Shame (2011) Review

"I make you angry all the time, and I don't know why"- Sissy.

Upon its release, Steve McQueen's second film, Shame, garnered much attention through receiving an NC-17 rating in the United States. The content of the film undoubtedly means the film could receive no less an age rating, but what is so pleasing is that the film's distributors, Fox Searchlight, decided against cutting the film in order to achieve a less restrictive R rating. Shame is a film that shouldn't have anything cut from it, but most importantly, it doesn't need to. This is because the filmmaker's priority in depicting such explicit sexual scenes is not for shock or amusement, its about understanding the central character, and the effect this lifestyle has on him and the people he knows.

Shame tells the story of New Yorker Brandon Sullivan (Michael Fassbender). Brandon is content with his life: he has a steady job in an office and owns a nice apartment. However, there is another side to his life that constantly seems to take priority: he is addicted to sex. At first, Brandon is not phased by balancing both sides of his life, even if it means quickly breaking away from work to continue this indulgence. The arrival of his sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan), upsets this balance, and Brandon now has to hide his addiction whilst also trying to reconnect with Sissy, who herself has her troubles. With such an intense subject matter and relationship, Shame has to rely on the two actors holding the film together, so that the serious tone of the film remains intact. With two of the best actors around in Fassbender and Mulligan, that is never a problem, and the element that the film relies on the most becomes its greatest strength. Fassbender is terrific as Brandon, bringing across his attitude as a tortured soul without ever being over the top. A lot of Brandon's emotion is based around his facial expressions, with many scenes featuring Brandon alone or surrounded by strangers. Through Fassbender's expressions, we can read Brandon's thoughts very clearly, as he contemplates the troubling events shown in the film. The writing for Brandon's story arc is also very strong, as we learn more about his complex state of mind with each scene. One particularly powerful moment involves Brandon wanting to start a proper relationship with his work colleague, Marianne (Nicole Beharie). Despite his efforts, he is unable to perform when he takes her to an apartment building to have sex. Immediately after, he is seen having sex with another woman in the same room. It is here that the tragic side to Brandon is explored the most, as his addiction has consumed him so much that he is unable to make a genuine relationship work. Starring alongside Fassbender as his sister is the equally talented Carey Mulligan, and Sissy is just as complex and emotionally unstable as her brother. Though her intentions of wanting to reconnect with her brother seem genuine, Brandon isn't convinced. He believes she is only around to have a place to stay, labelling her a "parasite". Sissy, like Brandon, is far from perfect herself. She has little regard for how a fling with Brandon's boss will affect his work life, and seems very dependant on him. The real genius of Shame is that it never portrays either character as obviously good or bad, it leaves it up to the viewer to decide. Brandon and Sissy's difficult relationship is grounded in realism, so anybody who has had a difficult relationship with family can relate to some of the confrontations, and decide which side they are on. 

Like in Martha Marcy May Marlene, Shame's use of cinematography is very unobtrusive, and so draws the audience into the drama and allows the performances to take centre stage. Some scenes are filmed in one shot, usually in intimate dialogue exchanges, keeping with the film's realistic tone when it comes to the conversations and feelings the characters show. There are other ways in which the cinematography does this, such as the scene where Brandon goes with his boss to see Sissy perform a slow jazz rendition of "New York, New York" at a bar. This is a rare moment of the film where there is no arguing or tension between the siblings. With a lot of focus on facial expressions, this becomes one of the film's most important scenes. Just like the sex scenes show Brandon at his most content, in order to relate to Sissy, we have to see her at her happiest as well. Here, her performance is full of emotion, and Brandon also becomes involved with his more tender side, as he silently sheds a tear. It is the emotional bond shared through the power of the song and sight of his sister performing that makes the overall relationship between Brandon and Sissy even more tragic, as they prove here that there can be a connection between them.

With its engaging lead performances and intriguing story, Shame is a film not easily forgotten.  Though some may be put off by the explicit nature and tone of most scenes in the film, the focus on character remains prominent throughout. It is a character study that keeps you guessing as to which direction the story will go in, and the ending will no doubt keep the film fresh in the viewer's memory. Overall, an engaging drama, made all the more great by the acting talents of Fassbender and Mulligan.

Pros:

+ Terrific acting from the two leads.

+ Intriguing story, with the film never being predictable.

+ Excellent cinematography adds to the emotional investment in the characters.

Cons:

- Too much time focused on Brandon's relationship with his boss early on in the film. He disappears quickly from the story, so all that focus beforehand isn't really necessary.

Tobey Maguire vs. Andrew Garfield: Who was the better Peter Parker/Spiderman?

So, the Spiderman franchise is being rebooted. For the second time in six years (2018 is the proposed year the new film shall be released)! Tom Holland will play the Web-slinger, and the film will be set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But how will Holland measure up against the two actors who have played the character on film? Lets take a look at Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield, and determine who, for now, is the better Peter Parker/Spiderman.

