Blue is the Warmest Colour

Year: 2013

Running time: 180 minutes

Certificate: 18

Language: French

Screenplay: Abdellatif Kechiche, Ghalia Lacroix

Director: Abdellatif Kechiche

Starring: Adèle Exarchopoulos, Léa Seydoux, Salim Kechiouche, Aurélien Recoing, Catherine Salée, Alma Jodorowsky, Benjamin Siksou, Jérémie Laheurte, Anne Loiret, Benoît Pilot

The joyous flush of new love.

It's hard to find the right words to talk about this film, because it caused me to have a very strong emotional reaction - I was wrung out by the end of it, for reasons I'll go into later. Then there was the interviews the two lead actresses started giving on the promotional tour, where they would talk about their discomfort filming some of the scenes, which appeared to surprise director Abdellatif Kechiche, who then proceeded to rant to all and sundry. Having had such a powerful, profound and personal reaction to it, to find there was some bad blood now between the actresses and their director has inevitably soured the experience a little for me, which is a real shame, because it is such an incredible piece of work.

To sum up, it's a about loving and losing for the first time, but to condense 3 hours of exquisite cinema to such a short line is to do the film a grave injustice. Adèle (Adèle Exarchopoulos) is a teenage high-school student, with a fairly average home life. Like most people her age, she is trying to negotiate the rocky path to adulthood, which naturally involves love and sex. She is pretty underwhelmed with sex with her boyfriend Thomas (Jérémie Laheurte) and before long ends her relationship with him. Adèle is bowled over one day when she catches a glimpse of a beautiful blue-haired woman in the street, and when her friend takes her to a gay bar one night she meets her again. The woman with the blue hair is named Emma (Léa Seydoux) and as their meet-cute turns to friendship and then something more, Adèle falls, and falls hard, for Emma.

There is some friction between Adèle and her friends when her romantic involvement with another woman becomes impossible to hide, but this is not a film about the struggle for equality LGBT people face; it is about a young person falling in love for the first time. Adèle and Emma become lovers, and there are undeniably some very graphic sex scenes. To be honest, I don't think the film would've lost anything if they were a little shorter and a tad less graphic but, as explicit as they are, they have the affect of underlining the intense nature of their relationship. Emma is a little older and more experienced than Adèle and so it seems clear to me that while Emma is certainly committed to Adèle, she isn't quite as hopelessly infatuated. Emma is clearly a passionate person, but while it seems Adèle burns brightly for Emma and Emma alone (even as she leaves school and begins work as a teacher it seems clear that her heart and everything else is given over to Emma), Emma is an artist and finds joy and passion in other things as well as Adèle. When Emma starts spending a lot of time on a new project, it causes Adèle to feel like she's being left behind.

Adèle is broken.

Adèle, feeling lost without her lodestone, makes the mistake of beginning an affair with colleague Antoine (Benjamin Siksou). When Emma discovers what she has done, she breaks up the relationship and throws Adèle out, in an extended scene which is gut-wrenching. The final part of the film follows Adèle as she tries to come to terms with the break-up and face the prospect of life alone, or, at least, life without Emma, which for Adèle, amounts to pretty much the same thing.

I remember with crystal clarity the feelings that come with falling overwhelmingly in love with someone without enough life experience to really process it; I fell for the woman I would eventually marry when young and at college. At some point after graduating University, Rach had a work placement in Ringwood near Bournemouth. She loved it, and she felt joy and growth and new experiences and was enjoying every second while I sat around at home and missed her. It was almost like I could feel her slipping away and the thought of not being with her was more than I felt I could bear. I remembered these feelings intensely when watching Adèle, feeling like Emma was slipping away, make her mistake, and felt such empathy.

I watched Adèle go through the outcome that once scared me more than anything, and the pain feels genuine. She's adrift, alone, with nothing but a hole where she was once whole. It is hard to watch, and I wondered at one point if she was going to end her life. She doesn't, but I get the distinct impression she was considering just letting herself float out to sea and leaving it all behind. As the film ends, Adèle is still hurting.

Adèle just wants to drift away.

Of course, the reception the film got shows I'm not the only person to be affected by the film in such a way, but the fact that these feelings are commonplace makes them no less powerful, and this is not the first film to tackle such a subject. The difference is the way it is made. The camera is obsessively infatuated with Adèle; as in love with her as she is with Emma. The close ups are so close, and the camera lingers on her for so long, and the scenes are so intense, that you feel a part of the intimacy; it is potent. Adèle Exarchopoulos is so mesmerising to watch, so expressive that even when Adèle is heartbroken, the camera pours obsessively over the contours of her face. It's astonishing, but only because she's astonishing. She and Léa Seydoux are fully deserving of the rare exception of sharing the Palm d'Or with director Kechiche at Cannes 2013.

Prepare to have your heart broken, but it is so worth it.

