Julia’s Eyes (Los Ojos De Julia)

A film with Guillermo del Toro’s name on it is like a car with a Ferrari badge, you know it is going to be good quality, and ‘Julia’s Eyes (or ‘Los ojos de Julia’ in Spanish) is no exception. Although there is a lack of Guillermo del Toro’s visual prowess and grandeur, director Guillem Morales creates a film that is probably more shocking and thrilling than ‘The Orphanage’.

The film makes the audience jump right from the start and doesn’t let up for the entire 112 minutes. Julia (played by Belén Rueda) is devastated after her blind twin sister Sara has committed suicide. Although both the police and her husband Issac (Lluís Homar) believe there was no foul play involved, Julia suspects otherwise, and goes off in search for the killer. She must shine light upon this mystery quickly as she is slowly losing her sight due to the same degenerative disorder that affected her sister. And as her sight gets worse she becomes the killer’s new target. This short synopsis does not do the tension the film creates any justice as this is a film that is all about successfully creating tension the likes of which most audiences never feel.

Julia’s failing vision is certainly the aspect of the film that is most terrifying and is what puts this film leagues ahead of many other thrillers. The idea of being unable to see who or where the killer is, of being constantly in the dark and not knowing who to trust, the concept is terrifying and the movie expertly plays off this primal fear. Morales uses the great cinematography and music to constantly build up the tension to unbearable levels that leave the audience craving for something to happen just to give them some relief. The soundtrack causes hearts to beat faster while the blacked out shots create real fear during the chase scenes.

A distinct part of the film that really helps heighten up the tension is Belén Rueda’s sympathetic and engaging portrayal of Julia. Unlike many other thrillers, such as Paranormal Activity or Scream 4, Belén Rueda manages to make the audience engage with her character so that in the end we want her to survive. When she hears someone in her room at night we hope she gets out of there quickly and as her sight starts to fade we feel sorry for her. These feelings comes about partly due to Rueda’s engaging portrayal of Julia, but also because Julia is a well written, interesting character, at least for a thriller movie. She has a job, relationships, dreams, fears and a personality, which instantly makes her more relatable and therefore easier to empathize with. When this is all put together means that Julia’s survival is important to us and this helps raise the tension beyond a normal slasher/thriller.

The ‘who dunnit’ aspect of the film potentially lets it down a little bit. Although there are plenty of twist and turns within the story the more experienced moviegoer will likely see outcomes of a lot of the twists. Saying that, however, Morales and co-writer Oriol Pualo, have included enough red herrings so that although you may have a good idea about what will happen next you never completely know. The tension does also drop a little about 2/3^rd of the way through, but this comes as a godsend as up till then you are on the edge of your seat for almost every minute. This doesn’t mean the ending is a let down though, although the film never reaches the tension highs it did at the start it still manages to hook us up till the very last scene.

Overall this film is by far the scariest film on release at the moment, and possible up there with being one of the scariest ones of all time. It does all that a scary film should do and it does it well. There is tension, gore, mystery and surprises they stay with you till the next day. Don’t say you weren’t warned. See it for yourself.

Degree- 1st

Easily one of the scariest film out at the moment

and possibly one of the scariest films ever

this one will certainly keep you up at night afterwards.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

Howl

Guest Writer Dean Newby

Howl is a film concerning the 1957 obscenity trial of Alan Ginsberg’s poem after which the film is named. It is written & directed by film-making partners of over 20 years Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman and co-produced by Gus Van Sant (‘Milk’, ‘Good Will Hunting’). It stars James Franco as the now legendary but, at the time, little-known poet, Alan Ginsberg, as well as a host of other well known actors such as Mary-Louise Parker, Jeff Daniels, and Jon Hamm.

I have to admit from the offset, that I am a massive Ginsberg fan. Not just of his work (some of his poems being my favourite of all time), but also of the man, what he stood for and how(l) and why he wrote. With that in mind, I had 3 questions when I entered the cinema to watch ‘Howl’:

1. Will non-Howl/non-Ginsberg fans or those who simply do not know his work like or get anything positive from the film?
2. Will the film remain true to the poem, the trial and the man (Ginsberg)?
3. How can a poem such as ‘Howl’ be successfully portrayed on-screen?

