inclusus_review

Most of my reviews are long but this I'm going to keep as short because I think you really benefit from going into this film as blind as possible. I'm not going to say much about the story or even compare it to any other film as that in itself would give away part of the beauty of the film. The only thing I will do is send a warning that this is a very brutal film and does require quite a strong stomach. I had been waiting for this one for a while as was interested to see if it would live up to all the hype it was generating on the festival circuit. Well I can say it more than managed to in my mind. I found director Ben Wheatley's first feature Down Terrace only mildly interesting and nothing special but this is a big step up being one of the most powerfully emotional cinema experiences I've recently had.

The film is simply - but fittingly - shot with much of it in that hand-held documentary style giving a 'real' feel to the proceedings. The story is actually pretty simple too – to start with anyway. Two war buddies turn to dubious jobs to help pay the rent and things get out of hand is the general gist. But the film is also so much more than those expectations of a run of the mill Brit gangster flick being a thriller, tense drama and of course horror too and as for the ending… well you'll just have to wait and see.

I found the characters believable and sympathetic even when events take a turn for the worse. Much of this is down to the quality of the acting which is pitched perfectly. Of course the acting only works if you have the script to support it and in this case it does. The banter between the two main characters is wonderful and so black it has you laughing at the most inappropriate moments. But its also believable, it's the kind of back and forth you have with oldest friends – rude, un-PC, funny and just very real.

The acting and the script combine well to help maintain the tension produced from the beginning in the opening scenes. We see these people should be a tight circle of family and friends but also given clues that maybe it's not all that rosy. A little comment here, a little frown there could be missed but all help undermine what we think we know about these people. And what about the mysterious Kiev incident? The violence in the film is very full on and up there with some of the Asia extreme cinema but also very cleverly done. Much of it adheres to a Scorsese school of violence - there is not violence continually through the film and when it does take place it's brutal, messy and then normality returns. The settings of these acts are everyday – kitchens, parking lots – that look like places we all know, not some unattached and unidentifiable place. It is partly this that I think makes it all so jarring. Another technique used around the violence is long takes. Usually with a brutal moment the film will cut to a close-up or a view where the dummy can then be unrecognised. Here however the shots follow the actor to a point where you think 'I know what might happen next but surely it can't as I know that is the actor' And then it does happen! Sound is well used and while the soundtrack is minimal the tone and emotion of scenes are carried extremely well through the sound design. At no time is it intruding into the story or has the feeling of 'here's a filler bit of music while we look at the scenery' – exactly as a soundtrack should be. Here again there is also intelligent editing ramping up the tension and then suddenly jolting back to normality. Top marks here.

It's not without its faults however. Some of the scenes could have been tightened up and I found the ending a little unsatisfying. I have seen moans it was confusing or left-field but I don't agree, I just found it lacking a little clarity as if it didn't quite know itself how to end. There are a few narrative jumps I didn't like (that I won't spoil by putting in) but parts were made to be a big deal and then once arrived had an air of 'oh well, lets get on with it anyway' making for a juddery inconsistent flow.

These are all minor irritants though. I came out of the cinema totally exhausted by Kill List - I found it emotionally tough to watch with the violence but found myself so drawn into the experience that by the time the crazy finale begins I was rapt. I think I've marked it up a bit too partly due to seeing it on the big screen with deafening sound, I'm not so sure it will work as well on the small screen. I saw a reviewer elsewhere liken it to Dead Man's Shoes and while they are narratively very different it's a good parallel I think – if you enjoyed that then you would love this . (Actually Paddy Considine's Tyrannosaur was a trailer at my viewing and looks good too.) At the end of the film some people applauded while other gave a WTF laugh but I defy anyone not to be emotional jolted by this.

Hmmm this didn't turn out to be a short review after all! 8 out of 10

I was lucky enough to catch Warrior at Empire's Big Screen at the O2 in London last week as one of their secret screenings and I have to say it was a very pleasant surprise. It seems it wasn't just me either, eves-dropping on rest of the audience as we left revealed there was an all round endorsement by the crowd. Funnily many of the conversations would begin 'I wouldn't usually go and see a film like that but…' which I can certainly second. I will also avoid spoilers here as I went into this completely unaware and certainly benefited from it.

