Film review: Snowpiercer, dir. by Bong Joon-Ho and starring Chris Evans, Tilda Swinton and Song Kang-Ho

Forget what you know about heroes, because Snowpiercer is going to remake your image of what a hero looks like.

It is almost 20 years after an experiment designed to stop global warming instead resulted in the earth being frozen over. Now, all survivors live on a train - Snowpiercer - which hurtles its way round the earth, between the snowdrifts. But society has not banded together to survive, instead the haves live luxury lives at the front of the train, while the have-nots live in squalor at the back of the train, surviving on a diet of brown, jelly-like bars and a taste for equality and revenge. Led by Curtis (Chris Evans) the have-nots decide to stage a coup, get to the front of the train, and destroy the class system forever.

I can't begin to tell you just how good a film Snowpiercer is, and how much it pains me that it hasn't received a cinema release in the UK. This is, undoubtedly, one of the best films released this year. Beautifully shot and directed by Bong Joon-ho, Snowpiercer is painful, violent and bleak, and brilliant with it.

Film review: The Hobbit - The Battle of Five Armies

And so it ends, not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a sense of bittersweetness after 14 years spent in Middle Earth.

The Hobbit - The Battle of Five Armies does exactly what it says on the tin. It's a battle between five armies - the dwarves, the elves, the humans, the goblins and the wargs. 

The film opens with Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch) destroying Lake-town as Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) attempts to guide Kili (Aidan Turner), a couple of the other dwarves and bard's children to safety. Bard (Luke Evans) manages to escape from his prison cell, and as the city goes up in flames and Smaug swoops overhead, he goes face to face with the dragon. It's an explosive opening, full of drama, tension and oh my goodness moments, and paves the way for an action packed film.

The heroic Bard decides the only way the people of Lake-town will find shelter is if they visit Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) in the Lonely Mountain and claim the gold he promised them. But Thorin is not so willing to keep to his oaths, and has instead descended into madness as he hunts in the treasures of the Lonely Mountain for the Arkenstone, a gem shaped by one of Thorin's ancestors.

Bard and Thorin are deliberately set out as opposites, with Evans playing the hero convincingly. It's just a pity that he disappears towards the end of the film, with the story of the men ending way too early and being sacrificed for some of the more impressive looking battles. Meanwhile, Armitage's Thorin is loathsome, although we do see glimpses of the charming and likeable dwarf. His redemption arc isn't really an arc though, it's like one of the giant eagles came in and picked him up when he was at rock bottom and yanked him in a vertical line back up to being a good person. It's kind of sudden, but you can forgive it.

What I can't really forgive is the awful love triangle between Thoriel, Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Kili. It's boring, detracts from the action of the film, and is not at all believable - there's little passion between Kili and Thoriel, and Legolas' pining creates a character that is completely out of sync with how we find him in The Lord of the Rings. In The Lord of the Rings the love story between Aragorn and Arwen is beautiful, in The Battle of Five Armies the love story is a drag.

And the reason I've mentioned director Peter Jackson's other J R R Tolkein trilogy is because it's constantly referred to in The Battle of Five Armies. And not always in a good way. It works when we see Saruman staying behind to deal with the fall out after Sauron attacks Gandalf, who is being rescued by Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and Elrond (Hugo Weaving). But it doesn't work when Legolas flips onto the back of a giant thing in a mirror of flipping onto an elephant in The Return of the King, or when Thranduil (Lee Pace) directs Legolas to go find Strider. The hints are in your face, and distracting because they're so obvious.

But really, I've spent too large an amount of space complaining, because I actually loved the film. The battle scenes are so beautifully choreographed I almost gasped at times at just how stunning they were. Yes, it's all very safe and there's no blood, but the scenes are still just gorgeous. And the CGI is absolutely brilliant too. 

And I can't believe I've got this far without mentioning Bilbo (Martin Freeman) who is the real heart of the film. He, rather than Bard, is the true foil to Thorin. Where Thorin is loud and mad, Bilbo is quiet and sensible. The pair's clashes are filled with tension, while the quieter moments between the two are touching and so filled with friendship that the conclusion of their tale brings a tear to the eye.

The Battle of Five Armies would have had to perform miracles to have been as good as the conclusions to The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and it didn't. It remains in the shadows of the mountain that is The Return if the King, but that doesn't mean it's not a good film. It's a great film, with some fantastic, jaw-dropping moments. And for those people who have grown up watching Jackson create magic on screen, it is a fitting, loving finale to a great series of films.

Film review: Interstellar starring Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine and Jessica Chastain

Despite its name and the posters featuring Matthew McConaughey in a space suit, Interstellar is a film that is as much about earth and humanity's connection to it as it is about space.

McConaughey is Cooper, an engineer and former NASA pilot who is now farming corn, the only crop able to grow on a damaged earth, in a remote town. Living with him are his precocious and intelligent daughter Murphy and teenage son Tom, along with Cooper's father-in-law Donald. When Cooper, through a message left by 'ghosts', discovers NASA has been operating in secret - to find a habitable planet accessed through a wormhole by Saturn - he leaves his family to pilot a ship to connect with pilots who have gone out before and are sending back a signal that the planets they have landed on can sustain the human race.

Interstellar sees McConaughey continue his run of strong performances, and he's a joy to watch as he cycles through frustration, joy, anger, sadness and more. But while Cooper is believable for being complex, some of the other characters are a little one dimensional. It's a little difficult to believe that Murphy, played as an adult in the film by Jessica Chastain, holds onto her annoyance at her father for so many years. Luckily, Chastain is one of those actresses you just want to watch, and works well with the material she's given. She and McConaughey are the stronger links. I loved David Oyelowo as the immediately likeable Principal, but you don't get to know him well enough, and the same is true for Wes Bentley's underused Doyle,  who I wish could have swapped places with Anne Hathaway's Brand.

Which brings me to weakest link acting wise - unfortunately it's Hathaway (and I'm usually a Hathaway fan). Her character is one-dimensional, cold, hard to warm to, and given one monologue about love, which doesn't work, both in wording (not so much her fault), believability (there was a lot of scoffing by the audience I watched with) and execution. Hathaway's weak monologue, her major contribution to the film, is more marked when you compare it to the strength of Michael Caine's delivery, as her father Professor Brand, of Dylan Thomas's Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night, which is arresting, especially played as it is over the scene of Cooper's space ship leaving the earth.