Score: 9/10

The reviews out there, quite rightly, do tend to have reservations about the most controversial aspects of the film. This review from Kristin at Film Comment highlights problems with the way the film sometimes feels like an observance of a lesbian relationship from a straight male perspective, but does acknowledge its strengths as well, calling it 'memorable but flawed'. This one from Tim at the Telegraph is also positive, but based on his opinion on the second half, it didn't strike the chord with him that it did with me.

Ghostbusters

Year: 1984 (Original), 1989 (Sequel), 2016 (Remake)
Running time: 105 minutes (Original), 108 minutes (Sequel), 116 minutes (Remake)
Certificate: PG (Original, Sequel), 12 (Remake)
Language: English
Screenplay: Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis (Original, Sequel), Katie Dippold, Paul Feig (Remake)
Director: Ivan Reitman (Original, Sequel), Paul Feig (Remake)
Starring: Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, William Atherton, David Margulies, Slavitza Jovan, Peter MacNicol, Kurt Fuller, Wilhelm von Homburg, Will Deutschendorf, Hank Deutschendorf, Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Chris Hemsworth, Neil Casey

I can’t remember exactly how old I was when I first saw Ghostbusters, but I know I was young. Embarrassingly, it scared the bejesus out of me, so I was quite a bit older when next I saw it and was able to see it for was it was – a supernatural comedy bordering on genius. Ray Stantz (Dan Ackroyd) and Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) are studying parapsychology at Columbia University. Also 'studying', although, perhaps simply tagging along, is Peter Venkman (Bill Murray). The three of them are trying to collect evidence of the existence of ghosts, and in an opening scene as memorable and famous as Raiders of the Lost Ark, they find just that in a New York library. Thrown out of the University, the three of them pool their (mostly Ray's) resources and go in to business as 'Ghostbusters'. After a shaky start, business begins to boom in the wake of a visit to a hotel to meet and catch a 'class 5 full roaming vapor', better known to us as Slimer.

First ghost busted, Venkman and Spengler make up the bill on the fly.

The increase in supernatural activity heralds the coming of Sumerian god of destruction Gozer (Slavitza Jovan). Gozer happens to be dropping in on the penthouse apartment of Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver). Dana has been in touch with the Ghostbusters to report unusual goings-on in her kitchen, with Dana eventually being possessed by Zuul, one of Gozer's minions and demi-god in her own right. The three scientists have an easy chemistry together that makes the movie great fun to watch over and over. When Ernie Hudson joins them as Winston Zeddmore (the character names are just brilliantly implausible), he adds a touch of everyman to the three super-geniuses (ok, maybe two super-geniuses and Venkman) that makes for a great comedic mix. Each of them have their moments, as do put-upon secretary Janine Melnitz (Annie Potts) and Lewis Tully (Rick Moranis - a truly gifted and under-rated physical comedian), an accountant also living in Dana's building in supporting roles.

The show-stealer here is, as you might expect, Bill Murray in what is still one of his signature roles. His scenes with Sigourney Weaver are a joy to watch - they're one of those onscreen couples that have that chemistry, that spark that is a perfect fit for romantic comedy. Most of his lines are eminently quotable – the exchange with meddling EPA officer Walter Peck (William Atherton) ending with "Yes it's true; this man has no dick" being one of the first to spring to mind.

It is the 1980s, so as you’d expect the effects and the music are slightly dated, but due to the quality of the writing and the obvious care with which it’s been made, these problems are easily overcome. The writing, the quality and chemistry of the cast and the spot-on mix of comedy and supernatural adventure come together in a film that I genuinely don't think I could ever get tired of.

Experiments in mood slime.

The sequel arrived 5 years later, and while it is undeniably an attempt to pretty much rerun the original with a couple of cosmetic differences, I find it to be every bit as well written, funny and enjoyable as the original. It's unavoidable I suppose that it gets maligned by many fans due to its too-obvious similarities, but, like Gremlins 2, I'm just having too much fun to give it a hard time (the courtroom set piece after they get arrested for digging up the sidewalk is a particular highlight). All the original cast return to take on Vigo (Wilhelm von Homburg) a bloodthirsty tyrannical sorcerer from the 16th Century, whose malevolent spirit resides in a painting, preparing to be reborn by possessing Dana's baby son Oscar (twins Will and Hank Deutschendorf) just in time for New Year.

It seems old Vigo is feeding off the negative energy of New York, so our heroes need to harness whatever positive energy is left to take him on. And yes, that is every bit as cheesy as it sounds, but as with the first film, there is enough talent to pull it off. So despite the critical drubbing Ghostbusters 2 got, for me they are both pretty evenly matched.

And then there is the remake. Rather than assume my childhood is ruined and take to the Internet to declare it a terrible idea, like so many other penis-having fans did ("Ain't no bitches gonna bust no ghosts" declared one online moron, a line which was actually used in the film), I waited to watch it first before forming an opinion. Although, whenever someone tries to remake a film with a place in the history of popular culture such as Ghostbusters, there always tends to be a question of 'Why?', gender politics notwithstanding - for another example, see Gus Van Sant's lamentable Psycho remake.

