unprecedented degree. It is the only one of the three films to win the Academy Award for Best Picture in its year, and it’s not hard to see why. The stunning conclusion to the trilogy is a marvellous piece of film making, tying up every loose end perfectly, and completing one of the most successful film trilogies in cinema history.

The plot carries on from the end of The Two Towers with Gollum leading Frodo and Sam to Mordor, but planning to kill them on the way. Also, the armies of Mordor are gathering strength and are ready to battle for the future of Middle Earth. We are introduced to Gondor, and the future of Middle Earth is ultimately decided. The scale of this movie is phenomenal, and the audience is never allowed to drift into boredom because there is always something happening.

Now, I am critical of this film in two main ways. Firstly, Frodo’s confrontation with the giant spider, Shelob, doesn’t happen in the Return of the King, but is in the end of The Two Towers book. I guess without the inclusion of this scene in the film there wouldn’t be much to do with Frodo and Sam in this film. Cinematic license once again defeats my criticism, and it’s a welcome addition to the film. My second gripe is another issue with the adaptation from the book. With the other two film adaptations, the bits left out of the book are understandable by their relative insignificance, however, at the end of the Return of the King, the Hobbits return to the Shire and find it is in the grasp of Saruman. I would quite liked to have seen this in the film, but I guess it doesn’t bring anything to the film, and so could be easily excluded.

The Hobbits themselves are the crucial characters in the whole series. The idea that beings so small are capable of destroying the greatest evil in their world, where Men and Wizards cannot is brilliant. As the main character, Frodo is seen to change massively throughout the series. If you look at Frodo at the beginning of the series, and then just before the end of the quest it can be seen how different he is. The credit here has to go to Elijah Wood who manages to make this a gradual development, rather than a sudden snap. Frodo’s friendship with Sam is another central theme of the movies, and Sean Astin conveys Sam’s devotion to Frodo perfectly. The touch of comedy that is added by Merry and Pippin lightens the tone of the films, but they too play a pivotal role in the films, and I especially like the scene in The Return of the King when, just before the eruption of Mount Doom, they are screaming Frodo’s name on the battlefield, and then the emotion they show when the mountain erupts.

Now Gollum is a tricky one. His character must have been difficult to cast, and Andy Serkis is pure perfection. He is such a fantastic and under-rated actor. While Gollum is obviously a computer-generated, I believe that the motion was actually provided by Serkis, and his dedication to the role goes above and beyond any other actor in the films. Also, the voice of Gollum (also Serkis) is exactly how I imagine him speaking. Andy Serkis surpasses himself in the trilogy, managing to play the two different sides of Gollum magnificently, and in relatively quick succession too. For me, the finest thing about the Lord of the Rings is not the location scouting, or the story, or the scale of the films, it is Gollum. People notice the character, but in my opinion, not enough credit is given to the actor.

In The Return of the King we are introduced to the Kingdom of Gondor. While it’s not our first contact with Gondor, it is the first time we see Minas Tirith, the capital. We are introduced to Boromir in The Fellowship of the Ring, obviously, but in The Two Towers we see Faramir. Faramir does what his brother could not, and lets the Ring go, and while he’s not in The Return of the King much, due to his being injured for a lot of the film, the scene where his father thinks he is dead and tries to cremate the both of them sticks in my mind. Faramir is a strong character who steps out of the shadow of his brother’s legacy and shows incredible bravery to ride out in an attempt to defend his city. His father, Denethor, is thoroughly unlikeable. A combination of his weakness as a ruler, his lack of defence of Gondor, his denial of Aragorn’s ascent to the throne, or his attempts to burn Faramir add up to leave the audience slightly glad that he decides to burn himself to death. It also means that some resistance to Sauron can be mustered. Gondor is talked of as a great power in the Lord of the Rings, and we don’t really see this until the last half of the last film, but when it does come to pass, a spectacular battle commences and this strength is finally seen.

The whole Lord of the Rings series is unforgettable as a series, and is unrivalled in terms of the production of nearly every aspect of the films. The special effects are something special, and tourism to New Zealand can only have increased as a result of the spectacular scenery seen in the films. The actors are incredible, and the story is told so perfectly that it is difficult to say bad things about the films. All three films have to be must see films, and they are all modern classic masterpieces.

Gladiator

Gladiator is another historical drama epic film based on fiction. It sees Russell Crowe playing a fictional Roman general attempting to avenge the murder of his Emperor, wife and son. As Maximus Decimus Meridius he threatens the power of the new Emperor by his success in the gladiatorial arena. It’s another Ridley Scott film, but unlike Robin Hood, it cements itself as a historical classic through its plot and cast.

