Haywire

Haywire is one of those confusing films that leaves you with the feeling that it's not anywhere near as it should be and its not immediately obvious why. I mean, it's not a bad film, its well shot, has some OK performances and cool touches, but the whole just feels that little bit flat.

Steven Soderbergh continues with his experiments with non-professional actors in the lead roles (following The Girlfriend Experience) casting mixed martial arts star Gina Carano in the lead as the independant contractor (read spy) betrayed and set-up by her employers. She's not the strongest of actors, but then again she's better than the likes of Stallone, Arnie or Statham and has the moves and the potential to be better still, but is let down by the film.

Soderbergh does surround her with a lot of the best male actors in the business (and Channing Tatum), but here there seems to be hugely different approaches - Ewan MacGregor (yet again, making some horrible attempt at an American accent) and Michael Fassbender are too smirky, like naughty boys enjoying themselves and highly amused at the prospect of getting beat up by a girl. Antonio Banderas and Michael Douglas at least put some effort in, but seem to think they're in an action flick with a comic side, whilst Tatum and Paxton are all deadly earnest. Even that would not be a big enough fault to sink the movie, if only...

The action held up, but it doesn't. Soderbergh, for all his undoubted strengths, just doesn't seem to be the right director to handle this kind of film. There are a couple of good fight scenes which really work, but otherwise the action is slow, laboured and flat. Carano can clearly handle herself, but too often Soderbergh creates scenes that feel too choreographed and fake with moves that look more like a pre-arranged wrestling move. Carano is also a fighter, not a free-runner and the Dublin rooftop chase seems dreadfully slow and laboured compared to many other examples.

Overall - 5.5/10 There's potential here, but the end result is disappointingly flat and unengaging. A case of a good director being wrong for the film.

2012 Oscar Nominations - first thoughts

Part of the fun of the Oscars is all the speculation beforehand, so here are my first thoughts on the nominations and some questions for Oscar. I'm not claiming to have seen all the nominated or overlooked films, but that's never stopped me being opinionated before.

First up, where's the love for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Gary Oldman fully deserves his nomination, but the film is grossly under-represented elsewhere - it's better than at least four of the Best Picture nominations and would be a better shout for Best Director than many.

Best Picture - Midnight in Paris, seriously? Have you watched it? Similarly from the advance reviews - Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. The Help was more predictable but arguably no more deserved. No Tinker, Tailor... No Girl with the Dragon Tattoo... No We Need to Talk About Kevin.

Best Director - Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris. Again, that's a joke right? Ahead of Spielberg and Fincher and Alfredson. Did he get to pick the nominees himself?

Actors -  Demian Bichir is a surprise (not seen the film, but nice to see a bit of an oddball nomination). Brad Pitt for Moneyball rather than The Tree of Life -  surprising but not necessarily wrong. Can anyone stop Clooney here?

Actresses -  that perennial favourite - how come Viola Davis is up for best lead in The Help when Emma Stone was the lead in that movie, whilst Berenice Bejo is up for best supporting role for her leading role in The Artist? No Tilda Swinton? Its probably down to Maggie vs Marilyn though, and in Hollywood you have to make Marilyn favourite.

Best Animated Film - No pixar and deservedly so - when was the last time that happened?

War Horse

War Horse is the film adapted from the stage play adapted from the children's book by Michael Morpurgo. It tells the story of the titular horse's (called Joey (although he later gets both French and German names too)) journey from a small Devon farm to the battlefields of the Somme via an ill-fated cavalry charge, a couple of German deserters, the care of the grand-daughter of a French jam-maker and finally a German artillery unit. And its the latest from a little-known director by the name of Steven Spielberg.

In many ways the film is a good fit for Spielberg, giving ample room for both his strengths and weaknesses. On the strengths side, the story falls somewhere between rambling and epic, with its shifting locations and series of characters being introduced who each get their moment in Joey's life, but Spielberg tells the story with verve and panache, allowing each of the characters some life whilst never getting distracted from the story. This allows the audience to buy into the film despite the main character being a horse.