First, Peter Parker. This is where analysing who is better in the role is really tough, as they have to be both convincing as nerdy high-schooler Peter Parker, and then be convincing as a superhero. With the Maguire trilogy of films (2002-2007), there is definitely more focus on Peter's outsider status, with him being picked on throughout the first film's opening 15 minutes, and then later getting into a fight with school bully Flash Thompson (Joe Manganiello). He is shown to be clumsy by nature in the second film, even after he gains his superpowers. He fails at his job as a pizza delivery boy and fails to stand up for himself when confronted by the manager. Personality wise, Maguire's Peter Parker is kind hearted, but very shy, and so he's an easy target for the bullies. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that even though he lives right next door to his love interest, Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), he is unable to bring himself to asking her out. In the first film, I was totally convinced with the portrayal of the character, and Maguire brings out the weaknesses of the character very well. With Andrew Garfield in the newest incarnation, there is one fundamental problem with how Peter is presented: he's too cool. This kid would not be bullied at school, despite the fact the film tries its best to display intelligence as a nerdy trait (Einstein posters on his bedroom wall etc.). When Peter confronts Flash in The Amazing Spiderman (2012), he stands up to him before he gets his superpowers. Granted he confronts him again later in the film as he is learning about his new powers, but for me, Peter Parker shouldn't be the one standing up to bullies. Its his lack of courage to begin with that makes his transformation into Spiderman more awe-inspiring. 

Garfield's Peter Parker is also very cocky, with him obtaining a pass to a science demonstration without his name on the list, just by simply taking an ID badge and smiling confidently at the receptionist. To make up for his obviously un-nerdy persona, Peter acts even more awkwardly around his love interest (Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone), but it still isn't enough to convince me that this guy would get picked on. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Garfield's performance, but when compared to Maguire, its the latter that fits the criteria for the character of Peter Parker more. Of course, one of the biggest parts of Peter's story in both films is his relationship with his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson and Martin Sheen in each respective series). In both films, Peter unintentionally plays a big part in the character's death, with him refusing to be a good samaritan and letting a criminal get away, which leads to Uncle Ben being shot. This is the big emotional moment of both series, and for me, the writing behind Peter in the Maguire series is what gives him a big advantage in this comparison. After gaining his powers, Maguire's Peter enters a wrestling tournament and wins a large cash prize, which he hopes to buy a car with to impress Mary-Jane. However, the crooked manager of the tournament refuses to pay, and so Peter doesn't intervene when he is robbed at gun-point. When this results in Uncle Ben's murder, it is a lot more powerful because Peter has acted selfishly towards Uncle Ben in a prior scene by refusing to listen to his advice. Combining that with his pride of not interfering with the manager being robbed, makes for a greater tragic moment as Peter realises what his selfishness has caused. In The Amazing Spiderman, Garfield's Peter refuses to listen to Uncle Ben in a similar manner. However, his confrontation with an employee at a shop that leads to Uncle Ben being shot is very unconvincing. In the first series, Peter refuses to act due to not being paid money to impress a girl. In the newest series, Uncle Ben is killed simply because Peter didn't have enough money to buy a chocolate milk. It just isn't as dramatic and feels forced, whereas in the Maguire series the confrontation is more intense and we get a clearer depiction of what can happen if Peter uses his powers for his own ends.

As Spiderman, both portrayals have their particular strengths and weaknesses. One could argue that because Maguire is so convincing as the unpopular kid, he isn't as convincing as a superhero, whereas Garfield's established cockiness makes for a more obvious character that would go around fighting crime. What works best about Maguire's Spiderman is that he never comes across as overpowered, making for more suspenseful encounters between Spiderman and his enemies. Take the fight in the first film for example, the final encounter between Spiderman and the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe). Green Goblin beats him to within an inch of his life, which makes for Spiderman's resurgence more spectacular, and so means that we root for him more. Unfortunately, in the first film especially, Maguire is handed some painfully corny dialogue to deliver as Spiderman. Although Spiderman has always said one-lines throughout his history, some of the dialogue here is painfully bad, but also hilariously bad. My particular favourite is this exchange between Spiderman and the Green Goblin from the first film:

Green Goblin: "What about my generous proposal? Are you in, or are you out?

Spiderman: "It's you who's out, Gobby... out of your mind!