Cutting between earth and space, Interstellar focuses as much on the ground as it does on Cooper and his mission. The film opens in a dust-bowl like town, it's all very The Grapes of Wrath. Devastated as the earth now is, NASA's mission is to find a planet just like it, and Cooper's mission has to choose from three possible planets with supposedly survivable conditions. And while Cooper is in space, he's connected to the earth by the thought of his children who, because of the time lapse sciency stuff, he doesn't feel like he left as long ago as he did. Plus, there are the video messages he receives from his son, who is growing up and having a family (not quite sure how these messages come through the wormhole, but whatever).

Interstellar is visually stunning, with a soaring soundtrack (although at times it's a little loud), but this is the most stressful film I've sat through for a number of reasons. First, there are the shocks director Christopher Nolan throws in - massive explosions, cut aways - which get your heart going. 

I didn't know too much about this film going on, so when Cooper and his team land on one of the planets it came as a complete surprise to me who was waiting for them. If you can resist spoilers, do so, because this whole sequence is made all the more better, and is all the more tense because you can't prepare yourself beforehand. It had me holding my breath at times, rolling my eyes at others, and just wanting to grab Cooper out of the screen at times to keep him safe.

Then there is the fact that it's genuinely hard to tell how happy a ending this film is going to have - and by happy I mean you're unsure if even one person is going to survive. And finally, there's the slightly unbelievable science in parts that just stressed me out, and the weird supernatural/ghost elements.

The Nolans (Christopher wrote the film with his brother Jonathan) have created a complicated film, one filled with science, and it's explained enough to make me just about believe it. However, it goes a little strange towards the end, and it's hard (but not impossible) to forgive the rest of the film for the last part. The only phrase I can use to describe the goings on in the last act is borrowed from Doctor Who - it's all timey-wimey. I'm not sure the five dimension/love stuff worked, even though I could see it was coming from the beginning of the film.

But for all its strangeness, its obsession with mourning the earth and finding a place to live that is identical to the one we now occupy, and its ability to become a hot mess at times, Interstellar is definitely worth seeing.

Film review: Gone Girl, starring Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike

Here's a bold claim for you - Gone Girl is one of the two best film adaptations of a book I have ever seen. The other is The Godfather. That's how good I think David Fincher's film of Gillian Flynn's hit novel is.

Partially, that's because Flynn herself wrote the screenplay, which remains as taut, twisted and terrifying as the book (more on the book later). And partly it's because everything about the film, from the acting to the settings to the music, are utterly en pointe while being unsettling at the same time.

Ben Affleck is a revelation as Nick Dunne, whose wife Amy (Rosamund Pike) goes missing on their fifth anniversary. Faced with no body but a whole heap of evidence, Nick soon finds himself going from pitied husband to perceived murderer, especially once Detective Rhonda Boney (Kim Dickens) finds Amy's diary, which shows a woman in fear of her husband. Every action Nick takes, every word he says, and every look he gives are put under a microscope and Nick comes out of it looking like bacterium. This is the best I've ever seen Affleck (Gigli what?), who creates a Nick who is more pitiable than he is unlikeable.

And Pike, wow. From the moment she appears onscreen - an opening shot of her guileless, perfect face, huge eyes staring straight at you - she's utterly captivating. As Nick falls in love with her, so do we. There is something just perfect about Amy, who lives up to the Amazing Amy moniker from the books her mother and father created. To say anymore would be a spoiler for those who know nothing about the plot, but goodness, someone give Pike a shiny statuette of some sort.

And now to the book. Flynn's Gone Girl has a narrative structure that is split between the present and the past, and the film sticks to that and it works. For the present, we have Nick and a host of other characters, for the past we have Amy and her diary entries. Amy's diary entries could have been awkward translated into the screen, but instead they work as a seamless bridge into learning about the couple's past, and the intimate insight the diary entries offer leaves you feeling distinctly uneasy.

In fact, everything about Gone Girl makes you feel slightly uneasy. In the present, Amy and Nick's house is too perfect and devoid of all feeling, and Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross's score underlines the spookiness in some of the films most important scenes. Fincher's direction is spot on - the distance shots reflect the slightly off nature of the whole plot, the beats of silence heighten tension, the violence is, well, violent yet restrained.

Gone Girl is very, very faithful to the book. Of course things had to be changed and some aspects left out, but what I loved best about the book is right there on the screen, as is the stuff that made me frustrated (yet made me love the book all the more). Book lovers will be stunned at how accurate the film is, those who haven't read the book will want to do so afterwards.

Some general observations:

-Gone Girl is funny. The comic timing of every one of the actors is spot on, and even in the midst of the darkest scenes there were lines and facial expressions that had the audience I saw the film with laughing out loud. Proper belly laughs.

-This is not a film for the squeamish. There was one moment that reminded me of THAT scene in Stephen King's Misery, and I had to cover my eyes, and while I made it through the most gruesome scene in the film just fine, my neighbour had her head down and eyes shut in order to survive.

-Gone Girl's supporting cast is brilliant. Pike and Affleck are the stars, but Neil Patrick Harris as Amy's creepy ex is good at making the audience uncomfortable without saying a word; Tyler Perry's flashy lawyer Tanner Bolt adds a sense of glamour and likeability to the film (and provides the biggest laugh for the most honest observation of the film); Carrie Coon as Nick's sister Margo is loyal and lovely and oh so tragic; and Dickens' detective is just awesome and no nonsense.

-Ben Affleck is huge in this film. Apparently he was in the midst of training for his role as Batman while this was being filmed, and it shows. His shoulders are distracting, but his sheer size really works for this role.

I could go on and on, but I'll end with this. My viewing of Gone Girl was informed by the book, and I wasn't disappointed for even a second - this is the best film I've seen this year and I know when I reread the book I'll picture Affleck and Pike in the lead roles, because they're perfect. But I do envy anyone who is going in to Gone Girl with no knowledge of how it is all supposed to pan out - to see it without expectations and be blown away regardless would be a treat.

