The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Directed by: Marc Webb

Verdict: In this reviewer’s opinion, the reboot is superior to the Raimi/Maguire version – due in large part to great casting and good use of live-action/computer-generated Spidey action sequences. It’s a fun summer-flick and continues Webb’s impressive body of work, but somewhat unsurprisingly fails to reach the dizzying heights of Christopher Nolan’s Batman series. The plot is inevitably predictable in parts and there are some subplots that get lost in its course, but I would recommend The Amazing Spider-Man to anyone looking for a funny, action-packed film with real human (and spider) interest.

I think most people will be aware of the plot/story of this film before they see it; boy meets girl, boy gets bitten by spider, boy gets super powers, boy kisses girl, boy saves world. There is not a whole lot one can do with this story in making a Spiderman film. What Webb (how AWESOME is it that the guy directing this is literally called Webb?) and the screenwriters James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves have managed to do is breathe new life into an over-told story.

 Even given the current trend of comic-book hero movies, most people still thought rebooting the Spiderman franchise just 5 years after the last of Sam Raimi’s ‘Spiderman’ trilogy was a bold move made too soon. I think most people will think twice about this after seeing Webb’s (in my opinion) superior telling of the Spiderman legend. Not only is Andrew Garfield’s Peter Parker more likeable and believable as a super-hero than Tobey Maguire’s version (sorry Tobes), but 2012’s backstory to the super powers is more complex, and therefore less patronising to the audience.

The opening sequence of the film sees Peter as a young child discovering his father’s study broken into. A few surreptitious shots of spider-related paraphernalia ensure we’re all aware Peter’s dad has a huge impact on what’s to happen to our boy later on. Peter is shipped off to Aunt May and Uncle Ben and later discovers his father was working for OsCorp on regenerating cells and limbs. This eventually leads to the inevitable accidental radio-active spider bite and the manifestation of Peter’s spider powers.

 All that is a long-winded way of saying that in Webb’s version, there’s a bit more mystery, intrigue and scientific credibility. For me however, the gripping sub-plot of Peter’s parents is one of the film’s major downfalls. Their disappearance is barely touched upon after Peter becomes the titular Spider-Man. I mean, I get it; if I could suddenly swing across New York on a regular basis I would probably be a wee bit distracted too. But… it was very much a film of two halves: the first had Peter Parker (lonely, tortured boy looking for answers) and the second had Peter Parker (newly confident Spiderman with sudden lack of regard for family mysteries and a penchant for high-speed action sequences).


Are the Parkers dead? Did Peter somehow cause their death? Who broke into the study? These are clearly questions that will eventually be answered, but could perhaps have been broached a little further. I could probably let this point go, if it weren’t for the further untied ends of the search for Uncle Ben’s killer and the mystery of Norman Osborn’s fatal disease. Webb’s inclusion of the post-credits scene between The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) and *insert guess as to who the other person is here* is a clear statement of intent for a sequel, in which we can only hope these issues will all be happily resolved.

Perhaps, even, the mysterious figure in the prison cell at the end is Peter's father??? Yeah okay, I'll save my sleuthing for Twitter. But despite the minor issues with subplot, the film is really well done. The scenes depicting Parker’s transition to Spiderman in particular lend the film humility, comedy and entertainment value.

The acting ensemble of Garfield, Ifans and Emma Stone is great casting and the trio provide great acting to amplify a well written and directed film. The real-life romance between Garfield and Stone can only help the love story between Peter and Gwen Stacey that is supposed to be at the heart of the story. The supporting cast of Sally Fields, Martin Sheen and Denis Leary are also hugely believable and give great performances. And of course, there’s the Marvel stalwart that is a hilarious Stan Lee cameo – this time as a librarian oblivious to the end-of-world destruction going on around him.

The special effects were virtually flawless and the scenes where ol’ Spidey is called into action were breath-takingly stunning. The editing throughout and James Horner’s score also contributed to The Amazing Spider-Man being truly an amazing, family-friendly film.

 A great start to what will hopefully be one of the great super-hero film trilogies.

Clue (1985)

Directed by: Jonathan Lynn

Verdict: Utterly, utterly silly spoof murder mystery. Tim Curry steals the show as the neurotic and criminal (?) ‘butler’ Wadsworth. I’ve seen this several times now and it never fails to make me laugh – it’s guiltless fun, stupid humour and is, in a cheap kind of way, pretty clever really.

