The Prisoner of Shark Island (1936)

  'The Prisoner of Shark Island' is a 1936 film directed by John Ford and starring Warner Baxter.

  On the night of President Lincoln's assassination, John Wilkes Booth stops by a doctor's house to tend to his broken leg. The doctor, called Samuel Mudd, lets him in, and tends to his leg, without knowing that he was the one who shot President Lincoln. The following day, the army are trying to find Booth and stop in on Mudd's house. They find a shoe with Booth's name on it, and accuse him of being an accomplice in the assassination. Soon after his trial, he is sent to life imprisonment in a prison in the Dry Tortugas (of the edge of Key West).

  This is another rare OOP Masters of Cinema DVD that I bought a few weeks ago. They release the definitive editions of the films (in region 2), and take care over their releases. What attracted me to this film was the awesome title, and that it's a John Ford film (a director I should know more of). 'The Prisoner of Shark Island' is one of his patriotic American films, as oppose to his small Irish films. Not a western, the genre he is most known for, but a mixture of different genres, starting of as a retelling of events, then turning into a court drama, then an prison-escape film, before finishing as a heroic biopic. The film is relatively unpredictable, but it's clear Mudd will eventually find freedom (similar to '12 Years a Slave', 'The Shawshank Redemption' etc).

  The story is told in a typical, celebratory way, as seen in 'The Birth of a Nation', that over-emphasizes America and fills the story with considerable patriotism. This is a film taken place after a turbulent period in American history, and allows Ford to show the love for the country (even if he is Irish). Ford makes the audience sympathize with a heroic underdog as he eventually succeeds, a plotline that is similar to some of his other films, but this is the best example. For me, the 1930s is the worst decade in film, partially due to the lack of style and beauty. John Ford does counter this belief (Cahiers du Cinemalove him), making his films unique for the time period.

  As the events the film takes gets worse and worse, the courage that Mudd displays is humongous. It's hard to believe this was based on a true story of the real-life Samuel Mudd. Warner Baxter portrays him with real authenticity and is often perceived as his finest performance. It may even be considered his best if the film wasn't forgotten over time.

TO CONCLUDE
It may not be his best film (that would be 'The Grapes of Wrath'), and the film is often cliche and predictable, but it's enjoyable and has a great pay off at the end.

SCORE

77

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)

  'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is a 2013 film directed by and starring Ben Stiller.

  Walter Mitty is a daydreamer, who often imagines his life being better. He works for LIFE magazine, which are firing employees due to an acquisition. It's his duty to sort out the final cover of the last ever edition, but the negative has disappeared...

  Most films with this low of a score are dull and boring. 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is many things but it is not boring. It constantly barrages the audience with luscious visuals, and constant action for it to be dull. The amazing visuals do feel out of place and the action does feel unnecessary and inconsequential, but it did prevented me from falling asleep.

  It's not the worst movie of the year but the most cringe-worthiest movie of the year. Some scenes made me feel physically sick, especially the ending (where he sees what's on the LIFE magazine cover). Very predictable as well. I could guess what was on the negative the second it went missing. The film gets incredibly stupid in places, trading the stretchy doll for the skateboard was probably the dumbest thing I have ever seen. The film is meant to be escapism, so the intention is for it to be unrealistic, but scenes like this take the piss.

  The film adds storylines and interesting characters, then drops them after three minutes. I never did understand the point of the radio he dropped in the ocean or why the photographer took a photograph of his mothers piano. I didn't find the product placement as annoying as other people have, but it did take me out of the action a few times, to sigh heavily. Most of the advertisements are America-specific so they are completely pointless anyway, regardless of the effort they take to try and make them blend in.

  The cringe-worthy, stupid moments and the awful script, is forgiven in a couple of films by amazing acting. Not in this film, with Ben Stiller starring as an awful protagonist. I never liked Ben Stiller, and now I don't like him more. It's not that he is bad in the role, he is atrocious. Anyone else rooting for the shark?

  To be fair the cinematography is excellent and Sean Penn was surprisingly good. But in the end it's a film about Ben Stiller imagining of living life, then living life, then not, then living it again. Way too much bullshit manipulated excessively to try and hit every feel-good bone in the body, but misses them all. It does hit the stomach.

TO CONCLUDE
This film has split audience and critics. Some even claim it to be the next Forrest Gump (as seen on every bus poster in England for about three months). I thought it was a physically painful experience and I am surprised at the amount of people who loved it, how can they be spoon-fed this Americanized bullshit so easily.

SCORE
38

Wuthering Heights (1939)

  'Wuthering Heights' is a 1939 Romance directed by William Wyler and starring Laurence Olivier.

  Lockwood is a traveller in mid-19th Century English Midlands, when he stops at a house due to a heavy storm. There he meets the rude Heathcliff (Olivier) and Ellen the housekeeper. Lockwood believes he saw a figure outside, shouting "Let me in, I'm out on the Moors. It's Cathy". Upon Heathcliff being told this, he runs out onto the moors. Ellen then tells Lockwood the story of Heathcliff and Cathy's (Merle Oberon) endless love.