The answers in short, are a resounding: Yes. Yes. Brilliantly & Beautifully.

The film opens in black & white with Franco’s Ginsberg on stage preparing to read his poem. The room is filled with people, with a haze of cigarette smoke hanging in the air. The audience is waiting, some clearly with bated breath.

When Franco begins speaking his voice higher than usual, with a touch of nervousness. His pitch, intenation, and rhythm all contribute to the feeling that at times, one could actually be listening to Ginsberg reading his poetry – as I have courtesy of a ‘Voice of the Poet’ CD of his work. There is a tenderness to Franco’s performance that cements his portrayal as Ginsberg, he deals with the reading of the poem with the same energy and passion as Ginsberg, and his interview with the same calmness and confidence. This shows the two sides to most people: the performer and the ‘real’ person.

We’re soon introduced to scenes of real-life colour, alternating between Ginsberg’s interview and the current trial of 1957. There are also animated sequences which act as a visual interpretation of the poem. Reminiscent of Van Gogh in their swirls of colour, they are juxtaposed with scenes in black and white. In contrast they seem like silent snapshots of memories past.

The film carefully balances several scenes: Ginsberg’s interview with an unidentified interviewer, the trial, his past and the animated poem, and it does so perfectly, which considering the number of scene-changes, is an extremely skilled thing to do. There is enough imagery & speech that the viewer doesn’t get bored or lose interest, but not so much that they are left feeling dazed or lost somewhere between Franco laying in on some steps and animated penises floating through the night sky.

The film is bigger than ‘Howl’, Ginsberg, or the trial. It skillfully delivers the message that art often outlives all of us, and lives eternally in a world beyond time. This is shown beautifully in a scene of the past in which the only object of colour is a painting in a gallery Ginsberg is visiting. If black & white is the past, and colour the present, then this painting displayed in Ginsberg’s past continues into his present, into our present.

Of the many things this film has to offer; superb acting, some of the most beautiful animation I’ve ever seen, and a story of a man who wrote what he saw at a time when many were blinded by anger and fear, I think one of the most important is a renewed interest Ginsberg and his work. That can only be a good thing.

While testifying at the trial, Treat Williams’ character, academic Mark Schorer, states that ‘poetry cannot be translated into prose’, but having watched ‘Howl’ I think it’s fair to say that it can, in this case anyway, indeed be translated into film.

1st

Cinematically beautiful with an honesty and appreciation of history

that is too often overlooked in today’s ‘quick-buck’ film industry.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

True Grit

By Will Tooke

Remakes are a tricky business.  Here in the glamorous, Soho based Film Don Inc. offices, we still argue about the relative merits of Let Me In, the American remake of the far superior Swedish Let The Right One In, that seemed to me at least to cater solely for American teenagers too lazy to read subtitles for two hours. Equally re-boots such as ‘Karate Kid’ and ‘The A-Team’ can cause a lot of heavy debate as to whether they ruined or improved the franchise.

Which brings us to the Coen Brother’s True Grit. Whilst not a remake of a foreign movie or a reboot of an 80’s classic, the comparison holds in that it is a remake of a much loved original, that garnered widespread critical acclaim upon its release in 1969, and finally won Marion Morrison (or John Wayne to you and me) a Best Actor Oscar for his swan song performance as Rooster Cogburn, the gruff, no nonsense US Marshal. The Coen’s have more than proved themselves when it comes to Westerns, having adapted and directed 2007s No Country For Old Men, but they also proved themselves to be wildly inconsistent filmmakers by following up No Country with Burn After Reading, a weird, unpleasant comedy that raises a few laughs (George Clooney’s dildo machine*, anyone?) but has dark streaks so broad that as a whole the film is uncomfortably discordant. So purists of the Western genre perhaps have a lot to be worried about. Especially since the last Coen remake was 2002’s The Ladykillers, starring Tom Hanks. There’s a reason why you probably haven’t heard of it.