Fim review: The Fault in Our Stars

How to review The Fault in Our Stars without breaking down into a puddle of tears at the memory of the film - that's the tough question.

What's not a tough question is whether or not the film is good, because it is. Phew.

Adhering closely to John Green's novel of the same name, The Fault in Our Stars (let's just call it TFIOS from now on) follows cancer sufferer Hazel Lancaster (Shailene Woodley), who is forced to join a teenage cancer support group by her mother. There, she meets Augustus 'Gus' Waters (Ansel Elgort), who had one of his legs amputated after getting cancer, and finds herself reluctantly falling in love.

Woodley is excellent as the sarcastic, witty Hazel. I know people have said this before, but Woodley just has this face you want to watch, it's so full of expression and she uses all of it to get a point across. TFIOS is told through Hazel's point of view, and Woodley creates a Hazel true to the book, and who you want to hear from.

Wearing a tube connected to an oxygen tank that she carries around with her at all times, Woodley makes you manage to simultaneously forget that Hazel is always literally carrying the weight of her cancer with her, while also making you constantly aware that she's not a typical teenager. However, while Hazel is not a typical teenager, she is a normal one, and her cancer only heightens that - she rolls her eyes at her mum's behaviour, sulks at not getting her own way, and is overly dramatic when her mum tells her that she's depressed. In the midst of a story about two teenagers with cancer falling in love, Woodley's Hazel can make you belly laugh.

Elgort is a great Gus, with his charm and cheekiness. He's good looking, but not too good looking, and has a smile that could light up the sky. Elgort is at his best during one-to-one scenes with Woodley, when he's playing to a group his Gus occasionally veers into supreme cheesiness and cockiness. On the whole though, he's easily the 18-year-old boy every 17-year-old girl should fall in love with, because he's sweet and kind and intense but not too intense.

I loved watching Hazel and Gus's journey, metaphorical and literal, which took them, as in the novel, to Amsterdam to meet Hazel's favourite writer, the reclusive and mean Peter Van Houten (played as both comedic relief and villain by Willem Defoe). Seeing both Hazel and Gus change over the course of the film alternately made me feel hopeful, and desperately sad. There were parts that made tears well up in my eyes that I really didn't expect (the restaurant scene in Amsterdam, Hazel climbing all those stairs with steely eyed determination), and parts that made me laugh that I didn't expect (Van Houten being a complete arse, the guy who leads the support group). TFIOS is a rollercoaster of emotion, which is what makes it such a great film.

The other thing that makes it a great film is the relationships it explores. Of course, there's Hazel and Gus, but there are plenty of other relationships that stab at your heart and make you feel. Hazel's parents (played by Sam Trammell and Laura Dern) are funny and loving, and Dern is responsible for one of the most heartbreaking interactions of the film. Hazel and Gus's separate friendships with Issac (Nat Wolff - probably the best male actor in the film) are nuanced - each gets something different from Issac and gives something different to him - and as a trio they're fabulous. And Van Houten, the most antisocial character in the film, who acts as a counterpoint for all the emotion filled relationships we see, is also unexpectedly revealed as a man to whom relationships are important.

TFIOS is a gorgeous film, and the reason it's gorgeous is because it's full of heart and because you care about all the characters on screen. But, as a warning, you're not going to be okay after seeing this film. Okay?

Film review: The Wolf of Wall Street

If Leonardo di Caprio was a stock, most people would say you should invest, so it's fitting that he plays former stockbroker Jordan Belfort in The Wolf of Wall Street.

Based on the real-life Belfort's book of the same name about his life, which recounts his shady business practices, spectacular rise and bad fall in the financial sector during the late 1980s and early 1990s, The Wolf of Wall Street is all about having too much - too much money, too many women, too many parties. Everything is supersized (apart from the women).

The Wolf of Wall Street is a comedy more than anything else. There is no real plot - FBI agent Denham's (Kyle Chandler) chase of Belfort forms just a small part of the film - and at times, this film just feels like a collection of comedy sketches and scenes featuring money and naked women thrown together. There are moments and scenes that are absolutely hilarious, and in a film that clocks in at just under three hours, those moments were the only ones keeping me paying attention at the end.

Di Caprio is, as always, very good to watch. Speaking as someone who's had a crush on him since Romeo and Juliet circa 1997, this is the first film I've seen di Caprio in where he was completely unattractive. His Belfort is vile, greedy, and, at the end of it all, a massive coward and a snitch. I found not one single redeeming quality in Belfort, and felt uncomfortable in parts watching a film about such a horrid character.

Also brilliant is Matthew McConaughey, who absolutely steals the scenes he's in as Belfort's mentor and first boss. Despite his role being very small, his influence on Belfort is felt throughout the film.

The Wolf of Wall Street is all about excess - I wouldn't be surprised if you saw more drugs and naked female bodies in this film than during all five seasons of The Wire (seriously, there's that many) - and unfortunately the excessiveness slips into the editing. This film is, at the very least, 30 minutes too long, and there are scenes that feel neverending. One that sticks out is a speech Belfort makes to the employees at Stratton Oakmont on the day they take their first company public - it went on for so long I'm surprised there were trading hours left in the day by the time he finished.

There are also excess characters floating around. I was never quite sure what the purpose of Belfort's dad was - he shouts a bit, and that's it. Belfort's mum is shown a bare minimum of times, and we never see her speak - I felt like she was a non-entity in the film.

And the women. Well, what women? They're either naked, faux strong or naked. The one female stockbroker we actually hear from ends her scene in tears, while Belfort's secretary is a one-dimensional harpy. Belfort's wife Naomi, nicknamed The Duchess, gets a little bit more to do, but her real role in the film is to make sure Belfort has someone to lust after, love, hate, fight with, lust, hate and fight with again, and has no real character of her own.

A little more plot, a little less of just about everything else, and The Wolf of Wall Street could have been a film I enjoyed. As it was, by the end, despite the laughs, I felt like I'd suffered through it, which is more than I could say for Belfort, whose bad deeds seemed to have very few consequences. And perhaps that was what I disliked most of all.