  'Wuthering Heights' is one of the most well-known literary works ever written. The book was published in 1847 by the author Emily Bronte, and has been made into numerous film and TV adaptations (17 according to IMDB). The adaptations include a 1954 film directed by Luis Bunuel and a 1985 film directed by Jacques Rivette, but it is this 1939 William Wyler film that is always considered the greatest.

  Seeing as the book was written in the 19th Century, the story has dated with age. The 'girl split between two guys' storyline is overused nowadays, especially with the release of the 'Twilight' and 'The Hunger Games' films. But there is enough in this film to make the film different from these many imitators. For example, the first five minutes gives away the entire storyline of the film. The audience knows how everything is going to end up, so the film focuses instead on how they get there. Why is Heathcliff rich and Cathy dead? So as the film progresses, the pieces of the puzzle are gradually slotted together. When the final flash-forward to present day occurs, everything makes sense, completing the story. Its not about the result, but the journey it takes to get there.

  This film was made earlier in 1939 "The (apparently) best year for film ever", and contains many stylistic choices that feel ahead of its time. Yes it is a Romantic film (my least favourite genre), but it feels like a Dickensian David Lean film, like 'Great Expectations' and 'Oliver Twist'. The Romantic Hollywood films made around this time, usually lacked aesthetic, or any kind of stylistic approach. The sets of the Moors are some of the greatest of the 1930s. I have been to the Midlands a few times, and they have never been this beautiful.

  This is Olivier in one of his best roles. I feel guilty for disliking his performance in 'Henry V', as I realize now he can truly act. The character he creates, tells the rags to riches tale and the lost love tale, perfectly. After watching I can see why this story is timeless, and despite loosing half the book in transition, this film is perfection for the 1930s.

TO CONCLUDE
'Great Expectations' (aesthetic) meets 'Twilight' (love triangle) meets 'Cinema Paradiso' (lost love) meets 'Camille' (tragic ending).

SCORE
78

The Savage Innocents (1960)

  'The Savage Innocents' is a 1960 film directed by Nicholas Ray and starring Peter O'Toole and Anthony Quinn.

  Inuk (Anthony Quinn) is an Eskimo living in the Arctic Circle. He wants a wife, but they're in a shortage as the male population is far larger than the female population. He takes a wife called Asiak, and while hunting a polar bear, meets an Eskimo with a gun. He is fascinated by the gun and journeys out to a trade post with his wife and her mother.

  It's memorable because of the vast white landscapes and the crazy characters, but also quite an irritating ordeal to watch. Inuk may be an accurate character, but he is isn't a sympathetic one. He is ignorant, self-centred and speaks like an autistic Yoda. Actually, all the Eskimo characters speak like an autistic Yoda. Instead of saying I'll go hunting he says "Someone needs to hunt". The characters constantly refer to themselves as someone, but this only touches the iceberg (lol).

  Inuk kills an innocent man because he rejects laughing with his husband. How can I like any character after that. Above all else, the laughing is the worst thing about this film. Inuk and his wife laugh at EVERYTHING. They can't have a normal conversation without the aggravating laughter. If Eskimos do this, they should have glanced over it for the film, as it is not good film-making. Quin maybe giving a valid attempt at a portrayal of an Eskimo, however his whole performance gets very close to racism. Thankfully Peter O'Toole appears and saves the day 30 minutes from the end.

  Overall the film is fairly enjoyable. If you look past these bothersome aspects, the film is well made, and visually gorgeous. Ray's directing is spot-on, mixing the Eskimo's lifestyle with rock and roll. He doesn't shy away from the detestable (from outsiders point of view) aspects of the Eskimo's lifestyle. The film features animal cruelty, and a family tradition where they leave their mother behind in the Arctic wastes when she is too old (Ballad of Narayama much?). This was the most touching scene of the film, but I do wish the rest of the film was as engaging as this moment.

  Whether this 'The Savage Innocents' is realistic, or not is a different question. I find it hard to believe they are as savage and irritating as they are portrayed. Half of the reviews say it's authentic, while the other call it inaccurate and insulting. I honestly have no idea. As much as I want to believe it's authentic, I highly doubt it is.

TO CONCLUDE
Ray portrays the Arctic as a beautiful and harsh place. The characters of this oddity are irritating, and there are a couple of cringe-worthy moments, but it's worth a watch for a cinematic experience quite unlike any other.

SCORE
71

Caught (1949)

  'Caught' is a 1949 film directed by Max Ophuls.

  Leonora Eames has dreamed all her life to become a lady married to a rich man. She has learnt etiquette in charm school to pursue her dream. When she meets millionaire Smith Ohlrig, she tries to marry him. When he does, she spends most of the day alone in the mansion waiting for him to come home. He believes she is money obsessed, and didn't  marry him because she loved him. Leonora escapes to a small flat, and gets a job as a secretary for doctor Larry Quinad. They fall in love, and she falls pregnant with Smith's baby.