Then again, the original True Grit has a lot wrong with it – and however sacrilegious this may sound; don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. The 1969 Henry Hathaway directed version screamed sixties Hollywood – if you can look past the poor quality special effects (shots of people falling off horses were sped up, a safer way for stuntmen to earn their living, but it has more than a little of the Benny Hill chase sequence about it), then its hard to look past how anaesthetised the Wild West looks. Clothes are new and clean, and saddles shine with the over care of a zealous props department. With modern additions to the genre like the much underrated, Kevin Costner directed Open Range, the TV show Deadwood, or even the sprawling epic videogame Red Dead Redemption audiences are used to seeing the Old West like it was. Violent, dark and dirty.  Pleasingly this is how the Coens have realized their version of the film. Which isn’t to say it doesn’t look beautiful, the grimy grey-brown palette periodically broken up by skylines stretching blue across the Midwestern horizons, or the spurting crimson of a fatal gunshot.

Another fault with the original was the casting. Surly Texas Ranger Labouef was played by country singer Glenn Campbell, who couldn’t act as well as he could sing, a piece of stunt casting thankfully not emulated by the Coen brothers- presumably 50 Cent was upset not to be asked to a reading, Matt Damon being a perfect fit for the role, much to Fiddy’s chagrin.  Jeff Bridges brings a gruff, whiskery authority to the one eyed Cogburn. Unlike Wayne’s incarnation, it’s easy to forget that you’re watching an actor and not a real cowboy. It’s unkind, but in truth Wayne played a gunslinger at the end of his career at the end of his career, whereas Bridges continues to go from strength to strength. He has made the role his own. John who? Wisely, Bridges channels hardly any of Wayne’s original performance, although it’s great to see the inclusion of the original’s most iconic scene – Cogburn galloping toward a posse of badguys, reins in his teeth, a six shooter in each hand, kill or be killed.

Despite Bridge’s stellar performance, the real tip of the ten gallon hat has to go to newcomer and spell check molester Hailee Steinfeld who is nothing short of astonishing in the roll of the young Maddie Ross, who hires Cogburn to track down her father’s murderer. Here – and in the original book – Maddie is only fourteen, whereas in 1969 she was played by Kim Darby, then in her early twenties, the character having been made sufficiently old enough to hint at a love interest with Cogburn, another bum note in the original. Steinfeld manages to bring the outwardly gutsy, bluntness of the character to the screen in tandem with her naivety and concealed sensitivity, a performance made all the more impressive considering she is acting alongside the likes of Damon and Bridges. That Best Supporting Actress Oscar nod is so well deserved, albeit a nomination that rather understates her role in True Grit, as she is arguably the central character – reflected in her BAFTA nomination for Best Actress. It is as much her film as it is Bridges’.

Aside from the top notch cast – bolstered by a subtle turn by Josh Brolin as the bad guy – the reason why the film really works is weirdly because it is one of the least Coen-y Coen Brother’s film. It has less of the cooky twists that seem to delight and irritate in equal measure, and is much less violent than a lot of their previous work (thus making it still pretty violent).  All in all it’s a carefully, understated film that is made all the stronger by its simple plot, letting strong character performances carry the compelling tale of revenge and justice.

*Coincidentally, a rather good name for a band.

Degree- First.

The best Western movie in years, and even ifgunslingers and horse

chases aren’t your thing– the strong performances are worth the price of admission alone.

The film to give The King’s Speech a run for its money when the

Oscars come round at the end of the month.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

The King’s Speech

A rich man getting over a speech impediment doesn’t sound like a particularly impressive feat, at least not one that should have audiences and the academy in such a buzz. However, if you think about how public speaking is one of people’s biggest fears and listening to a bad public speaker is one of the most painful experiences, it starts to make a little more sense. Oh and did I not mention it? The protagonist is the King of England. Now you can see why such a premise might become a national issue.

For those who are not up to date on the history of the British monarch (what do they teach you these days?) the film is set in the late 1930s in the years running up to World War 2.  George V (played superbly by Michael Gambon) is reaching the end of his reign due to failing health, but his heir is causing a constitutional crisis. The then King Edward VIII wants to marry the twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson, but since he is head of the Church of England, which does not recognize divorce, it would be considered an immoral marriage This causes the famous change in the course of history that sees King Edward VIII abdicate the throne and Prince Albert, Bertie to his family (played by Colin Firth), become King George VI. However, the poor prince was never meant to become king and has a serious stammer that stops him from making any sort of inspiring public addresses, so there is little confidence in his being able to lead the country. To get over the stuttering Bertie goes to radical speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), and while all this is happening Hitler is slowly gaining more power in Europe.

