Oscars Breakdown 2013

Best Picture

Argo
Amour
Beasts Of The Southern Wild
Django Unchained
Les Misérables
Life Of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty

Most likely to win: Argo
Has a chance: Life Of Pi, Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty
Who I want to see win: Argo

This year it seems that Argo will win take out the top honours given that it has won basically every notable award over the past few months. Ben Affleck's 1980's thriller centred around the Iran hostage crisis is a film deserving of the award and hopefully if the film does win it will make up for Affleck's snub for Best Director. Other nominees in with a chance such as Life Of Pi and Les Misérables had very positive reviews when they first came out but have failed to maintain the same level of interest as Argo. Given the controversy surrounding the torture scenes in Zero Dark Thirty I can't see it earning more votes than films such as Argo or Lincoln but there is no doubt it has been positively received and still has a slim chance. As for Silver Linings Playbook, the other film to receive an impressive array of nominations (8) I just don't see it as a Best Picture film. Instead the film has more chance of picking up individual acting awards, given that all four main actors/actresses are nominated in their respected categories. The only film that has challenged Argo for awards of late is Lincoln but I can't see it upsetting Argo on the day.


Best Director

Ang Lee: Life Of Pi
Benh Zeitlin: Beasts Of The Southern Wild
David O. Russel: Silver Linings Playbook
Michael Haneke: Amour
Steven Spielberg: Lincoln

Most likely to win: Steven Spielberg: Lincoln
Has a chance: Ang Lee: Life Of Pi 
Who I want to see win: Ben Affleck: Argo/Ang Lee: Life Of Pi

Moving past the obvious snub of Affleck (if Argo wins best picture it will be the third time in history that a film has won Best Picture without its director being nominated) there are still many great directors deserving of the award. Personally I think Ang Lee deserves the award given that he successfully managed to adapt a truly challenging novel into a film. Not only did he successfully adapt a novel that no one thought was possible, but he managed to create a beautiful film in the result.  In saying that I wouldn't be disappointed if Spielberg won given that he is one of my all time favourite directors.


Best Actor

Bradley Cooper: Silver Linings Playbook
Daniel Day Lewis: Lincoln
Denzel Washington: Flight
Hugh Jackman: Les Misérables
Joaquin Phoenix: The Master

Most likely to win: Daniel Day Lewis: Lincoln
Has a chance: Denzel Washington: Flight, Hugh Jackman: Les Misérables
Who I want to see win: Denzel Washington: Flight

This year I think the category comes down to two heavy weights of Hollywood: Daniel and Denzel. Both have won two Oscars but if Daniel Day Lewis wins he will make history as the first actor to win three Oscars for Best Actor. Hugh Jackman is perhaps the rough chance given his recent Golden Globe win but ultimately I can't see him winning. He has at least demonstrated to a wider audience his talents as a dramatic actor and shown that he can do more than play the famous long clawed mutant; Wolverine.


Best Actress

Emmanuelle Riva: Amour
Jennifer Lawrence: Silver Linings Playbook
Jessica Chastain: Zero Dark Thirty
Naomi Watts: The Impossible
Quvenzhané Wallis: Beasts Of The Southern Wild

Most likely to win: Emmanuelle Riva: Amour
Has a chance: Jennifer Lawrence: Silver Linings Playbook, Jessica Chastain: Zero Dark Thirty,
Quvenzhané Wallis: Beasts Of The Southern Wild (Sorry Naomi)
Who I want to see win: Quvenzhané Wallis: Beasts Of The Southern Wild

Once again Jennifer Lawrence has impressed audiences earning herself another Oscar nomination (not bad considering she is still only 22 years old). For many she is the favourite to take out the award along with Jessica Chastain who is fast becoming the most sought after actress. But given the fact that Emmanuelle Riva is 85 and may not get another chance at an Oscar I feel the Academy will vote in her favour. Not just for her role in Amour but to honour her achievement to the movie industry over so many years. Personally I feel Quvenzhané Wallis is the most deserving as she is absolutely amazing in Beasts Of The Southern Wild. Either way this year could be a record breaker as the award could potentially be handed out to the oldest ever winner or the youngest ever (Quvenzhané Wallis).


Best Supporting Actor

Alan Arkin: Argo
Christoph Waltz: Django Unchained
Philip Seymour Hoffman: The Master 
Robert DeNiro: Silver Linings Playbook
Tommy Lee Jones: Lincoln

Most likely to win: Tommy Lee Jones: Lincoln
Has a chance: Christoph Waltz: Django Unchained, Alan Arkin: Argo
Who I want to see win: Christoph Waltz: Django Unchained or Alan Arkin: Argo

This category is the toughest to pick for me as both Waltz and Arkin deliver memorable performances bringing their unique brand of comedy to films set in difficult times (Django Unchained) and in tense situations (Argo). I'm Glad recognition has been given to Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix for their roles in The Master. Neither of them is likely to take away an award but they both give performances worthy of an Oscar. As For Tommy Lee Jones, he has certainly gained a vast array of accolades for his performance in Lincoln and I think he remains the favourite by a small margin. 
 

Best Supporting Actress  

Amy Adams: The Master
Anne Hathaway: Les Misérables
Helen Hunt: The Sessions
Jackie Weaver: Silver Linings Playbook  
Sally Field: Lincoln 

Most likely to win: Anne Hathaway: Les Misérables 
Has a chance: Helen Hunt: The Sessions, Sally Field: Lincoln
Who I want to see win: Anne Hathaway: Les Misérables

Probably the category that seems the most certain as Anne Hathaway has had an amazing couple of months winning multiple awards and praise for her heart-wrenching performance in Les Misérables. 