Set in 1954 against the back-drop of McCarthyism and its influence in Hollywood, a group of guests are drawn together in a mysterious, secluded mansion. The whole film is an homage to the board game Clue (Cluedo), and as such the characters are appropriately named Miss Scarlet, Colonel Mustard, Professor Plum et al. My personal favourite character name is Mr Boddy, who becomes one of the central mysteries as various characters start dropping like flies at the hands of a murderer in the house.

Curry is a sensation in his dead-pan role as the butler Wadsworth, who helpfully explains everything to the deranged house guests. Each character contributes to the hilarity in this hair-brained comedy that makes the most of slap-stick and verbal comedy. Lesley Ann Warren, Madeline Kahn, Martin Mull and Michael McKean all provide frequent moments of comedy as the group search for the killer in their midst.
With plenty of topical references (‘Communism was just a red-herring’ and ‘Mr Hoover is on everyone else’s phone, why shouldn’t he be in mine?’) for me, this comedy always stays just on the right side of the smart-stupid line.

This is what I personally call a feel-good movie. Despite the many murders and the quite disturbing scene in which Mrs White spends a good minute kissing a corpse (who has been killed twice, no less), this film never fails to make me happy. It’s one for a rainy afternoon, and I think it’s a gem.

The Woman in Black (2012)

Directed by: James Watkins

Verdict: What the Woman in Black lacks in substance it tries to make up in scares. Lauded as Daniel Radcliffe’s big foray into the non-Harry Potter world, for me his performance fell a little flat and the real star of this film was the haunted house at the centre of this spooky tale. The film is carried rather too much by its aesthetics, sound and some chilling performances by the broad supporting cast. In my opinion the film could have been better served with a leading man who packs a little more punch.

It’s a sad thing, but I don’t think Daniel Radcliffe will ever shake the ‘boy who lived’ label. I hate to be so harsh on the star of the films which illuminated my childhood, but I don’t think Radcliffe is likely to be taken seriously as a thespian – not on the basis of his performance as Arthur Kipps anyway. For me, Radcliffe’s Kipps is unlikeable and in a film which is basically the story of him vs. the titular woman likeability and screen presence are key. And it just seems implausible to me that he could be the father of a four year-old-son and be grieving the loss of his wife… I mean, he’s just a student wizard.

Despite the narrative focus on Kipps, the stand-out of this film us undoubtedly the diegetic setting. The haunted house is undeniably spooky, with countless small touches and details making it utterly convincing. The colouring of the small town terrorised by the woman in black is bleak, grim; and with the tour de force collective performance of the supporting cast serves its purpose as a gripping plot thickener.

Director Watkins achieves a visually-spectacular scare-fest with this film, but I can’t help feeling this film could have been a lot better.

The Descendants (2011)

Directed by: Alexander Payne

Verdict: A heart-warming film with a more edgy feel, The Descendants benefits from a sensational Oscar-winning script adapted from Kaui Hart Hemmings’s novel and two outstanding acting performances from Academy Award nominee George Clooney and rising star Shailene Woodley. Shot in the stunning surroundings of Hawaii and featuring arguably the soundtrack of the year, The Descendants combines sorrow, joy, laughter, grief, betrayal and angst in a film that accomplishes both political and familial storylines.

Between the uplifting Hawaiian soundtrack, the unrelenting beautiful landscape shots and the notoriously easy-on-the-eyes Clooney, you could be fooled into thinking The Descendants is a family-orientated comedy. In some moments, it certainly seems like it is. But what sets Payne’s film apart from so many others this awards season is that it possesses so much more substance than that.

There are two basic subplots: Matt King is facing a decision as the descendant (now you get it) of one of Hawaii’s original white land-owners over what will happen to the 300-acre piece of ‘prime real estate’ and at the same time has to deal with the various revelations that emerge from his wife Elizabeth’s fatal boating accident. Clooney is superb as King who struggles both internally and externally with the sudden pressure of becoming a single-parent to his two daughters whom he knows little about. His often under-stated grief and anger is suited perfectly to the mise-en-scène of the film, which makes the most of calm and breezy weather and local attire.

For me, Woodley is the star of this film and it is extraordinary that she didn’t receive an Oscar nod alongside Clooney. She has one of the most expressive faces I’ve seen in a young actress for years, and the underwater scene in the King’s pool is one of the most hear-breaking film moments I’ve seen (not to mention ingeniously shot). Woodley’s character Alexandra is King’s eldest daughter and graduates from rebellious teen to mature young-adult as the film progresses. Her frustration is beautifully acted by Woodley, who is utterly convincing. It is in keeping with the theme of Matt’s familial absence that it is Alexandra who breaks down and informs him that her mother was conducting an affair.