  German born director Ophuls, is known for his German and French films 'Lola Montes' and 'The Earrings of Madame de...'. I had no idea he went to America and made three Film Noirs ('Caught', 'Letter from an Unknown Woman' and 'The Reckless Moment'). I would consider 'Caught' a romance that gradually turns into a thriller.

  I was pleasantly surprised with this film. I saw it because Empire Magazine gave it five stars, and had low expectations. They were surpassed in the first five minutes. This is the highlight of my most hated genre, the 1930-40s American Romance. The story was basic, and the cinematography was nothing particularly good, leaving the film dependant on the acting.

  The lead is played by 'Vertigo' actress Barbara Bel Geddes. She plays the sweet Leonora with perfection. I found James Mason ('Lolita') to be the best actor, with his clear British accent and friendly personality. Robert Ryan ('The Wild Bunch') plays insane effectively as Larry Quinad. The three of them, create a riveting film, with passionate acting and great characters.

  The most unusual aspect of this film is the ending. (SPOILER 1)

TO CONCLUDE
An unexpected good film. It's nothing phenomenal, but it is an effective watch.

SCORE
77

SPOILER 1 (highlight)--> Leonora gives birth prematurely, but smiles as if this is a good thing. This was a very unsettling scene, especially for 1949.<--

Stardust Memories (1980)

  'Stardust Memories' is a 1980 film directed by and starring Woody Allen.

  Sandy Bates (Woody Allen) is a famous movie director and comic in his 30s, going through an existential crisis. He has just made a film, which the studio heads want to recut, he is going through a bad patch with his wife Dorrie (Charlotte Rampling) and thinks of starting with his new lover Isobel (Marie-Christine Barrault). He attends a weekend retrospective of his films, where he questions his existence, recalls his love with Dorrie and remembers his past.

  Woody Allen has made many great films ('Love and Death', 'Purple Rose of Cairo') and many bad films (Celebrity), the weird thing is, is that everyone has different choices. Both me and my father, both hated Annie Hall and Manhattan, his two most loved films. I guarantee if everyone made a top 10, they would all be completely different. So if I give my opinion on 'Stardust Memories', it may not be yours (half the audience love it, the other half think it's pretentious and boring).

  This is about as good as 'Purple Rose of Cairo'. The story is often confusing, as there are flashbacks, flash-forwards and fantasies all intertwined with Allen's comedy. Everyone says "I prefer his early funny ones", but I think the 80s was his best period. The funniest parts of the film are when the character say this to Bates, breaking the fourth wall slightly. Allen plays Bates but Bates is Allen. He is autobiographically reflecting on his own life and his daily struggles, in an incredibly clever way.

  Allen is Bergman's biggest fan, and some of the themes match 'Wild Strawberries' (remembering youth), but the main inspiration was '8 1/2' (or should I say "Homage? No, we stole the idea outright!"). The characters in the foreground and background, the crisp black and white cinematography, the music at the UFO party. The story is depressing but Woody Allen's humour had me laughing all the way.

"I took a course in existential philosophy. On the final, they gave me ten questions. I couldn't answer a single one of em. I left them all blank. I got a hundred".

  The confusing story is a problem, and the first five minutes is the best part of the film... But I don't care. It's genius in every way. Visually beautiful, plenty of funny jokes and a storyline which makes you think.

TO CONCLUDE
Funny, philosophical and fantastic. 8.5 out of ten (well... almost).

SCORE
81

Saving Mr Banks (2013)

  'Saving Mr Banks' is a 2013 American film directed by John Lee Hancock and starring Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks.

  Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) wants to make a film from the P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson) novel 'Mary Poppins' and has been trying for twenty years to persuade her to give him the rights. P.L. Travers decides to take a trip to California, paid by Disney, and there he would try and obtain the rights. Things don't go 100% to plan as Travers is an uptight, well-spoken, strict and grumpy woman who refuses to give her permission. Disney tries everything to obtain the rights, from a trip to Disneyland to having her say on the film's results. Meanwhile, Travers reminisces on her childhood in Australia, and the events that would inspire the creation of Mary Poppins.

  Firstly, I have to say I am a massive fan of the original Mary Poppins. It's a timeless film, that has catchy songs, good acting and a nice message. So of course I'm going to be slightly biased with this review.

  The acting in 'Saving Mr Banks' is very good. Tom Hanks does his 'Tom Hanks charm' amazingly as always, while Emma Thompson is fantastic as P.L. Travers. I am surprised she wasn't nominated for an Oscar, but they never seem to make the right decisions (although this year was close). Emma Thompson does her usual depressive British character, but this time you feel like she is Travers, not just an impression which I was expecting.

  The music of Mary Poppins may be the best thing about the 1964 film, with all of the songs being good to tear-jerking in quality. In 'Saving Mr Banks' they recreate these songs on a piano, and the results are great. However it made me want to watch the original again, which is always a problem with films like this.