Having this kind of dialogue really downplays any seriousness that should be felt when Spiderman has to save the day. Granted, there is a limit to how seriously one can portray a superhero, especially something as un-realistic as Spiderman. However, when comparing the two franchise's portrayal, Garfield seems to have the better writing behind him and more presence. In both films in The Amazing Spiderman series, Garfield's Spiderman displays the same intense attitude as his alter-ego, and so is a more of a threat to criminals when given his superpowers. He is far more intimidating, but also more humorous without ever coming across as corny. This is all displayed in a scene from the first film, when Spiderman confronts a criminal who bears close resemblance to Uncle Ben's killer. He jokingly webs him to the wall, dancing around and laughing. However, he quickly changes his mood and squares up to him. Upon realising he isn't the killer, rather than simply letting him go, he warns him that things could have "gotten a lot worse". Garfield's Spiderman isn't flawless though, with the removal of his mask being done so often in the first film, that it becomes almost comical. I'm willing to overlook the removal of the mask by the villains and the police, but Spiderman deliberately reveals his identity TWICE within mere minutes! In the second incident, it is to help a calm a young boy who is trapped in a car suspended from a bridge. Despite the silliness of him removing his mask, the scene is another example of why, for me, Garfield is the superior Spiderman. Throughout most of the sequence, Spiderman never loses his cool, constantly encouraging the boy when helping him escape. Maguire's Spiderman seemed to always shout and sound fearful. Although I cite the more human element of Maguire's Spiderman as a strength, in the moments of him rescuing someone, he seems less reliable when compared to the more level-headed Andrew Garfield Spiderman. 

To conclude. though I enjoy both actor's portrayal of each persona, I believe Andrew Garfield just about edges out Maguire in this comparison. Despite Maguire being the more convincing Peter Parker, Garfield's Spiderman comes across as the more heroic. When things got tough, you never doubted that he wouldn't pull through and be victorious, whereas Maguire's Spiderman gave up being Spiderman in the second film simply down to the stress of trying to balance his lifestyle. Garfield's Peter Parker also has his flaws that help to aid his transformation into Spiderman in the same way that Maguire's did, meaning that he too can be relateable and gain the audience's favour. I look forward to seeing how Tom Holland will portray both the personalities of Peter Parker and Spiderman , and am excited to see what possibilities await for the character, as he joins the ever expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Game of Thrones: Did the newest season go too far?

Another year, another mother load of violence, nudity and use of the word "bastard". It can only be Game of Thrones. With the show's popularity growing with each season, so is the expectation that the newest entry in the epic battle for the Iron Throne of Westeros will be the best. The show has attracted a lot of attention for its depiction of violence, but this season has garnered more criticism than any other. Did the show go too far? Why were people so upset over a fictional program? I'll be looking into that scene at the end of episode six ("Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken"), but also take a look at other moments which were, for me, just as shocking, and yet weren't as heavily complained about.

Even if you don't watch Game of Thrones, there is no doubt you probably know a few people that do, and have therefore heard about a particular scene. A scene that was so upsetting, that some viewers claimed they would no longer continue watching the show. The scene in question involves the most vile character in the series, Ramsay Bolton (Iwan Rheon), and his new wife Sansa Stark (Sophie Turner). On their wedding night, Ramsay orders his slave Theon Greyjoy (Alfie Allen) to watch as he, off-screen, rapes Sansa. The camera focuses on Theon's (renamed by Ramsay as "Reek" in season 3) reaction, as he is clearly distressed by seeing his childhood friend being raped by his master. Due to the intense and upsetting nature of the scene, many viewers complained about the level of violence displayed, and that the show merely intended to shock audiences. I strongly disagree with the arguments against how the scene was depicted, and indeed having such a traumatising moment in the show. For a start, Game of Thrones has already established dark material, such as rape (along with gory violence and incest) as key factors in the story. The show has appropriately presented these moments as being within the context of character personalities and not as something to be dismissed easily, with character actions having massive consequences on the story. 

Looking at the character of Ramsay, it shouldn't be surprising that he would eventually do something as horrific as raping another character. Introduced in season 3, Ramsay is a sadistic individual, who tortured Theon throughout the entirety of the 10 episodes. Not only did he admit to enjoying what he did to Theon, he mentally broke him. Renaming him "Reek" and castrating him, Theon Greyjoy was no-more, and Ramsay established himself as one of the most evil characters in the show's history. In season 4, Ramsay's first scene involved him hunting down a young woman. He does this purely on the basis that she made another young woman "jealous" of having Ramsay's attention. In a later episode, he flays a starving group of soldiers alive after they had surrendered their castle to him. Ramsay is, by every definition, a monster. He has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He's a character written so the audience despise him. All the previously mentioned scenes where depicted as horrific and disturbing, exactly the same as the rape scene in season 5. With the nature of the previous two season's Ramsay scenes in mind, the scene involving Sansa doesn't appear out of character for him. It allows us to sympathise more with Sansa, who has been portrayed as one of the show's more innocent characters. 

Furthermore, although it was perhaps the most disturbing scene in the show's history, the decision to focus on Theon's reaction means that it wasn't gratuitous. It seems that some people were more upset with not necessarily the nature of the scene, but with the victim being Sansa. It's true that the character has gone through many unfortunate moments throughout the show: her father being beheaded in front of her, being married off to the cruel King Joffrey Baratheon (Jack Gleeson), and her mother and brother being slaughtered at a wedding. Some understandably felt that having her subjected to the horrors of rape was excessive. I can see why. However, it is important to remember that Sansa isn't the only character who has had several distressing events happen to them throughout the show. The lack of complaints about Theon being tortured throughout season 3, then having people complaining about the rape of Sansa, seems unbalanced to me. Theon's torture has massive psychological effects on his character, in the same way that Sansa will be mentally scarred by her ordeal with the same perpetrator. I think Theon's torture was the more unbearable to witness as, despite his morally wrong actions, his torture made him lose all sense of identity. Sansa, being a more strong minded character, will no doubt be able to withstand her next encounter with Ramsay. With the events of the season finale, "Mother's Mercy", she has been able to help Theon remember who he is and has escaped Ramsay's clutches.