As brilliant as these two performances are, they are undoubtedly complemented by the rest of the acting ensemble. Amara Miller as King’s younger daughter Scottie and Nick Krause’s dumb-but-lovable Sid provide most of the comic relief as they accompany Matt and Alexandra on their quest to seek out Elizabeth’s former lover Brian Speer (Matthew Lillard). Judy Greer’s cameo turn as Brian’s wife Julie culminates in a heart-wrenching, tear-inducing scene at Elizabeth’s bedside, and Beau Bridges as Cousin Hugh is a smiling yet menacing counter to Matt’s wishes.

Beautifully captured by Payne and cinematographer Phedon Papamichael, The Descendants is sure to charm everyone who sees it.

Shame (2011)

Directed by: Steve McQueen

Verdict: What could have been a hard-to-watch, uncomfortable 1 hour 40 minutes is actually a gripping, chilling account of addiction and the damaging human condition. A masterful performance by Michael Fassbender brings the troubled character of Brandon to the brink of audience-detestation and back again. Carey Mulligan’s painful howl of a performance steals the show as Brandon’s damaged sister, all captured in a horrifyingly beautiful motion picture.

There are many out there who are bemused/outraged/cynically raising a British eyebrow over Fassbender’s omission from the Academy Award nominees list. After seeing his tour-de-force performance in this film, I’m right there with them.

On paper, I thought I was going to hate this film. I thought it would be uncomfortable, and that Fassbender’s character would be unlikeable, unrealistic and dull. What Fassbender achieves in this film mostly through body language and facial expression is astounding. Brandon is portrayed as a fairly normal guy, albeit with a sometimes terrifying sex addiction.

I had read beforehand that this film was ‘chilling’ and ‘gripping’, but quite honestly didn’t believe that a film about a well-to-do office worker in modern day America would really have that many scary elements. However, I was both chilled and gripped within the first 15 minutes of watching. The sequence where Brandon watches and stalks a woman through the subway station is both beautifully shot and masterfully performed.

Mulligan’s turn as Sissy is striking as she self-destructs in the most heart breaking way. As the film progresses the brother-sister relationship frequently breaks conventions – both filmic and social – and becomes increasingly uncomfortable and hard-hitting, culminating in Sissy’s tragic suicide attempt. Mulligan’s part is relatively small in this film and the star is undeniably Fassbender; in saying this Sissy’s rendition of ‘New York New York’ is gorgeously shot in close-up and Mulligan’s more than capable vocals capture every ounce of heart-wrenching emotion.



In all, this film was a total surprise to me. McQueen has taken some inordinately tough subject matter and turned it into a beautiful motion picture. I doubt very much anyone who has seen this film exited the cinema without questions buzzing around their mind. The film can be seen as focussing on one complex and dangerous fictional character, but really it’s a much broader social commentary that is utterly striking and one of the most ambitious films of our time.

The Wrestler (2008)

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky

Verdict: Sometimes hard to watch but always, always a film with grit, heart and integrity. In other words, classic Aronofsky. Rourke gives the performance of his career to date as the absolutely lovable violent thug Randy ‘The Ram’, complemented brilliantly by stripper/mom Marisa Tomei and abandoned daughter Evan Rachel Wood.


It wouldn’t be a film by Darren Aronofsky if it didn’t mix moments of graphic violence, blood and gore with heart-wrenching scenes of emotion and inner-torment. The Wrestler won universal acclaim upon its release, and it’s easy to see why.

Rourke gives a deeply-affecting performance as Robin ‘Randy the Ram’ Ramzinski; a performance that saw the actor welcomed back into Hollywood’s A-List folds after a long time in the cold with an Oscar nomination. Rourke’s multi-layered performance is one of several brilliant acting turns in The Wrestler; Tomei is both hilarious and heart-breaking as stripper/mother Cassidy/Pam, in a role that saw her earn an Academy Award nomination for Supporting Actress. Wood is sharply believable as Randy’s bitter daughter Stephanie, in a sub-plot that builds Randy’s character up for a fall.

There are moments, mostly in the first half of the film, that are extremely graphic. Not shocking, considering this is a film about a professional wrestler. Aronofsky considers The Wrestler to be a companion piece to Black Swan, an equally disturbing and graphic film about an athlete’s search for satisfaction in perfection.