  This is another film in which the main character reminisces events in chronological order. If she were to reminisce in real life, she would have thought about the most important event first. It also plays to the trope in which "If a main character coughs, they will die before the end". Despite this, I thought the script was very well-written, with witty dialogue and a remarkable closeness to what actually happened.

TO CONCLUDE
As good as a film about getting the rights to a film can get. I almost cried at the end. I didn't. But it was close. The extras on the blu-ray are worth watching as well.

SCORE
79

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

  'The Grand Budapest Hotel' is a 2014 film directed by Wes Anderson.

  Just before the Second World War, Zero is employed as a new lobby boy at the Grand Budapest. M Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) plays a concierge, who likes to 'have his way' with old lay guests. When Madame D (Tilda Swinton), one of his many lovers, dies she leaves him 'boy with apple' a priceless painting. Her relatives are not happy about this. Turns out she was murdered and they accuse M Gustave of the crime. He is arrested and sent to prison.

  This film was quite tough to describe, Anderson's films don't tend to have the most straight forward plot, but this adds to the craziness of the unpredictable plot. One part, they're in a prison, the next they're skiing in the Alps. Even in time, the film skips from the present, to the 1980s, then to the 1960s, then to the 1930s. Three temporal changes before we are introduced to the main characters. Audacious move Mr Anderson.

  There are two easy ways to tell it's an Anderson film: the large cast and the pretty and OCD film sets. The cast includes (deep breath): Ralph Fiennes, Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, an unrecognisable Harvey Keitel, Tilda Swinton, Jude Law, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Jason Schwartzman and Saoirse Ronan. Although it's not as distracting as it may seem, as each actor has a fully developed character, and unlike some of his other films, there are some great performances. Fiennes has the best performance, as the legendary concierge. With so many great performances, it's strange how newcomer, lobby boy 'Tony Revolori' steals the film (with Fiennes). 'Moonrise Kingdom' was a fantastic film, but was slightly let down by the wooden acting. 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' has no such problem.

  I have never described film sets as OCD before, but Anderson's sets are the most colourful, quirkiest backdrops I have seen. A large part of the film is set outside, a new challenge for Anderson who has mostly dealt with intricate interiors. Each set, whether inside or outside, is incredible and unlike anything else. Mixing animation with detailed film sets, Anderson is the only director which appears to be improving with every film.

  His individual aesthetic may appear 'hipster-ish', but they are the only type of film which combine rip-roaring entertainment with art, while maintaining excellent performances. I guess the only thing wrong with this movie is that it ended.

TO CONCLUDE
Hilarious, quirky and endlessly re-watchable.  Highly recommended.

SCORE
84

Rush (2013)

  'Rush' is a 2013 Racing movie directed by Ron Howard.

  James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth), an obnoxious, handsome racer meets Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl), an Italian, not so handsome racer at a Formula 3 race in 1970. They become rivals, and the film chronicles, their hatred and competitive nature for each other, over 6 years, concluding in the 1976 Formula 1 season.

  Ron Howard is a very hit-and-miss director, with great films ('A Beautiful Mind', 'Cinderella Man') and atrocities which never should have existed ('The Dilemma', 'Gung Ho'). Going into one of his films you know you are going to come out happy or bored, there's no middle ground. Having heard the many great reviews of 'Rush', I had to see what the fuss was about.

  Based on an incredible true story, it's much more a film about performances than anything else. Chris Hemsworth portrays James Hunt convincingly, and obnoxiously. He was born for the role, and I imagine that he acts similar in his personal life. As Niki Lauda is a tough role to act, Daniel Bruhl does a decent job for an actor I have never heard of before. The film focused so much on them, there was barely any noticeable supporting characters, so Hemsworth and Bruhl carry the film purely on their performances.

 Similar to Senna, its a racing film that is accessible to everyone. I knew nothing about racing going into the films, and I still don't know that much, except for it's incredibly dangerous.

  There are barely any negatives, the movie is really enjoyable. But if I was to be picky, I'd say the film does nothing to expand the medium or the subject, thus feels regular, and the story confuses the viewer by constantly changing points of view, and roots for both Niki and James. I didn't know who I was rooting for, and I don't know how to feel about the end result to the final race. Should I be celebrating or feeling bad? The end message is 'to win, you have to be stupidly dangerous' which, to be honest, isn't a great one.

  This film has one aim (except from making money), which is to portray the Hunt-Lauda dispute of the 1970s. It does a superb job of that, and was informative and entertaining to watch. Just don't believe the hype.

TO CONCLUDE
Enjoyable, and interesting movie, with great performances. Not quite 'Senna-the feature film'.

SCORE
76

The Way Way Back (2013)

  'The Way Way Back' is a 2013 coming of age movie directed by Nat Faxton and Jim Rash and starring Sam Rockwell and Steve Carell in supporting roles.