The film follows two fighters and their families as they enter the big bucks mixed martial arts (MMA) competition, Sparta. It has the usual balance of down on his luck good guy doing it for the family (Joel Edgerton) and a seemingly brutal fighter who is looking for a payday (the suddenly ubiquitous Tom Hardy). Throw in Nick Nolte as a sad, reformed drunk of a father and we have the basic elements of another run of the mill sporting movie. Or at least that's how it starts. It doesn't particularly throw any curve balls to be honest but it does unfold interestingly and we are not given the whole story on a plate which was refreshing. It examines family relationships and regret and faces the terrible truths when some wounds just cannot be healed by forgiveness once it is too late.

It's not all family drama though and unsurprisingly it does have a hellova lot of fighting in so even though I think it is enjoyable for most if you can't stomach the violence then don't bother with it. However the fighting is well balanced within the narrative, excellently shot and excitingly edited so we do not get the cliché slow-mo or the epic hour long battle even for the big finale. Some of the fights are brutally quick and even those that go the distance are edited down very well indeed while maintaining that punishing feeling - they certainly had the audience ooomph'ing and wincing along with every slam and punch. There will be blood along with some horrible curdling crunches too.

Aside form the action Rocky (1976) and The Wrestler (2008) seemed to be more about the individual and their demons and while there are elements of that here it really focuses on the (dysfunctional) family drama. Of course it is going to get the obvious comparisons to The Fighter (2010) but I don't think it's a bad thing and that should really be taken as a compliment. I would not be surprised to see it picking up a few awards along the way too. Even if one was to compare the two I think Warrior stands up very well and having the film follow two fighters marks it apart. Like the fighter though the two leads are outstanding and worthy of all the attention they will receive for them. Performances are impressive across the board in fact and it's wonderful to see Nick Nolte back in the frame with a delightful role that he seems to slip perfectly into. (A sorry ex-drunk with a history of violence - apologies Nick!) As well as their acting performances the two main characters are to be complimented on their believable appearance as fighters with some impressive physique on display. Both of our fighters here are easily as believable as the muscled yet high pitched and whiny Wahlberg and certainly must have done a fair bit of training for the role too. Although that wouldn't really be a surprise for anyone that has seen Hardy in Bronson (2008) most will know him from his turn in Inception (2010) which is something completely different. Joel Edgerton too looks different from the roles I remember him in – Kinky Boots (2005) and Animal Kingdom (2010) - as well as his Uncle Owen turn mean this is another impressive transformation.

As much as I love this film there are a few gripes as there always has to be (sorry I've yet to find a 10/10 film!). Props to director Gavin O'Connor who also wrote the story and starred but the direction could have been a bit tighter and its not a movie where every scene is trimmed with a few wasted shots or lazy and obvious camera work. Although performances were all good some of the characters seemed to lack depth and I felt the wife (Jennifer Morrison) was a little underused as I thought Nick's role also seemed to be forgotten about in the final third. These are very minor quibbles but unfortunately the main one is that it's a product of its self - it's difficult for any film like this to avoid the cliché or cheesy ending. A film focusing on two main fighters in the same competition was always limited on outcomes and although Warrior does it's best I'm afraid the ending could have been handled a bit better.

Very enjoyable movie that I hope gets the audience it deserves. Give it a try even if it's not your usual cuppa tea.

8 out of 10

I was really looking forward to this for a long time and was not disappointed as it turned out tense, immersive, pacy, full of action and generally great fun. I'm really enjoying seeing director Matthew Vaughan grow too and having enjoyed his output so far am intrigued to see where he goes next. Here he manages to direct a well balanced comic book adaptation managing to navigate between the Hollywood, self-knowing, smart-ass movies (Iron Man 2) and the oh-so-serious (Dark Knight). However as an origins piece it does take away valuable time from any deep story lines so while being very good I couldn't quite allow myself to say great.