The film basically starts by showing how successful and popular Maximus is as the general of the Roman armies of the North. He is loved by the Emperor as a son, and this prompts his actual son to get jealous. When Commodus murders the Emperor, Maximus is outlawed because he would be too dangerous a threat to Commodus. Maximus survives the attempt on his life and discovers that his wife and son have been killed by the new Emperor and is captured by Proximus to be entered as a Gladiator in a series of competitions. He fights his way through these contests and up to the Colosseum where he wins the hearts of the Roman public and eventually kills the Emperor, dying shortly afterwards.

The plot is very good. While it’s not full of twists and shocking moments, it’s not predictable and this is good. Additionally, in terms of CGI, it’s very good. The creation of Ancient Rome is wonderful and makes this portion of the film completely believable. The script is well written and the cast is well chosen. However, as with many historical films there are some problems. Granted, cinematic license is a consideration, and changing the way that Marucs Aurelius died (from plague to murder) just sets up the story. However it’s the simple things that give rise to my issues. The name ‘Maximus Decimus Meridius’ does not reflect Roman names at the time. Some changes are made for cinematic license, yes, but in some cases, directors need to listen to their researchers and reflect the times that the film is set in. However, it is a deserving Academy Award winner for Best Picture beating some fantastic films.

The soundtrack is hilarious though. I think watching ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ before I saw Gladiator was a mistake, and as soon as it was pointed out to me that Hans Zimmer had written the scores for both films the Gladiator music sounded exactly like the theme to Pirates. Obviously the piece is Hans Zimmer’s production, but he could be a bit more creative than just slightly re-hashing one piece for another set of films.

Now I don’t actually like Russell Crowe in this film. Actually, I can’t stand him as an actor. I only really like him in ‘A Beautiful Mind’, and most of the time I just find him wooden and sullen. In both Robin Hood and Gladiator I think that he struts around in armour, delivering his lines with shocking two-dimensionality and no depth to most of his characters. His character is exceptionally likable in Gladiator, but in my opinion he is not. The classic scene, where he reveals himself to Commodus in the arena, and where he is fighting Commodus at the end, are the only two examples of where I like Russell Crowe’s performance. I’m not sure how Russell Crowe won the Best Actor Academy Award for this role, and can only assume that every other leading actor in this year just didn’t perform at all.

Joaquin Phoenix is a brilliant villain here. He is brilliantly sinister and ever so slightly creepy, and for me is the stand out performance of the film. He manages to portray the twisted, jealous and ambitious Commodus with absolutely precision. Unlike Crowe, his character seems to have layers and different aspects to it. He is a power hungry man who just wants to have Rome under his control. This is perfectly reflected in his stabbing of Maximus before their fight: an underhand move designed to make him succeed in front of all of Rome, quashing their little rebellion against his power.

Gladiator is a classic epic historical film, a deserving Oscar winner and one of those films that everyone should see, preferably before they watch the Pirates of the Caribbean films otherwise the soundtrack will be too distracting. It’s a wonderful and enjoyable film which not even Russell Crowe can ruin.

Braveheart - History is written by Hollywood

It was Winston Churchill who said that "History is written by the victors". In the case of Braveheart however, it seems that history is not written by the victors, but by Hollywood. I watched Braveheart for the first time last night, and while I can't deny that the film is absolutely fantastic, its grounding in historical accuracy must be questioned.

The first bit of the film was fantastic. It focuses on the young William Wallace, whose portrayed by James Robinson was absolutely brilliant. The actor was really convincing in the role and was not as transparent as some childhood actors. However, after leaving the village following the death of his father and brother at the hands of the English, Wallace returns several years later. When he returns, the fantastic child actor has been replaced with Mel Gibson. Overall I thought Mel Gibson was particularly good in the role of Wallace, but the only thing that got me about it was his accent. Which in a film about people from Scotland is quite important. Maybe his weak Scottish accent was a reflection on the fact that his character had been educated but Mel Gibson's accent was not great. But then again, fair play to him for maintaining the accent throughout the film, and indeed for learning it in the first place.

I thought the developing romance between William and Murron was lovely, and they seemed like a very happy couple until the English come to town and try to rape her. Wallace's defense of his wife is brilliantly portrayed by Gibson, and when he goes to meet her only to find she's not there, the audience, seeing her about to be tied to a stake, is genuinely pained to see him in the wrong place. What happens next is really quite refreshing. Unlike many films, the girl is in imminent danger of being killed by someone and the hero of the film does not ride in at the last minute, cut her free, kill everyone and ride off into the sunset (or rain, depending on whereabouts in Scotland you are). When she dies, we are given Wallace's motivation to take Scotland for the Scottish.

For dramatic effect, which I completely understand, the details of Murron's (or Marion as she is historically known) death have been embellished. The reaction from Wallace shows me, a third year psychology student at university, that he may be slightly unhinged. Obviously, following the murder of your wife, you would be pretty cut up, but he gathers a small 'army' and murders the sheriff of the town. There are various points in the film when I think Wallace goes too far, and this is just the start.