He has also lost none of his ability for a beautifully framed shot - the sight of a young girl, standing in a doorway with the sunlight behind all shown through the reflection in the horse's eye is pretty close to the quintessentially Spielbergian shot. Also look out for the cavalry charge through a ripened corn-field, whilst Joey's eventual flight through no-man's land is a bravura piece of film-making and the most thrilling sequence of the film (and a early contender for scene of the year).

On the other hand, Spielberg's greatest weakness has long been a tendancy to excessive sentimentality and that really needed to be reigned in (pun fully intended) at times here. It kind of works in the early scenes in Devon, partly due to the performances of Jeremy Irvine, whose earnestness sells the difficult part of Albert (a naive young man who'll do anything for his horse), and the ever reliable Peter Mullan and Emily Watson as his parents. David Thewlis also provides good value as the comically villainous landlord. You can stomach this slightly romanticised rural idyll because you feel it is providing a contrast for what is to come.

Its when the film shifts to France and the idyll continues that you feel Spielberg is over-romanticising and over-sentimentalising. The period where Joey is being looked after by the plucky sick grand-daughter of French jam-maker Niels Arestrup  that this is at its most jarring. The war is only a few miles away and yet everything is so perfect - the strawberries couldn't be any redder, the farmhouse any more perfectly rustic, even when the war does intrude, the German soldiers seem more comic than genuinely threatening. The sin is compounded by that fact that in moments leading up to this, it has felt that Spielberg has been deliberately shielding our eyes (in one case literally, by the use of a windmill sail, in other cases by judicious cutting from machine guns to empty horses) from the reality of war in order to maintain this idyll.

From here we are catipulted into the full horrors of trench warfare and the film regains its footing. Albert is now in France fighting the war and there is a nicely underplayed subplot about his relationship with the landlord's son. Meanwhile, Toby Kebbell manages to bring humour and emotion together in a nice scene of a Brit and a German working together to free Joey from barbed wire. The touches here, athough a different style for a different war and different genre, remind you that this was the director who brought you the beach landings of Saving Private Ryan.

Overall - 7/10 Good but not great. Spielberg at his best and worst with beautifully images and storytelling let down by an overdose of sentiment and romanticism.

US Update: Poor Ol' Mitt

Having a bad week? Well, spare a thought for poor old Mitt Romney. A week ago, he looked like he had victory in the opening two states sewn up and was well ahead in the polls for the South Carolina primary this weekend. He was looking like being 3 out of 3 and well on the way to securing the Republican nomination.

Then Iowa turned round, rather red-faced, and said "Er, we might have got our counting wrong, it rather looks like Santorum won not you". There followed a battering in the debates over his tax-returns and South Carolina gave quite a thumping victory to Newt Gingrich instead.

The circus moves on to Florida next with only 4 contenders still in the race - Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Paul. Paul is independantly wealthy enough to stay in the race, although really his involvement now seems to be about how much damage he can do to the others and maybe as a platform to launch a third-party bid for the white house in November. In Iowa Santorum seemed to have emerged as the preferred challenger to Romney, he now looks to have fallen well behind Gingrich in that regard. If he drops out soon, Gingrich is likely to move clear of the field. If Santorum stays in, Romney remains in the driving seat, but only just. And that brokered convention is still a possibility.

The Iron Lady

Love her or loathe her, Margaret Thatcher was one of the most controversial political figures of the twentieth century. Her influence is still felt - no conservative politician can really establish themselves without being defined in some way by their relationship to her and her ideals. Everybody has an opinion on her, one way or the other. Everybody, that is, except it seems Phyllida Lloyd, the director of The Iron Lady.

So eager does the film seem to avoid being controversial that it ends up being nothing really. Why make a film about such a controversial figure and have nothing to say about them. In fact, the film can't really decide what it wants to be - it toys with the idea of being a love story, but Margaret and Dennis as Romeo and Juliet doesn't really fly. It glosses over most of the politics. What it comes closest to being is a film about dementia with the present day narrative framing, however it lacks the pathos of, say, Iris or Away From Her. Even the most dramatic moments, like the car-bombing of Airey Neave, somehow lack real drama.