The relationship between Bertie and Lionel is the key component to the film and is an easy and moving one to watch. The great dynamic between the two men comes from the great difference in social standing and the unseen class divide that this creates. At first the two act very awkward around each other with Lionel treating Bertie like any normal client, even going as far as to use his familial nickname, which of course infuriates the prince.  But as the barriers start to come down a real, touching friendship develops that lifts the movie up to another level. This friendship feels much deeper than the usual Hollywood ‘bromance’, in fact using such a term to describe it is an insult to its unique perfection.  The relationship causes many of the unexpected funny moments in the film that had the entire packed audience laughing in their seats. For instance seeing a prince of England, as well as a national treasure, roll around on the floor or swear worse than a drunk Essex lad has everyone in stitches.

Firth and Rush both play their parts brilliantly (I think I may soon run out of complimentary adjectives). Firth is perfect as a regal prince, in control of his emotions to reflect what is expected of him, but also able to show a vulnerable side that tugs at the heartstrings. Firth handles the emotional side of Bertie’s character, the pain and torment he had growing up in the royal household, and with exceptional skill shows just enough to seduce the audience without making it all feel like a melodrama. Rush equally stands out in the film and is on par with Firth in his supporting role. It is a shame that he likely won’t get as much recognition as Firth, but he provides a lot of the comedy and insights into the royal character. This is probably one of Rush’s best performances to date.

The film outside this friendship is filled with great actors, all amazing in their own right. Michael Gambon, as already stated, is very good as no nonsense George V while Timothy Spall plays a convincing Winston Churchill. Australian Guy Pearce is also very good as King Edward VIII, choosing to come across as shirking his responsibility rather than giving up the thrown purely for love. However, the actor who really stands out in a supporting role is Helena Bonham Carter, who for once is playing a serious and non-quirky role and is exceptionally good at it. You can certainly imagine her Queen Mother being both supportive, but also full of all the royal diva stories that have come out over the years.

The rest of the film, the costumes, the music, the locations are all equally stunning, but in the end what really matters in this film is the exceptional acting talent at its core. All the surface factors could be cheap, tacky and falling apart and the film would still be exceptional due to its cast. The only slight problem I had, and it is so slight that I almost forgot to mention it, is how the film tries to be smart by making slight references to future events. For instance Lionel tells Bertie that smoking is a disgusting habit and will one day kill him, which is a reference to the fact that King George VI died young due to throat cancer. There are a few others, such as references to Hitler and also princess Elizabeth, but as I said it is an almost forgettable fault that I mention to simply fulfill the role as ‘critic’.

The film has all that the academy council could possible want; a period piece by one with experience a great historic backdrop; class boundary issues; and conquering ones personal demons-it is a shoe in for Oscar gold. But for the audience all that really matters is the incredible acting at the heart of the film that has each character appear deep and also stand out from the crowd.  This is certainly a film that is on a pedestal and all others should aspire to be like.

Degree: 1st

This film is practiaclley perfect in everyway. A great start to 2011 and one that deserves all

the hype and awards that it is receiving

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

The Social Network

First off this ‘The Social Network’ is as much about Facebook as ‘The Queen’ was about the death of Princess Diana; it really isn’t about it at all. Instead the film looks at the relationships and dynamics of the key players and what happened between them while Facebook was founded; anyone who doesn’t have a Facebook page (do such people still exist?!) can still enjoy it without feeling they are missing a crucial bit of information. This comes as no surprise when you see that the writer is Aaron Sorkin who made ‘The West Wing’ watchable for those who are not interested in American politics. With ‘The Social Network’ he has made a film that doesn’t require a degree in computer science to understand, and has also managed to capture the thoughts and feelings of a very recent part of history which Hollywood is usually very slow at picking up on.