So yes, the rape scene in "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken" is certainly one of the most horrific moments in Game of Thrones' history. Why then, if it made so many people upset, were there not as big a fuss over episode nine, "The Dance of Dragons"? In a harrowing moment of choice for would-be-king Stannis Baratheon (Stephen Dillane), he allows his daughter Shireen (Kerry Ingram) to be sacrificed to the Lord of Light in the hopes that it will bring him good fortune in his bid to win the throne. Like episode six, the focus is on character reactions, and we see how badly the sacrifice affects her (up until this point) rather cold-hearted mother. She attempts to stop the ceremony, but is restrained, and in the next episode we see that she has committed suicide. For me, this scene kept within the context of the story, and wasn't just used for shock value. Stannis has been established as somewhat of an anti-hero throughout the show, being ruthless in his pursuit of glory, but also understanding the importance of family and protecting his daughter. He has been continously manipulated by the priestess Melisandre (Carice van Houten), and has walked the line between good and evil. In "The Dance of Dragons", he makes his choice, opting for ruthlessness and power over caring about his loved ones. With such a complex character, and knowing that he can do the right thing and for him to choose evil, was a heartbreaking moment that culminates in the death of a character equally as innocent as Sansa Stark. If anything, Shireen is more innocent due to her younger age and her being protected by her father her entire life. 

To summarise, although the two scenes from season 5 were uncomfortable viewing, both fit within the dark tone of the show. They are portrayed as upsetting and emotional moments, exactly how they should have been handled by the show runners. There is more emphasis on what effect these scenes have on the characters rather than the audience's sensitive side, meaning that they don't over-step the mark the show has established since the beginning. Game of Thrones is a show that is not for lovers of light entertainment. It's meadevil setting and themes of power and corruption mean that sequences like the above mentioned play a major part in the story. What's most important is that it is not shock value that Game of Thrones prioritises, but the characters and their story arcs, which in the end is one of the many reasons why the show has a large fanbase and, despite the tough material presented, keeps them coming back year after year.

Jurassic World (2015) Review

"That thing out there... That is no dinosaur." - Owen.

22 years after Steven Spielberg wowed audiences with Jurassic Park, and after two below average sequels, Jurassic World has resurrected the franchise beyond anyone's expectations. Already, the film has broken several box-office records, with people flocking to the cinema just as the characters in the film do so to the titular theme park. Like Jurassic Park, this sequel has a great sense of fun about it, but it is also guilty of conforming to some of the clichés established in the previous films.

First the positives, which there are thankfully plenty of. With none of the characters from the previous films, Jurassic World has to establish new characters that we have to care about in order to create suspense and drama when things inevitably go wrong with the captive dinos. Our two protagonists are Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard), the organiser of the park, and Owen (Chris Pratt), the park's Velociraptor trainer. Both are likeable, with Owen's sarcastic humour and swagger making for a solid action-hero lead. Pratt is establishing himself as a highly bankable star, and his performance here is filled with enthusiasm for the project. You can tell he had a blast in this role, and that makes for a fun ride-along with his character. Howard is also good as Claire, and her character is involved in a lot of the film's action, which means that we can grow to care about her and ups the suspense. Unfortunately, both characters are involved in an extremely predictable love story. Its downplayed for a lot of the film, but the early dialogue between the two makes where their characters are going to end up painfully obvious. Back to the film's strengths, there is more than enough action to satisfy. As soon as the dinosaurs break loose, there are thrilling chases, stunts, and a Godzilla-esque showdown to round things off. All these sequences are built up well, with things gradually getting worse for the park, starting with a new genetically modified dinosaur outsmarting its captors. From there, the action keeps building, with more dinos let loose and with plenty of explosions and scares. Its a feast for the eyes. Jurassic World also scores points by paying homage to the first film, but without ever coming across as a rip-off. In one scene, the museum from the conclusion of Jurassic Park is discovered, and there is a great nostalgic feel, as the place has aged just as the first film has. This moment of reminiscence is very appropriate in Jurassic World, as it is a sequel that is made with love and affection towards the original. It is a film that aims to thrill and excite, unlike the two previous sequels, which felt lacking of any sense of fun, exactly the opposite of what a summer-blockbuster series like Jurassic Park should be.