2014 wishlist - to read and to see

A new year, a new set of books, television programmes and more to look forward to. Here are a few of things I want to read and see in the next 12 months.

Books

This is far from a comprehensive list of the books I want to read - for fear of going overboard I've kept it to four 2014 releases I haven't read yet (although excitingly I have proofs for some).

Cress by Marissa Mayer - I'm so, so excited about this. Everything I've read and heard so far leads me to believe this is going to be just as good as Cinder and Scarlet.

Throne of Glass book three by Sarah J. Maas - I believe this is as-yet untitled, hence my clunky introduction. Maas created an absorbing world in Throne of Glass and Crown of Midnight, one I've no doubt she will continue expanding in the third book in the series. 

The Girl With All the Gifts by M. R. Carey - This looks pretty scary, but also really, really interesting. Here's the Goodreads description: "Melanie is a very special girl. Dr Caldwell calls her 'our little genius'. Every morning, Melanie waits in her cell to be collected for class. When they come for her, Sergeant keeps his gun pointing at her while two of his people strap her into the wheelchair. She thinks they don't like her. She jokes that she won't bite, but they don't laugh. Melanie loves school. She loves learning about spelling and sums and the world outside the classroom and the children's cells. She tells her favourite teacher all the things she'll do when she grows up. Melanie doesn't know why this makes Miss Justineau look sad."

The Quick by Lauren Owen - another one that looks really intriguing, and I understand there's a massive twist in it. Here's the description from the publisher Jonathan Cape: "You are about to discover the secrets of The Quick - But first, reader, you must travel to Victorian England, and there, in the wilds of Yorkshire, meet a brother and sister alone in the world, a pair bound by tragedy. You will, in time, enter the rooms of London’s mysterious Aegolius Club – a society of the richest, most powerful men in England. And at some point – we cannot say when – these worlds will collide. It is then, and only then, that a new world emerges, a world of romance, adventure and the most delicious of horrors – and the secrets of The Quick are revealed."

Films 

Links go to IMDB, and release dates are for the UK unless otherwise stated and are subject to change.

Pompeii - I'm a sucker for stuff set in Ancient Greece/Rome/that kind of time, and as a bonus this has Kit Harrington, who has to save the woman he loves as SPOILER ALERT Pompeii is destroyed. Out February 21.

Veronica Mars - I want to scream with joy when I think about the Veronica Mars film. That is all. Out March 14 in America.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - Captain America may not be the most exciting of Marvel's Avengers, but I enjoyed the first film, and Chris Evans is back for a second solo outing, joined by the lovely Sebastian Stan as the Winter Soldier. Out March 28.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - this reboot has been much better than the Tobey Maguire films (sorry!), and I love Emma Stone. Out April 18.

Maleficent - I'm also a sucker for fairytale retellings, and this film telling the story of Maleficent is right up my alley. Out May 30.

The Fault in Our Stars - one of the best books I read in 2013 turned into a film sure to make me cry. Out June 20.

Gone Girl - another of the best books I read in 2013 turned into a film. I'm not sure whether this will do the book justice, but I'd like to see it anyway. Out October 3 in America.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 - I object to Mockingjay being turned into two films, but I'll still go see this. Out November 21.

The Hobbit: There and Back Again - I object to The Hobbit being turned into three films, but I'll still go see this. Out December 19.

Television

Sherlock - there's not a long wait for this, since it's on tonight on BBC One! I know Watson (Martin Freeman) only really cares why Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch) disappeared, but I still want to know the how.

Game of Thrones - This is my favourite television series that's currently still producing new episodes. How on earth series four will top The Rains of Castamere episode I don't know, but I'd bet the team behind the series have something up their sleeves.

Doctor Who - I'm going to miss Matt Smith, but Peter Capaldi is sure to bring a fresh outlook to the Doctor, and hopefully the programme will be a little easier to understand as well.

Orphan Black - One of the best new programmes I watched in 2013, I'm intrigued about where this is going.

Theatre/performance 

Links go through to official pages where possible.

The Duchess of Malfi – Shakespeare's Globe has a new indoor theatre, the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse, which is a short walk from where I work. The theatre's first production will be The Duchess of Malfi, kicking off January 9 and starring Gemma Arterton.

King Lear - I've not been to the National Theatre nearly enough, but what I have seen there has been brilliant. On January 14 a run of a production of Shakespeare's King Lear, with Simon Russell Beale in the lead, begins.

Shakespeare in Love - this is one of a few film-to-stage adaptations next year. I enjoyed the film, although it was way too long. I'm hoping the stage show, at London's Noel Coward Theatre from July 1, will tighten the story up a bit.  

Miss Saigon - I've never seen Miss Saigon, but one of my housemates at university absolutely loved it. The show's run at the Prince Edward Theatre from May for its 25th anniversary seems like the perfect time to go see it.

Backstreet Boys at The O2 - I'm not ashamed. The Backstreet Boys were my first proper celebrity crushes, and they're back on tour in 2014, supported at The O2 by All Saints, one of the best late 1990s girl groups (the other being the Spice Girls, of course).

What are you looking forward to in 2014?

Film review: Parkland starring Zac Efron, Marcia Gay Harden and Billy Bob Thornton

Nearly everyone knows the story of President John F. Kennedy's assassination - Jackie wore pink, Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK from a 'grassy knoll', conspiracy theories abound.

But as the 50th anniversary of JFK's death approaches (November 22) Parkland takes a different look at that day in Texas in 1963.

Named after Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, where JFK was treated, Parkland is the story of the people behind the scenes of one of the most scrutinised moments in history, from the doctors and nurses at Parkland, to the man who caught on camera the shooting of the President, to the reaction of Oswald's brother.

Crucially, the face of JFK (Brett Stimely) is never fully seen, and even Jackie (Kat Steffens) is relegated to the background, ensuring the focus is on other characters and their reactions. But that's where the great points end.

Zac Efron plays young doctor Charles 'Jim' Carrico, who unexpectedly finds himself tasked with trying to save the life of the President, which we all know is futile. Dialogue at the hospital is kept to a minimum - in these scenes it's all about the (overblown) looks of anguish on the characters' faces. At times, it's farcical, and there are no prizes if you guess the 'twist' at the end for the hospital staff.