The talent was certainly there - Paul Feig has a decent track record, and Melissa McCarthy is undoubtedly funny. in addition, Kristen Wiig is pretty much one of the finest comedians working in film today. There are differences, but the plot generally follows a similar outline of the first two, only with new characters. All of the original cast show up in cameos at some point, save Rick Moranis and the sadly deceased Harold Ramis, which is a nice way to show the makers had the support of the people behind the first two.

2016 Ghostbusters, bustin' ghosts.

Yes, the genders of all the characters are reversed, and no, it does not make one iota of difference. I think it works having the Ghostbusters all the same gender (or at least incompatible sexual preferences), because then there is no attempt to shoehorn some unnecessary romantic subplot in, and the group can bond as a group of good friends instead. The hostile reaction to the film was way out of proportion, with Leslie Jones even getting slated for not being attractive enough for the mouth-breathing masses - I wonder if Ernie Hudson had the same problems in 1984?

So putting all that aside and considering the film on its own merits, trying not to be influenced by the franchise's beloved status, what's it like? It's ok, I suppose. It's quite funny in parts, all the cast do well in slightly underwritten parts, the standout being Kate McKinnon as the slightly wired nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann, and there is plenty of supernatural adventure sprinkled with jokes. But it's not great, not by a long shot. Set up to fail by a rabid mostly-male fanbase it might have been, but even were that not the case, it's hard to see this being good enough to launch an extended Ghostbusters franchise, as was the intention.

A stone-cold classic original, an under-rated, almost as good sequel, and a 'meh' remake.

Score:
Ghostbusters (1984): 9/10
Ghostbusters 2: 8/10
Ghostbusters (2016): 5/10

Going back to 1984 shows a surprisingly mixed bag of reviews for Ghostbusters, as shown by this review by Arthur at The Hollywood Reporter and this less than impressed one by Janet at The New York Times. This article by Seb at Den of Geek makes a fine case for reappraising the sequel, citing as I've done the courtroom scene, but also pointing out Harold Ramis' superb deadpan delivery. Finally, while I'm pleased the remake is reviewed better than I'd feared, I think this review by Matt at Wired is wildly over-effusive in its praise.

Belleville Rende-vouz

Year: 2003
Running time: 78 minutes
Certificate: 12
Language: French
Screenplay: Sylvain Chomet
Director: Sylvain Chomet
Starring (voices): Monica Viegas, Michèle Caucheteux, Michel Robin, Jean-Claude Donda

Champion, shortly before his run-in with mafia goons.

This is a film with a very distinct style that takes a bit of getting used to, but as the story develops it becomes a cracking little yarn with charming characters and a brilliantly outlandish plot. The look and the sound of it are really unique, and the animation has a beautiful, if unusual, look to it.

Champion is a young boy who lives with his grandma Madame Souza (Monica Viegas). When Champion shows an interest in cycling at a young age, Madame Souza takes it upon herself to become his personal trainer, encouraging him to practice and train with the help of her trusty whistle. As Champion grows up, his interest in cycling becomes all-consuming, with the landscape changing around him, Madame Souza, their dog and their home. The artistry on show used to depict this passing of time is spellbinding and is a splendid way to get us settled in the strangely-drawn world.

The adult Champion (Michel Robin) takes part in the Tour de France, being essentially what his life has been building to. At that moment the story takes a bit of a turn. Champion is abducted by the mafia during the race and forced to cycle constantly for the sake of a betting game run by his kidnappers. It's up to Madame Souza to track down poor Champion, and following the trail to Belleville, she finds the trail dried up and her alone in a strange and frightening city. And here the story takes another turn. The Triplets of Belleville, a famous music act from years ago (we saw them in their prime earlier on in the story), now three elderly women, look after Madame Souza, providing her with a place to stay and a spot on their musical shows, which they are still performing all these years later.

The Belleville triplets: still vital after all these years.

The climactic rescue of Champion by the triplets and Souza and ensuing car chase is superbly realised and is a wonderfully animated set-piece. The story of a man obsessed by cycling being kidnapped by the French mafia and rescued by his grandmother and three elderly sisters is a testament to the resilience and power of women. Champion is who he is because of Madame Souza, and she was only able to rescue Champion with the help of these three old women living on the poverty line. The triplets live life with a sparkle in their eyes, rather than dwelling on their fame-filled past, they are vivid and living very much in the moment. There is a wonderful little moment at the end when Champion, who has been a rather sombre presence throughout most of the film, acknowledges what he owes the women in his life.

Score: 7/10

Belleville Rende-vouz is well-reviewed out there - have a read of this one from Nik at Future Movies and this one from Nick at Screen Daily.

