Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.

Tinker Tailor is a masterpiece. A visceral, beautiful, cinematic masterpiece. A celluloid work of art that oozes class like a Stella Artois advert shot through a dreary grey veneer. But this is to be expected. When working with the smooth prose and character-driven reconnaissance plot of a LeCarre novel you have a license to be as dark and moody as you like. The trailer alone has more grandeur than Madonna’s entourage, but the cinematography in the film itself is just, well, gorgeous.

Alfredson’s sleek shots; never ostentatious, are simple and expressive. Much like LeCarre’s prose itself, the key to the underlying plot is often not voiced in dialogue but shown through subtle nuances like a shrug of the shoulders or nervous glance. And the lack of a score in many scenes is not only noticeable, but it’s startling. The audience is invited to read between the lines, to piece together the puzzle, following Smiley’s journey into an unfolding subterfuge.

Oldman was born to play Smiley. I am a keen advocate that all fine actors are born to play a certain role. Del Toro’s Che, DiCaprio’s Hoover and Oldman’s Smiley, all perfect dramatic doppelganger’s of their real life counterparts. Oldman’s enrapturing Mona Lisa smile, the knowing glow in his eyes, the subtle probing words; he really was perfect as Smiley. In one poignant scene Oldman merely talks, soliloquises, extreme close up, into the camera and it feels like you are peering, through his eyes, into Smiley’s soul. A grand concept, I’m sure you’ll agree, but the hyperbole is necessary.

The rest  of the smorgasbord of British talent on display didn’t put a foot wrong either. Tom Hardy, my favourite actor of the moment, was excellent as ever. Firth’s performance was solid, as was Mark Strong’s (no pun intended), but the surprising performance came from Benedict Cumberbatch. Ridiculous name, brilliant posh bloke, certainly one to watch.

The minor criticism would only come down to the sometimes confusing plot line. The story itself is relatively simple; Smiley is asked to come out of retirement to find a mole in the ‘Circus’, aka British Intelligence during the Cold War. A few sub plots and some digging around and hey presto, denouement. But like all novel adaptations, films often find it difficult to tie the relevant plot lines into a narrative and allow the audience to get to grips with all of the characters without being too obvious. Easy in a novel, not so easy in a film. Tinker Tailor achieves it but it is disorienting at times and I feel a second watch (definitely forthcoming) would perhaps be more enjoyable. Unless you’re a film snob and you say that you understood the entire film immediately without any reflection. Like most men.

I have no need to drag this review on any longer, you need to go and see this film. Go in with an open mind, prepare yourself for Daniel Day-Lewis acting and Coen cinematography. Prepare yourself for, arguably, Oldman’s finest role to date. Prepare yourself for a niggling sense that you want to know more but you’re never quite going to get a straight answer. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is undoubtedly the British film of the year and it would be unpatriotic not to enjoy it.

Spielberg.

Transformers 3

The best car ad ever made?

Transformers 3 benefited from the fact that it couldn’t possibly be worse than Transformers 2. And it wasn’t. Ish. The downfall of Transformers 2 was the lack of any real coherent plot. “We tried to do too many things in the second movie, which didn’t give enough time in any one of them. We were constantly jumping to the next piece of information, the next place.” Unfortunately for Michael Bay he seems to have made the same mistakes again.

But before the bad let’s start with the good! Um… Well first and foremost the film starts off well. The notion of the moon landing being a con to go and have a sneaky peak at a transformer crash site was a nice touch and sets a decent tone to the film. The sheer scale of the ship, and the details of how it come to crash on the moon, are key indicators that the film is going to go one step further with it’s battle scenes. Visually impressive, the fight sequences are definitely an improvement in the franchise. Gone is the shaky cam close-up (thanks to 3D for that one), which means the audience get to keep their lunch down. And, also, that Megan Fox mark II chick, she is pretty to look at isn’t she?

However, like Rosie Huntington Whiteley (Megan Fox mark II), the appeal of the film only lies in the aesthetics, there ain’t much under the hood. The Hasbro series has a strong enough cast to keep the audience interested but sometimes the film’s discrepancies become too much. There’s only so much that Ferrari-bot, Impala-bot and the little munchkin-bots (why do they have hair?!) can cover up before I start to get suspicious. Oh well, at least they replaced the racist ghetto-bots with a ‘Scot-bot’.