Elsewhere, Paul Giamatti puts in a solid performance as Abraham Zapruder, the man who filmed JFK's assassination (see a video here about how LIFE magazine brought the video to light), while Billy Bob Thornton plays the chief of the Dallas Secret Service, tasked with getting the footage developed and catching the suspect. While Zapruder's role is an interesting one, the to-do between the police, the Secret Service and the FBI becomes rather dull after a while, and as Zapruder's entourage becomes bigger and bigger, it all starts looking a bit like an ensemble comedy, rather than a drama.

The most interesting character in the film is Oswald's brother, Robert (James Badge Dale). He's a sympathetic character, who embodies a range of emotions throughout the film, and whose demeanour at his brother's funeral is far more powerful than all the wailing and weeping and sweating that comes before for JFK (a scene where JFK's coffin is forced onto Air Force One by grieving agents is really, really cringeworthy).

But apart from Robert, the film isn't brilliant, particularly when you add in the annoying soaring music over emotional scenes (all of them). And let's not mention Oswald's mother.

Parkland, based on the book Four Days in November by Vincent Bugliosi, had the potential to be brilliant. It had an interesting take on the President's death, but failed to reach the dizzy heights it aimed for. Rather than a thoughtful film, Parkland comes across as a cheap made-for-television Sunday afternoon drama, albeit one with a stellar cast.

•Parkland is out in the UK on November 22.

Film review - Thor: The Dark World starring Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston and Natalie Portman

Can you have too many superhero films? Not according to Marvel, who bring back Thor for his third outing on the big screen.

Two years after the events of the first film in the franchise (and after Avengers Assemble), Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is still trying to subdue the uprisings in the nine realms caused by the destruction of the Bifrost, all while pining after Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), who is holed up in London doing her science thing.

While Thor broods (with his top off for some of it - thank you, director) Jane heads out on a date - the first of many funny scenes in the film.

Because while Thor: The Dark World is trying to be a serious film (with limited success), where it really engaged the audience was with the comedy - the quick quips and moments like Thor hanging his hammer up on a coat rack had people in stitches, as did one scene between Thor and Loki (Tom Hiddleston), which I won’t spoil for you, but which had the second of two guest stars I completely wasn't expecting.

On the serious side, the interplay between Thor and his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) feels a bit clunky, and the bad guys (a race of evil guys led by an unrecognisable Christopher Ecclestone who want to destroy the nine realms) are just bad guys, with little depth. This is not a perfect superhero film, but there are some really strong moments. Hemsworth’s boldness and kinglike strutting shows that this is his film - he's definitely a king, whatever anyone else says.

And the quieter moments, in between all the huge set piece fighting scenes (seriously, the Avengers can save New York, but they leave Greenwich in THAT state?) are brilliant too. There is a heartbreaking but beautiful scene roughly a third of the way through found me struggling to get rid of whatever was causing my eye to water.

But really, how can I talk about Thor: The Dark World without talking a bit more about Loki?

He’s so, so bad, but so, so good. Just the right side of pantomime villain, Hiddleston knocks it out of the park with his portrayal of the confident, cocky, sarcastic yet broken Loki, and the more I saw him on screen, the bigger my crush on him grew. Loki is a bit of a scene stealer in Thor: The Dark World, but no one can begrudge him his screen time - he'll have you laughing, crying and sighing in despair.

There are other characters who provide great support - Jane is as sweet and tough as she was in the first film and Idris Elba just exudes power as Heimdall - and then there are those who are a little caricaturist - mainly I'm thinking of Darcy (Kat Dennings), whose role is to be the sidekick and whose every action you could see set up miles off.

Despite its faults, Thor: The Dark World is a solid superhero film, and is perfectly set up for a sequel, so there’s no chance of Marvel getting tired of superhero films soon. Let’s hope we don’t either.

•Thor: The Dark World is out today.

Film review: The Great Gatsby

For a legion of schoolgirls, and I'll include myself in this, who fell half in love with Leonardo DiCaprio almost two decades ago as he charmed Juliet, there's still something of the Romeo about him in his latest film, The Great Gatsby. 

As the titular Gatsby, the boyish smiles and bright blue eyes really work, and lend themselves to the character's hopeful yet delusional air. 

 A riot of colour and sound, Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby tries to put the great into every moment.

The subtlety of F Scott Fitzgerald’s original novel is missing from the film, but this is a Luhrmann production after all - spectacle, not subtlety, is half the point. Sounds and colours and zooming camera shots smack you in the face at every turn, at times drawing attention away from the characters.

It’s the 1920s and Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) moves to a small house in West Egg, opposite his cousin Daisy’s (Carey Mulligan). Next door to Nick lives Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), renowned across New York for being a complete mystery and for his huge parties.

As Daisy struggles through her marriage with the womanising, cruel Tom (Joel Edgarton), Gatsby asks Nick to set up a meeting with Daisy, the only woman he’s ever loved.

From the raucous Gatsby parties to the speedy driving scenes to the moment Gatsby and Daisy are reunited in a room full of flowers, everything pops off the screen, especially in 3D.

The saturation of colour and sound, and also the lack of colour and music in the valley of ashes, lends a sense of doom that pervades the film from the moment we see New York. Even as thousands of party-goers are watching fabulous fireworks across the bay in front of Gatsby's house, there's something brewing under the surface, signified by the flashing green light in front of Daisy's house that Gatsby has spent years watching.

But it’s the quieter moments that have more impact, especially after the constant cacophony of fireworks and music (the Jay-Z produced soundtrack actually works in this adaptation). Daisy and Gatsby slow dancing in the foyer, Gatsby’s nerves before seeing Daisy again for the first time, Nick’s quiet contemplation of who Gatsby is - they work better than all the loud moments put together, largely because DiCaprio and Mulligan are good in their roles as the hopeful, charming yet slightly delusional Gatsby and the foolish, selfish Daisy. In quieter moments, you can almost forget the sense of doom that pervades the whole film.

