Anna Karenina

A visually stunning tale of lust and decadence that will make you wish that you too could fall in love at a ball.

Starring: Kiera Knightley, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Jude Law & Matthew MacFadyen

Dir: Joe Wright

Writers: Tom Stoppard, novel by Leo Tolstoy

What's it all about?

Set in nineteenth century Russia, the film follows the beautiful people of high society Moscow and St Petersberg. Anna Karenina (Kiera Knightley) a socialite and wife of powerful politician, Alexei Karenin (Jude Law) who leaves her son for the first time on a trip to Moscow to visit her extravagant brother (Matthew Macfadyen). Whilst visiting, she attends a lavish ball at which her beautiful young niece, Princess Kitty (Alicia Vikander) hopes to receive a proposal from the dashing, yet aloof, Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). But Vronsky is far more interested in Anna, as the two dance the night away but not without attracting attention from their fellow aristocrats. Despite her attempts to shun Vronsky’s advances, he follows Anna home across Russia, with mounting sexual tension shadowing them on the way. This culminates in an all-embracing affair as they fall deeply in love and fraternise behind closed doors. Unfortunately, this isn’t enough is stop the tongues of Russia from wagging as their forbidden love becomes more and more dangerous.

Worth a watch?

Visually, Anna Karenina is one of the most beautiful films I have seen in a long time. The costumes are lavish and the scenery is breath-taking, the set dressers and costume department definitely deserve an Oscar nod. The whole way the film staged is very innovate, and I use this term quite literally as it is set on and around a stage. The first act of the film moves with speed as the sets continually change on the stage to introduce us to the various characters. But every movement is so well choreographed; you feel like you a gracefully drifting around Russia rather than being rushed through so we can get to the crux of the story: the affair. The pivotal moment of the ball where Vronsky and Anna dance together is also brilliantly choreographed, and sums up the flow and mood of the whole film: elegant and seductive. The stage is the setting for most scenes, but we are also taken backstage and up into the rafters to visit the poverty-stricken streets of Russia, as well as the back of stage opening up into ‘the real world’ to visit the vast countryside. In terms of Anna herself, I couldn’t really imagine any other young actress at the moment playing her as well as Knightley. Some call her wooden, I call it poise. She showed the passion, despair and madness of Anna brilliantly. But I think it was Macfadyen who stole the show. His brash character gave the film what few comedic moments he could and his brazen presence always filled the screen. 

Give it a miss?

If you’re not a great fan of period dramas, I would say to give it a miss, but it is a truly great love story. The only element that I feel slightly let the film down would be Taylor-Johnson’s performance. Whilst it was plain to see that Anna was infatuated with the Count, he remained somewhat dethatched. The sexual tension whilst he was pursuing her was palpitating, but once he had her, I felt maybe it had been all about the chase. Although, I may be wrong for criticising Taylor-Johnson on this, maybe that is the point: that Anna embarked on a wildly decadent affair for someone that was not entirely worth it? I have not read the book, so I cannot comment. Perhaps someone could help me out on this one? The fast paced beginning of the film may put some people off, but it was not indicative of the rest of the film’s pace. The film certainly slows down in the final act, but not to a point where it is dragging, nearly, but not quite.

So overall....

An elegant and seductive adaptation of Tolstoy’s epic tale of love is carried off well by its strong cast and Joe Wright’s decision to set the story on a stage perfectly frames the theatrics. The striking sets and costumes will draw you into this lavish Russian tale of decadence and lust and make you wish you too could fall in love at a ball.

• Lives up to expectation  2/2
• Scenery/Effects 3/3
• Eye Candy 1/2
• Quality of Acting 2.5/3
• Plot 4/5
• Quality of film within it's genre: 9/10

86%

The Dark Knight Rises

Nolan offers a dark and gritty film with menace continually rumbling underneath the surface: A fantastic finale for The Dark Knight trilogy

Starring: Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman & Gary Oldman

Dir: Christopher Nolan

Writers: Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer, Jonathan Nolan, Bob Kane 

What's it all about?