Best Animated Feature 

Brave 
Frankenweenie
Paranorman 
The Pirates! Band Of Misfits
Wreck-It Ralph 

Most likely to win: Wreck-It Ralph 
Has a chance: Brave
Who I want to see win: Wreck-It Ralph

Although Brave was an entertaining film it was not one of Pixar's best and I feel the immensely enjoyable Disney film Wreck-It Ralph will edge Brave out for the top spot. Both films were a huge success at the box office aided by the fact that they could be enjoyed by adults as well as children. This year also saw a reoccurring theme of the paranormal appear in animated films, with low budget films Frankenweenie and Paranorman both earning nominations. Both films were somewhat disappointing despite being beautifully made, especially Tim Burton's Black and White; Frankenweenie that is based on his short film from the 1980's that was part of the reason he was sacked by Disney. Despite Burton's poetic redemption (Frankenweenie released by Disney) Frankenweenie will remain a very outside chance.



Best Documentary
 
5 Broken Cameras
How To Survive A Plague
Searching For Sugar Man
The Gatekeepers
The Invisible War

Most likely to win: Searching For Sugar Man 
Has a chance: How To Survive A Plague
Who I want to see win: Searching For Sugar Man

For me this has to be a one film race as Searching For Sugar Man is not just the best documentary for the year but one of the best I have ever seen.  

There are a few certainties that come with the Oscars: there will be lots of long drawn out speeches, the red carpet will receive as much focus as the awards themselves, there is bound to be some upsets and the host will unsuccessfully make a series of awkward jokes to try and lighten the mood. However this year I am really looking forward to the Oscars because there are many films/actors that I feel genuinely deserve an award and I think Seth MacFarlane will put on a great show as host.

" I'm looking for someone to share in an adventure. "

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Peter Jackson returns to Middle-earth with the highly anticipated and somewhat unexpected start to the trilogy of The Hobbit. Tolkien's prequel to The Lord Of The Rings trilogy sees a much younger Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) reluctantly join a band of 13 dwarves on a dangerous adventure. The dwarves led by their rightful king Thorin (Richard Armitage) aim to reclaim their homeland of Erebor at The Lonely Mountain from the terrifying dragon known as Smaug. The task at hand is no easy feat but luckily Bilbo and the dwarves are accompanied by the wise wizard known as Gandalf (Ian McKellen) who acts as an overseer to the daunting quest.

Compared to the epic proportions of The Lord Of The Rings the subject matter in The Hobbit seems like a children's fairytale, and in reality it's not far from the truth. The Hobbit was a novel written for Tolken's children hence the writing is quick and humourous, diving into one adventure after another. Most events happen in just a few lines whereas they could easily take up a whole chapter. It is for this reason that I understand why the seemingly short book could be made into two films. As for the decision to make the novel into three films well I think everyone is a little nervous as it seems like a bit of a stretch. However I have faith in the vision of Peter Jackson and I feel his decision is not solely based on the inevitable box office profit.

Given that there are three films based on such limited material it was a surprise to see Jackson once again make the film run longer than 2 and a half hours. In fact there are some scenes that I felt were unnecassary in the film such as some of the flashback/back story scenes for the dwarves. Also there are characters and events that are magnified to have a greater role in the film which I found unnecessary. Most notably the character of Azog: The Pale Orc (Manu Bennett) who acts as the main antagonist for the film. With the addition of so many extra characters and events I feel that the central story arc was slightly lost and even though the film is long the dwarves are still given little individual distinction.

Apart from the leader Thorin who is the Aragon type hero of the story most of the dwarves are simply defined by an eccentric trait. Such as Bombur: the fat one (doesn't have a speaking role), Fili and Kili: the young/good looking ones, Dwalin: the angry one and Gloin: Gimli's dad. Apart from Thorin the only dwarves who are given even a little screen time are: Balin (Ken Stott) the wise dwarf that has been by Thorin's side from the very beginning and Bofur (James Nesbitt) who provides the comic relief and forms a strong friendship with Bilbo. Armitage himself gives a strong performance as Thorin the loyal and dedicated leader of the group, but perhaps what is most impressive is that Armitage is 6'2" in real life. But my favourite dwarf has to be Bifur who hilariously has an ax sticking out of his head. It's this sort of inspired humour that helps The Hobbit go beyond the expected childish jokes of dwarfs being short or fat.

One of the biggest concerns surrounding the movie was who would play the title role of Bilbo. The coveted role eventually went to Martin Freeman and he is perfectly cast as the reluctant hero who proves (mainly to himself) that he does in fact have a flare for adventure and danger. Whether or not he is a talented thief (which is his chief role for joining the quest) is yet to be determined. Then there is Gandalf the Grey played by Ian McKellen who once again provides many memorable lines and saves the day on more than one occasion. It's no accident that one of the most beloved literacy characters of all time has now become one of the most beloved characters to grace the silver screen as McKellen effortlessly transitions into the character of Gandalf, doing justice to Tolkien's literacy masterpiece.

Throughout the film you may find yourself saying 'I don't remember that from the book' and that's because many characters and scenes are taken from the appendices from The Lord Of The Rings or in Radagast's case from the book itself. Additions to the film are also made in an attempt to create a smoother transition to The Lord Of The Rings films. Including the inclusion of orcs, more time given to Saruman and a greater emphasis placed on the growing threat of Sauron. Given the popularity of The Lord Of The Rings films many central characters also return in one way or another such as Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Elrond (Hugo Weaving) as well as Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Ian Holm (old Bilbo) as the narrators of the film. Most have little or no role in the novel but once again help bridge the gap between the two stories.

Perhpas the best recurring character is that of Gollum/Smeagol who is once again masterfully portrayed by Andy Serkis. Unlike other characters Gollum was in The Hobbit in what is perhaps the most famous chapter: Riddles in the dark. Similarly the scene is one of the best in the film and although Gollum has a small role in the film it is very memorable. Andy Serkis may not have been on screen for very long but he is also the second unit director of the film, adding his talents to the long list of people responsible for bringing the novel to life.