Unfortunately, the quieter moments are far too few, and those subtleties are missing from other characters. I know that Tom is bad because he looks bad, and the sneer he wears on his face tells me he's bad. I know his mistress, Myrtle, is kind of stupid yet much more worldly than Daisy because Isla Fisher imbues her voice with a really, really thick Noo Yawk accent.

The most deeply felt relationship in the film, as it is in the book, is not between Daisy and Gatsby, but between Nick and Gatsby. Maguire’s tone, a sort of rumbling that conveys the admiration, and indeed, love, Nick feels for Gatsby better than the looks on his face do throughout the film.

Beyond the smart clothes of the Jazz Age, Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby is not an elegant film, it’s in-your-face and lacks the mystery of the novel, but it’s a 21st century version of a great American tale - short on depth, big on image - for a celebrity loving culture. After all, was there a bigger celebrity than Gatsby?

The Sunday Post (#5)

The Sunday Post is a weekly meme hosted by Kimba the Caffeinated Book Reviewer. It's a chance to share news, a post to recap the past week on your blog, showcase books and things we received and share news about what is coming up on our blog for the week ahead.

Reviews this week on Girl!Reporter

Hidden by Marianne Curley

 

Non-book stuff this week on Girl!Reporter

Glee recap/review: Lights Out

Film review: Iron Man 3

Game of Thrones recap/review: King of the Ashes

 

Coming up next week on Girl!Reporter

Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead by Sheryl Sandberg (review)

Film review: Iron Man 3 starring Robert Downey Jr, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley, Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle

Iron Man 3 is out now. Picture: 2012 Marvel

From the moment it starts to its final credits, Iron Man 3 is full of action, twists and turns, and Robert Downey Jr’s trademark cockiness.

In his fourth outing as billionaire industrialist Tony Stark (counting last year’s Marvel Avengers Assemble), Downey Jr finds himself in what is his biggest Iron Man film yet.

Ok, I'm guessing it's his biggest Iron Man adventure yet, since I still haven't seen the second film, and I only saw the first three days after seeing the third.
 
Suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder following his near-death experience in Avengers Assemble, Stark now spends much of his time not sleeping, instead choosing to build Iron Man costume after Iron Man costume, each more advanced than the one before, although not in all cases better on first try.

A glimpse into Stark’s past as a womanising (he’s now happily shacked up with Pepper Potts) playboy reveals his first encounter with Guy Pearce’s villain, Aldrich Killian, who morphs from the nerd we see in the opening scenes to a suave and more-than-slightly-creepy scientist.

He’s not the only bad guy Stark encounters. There’s also the terrifying Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), who prefers to send threats via videotape, hacking the airwaves of television stations across America.

An angry Stark tells the Mandarin to come and get him, resulting in the film’s first huge extended action sequence (and they only get bigger from there). The battle also sends Stark on a journey of discovery (literally), which includes some of the funniest and most touching scenes of the film as Stark pits his wits against the child who helps him get back on his feet.

Iron Man 3 has all the superhero film chops you need, from a likeable yet flawed hero to convincingly unhinged baddies to big set pieces to a tribute to Downton Abbey. Okay, maybe the last one isn’t typical superhero film fodder, but it put a smile on my face, and other moments made me laugh out loud (apart from the Christmas jokes - maybe this film was meant to be released a few months ago?).

I loved the huge action sequences, even though they went on for ages they still held my interest and made me breathless with anticipation as to what came next. And the abilities of Killian's army of bad guys was, well, pretty horrifying.

It might not be Oscar-winning, but Iron Man 3 is definitely worth a couple of hours of your time. And that ending? I did not see it coming at all...

Film review: Les Miserables

From its acting to the way it was filmed, from the music to the sets, there was pretty much nothing about Les Miserables that didn't impress me in some way or another.

Any review of Les Miserables could probably go on for thousands of words, as there's so much to say about so many different things, but I'll try not to go on for that long.

I confess, I've never seen the stage musical and I only had a vague inkling of the story of Les Miserables - there was a lot less Cosette and Fantine that I expected, and a lot more going on elsewhere. I think the film was a great introduction, and I'll be trying to get to see the stage version as soon as I can (and have four hours spare).

Of everything, it's the acting that really stands out. There are a lot of talented actors in this film, from the young children to the adults, from the unknowns to the famous names.

Everyone talks about Anne Hathaway, and it's true, she is amazing. I've always been a fan (from way back in her Princess Diaries days), and I think she's proved she can act, and act convincingly.

But I already knew how good she was going to be, from the many, many reviews. What I was surprised by was how good film was Samantha Barks, who plays the adult Eponine, was. Her longing looks towards Marius and her conflict over whether to tell him about Cosette leaving were almost painful to watch, and when she sang On My Own the tears started to gather. And in her final scene with Marius, I felt those tears threaten to spill over. It might not be the main story in the film, but that was what was great - every aspect, every plot, was treated with respect and acted as strongly as the central story.

Also amazing was Daniel Huttlestone, who played Gavroche. If he carries on like this, he'll be a huge name by the time he's an adult.

The strongest of the men, of course, is Hugh Jackman, who is likeable and draws our sympathy and admiration from the moment we meet him, and he never loses it.

But also good was Aaron Tveit, who I only previously know from his role as Trip Van Der Bilt in Gossip Girl (what a different role!), who is brilliant as Enjolras. He could probably have convinced Javert to follow him to the barricades if given the chance.

Apart from On My Own and the wonderful I Dreamed a Dream, most of my favourite songs were the large group numbers (although it's hard to say any of the songs are weak). Red and Black was stirring and really served its purpose as a song to fire up the revolutionaries. Do You Hear the People Sing? was great, and particularly at the end, when I found myself again with tears in my eyes. Master of the House was a fun number and a great contrast to the gloomier aspects of the film. Helena Bonham Carter and Sasha Baron Cohen's characters might have been disgusting, but the only tears to be shed while watching them were tears of laughter.

The rebellion, gosh, the rebellion. How could you fail to be on the side of these men, and women, and children? I was on the edge of my seat during every scene featuring the students, and others, and their battle. Director Tom Hooper's decision to show bird's eye views on occasion really worked - seeing Marius and Enjolras and their band of men as the only barricade in the French streets as soldiers closed in on them from all sides sent chills of fear down my spine.

