Last month’s Academy Awards ceremony passed with little drama and few surprises. Despite the last 12 months having yielded an unusual number of high-quality films the OSCARS ceremony received its lowest ratings since 1974. Why should this be? Aside from the fact that most of the awards are presented in the early hours of the moring in the UK, most people seem to be suggesting the the general public didn’t particularly connect with the films up for the main awards. So, either the Academy are clueless, film executives have lost touch with their market or people don’t know a good film when they see one (or rather, don’t). Although there may be some truth in all of these I am personally convinced that it is the latter reason which is most to blame.

Rather than starting to review generic rubbish, over the coming weeks I will write about some of my favourite films of the last year which, perhaps, have not received the acclaim they deserve.

I always imagined that the lives of the American outlaws of the 19^th Century must have been filled with impetuous acts of daring and death-defying escapes with barely time to catch their breath between one shootout and the next robbery. I had subconsciously assumed that the entirety of the time between their first criminal act and their inevitably premature death had played out like an extended version of Bonnie and Clyde, with that same sense of youthful recklessness. Commonly, films about gunfighters and mercenaries, even great ones such as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid or Sergio Leone’s ‘Spaghetti Westerns’, have largely supported such a notion. In this sense, as in several others, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (TAJJCRF) breaks the mould of how the stories of such men should be related.

With such a cumbersome title (almost to the point of being pretentious) few can have expected the film to be a massive box office success. Neither is the film intended to be a fast-paced, crowd-pleasing thriller that happened to be set in a particular time and place. There are few tense stand-offs (at least where guns are involved) and few acts of remarkable skill or bravery. Furthermore, strangely for a film about perhaps the most famous bandit of all time, but TAJJCRF features only one actual robbery.

It is clear from the film’s outset that the goal of its director, Andrew Dominik, is to convey a more accurate idea of what life was like for men such as Jesse James. In many ways, TAJJCRF resembles the German film, Der Untergang, about Adolf Hitler’s final days in his bunker. The directors of each film clearly shared a belief that the true natures of their respective protagonists could be best captured not in the heat of battle or the glory of triumph but in the uneasy stillness as things gradually unravelled around them. It is in exactly such a period in which the duration of TAJJCRF takes place.

Perhaps the first thing that struck me first about this film was its excellent cinematography. Roger Deakins, long the preferred cinematographer of the Coen Brothers amongst others, has recently established himself at the very top of his field. This year he received two of the four Academy Award nominations for cinematography – for No Country for Old Men as well as TAJJCRF. In the latter of these two very differently shot films, perhaps the most striking feature of his work was his exceptional use of framing. As obscure as such a feature may seem, as well as increasing the film’s aesthetic appeal, framing can add context and therefore meaning to what might otherwise be a fairly ordinary scene.

The story is largely told through the eyes of Robert Ford, a young aspiring gunslinger who idolises James and eventually succeeds in befriending him. In his role as the naïve, socially awkward Ford, Casey Affleck excels. His performance displays a depth and attention to detail too seldom seen. From his vacant yet vaguely malignant grin in the early scenes (reminiscent of Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket) through to his empty gaze of resignation towards the end, through Affleck we watch Ford’s transformation from an ambitious nobody to a dejected somebody.

The rest of the cast were good, but none of them, including Brad Pitt as Jesse James, come close to matching Affleck’s performance. It is here where the film’s main problem lies. As convincing as he is, it is difficult not to feel that Pitt’s portrayal of James represents something of a missed opportunity. Were James a more interesting character, the film (the first hour in particular) may not have seemed quite so long. As it stands, for those unable to appreciate the film’s more subtle qualities the first half may be too slow to persuade them to continue to give it their full attention. That is a great shame, because for those willing to dedicate the level of concentration the film requires and deserves, TAJJCRF is an unforgettable experience. It’s a story not about heroes and villains but about men, neither wholly good nor wholly bad, struggling for respect, recognition and ultimately survival, in a hostile and unforgiving environment. 

Rating: 8.6/10

There will be Blood is an epic film in every sense of the word. At almost three hours long, spanning almost 30 years and featuring several unforgettable scenes, it is the kind of film that has dominated the Academy Awards since they began. However, in our culture of immediacy, as audience concentration spans wane, such films are becoming increasingly rare.