The Lovely Bones

Year: 2009
Running time: 135 minutes
Certificate: 12
Language: English
Screenplay: Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Peter Jackson
Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Stanley Tucci, Susan Sarandon, Michael Imperioli, Rose McIver

Susie's heaven seems lonely.

Based on the hugely popular novel by Alice Sebold, Peter Jackson tackles something a little smaller than Lord of the Rings and King Kong, and makes something that is at once engaging and underwhelming, seemingly unsure of what it wants to be and say.

Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) is a typical teenager in 1970s Pennsylvania, experiencing the first blushes of love, when she is raped and murdered by neighbourhood freakazoid George Harvey (Stanley Tucci). Narrating her life from some kind of heavenly holding area above, she watches while her family struggle to come to terms with her death.

The film is strongest in the earth-bound scenes, including the electric tension as Susie's sister Lindsey (Rose McIver) acts on her suspicions, turning amateur detective, and early scenes filling in the details of Susie's life through a hazy 70s lens, everything lent a strong sense of bitter sadness, knowing as we do that this is a life with promise that was all cut cruelly short. It's why I think Jackson goes all-out in the depiction of Susie's afterlife; the distressing fact of Susie's brutal death, and the toll it takes on her father Jack (Mark Wahlberg) and mother Abigail (Rachel Weisz) requires tempering with the hope that somewhere, somehow, she's ok. Of course, this is a movie, so you can suspend disbelief enough for this, but this papering over the harsh reality that people that suffer at the hands of others like Susie likely don't have the chance for this sort of closure is never far from souring the moment.

It's never bad exactly, but it is tonally uneven, which is sometimes quite jarring, and I can never get away from the fact that while for most people Harvey's death would seem the most appropriate way to pay for his crimes, I felt that in a way he managed to escape without ever really having to face justice, which was somewhat unsatisfying, but also true to life I suppose.

Tragedy looms.

Visually, it is perhaps unsurprising that Jackson's cinematic paintbrush excels, but while Susie's world-after-death is frequently eye-poppingly gorgeous, it is the colour palette and stylistic choices employed to depict the 1973 Pennsylvanian Winter that is truly eye-catching; the film is never less than beautiful. But as lovely-looking as The Lovely Bones is (and it is), it is the two performances at its centre that are the reasons it succeeds in spite of Jackson, along with co-writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens frequently fumbling the storytelling. Stanley Tucci's turn as serial killer George Harvey is incredible, holding your attention as a sad sack nobody who's a monster under the surface, but matching the seasoned pro every step of the way is Saoirse Ronan as Susie, giving the tragic young girl life and light, making Susie's horrific fate all the more upsetting. It's no surprise at all that Ronan has gone on to become one of the very best actresses working today.

It has its shortcomings, but the cinematography and performances from Tucci and Ronan make it worth trying.

Score: 6/10

The Lovely Bones is a film that genuinely split opinion, which considering it can't even make its own mind up about what it wants to be, doesn't really surprise me. These examples from Roger Ebert and The Telegraph quite viscerally despise it, but Ian Freer at Empire was really quite taken with it.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Year: 2007
Running time: 116 minutes
Certificate: 18
Language: English
Screenplay: John Logan
Director: Tim Burton
Starring: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, Sacha Baron Cohen, Laura Michelle Kelly, Jamie Campbell Bower, Jayne Wisener

Double trouble.

The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, while not as critically acclaimed as that of Scorsese and De Niro, is certainly as prolific and probably more commercially successful. Their collaborations form some of the high points of both of their careers – Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow and others. Sweeney Todd is little more than an interesting misstep in the course of their long partnership.

Depp is well cast as the murderous Todd, arriving in London to wreak bloody vengeance on those who did him wrong in his past, back when he went by the name of Benjamin Barker. Chief among these is the corrupt Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman), whose lust for Barker's wife Lucy (Laura Michelle Kelly) leads to his conviction for a crime he didn't commit and exile. Fifteen years later, Barker returns under the name Sweeney Todd with revenge in his heart. Todd learns that Laura took her life following the abuse of the Judge and that Turpin has now made himself the tutor of their daughter Johanna (Jayne Wisener).

Returning to his barbershop business as a cover for his murderous plans, Todd works with the thoroughly unpleasant Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bohnam Carter) to turn his victims into pies to sell in her shop. The pair develop a bustling business as Todd slices neck after neck all the while working towards Judge Turpin, the man who ruined his life. As you’d expect, just about everyone ends up killed in one ghastly fashion or another, with the Judge's end particularly grim thanks to a sickening crack accompanying his head banging off the floor on his way down to become pies. There is nothing redeemable about these characters and so there is little in the way of interest in their fates, with Burton seemingly only interested in how ugly he can make the story.

Vengeance is near.

The gory subject matter might feel at odds with the musical element, but the songs, taken from Stephen Sondheim's 1979 musical, are probably the most engaging part of the film, long considered stage-musical royalty and the cast pull them off nicely.