The cast all put in decent performances with the main players particularly working well together with strong support being a mix of new comers and experience. Kevin Bacon's Sebastian Shaw is a dastardly solid villain while James McAvoy as Charles Xavier has that easy likability (blandness?) he's had since TV's Shameless. However, its Michael Fassbender's Erik/Magneto that stands out here but then I find he's consistently spot on with his performances anyway. (I don't want to say 'this is only a comic book adaptation' but check out Hunger or Fish Tank two wonderful though very different films for an example of his talent.)

Although this is a prequel it does not exist in the same Marvel universe as the other X-Men films. The poor X3 Last Stand showed a bald Xavier walking while in this offering we see him supposedly paralyzed yet with a full head of hair. Although the film strays from certain origins (and endings!) it's nice for the comic crowd to see the Hellfire Club in there and also touches like introducing William Stryker Sr too. These little details I found fun as they gave fans a knowing extra while not sneering at those who didn't get it.

Even though it is quite long for this type of feature I felt comfortable with the pace of the film. The introductions as they start building the team come rapidly but do not seem rushed. Similarly the training section follows a similar quick fire fashion effectively conveying progress and growing friendships in a minimum of screen time.

Relationships form the backbone of the film - not just human/mutant but Erik/Xavier, Xavier/Mystique, Mystique/Erik, Erik/Shaw - and I was impressed the way the film let many intertwining strands play out while keeping the story moving and not focusing too hard on one at the expense of others.

This evenhandedness is really where the film excels as it shares the burden well between the players rather than rely too much one character (thinking of Wolverine). McAvoy and Fassbender draw out a really warm and believable relationship and even though most watching will know their fate the tension is upheld (far better than in say the Star Wars prequels and Vader's turning) and their affinity portrays genuine regret at the routes they must take.

Characterisation is strong for the main although the female parts all have traits seemingly based on classic Hollywood feminine stereotypes Mystique is very needy, Angel terribly insecure and Emma Frost while one of the most powerful mutants is dominated first by Shaw and then literally by Magneto who in a classic male fantasy straps her to a bed and asphyxiates her. Not to say the male characters are above suffering from similar anxieties or complexes - Havoc cannot control himself while Xavier can't stop trying to control everyone - but the mutant world is definitely still a man's world. We could call fault with the original text but I think this could have been avoided without loss of narrative.

The film is a bit heavy-handed with the theme of not fitting in although it was slightly surprising that given the era it didn't touch on the civil rights movement. However it's not quite the simple reflection of diversity and tolerance faced in our society so steering clear may have actually been wise. One thing I did find a tad irritating was the time line. When so much effort was put into other details it just seemed lazy rather than down to artistic license. I'm a moderate fan rather than a fanboy geek but to my knowledge I would have placed Banshee much older than he appears and I'm not sure Havoc would have even been born at this time. I could be wrong and of course this means nothing to those who don't care/know the comics and has no influence on the story other than mild elitist-antagonism for those who may.

After the initial excitement I was also little disappointed that the Sixties setting was really only highlighted by giving the female characters shorter skirts and higher boots. Attitudes of the era may have been signified briefly in the offhand objectification of women at the Hellfire Club but it hardly seems as if Hollywood needs the sixties as an excuse to show lingerie clad women. The Cuban missile crisis was nicely tied in to Shaw's fiendish plan and it's actually here that I thought it was most Sixties-esque as Shaw is very much the early Bond villain complete with sharp suits, private submarine and well stocked bar. The fashion in which he dismisses Emma to get his ice is pure Sixties kitsch.

Although not as stylised as other comic book adaptations the environments were richly constructed, characters believable, story interesting and immersion into the world easy for the viewer. The only time I had a slight reality twinge was in the final 'the real enemy is out there' speech where I suddenly became very aware I was watching an actor in a dorky helmet but I can easily forgive that. Although a bit light in places it remains a superior version and a very enjoyable few hours.