If there is one film that is guaranteed to win a major award on Sunday, it is There will be Blood. This is simply because it features by far and away the best performance by an actor of any film released in the last 12 months. The ever-political George Clooney recently likened himself to Hilary Clinton to Daniel Day-Lewis’ Barack Obama. However, the truth is, that the gap between Day-Lewis’ performance and that of his nearest rival is actually far greater than currently exists between the two democrat presidential candidates. Such is the intensity with which Day-Lewis imbues Daniel Plainview that it is almost impossible to cast your eyes from the screen while he is on it – which the majority of the film’s 158 minute duration.

There Will Be Blood’s problem, if it has one, is that it is almost exclusively occupied by the successes, failures and struggles of its central character. Daniel Plainview himself, although always interesting, is certainly not the most endearing of men. Indeed, while at first we will him to succeed, as the film progresses the cost of his success becomes increasingly apparent as an unhappy outcome seems ever more inevitable.

However, Daniel Plainview does not have a monopoly on manipulation within the film. Paul Dano is compelling as the over-zealous yet seemingly sincere preacher, Eli. As a Christian myself, I wince whenever Christianity is unfavourably or inaccurately portrayed in a film or on TV. However, I cannot dispute the historical validity of such a character, nor the effectiveness of the way in which Eli is used to develop the dynamic of the film.

To say that the tone of the film as a whole is sombre would be a considerable understatement. Many of the principal characters, including Daniel Plainview himself, seem to have been stripped of their humanity by their own selfish ambition. Furthermore, the mood is heightened by the fact that most of the important scenes in the film take place in the dark.

Many people are already beginning to liken There will be Blood to Citizen Kane and indeed, as studies of the lives of men driven by ambition, the two have much in common. However, although it is difficult to imagine how There will be Blood might have been improved as a film, it simply cannot compete with Citizen Kane in terms of innovation and, ultimately, cinematic importance.

Rating: 8.7/10

To see reviews of the other nominated films, please use the links below.

Who would have thought that a comedy about teenage pregnancy would become one of the most acclaimed films of 2008? Yet that, essentially, is what Juno is. Fortunately, crude jokes and American Pie-esque situations are conspicuously absent, as are the scenes of sexual promiscuity and estrangement that might have been expected.

What we have instead, is a gentle off-beat story with sympathetic characters and amusing yet believable dialog. Indeed it is character development which is the key to Juno’s success. Ellen Page, as Juno, is utterly convincing as a girl who is (as she herself admits) having to “deal with issues way beyond her maturity level”. Michael Cera deserves a special mention, as the baby’s father, Paulie, but in truth, the supporting cast all do a good job.

Juno deals with the sensitive issues at its core by not stripping Juno and Paulie of their innocence – they’re just kids who have made a mistake and are trying to do the right thing for the child and for each other. The emotional confusion and awkwardness which results is portrayed with affection and the conclusion is indisputably heart-warming.

Despite the authenticity of the dialog, the slightly repetitive use of long words by the youngsters does occasionally grate but this is easily forgiven. The story, dialogue and performances are supported by an excellent score, which features unfamiliar songs that nevertheless perfectly capture the spirit of the film. The overall result is a refreshing and uplifting experience.

Rating: 8.4/10

To see reviews of the other nominated films, please use the links below.

 

On the surface this film looks like just another glossy legal thriller. Its cause isn’t helped by a trailer which reveals a little too much of the plot and a dull poster that must, presumably, be clever in ways that I’m not able to appreciate. The film employs the now ubiquitous non-linear storyline, beginning as it does with an ultimately insignificant episode part way through the period covered by the film.

Nevertheless, after the opening ten minutes, during which George Clooney’s titular character is introduced, the film soon settles into its rhythm and is mercifully free of perplexing flashbacks and twists. What Michael Clayton turns out to be, is a fairly conventional thriller, albeit an uncommonly good one. The script is sharp, the tension is maintained throughout and the film features three stand-out performances.

Clooney is understated yet excellent as the former trial lawyer who becomes frustrated with his role as a ‘fixer’, helping to extract his clients, and his firm itself, from various sticky situations. As the film progresses, Clooney convincingly portrays a man who, although unflappable in his job, must come to terms with numerous failing in his private life. With a similarly restrained performance, Tilda Swinton, plays a ruthlessly ambitious executive. However, it is the excellent Tom Wilkinson who really steals the show in the film’s one ‘showy’ role. Wilkinson plays Arthur Edens, a brilliant but unstable attorney who, stricken with guilt and convinced of the guilt of his client, turns his back on the firm and seeks to start a new life for himself.