Adapted from Ben Mezrich’s non-fiction book ‘The Accidental Billionaires’ the film moves along three different time lines. Zuckerberg is in the middle of two different, simultaneous lawsuits, one by the Winklevoss twins and their business partner Divya Narendra, and the other by his best friend and former CFO Eduardo Saverin. During the discussions around these lawsuits the story of Facebook’s founding comes out. It all starts off in Harvard 2003 where Mark Zuckerberg is unhappy with his present social standing, and wants to become part of elitist society by being a member of a Final club (think Oxford’s Bullingdon Club or Yale’s Skull and Bones). He gets the attention of club members Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss after his site ‘FaceMash’ crashes the Harvard servers, and they ask him to write the code for a social website exclusive to Harvard students. Zuckerberg takes this idea and turns it into Facebook; from there the film follows what happens next, from the website expanding to a few schools all the way to it reaching 1 million members. Between all this the film mainly concentrates on the relationships surrounding Zuckerberg and how he pulls people in and pushes them away.

The film for me was made by the great characters who are all very well developed and layered, but also don’t fit with the usual film dynamic; the ones you end up rooting for are not necessarily the ones you expected when you walked into the cinema. The stand out performance was easily Jesse Eisenberg who delivers Sorkin’s zingy dialogue expertly and shows a very complex picture of Zuckerberg. It would have been too easy to demonise the Facebook founder since a lot of what he is portrayed as doing was sneaky and underhanded., however Eisenberg manages to show enough of a weak side to make him relatable. There is a very cold, logical, calculating side to him and this side is what made him a genius, but there is also a side that is incredibly insecure and human. For instance I have found out since watching the film that the reason Facebook is predominatly blue is because Mark Zuckerberg is colour blind and blue is the most obvious and clearest colour he sees.  He just desperately wants to be cool, popular and recognised, as he believes that is the gateway to a better life, but does not have the social tact to do so. He is clever, there is no doubt about that, but he can’t seem to properly connect with other people, at least not in the conventional way, so he created a medium he would be able to do it in. The greatest irony is even when he has all the success, is the world youngest billionaire and is recognised by millions of people he still can’t be the life of the party or connect with those who matter to him and this makes an ultimately tragic character.

The true victim of the story, at least it seems from the film, is Zuckerberg’s friend and CFO Eduardo Saverin, who stuck with him through everything, but was forced out of the company when his shares were diluted a thousand fold. It will always be a complete mystery to me why a guy as caring and compassionate as Eduardo would be around someone as self centred as Zuckerberg could be. Andrew Garfield plays the part fantastically well and allows the audience to sympathise with him as he gets slowly pushed aside without forcing it on us. These sympathetic feelings cannot be placed on the other major male lead that is Justin Timberlake’s Sean Parker. Parker is the co-founder of Napster and Timberlake portrays him as cool, swathe and enticing, but he is ultimately the antagonist of the film. He manipulates and blinds Zuckerberg and never accepts responsibility for the damage he causes and the rift he creates between Mark and Eduardo.  The most surprising characters for me turned out to be the Winklevoss twins. Both played by Armie Hammer, at least one was Armie Hammer and the other one was Hammer’s head digitally placed on another’s body, these twins seem to have it all; looks, money, brains (they are in Harvard after all) and a sporting career that saw them in the Olympics and more recently row for Oxford in the Oxford Vs Cambridge boat race. However given all this they come across as likable because in the end they are also victims of Zuckerberg. They came up with a similar idea and approached Zuckerberg with it and he then stole the idea. Originally the twins did little to stop him as they saw themselves as gentlemen and above any rumour spreading or cashing in, but as soon as the website went global they snapped and demanded they got the recognition they deserved. Their gentleman like behaviour redeems the two character in the audiences’ eyes and makes us root for them as much as we do Eduardo.

Not only are the characters and actors superb, but the entire film fits together beautifully and this all down to director David Fincher (Fight Club, Seven). All the cinematography, music and on site shots fit perfectly together to give the film a sense of grandeur, which it rightly deserves since it is the origin story of something that has changed and defined a generation. With the help of Aaron Sorkins’ script the film does have some hi-tech jargon, but this is only used to demonstrate the characters’ knowledge and expertise and is easy to follow. The multiple time lines also fit really well together and don’t become skewed or hard to follow as can often happen. Neither of these two men have Facebook accounts or any interest in Facebook so they were able to create a film that did not concentrate too heavily on the subject matter itself, but more on the websites effect on people and on a generation. It is strange to think of a world without Facebook, but it is in fact a world that we have all lived in. Stranger still is going on Facebook after you know all the blood, sweat and tears that went into making it.