As to the politics, everything is gone over so quickly that if you know nothing about the events or the policies, the film will leave you none the wiser. The 3-day week, the miners strike, the poll tax, the Brighton bombing are all referenced in shots, but hardly covered. The Falklands gets slightly more coverage, but if you know nothing about, say, the sinking of the Belgrano, you still won't after the film unless you go home and google it. In fact the film buys almost totally into the myth, both negative and positive, and makes no effort to get below the surface. We are offered one brief scene of a speech by her father as her political inspiration. The film makes her out to be even more groundbreaking than she was by having her as the only woman shown in any shot in the commons. It also comes close to making out that she was the reason for the Tories victory in 1979, whereas most polls at the times indicated that they won despite of rather than because of her.

All that said, this is not a badly made film. Its well-shot and on the whole well-acted. Meryl Streep is uncanny in her impersonation of Thatcher although there's not that much actual character to work with. Jim Broadbent is fun, although essentially playing Jim Broadbent, as Dennis. Elsewhere a host of familiar faces play a host of familiar faces. But it all feels ultimately purposeless.

Overall - 5.5/10 The most controversial thing about this film is how uncontroversial it is. Well shot and acted, but ultimately pointless and unsatisfying.

The Artist

There are some film pitches that you would just love to be witness to. Imagine the scene - the director of critically and commercially indifferently received French Bond spoofs OSS117 comes in and says he has a wonderful idea for a new film- he wants to make a film about silent movies and he wants it to be silent.

Fortunately for said director, Michel Hazanavicius, and fortunately for us, somebody decided to take a chance on him, because the result is nothing short of brilliant. It has already won 3 Golden Globes and is among the front-runner (along with The Descendants) for the Oscars.

The film is both love letter to and a slightly humourous take on a forgotten art. It is both a great example of the kind of film that they just don't make anymore and also a film that still has a 21st Century feel to it. So, you get more of a peak behind the curtain, behind the smoke and mirrors of the movie business than you would have done in Hollywood's golden age, and yet the tone is decidedly respectful and loving. And so one scene where the star George Valentin (played by Jean Dujardin) has to compose himself facially for the right emotions, time after time through multiple takes is both very funny whilst also being appreciative of the forgotten craft of the silent film stars.

The story starts with Valentin  at his peak. He meets and young ingenu, Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) and helps to set her on the road to stardom, but whilst her star rises, he fails to adapt to the new talking pictures and is all but forgotten. In true silent movie style, the film mixes moments of humour with melodrama with song and dance spectacle. Keep an eye out for how the films-within-the film seem to mirror reality for the stars both in their titles and their action. There are also some highly inventive sequences, including a dream sequence Hitchcock would be proud of, and some beautifully composed uses of light, shadow and reflections echoing classics like Citizen Kane (explicitly in one scene).

Hazanavicius is aided by some top notch performances. Having the likes of John Goodman and James Cromwell in the supporting roles was always going to be a good move, but his previous collaborators Dujardin and Bejo excel in the leads. Their achievement should not be underestimated - to act in a silent movie requires different skills. To act acting in a silent movie in a silent move is this no mean feat, and to do so with such engaging charm and conviction deserves all the plaudits they're receiving. The film also features one of the most amusing canine performances you'll ever have seen.

Overall - 9/10 Both a homage to and humourous look at a lost art, and brilliant at either level. The first standout movie of 2012!

The Independance Referendum Phoney War

So, the Referendum is the big story this week and the opening shots in the battle are being fired. Except that they're not really. Behind the sensationalist headlines, what is really happening is the start of a process towards agreement on how the referendum will be carried. Sure, there's some jockeying for the best negotiating position in that, but really there is more agreement than might be supposed from the headlines. Yes, both sides are trying to position themselves (or more accurately the other side) where they want them, Salmond is trying to paint the coalition as unwelcome interferers in Scotland and Scotland's business, whilst the unionists are trying to make Salmond out to be headstrong, petty and reckless. Truth to be told, there's probably some accuracy in both accounts, but neither will have much bearing on the overall outcome.

So what are the issues being discussed at the moment:

1. There will be a referendum. This is now beyond dispute. The Westminster government has acknowledged that the SNP have a democratic mandate to hold one following the results last May. Holyrood does not currently have the legal authority to carry this out, but Westminster is willing to devolve the powers. The question will be what conditions come attached to that devolution of powers. This is the current battleground.