The Hobbit was a film that overcome many pre-production issues including the original director Guillermo del Toro leaving after three years of development. Luckily the project went ahead with Peter Jackson once again taking the reigns of director. Jackson then went on to shoot and project the film at 48 frames per second, not the industry norm of 24 frames. The move was bold as it had never been done before and was the subject of much debate and criticism when the film first came out. The aim was to create a more realistic looking film, espically when seen in 3D, however many viewers found the film too fast and nauseating. I saw the film in 3D and the fact is the film was clearer but on all accounts the same as any other film. Ultimately I applaud Jackson's bravery by trialling new technology and his attempts to make the best looking film possible.

It is inevitable that The Hobbit will be compared to The Lord Of The Rings, after all the novel and films act as a prequel to the trilogy. Yet the comparission of the two may be unfair and unjust. The Hobbit is on all accounts its own story and should be viewed as such. Viewers should not go into the film expecting another Lord Of The Rings trilogy, instead they should just go along for the ride on an all new adventure. Whether or not Jackson's ambitious plans for a trilogy will be a success is yet to be determined but one thing is for sure the adventure has just begun.

" You silver-tongued devil "

Django Unchained

Quentin Tarantino's latest entry into his impressive catalogue of films comes in the form of Django Unchained. Living up to his reputation the film is bloody, explosive, captivating, at times disturbing but above all impressive. Set in the American south during 1858 the film follows Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave who is destined to never see his wife again and live a life of torture and hardship. Fortunately Django falls into the hands of a bounty hunter known as Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz) who promises to grant Django his freedom if he assists him on an assignment. Proving to be a competent partner Schultz makes a deal with Django involving a plan to rescue his wife from the ruthless plantation owner; Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).

The film is exactly what we have come to expect with Tarantino: a glorified spectacle of violence, gore and mayhem. In fact Tarantino's love affair with theatrical violence and blood has almost become his curse. Going into a Tarantino film you find yourself expecting the unexpected. Wheether it's everyone in the scene suddenly dying in spectacular fashion or for the leading man to be killed off, it has all become sort of familiar. Once upon a time Tarantino's unique style of film making was bold and unexpected leaving the audience shocked and in awe of what they were seeing. Now Tarantino is finding it hard to create the same sense of surprise with his films. Luckily the man is a brilliant filmmaker with his themes of violence playing but one role in his films. Tarantino has a natural ability for storytelling and along with his team consistently produces beautiful films whether its through the cinematography, screenwriting or the music, his films never cease to impress.

Tarantino is not just bold in his style of film making, but in his decision to set his films in places such as Nazi Germany (Inglourious Basterds) and in the deep south a few years before the Civil War as with Django Unchained. Given the serious nature of these time periods the subject matter is dark to say the least and for many a film set in these periods would be hard to watch. Yet Tarantino always manages to handle these difficult themes with respect, even managing to bring his dark twisted sense of humour to the films. It's as if he is trying to pick the most challenging setting for his film and still make the viewing enjoyable, even humourous.

Django Unchained also sees Tarantino direct his first Wetsern, a genre that has inspired many of his films but is effectively dead in modern cinema. Tarantino pays homage to the film that inspired him the most for Django Unchained: the orginal Django, made in 1966. Although Django Unchained is an original film written by Tarantino there are many references to the cult favourite of Django including a cameo from star Franco Nero and the use of many original songs from the film. So like all things with Tarantino the lines are not black and white: it's not technically a remake, instead it's almost a tribute to a genre he admires and loves.

Although I could talk about Tarantino all day the cast is equally as impressive. Christoph Waltz is once again the starring player after impressing the movie world with his portrayal of a Nazi general in Inglourious Basterds. Similarly to that film Waltz' character is introduced in spectacular fashion and he never looks back. In this film his role is changed to play the "hero" of sorts (more of an antihero given he is a bounty hunter) who is as dapper as he is kind, acting as the exception to the norm for a white man in that time period. Waltz has a demanding presence on screen and is the source of most of the humour in the film, highlighting his range as an actor.

Equal to the efforts of Waltz is Leonardo DiCaprio, who I feel has established himself as one of the best actors of the modern era. DiCaprio plays the ruthless owner of Candie "Candie Land" Cotton Plantations and everything about his character from his brown teeth to his piercing stare screams hate. Calvin Candie is a looming threat that hangs over Django and Schultz as soon as he is introduced on screen, but given their mission the duo are unable to break away from his seemingly inevitable eruption of violence. Perhaps the most disturbing character is Candie's servant Stephen played by the significantly older looking Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson's devotion to Candie and his distaste for Django is unsettling to say the least, with his deceitful behaviour acting as the catalyst for the dramatic conclusion.

Then there is the leading man of Jamie Foxx. Originally intended for Will Smith, Foxx makes the most of his chance in a Tarantino film and for the most part he does an ok job. Foxx definitely looks the part, but I couldn't help but be disappointed with his performance. Maybe it's just because he was overshadowed by the amazing performances of Waltz and DiCaprio but ultimately I feel his character needed to be more ferocious instead of quiet and serious, always plotting his revenge. One thing is for sure you definitely see a side to Foxx that hasn't been seen before or maybe more than just a side! Kerry Washington is also very good as Django's wife Broomhilda even though she has little time on screen. There is also a funny appearance from Jonah Hill and a memorable cameo from Tarantino himself who somewhat confusingly sounds like he has an Australian accent.

Tarantino's long awaited western can sit comfortably next to his previous films, living up to his reputation and the expectations of devoted fans. Despite its somewhat bloated length Django Unchained manages to entertain throughout and really who can complain about too much Tarantino. For newcomers to his style of film making the film will undoubtedly shock and disturb. In fact even for devoted fans this film will surely disturb as there are many cringe worthy scenes. I think the film can best be described by DiCaprio's character Candie when he declares that "Adult supervision is required".

 

" Thanks for keeping me alive "

Searching For Sugar Man

Rodriguez was a mysterious rock 'n' roll musician in the late 60s and early 70s in Detroit. He generated some buzz amongst recording studios for his unique style and inspired lyrics that eventually lead to the production of two records. However both records were on all accounts massive flops in the US. Yet at the same time unbeknown to Rodriguez or the rest of America he became a cult sensation in South Africa. Due to a sole record that was brought into the country Rodriguez's music spread across the country. His music could be heard from every home and ultimately inspired resistance to Apartheid, being for many South Africans the soundtrack to their lives.