8 out of 10

First off Beginners seems to be in conflict with its self over what sort of film it is exactly. I don't mean so it can be easily classified and pigeon-holed but it doesn't quite carry the weight to make it the family drama it half intends to be while it isn't light and whimsy enough for the indie-style relationship movie. I'm not saying a film must adhere to one genre/area but in this case it disappointingly dilutes the strengths the film does have in each camp. Certainly by watching the trailer you would be forgiven for expecting more of a comedy than you actually get.

Whatever that trailer may lead you to believe the film is basically about identity, self worth, relationships and how we are shaped by our interactions with our parents and each other. Christopher Plummer beautifully plays Hal, Oliver's (Ewan McGregor) father who comes out as gay after his wife dies and goes about discovering life anew. The story develops through flash backs as Oliver enters a relationship with Anna (Melanie Laurent playing that slightly quirky European card) and examines how his past experiences have made him emotionally who he is now.

Even though Plummer is the standout performance the rest of the cast do a good job and I particularly have to give props to Goran Visnjic (whom my wife instantly and a little too gleefully remembered from being Dr. Kovac in ER) as the younger gay lover who although only had a few scenes managed to raise the film a little in each. (I also have to just put in here as much as I like Ewan McGregor I really do have a problem with some of his accents. It's not quite bordering on the Connery level of ridiculousness but I think he needs to sort this out or stop taking roles that require him to be an American with any lines!)

Sadly the film pulls in different directions too much and I couldn't quite work out myself which way I was hoping for it to go; drama, romance, comedy….dramedy? I liked how Anna and Oliver began their relationship at the party but I quickly tired of her and their lack of chemistry made me rapidly lose any interest in whether things would work out between them. I enjoyed the father and son scenes far more although while they were more interesting these seemed to have even less to actually explore. Hal claims his marriage had been happy and now he was having a blast after coming out – no problem here – and while it seems Oliver may not have had his father around a lot of the time the scenes with his slightly off-kilter, dry humoured mother (a great Mary Page Keller) seem fun.

This set-up may not make a happy family in the real world but the lack of conflict/issues/unhappiness doesn't really make for an interesting film dynamic. The trailer too makes out that Hal's life choice is going to be a major story element but no one really seems concerned so consequently neither are we. There is no identity or outrage to motivate us into an opinion. However it is in these scenes that we find the most emotion and while the love between boy/girl quickly becomes dull the father/son relationship is truly moving and when Hal passes away it would take a cold heart to not have a lump in their throat.

Getting away from my doubts on the story I did however admire the film making immensely. I liked the various references to time and memory shown with the use of the different media and the still photos as well as the use of the quickly edited, repetitive scenes showing the passing of time. There are good little narrative devices too such as Anna using a note book to communicate at a party after losing her voice and of course giving Arthur the dog (all the best) lines which could have easily come across as gimmicky but managed to add a different dimension that lifted the film above the average.

The hand held camera work we now see on so many films trying to have that indie-chic look works well here and in this case feels comfortable and justified. Mike Mills directs with competence and as with the little narrative devices his use of different techniques including the audio/visual scene overlaps are what bring this film above other similar offerings. I quite enjoyed his film Thumbsucker (2005) and could certainly see a few similarities in style here, even with the little cartoon drawings very similar to Oliver's work as a graphic artist.

I must take a moment here to say how much I enjoyed the jazz and blues soundtrack with the likes of Jelly Roll Morton and Gene Austin. To be honest with you I'm not so sure that it fitted all that well in certain scenes but when it did it really struck a chord and is worth checking out if you are a 1920/30s jazz or blues fan at all. Hell, even if you're not its worth it.

Overall I found Beginners technically very well made with a few interesting storyline threads but the narrative just lacked the cohesion or direction to make you care what happens next making for a disappointing end product. It is very emotional and moving but sadly only in one part of the story making for a very lopsided feel. However at the end of the day my biggest niggle was when Oliver – a graphic artist remember – asks his partner in their night- time graffiti jaunts how to use a spray can. Unfortunately this sort of confusion pretty much seemed to sum up the film for me.