I don’t mind violence in films, but the endless amount of blood, of horrid characters with no redeeming features and no sign of anything to lighten the mood in the entire running time, it is too relentlessly grim for me and left me with a bit of a queasy feeling.

It's clearly well put together and made with talent, but it’s certainly not something I would feel like watching again. Nothing special.

Score: 5/10

There's clearly something I'm missing about Burton's bloody vision if these reviews by Pete at Rolling Stone and Kim at Empire are anything to go by, but I'm fine with not going back to see if I can find it.

As Good As It Gets

Year: 1997
Running time: 139 minutes
Certificate: 15
Language: English
Screenplay: Mark Andrus, James L. Brooks
Director: James L. Brooks
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Helen Hunt, Greg Kinnear, Cuba Gooding Jr., Skeet Ulrich, Shirley Knight

As Good As It Gets is great, but not as much fun as it used to be. Melvin Udall (Jack Nicholson) is an arsehole, frankly. Self involved, rude and uncaring of other people's feelings. He is also an author, writing popular romantic fiction. Melvin has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and lives his life via a series of ticks, quirks, and an overpowering urge to be clean. In spite of Melvin being so unlikable, Nicholson, in one of his best ever roles, makes him a full character that you can get to like and even begin to root for, while cringing at the way he treats everybody he comes into contact with.

The road trip from hell begins, and only one of them was happy about it.

Living opposite Melvin is artist Simon Bishop (Greg Kinnear). Simon is gay and owns a small dog named Verdell, and is frequently the target of Melvin's unpleasantness, along with his agent Frank (Cuba Gooding Jr.). Melvin isn't afraid to let rip with some downright offensive behaviour, but viewer outrage is tempered somewhat by the fact that Melvin seems to dislike all groups of people equally.

As part of Melvin's obsessive routine, he always eats at the same café, at the same table and is served by the same waitress Carol Connelly (Helen Hunt), pretty much because she is the only member of staff able to tolerate him. When Carol has to take some time off to care for her critically ill son, Melvin's routine is all thrown out and he has to get her back as quickly as possible. This means using some of the fortune he's earned writing to pay for top-of-the-range healthcare for Carol's son. This causes their relationship to take an awkward turn as it's unclear from Carol's perspective if Melvin is only interested in getting Carol back to work or if there is a romantic motivation. At first that would seem ridiculous, but throughout the course of the film we see these two characters spend time together and it becomes more plausible.

When Simon is brutally attacked in his home, Melvin is roped into looking after Verdell while he recovers, and this is another change that is difficult for Melvin to cope with at first, but comes to change his relationship with Simon (and Verdell), and Melvin, Simon and Carol make for an unusual and dysfunctional group of, for want of a better word, friends.

Running into financial difficulty and unable to find his artistic muse, Simon has little choice but to travel to his parents to ask them for support. Melvin, who by now is rather attached to Verdell, agrees to drive, and convinces Carol to come along to make things less awkward. Insulting introductions complete ("Carol the waitress; Simon the fag"), the three of them set off. In spite of Melvin's unpleasantness, there is a touching moment between him and Carol when they are out for dinner, during which Melvin describes his attempts to improve himself in light of Carol's earlier assertion that she won't sleep with him. It's beautifully crafted and played note-perfect by Nicholson and Hunt.

Carol, having unexpectedly received the best compliment she's ever had.

By the end, Simon has rekindled his muse, and is living with Melvin until he gets back on his feet, and Melvin and Carol are tentatively trialling the first steps in a potential relationship; an occurrence so astounding for Melvin that he isn't even that bothered when he steps on a crack in the pavement. Maybe there's hope for him after all.

Watching As Good As It Gets in the 90s was a great deal of fun. Back then it probably would have got an 8. Nowadays, we are more in tune with the damage that can be inflicted on people when they are treated the way Melvin treats people, so there's less laughter and more cringe. In addition, we are currently in a grip of right-wing fervour, where treating minority groups the way Melvin does (and worse) has gained a sense of legitimacy, thanks to a rabid press who can't tell the difference between patriotism and racism. It's much less comfortable seeing Melvin's attitude towards homosexuality, race and women when it's coming from those in charge, supported by the media. Is it fair to lower a score due to the political climate at the time you watch it? I think so.

But, if you can put that aside and make like it's 1997, this is still a well-crafted story about three people that fit together even though they really shouldn't.

Score: 7/10

Todd at Variety did not enjoy it very much, but Scott, Eric and Patrick at Three Movie Buffs all seem on a par with me.