2. The Timing Noises from the coaliton were of trying to force it in the next 18 months. They forced Salmond to set a date of Autumn 2014. Noises from Westminster now indicate that this should be acceptable to all.

3. Who will Oversee the Referendum? The coalition want the Electoral Commission to be in charge. Salmond objects that they are directly answerable to Westminster and therefore unacceptable. In my view, Salmond's on weak ground here - any body set up by a Nationalist adminitration in Holyrood without cross-party support would have questionable legitimacy to oversee such a referendum. I would also question how far Salmond can push the objections to the Electoral Commission given that they oversaw the elections that put him in power - there would come a put where he would, in effect, be questioning his own legitimacy. Personally, I would be surprised if the Electoral Commission wasn't involved in overseeing the referendum.

4. What will the Question be? The coalition are adamant that it must be a simple yes-no for independance. The SNP seem keen of including some kind of option or second vote for further devolution (devo-max). The coalition say that that is not just a matter for Scotland as it would have implications for Wales, Northern Ireland and other parts of the Union. Back come the SNP, butt out, this is none of your business. Well, that's the gist of it. The arguments on both sides are rather weak - as far as I'm aware there was no mention of devo-max in the SNP's manifesto, therefore there is no mandate for it to be included in the referendum. Again, I'm not sure how far Salmond can push this without it looking like we know we're going to lose the independance vote, but... On the coalition side, devolution was totally uneven under the last government and it was only the Welsh referendum last year that brough things anywhere near being consistent. The coalition might well argue that this is a new government doing things differently, but its hard to argue against Scotland having had a different relationship to the rest of the Union for hundreds of years. It might well come down to which side has the best negotiating team.

Politically speaking, Labour has the most to lose from devo-max as they are likely (especially with the proposed boundary changes) to need their Scottish MPs in order to govern at Westminster and devo-max would throw the West Lothian question into even sharper perspective. For the SNP, it would obviously allow them to claim some kind of victory in the case of losing the referendum. For the Tories, there is a careful balancing act - as committed unionists they can't stomach the idea of an independant Scotland and even devo-max is probably loosening the bonds of the union too much. On the other hand, there is an argument that they wouldn't want to see the SNP humiliated and a spent political force 6-9 months before the next General Election. They're not going to be making any advances in Scotland any time soon, the LDs could well still be feeling the coalition backlash north of the border and the Tories need some kind of buffer against Labour up here, even if its only the SNP rather than Labour taking seats off the Liberals. Winning the referendum but allowing the SNP to continue arguing about the option they weren't allowed maybe allows the SNP to continue as a challenge to Labour into 2015.

5. The West Sheppey Question* Who gets to vote? Salmond wants 16 and 17 year olds to have the vote? Should Scots living outside Scotland get a vote? How about Scots living outside the UK? What about Scots serving in the armed forces elsewhere in the UK and therefore registered there? And how do you define who is Scottish in this context anyway? After all, we don't (yet?) have Scottish citizenship and surely you would need something tighter than the current rules on who's eligible to play football for Scotland (anyone whose Great-grandmother once visited Edinburgh Castle). Solved all that. How about non-Brits living in Scotland - currently for the General Election Irish and Commonwealth citizens can vote, whilst for Holyrood and local elections any EU national resident in Scotland can vote. Should they get a say on whether Scotland should be an independant country. These are possibly the most difficult questions about the process and nobody has even begun to really provide answers yet.

*  This term was coined on an online forum after Gordon Henderson, the conservative MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, asked in the Commons whether his grandfather, a Scot living in England, would be eligible to vote.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Tom Cruise is back in the 4th installment of the variable franchise. This time behind the camera is Pixar alumni Brad Bird (Ratatouille, The Incredibles) making his live action debut. Joining Cruise on the team in front of the camera are Paula Patton and Jeremy Renner, with Simon Pegg also returning with a more beefed-up role from part 3. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo's  Michael Nyqvist takes on the standard Euro-villain duties.

A mission to steal files from the Kremlin goes badly wrong and leaves Cruise's IMS team framed with blowing up part of the Kremlin, disowned by their own government and in a battle to clear their names, stop a nuclear war and avoid being arrested (or worse by the Russians). Which as plots go is fairly standard. The villain, too, is pretty unremarkable - a crazy genius who thinks that nuclear war will trigger the next steps in mankind's evolution, or some such. So far, so bad Bond knock-off.