  Duncan (Liam James) is a 14 year old boy on the way to a family holiday when his mother's boyfriend (Steve Carell) asks him "On a scale of 1 to 10, what do you think you are", Duncan replies "a six", to which his stepfather responds "I think you're a three". Thus setting up the film about a shy teenager, with a jerk of a step-dad, a loving but ignorant mother and a selfish sister, trying to fit in. Set in a holiday park in Cape Cod, Duncan finds friends with the neighbours and Owen (Sam Rockwell), a water-park worker, who employs him at the water-park.

  Directed by the writers of 'The Descendants', the film certainly sounds like the same 'coming-of-age' movie which film-makers have been recreating repeatedly. It seems to be an easy, and low-budget method of receiving great reviews. So... What makes this film stand above the rest?

  The film is about summer and set on hot sunny days, which made me wish for hotter temperatures. The setting looks gorgeous, reminiscent of the South of France. Set primarily in a water-park with blue skies above, the setting of the film is a visually memorable one. Watching in cold, damp England only made me jealous.

  The acting is, mostly, superior to 'The Kings of Summer', which had a good central performance and average supporting performances. Whereas 'The Way Way Back' had a mediocre central performance and incredible supporting acting. The stand-out was Sam Rockwell, playing the friendly and irresponsible pool worker, which combines the craziness of Zaphod Beeblebrox in 'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' and the heart of Sam Bell in 'Moon'. This is also the career highlight of Steve Carell (except 'Anchorman'), playing the evil stepfather. Coming-of-age films depend largely on the main actor, Liam James, who gives it a good shot at playing Duncan. He isn't a bad actor, but there were a few painful to watch scenes, such as the dancing and the singing on the car. He comes across as too shy, and makes you think why do all these people want to be friends with him?

  The script is well-written, but includes every trope and cliche imaginable. From the first look Duncan gave his neighor Susanna, I predicted what would eventually happen. Maybe predictable is good. As I've had a long day, and I wanted to watch an un-thought provoking, no twist film which doesn't make you think. This film is a piece of entertainment, and a character-study. It's a predictable roller-coaster of emotion, which is hugely enjoyable. I can't say it's a work of art, but I can say it is easily re-watchable. I still don't know what the title refers to.

TO CONCLUDE
No surprises here, just another coming-of-age film with great performances.

SCORE
78

Short Term 12 (2013)

  'Short Term 12' is a 2013 Indie film directed by Destin Cretton.

  At a child-correction facility, Nate has just arrived on his first day as working as a staff member. He is welcomed by two happy employees, Grace (Brie Larson) and Mason (John Hallagher Jr), and is shown around the facility. Things are not as they seem, as everyone has personal problems. Grace is pregnant and was beaten by her dad (whose returning from jail in 10 days). Mason is adopted, Jayden, the new girl in the facility, is also a victim of child abuse, and Marcus, an older kid, is just really angry. Friendships are made, relationships are broken, and everyone is tested to their limits.

  If you ever want to know what an 'Indie film' is, take a look at this. You can't get any more 'Indie' than this, filled with kookie characters, made on a small budget and is about how love triumphs everything. 'Short Term 12' has to be one of the best, as it is not as formulaic as one may expect.

  When writing a script for a film, the writer has to think of a key mismatch. A love affair between a rich and poor person, the journey from freedom to slavery, a pacifist in a war etc. The writer of 'Short Term 12' must have thought of every mismatch possible and wrote it into one script. I find too many mismatches problematic, but this is not a film about the script, or the insanely shaky camera-work. It's a film about the acting.

  Brie Larson portrays Grace superbly by not letting go her emotion, but instead, trying to keep it in. 2013 was a year for female acting legends, and I would put Brie close to Cate Blanchett (Blue Jasmine). Women in the movie industry are constantly undermined and type-casted, it's nice to see films where they are the centre of attention.

  With a cast of 12 or so, and not a single bad actor. Some of the kids were actually taken from correctional facilities and none of the actors have appeared in mainstream films before. The film plays out as a character-study, by placing different characters in unlikely events and seeing how things play out. How the characters act and react during the film, takes you on a genuinely believable, roller-coaster of emotion.

TO CONCLUDE
Acting seems less and less apparent in Hollywood as the years pass (especially with the passing of Hoffman). 'Short Term 12' defies this, and is a completely refreshing character study.

SCORE
77

Metallica: Through the Never (2013)

  'Metallica: Through the Never', is a 2013, concert film. About 90% of the film is a concert movie and 10% is Dane DeHaan, walking round town.

  One of Metallica's roadies (Dane DeHaan) is told to retrieve a parcel from a broken down tour van. He accepts, takes some drugs and weird things begin to occur, including; A car crash, Riots, and a gas-mask horseman who slings nooses round necks, and hangs them from lampposts. Think of the 'After Hours' narrative where a guy is going round city at night and things happen.