Set eight years after the last instalment, The Dark Knight Rises opens with Gotham in 'peace time' celebrating Harvey Dent Day, a day for a man painted as a hero, whilst the Batman who has not been seen since, has been made out as a villain. Only Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) knows the truth, but as the Dent Decree is what is keeping Gotham's villain's locked up, he remains silent. Meanwhile, having hung up his cape, Bruce Wayne (Christopher Nolan) has become a recluse, speaking only to trusty butler Alfred (Michael Caine), whilst Wayne Enterprises pumps money into a futile clean energy project, headed by Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard). Unfortunately, it seems that peace time can't last forever: a storm is coming, as sultry cat burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) warns Mr Wayne after she steals his mother's necklace from an 'uncrackable' safe. This storm comes in the form of the monstrous Bane (Tom Hardy), a beefcake of a bad guy if you ever saw one. As Bane's power surmounts, Wayne goes to Lucien Fox (Morgan Freeman) to gather some new gadgets and enrols the help of Commissioner Gordon and good-cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) as he summons his strength to rise again as The Dark Knight.

Worth a watch?

This film really does define 'epic'. Whilst I wouldn't say it is as amazing as The Dark Knight (mostly because Heath Ledger gave such a legendary performance), Nolan and crew have certainly stepped things up a notch. The whole film is loud, brash and in your face, but in the best way possible: you can't do Batman and terrorists quietly. There are plenty of explosive moments with booming base to go with it, drawing you into the drama. The plot, again, not quite as staggering as the last Batman instalment, but still offers enough intrigue and "I didn't see that coming" moments, concluding the trilogy in a satisfying manner. Gary Oldman delivers yet another solid performance and I really enjoyed Gordon-Levitt's turn as the cop-turned-detective who Gordon takes under his wing. Nolan is known for re-using actors in his films, and this one is pretty much the cast of The Dark Knight meets the cast of Inception, but it's clear to see why: many of them are great character actors. Nolan-newbee Anne Hathaway was also surprisingly good as Selina Kyle - I have found her rather annoying in the past, but then I had only really seen her in ditzy rom-com roles. As the first female villain in this Batman trilogy, she really stepped up to the plate. Christian Bale was great as ever. Some dislike his grizzly Batman voice, but personally, I think it's great.

Give it a miss?

A voice I didn't enjoy so much was Bane's. I know that this is the accent and tone he is meant to have, but on first hearing him speak I just found him laughable. Yet as time wore on, I grew accustomed to him and I was able to focus on the story again. Someone who I did find tedious and annoying was Cotillard's character. Considering she is an Oscar winner, I didn't think she was on her best form. There were a few elements of the plot that felt like Nolan had skipped forward and then circled back to, but on the whole, there isn't much to criticise about this film, other than, considering it is a 'Batman' film, you don't see a whole lot of the caped crusader until near the climax.

So overall....

I find this film hard to rate, as after seeing Avengers: Assemble, I felt that was the pinnacle of superhero/comic book films. This film was equally as brilliant, but for very different reasons. Whilst Avengers offers a colourful, punchy, comedic and more 'classic' take on comic book film making, Nolan offers a dark and gritty interpretation with menace continually rumbling underneath the surface. You almost forget that you are watching a 'superhero' as there is an element of 'realness' to the whole thing. The Dark Knight is one of my favourite films, and this very nearly meets it's exceedingly high standards. That said, it is fantastic finale to a fantastic trilogy. 

• Lives up to expectation  2/2
• Scenery/Effects 3/3
• Eye Candy 1/2
• Quality of Acting 2.5/3
• Plot 4/5
• Quality of film within it's genre: Action 5/5, Superheroes & Comic Books 5/5

90%

Magic Mike

A film about strippers: plenty of muscly men, 

but stripped of any real plot

Starring: Channing Tatum, Alex Pettyfer, Matthew McConaughey, Cody Horn & Olivia Munn

Dir: Stephen Soderbergh

Writers: Reid Carolin

What's it all about?

Mike (Channing Tatum) is a diverse young man: working on a building site, running an automotive parts company and, his true love, making his own creative line of 'unique' home furnishings with things that wash up on the beach outside his house after the frequent hurricanes in Tampa Bay, Florida. And if you hadn't guessed already, he has another job 'after hours', where he becomes Magic Mike - a stripper. On his building job, he meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer), a struggling 19-year-old, desperate for work after moving to Florida and camping out on his sister's (Cody Horn) sofa. Despite some initial unwillingness, strapped-for-cash Adam is taken in by Mike and ring-leader of the Xquisite Dance Revue boys, Dallas (Matthew MacConaghy) who see something in Adam, or 'The Kid' as he known from then on. From that moment Adam is plunged into a world of dancing, girls, money and, umm, thongs.  