I would like to single out the opening 5 minutes or so for particular praise. It shows brothers Zach and Gray Mitchell (Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins) arriving at Jurassic World for the first time. Seeing them arrive at the island with the original Jurassic Park music playing reminded me of watching the first film many years ago. The sense of wonder that is evoked from the brothers seeing Jurassic World for the first time matching my own when I first watched Jurassic Park. It was a film that left an impression on me as a kid, along with other adventure films such as Star Wars and Indiana Jones. I haven't had that feeling when watching a film for some time now, and so it was great to experience that again with Jurassic World.

Despite the brothers being involved in that fantastic opening sequence, they are the film's biggest problem. Acting wise, Robinson and Simpkins don't do a bad job, but they have absolutely nothing to work with here. Their personalities basically come down to this: Zach continuously stares at girls (despite having a girlfriend) and Gray talks a lot about dinosaur facts. That's it. There is nothing else to these characters, apart from their stupidity of going into restricted areas where they, of course, have to be rescued. I'm willing to overlook moments like that as the first film also had its moments of characters acting unbelievably stupid, such as the kids shining a torch at the T-Rex. However, the kids in Jurassic World are so bland that I didn't particularly care  when the dinosaurs started to chase them. At least in Jurassic Park, the kids, however annoying they were, proved themselves to be useful when pushed, and were involved in some of the more humorous moments. As they were involved in arguably the best sequence of the film, it's a shame Zach and Gray be involved in undoubtedly the worst scene. There is a moment where they are on a monorail, and suddenly Gray starts crying. Zach asks him why he's upset, and Gray explains that he knows that their parents will be getting divorced. Never again is this mentioned throughout the rest of the film, and it doesn't aid the drama in anyway. You could quite easily have left that scene out, and nobody would have noticed anything different about the characters, as Zach continues his staring and Gray continues his babbling about facts. Another character hampered by bad writing is the head of security operations, Hoskins (Vincent D'Onofrio). He's your typical Jurassic Park bad guy: he wants to use the dinosaurs as weapons, and shows no redeeming characteristics throughout the film. The character offers us nothing else, and so is instantly forgettable and one of the film's weaker aspects. My final complaint is aimed at the dinosaurs themselves. This is a minor issue, but I personally would have liked to have seen less CGI. The first Jurassic Park used a great combination of CGI and practical effects to bring the dinosaurs to life, but in Jurassic World every dinosaur is CGI. Given the first film's creativity, it would have been nice to see some great practical effects in a summer-blockbuster like this again. I always thought that having something actually in front of the camera looks so much better than having it all being created by a computer in post-production.

Though it has a few flaws, Jurassic World is easily the best of the sequels. It knows exactly what it is and fulfilled my expectations: be entertaining. It certainly is. I also have great admiration for Jurassic World paying its respects to the film that started it all. Now, should there be another sequel? No. Though I think it's going to happen given its huge success and popularity, Jurassic World finally got the series back on track, and so should end on a high. It was great to see another Jurassic Park film, and for it to be done well overall, but I would like to see something new now. Jurassic World took the only other idea left for this series and ran with it, and it did it with all the enthusiasm and fun one could expect from the series. 

Pros:
+ Pays homage to the original.
+ Plenty of action sequences, the best being the ending encounter between a new dinosaur and an old favourite.
+ Chris Pratt. He's so likeable, and his star continues to rise because of it.

Cons:
- Some bland characters, the brothers and Hoskins particularly.
- Cliché love story adds nothing and is very predictable.
- Too much CGI, some practical effects would have been nice.

A Tribute to Sir Christopher Lee (1922-2015)

It's always a great shame to hear of the passing of such an incredible talent. For me, Christopher Lee was one of those actors that could captivate audiences just from them hearing the sound of his incredible voice. Today we heard the news that he has passed away at the age of 93. Starring in too many films to count, Christopher Lee holds the distinct merit of entertaining audiences from several generations, and his legacy has been firmly cemented throughout his incredible career. 

What I most admired about Lee was his ability to make a role completely his own. The biggest testament to this is his performance as Dracula, a character famously portrayed by Bela Lugosi in 1931. Lugosi's Dracula set the tone for how Dracula would be perceived in pop-culture, with his thick Hungarian accent and piercing eyes. When Christopher Lee first took on the role in Hammer Studio's 1958 remake, he deviated his performance entirely from Lugosi's. Lee's Dracula was a monster for the then modern audience, with a more demented stare and emphasis on Dracula's physicality, performing various stunts and having many variations on how Dracula was defeated in each film. The fact that Lee was able to escape the shadow of Lugosi's iconic portrayal of the character shows just how good a performer he was, with him considered just as good, if not a better Dracula by audiences today.