  Whether you like this, or hate, this film will entirely depend if you like Metallica. I, personally, love two of their songs 'One' and 'Nothing Else Matters', so I was open minded to listen to more. None of them, particularly, stood out, but those two songs were phenomenal. I feel like they could have changed the staging more (like 'Don't Think' which is the best concert film I have seen), and even the repetitive camera shots. A good concert film consists of amazing music AND an interesting use of visuals, otherwise you have a 'best of' album. Thus the film relies on DeHaan's second narrative.

    The second narrative occurs before and after each of the songs, often in 20 second segments. If you combine them all together, you might get 10 minutes overall. The lighting is inspired by Refn, with dark red overpowering most other colours. It's visually striking and appealing, but as you get into it, you get taken back to the sweating band (who are in their 40s and 50s). The plot doesn't make any sense whatsoever, it's incredibly 'rock and roll' with plenty of events where DeHaan should die, but doesn't. I've seen the film and I'm not sure what the hell is happening. Did hell open up or something? Is there a message to it?

  I do feel like DeHaan has the greatest agent in Hollywood, as he keeps acting in fantastic films ('Chronice', 'The Place Beyond the Pines', 'Kill Your Darlings'). Similar to Gosling's stint two years ago ('Lars and the Real Girl', 'Blue Valentine', 'Drive', 'The Place Beyond the Pines') who is now A-list. After 'The Amazing Spider Man 2' he is destined for stardom. In this, he's pretty good, even though he doesn't say anything.

TO CONCLUDE
A solid attempt at a concert movie.

SCORE
76

Despicable Me 2 (2013)

  'Despicable Me 2' is a 2013 Animated film, produced by Universal. It's famous for those annoying yellow tic-tacs which appear everywhere (called minions).

  The story continues from the last one, where Gru (Steve Carell) is at his daughter's birthday and gets kidnapped by the Anti-Villian League. They want him to join. He says no, but eventually says yes. He goes undercover in a muffin-shop. Meanwhile, someone evil is kidnapping his minions and using the evil chemical substance PX-41 on them. Gru gradually falls in love with Lucy (Kristen Wiig).

  Everyone says it's funny and entertaining, and was also the second highest-grossing film of last year, so I had good enough reasons to see this film. The main problem is IT'S FOR KIDS. If I was a kid, and saw this film, I would have loved it, but am I a kid? NO. It's not even the type of film which is enjoyable if you're an adult, like Pixar or 90s Disney. I think of it like 'Shrek 2'. That film was The Bomb when I was a kid. So much better and funnier than the first one, but when I re-watched it 7 years later... Well it wasn't as good.

  So much have I heard about the 'fart gun' and the 'hehe bottom' puns, that when they appeared on screen, I didn't laugh at all. It did have more laughs than most comedies nowadays, especially the dire 'This is the End', so I can't disrespect it for that.

  The main question is 'is this another Hollywood cash-cow, or is it created with love and attention?'. The answer depends on you're opinion. Yes it's a sequel, yes it's the most advertised film in the history of the world, Yes the continuity is off the marks, but it does feel like it's created with affection. I should elaborate on the continuity. I found several times, that the continuity broke for specific gags. For example, the car whizzing around the fountain knocking down chairs, before cutting to the next shot where the benches are all fixed. Or what about the part where he falls down the escalator in a bin. In the next shot he falls out the bin at the bottom of the escalator and talks to Lucy. If by magic, the bin has disappeared. But hey, it's a kids film. Continuity is the least of our problems.

  I know I have just said about the negatives, but it really is a good kids film. I'm not a kid, so it's not rubbed off on me.

TO CONCLUDE
This is amazing... If you're a kid.

SCORE
22

The Lady from Shanghai (1947)

  'The Lady from Shanghai' is a 1947 Film Noir directed by, and starring, Orson Welles.
  An Irish sailor, Michael O'Hara (Welles), agrees to a cruise to Acapulco on Arthur Bannister's yacht, after meeting his wife, Else Bannister (Rita Hayworth), and saving her from a robbery. Bannister is a twisted defence attorney, which O'Hara is curious about. On the way he meets George Grisby and Elsa falls in love with O'Hara. Once in Acapulco, Grisby tells O'Hara about how he would pay money to O'Hara to help him fake his own death. Back in San Francisco, O'Hara helps Grisby, but inevitably, things don't go to plan.
  As Film Noir is one of my least favourite genres, I set my expectations to below zero. However, I was wrong to do so, as this is a fine supplement to the genre. Only a few films in the large Film Noir genre ('Mildred Pierce', 'Touch of Evil', 'Key Largo' and 'The Third Man') would I consider great movies, and this film could also be added to that list.
  Orson Welles is often considered the second greatest directer ever (no.1 being Hitchcock of course), but he wouldn't even appear in my top 20. 'Citizen Kane' and 'Touch of Evil' are two amazing films, but a director shouldn't be put in the record book for making two phenomenal films, especially after the boredom inducing 'Chimes at Midnight' and the bland 'Magnificent Ambersons'. I know he created a bunch of techniques that improved the artistic qualities of cinema with 'Citizen Kane', so I still think he is a decent director. After watching this film, I am definitely intrigued to watch more of his films.
  Not only is he a fine director, but he is also a great actor. Not many actors have such a demanding presence on screen, and I thought the Irish accent was pretty great as well. I'd take it any day to Daniel Day-Lewis's irritating Lincoln voice.
  All trademarks of a typical Film Noir are here, an innocent man being framed, money, guns, corruption and an infamous femme-fatale. Shot in black and white, I assumed this film was made in 1957, as the cinematography was 10 years a head of it's time. Everywhere from Acapulco to the Funhouse was framed with creativity to perfection.
  The plot has a couple of holes in, but it does make you think what Welles could have done with this film if the studio wasn't holding him back.