The poignancy and emotion of Aronofsky’s film comes, in majority, from the startling parallels to be drawn between Ram’s life and Rourke’s life off-screen. This fact was played upon massively in the publicity and advertising for the film, with posters reading ‘Witness the resurrection of Mickey Rourke’, but was plain to see for all viewers of the film familiar with the frequently tumultuous relationship Rourke has had with the culture of Hollywood and celebrity.


In my opinion, this is one of the best films of the last few years, and is a must-see for all movie fans. I myself have always hated wrestling, but enjoyed this film immensely and found myself with a newfound respect for those wrestlers who put themselves through this day in, day out in the name of show-business. Characters like that put certain actors and Hollywood stars to shame, though not Rourke, who proves in this film he is one of acting’s greatest talents.
The tagline for the film was ‘Love. Pain. Glory.’ That pretty much sums Rourke up.

The Artist (2011)

Directed by: Michel Hazanavicius

Verdict: Quite frankly, probably my new favourite movie of all time. And I don’t make decisions like that lightly. Visually stunning, totally heart-warming, featuring stand out performances both on and off-screen from cast and crew alike. Genius, utter genius.

I walked out of the cinema half an hour ago, having seen The Artist. And I’ve literally been smiling ever since. As a film student and a general cinema-lover, Hazanavicius is probably as close as I can get to my own version of Einstein.

The concept of making a silent film in homage to the era of silent movies and the classical Hollywood era in itself is incredible. The way the film shifts in and out of the film and the films within the film is sublime, simple and elegant. Watching Jean Dujardin in this masterpiece of a performance as George Valentin is probably the closest I can get today to how those fans felt back in the days of watching Rudolph Valentino and James Dean on the big screen for the first time. This is a career, no, a lifetime-defining role. This is a cinema-defining film.

On the surface, the film starts out like a copy of the old silent films we’ve all admired from a distance. It’s shot in black-and-white, it features occasion inter-title cards with necessary lines of dialogue, and the filmic ration is classic old-Hollywood. But this film is so much more than just a duplicate of the old films.

Okay, so perhaps the final moment, in which *spoiler alert* George speaks at long last was inevitable. Perhaps we all saw it coming. That somehow enhances the magic of this movie. Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo, as George and Peppy Miller respectively, deliver stand-out performances that put most ‘Hollywood’ actors of today to shame. Their subtle shifts between the over-acting of the silent era and their naturalistic performances elsewhere are a joy to behold. And of course, Uggie the dog is utterly superb.

There are those out there who are claiming that parts of The Artist are rip-offs from other films – i.e. the shot/reverse-shot breakfast table sequence, and the well-publicised usage of Bernard Herrmann’s Vertigo score. These are people who obviously missed the point of the film and totally avoided all press both before and after viewing. This may turn into a rant, just to warn you. Citizen Kane is lauded as one of, if not the greatest films ever made. Orson Welles reportedly learned everything he knew about movies and directing them – ergo everything about how to make Citizen Kane, from John Ford’s masterful 1939 Western Stagecoach. Considered one of history’s cinema experts, Francois Truffaut’s début film Les Mistons borrowed extensively from both its original text, and from many other films in the formation of its aesthetic narrative. This is not what cineastes call ‘rip-offs’. This is dedicating your work to other great directors; it’s paying homage to the extraordinary art of the cinema. And that’s everything that The Artist stands for.

Yes, there are countless in-jokes for cinema experts. But those who go to see The Artist knowing nothing of the grand history of motion pictures will be just as blown away by this uplifting, beautiful and utterly un-pretentious film. The film as a whole, along with Hazanavicius, Dujardin, composer Ludovic Bource and Bejo have already been showered with prestigious awards and nominations, and have garnered the most Golden Globes nominations for the ceremony to be held on the 15th January. In my opinion, if Hazanavicius’s masterpiece isn’t recognised and rewarded at The Academy Awards (rightly or wrongly cinema’s most famed awards ceremony) it will be an utter travesty.

I won’t ruin it for anyone who hasn’t seen The Artist yet (what are you waiting for? GO NOW!), but there is one moment with a glass and a table that is surely one of the greatest moments of cinema, and certainly the best I’ve personally witnessed in a theatre. Okay, the use of diegetic sound is scarce and The Artist is mostly just moving pictures. But you won’t find another film that is more moving than this. Five stars, a must-see.