Worth a watch?

Well, it certainly is one for the ladies! I went to see it with one of my girlfriends and the cinema was near capacity and was all women, aside from a few reluctant looking boyfriends who had been dragged out on a Wednesday night and clearly would rather have been watching Spiderman. I'm sure that those men felt physically inadequate after watching these mammoth muscle-men flexing their pecs for nearly two hours. There is no rationing of the naked torsos, or bums for that matter! All of the men ooze sex appeal whilst strutting around on the stage, and extra props must be given to Tatum, who does what can only be described as a sexed-up rendition of a dance piece from his Step Up days - he really is a very talented dancer. There was some creative camera work and a certain 'realness' to the testosterone-fuelled banter, which was quite amusing, and the behind-the-scenes sights of the stripping world, well not that I know what that's like, but it certainly seemed more believable than Showgirls, better acted too, but that's not exactly hard. 

Give it a miss?

The film is really just a feast of flesh. Which to some, may not be a bad thing, but I was hoping for a bit more of a substantial storyline. It was all fairly predictable, from what was going to happen with The Kid, to the on-going sexual tension between Mike and The Kid's sister, Brooke. There was also a rather dubious, boring side story of a relationship between Mike and slutty Psychology major, Joanna (Olivia Munn). Whilst Tatum's dancing was actually entertaining to watch, others were sometimes laughable or even cringe-making.  And above all, something that I found even more disappointing than the thin story was how old McConaughey looked trying to keep up with all the youngsters, that said, he still has body better than most. 

So overall...

It may be a guilty pleasure to some women, but in the same way that erotic fiction novel Fifty Shades of Grey is being enjoyed by many at the moment: it's titillating trash. It was a fair enough way to spend an evening, and I certainly wouldn't say no to looking at that much toned male flesh, but it was cringey in parts, and McConaughey's facial wrinkles made me feel sorry for him. 

• Lives up to expectation  1/2
• Scenery/Effects 1/3
• Eye Candy 2/2
• Quality of Acting 2/3
• Plot 1/5
• Quality of film within it's genre: Comedy 2/5 Drama 1/5

40%

The Amazing Spiderman

Less peppy and annoying than his predecessor, Andrew Garfiled makes a great new Spiderman in an equally great re-boot.

Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen & Sally Field

Dir: Marc Webb

Writers: James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent & Steve Kloves

What's it all about?

When Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) was a young boy, his sceintist father was working on super-secret spider technology that unfortunately led to his house being ramsacked and Mr and Mrs Parker having to go on the run, leaving young Peter with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen). Years later, Peter is in high school, on the nerds: on the debate team and never without his camera. What sets him apart though, is his apparent bravery as he stands up to the school bullies: much to the admiration of the girl of his dreams, Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone). One day, a flooded basement leads Peter to a hidden satchel of his father's, containing the top-secret information his house was invaded for all those years ago. This leads him to track down his father's old sceince partner, the charasmatic one-armed Dr Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), and also stumble upon some genetically engineered spiders, one in particular which gives a nasty bite. As the spider's venom flows through his body, Peter finds himself genetically strengthened too, and much like Toby Maguire before him, he finds that with great power comes great responsibility as he becomes the masked vigilante that is, Spiderman. Unfortunately though, his assistance to Dr Connors proves fatal as we discover that ambitions, genetic mutation and crazy scientists just don't mix.

Worth a watch?

I had enjoyed watching Garfield in The Social Network and The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus, but after this film I am sure he is going to become a household name, as he really shone through in his performance. He is instantly more likeable than Maguire, far less peppy and annoying, and he comes across as endearing, yet enigmatic and still able to deliver some comedic punchlines. He also has great chemisty with Stone, who has grown up into a beautiful young woman - it's easy to see why the two are now an off-screen as well as on-screen couple. The drama that unfolds between the young lovers is truly moving towards the end of the film, with Garfiled also playing out his realtionship with his aunt and uncle with real heart, even if slightly melodramatic. The film as a whole was aesthetically gritter than the colourful 2002 reboot, without veering into the dark Chris Nolan comic book territory, as it had some comedy to lighten the mood, and the 3D webslinging made it good fun.

