Les Misérables

So, as a theatre fan myself, it needs to be noted up front; this is not a stage show on film. Anyone watching with that presumption has completely missed the point, and will ultimately be missing out. Instead, the film version explicitly takes advantage of the medium it's presented in, spinning the story to an ever darker and grittier revolutionary France than on stage, able to show every tear strewn cheek, every dirt smeared flag and every blood covered street in close-up, high definition. And close up it very much is. Tom Hooper's lingering single takes and full head shot close ups leaves the actors absolutely nowhere to hide, almost forcing them to deliver sensational performances. It should leave little surprise then that so many have subsequently been lauded for their performances (including Anne Hathaway's recent BAFTA win). In fact, it's only Russell Crowe that seems to be a slightly weak link, feeling almost uncomfortable in role, or at the very least, in being made to sing.

Well I can certainly hear the people sing. Though there was hardly going to be a review of Les Mis without a picture of Eddie Redmayne, was there?

On that subject, there really is something to be said for the live singing. Whilst certainly not flawless, it is positively wringing with a level of emotion that just wouldn't be possible from a studio audio track. In fact, it may very well be the various vocal cracks and blemishes that adds the depth of reality to the story we see on screen.

While certainly not one of the best films of all time, and the fact that it's a musical which will instantly rule out a vast population who very much prefer other cups of tea, it's very easy to see why Les Mis has done so well this awards season. But do me a favour; if you do watch it, do so for the merits of the silver screen (or, if you're that way inclined, Eddie Redmayne). If you're more interested in the soundtrack, you might be better off in the West End.

The Lucky One

It's been a while since we had a good look at the Zefron, and fortunately from a 'good look' perspective, The Lucky One doesn't disappoint. Not a title that's ever going to be genre-defining, but it comes with a pleasing enough outcome, and plenty of smouldering to be getting on with in the meantime. Originally a book (from which I'm reliably informed the film does deviate in some aspects), the movie version provides a perfect platform for Efron's female fanbase, casting him in a relatively unlikely (but not altogether unbelievable) turn as a US marine. Despite playing out very much as a standard love story, The Lucky One is still worthy of note, if only for the excitement of seeing Zac Efron in his boxers (which, let's face it, must be one of the main reasons that the thing got made in the first place).


Children, animals and a wet Zac Efron. The holy trinity to make women weak at the uterus?

Looper

Uh oh! Another JGL movie review! Quite aside from seeming like the most active guy in Hollywood right now, we can all relax on this one; spending 2 hours a day in make-up to make yourself look like a young Bruce Willis is never going to have the most appealing result, so Looper is going to have to rely on a whole lot more to get the grade from me.

The principle is beautifully original, and fabulously ingenious all in one. Time travel doesn't exist. Yet. As soon as it does (thirty years from now) it will immediately be made illegal, but not before crime bosses realise that it offers the cleanest and most elegant way of "dealing" with those unwanted nuisances. Cue the 'Loopers', the disposal men responsible for removing the victims of the future mob. Their targets are erased; killed in a time when they shouldn't have existed, and with no evidence of them in the future. For a Looper, each job is paid handsomely, with silver bars strapped to their prey. That is until their final job (called closing the loop), which results in the personal assassination of their future self, effectively granting them a thirty year time-delayed death sentence with which to enjoy their 'retirement'. And truth be told, everything is going pretty swimmingly, until Joe fails to close his loop, and allows his thirty-year older equivalent (Bruce Willis) to escape. Cue an unravelable twisting road of cause and effect, with both Joe's aiming to restore order to their respective times, and ultimately stay alive.

Things were always going to get ugly when it came to deciding who was going to pay the bill...

Now don't get me wrong; Hollywood needs more films like this. Looper is properly innovative (some people likened it to when the world was first introduced to the Matrix). Everything about it feels fresh, of course helped by the fact that it's a completely unique concept. But that does bring it's own issues. Being such a radically different (and as explained above) slightly convoluted storytype, the time required to set up the premise is so much longer than would be needed to introduce us to the world of an unpopular high-school teen, or a mis-understood billionaire with a penchant for saving the world. And unfortunately Looper's set-up does fall slightly foul of this. Because the concept is so complicated and unseen before now, the film has to spend too long trying to explain what's going on, and why it's important. As a result, the whole thing does feel fairly slow up front, even though there's plenty to be paying attention to. The whole thing also sets off on a much darker footing than I was expecting, which, although perhaps slightly too dark in places for my liking, do certainly provide an important background to the fuller story.