Hopefully that brief intro should have peaked your curiosity and interest enough to see the film however that's just the start of the story. In the documentary it's accurately stated that the second half of the story is the best part. It's here that you learn where all the money went for Rodriguez's record sales and why he never saw a cent. You learn more about the elusive rock idol whose back story was basically non existent. But most importantly you find out once and for all the truth behind his supposed suicide on stage of which there have been many rumours throughout the years.

Searching for Sugar Man is without a doubt one of the best documentaries ever made, the story is so unbelievable that you cant help but be captivated throughout. The documentary is told by two South Africans who were fans of Rodriguez and had discovered the bizarre reality that he was unknown in America. It was their determination to find out about Rodriguez's life, inspiration and ultimately uncover the truth about how he died that lead to one of the greatest stories in music history. What they discovered was more than they ever hoped for, leading to a conclusion that is both inspiring, heart warming and tragic that will leave you in disbelief.

Throughout the documentary many people are interviewed that either worked with Rodriguez or were responsible for producing his records and there is no shortage of praise. He is described as a songwriter equal to that of Bob Dylan, an inner city poet, a prophet and more famous than Elvis or The Beatles in South Africa. Yet to Rodriguez he was nothing more than a construction labourer who enjoyed playing music. No matter what praise he has received or who he was compared to Rodriguez comes across as a humble, generous and modest person that you can't help but admire.

Director Malik Bendjelloul has made an inspiring documentary that will hopefully pick up an Oscar this year in recognition for the amazing story that was told. Putting aside the unique nature of the story the documentary is a success in itself. It is beautifully made and supported by an amazing soundtrack courtesy of Rodriguez. For anyone looking for a great story or simply to discover some great music Searching for Sugar Man is a must see.

" Is it a hugging gun? "

Ted

When the premise of a movie is a stuffed bear that comes to life you may think Disney cartoon, but Ted is a far cry from an innocent child's tale. Or is it?
When lonely child John Bennett wishes that his teddy bear comes to life his wish miraculously comes true. Fast forward to the present day and John now 35 years old (Mark Wahlberg) is still loyal to his best friend Ted. The only problem is Ted's immature behaviour is getting in the way of John getting a real job or committing to his longtime girlfriend Lori Collins (Mila Kunis). John is forced to make a choice about the future of his life that involves Ted moving out and fending for himself in the big wide world.  

Seth MacFarlane creator of hit animated series such as Family Guy and American Dad! makes his feature film debut with this outrageous comedy centered around a sweet teddy bear that swears, smokes, drinks and has sex...? The film is sure to offend many viewers, especially viewers that are unfamiliar with MacFarlane's previous shows that continually push the boundaries of comedy. Personally I found the film hilarious, it was exactly what I expected and hoped for. There is no doubt MacFarlane treads a fine line with his style of comedy but I feel he has succeeded in this film as he once again shamelessly shares his unique views on the world.

Seth Macfarlane is not just the director and writer of Ted he also provides the voice talent for the central character, as he does for his other shows. It's a well known fact that MacFarlane has an impressive talent when it comes to doing voices and although Ted may sound like Peter Griffith there's no denying the character is original and unique.

There is great chemistry between best friends Ted and John played with enthusiasm by Wahlberg. I'm sure it would have been challenging for Wahlberg, because I'm not sure what or who he was talking to most of the time given that Ted is CGI. Together the two share in some very memorable scenes such as the white trash guessing game (it will make sense when you see the film), meeting their childhood hero (a great cameo that I wont spoil) as well as the over top fight sequence that is dare I say it Family Guyesque (think Peter vs The Giant Chicken).

Mark Wahlberg is perfectly cast as a man struggling to grow up and let go of his friend Ted. Whalberg is an actor that has stared in some quality films (The Departed, The Fighter) but he has never quite proved himself as a versatile actor. Sure he can play a tough guy or helm a summer blockbuster but he never really established himself as a quality dramatic actor. However he recently proved that he has a knack for comedy after appearing in the refreshingly funny film; The Other Guys. I feel he has proved once again in Ted that he has great comic timing as he was a great support to the character of Ted.

Ted is a film that doesn't hold any punches, the comedy is honest, often offensive but for the most part very funny. The film shouldn't be taken too seriously, I mean its about a bear that's come to life, just go with it and your sure to have a good time. All I can say is look out for Ted 2 and bring on the Oscars, I'm excited to see what MacFarlane has in store.

" Jiminy cricket, he flew the coop! "

Moonrise Kingdom

An offbeat story of childhood innocence and discovery set on an isolated coastal town in New England in 1965. When two young misfits who have fallen in love decide to run away together, the local police force and members of the scouts band together to try and find them.

There are a few certainties that come with a Wes Anderson film: there will be a dysfunctional family, children will act like adults, adults will act like children and it will probably have Bill Murray in it. On all accounts this is a typical Wes Anderson film (if there is such a thing) that offers all his usual themes and once again sees him teaming up with Bill Murray (sixth time!). However Moonrise Kingdom is slighty more focused than his other films, with Anderson displaying a clear and beautiful vision, making it his best film to date.

There is no denying Wes Anderson is a unique filmmaker as he continues to make quirky independent films that are often hard to relate to, but are at the very least hard to forget. Anderson always manages to deal with serious themes such as depression or divorce in a way that is funny while at the same time appreciating their significance. I believe Moonrise Kingdom is Anderson's best film for many reasons but one of the major reasons is the quality of the set design and cinematography. The attention to detail that Anderson and his team put in to bring the childhood like vision to life is amazing. The result is a film rich with beauty, nostalgia and imagination.