6.5 out of 10

I had a fear that an F1 feature would be full of slow-mo sleek machines and rev sounds but Senna is an excellent example of how correctly presented a story can transcend it's obvious audience. Although having such a charismatic character is certainly an advantage, the film manages balance the sport and the man, appealing to those who know F1 and Senna's story well and also those that have an interest in the human elements. Emotional content is the film's motivation and it manages to use the archive footage to get you on Senna's side from the start. By allowing the viewer to feel his passion and love for the sport once he is challenging to be world champion you feel as if you have been on that journey too.

Using a selection of footage - home movies, race footage, TV interviews, in car camera – Senna avoids the stagnation documentaries suffer when on the big screen. The variation in quality makes sharp contrasts and mixing these with strong editing keeps the film at a brisk pace. I understand the thoughts of leaving out the talking heads although occasionally this left me feeling a little of the identification was lost. Strangely without the visual aids of facial expression I found some of the most insightful moments came from various F1 commentators.

The film kids us into thinking we are getting to know Senna yet there is very little learnt outside racing. This in turn questions what the film is actually aiming for. It's not to revel the man due to the omission of any non-race related footage and if it was to affirm his status as the greatest then it gives scant evidence showing very little on other drivers or the sport in general. Repeatedly his faith is referred to but without any context of depth we never get any real sense of its true influence on his driving or life.

This means much of the focus is left to the Senna/Prost rivalry which detracts from his other contributions to the sport. Unfortunately the reliance on this relationship means once Prost has retired the story comes across a little rushed yet this is one of the most telling times in Senna's life as he moves to Williams and seems to fall out of love with racing.

The film also manages to miss this opportunity to really analyse Senna and continues to show him as the frustrated genius derailed by elements outside his control. This was sometimes the case (FIA president Jean-Marie Balestre comical in his villainy) but the film fails with it's blinkered view that Senna could do no wrong. This unevenness is shown particularly in the treatment of Prost, vilified through-out the film to be given a redeeming line at the close of the titles. Too much of their rivalry is reduced to a simple good vs. evil rather than two great drivers with different styles both trying to be the best.

Also omitted of course is any negative footage of Senna racing. He was never a dirty driver but his direct style he bought from the more physical carting and his desire to win at all costs meant he certainly wasn't above utilising more forceful tactics. Leaving these out may enhance his clean image but it misses the chance to show his win-at-all-costs spirit. Although the collision that wrecks the Prost's title challenge is seen to disturb Senna it is edited in such a fashion as to be justified revenge. Critically I found this bias annoying but I have to admit that it didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film. I'm sure Errol Morris or Marcel Ophuls would agree documentary does not have to be objective and impartial!

I loved this film and fully enjoyed the experience, impressed it was able to influence my emotions on so many levels - exactly what a movie should do. The film manages to be exciting, funny, gripping, and incredibly moving but I just felt it a little flawed when looking at it critically and at my most ungenerous would say it comes across as unbalanced blind hero worship. The film never really draws any conclusion about any of the facts presented and for that I was a bit disappointed. Does it need to though? Maybe not, but to be so desperate to show his genius it seemed a little odd that it skimmed over the possible influences or reasons for this. For example I would have been interested to see what was the real impact of his faith on his attitude and how was it compatible with his obvious need for individual achievement.

I agree with another reviewer here that some shots from the end credits could have well been in the film, particularly a great shot of Senna stopping his car and running back to aid to a crashed colleague. It is in these you realise the film is quite short and there was so much more to the story. It also makes you realise the limitations of relying on archive footage and without some contemporary reflective commentary it can seem quaint and isolated at times. If you can track it down the longer cut gives a bigger picture and creates a much more even evaluation but as a whole it is a messy affair and not as fluid as the theatrical cut. As a small note I must mention much of the extra footage are direct interviews and with this much footage (around 160 minutes) the talking heads actually make a nice insertion.

It's definitely well worth a watch and I would recommend it to everybody, not just those with an interest in F1, as it manages to engage emotionally with the viewer more than anything I've seen in a long time. Just don't go expecting an in depth documentary or an impartial portrayal of the facts.

7.5 out of 10