Thankfully though, despite the rather gritty (and lengthy) start, the movie quickly opens up into something so much better than I was beginning to fear 30 minutes in. Some rather expert writing and editing keeps up the suspense, only feeding answers in dribs and drabs, but keeping you guessing throughout. The cast should also get a special mention, with Emily Blunt's Sara of particular note (once you've managed to get over her southern drawl). In the end, for me the quirkiness and originality really win through. It may be slightly slow to get going, but when it does it more than compensates. Though a smidgen gorier than I would have liked in places, the story is well thought through all the way to the end (especially concerning the cause to effect relationship of changing the present to affect the future). With maybe a little more pace up front, this is the kind of film that we really need to see more of.

Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life

As sequels go, the second installment in the video game inspired franchise is not a truly dreadful film; just wildly implausible, hideously clichéd and complete with some gratingly awful directorial decisions. But otherwise, perfectly enjoyable!

Starting with the aforementioned direction, I can't imagine Jan de Bont counts it among his biggest successes (indeed, it's actually taken 10 years to get him back into the director's chair). The most cringing additions to this movie is undoubtedly the random appearances of the all-important golden orb (a particularly pivotal part of the storyline), but which arbitrarily appears, superimposed onto the action in the most hideously inappropriate of places (in Lara's eye for example).

Anyone else wondering what Angelina's looking at...?

Angelina does do her best to keep the thrills of the first going, and in some instances does succeed in making some decent quality entertainment. There has also been nice little touches added for fans of the video games, and a good selection of British actors adorning the screen (in fact, Angelina is the only person appearing on screen with an American birthplace). But still, as much as that will keep fans of the series at bay for a little while, it can never really elevate itself into a position much past "watchable".

LUV

LUV is a film that very few people reading this will even have heard of. Presented as part of the 2012 Sundance film festival in Utah, LUV is the partly autobiographical feature-length debut of writer/director Sheldon Candis, following 11-year-old Woody as he spends a single day with his Uncle Vincent, recently released from prison, and intent on teaching his nephew how to be a man as he goes about starting up his own business.

Truth be told, the LUV storyline is a highly recognisable one. There are plenty of "despite his best intentions..." or "wrong place, wrong time" stories depicting the complexities of an underprivileged life in America, but LUV does it in a quite unconventional way. Because the audience is treated to watching the story though Woody's eyes, it is actually the relationship between Vincent and the boy that becomes the real narrative, rather than series of situations and confrontations that the pair find themselves in.

The standard middle-distance stare that every subway commuter adopts is a must-have in all actors' arsenal

Now in total fairness, the film isn't perfect. Pace is severely lacking in several places, and some highly questionable additions (such as a surreal fantasy sequence that bookends the story) mean that 'LUV' is by no way flawless. That said though, it does have two enormously redeeming features that really pull it away from the possibility of being judged as another typical gangster movie. Put simply, the first of those is the cast, and specifically, young Woody. The performance from Michael Rainey Jr. is truly incredible, and worthy of an experienced actor twice his age. He is able to handle the storyline with real maturity and emotional intelligence, and competently leads the film from start to finish.

Secondly, the film really triumphs in getting a complete sense of reality across to the audience. Knowing the background, it's very easy to understand why; I feel very privileged to have been privy to a Q&A with the writer/director of LUV after my screening at Sundance London, which the rest of the cinema-going public will sadly miss out on. His passion, energy and ultimately personal connection with his slightly fictionalised story of his early life is where the real power of this film lies. Suddenly, the title makes much more sense (originally scripted under 'Learning Uncle Vincent'), and it's really easy to see the personal journey that he undertook in understanding the life of his own uncle in every frame of the previous 95 minutes.