The only down side to the film was that it was a tad long, but still a lot shorter than the stage musical. I don't really know what I would have cut out, since everything shown was a firm part of the story, but I did find myself getting a little restless from time to time.

One of the friends I went to see the film with hated the constant close ups of people's faces, but I actually liked that, and thought the high level of acting was shown through the fact that you could see every twitch, every line. Lesser actors wouldn't have been able to be so convincing with cameras in their faces, but this group were outstanding. Every time the camera honed in on Hathaway's tormented, hollowed face, I felt her pain and believed her Fantine was suffering.

And the live singing was impressive. Sure, it wasn't always perfect, but it was as close as anyone could probably get, and the odd non-perfect note added to the experience.

I loved that the smaller human stories of love and greed were set against the backdrop of a revenge tale lasting decades and aspects of the June Rebellion. The story has so many layers and they all fit in well.

As one last point, and a confession, I kind of found Cosette boring. I understand that she was the trigger for a number of events in the film in one way or another, but as a character she's much less interesting than Eponine say, or Fantine. Marius could also have fallen into the lovesick and boring trap, but luckily is redeemed by his revolutionary status and his interactions with other characters. Poor Amanda Seyfried just doesn't get to do much as Cosette, although she is wonderful in her final scene with Jean Valjean.

Overall, Les Miserables was a great film, evidenced by the way I was still thinking about it and humming the songs the next day. As said earlier, I'll be trying to get to the stage version, and I may even tackle Victor Hugo's original book - although I'll have to put any complaints about time to one side if I do.

Film review: The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey

Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey

As a huge fan of The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) books and films, I was really looking forward to The Hobbit, even though I was dismayed to discover it was being split into three films, because really, how much can you drag a children's book out?

Quite a bit, if the first film in the trilogy, An Unexpected Journey, is anything to go by.

Clocking in at just under three hours long, An Unexpected Journey is a labour of love for Peter Jackson and co, and a measure of love for its audience. Luckily, I love the LOTR films enough to sit The Hobbit out, although there were many, many points during the film where I wished I didn't.

We begin with a brief history lesson about the glory days of the dwarf kingdom of Erebor, and see it sacked by a massive dragon, its people killed or scattered - including the legendary warrior and dwarf prince Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage).

We then join The Hobbit on the day The Fellowship of the Ring starts - the day of Bilbo's birthday. Ian Holm is back as Bilbo, with Elijah Wood as Frodo, for a brief appearance before we're taken back in time to learn more about Thorin, and then brought back to Bilbo's home, a site we know so well, for the introduction of the main story (we're about 15 minutes in at this point) - Bilbo (now played as a young man by Martin Freeman) setting off on an adventure to help Gandalf (Ian McKellan), Thorin and a company of 12 other dwarves to reclaim Erebor.

And it's here the action, sort of, begins, although there have already been two major battle scenes on screen before this point. There's a long, drawn-out introduction to all the dwarves, from the fat one to the wise one to the mischievous ones to the bitter one and so on and so on. It's a good 20 minutes, at least, of banter, throwing food around and a mournful singalong before we finally get out of the shire and onto the road.

The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey is really just one long introduction to all the characters, from the ones we already know from the LOTR (Bilbo and Gandalf) to the ones we don't (the dwarves). We see them talk their way out of trouble, proving their intelligence (or lack thereof in some cases). We see them visit Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and get an insight into their relationship with others outside the dwarf world. We see them in fight after fight after fight, where we're shown their bravery and their skill. We see them talk about their pasts, and understand why they are the way they are today. By the end of the film, I felt like I could write a 300-page biography for every character (and that's not a good thing).

It may seem like An Unexpected Journey is short on action and long on exposition, but nothing could be further from the truth. By the end I'd lost count of the amount of big set piece battle scenes, plus the many other action pieces (including mountains turning into gigantic stone people and fighting each other). I could have done without a fight or two (or seven), as those earlier on the film dimmed the impact of the two major ones at the end for me.

That is perhaps why I found Bilbo's encounter with Gollum/Smeagol (Andy Serkis) scarier and more tense than the battle scene running parallel to it, where the dwarves and Gandalf fight thousands of goblins. Or perhaps the scene between Bilbo and Gollum/Smeagol was brilliant because of the acting, and because you know Bilbo's actions here turn Middle Earth on its axis later in life. Serkis is stunning as Gollum/Smeagol, even better than he was in the LOTR. He's creepier, and more tragic, and I found myself genuinely scared by what he was going to do. And Freeman as Bilbo all the way through the film is the perfect mix of scared and gung ho, but in his scenes with Gollum/Smeagol takes it to a whole new level. Their encounter made up the best scenes in the film by a mile.

It's not just Serkis and Freeman who are great. As with the LOTR, Jackson et al have brought together some great actors. Armitage brings an underlying sense of loss and anger to everything Thorin does - he's half Aragorn and half Boromir, in the most perfect way, and particularly shows that in the climax to the film. Comparisons to the LOTR are also due with characters like Kili (Aidan Turner) and Fili (Dean O'Gorman), who are The Hobbit's Merry and Pippin, and James Nesbitt as Bofur is great. The rest of the dwarves are pretty forgettable, and their fellowship is nowhere near as compelling as that in the LOTR.

The film has been shot in 3D 48-frames-per-second, which is something technical I don't really understand but is apparently meant to make everything look amazing. In reality, I think the 3D aspect didn't really bring anything substansial to the film, and wearing the glasses for three hours was a pain.  

On the flip side The Hobbit is full of beautiful shots of sweeping landscapes and all the places the gang visit. The  shots across Middle Earth take up time, and are often unnecessary to the tale - without them the film could have been at least 15 minutes shorter. They do, however, show the work of a great CGI team and the fantastic locations of New Zealand, but they're not quite as magical as they were when we saw them in LOTR.

That magic is what is missing in The Hobbit. Yes, it's a good film, but I found myself wishing it was over about an hour before it actually was, which is a pity. I can't imagine what the next two films are going to be like, but I can only hope they take more of the good aspects of The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey (Freeman, Serkis, the occasional battle scenes), and not the bad aspects (the length, please, make them shorter).  