This film boasts an impressive cast from Bruce Willis as Captain Sharp, the town's sad and lonely policeman, Edward Norton as Scout Master Ward and parents of missing girl Suzy; Bill Murray and Frances McDormand. The entire cast is excellently cast with Norton the standout for me, as he is hilarious as the dedicated Scout Master who continues to hang on to the leadership of his scout group even when a member of his camp runs away. The only disappointment was Murray as I was waiting for his character to display a bit more of a personality. His character while essential to the feel of the movie was lacking Murray's trademark quirkiness or eccentric nature that he does so well. The two runaways: Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) are both excellent as the true stars of the film and although Sam is hard to hear at times it's hard to take anything away from their performances.

Bill Murray isn't the only actor to be a regular member of Anderson's cast, in fact Anderson continues to use many of the same actors throughout his films. Besides Murray perhaps his most notable collaborator is Owen Wilson who has been involved with every single Anderson film except Moonrise Kingdom. Other regulars include Jason Schwartzman who has a small but very memorable role in this film as Cousin Ben as well as Tilda Swinton aka Social Services, looking to take Sam away. It's a testament to the quality of Anderson's direction and writing that these actors continue to come back and star in his films. Even if all of Anderson's films aren't to your taste, there's no doubt his films are interesting and very attractive for actors.

Once again Anderson has created an entourage of dysfunctional yet intriguing characters that all play a role in his unconventional story. Moonrise Kingdom is an adventure that is both imaginative, beautiful, funny and at times inspiring that offers a very honest insight into childhood innocence and hope.

" Gravy "

Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls

The hair do is back, the Hawaiian shirt is back and the head swinging strut is back, which can only mean Ace Ventura is back on the case. This sequel to the smash hit once again sees the quirky pet detective: Ace Ventura trying to locate lost animals. This time Ace finds himself in the African wilderness where he is traumatised due to an unfortunate accident involving a raccoon. Ace is able to once again find his mojo when is tasked with the case of finding a lost animal which is worshiped as a god by the native tribe. Little does Ace know the animal he is set to find is the one animal he is afraid of... a bat.

The basic premise for the first film was so brilliant, a zany yet brilliant pet detective who went to any lengths to find missing animals. The film worked because he was essentially a detective, whereas in this film he is more or less floundering around the jungle encountering as many different animals as possible. So in a way the basic premise of the character and the story is kind of lost with the plot in the second film far less interesting. That's not to say the film doesn't have its fair share of laughs.

The film offers up many memorable moments including the inspired introduction that is both shocking and hilarious especially the scene involving a slinky. Other notable moments include Ace's fight with a crazy tribal warrior and the all too famous rhinoceros birthing scene. Perhaps the best aspect to the film is that Ace a lover of all animals is tasked to find an animal that he fears and despises... the great white bat.

Carrey is as memorable as he was in the first film, delivering all the one liners that he made famous and adding in some new ones along the way. Some may find the second film a little repetitive especially since he repeats a lot of lines from the first film but for for fans of the original the lines are welcomed and enjoyed just as much as when they were originally delivered.

The one let down in this film is the supporting cast. Actors such as Ian McNeice, Simon Callow and Bob Gunton all deliver rather dull performances (granted they have little to work with) compared to the supporting cast from the original who provided great opposition to the antics of Carrey's character. But lets face it this film is a one man show with Carrey given centre stage to quite literally strut his stuff.

You will either love or hate this film depending on your opinion of Carrey's over the top style of comedy involving ear wagging, elongated vowels and outlandish mannerisms. Personally I love Carrey's eccentric nature and although the film may not live up to its original it still offers plenty of laughs.

" If I'm not back in five minutes... just wait longer "

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective

Detective Ace Ventura (Jim Carrey) is not your average detective, he specialises in the recovery of lost animals no matter how big or small. Although he may be the laughing stock of the police force Ace remains dedicated to his job and somehow always manages to solve the case. When the Miami Dolphins mascot is kidnapped, Ace has to put all of his knowledge and experience to the test. Luckily Ace is aided with the help of Miami Dolphins representative Melissa (Courtney Cox) who accompanies Ace in an attempt to uncover the truth behind Snowflake's disappearance.

In the early years of Jim Carrey's career he established himself as a versatile comedian through TV shows such as In Living Color and with his unique brand of stand up comedy. Ace Ventura catapulted Jim Carrey into genuine stardom allowing the rest of the world to see his comedic talent. Although Carrey went on to make some classic comedies (personal favourite: Liar Liar) I don't think any character matches that of Ace Ventura.

Carrey is given free reign in the film, allowing the top character of Ace Ventura to come to life in a way that could never be repeated or remade. Theres no doubt Carrey made the character his own he didn't simply act out words from a script, he rewrote lines and ad-libbed scenes to ensure his character was as zany and memorable as possible. Part of Carrey's magic is his skillful ability to do a range of impressions and accents which he adopts with ease whenever he feels the need. The character of Ace Ventura is so over the top and eccentric that you can't help but smile, but for the majority of the film you find yourself not only smiling but laughing uncontrollably.

Carrey went on to complete many slapstick comedies playing characters that were equally as eccentric and over the top but it's hard to go past the brilliance of Ace. It's a testament to the character of Ace Ventura and to the film, for starting the trend that Carrey has essentially milked for the rest of his character. That's not to say Carrey is a bad actor by any stretch, in fact I think Carrey is a very underrated actor. Although he may have proved himself as a comedic talent few people acknowledge Carrey for his more serious dramatic roles. I feel Carrey is a vastly underrated dramatic actor as he has proved in films such as The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind that he can seriously act.

Ace Ventura is one of my all time favourite comedies and it's a film that can be easily rewatched again and again even if it's just for his seemingly endless array of catch phrases and one liners. Some of which are still used in conversations today such as "Alllrighty then", "Reheheheally" and "L ah-who-sa-her" (although when you use them yourself most people genuinely have no idea what you are talking about). The film is a comic gem that should be relived by those that have forgotten its appeal and experienced for the first time by anyone looking for a laugh.