The impressive attention to detail really adds to the authenticity of the action taking place on screen and although Michael Clayton features few shocking twists the conclusion never feels certain.

Rating: 8.2/10

To see reviews of the other nominated films, please use the links below.

If you have ever seen the likes of Fargo, Miller’s Crossing, The Big Lebowski or O Brother Where art Thou? you will probably be aware that the Coen brothers’ most recent two films, Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers fell considerably short of the high standards we had come to expect from them. That being the case you will be relieved to hear that No Country for Old Men represents a spectacular return to form for Joel and Ethan and stands as possibly their greatest achievement to date.

The majority of the film is occupied by a 90 minute chase between Llewelyn, a regular guy who happens upon $2 million of drug money, and Anton, the brutal assassin sent to retrieve it. Tommy Lee Jones plays Ed, the small town Sherriff who tries to protect Lew from the monster he has unleashed. In Anton Chigurh, the Coen brothers, together with Javier Bardem and author Cormack McCarthy, have created one of the most menacing cinematic villains since Darth Vader took his first steps on the Correllian Corvette.

The often humorous off-beat dialogue, together with some particularly innovative and disturbing weapons and an unforgettable performance from Bardem as the killer with a Beatles-esque hair cut, raise Anton far above the level occupied most of the recent plethora of psychotic killers. The tension is heightened by the skilful direction and the complete uncertainty experienced by the viewer as to which characters will survive. Tommy Lee Jones’ Sherriff represents an effective development of ‘The Stranger’ in The Big Lebowski; an individual only loosely involved in the main events of the film who is nevertheless aware of the nature of what is unfolding and gives various literal and metaphorical incites for the benefit of the viewer. 

The film does not attempt to tie up all of its loose ends and as such concludes leaving several questions unanswered – much to the frustration of the audience in the cinema in which I watched it. However, such an ending is very much in keeping with the themes of chaos and injustice running throughout the film. In contrast to Frances McDormand’s Marge in Fargo, Tommy Lee Jones’ Sherriff finds himself quite unable to control the reckless lawlessness within his region of Texas. He finds that, with age, he is feeling increasingly alienated from the society in which he has spent his whole life. 

It’s always dangerous to watch a film with high expectations but No Country for Old Men didn’t disappoint me on any level and is my favourite film of the last 12 months.

Rating: 9.1/10

To see reviews of the other nominated films, please use the links below.

With this years most prestigious film awards ceremony taking place soon, I have finally managed to see all of the Best Film nominees. So, just how good are they?

An adaptation of Ian McEwan’s supposedly ‘unfilmable’ novel of the same name, one may be forgiven for imagining that Atonement is a film about war. However, although there are all the usual sequences of military hospitals and air raids, more fundamentally, Atonement is a film about guilt and responsibility. It follows the development of the relationship between Keira Knightly’s Cecilia Tallis and James McAvoy’s Robbie Turner (a childhood friend who works as a gardener on the estate), up until a pivotal central moment, during which their lives are irrevocably changed.

Despite the fact that Knightly and McAvoy get the majority of the screen time, the most important character in the story is Cecilia’s younger sister, Briony, who is very capably played by both Saoirse Ronan (young) and Ramola Garai (older). The film makes use of clever editing and selective repetition to convey Briony’s own perspective on the events leading to the fateful moment, as they unfold.

The second section of the film is split between Robbie’s life as a soldier in France and the lives of Cecilia and Briony, working as nurses in England. This section exhibits some of the film’s most striking cinematographic sequences, most notably the amazing (although admittedly not entirely essential) extended tracking shot along the beach at Dunkirk.

Atonement does have its flaws – most notably the film is necessarily fragmented making reflection on the film as a whole somewhat difficult. Nevertheless, Atonement’s quality is unmistakable. The performances from the four leads are all excellent and the cinematography, direction and screenplay are each of the highest standard. Crucially, the film handles its principle question and theme in an honest yet sensitive manner and ends in a way that is surprising and thought-provoking in equal measure.

Rating: 8.5/10

To see reviews of the other nominated films, please use the links below.