Finding Nemo / Finding Dory

Year: 2003 (Nemo), 2016 (Dory)
Running time: 100 minutes (Nemo), 97 minutes (Dory)
Certificate: U
Language: English
Screenplay: Andrew Stanton, Bob Peterson, David Reynolds (Nemo), Andrew Stanton, Victoria Strouse (Dory)
Director: Andrew Stanton
Starring (voices): Albert Brooks, Ellen DeGeneres, Alexander Gould, Willem Dafoe, Brad Garret, Allison Janney, Austin Pendleton, Stephen Root, Vicki Lewis, Joe Ranft, Geoffrey Rush, Andrew Stanton, Nicholas Bird, Bob Peterson, Barry Humphries, Eric Bana, Bruce Spence, Bill Hunter, LuLu Ebeling, John Ratzenberger, Elizabeth Perkins, Ed O'Neill, Kaitlin Olson, Hayden Rolence, Ty Burrell, Diane Keaton, Eugene Levy, Sloane Murray, Idris Elba, Dominic West, Sigourney Weaver

Marlin and Dory hitch a 'righteous' ride on the EAC.

I’m running out of ways to say how brilliantly imaginative Pixar are. Finding Nemo was a massive hit and thoroughly deserving of it. Marlin (Albert Brooks) is a clown fish who suffers the loss of not only his mate Coral (Elizabeth Perkins), but also all but one of his offspring in an attack from an ocean predator. The only survivor is merely a cracked egg Marlin names Nemo (Alexander Gould), and the bereaved father swears that he will never let anything happen to him. As a result of the damage he took whilst he was an egg, Nemo has a damaged fin and the constant attention of an overprotective father. Marlin's heavy-handedness naturally causes Nemo to rebel and during one heated exchange Nemo ventures too far from the protection of the coral and is picked up by a human and transported to a dentist's fish tank in Sydney. A frantic Marlin immediately sets off in pursuit of the boat, but soon loses it in the wide ocean.

Unable to give up, Marlin teams up with the only fish around willing to help, Dory (Ellen DeGeneres), a blue tang with short-term memory loss. The story follows two strands for the majority of the film then. Firstly is Marlin and Dory's trek across the ocean to find Marlin's son, facing everything from jellyfish, to an underwater minefield, to a trio of vegetarian sharks led by Bruce (Barry Humphries), as well as riding the East Australian Current with a surfer-dude turtle named Crush (voiced by director Andrew Stanton) and being almost swallowed by a both a whale and two pelicans, one of whom is named Nigel (Geoffrey Rush) and helps them to finally make it to Nemo's tank.

Nemo meets the Tank Gang.

The second story strand follows Nemo as he befriends the Tank Gang, led by Gill (Willem Dafoe), a Moorish Idol who is constantly trying to escape. Nemo finds a kindred spirit in Gill, who also has a damaged fin. As you might expect, the happy ending is never really in doubt, but the journey is a huge amount of fun, and as it's Pixar, there is some heavy emotional heft to stop the film being insubstantial - Nemo learns that his physical impairment is no bar to achievement despite all the time his dad used to worry about him and Marlin realises that he has been stifling Nemo with his insistence on never letting anything happen to him and learns to lay off a little.

As with every Pixar film, the quality of the animation is utterly astounding – everything underwater has a slight sheen to it to lend it realism (yes I know the animals have faces and can talk, but you know what I mean), but this never distracts from what’s going on; before long, you don’t notice it anymore, apart from to marvel at the attention to detail.

Dory, Marlin and Nemo set off on another adventure.

13 years is a long time for a sequel to arrive, but Finding Nemo became such a part of western culture that the risk that the original would have been forgotten by the time Finding Dory arrived was non-existent. As the title suggests, the sequel focuses on the blue tang and her journey to find her family. Dory remembers very little about what happened to her, but slowly events begin to trigger long-buried flashes of memory and, determined to find her family, Dory sets off to rediscover herself. Her journey leads her to the Marine Life Institute where we meet some colourful new characters, best of which is Hank (Ed O'Neill) an octopus who is able to camouflage himself and uses this talent to give himself free reign throughout the institute.

Meanwhile, Marlin and Nemo (this time voiced by Hayden Rolence) are trying their damnedest to break into the Institute to help Dory, with the assistance of some unusual characters, including a scruffy but useful Common Loon named Becky who gives them a lift into the institute via bucket. Unlike Finding Nemo, I was never quite sure if Dory would manage to find her parents, but there is a beautiful moment when, as these things go, Dory is at her lowest and has just about given up and the final and most important memory surfaces and she manages to follow a trail of shells just like she was taught as a child. It's wonderful.

A young Dory, before losing her parents.

Finding Dory is full of comedy moments ingeniously realised (a truck, driven by an octopus, flying off a cliff edge into the sea, in slow motion, to the strains of Louis Armstrong's What a Wonderful World is, from the genius build up beforehand to the tender moment when Hank holds Dory safe through the landing is perfect, and peak Pixar) and hilarious characters, but its more character-driven moments hit you like a ton of emotional bricks. The fact that after all this time, Dory's mum (Diane Keaton) and dad (Eugene Levy) have never given up and are still setting out trails of shells for Dory to follow home. The fact that Dory's condition is never presented as a weakness or a problem, but just another part of who she is, without any of the well-meaning but misguided attempts you so often see to set disabilities apart as something to take centre stage, eclipsing the person behind. Dory has short-term memory loss, not is short-term memory loss, and her life and personality is every bit as full as any other character, even with this facet.