However, this simple act of revenge starts a whole campaign of 'freedom' for Wallace as he gathers more and more Scots to fight against the English. The Battle of Stirling is brilliantly portrayed in the film. During filming for this scene, the horse that Mel Gibson was riding was behaving so badly that the scene was only just put together. However, it is this scene that contains the most famous quote from the film. While the majority of the army gathered is dissenting about fighting the much larger English army, Wallace gives the empassioned speech which spurs his countrymen on to do battle. The cry of "they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom" sent a shiver down my spine, as only the best actors and scriptwriters can do.

However, the Battle of Stirling Bridge, which this scene is based on, panned out very differently. It is historically believed that Wallace must have had some sort of military experience or understanding in order to defeat the English army, but the film makes you believe that it is the passion for the cause and the pure desire of the army that does this. This is probably the case, and I can overlook this little historical discrepancy, but there is a much larger one to be noticed. The Battle of Stirling Bridge focused on, as the name suggests, a bridge. The Scots trapped the English army on the bridge at Stirling and massacred them as they were cut off from the rest of their troops. The film however, presents it as a man-to-man battle in an open field, with pure passion winning over military tactics.

While some historical detail must be lost for dramatic effect, I think it's a shame that people aren't more aware of cases in which historical details have been lost. With the greatest respect, the Wars of the Scottish Independence aren't particularly widely taught in schools around the UK, let alone around the world, and so many people's knowledge of this period of history is based mainly around this film.

It is at this point that the King, Edward the Longshanks (who was a bit nasty by all accounts) decides that negotiation might be a good idea. He reasons that he himself cannot go to negotiate because he is the King, and would be in danger. He also reasons that sending his 'weakling' son would only spur the Scots on to fight more, and so he sends his daughter-in-law, the daughter of the French king, hoping she'd be killed and the French would join in the battle against the Scots. In that day and age a woman would never have been entrusted to negotiate with men about the conclusion of a rebellion, regardless of whether or not the King wanted to drum up French support. It is far more likely that the King would have sent either the French ambassador or a member of his court with French connections. Naturally, Isabella falls hopelessly in love with the long haired, bloodstained, unwashed Wallace (for some reason) and proceeds to warn him about Longshanks' impending attack.

This leads to another big battle, in which Wallace and his army is joined by the army's of two of the main claims to the Scottish throne. However, these Scottish nobles have been paid off by the King, promised lands and money, if they withdraw their armies, leaving Wallace isolated, and many of his army are killed. The Battle of Falkirk saw Wallace endure heavy casualties but in the end withdraw to a point at which the English could not follow. However, in the film, Wallace is shot with an arrow before pursuing the King as he rides away with his guard. Wallace is then confronted by Robert the Bruce, another key figure in the Scottish battles for independence. The implication of the film is that Robert the Bruce betrayed Wallace. However, historically this never happened. This was quite a big problem for me, because by this point I had become so wrapped up in the film that I was feeling quite disdainful towards Robert the Bruce for the rest of the film. The Bruce, riddled by guilt presumably, helps Wallace escape. Wallace then viciously kills the two noblemen who betrayed him and continues his fight against the English on a lower scale.

He is then captured as he goes to meet with Robert the Bruce, who intends to pledge troops to him. It is Robert's father who engineers this betrayal and leads to Wallace being tried and found guilty for high treason. He is sentenced to death. Wallace's death is refreshingly accurate to the history for the most part. He is dragged through London town before being hanged, and has his insides drawn out. Obviously the nitty-gritty of medieval execution could not be shown on the silver screen in 1995, but I thought the director (again, Mel Gibson) did a good job of portraying this. However, when asked if he wanted to swear allegiance to the King and be forgiven, Wallace through the pain yells "Freedom" and is beheaded. I don't know about you, but if I had been hanged until near death, then stretched, and finally had my bowels cut out and burned in front of my face, I wouldn't be able to speak, let alone shout.

The film then cuts to the Battle of Bannockburn, several years later, where Robert the Bruce is about to accept the English rule. Instead he leads the army, with the memory of Wallace fresh in their minds, in a charge towards the English. It was this battle that won the Scottish people the "Freedom" that Wallace so desired, and so I think it would have been a good idea to show some of it. However, by this point the film had been running for nearly three hours and did revolve around Wallace rather than the Scottish wars.

Overall, I loved Braveheart. The acting was fantastic, the soundtrack was fantastic, and the story was fantastic. I can bear a few historical inaccuracies for the benefit of a good film, and granted they are not major inaccuracies, but if a film is to be a historical epic then it should be as close to historical as possible. Nonetheless, I would recommend Braveheart to everyone.