Degree: 1^st

A fascinating insight into the lives and tribulations of three geeks as they

revolutionise 21^st century communication. The only thing missing is

the real Mark Zuckerberg’s reaction.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

The Shawshank Redemption

The Shawshank Redemption is the original dark, yet feel-good film based on Stephen King’s famous short story. From the starting court scene to the phenomenal ending the film shows the audience every aspect of the human character, both good and bad; it’s an engaging and touching journey. It is unfortunate that this great was released in the same year as Tom Hank’s ‘Forest Gump’ and Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Pulp Fiction’. These big names stole the limelight at the box office so Shawshank only made $18 million and lost out on all seven of the academy awards it was nominated for. However it has since grossed a huge DVD and VHS following and been ranked deservedly higher in the list of greatest films of all time.

The film centres on former banker Andy Dufresne, played by Tim Robbins, who is on trial for the murder of his wife and her golf-pro lover. Although Dufresne protests his innocence, his icy manner fails to convince either the jury or the audience and he is sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. He is sent to Shawshank Prison and behind these high stone walls are where almost all the film takes place. Robbins plays the intelligent and calculating Andy Dufresne perfectly; so much so that some critics have faulted him, claiming he never truly connects with the audience.  This distance however is simply as a powerful example of how Dufresne is distant from everyone around him. He is an island and Robbins plays him as such.

All the characters that Dufresne meets in Shawshank are richly filled out and layered: from the hypocritical warden Mr Norton, who is as flawed as the men he keeps locked up, to Brooks the institutionalised crook who will bring tears to your eyes. Each character grows organically during the film’s gentle unfolding. Within this great cast the stand out performance is easily Morgan Freeman. He plays Red, a man who can get you anything you need for a 20% mark up. Freeman’s portrayal of Red is raw, human and real; Freeman thoroughly deserved his Oscar nomination.  Freeman is also the film’s narrator; his silky voice is certainly music to the ears and gives a good insight into the emotions and psychology of a prisoner. It allows the audience to really understand what each character is going through.

When all is said and done, beneath Freeman’s silky voice and the country amble pace this is still a prison movie and like ‘Midnight Express’ before it, includes some horrible scenes that make you think twice about ending up there. From the guards’ verbal insults and physical assaults to the inmates deaths and the food they have to eat the film does not let up in showing us how truly awful people can be. The beating and rape of Dufresne by a group of prisoners called ‘The Sisters’ was particularly nasty and distressing to watch. But it is not these dark scenes that make ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ one of the 50 films Film4 say you must see before you die how these men rise above these obstacles is the true genius of the film. Throughout all he endures Dufresne never loses his creativity, generosity or integrity. The bond of companionship he forms with the other inmates is inspirational and the lengths he goes to in order to hang onto hope are incredible. The end of the film leaves you dumbstruck, in awe at what we are all capable of and determined to make sure you fulfil your own potential.

Degree: 1^st.

The film of a generation and one that has finally become recognised for the masterpiece it is.

Films since then, such as ‘Slumdog Millionaire’, have clearly drawn inspiration from it.

Get busy living, get busy seeing this film.

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World

Scott Pilgrim is certainly aimed at a very specific niche, which would explain its US box office flop, only making $30 million back on its $60 million budget. The source material was written for slackers about slackers, not geeks or teenagers, but slackers, which isolates a lot of the movie going public. With all this in mind I still highly recommend everyone to go and see it, even if the genre is not inside your comfort zone, as it is a truly amazing film.

The movie (so the avid fans say) sticks close to the original comics, ok ‘graphic novels’, by Bryan Lee O’Malley.  In these novels Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera), the base guitarist for the unsigned band ‘Sex Bob-omb’, falls head over heels for the enigmatic Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). However to be with her Scott must first defeat her seven evil exes who all want to kick the crap out of him. It’s the relationship between Scott and Ramona that is the core of the film and the different dynamics in it are what make this film score high points. Between all the great visuals, dialogue and music (which I will get onto in a second) the film looks at real, relatable issues, if in a surreal setting. With Scott we see all the usual insecurity each of us feels when we start dating a new person: awkward, obsessed, nervous, cocky, doubtful. Scott goes through all these stages and we go through them with him. And with Ramona we witness what it is like running away from your past, but never fully escaping and having it come back to hurt those around you instead. Winstead does a great job making Ramona seem both strong and fragile at the same time, apologetic for her past, but not regretful.