More Pixar magic, highly recommended.

Score:
Finding Nemo: 8/10
Finding Dory: 8/10

Praise is inevitably high for Finding Nemo - see this review from Mark at The Telegraph. The same is generally true for Finding Dory, as seen in this review from Ben at Screen Rant. I can't help feeling however, that, based on his review, Peter at The Guardian must have fallen asleep at the start and made up a best guess.

Inception

Year: 2010
Running time: 148 minutes
Certificate: 12
Language: English
Screenplay: Christopher Nolan
Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Dileep Rao, Cillian Murphy, Marion Cotillard, Tom Berenger, Michael Caine, Pete Postlethwaite

Time to wake up.

As hard as it is to choose a favourite Christopher Nolan film, I think for me this might be it. Mind-bending, intelligent storytelling with multiple possible interpretations that assumes the audience is able to think for itself is par for the course for Nolan's films, but Inception just has the edge on its peers. Thoughts, memories, dreams and ideas are all related, and it is possible to manipulate them all by influencing dreams, but if you do can you ever really tell if you're awake or still dreaming? This is the concept in its simplest interpretation, and the idea takes us to astonishing places.

In a way Inception is a heist movie. Saito (Ken Watanabe) wants Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) to pull a job that will lead to a competitor dismantling his company. Cobb is a thief, albeit an unusual one. He specialises in stealing ideas from the subconscious mind while his marks are dreaming. He is also a fugitive, desperately trying to find a way to get home to see his children without getting arrested the moment he sets foot on home soil. Saito offers him everything he wants if only he can pull off what is generally thought to be impossible. Instead of stealing an idea, the job is to plant one, known as inception. Cobb thinks he can pull it off, because he's convinced he's done it in the past.

Like any heist movie worth its salt, once he accepts the job, the crew needs to be assembled. Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Eames (Tom Hardy), and Yusuf (Dillep Rao) are soon on board and are joined by newcomer Ariadne (Ellen Page). This a useful and well-used story conceit as we can piggy-back Ariadne's introduction to the world and have it explained to us as it's being explained to her. Each member of the crew has a fairly specific function, and Ariadne's is to design the dreams they will be using to carry out the job; something Cobb could do if it wasn't for the presence of his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard), consistently manifesting in Cobb's dreams and ruining his plans. In the real world she has died, but in the dreams she is a constant menace, always threatening to derail everything.

A tumbling car in the dream above causes corridors to flip in the dream below.

The mark is Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), son of energy tycoon Maurie Fischer (Pete Postlethwaite), poised to inherit his ailing father's empire. Conveniently, it's arranged to have Cobb and his team (including Saito, who insists on coming along) on the same flight, which happens to be a flight to the US. If Cobb fails, he's in handcuffs the moment he lands, but if he pulls it off, Saito has promised to get him through customs a free man with one phone call.

The job is intricate, detailed and involves multiple layers of dreams within dreams, and thanks to Cobb's wild card Mal, begins to go wrong as soon as they begin. If you're not paying attention it is easy to get lost, but if you allow yourself to be absorbed it's gripping. Skipping between different layers of dream with multiple action sequences taking place simultaneously, where time moves at different speeds and what happens in one dream can drastically affect the physical environment in another is such an effective way to inject tension, and time moving at different speeds to generate narrative tension is something Nolan would use again in the also-wonderful Interstellar.

Like The Prestige, the ending is something that leaves the viewer to decide the truth for themselves: has Cobb made it back, or is he still dreaming? There are convincing arguments for both possibilities and that is what makes the narrative compelling; the attention with which it has been assembled, allowing for multiple interpretations, which are set out in this article on the No Film School website.

Original, complex and stunning.

Score: 9/10

Inception is pretty well-loved out there - see Roger Ebert's review, but this review from Kirk at The Hollywood Reporter is (slightly) less emphatic in its praise.

Rain Man

Year: 1988
Running time: 133 minutes
Certificate: 15
Language: English
Screenplay: Ronald Bass, Barry Morrow
Director: Barry Levinson
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Tom Cruise, Valeria Golino, Jerry Molen, Michael D. Roberts

I've seen Rain Man a few times now. Since the last time I watched it, we've had the whole Weinstein thing happen in Hollywood, which spread to a large number of actors, including one Dustin Hoffman. When questioned on the accusations and his conduct by John Oliver, Hoffman didn't seem to understand what the problem was, which is an unfortunate attitude shared by many who are happy with the status quo. The point is, it's not easy to assimilate the complicated effect this has on how you see your favourite actors. Hoffman is undeniably an incredible performer, and Rain Man is one of his very best. To disregard Rain Man in light of the accusations feels like a disservice everyone else involved in the making of it, but to wax lyrical about Hoffman's standout performance feels too much like tacit approval of his attitude. If I was to write a review of Kill Bill now, I expect it would be different now I have a clearer idea of what Tarantino put Uma Thurman through, and I have no idea how to approach reviewing a Woody Allen or Roman Polanski film. Anyway, these thoughts belong on a different blog, so to Rain Man.

