An enjoyable debut film and definitely interested in seeing what Robespierre and/or Slate do next.
Trailer paradox: I would have enjoyed it more if most of the best bits and plot points weren't in the trailer but I wouldn't have gone to see it if I hadn't seen the trailer.
A bittersweet coming of age story which also manages to cover the family dealing with autism in a heartfelt way. I occasionally worried if Luke Ford's performance as Charlie was too stereotypical but learning the writer/director has autistic siblings lent more authenticity to everything.
Strange. Just strange. Unfortunately it's also too repetitive before it really gets interesting.
I was under the impression that Noel Clarke was a good director (although it looks like I never got around to seeing Adulthood) but no one could make that conclusion from this mess. It's a shame because interlocking stories are usually a good idea and that aspect just about works. The film is frequently visually impressive, however the writing is appalling bad in places and embarrassingly immature throughout. The many great cameos are another reason the film isn't a complete write off and the whole thing ends up being entertaining despite it's many flaws.
I'd been wanting to see Leviathan since Leeds Film Festival last year where it emerged as one of the most divisive films of the festival. I always think it's a good sign when a film can completely split an audience. Of course, that also means there's a risk that you'll end up hating the film and that's what happened here. It's not always the point to "enjoy" a film but I found nothing to like, appreciate, enjoy or interest me. The only saving grace was the shot of the gulls and even that is repeated too many times.
So not only a disappointment but also the reason why I've changed the explanation of my star ratings.
A really well made documentary that offered a lot more insight into the real life setting of Pride. As is often the case with this kind of documentary it feels like it will only ever be appreciated by those already "on side" and the lack of objectivity was a frequent source of frustration. In the Q&A after the screening the producers explained that they had always set out to only tell the story of the miners and their families. Even though the film starts with "this is their story" caption I'd forgotten this and found the lack of any counter views disappointing.
The film also makes too many assumptions about what the audience know and doesn't always explain everything well enough; as the film drags on a little too long towards the end I realised that I didn't fully understand what the strikes were actually about (admittedly this may have just been me forgetting things from earlier in the film). Based on the questions asked during the Q&A, the audience I was in seemed to be made up of ex-miners/strikers, union reps and socialists and understandably the film went down incredibly well.
It's a few days since I saw Gone Girl and I'm still wondering exactly what I can say about it. Part of that is not wanting to give anything away even though I suspect there is an awful lot to enjoy here even if you are familiar with the novel or are watching for a second time. On the face of it the story seems fairly conventional and despite the structure of the film (and I'm told, the book) there isn't a lot that's really original. It's true that all those different elements may not have appeared in the same film before and perhaps that's part of the problem; it often feels like you've been jerked from one film to another or some character has walked in from a different film set. But that's also part of the joy. As the story unravels it also appears to become less conventional but I'm not sure if it ever truly does. Throughout there is a constant nagging that Fincher is capable of more and I kept hoping for something smarter in the structure of the film or the unravelling of the mystery. I also found myself wanting to revisit some of his earlier work, does Gone Girl shine a different light on The Game or Panic Room or even Alien 3? How would have this played out if it had been made as a 12 part TV series for Netflix or HBO?
On top of all these questions and mixed feelings about how the film was made, the actual story brings up so many interesting points that I haven't had even begun to think about. Everything I read or hear seems to bring up a new issue and again highlights that there is so much more going on with Gone Girl than initial appearances suggest.
A title that acts as a review, this is some of the most charming and heartfelt 90 minutes I've watched recently. All of the cast, especially Toby Jones are wonderful. The amazingly true (even if it didn't quite happen like that) story should be an inspiration to everybody. It seems strange that a certain approach is suddenly used half way through but this also works marvellously that you just wish it had been used more from the start.
Another great collection of archive film set to great hypnotic music.
I may not have been completely on board with the first half (which may have been the result of the late screening) but it all unravels in such a deliciously dark way that I'm glad I made the journey out to see it.
A disappointing entry in the Storyville series wasting a potentially fascinating subject area. There's little insight in to any of the groups: "patients", parents or "counsellors". All of the adults come across as clueless, making knee-jerk reactions which only appear to be putting the children in more danger. This aspect isn't even touched on by the film makers and we're left with a dull fly on the wall documentary which isn't even about web addiction (as far as I recall all the "patients" are being treated for addiction to games).
Even though I was unsure if I'd ever seen the entire film before, I knew it went to dark places but wasn't expecting things to get that dark. I'm not sure how well those darker moments sit alongside the lighter and more iconic moments which, to someone the same age as the film, appeared to perfectly embody the 70s and disco.
One of those films were you get the feeling that everybody making the film was having so much fun they failed to see that the film wasn't working. It sounds like it should become a cult classic but nothing made any real connection with me.
I may have been too tired to fully appreciate this but I struggled to follow what was going on and found very little to get excited by.
The closing film at the #CinemaForAll conference had almost the opposite effect on me as the day's first film Human Remains. The Italian film didn't ever feel like it was anything special but was thoroughly enjoyable; this French film feels like it's constantly trying to do interesting things but somehow never found a way to keep me fully engaged. As somebody behind me pointed out "it was good but wasn't for me" and hopefully that's the case and others will enjoy the film more because it has a unique flare that deserves to be seen.
I'm still not sure if there's anything that outstanding about Human Capital. It certainly starts off fairly conventionally and it's only when the structure of the film reveals itself (I knew nothing about the film apart from it was Italy's foreign language Oscar entry) that it could be argued it's doing anything clever. But it doesn't need to be clever because what it does do is tell an engaging story really well and I was completely hooked. Towards the end there are some disappointing coincidences which I'm sure could have been handled better to achieve the same results (there's also an annoying nag about how Italian insurance works).
This is mainstream cinema done really well, it just happens to be Italian and subtitled. It wouldn't be out of place in a more episodic format on BBC4 on a Saturday night and certainly better than the Swedish Crimes Of Passion currently in the slot. I disliked the one Crimes Of Passion episode I saw thinking the drawing room explanation too old fashioned; Human Capital actually uses a similar technique to reveal the mystery but with the structure of the film rather than the detective gathering the culprits in one room.
See it before the inevitable American remake.
There's a constant sense that anything could happen which creates a sense of tension throughout. The two girls are wonderful to watch and the film is frequently beautiful.
A great documentary works even if you have no interest in the subject matter. Unfortunately I don't think Life Itself falls into that category. I enjoyed the film a lot, especially the behind the scenes bickering between Ebert and Siskel, but I'm not sure if those without an interest in cinema, criticism or Ebert will get much from the film.
Another film (after seeing My Dog Tulip yesterday) about a man's love and friendship with animals. The Moo Man is mostly unassuming but manages to tell a surprisingly moving story especially towards the end.
A strange film heavily based on the mundane realities (bowel movements, dog marriages, barks and bites) but frequently expressed via imaginative animation. The strangest moment came the next day when out for a run I suddenly started seeing all the dogs in a slightly different way.
Neither a yes or no from me, just somewhere in the middle.