TO CONCLUDE
I wouldn't say a perfect Film Noir but a fine and enjoyable one.

SCORE
77

Now, Voyager (1942)

  Now, Voyager is a Romantic American film made in 1942 and directed by Irving Rapper.
  Charlotte Vale (Bette Davis) has mental problems, lacks self confidence and has mother issues. Her rich mother (Gladys Cooper) is strict and lets Charlotte have no freedom. As she is sent to a Sanatorium, her sister Lisa (Ilka Chase), suggests Charlotte relax on a cruise. While there she meets a married man, Jeremiah Duvaux Durrance (Paul Henried), and, you guessed it, they fall in love. After the cruise they head there seperate ways, Charlotte marries, but they are destined to be together...
  Released the same year as Casablanca, it 'dibbles and dabbles' in one of my least favourite genres. The 'Classic American Romance' movie. It feels like I have seen this film before as it is similar to 'Trouble in Paradise', 'The Lady Eve', 'Roman Holiday' and 'All that Heaven Allows'. This may be the best of the bunch, but that doesn't mean its an effective romance. These movies tend to make you feel sick to the bone, with the main characters repeating "I love you, but I can't tell anyone as I am engaged", before finally getting together at the end for a long romantic kiss. They all have the same aim, but what set s this apart from the others is Bette Davis's quality acting, and some decent camera techniques and settings. Apart from that there is nothing really to add.

TO CONCLUDE
In a bland genre, this is meh.

SCORE
68

12 Years a Slave (2013)

  '12 Years a Slave' is a 2013 American film directed by Steve McQueen. Not that one. The other one.
  It follows Solomon Northup as he gets captured by slave kidnappers, taken away from his wife and kids, and sold to plantation owners in the South of America. Firstly, he is sold to Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch), a plantation owner which respects him and treats him with respect. Tibeats (Paul Dano) helps with looking after the slaves, and after Solomon, renamed Platt, attacks him, Ford sells him to Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) for fear that Tibeats will kill him. Epps is a far worse slave owner, whipping the slaves constantly, treating them worse than animals.
  Despite this being frontrunner for Best Picture at this years Oscars, it is far from the best film. It is powerful, and the acting nominations were deserved, I just thought 'Blue Jasmine', 'Gravity' and 'The Wolf of Wall Street' were better films overall.
  We all know what this film is about, so from the second he is captured, we want to see him being reunited with his family. The film makes you wait 2 hours, which is more frustraiting then suspenseful. The cinematography has one or two gorgeous shots (the camera gliding up river, past strange blossoming trees), but they are spoiled by having a shallow depth of field. The actor is in the foreground in focus, but the background is blurry. I appear to be the only person frustrated by this, but I believe a deep depth of field would have made the film look gorgeous.
  Also frustrating is the way the actors stare into the distance, with no words being spoke, nothing occurring on screen, just them staring. It's allowable in Art Movies but feels completely out of place in a Hollywood Historical Epic.
  '12 Years a Slave' can be compared to 'Roots', but 'Roots' is more memorable and superior in almost every way. As catchphrases go, I feel like "I AM KUNTA KINTE OF THE MANDINKA TRIBE" is better than "I WILL NOT FALL INTO DESPAIR WHILE FREEDOM IS OPPORTUNE".
  Most will enjoy this film, but I have to admit that 'Shame' was better. Steve McQueen (Not that one) is a very talented director, who can get incredible performances from his actors. Nice to see cameos from Omar (from 'The Wire') and Fassbender's crotch.
Every year for the past couple of years, the Academy has chosen history over special effects and innovation ('The Hurt Locker' over 'Avatar', 'The King's Speech' over 'Inception', 'The Artist' over 'Hugo', 'Argo' over 'Life of Pi') and this year will see no change as '12 Years a Slave' will win over 'Gravity'. Oh well.

TO CONCLUDE
This is very much an acting film with incredible performances from the entire cast.