But Mission Impossible has never been about plausible plots, but more about excitement and action. And here, Bird, bringing touches of Pixar's inventiveness, really makes the film work. Most of the action set pieces deliver and some even feel a little fresh and innovative. Highlights include a foot chase through a sandstorm and the final showdown in an automated car park. The MI staples - self-destructing messages and latex masks - are referenced, but mainly for comic effect and not allowed to dominate the film. In fact there is a good deal of humour throughout, which blends well with the action.

Cruise does the kind of job you would expect of him (although, dare I suggest it, he is starting to get a wee bit old for this - definitely too old for the hoodie look he tries to get away with). Should he ever decide to hang up the franchise, then Renner (who is definite plus for the film) would be well placed to take it on, or at least he would be were he not already taking on the Bourne franchise later this year.

Overall - 7/10 Probably the second best of the franchise - might not be totally original, but the action works well and its an entertaining popcorn movie and, to be honest, that's all anyone can expect from Mission Impossible.

Looking forward to 2012 politically

Continuing the blog re-launch and switching to my other obsession. After looking back on 2011 cinematically, let's look forward to 2012 politically.

Truth be told, with the exception of the forthcoming City of Edinburgh Council elections (of which more later) the more interesting and meaningful elections this year are probably happening in other parts of the world, so I'm unapologetic about a slightly international flavour to this post, starting across the pond.

US Presidential Election
The year long roadshow has already started with the first Republican caucus in Iowa on Tuesday. Theoretically, Obama should be facing a tough re-election bid with the US economy struggling in the mire and relatively low approval ratings for the president himself. Of course, that would be dependant on the Republicans having a credible candidate and there is the nub of the matter.

Already retired from the race is Michelle Bachman - a rabid Tea-party-er (think Sarah Palin without any redeeming features). The winner in Iowa, Mitt Romney, won by a massive 0.01% of the total vote (hardly a ringing endorsement). He's probably the most moderate of the bunch with the possibility to appeal to the centre ground, but he's also a mormon and that ain't going to sit well with the Party's evangelical bible-belt base who could just sit at home were he the candidate, giving Obama crucial Mid-West swing states.

The man he narrowly beat, Rick Santorum, is much more on the right with some pretty hard-line views on things like homosexuality, abortion, etc... so much so that some naughty satirists came up with a new meaning for the word Santorum just to offend him (although I'd advise you not to google it). Like most of the other candidates, might galvanise the base but lose the rest of the country. Also still in the race are Ron Paul (a bit of a maverick with some allegations of racism in a publication he was responsible hanging over his head) and Newt Gingrich who's just pretty objectionable and Rick Perry.

Any of these could yet win the candidature (but are unlikely to win the presidency), or we could head into the Republican party convention with it all undecided (what is known as a brokered convention) in which case an as-yet-undeclared candidate may emerge from the floor - Jeb Bush is being mentioned. Whatever, I would expect Obama to be re-elected fairly comfortable although not with the landslide of 2008.

French Presidential Elections.
Another electorate facing a pretty poor choice this year are the French. Their presidential election (over two rounds) seems almost inevitably to come down to a choice between Sarkozy and socialist candidate Francois Hollande. Hollande is maintaining a healthy (but slightly shrinking lead) in the polls and the conventional wisdom is that Sarkozy is a goner. This would fit - across Europe almost every government that was in power when the financial crisis hit has been voted out at the first opportunity. The problem is that nobody (maybe not even Hollande himself) sees him as a president. He's more of a nearly man, who's been around for a long time without ever really achieving high office or anything spectacular. This might come into play more as the campaign progresses and I wouldn't be surprised to see Sarkozy pull back and maybe even pull of the big shock and win.

Of the other contenders, it seemed at one point last year that Front National leader Marine Le Pen might challenge Sarkozy for a place in the second round, but she seems to be fading away a bit. Centrist Francois Bayrou seems to enjoying something of a bounce and might catch Le Pen for third, but that's about his limit, whilst Left Front (Communist) Melanchon, Green Joly and fromer Sarkozy ally Villepin remain stuck in single figures.