As a kid, I grew up loving both the Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings series of films. In both franchises, Lee played a primary antagonist: the devious Count Dooku and powerful wizard Saruman the White respectively. Lee's voice alone makes him the perfect choice for both characters. His soft, yet powerful delivery ensured the audience's focus was always held, and added well to both character's display of power. Many people criticise the Star Wars prequel trilogy, but there can be no denying that Lee's portrayal of Count Dooku adds a certain class to the films. Dooku isn't a loud, bombastic villain, and so Lee's calmness allows Dooku's aura to be menacing, but with a sense of serenity. As Saruman in The Lord of the Rings and subsequent prequel trilogy The Hobbit, we again see how Lee completely makes the character his own. It is in these films that his delivery and voice is at its most effective, with Saruman commanding armies and consulting with primary anatgonist Sauron to bring doom to Middle Earth. His scenes with Gandalf (Ian McKellen) are the best, particularly in The Fellowship of the Ring, with Saruman's presence, to Gandalf, being one of hope and aid to defeat Sauron. As the scene progresses, however, we slowly learn that Saruman has joined Sauron's forces, and Lee's performance appropriately slowly builds an atmosphere of uncertainty and dread, making Lee one of the standout performers in such a massive cast.

Outside of film, Christopher Lee was the oldest artist to perform in the genre of Heavy Metal music. Not only lending his vocal talents to bands such as Rhapsody of Fire, but also recording his own albums. In an interview with Black Sabbath guitarist Tony Iommi, it was revealed that Lee was an early influence for the band. They were fans of his horror films, and so they incorporated some of the themes and imagery into their lyrics. Black Sabbath are often cited as the first Heavy Metal band, so the fact that Lee was an influence for their music shows how he affected a vast amount of people, further indicating his importance to the world of not only film, but music.

In short, Lee was a one-of-a-kind talent. The kind of performer that doesn't come around so often. One of the most distinctive and recognisable entertainers to have ever lived, his influence on the entertainment industry will long be around, even now after his saddening departure. Christopher Lee, I salute you. Rest in peace. 

An Education (2009) Review

"I feel old, but not very wise."- Jenny

London, 1961. To Jenny Mellor (Carey Mulligan), the whole country is bored. She wants to do what she wants, but is struggling to do so with her parents, in particular her father Jack (Alfred Molina), being so controlling. The opportunity for Jenny to break away from her mundane life arrives in the form of the charming David Goldman (Peter Sarsgaard). With David, Jenny starts to live her ideal lifestyle. But will she realise how important an education can be, before she throws it all away? Receiving three Academy Award nominations, An Education is an emotional tale that is made all the more powerful through its fantastic performances, and helped to bring the talents of actress Carey Mulligan into the limelight. Mulligan is an actress that many, including myself, consider to be one of the finest of her generation. On the back of a film like An Education, it's not hard to see why.

It's hard not to talk about An Education without of course mentioning the performances. I hadn't seen much of the cast's previous work before watching the film, but I admired the performances in those films and in An Education. I was only really familiar with Alfred Molina in the blockbuster films Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and Spiderman 2 (2004), so to see him in a film focused more on drama and realism was nice. His character Jack provides much of the drama when present, with his attitudes towards education and his overly protective nature being the cause of Jenny's desire to strive for what she wants in life. However, he is also a sympathetic character, with Molina's best moment coming towards the end, when he speaks to Jenny from outside her room. Avoiding any major spoilers, he talks to her about the way David wasn't who she said he was, and it's this moment that shows how much he cares about his daughter: "All my life I've been scared, and I didn't want you to be scared". Peter Sarsgaard as David is also good, providing a well acted balance of charm and deviousness. As the film progresses it becomes clearer that he isn't as charming as Jenny first saw, with his work seeming to take priority over allowing Jenny to spend time with him. He is a difficult character to read, and so the intrigue is there to find out what exactly he is hiding from Jenny. Although the supporting cast are strong, Mulligan's performance as Jenny cannot be topped. Not only delivering the dialogue with strong wit and charm, but by conveying so many emotions through her facial expressions. In one particular scene, she perfectly portrays the shock and delight of a marriage proposal from David, and is conflicted as to weather to accept or not. Mulligan allows the scene to garner enough tension, before simply asking David to take her home. It is Mulligan's calm delivery that makes a simple line such as "take me home" give the film more emotional investment in her character, and is totally deserving of her Academy Award nomination.

Mulligan's portrayal of Jenny is aided by strong writing, developing her character as she learns more about David and moves closer to living the way she wants. There is plenty of teen angst, and so she does make mistakes and lets her emotions rule in place of thought. She is bright, but is still unsure over the importance of an education. In one scene, she meets with the headmistress (Emma Thompson) to discuss her plans to go to Paris and lose her virginity to David. Here, Jenny vents her frustrations at how boring her life would be were she to stay in education, with her being on the cusp of escaping from all her problems with David. It is moments like these where the audience can relate to Jenny, with the writing presenting her as someone with the troubles teenagers face, rather than have her be the bright student with absolutely no problems whatsoever.  There is some nice cinematography too, especially during the Paris scenes. It compliments the nature of the scenes very well, as Jenny has always wanted to go to Paris, and so we see the city at its most beautiful, and the camera is always focused on Jenny as she explores. Director Lone Scherfig further creates a blissful atmosphere with his placement of Jenny and David within these scenes, with one shot having them surrounded by the city whilst overlooking a river, making a picturesque moment and the perfect shot to demonstrate Jenny's happiness.