 

" Do you like the shape of the rhinoceros? "

Midnight in Paris

Gil (Owen Wilson) is a successful Hollywood screenwriter who is struggling with his attempts at a debut novel. Gil accompanies his fiancé Inez (Rachel McAdams) on a holiday to Paris along with her sceptical and overbearing parents in attempt to find inspiration for his novel. Gil falls in love with the city fantasising what it would be like to live there in the golden age of the 1920's. Gil loves the city so much that he wants to move there once they are married however Inez doesn't share his ideals and instead wishes to return to America and move to Malibu. Uncertain about the path his life is taking Gil takes to walking the streets of Paris at midnight only to see his fantasies become a reality.

I never quite know what to expect with a Woody Allen film as they are always very different to say the least. One thing that can be assured with a Woody Allen film is that it will be unique as he tries to make something new and original each time. Allen successfully blends the beauty of the city and the fantasy of Gil's nighttime adventures, making for a very intriguing film. There is little need for explanation as to how the time travel happens, instead Gil simply goes along for the ride enjoying the remarkable encounters he has with his literary idols.

Among the famous writers, artists, composers and filmmakers Gil meets are Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali and most notably Adrianna, Picasso's mistress played by Marion Cotilliard. Gil is taken by Adrianna's beauty and starts to doubt his true affection for Inez. As Gil becomes swept up in his midnight fantasies he finds it hard to juggle between his two lives, causing Inez and her parents to grow suspicious of his late night expeditions.

Gil is an intriguing character as at first he is very unlikeable. It's made clear that he is frustrated with his novel but he is unwilling to accept the advice of others instead choosing to impose his unwanted views and opinions onto others. Yet by the end of the film I couldn't help but like him, mainly because Owen Wilson is a hard actor to dislike even if his character is somewhat stubborn and selfish. Equally as stubborn and imposing is Paul (Michael Sheen) a friend that Inez and Gil bump into in Paris. Paul like Gil comes across as very unlikeable character as he sheds his insight and knowledge on absolutely everything refusing to accept the views of others. The only difference is his views and opinions are respected and appreciated, especially by Inez. Inez is a very shallow character that is played very well by McAdams, although there is little joy to be taken from her character's personality and nature.

The most impressive part of the film comes right at the beginning with an impressive montage of Paris. It plays like a collection of Allen's personal photographs as you are exposed to all the highlights Paris has to offer. The opening sets the mood for the rest of the film as Allen pays homage to the wonderful city, with the film acting as his love letter to Paris.

Despite the rather weak conclusion and the fact that most of the characters possess unlikeable personalities the film itself is a beautiful fantasy set to the enticing backdrop of Paris. The film definitely struggles in some areas but there are subtle changes that occur within Gil's character, ensuring his journey was worthwhile. By the end of the film you are left with the simply message that everyone can and does get nostalgic about the past, but the only way to move forward in life is to start living in the present.

" Everyone needs a hoby. What's yours? " " Resurrection "

 Skyfall

Skyfall marks the 23rd appearance of the world's most famous spy in a year where the Bond legacy celebrates an impressive 50 years. Daniel Craig dons the tuxedo for the third time, once again breathing fresh life into the franchise with his grittier portrayal of Bond.

The movie starts like most Bond films with a fast paced chase scene, this time through the streets of Turkey. However Skyfall's opening is one of the more memorable openings to a Bond film as Bond is shot and killed after trying to secure a stolen list containing the names of uncover MI6 agents around the world. Luckily Bond survives and returns to London looking to return to the field of duty and attempt to once again uncover the list. The situation becomes more drastic when MI6 headquarters is attacked, creating fear and uncertainty across London. The British Secret Intelligence Agency led by M (Judi Dench) is thrown into disrepute, with the future operation of the agency placed in doubt. With the safety of MI6 agents all around the world put in danger it's up to 007 to find the people responsible and prevent any further loss of life.

The most satisfying part of Skyfall is that the film lives up to its extremely high expectations. There is no doubt everyone involved with this film has gone all out to ensure the film is a worthy celebration of 50 years of Bond. With the result nothing less than spectacular. The cast is perfect, there is a talented director at the helm (Sam Mendes) and the story is set on a large scale that remains dramatic and intriguing throughout.

Skyfall delves into the back story of M, shedding some light on the personal choices she made in the past that have now come back to haunt her. Dench is given a much larger role in this film with the audience made to question whether or not the choices she made were justifiable and whether or not she is still up to the job of leading MI6. The movie also explores Bond's childhood providing a glimpse into what made him the spy he is today. Craig once again delivers a captivating performance always juggling between the role of hired hitman and the suave spy that everyone knows and loves. Craig may be perceived as a rather dry almost dull James Bond but I think he captures the humour and excitement of the character perfectly in a way that is subtle and stylish.

The films also boats a number of respected actors such as Ralph Fiennes as Mallory the Government's representative overseeing MI6, Naomie Harris as Eve, Bond's talented partner and Ben Wishaw as a much younger Q. And of course there is Javier Bardem as the villain Silva who was by far the most anticipated casting choice. It's hard to forget Bardem's fantastic performance as the sadistic Anton Chigurg in No Country for Old Men so when he was named as the villain for Skyfall there was a great deal of excitement. Bardem steals every scene he is in and provides a worthwhile villain for Bond. Silva is as clever as he is vengeful and he proves to have a very personal motivation driving his actions.

With most bond films there is now a sense of familiarity as we wait for Bond to say famous lines such as "the name's Bond... James Bond" or ask for his martini "shaken, not stirred". Skyfall has all of the expected elements but there is something a little extra in this film. The film pays homage to past Bond films with the inclusion of certain characters and a famous Bond car, so by the end of the film you are left with a feeling of nostalgia. Although the film pays respect to Bond films that have come before there is no doubt this film is original and unique in it's own right.

Skyfall is packed with so many memorable scenes from the opening chase through the rooftops of Turkey, to the thrilling scenes set in London and even an impressive scene that sees Bond and M set up a house Home Alone James Bond style. What makes this film more than an action film is the time and thought that has been put into every scene. The cinematography is fantastic with the choice of locations providing beautiful backdrops for the action and drama. Mendes has succeeded in capturing the scale of the film and the essence of what a good Bond film should be...entertaining.