London Mayor/Assembly
If the French feel like they have an all-too-familar choice, spare a thought for Londoners, where all three main parties have selected the same candidates for mayor as last time. The Deja-vu will probably continue with the same result - Boris re-elected as Livingstone fails to win back any of the votes he lost last time. In the Assembly there will also probably not be much change - maybe a seat or two changing between Labour and Tories, the LDs will try to hold all their seats whilst the Greens will try to gain an extra one and, hopefully, the BNP will be wiped out of the Assembly (in reality they are no longer there as their AM defected to the English Democrats) but it will be nice to see them defeated in an election.

Local Elections
Most local elections in England will be for seats last elected in 2008, which was Labour's nadir in terms of results, so expect some significant gains for them, especially in the Metropolitan areas. I'd expect the LDs to have reached their nadir last year and to maybe hold a few more seats this time round relatively. The Tories were boosted by the anti-AV vote last May and will probably do slightly, but not significantly worse this time.
In Wales, Labour will make significant advances.

The most interesting contests will be in Scotland where the SNP will be trying to carry on from their phenomenal success last year in local council elections. They could take control of some of Scotland's biggest councils - my prediction they will get a majority in Dundee and become the largest party in Aberdeen and Edinburgh, whilst narrowly missing out on doing the same in Glasgow (although preventing Labour keeping their majority). At the other end of the scale, the question for the LDs is just how bad will it be?

Tony's Favourite Films of 2011

So, after an absence of many months, my New Year's resolutions see me at start of January attempting to re-launch this blog. Hopefully, unlike many New Year's resolutions, I will manage to keep it going this time.

What better way to start the New Year than by looking back on the old one and, as per tradition, listing my favourite movies of the past 12 months. For one reason or another I didn't end up seeing (quite) as many movies as in previous years, but of those I did see these were my top ten.

But before that, a few Honourable Mentions for films that didn't quite make the list: 50/50 was funnier than any film about cancer should be; Rabbit Hole was a brilliantly acted study of the impact of grief on a family; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 finished off a franchise in triumphant style, whilst X-Men First Class was a promising re-launch of one.

Whilst we're at it. a few Dishonourable Mentions for films that should be avoided at all cost. Most predictable, but Little Fockers, Your Highness, The Hangover Part 2 and The Dilemma would struggle to find a single redeeming feature between them.

But back to the Top Ten:

10. Submarine was quirky, funny and very individual, all the more striking for being a debut for most of those involved.

9. The Guard is probably not one for the easily offended, but was outrageously funny and gave Brendan Gleeson the kind of material that he really deserves.

8. Never Let Me Go was kind of lost amongst all the awards nominees, but was intelligent and thought-provoking not quite science-fiction and featured great performances by some of Britain's best young actors.

7. Senna was the best documentary of the year. Whether or not you are a fan of Formula 1 or not, it was a fascinating portrait of the collision of talent, faith and fate.

6. Hugo Scorcese makes a film for children, except that it's not really, more a tribute to the pioneers of cinema. What it is is visually stunning and genuinely heart-warming.

 







5. Troll Hunter breathing new life into the found footage sub-genre, with some stunning special effects mixed with good characters and some nice performances. Watch it before they ruin it in the American re-make.

4. Black Swan. Again, possibly not to everyone's tastes, but a gripping psychological film and a deserved Oscar win for Natalie Portman.

3. True Grit Better than the John Wayne original, beautifully shot, full of wonderful characters and entertaining performances by Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon alongside a stunning debut Hailee Steinfeld. Top notch.

2. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy Le Carre's thriller was always going to suffer slightly from being condensed into a film rather than a series, but Tomas Alfedson does an amazing job of creating an atmospheric, gripping and intelligent tale of espionage. A strong cast is headed up by Gary Oldman who triumphs in the unenviable task of filling one of Alec Guinness' most famous roles.

1. The King's Speech making it a 1-2 for Britain and for Colin Firth, who is outstanding here. What could have been a rather worthy period drama is instead a stunning, lively and funny film centring on the unlikely relationship between Firth and Rush. Almost worthy of all the acclaim it received.








As always, feel free to comment, disagree or offer your own thoughts.

Coming soon: looking forward to the year ahead politically (with an international flavour).