Maybe Mr Bay was too busy counting Chevrolet’s cash that he forgot to finish some narrative sequences? Would explain a lot. “We need to lower that bridge!” – They don’t lower the bridge. The bridge is never mentioned again. You could drive Optimus through some of the plot holes. And it’s not just the plot holes, it’s the haphazard editing in the scenes that do make sense. There is never any clear notion of space or time. In one of the fight scenes (well one part of the fight scene) Optimus Prime seems to come from nowhere and all I could think was ‘why weren’t you here earlier?!’  The constant incoherence is frustrating and underlies a recurring laziness in Bay’s direction. One critic referred to TF3 as merely ‘Bay masturbating on screen’, a fair comment, but masturbation would at least suggest a hint of reality, which doesn’t tally up with the film.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the film, it was as loud and bashful as Bumblebee’s bonnet, but it has still failed, yet again, to meet the expectations set by the first film. There are too many gimmicks, too many plot holes and too little closure to call it a good film. It is just another summer blockbuster. Iceberg.

I loved you in Wall Street...

 I do love a good Cameo, it can literally make a film. Think Bill Murray in Zombieland or Martin Sheen in Hot SHots Part Deux and you get the idea. This article is fantastic.

http://www.empireonline.com/features/35-great-movie-cameos/

RETREAT, HELL!

I went into the cinema apprehensive about Battle: Los Angeles. On the back of watching Skyline recently (*shudders*) I was looking forward to a good sci-fi, well, at least a sci-fi with some essence of a plot. And there, yes, at the beginning of the film, each character and there subsequent life story that will somehow relate to part of the narrative later on in the film began to unfold in front of my eyes! It was a necessary evil I suppose but it could have been done with a tad more subtlety. But still, right off the bat, one up on Skyline.

Also, by not spending any time developing the plot or any real sense of camaraderie in the beginning, the director gets to move hastily onto the good stuff. Namely this good stuff consists of numerous shoot-outs between the Marines and armour-clad aliens. In downtown LA. The film was sold to the financial backers on that premise alone. That was certainly what attracted me to the film; the rest of the plot was just pastry to the sugary awesomeness of the gun fights.

The basic premise of aliens invading the Earth to tap into our resources/ technology/ brains has been done before but Battlefield somehow manages to keep the whole thing, ahem, down to Earth. The alien warriors are somehow lifelike and their weaponry, whilst more powerful than the humans, isn’t ridiculously so. Yes you get the small band of merry men that somehow manage to save the world (whilst the rest of us feeble minded humans wait for our saviour America) but, somehow, it works. Except of course when you get to the glue that holds those battle sequences together.

This is where the weakness lies; Battle: Los Angeles tries to take itself a little too seriously at times.  The battle sequences are well choreographed, the CGI is certainly up to the task but the dialogue is somehow lacking. I know that in amongst all of the near-misses and carnage there needs to be a brief moment of reflection to allow the audience to catch their breath, but I couldn’t help but feel it was slightly hollow. This certainly isn’t because of bad acting- Aaron Eckhart is excellent as the discharged and haunted Staff Sergeant, but I feel he does his best with a script that teeters within the confines of cliché.

I can however forgive the minor ‘you-remind-me-of-your-brother’ moments as the battle sequences are awesome. Well directed, with tension and pace, Battle: LA is more Saving Private Ryan than Science Fiction. I’m sure if Mr Hanks read that he’d punch me square in the face but because the shoot-outs are shot so well, and the pace is kept to a maximum, you almost don’t feel as if you’re watching a sci-fi.

So, if you want a smart sci-fi with a sharp plot, characters with depth and dialogue with emotion and wit, watch Blade Runner. If you want a film that’s out to entertain, blow shit up, and (perhaps) recruit Marines, then Battle: Los Angeles is certainly worth a couple of hours of your life. No Spielberg obviously, but I was far from bored which, realistically, is all I was after.