An Education is a delightful film. It's well acted with emotional investment in the characters, aided by good writing, direction and cinematography. Although the ending is slightly rushed, the events beforehand provide a satisfactory culmination of the romance and Jenny's attitude towards education. Above all, we can thank An Education for introducing Carey Mulligan to wider audiences, and her performance as Jenny will stand as testament to her abilities as an actress for years to come.

Pros:
+ Star-making performance by Carey Mulligan.
+ Emotional investment in all the characters.
+ Cinematography that compliments the story very well.

Cons:
- Rushed ending, although ultimately satisfying with how the characters end up, it all seems to happen too fast after the conflicts are resolved.

Jaws (1975) Review

"You're gonna need a bigger boat"- Chief Martin Brody

With the summer season of blockbuster films upon us, what better film to review than the one that started it all. Steven Spielberg's 1975 film Jaws was not only the first film to start the notion of the summer blockbuster, but for me, IS the definitive summer blockbuster. It's a film that left an impression on me many years ago, and has been watched again and again ever since. Until recently, with the viewing of Martha Marcy May Marlene, Jaws was far and away my all-time favourite film. Though it is neck and neck with Martha Marcy May Marlene, Jaws has had such an impact on furthering my younger self's interest in film, that it will always be a film I continue to praise and view countless more times. 

What's interesting about Jaws is that it is almost two films rolled into one. The first half is most definitely a horror film, with the shark claiming several victims in a short space of time. The death scenes, even by today's standards, are pretty violent, with severed limbs shown in close up and a fair amount of blood. Needless to say, but this was unlike anything seen in a PG film back in 1975. But it is not the gruesome sight of these attacks that really makes the audience feel uncomfortable, it is the combination of cinematography, music, and Spielberg's staging of the scene before the shark attacks. It is almost pointless to talk about how well these elements are used in Jaws, as they have been talked about so much they are globally recognised. The musical score composed by frequent Spielberg collaborator John Williams is so effective, and yet primarily consists of only two notes. Gradually becoming more dynamic, those two notes perfectly mirror the growing threat of the shark approaching, making for a flawless match of visual and audio elements. The audience is drawn in more through the use of cinematography, as the camera becomes the shark's point of view, with the audience bracing themselves as the camera slowly moves closer to the victim. I think this is most effective in the film's opening sequence, as the first shark attack is shown. In the scene, a young woman named Chrissie Watkins (Susan Blacklinie) goes skinny-dipping at night. Spielberg demonstrates his mastery of suspense by decided against using a musical score when the camera isn't being used to show the shark's perspective. The lack of music, with just the sounds of Chrissie swimming gives the eventual attack greater impact, and is made more horrific with there never being so much of a glimpse of the shark, just the torment of Chrissie. This scene alone stands as proof that Jaws clearly fits into the horror genre, and yet, it is the thrilling second half of Jaws that is the main draw of my repeated viewings. 

With the attacks happening continuously, Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) brings in shark expert Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) to help convince the stubborn Mayor Larry Vaughan (Murray Hamilton) to hire someone to kill the shark. After witnessing the horror of the attacks on the 4th July celebrations, Vaughan agrees with Brody, and they hire the charismatic Quint (Robert Shaw) to do the job. Quint brings Brody and Hooper with him on the hunt and they head out to sea to put a stop to the menace. The three men hunting down the shark is the entire second half of the film, and it's by far one of the most thrilling sequences ever put on film. They try everything to catch the shark: weighing him down with barrels, leading him into the shore, using an anti-shark cage to get close enough to inject him, and yet it is a bullet that gets the job done in the end. That and a pressured air tank. It's a real testament to the film's strength when I've seen this film countless times, and yet can never exactly remember the order of action set-pieces. There are so many exciting moments, and not remembering the order means that the suspense is still present even after so many viewings. The action sequences are some of the best I have ever seen, but it's not just Spielberg's use of horror elements and action that makes Jaws so special: it's the three protagonists.

Scheider, Dreyfuss and Shaw give flawless performances as the men tasked with killing the shark. Their personalities have been established throughout the film's first half, so to see all three of them together and to see those personalities clash is a real treat. The results of their bickering is mostly hilarious, with Quint being the no-nonsense hunter and Hooper's softer approach of studying the shark, with Brody caught in the middle. Despite the arguments, all three of them are determined to catch the shark, and so there are moments of co-operation when push comes to shove. One scene I must highlight is the Quint's monologue during the first night of the hunt. He tells the story of how he encountered a group of sharks with his regiment in World War II, and the psychological effects such an encounter can have. This scene stands out as being the most chilling moment of the film, but once again, it is the lack of an appearance by the shark that adds so much more impact. The focus is entirely on Quint, and Robert Shaw is completely captivating here. It's a performance that, just for this scene alone, should have won him an Oscar in my opinion. If I could choose one particular moment that I love the most in Jaws, the monologue is it. But the entire film is a masterpiece, and everything I love about it just gets better the more times I see it.