SCORE
75

Way Down East (1920)

  Way Down East is a 1920 Melodrama directed by D.W Griffith and starring Lillian Gish.
The film follows Anna Moore (Gish) as she visits her cousin and falls in love with Lennox Sanderson. Tricked into a fake marriage she has his baby, which later dies. Having a baby with no husband was severely frowned upon back then (seems to be fine nowadays...), so her life is ruined and she flees town, and gets employed at the Bartlett residence. But how long until her reputation catches up with her again.
  Historically, this is a monument of silent cinema. Not only is this Griffith's most profitable film, but it established the 'melodrama', which is used in 90% of Hollywood today. Forgotten and often considered dated, this isn't as famous as Intolerance or as notorious as Birth of a Nation, but when released, everyone enjoyed it. Now, only fans of silent cinema would have seen it.
  Is the content as worthy as it's historical significance? Not really. The majority who watch this film love it, but within the first 20 minutes I was bored. I wanted to like it, however little was happening on screen and the music was repetitive and irritating. It doesn't have the grandeurs of Intolerance, nor the repulsive racial views of Birth of a Nation.  Despite being Griffith's most costly to make 'Way Down East' is a small film, filmed on small sets with a small story.
  The ending is the best thing about the film, it is a breath-taking action scene which I really don't want to spoil for you. It's a shame that the running time is 2 1/2 hours, which is too long.

TO CONCLUDE
It is way better than The Birth of a Nation.

SCORE
68

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

  The Wolf of Wall Street is a 2013 Biopic directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo Dicaprio and Jonah Hill. It shows the rise, the glory and the inevitable fall of Jordan Belfort as he becomes a stockbroker on Wall Street.
  Jordan Belfort (Dicaprio) is employed as a Stockbroker with a respected Wall Street organization. His boss (Matthew Mcconaughey) tells him crazy advise, like masturbate twice a day, before the firm abruptly closes down. Jordan takes another job, where he discovers penny stocks, conning the invester and paying large amounts back to him. He meets Donny Azoff (Jonah Hill) and they create their own firm names Stratford-Oakmont. Their company grows in size rapidly and he quickly becomes a millionaire. Living a lifestyle of drugs, stocks and girls, his crazy and unorthadox lifestyle cannot last long.
  This film is the best I have seen this year. It's only January, but that's not the point. I have been long anticipating this film, and this is one of those rare occurrences where it is better than my expectations. This film is filled with profanities, nudity, sex and drug abuse. None of what is shown is to be negative, where all these sins are congratulated. The audience is led to believe his lifestyle is spectacular, not showing any repurcusions of drugs, and not respecting women at all. They are purely treated as sex objects, which will reject many female audience members. Only see this film if you are not easily offended.
  Scorsese's directing is immaculate as always. Each shot is framed, lighted and edited to perfection. The performances is what makes the film stand out. There are not many films where the actors are allowed to go batshit crazy with portraying their characters (A Woman Under the Influence and most Nicolas Cage movies are the only ones I can think of). We all knew Dicaprio was a great actor, but this is a completely different side of him, we have never seen before! A big surprise was Jonah Hill, as 'This is the End' was one of the worst films I watched last year. Moneyball was his first encounter with acting, but despite the Oscar nomination, it did not feel amazing. However, he is likeable, funny and crazy in The Wolf of Wall Street. In fact it is his funniest film since Superbad.
  The film shows you a lifestyle which you have never seen. One which in all Hollywood films would be avoided and his actions would have immediate consequences. It feels wrong watching it, but it is so much fun. I had a massive grin on my face from the first five minutes.
  Similar to Goodfellas, the dialogue is witty and the main character, speaks directly to the camera. Breaking the fourth wall, Scorsese does not care for standard Hollywood rules, as this is his own creation, filled with creativity and 'what he wants' instead of 'what the studios want'.

TO CONCLUDE
This film knows what it is doing, and it excels at it. Offensive, gratuitous and genius.

SCORE
89

Welcome!!!

  This is my second film review blog dedicated to American (USA and Canada) movies. Whether they are black and white and from the 1920s, or Big Budget blockbusters from the 2010s. America has always been at the forefront of films. The introduction of sound, westerns, gangsters, superhero movies. America has created all these genres. More specifically Hollywood. I find the problem nowadays, is that film making is too much about the money, that all sense of creative input is lost in favour of trashy formulas (Romcoms, Nicolas Cage's newer bad movies). America has squeezed out quite a few turds in it's time as well (Adam Sandler movies). They invented their own award ceremony, The Academy Awards, which is the biggest and well-known award ceremony in the world, if not always correct (Gigi). I watch the Nominnes each year, so expect reviews from them.
 The toughest thing about this blog, is deciding whether a film is American or not... A film could be set in England, funded and directed by Americans. So, if the odd non-American film made in the English language pops up here, DEAL WITH IT. :)

  Of course I prefer Foreign films (see my other blog) but I still like American films, even if they are more about the Entertainment and the money, rather than the Art.

Americans... They can be some of the most obnoxious, violent and annoying people on the planet. 

They are the most obese country on the planet, and created the monstrous Nicki Minaj, but Damn have they made some good movies. Join me, as I review the best, worst, old and new, as I discover them.

LETS GO!!!