A film with this many layers might be a surprise for a comic (sorry graphic novel) based movie, but it certainly isn’t for an Edgar Wright film. Both his previous movies, ‘Hot Fuzz’ and ‘Shaun Of The Dead’, had many layers of heart beneath the comedy. However Wright has certainly pulled away from his old British team of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost in order to have an all American and Canadian cast. It also has a far larger budget that is put to good use. The entire film is a fusion of 80s video games and retro comics. The scenes shift and change as if you were reading a comic book, which can disorientate viewers at first, but trust me sticking around is worth it. The fights themselves are taken straight from video games such as ‘Street Fighter’, being both fast paced and intense, but lasting for the exact right amount of time. The timing of the film is absolutely perfect, with neither action nor dialogue going on for too long or becoming tired. The sound track is also as explosive as the fight scenes, even for one who is more comfortable with the top 40 than indie rock. Legendary alt-rock artist Beck wrote all of Sex Bob-omb’s songs while Canadian musicians Metric and Broken Social Scene penned the tracks for the other bands. The playlist is so good that a 2-CD soundtrack has been released and has got acclaimed reviews.

Even with all these great qualities, what truly makes ‘Scott Pilgrim Vs the World’ an exceptional film is the great cast and dialogue. Michael Cera is still playing the same slightly dorky character he has played in ‘Juno’ and ‘Super Bad’, but this time the character is also a douche. This grumpy, self-centred attitude that Scott often displays makes the character all the more real and believable and Michael Cera’s charm wins you over to rooting for him in every fight. As I’ve already mentioned Winstead is perfection, even under all the colourful wigs she had to wear. However, what most stands out is how rounded the supporting characters are. Each evil ex feels complete even though some only get a few seconds of screen time. Easily the two best exes were Chris Evan’s Lucas Lee and Brandon Routh’s Todd Ingman who each deliver hilarious performances. But the characters that rise above everyone else are Wallace (Kieran Culkin) and Knives Chau (Ellen Wong).  Wallace is Scott’s gay flatmate and is rare in the fact that he is not gay first and everything else second. Instead Wallace is witty, likable and insightful before being gay. Knives Chau on the other hand is the most lovable character you meet through the entire 112 minutes. Knives is the 17 year old school girl that Scott is dating when he meets Ramona and her bubbly, naïve, adoring attitude almost makes you want Scott to not bother with Ramona at all. Wong certainly provides the warm fuzzy feeling of the film. As for the script it is top notch with every character getting at least one funny line; except Shota Saito and Keita Saito who are twin actors from Japan and don’t speak any English. From one-liners, such as the ‘Hasbian’ insult, to topical jokes, such as the Vegan police, the script is both playful and insightful, lacking in neither imagination nor charm.

Ultimately Scott Pilgrim is a growing up story that has real heart and flare. Between the fights and the music is a clever, funny, moving story that deserves to gross higher than it has done in the States. However, even if it doesn’t do as well here as it should do, if you go see it and you like it you can feel good in the knowledge that you like a cool trendy film that will reach cult status in only a few years.

Degree: 1^st

A film that is not going to be to everyone’s taste, but is

still awesome. It has all the makings of a cult classic.

Toy Story 3

No, it is all true, the hype is not an over-exaggeration, this is one of the best films out this summer. As we all know, Pixar have created films that rival the great Walt Disney in both originality and beauty. ‘Toy Story 3’ sees the end to the series that made Pixar’s name back in 1995; no creative expense has been spared in making it the best of the trilogy and one of the best Pixar films to date.

The film opens with an exciting imaginative adventure scene followed by a heart warming montage showing the interaction and love between Andy and his toys. When the dust settles, however, the audience find themselves back in Andy’s room: a lot of time has passed and things are very different. Nothing has escaped the change: Andy (still voiced by a now grown-up John Morris) is grown up and leaving for college; the puppy Buster has his fair share of grey hairs; and Andy’s toys are left half forgotten in his old toy box. Although many of our favourite toys are still in this film, such as Woody, Buzz and Jesse, to name a few, some are also missing. The ones that are still around have not changed: they still want to be played with and long for Andy’s attention. This childlike want is heartbreaking to watch. It is also clear that the toys are slowly becoming jaded as time passes; so begins the start of the message that Pixar is trying to tackle. The film aims to deal with loss of purpose and how we feel when we are looked over or no longer needed.