Ready to clean up.

Charlie Babbit (Tom Cruise) is a child of the '80s. Gordon Gekko-lite, he is a yuppie car dealer focusing pretty much exclusively on making money, and lots of it. Estranged from his father, he nevertheless expects a significant inheritance when his father dies. Turns out he's not going to get it, as the money ends up in trust for a hitherto unknown brother, Raymond (Dustin Hoffman). Raymond is autistic and resides in care. In an attempt to somehow get at his late father's money, Charlie takes Raymond out of his care facility and on a road trip.

Charlie has no clue how to deal with Raymond's eccentricities and has little patience with him to begin with. Charlie simply can't get into a state of mind that allows him to understand what his brother is going through, or more to the point, how he sees and processes the world around him. Once it becomes clear that Raymond is a savant, he tries his luck convincing Raymond to try counting cards in a casino with typical selfishness. Slowly, Charlie begins to form a bond with Raymond, and over the course of the film Charlie goes from wanting the cash to wanting to care for his brother - still not necessarily understanding him, but better able to empathise with him.

Charlie's girlfriend Susanna (Valeria Golino) shares a quiet moment with

Raymond.

Hoffman is undeniably brilliant, injecting Raymond with a striking innocence, making you feel for this man locked inside his own head. You long for him to be able to express himself and throughout the film when there are little moments that indicate that in his own way, Raymond is beginning to bond a little with Charlie too, it's wonderfully heart-warming. An often unsung hero in the film however is Tom Cruise, who has a difficult job with an unlikeable character. Charlie's arc from greedy money-grabber to loving brother is handled beautifully, and in a film without such a powerful central performance Cruise would've been standout. It's easy to forget sometimes that Cruise is a genuinely great performer in the right role.

By the end, it becomes clear, even to Charlie, albeit reluctantly, that Raymond requires a higher level of care than he is able to provide, so the film finishes on a somewhat bittersweet note; Raymond goes back into care, but Charlie has found a family he hadn't really realised he'd lost.

Great acting work in service to a story that's uplifting but just a touch melancholic.

Score: 8/10

Rain Man appears to be highly-praised across the board - see these reviews at the Ace Black Blog and by Emma at Empire.

Snakes on a Plane

Year: 2006
Running time: 105 minutes
Certificate: 15
Language: English
Screenplay: John Heffernan, Sebastian Gutierrez
Director: David R. Ellis
Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Julianna Margulies, Nathan Phillips, Rachel Blanchard, Flex Alexander, Kenan Thompson, Keith Dallas, Lin Shaye, Bruce James, Sunny Mabrey

Not what you want to see when joining the Mile High Club.

Snakes on a Plane: the movie the Internet made. It doesn’t matter how good or bad this film actually is, it's still gone down as a cult film along with Tremors and Critters, although compared to those two, it's popularity has waned rather significantly over the years. At the time of release, this film was a cult smash before anybody even saw it. All it took was the news that Samuel L. Jackson was doing a film called Snakes on a Plane and the Internet went mad. Before New Line had got the marketing in place there were a load of fan-made posters doing the rounds, helping the film's reputation grow over the months before its release.

Originally conceived as a rather milder affair, after the massive amount of interest, the makers even went back and filmed extra scenes, adding more gore, more sex and more quotable dialogue for Jackson. In fact, you spend most of the film waiting for it, and when he finally shouts: “I’ve had it with these motherfuckin’ snakes on this motherfuckin’ plane!” you really feel like cheering.

Hero pose #16.

Jackson is dependable throughout, buying into the concept wholeheartedly - in fact, were it not for his interest from the start, it probably wouldn't have got made. It's a little more polished than you might expect from a film called Snakes on a Plane, and it's clear New Line were willing to spend some extra money on it with a readymade audience built in and apparently gagging for it. While it didn't do as well as hoped (Jackson once referred to the possibility of making a sequel, which he called "More motherfuckin' snakes, on more motherfuckin' planes!" - alas, it was not to be), I find it encouraging that a studio was willing to both spend extra money and up the certificate when the interest is there. It was quite fun, and diverting for a while, but the novelty wears off before it can build up the momentum required to sustain a schlocky franchise.

The plot? Well, there are these snakes, right, and they’re on this plane…

Score: 5/10

It's surprisingly well-reviewed out there - have a look at this review from Dana at Slate or this 10-years-later retrospective from Sarah at Den of Geek.