Give it a miss?

Whilst on the whole the scenery and effects were very good, certain scenes did remind me of a ride I once went on at Disneyland: it's all a little too perfect and in any scenes of Spiderman gliding through the skyline, the camera angles seem to play off the 3D element too much. I feel that watching it on DVD at home just wouldn't have the same effect. Much like most comic-book adaptations, the plot was extremely predictable, but I suppose that's part of it's charm. Another slight criticism would be of the student Peter and Gwen, who look far older than their supposed 17 years, but, hey, it's not abnormal these days to have a 30 year old playing a teenager.

So overall....

It's a comic book film with heart and takes a serious look at the story and emotions of it's characters rather than just focussing on web-slinging, but don't worry, there is still plenty of action in there with some laughs thrown in for good measure. I was apprehensive about a re-boot so soon after the recent Spiderman installments, but The Amazing Spiderman is very different, and in my opinion, better.

• Lives up to expectation  2/2
• Scenery/Effects 2/3
• Eye Candy 2/2
• Quality of Acting 2/3
• Plot 3/5
• Quality of film within it's genre: Superheroes & Comic book 5/5 Drama 4/5

80%

The Five-Year Engagement

With a dash of 'rom' in this 'com' it is heart warming in places as well as funny, 

with the odd crude moment thrown in

Starring: Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, Chris Pratt, Rhys Ifans

Dir: Nicholas Stoller

Writers: Nicholas Stoller & Jason Segel

I love you... but why are you wearing that ridiculous thing on your head?!

What's it all about?
After just one year of knowing each other, Tom (Jason Segel) proposes to the love of his life Violet (Emily Blunt). Brain-box Violet is waiting to be accepted into Berkley University's psychology teaching staff, which suits culinary-whizz Tom fine, as he is currently working as Su Chef in a top San Francisco restaurant. But when Violet gets an offer from Michigan University instead, they are uprooted to the snowy woodlands of the North East and forced to postpone their wedding for two years. But as the title would suggest, there are over humps in the road on the way to the church. Violet settles in well with the zany teaching and research staff, led by fellow Brit, Prof. Winton Childs (Rhys Ifans) whilst Tom finds himself taking a step back in his culinary career and working in a sandwich shop. 

Worth a watch?
With the expected nagging from parents and comedic sexual encounters you would expect from a film about a lengthy engagement, I still found myself laughing out loud fairly frequently (although I am a sucker for slapstick, so physical activities in an icy area are bound to amuse me). Amusing antics from Tom's best man (Chris Pratt) and Violet's sister (Alison Brie) added some additional comic relief - I particularly enjoyed a scene between Violet and and her sister speaking in Muppet voices to each other - what more would you expect from the two writers who brought you The Muppets earlier this year?!

Give it a miss?

Whilst the film was entertaining, it was pretty lengthy for a comedy at just over two hours. I feel it would have been punchier had it been shorter. 

So overall....

With a dash of 'rom' in this 'com' it is heart warming in places as well as funny, with the odd crude moment thrown in. It's the typical Appatow/Segel/Stoller comedy, not quite as shiny a gem as Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but still good for a few laughs. 

• Lives up to expectation  1/2
• Scenery/Effects 2/3
• Eye Candy 1/2
• Quality of Acting 2/3
• Plot 3/5
• Quality of film within it's genre: Comedy 7/10

64%

Trailer Watch: Wreck-It Wralph

"Hi. I'm Ralph, and I'm a bad guy"

Disney is never one to do things by halves, and Wreck-It Ralph doesn't look like an exception. A very clever premise, based around real-life video game villains, and one in particular who's had enough of being the bad guy.

Wreck-It Ralph is the title character and 'bad guy' of a 30 year old arcade game and Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly) is fed up doing a job that everyone hates him for. He attends an 'AA' style meeting for video game villians, Bad-Anon, also attended by familiar faces such as the Pac-man ghost and Balthazar from the Mario game series. It is here that he renounces his bad guy status and abandons his arcade game and decides to go 'game jumping', travelling through various different genres of video and computer games to find out where he can be a hero.