The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey largely served as a reminder that Tolkein's world can all too easily be rendered badly., so I'm off to remind myself how well it can be interpreted on film by watching the LOTR.

Film review: The Five-Year Engagement starring Emily Blunt and Jason Segel

Here's what I was expecting when I went to see The Five-Year Engagement - a romantic comedy with a teensy bit of angst, maybe a little bit of swearing, and an easy-to-come-by happy ending.

Here's what I got when I went to see The Five-Year Engagement - a romantic comedy that ripped my heart out before proceeding to piece it back together, a lot of awkwardness, some really rude moments and a happy ending that everyone had to work for.

And guess what? I really enjoyed the surprise.

I'm a big fan of Emily Blunt, but I never realised just how funny she could be as an actress. It would have been so easy for Blunt, as lead character Violet, to have been overshadowed by Jason Segel's Tom, but Blunt held her own, and in fact was part of the funniest scene in the film, which didn't feature Segel at all and involved Blunt arguing with her sister, with both of them doing the voices of characters from Sesame Street the whole time.

Violet and Tom have just got engaged (hilarious proposal) and are planning their wedding when Violet gets a job offer of her dreams. The couple agree Violet will take the job and schlep off to Michigan, where Tom finds himself getting increasingly more miserable without a fulfilling job, and Violet finds herself thriving on success.

Cut to a few years later and Tom has let himself go a bit, and is now living like some kind of caveman (hunting his own meat, massive amounts of facial hair).

The pair get their act together slightly and decide to go ahead and get married. Unbeknownst to Tom, the catalyst is because Violet has been kissed by her boss. Tom almost doesn't find out, but in a heartwrenching scene he runs away after discovering the truth, does something he really regrets, and wakes up naked in a forest the next morning and has to have his toe amputated.

Tom and Violet's drifting apart is filled with comic moments, but it's hard to watch them go through the tough times, and when Tom was wondering through the forest I found my laughter turning into (unshed) tears as the moment turned from comic to tragic.

As a side plot to Tom and Violet are Tom's best friend Alex and Violet's sister Suzie, who stumble their way into a relationship and somehow manage to make it work, despite being completely unsuited to each other and yelling at each other most of the time they're on screen together. The other two romantic relationships on screen - Violet's dad and stepmum, and Tom's parents - are also far from smooth yet both couples make it work, and all three relationships act as a contrast, and something to aspire to in some ways, for Tom and Violet.

The relationships in The Five-Year Engagement aren't pretty ones - there are no slow motion kisses in the rain, no well-timed coincidental meetings. Instead, The Five-Year Engagement is a romantic comedy with a slightly realistic edge. It's still a film so it can't mirror real life completely, but I enjoyed the move-like happy ending even more because of the reality that preceeded it.

DVD review: Machine Gun Preacher, starring Gerard Butler

So let me start out by saying that the name Machine Gun Preacher didn't exactly do this film any favours by making me want to watch it.

Luckily, I decided to try and ignore the name, and actually discovered a film that, while it might not win any prizes, was actually quite a compelling watch.

Machine Gun Preacher is inspired by the true story of Sam Childers and his efforts to save children in South Sudan who were targeted by Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army (LRA).

If those names sound familiar, that's because in the last week or so the internet has been buzzing after Invisible Children released a film in an effort to make Kony famous, to expose what he has been doing (kidnapping and killing children, forcing them to serve in the LRA or marrying them off to his "soldiers") and result in his arrest.   

Machine Gun Preacher's release is therefore unintentionally well-timed, although it largely ignores Kony in favour of his victims, and is really the story of one man, not one man against another.

 

Played by Gerard Butler, Sam is released from prison intent on going back to his boozy, drug-filled days.

The film starts slowly, and I found my attention wandered during the scenes where Sam slipped back into old habits, eventually robbing a house of drug dealers at gunpoint and stealing drugs so he can get high.

The first section of the film culminates in a scene where Sam and friend Donnie (Michael Shannon), having robbed the house, are driving home while high, and discover someone in the back seat of the car.

Unfortunately, having become a little bit bored, I have no idea who this person was, but he was beaten to a pulp by Sam before being thrown out of the car.

Finally feeling guilty about something, Sam gives in and goes with his wife and their daughter to church, where his transformation into upstanding citizen begins.

On a visit to church Sam hears from a preacher working in East Africa, and decides to go to the region and do some work there, helping to build homes.

This is when the film really picks up. Sam, inspired by the suffering he has seen on a visit to a local hospital, comes back home and builds a church to help all those who don’t feel comfortable in a regular church - drug addicts, prostitutes and his friend Donnie.

In addition to the church in his home town, Sam makes plans to build an orphanage in Sudan. Trips back to the country only draw him deeper into a tense political situation, and Sam himself becomes the victim, as arsonists attack his first attempt at building an orphanage.

The film has some really harrowing scenes - in particular one where Sam goes back to collect a group of children and discovers they have all been killed. That is probably the film's darkest moment, and you may want to have a tissue or two handy just in case.

But the darker moments are interspersed with lighter scenes of happiness, as the youngsters find a home at Sam’s orphanage.

Machine Gun Preacher has two narrative threads - what Sam is doing in Africa, and the life he lives and leaves behind in America.

Every scene back in America shows him become increasingly frustrated with those who care so little for what is happening on their own planet. Particularly memorable is when he is invited to a barbecue held by a local businessman he has asked for a donation. When that donation arrives, a mere $150, Sam storms out of the party, ranting to his wife and daughter that the man has spent more on salsa for his party than on saving human lives.

The increasingly frantic nature of Sam’s quest affects his family life, so much so that he almost sacrifices one for the other. It comes to a head with a scene Despite its bleak subject matter, Sam's narrative thread does end relatively happily.

Machine Gun Preacher had a much gentler ending than I expected, with two emotional scenes featuring Sam. One in particular, brings the film full circle, and involves a beautiful bit of acting from one of the film's child stars.

Despite its name, Machine Gun Preacher is an emotional journey through the troubles of northern Uganda and southern Sudan, an area that is still suffering today.