 I don't think anyone will deny that Skyfall is a dramatic improvement from the disappointing Quantum of Solace, yet I still rate Casino Royale as Craig's best film as Bond. However Skyfall can certainly stake its claim as one of the greatest bond films of all time. Skyfall has effectively adapted the world of espionage to modern times offering a suspensul, action packed and at times moving film that is sure to please a range of viewers. Craig has now established himself as one of the greatest Bond's and given the recent news that he will appear in two more Bond films I can't wait to see what happens next.

" This is the best bad idea we have "

Argo

Based on the real events in 1979 when the American embassy in Iran was stormed by militants, leaving 52 Americans to be taken hostage. Six Americans in the embassy were able to escape before being captured and subsequently found refuge at the Canadian ambassador's home. With no means to escape and no telling how long it would take for the Iranians to realise they had escaped capture, the six were left to stay in Iran. The CIA desperate for a solution brought in exfiltration expert Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) who proposes an idea so farfetched that it might just work. Mendez suggests that he flies to Iran as part of a Canadian science fiction film crew planning to film in Iran. Once there he plans to meet up with his production crew (the six Americans) and fly them home. In order to pull off the operation the fake movie known as Argo had to appear authentic, leading to Mendez acquiring the help of certain Hollywood personalities.

Ben Affleck was once the poster boy for Hollywood blockbusters and although he had some notable roles he gained a reputation as a mediocre actor. It wasn't until Affleck decided to take up the camera and direct his first movie: Gone Baby Gone that he really came into his own. Affleck then went on to star in his second film: The Town proving not only that he has a natural talent for direction but also that he can in fact act. There is now no doubt that Affleck is a talented director as Argo is one of the more sophisticated and impressive films of the year.

Affleck also delivers what I believe is his best acting performance in the film as CIA agent Tony Mendez. Mendez is a dedicated and brilliant agent who puts his own life at risk to extract the six American officials. Affleck comes across as a very likeable person who has tragically devoted his life to his job and his country, leaving behind his personal life and family. Affleck is the driving force behind the film and it shows that he can direct himself better than most other directors.

Affleck delivers a really strong performance but it's his supporting cast that steals the show. Bryan Cranston plays fellow agent Jack O'Donnell who supports Mendez' elaborate operation and puts everything on the line to assist him when things don't go as planned. For anyone that has seen Breaking Bad they will know how talented an actor Cranston is and Hollywood is slowly starting to realise as well. Cranston has popped up in countless supporting roles over the past few years mostly for just a few minutes but thankfully his roles are starting to gain more substance such as in this film. Now that Breaking Bad has finished filming its final season it will be good to see Cranston take on some larger roles in the future.

The best performances in the film come from Alan Arkin who plays Hollywood producer Lester Siegel and John Goodman who plays Oscar winning make up artist John Chambers. Chambers is a real life person who helped the CIA with operation Argo however Arkin's character Siegel is a composite of four different characters. Despite that fact both characters are excellent and add some humour to the tense film. The pair set up a fake company in Hollywood as well as find a script, design storyboards, a movie poster, take out a two page magazine advertisement and even hold a launch party to promote the fake movie. It's amazing the lengths they went to in order to make Argo appear authentic and it has been revealed now just how successful their efforts were. It's believed that famous directors such as Steven Spielberg were sucked into the ruse and even sent in scripts to the fake company.

The entire film is excellent but the beginning and ending scenes are without doubt the most compelling. The introduction to film where the 52 Americans are taken hostage and the six escape is a scary and desperate situation that few could relate to. As the Iranians threaten to break down the gates and storm the embassy the officials inside realise they have no where to hide, no where to flee to and no one to come and help them. Affleck manages to capture the perspective from both outside the gates and inside the embassy emphasising the desperation from both sides.

The conclusion is equally as memorable as Mendez' plan is put into action. The captivating montage through the city that lasts for about twenty minutes is thrilling and suspenseful. Although the ending may be dramatised slightly it's clear that Affleck has taken every measure to ensure the film is authentic and accurate.

This is a very intriguing and thrilling movie, with it's events so unbelievable you sometimes forget that they really happened. The real story wasn't declassified until 1997 by President Clinton, prior to that America and the rest of the world were oblivious to the efforts of the CIA and agent Mendez. Argo may shed some light on a well known event, but it makes you wonder what other secrets are classified that will hopefully one day be revealed.

 

" That was a regretable turn of events. "

Dark Shadows

Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp) is a well liked family man who has the unfortunate luck of breaking the heart of Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green). Angelique turns out to be a very powerful and vengeful witch who punishes Barnabas by turning him into a vampire, killing his parents and true love and imprisoning him in a coffin for 200 years. Barnabas is released in the year 1972 where he finds his beloved family home and the world he once knew changed dramatically. Barnabas takes it upon himself to protect and unite his quirky descendants who now occupy his home.

Dark Shadows once again sees the collaboration of Director Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, which has become one of most familiar pairings of modern cinema. On paper Dark Shadows seems to fit the mould of Burton and Depp as it is a quirky, dark comedy, yet the film never really takes off. There is no doubt Burton is a popular filmmaker who has made some genuine classics such as Edward Scissorhands and box office hits such as Alice in Wonderland, but a lot of his films are very disappointing. I respect the vision and style of Burton's film making as they are always very unique and visually beautiful but often Burton just doesn't get it right. Unfortunately Dark Shadows is one such film that leaves you asking the question, what was he thinking.

 Dark Shadows is based on the Gothic soap opera of the same name that ran in the 60s and 70s. It's no secret that Burton was a fan of the show and he seems to be fulfilling his own fantasy by bringing the story back to life. The only problem is Burton hasn't been able to break away from that soap opera style. The film is promoted as a dark comedy but it seems like Burton has restrained himself from going too dark and scary and has only halfheartedly added in comic elements. The result is a film that is not funny, dark or even mysterious, it's just a dull melodrama centred around a 200 year old vampire. I wish Burton had gone all out to make it a comedy or even a musical comedy that he has proven he can do successfully such as with Sweeney Todd.