Reilly is joined by the voices of Glee's Jane Lynch as a ferocious squadron leader, Sergeant Calhoun, in a space-age Call of Duty-esque game, and Sarah Silverman as a cute but equally annoying little girl Vanellope von Schweetz in a Candy Land scenario.


Like most video games today, the film is sure to be just as fun, loud and reckless, and with a Christmas Holidays release date, there's certainly going to be some stressed out parents looking for a way to entertain the kids for a few hours! Having said that... I would like to see it, but no parental supervision for me, thanks! 

Prometheus

In Space, no one can hear you scream, but they can in the cinema. A solid return to sci-fi from Ridley Scott

Starring: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassender, Charlize Theron, Guy Pearce & Logan Marshall Greene

Dir: Sir Ridley Scott

Writers: Damon Linfelof & Jon Spailhts

It's behind you!

What's It All About?
After discovering ancient markings in a Scottish cave that portray the same message as those found all over the world, scientist Dr Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) is convinced it is an invitation to humans from their creators to come meet them. So she and her partner in science, and in life, Dr Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall Green) join a crew aboard space ship, Prometheus to set off on the adventure of a life time. The crew are sent into cryogenic sleep whilst travelling to the planet, watched over by the show-stealing android, David (Michael Fassbender). The ship is funded by the ancient, and now deceased, Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), who briefly appears in a hologram to the crew once they have awoken from cryogenic sleep, to inform them of their mission: to travel to the planet depicted in the markings to see if they can discover their makers. But for any of you who have seen Alien, you will know it is never as straightforward as that. The stern Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) is the no-nonsence liaison for Weyland Corp, pursuing the financial and business, rather than scientific, route. When the scientists believe they have discovered life on the planet, Vickers demands that nothing be brought back onto the ship, and, again as with Alien, that's when you'll find yourself saying, "You should have listened to her" as the terror ensues...


Worth a watch?
I found this epic film one of the best sci-fi films I have seen in a long time. Despite being billed as a prequel, it's more of an open introduction. Scott stated himself that there are "strands of Alien DNA in the film" but the film itself is more of an uncle or grandparent, than a direct parent to the film. You don't have to have seen Alien before hand to understand Prometheus, but if you have, you will be able to pick up on subtle hints and motifs that run through the film. I don't know if it's because the stomach-bursting scene in Alien has become so iconic and hence been re-enacted and spoofed so many times, or simply because our generation has become desensitised to violence and gore due to monstrosities such as Saw and Hostel, but that scene didn't really shock me. There is, however, a similar sort of scene in Prometheus, that genuinely made my stomach squirm. I also found myself veering to the edge of seat at several moments of tense anticipation and whilst I wouldn't say the film was scary, it certainly was creepy and shocking. The plot also really made me think, as the religion vs science debate is very pensive, although I still had a lot of unanswered questions at the end. And I feel I should take a moment to mention Fassbender, who is brilliant as cyborg David and quite frankly steals the show with his earnest attempts to understand humans and his fascination with Lawrence of Arabia... you'll see!


Let down?
The plot is quite complex, which is what makes it great, but also what lets it down. I found myself not quite getting the opening scene until later on when I looked back on it, and I felt I had more questions leaving than I did when I came in. I saw the film in 3D, and whilst the graphics were still excellent, if you are like me and find yourself getting headaches and annoyance from glasses always sliding off your face, stick to the 2D as I don't feel it added that much to the film overall - a scene with a sandstorm in particular didn't agree with me! 


So overall...
Having just finished writing about films for a module at university, this is the sort of film with such an intricate backstory and so much symbolism that coming out of the cinema made me want to go write an essay on it - yes, I know, I'm a geek. But for me, that's the sign of a good film, something that shocks you, makes you think, and inspires you. Unfortunately due to end of term commitments and a bought of flu it's been a couple of weeks since I saw the film so I feel that my full enthusiasm may not have come across here, but this film left me staggered. It was truly brilliant.

• Lives up to expectation  2/2
• Scenery/Effects 3/3
• Eye Candy 2/2
• Quality of Acting 3/3
• Plot 4/5
• Quality of film within it's genre: Sci Fi 5/5 , Thriller 5/5

96%

As an interesting extra, have a read of this very interesting article about symbolism in Prometheus, but only once you have seen the film! SPOILERS WITHIN  http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html