Jaws shocked audiences back in 1975, and is bound to shock and thrill for many more years to come. A simple story told brilliantly, the film caters to action and horror fans, and is a stand-out in both genres for the use of thrilling set-pieces with disturbing imagery and suspense. It also boasts top performance from its cast, and strong writing to tie it all together. Jaws is everything a film should be, not just what a summer blockbuster should be. It is a film that has only gotten better with age, and one that I have never tired of watching. It is, quite simply, perfection.

Pros:
+ Flawless acting from all the cast.
+ Suspenseful throughout, still present after many viewings.
+ Memorable and chilling musical score.
+ Fantastic pacing, a horror film to start and an action film to finish.

Cons:
- None of note, although some people may not like the lack of action sequences until the second half of the film.

Predators (2010) Review

"This planet is a game preserve... and we're the game."- Royce.

Following on from the poorly received Alien vs. Predator films (which I'll get round to when covering the other Alien films), it was about time the Predator starred in its own film once again, and a good one at that. This reboot/sequel to the 1987 original, as the title suggests, involves more than one Predator this time around, and pits another team of lethal humans against the extraterrestrial force. Released in 2010 and produced by Robert Rodriguez, Predators was a return to form for the franchise, and so it's a real shame that it looks like this film won't get a sequel as the series is due to be rebooted again in the near future.

In a similar vein to the original, Predators is set in a jungle environment. However, as the team of soldiers and criminals who are unwittingly dropped there discover, the jungle acts as a game preserve planet for the Predators, and so Predators becomes the first film in the series to not be set on Earth. The human characters, unlike the team of commandos from the first film, are all strangers to one another, and so there is constant tension between them. This rag-tag group comes under the leadership of Royce (Adrien Brody), a mercenary who begins to understand the Predators tactics and strengths. He, along with sniper Isabelle (Alice Braga), is easily the most level headed of the group, whereas the rest are either paranoid, scared or say very little. The casting of Adrien Brody is certainly an interesting one. There's no doubt he can act (see The Pianist for his Oscar winning performance), but can he really be the Arnold Schwarzenegger equivalent and be convincing as a bad-ass action hero? I'm happy to say that Brody totally delivers in this role, not only outperforming the rest of the cast, but also not looking out of place when taking on the Predators. The other cast members also do well, which is a big compliment when compared to some of the acting in the last film to feature the Predator: Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007).

But what about the Predators? Well, there are four of them in this film, and not all of them are on the same side. The first time we see a Predator, it closely resembles the original Predator, so much so that you could be forgiven for thinking the filmmakers simply used the same costume. Very soon after the group encounter this particular Predator, three more show up to attack. We soon find out that these Predators are bigger, stronger, and certainly a lot meaner than any of the Predators in the previous films. These "Super Predators" (as they are referred to by the production team), unlike their predecessors, are more easily distinguishable from one another, with their masks having obvious variations such as the addition of tusks and jawbones of their prey. The designs of these Predators, I think, are even better than the others, with their more intimidating nature making them further stand out in the series' gallery of other Predators.

With four Predators and a group of deadly humans, there are plenty of opportunities for big action sequences. It is somewhat disappointing then, when we only see a Predator around 40 minutes into the film. Before that encounter, we have two decent action scenes: the first involving leftover traps set for the Predators, and the next featuring the Predator equivalent of dogs. Being that this is the fifth film to feature the Predators and has to introduce four of them, Predators lets itself down by attempting to be too much like the 1987 original. When the action finally gets going, it is more out of relief than suspense. Which is a shame, because some of the action is pretty good, the highlight being a one on one fight between the lead Super Predator and Classic Predator. Then comes Adrien Brody's big moment, the final fight of the film. It's here that Brody fully demonstrates his ability to play an action hero, as the sequence involves plenty of running and combat, all whilst being surrounded by fire. It's a thrilling sequence that serves as a satisfying end, as the film makes up for a slow start by delivering good suspense and development of Royce's character, as he learns that the best way to defeat the Predators is to work together.

Despite some flaws, Predators is the most creative of the series since the original, offering new Predators and a new world to set the action. For me, it follows the original a little too closely, but its merits are a strong lead performance by Adrien Brody and some good set pieces once the film gets going. Its clearly a better made film than both crossover films that preceded it and expands the world of the Predator franchise. If this upcoming reboot is instead a sequel to this film, Predators has laid the foundations for the series to be considered thrilling and creative once again. 

Pros:
+ Strong lead performance by Adrien Brody.
+ Fantastic new Predator designs, I'd say better than the rest.
+ Good action sequences in the later stages of the film.

Cons:
- Follows the original film too closely, with some sequences being a direct copy.
- Not all the human character's names are revealed, a big problem when you're trying to feel something for them when they get put in danger or killed off.