The solution presented to us and the toys is to try and live with no purpose, no responsibilities, no owners. Andy’s toys find this weight-free existence at Sunnyside Daycare where the toys have no owners and so have no no heartbreak. However, Sunnyside is a lot more sinister than it first appears.. It is here that the story starts to pick up pace with many action sequences, moving speeches and funny one-liners as well as introductions to many new characters, both toys and human.

This final instalment of the ‘Toy Story’ franchise easily has some of the best characters in it. We have the return of old favourites: Rex who is still as clumsy as ever; Ham who is voiced by Pixar good-luck charm John Ratzenberger; the Potato Heads with their alien adoptive children; slinky dog; the cowboy’s horse Bullseye; and of course Woody and Buzz, the film’s favourite duo. However there is also some female talent with Jessie the cow-girl and new comer Barbie. Both girls easily keep up with the male toys in both action and comedy. On top of these characters the audience are introduced to many more at Sunnyside Daycare such as Stretch, Chunk, Dollie and a host of others all voiced by famous Hollywood veterans such as Whoopi Goldberg and Timothy Dalton. The head of this host of new toys is Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear (Lotso for short) who with the soft voice of Ned Beatty and bright purple fur, seems at first a kind and wise caretaker, but is in fact a ruthless warden who controls Sunnyside with intimidation and fear. He wields this fear with the help of Big Baby, his Lenny like accomplice who is strong, yet follows Lotso with blinding faith. Big Baby is a frightening character that harks back to the terrible creations found in Cid’s room in the first film. However easily the most stand out new character is Michael Keaton’s Ken, the embodiment of the metro-sexual man. With his All American smile, indignation at being called a ‘girl’s toy’ and expansive wardrobe that would make Carrie Fisher jealous, Ken could certainly be an idol for the modern man (a character some might relate to). The fashion montage in his walk in wardrobe is certainly a highlight of the film and makes him an immediate favourite with everyone watching. The great thing about all Pixar characters, and this film is no exception, is that they are not one dimensional. The good guys have flaws and annoying habits while the bad guys have relatable motives that cause them to act as they do. In this way these animated toys have are more realistic than something you might find in a M.Night Shyamalan production.

In typical Pixar fashion it’s not just the characters that have matured and improved since the previous film. The animation is easily the best ever, with beautiful bright colours, made more detailed by the 3D effect (although the jury is still out as to quite how much this improves the cinematic experience, in this reviewer’s opinion). Along with the animation, the emotional balance has been perfected with lots of jokes, both physical slapstick for the kids and witty quips for the adults, as well as lots of poignant moments and realisations. The film shows that a purposeless life is empty and that we never lose our purpose or importance, we simply grow out of old ones and start new ones. However along with the maturation Pixar has not lost its childlike humour with subtle in jokes and homages. Andy’s Mum’s car still has the licence plate A-113, which is subtle dedication to the classroom where many Pixar artists discovered their dream of animation. Many of the action scenes inside Sunnyside come from famous escape films such as ‘The Great Escape’. One of the new toys is Totoro, the mascot of the Japanese film studio Studio Ghibli with whom Pixar are on great terms. They also hint at previous jokes from the older ‘Toy Story’ films, such as ‘the claw’ and riding Buster like a horse, but these jokes have changed with time and are the funnier for it. There are probably many more in-jokes that first time viewers may not notice and, with this in mind, it’s worth going to see the film again and again to discover the plethora of hidden jokes and references. The movie also starts with a fantastic short film called ‘Night and Day’, which plays around wonderfully with the fusion of sound and vision and is easily one of the best short films Pixar has done in a long time.

‘Toy Story 3’ is the perfect end to a magnificent trilogy and will leave every member of the audience feeling warm, a little weepy, but fully satisfied with the ending. The film creates laugher and tears in both children and adults and yet no one is ashamed of this. The only thing to regret is that we did not show our own toys this much affection when we still had them.

Degree: 1st

An imaginative and stunning finale to a franchise that has touched us all.

Every member of the audience will leave with smiles on their faces and tears in their eyes.