It's not all grim as Depp is still his charismatic self as he embraces the character of Barnabas Collins completely. The best scene comes when Barnabas hires Alice Cooper to play at a party, whom he believes is a woman. This leads to one of the more memorable lines "Ugliest woman I've ever seen!". Joining Depp is Burton's wife and long time collaborator, Helena Bonham Carter who plays Dr. Hoffman who seems to suffer from a perpetual hangover. Michelle Pfeiffer plays Elizabeth Collins who is struggling to keep her family together, consisting of her useless brother Roger (Jonny Lee Miller), nephew David (Gulliver McGrath) who believes he can see the ghost of his mother and daughter Carolyn (Chloe Grace Moretz) who is continually moody and ultimately fed up with her family. 

Joining the strange family is Victoria Winters (Bella Heathcote), a friendly governess who is employed to teach David. Winters is perhaps too likeable and friendly who may be hiding a few secrets of her own. However the only notable performance comes from Eva Green who relishes the opportunity to play the seductress witch Angelique. Despite almost two centuries Angelique looks as youthful and remains as passionate and vindictive as she was 200 years before, as she struggles once again to win the love of Barnabas.  

Most of the characters and their storylines are unnecessary and no character is even attempted to be developed out of fear that Depp would lose a valuable second of screen time. Yet Burton insists on including many different characters that should be quirky and funny but are in fact simply props that are left unexplored. Most of the actors seem uninspired and uninterested in the film which subsequently is how you are left feeling.

The story and cast would appear like a winning combo and with Burton in his element what could go wrong. Unfortunately the film just doesn't work, from the very beginning as you listen to the boring narration you become unengaged in the story and as the film continues you find your interest in the characters and the story declining rapidly. Burton is a hit and miss filmmaker and there is no doubt this is miss, but look forward to seeing more of his unique brand of films in the future, I only hope his next film isn't Dark Shadows 2.

" We were so wrong! "

Prometheus

Scientists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover cave drawings that predate anything previously uncovered on Earth. Believing that the drawings are a clue as to the origins of mankind Shaw and Holloway join a crew of other scientists to search for answers. The crew travel to a distant planet aboard the ship 'Prometheus' only to discover an unsettling secret that may threaten the very existence of mankind.

Prometheus is director Ridley Scott's long awaited return to the genre of science fiction. The genre which he helped redefine with films such as Alien and Blade Runner. Prometheus was originally meant to be a prequel to Alien but instead the film is merely set in the same universe, adopting an original storyline with a new set of characters. Although the film may not be a direct prequel to Alien there is no denying Prometheus has many connections and references to Scott's original masterpiece. The film itself has an almost identical story arc as Alien: a crew embarks on a mission to explore a distant planet only to discover the inhabitants were not what they expected. Although the two crews have different motives for traveling to their destinations you can't help but notice similarities once they begin to explore the planets.

This film is pretty ambitious film, let's face it a film centred around the origins of mankind was always going to be hard to pull off. Scott has ensured there is a very interesting mythology involved with the film and ultimately created a very intruiging story. Sure there are plot holes but the main issue with this film isn't the daunting task of searching for our beginning, it's the screenplay. Almost all of the characters are underdeveloped and the story itself is very frustrating. There are times where the films flows smoothly and you find yourself getting sucked into the story but for the most part the timing in the film doesn't flow. I wanted to see more suspense in the film and more drama, despite the film running for 2 hours it felt as though there wasn't enough time to tell the story properly. The conclusion itself came very suddenly feeling like an anticlimax to such a promising idea and concept.

The cast for this film is very strong with Charlize Theron playing the bitchy and determined  Meredith Vickers who is the representative from Weyland Corporation of which the mission has been funded. Idris Elba playing Janek the layback pilot and Guy Pearce who plays the elderly Peter Weyland. The actors are given strange roles to work with and although Theron and Elba give good performances there is barely enough provided to build a character on. I have no idea why Pearce was even cast as he is completely unrecognisable under make up and special effects and is only in the film for about 5 minutes. The character was completely unnecessary and just left you feeling disappointed that you never got so really see Pearce on screen. Rapace was fine as the main lead and features in perhaps the most memorable scene involving a surgical operation but overall her performance was pretty disappointing.

The only real stand out performance came form Michael Fassbender who plays android, David. Fassbender seems to be getting all the good roles in Hollywood at the moment and David is no exception as he is definitely the most interesting an most developed character which is ironic as he is a robot. Fassbender's character continues in the alphabetic tradition of androids in the Alien franchise from Ash in Alien, Bishop in Aliens and Alien³, Call in Alien: Resurrection and David in Prometheus. David is a very inquisitive and of course intelligent android who likes to model his behaviour and speech from Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia. David is a very intriguing and at times creepy character who seems to have an agenda of his own.

The one aspect of the film that is fairly undisputed is the quality of the special effects. Scott is famous for using very minimal special effects in his films, instead choosing to use real life approaches and utilising the fear of the unknown. Scott embraces special effects here with many scenes showcasing his impressive vision. Whilst Scott has embraced new technology there are still plenty of memorable moments where fear is brought on from the unknown, highlighting as always that the imagination is the most powerful way to induce fear. 

It was always going to be hard for Prometheus to live up to it's high expectations given that Scott was returning to the genre of science fiction and that the film was a sort of prequel to Alien. Add to the mix a very effective marketing campaign and it was hard not to get swept up in the excitement. Unfortunately like many others I was left disappointed. Despite the disappointment Prometheus still manages to intrigue and thrill and offers some very impressive visuals. Although you can't help but compare it to Alien there is still plenty to admire. Despite the lack of character development and frustrating story fans of the genre and of Scott's work will not doubt still find the film entertaining. In the end Prometheus poses more questions than it answers.