The Good, the Bad and the just plain Ugly: The Ten best films of 2013 according to Jon Petre.

It's been a magnificent first year for us here at Utopia Reviews. And I've watched a lot of films this year, so Scott and I thought that we'd make a list of 20 movies that we thought to be of special significance this year. Unlike my comrade, I have decided to divide my opinions into a two-page extraordinaire--ten of my favorites, ten of my absolute worst movies.

10. Elysium

Gah! It's like something out of a bad 70's Doctor Who episode.

Niell Blomkamp didn't fail to deliver with Elysium. Similar themes were seen in Elysium as District 9, and they worked well--I enjoyed the almost Marxist struggle between the Earth dwellers and their ultra-rich Elysium counterparts (Cough cough, Bourgeois). This would probably have been higher on my list, if it hadn't been for the extremely forgettable characters.

9. Wreck-it-Ralph

I thoroughly enjoyed Wreck it Ralph. The internal monologue and underlying plot of "be yourself" was better than many other Disney movies--especially the racist, pseudo-fascist early ones--and John C Reily can never fail to make me laugh. I've always enjoyed where in kids' movies there is a hidden, parallel world (possibly the only reason that I've ever slightly enjoyed Flushed Away) and Wreck-it-Ralph captured this perfectly. Forgive me though, but although the slight irony of the Candy Kingdom was by no means lost on me, I found it all a bit too...sickly sweet?


8. Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Please use my term. It's the only reason people will remember me.

Although I may have slated the YA genre (well, can you blame me? Twilight, City of Bones...let's hope John Green follows JK Rowling...) before, Hunger Games has grown on me quite substantially. At first, I thought that it was a stupid premise, the direction taken with Catching Fire has melted my stony heart. I'm a sucker for a good DAOT (Dystopian Autocracy, Oppressive Technocracy; I'm trying to get this to be a real phrase) and can I really say that Hunger Games hasn't sold me? Hopefully more young people will understand the severity of the Great British Nanny State soon, with HG's help.


7. Prisoners

Prisoners was a perfect allegory for McCarthy-esque society. One that jumps to conclusions, terrorizes people on stereotype, and generally is quite fallible. Prisoners was entertaining, jumpy, and came with a better cliffhanger than a Primark on Beachy Head. It was actually quite disturbing at times (just glance at my title for the review of it), but all in all, a good little piece.


6. Star Trek: Into Darkness

Now, I know that JJ Abrams ripped off a lot of Into Darkness from earlier Star Trek movies, and those GOD AWFUL lens flares cannot be excused, but for sheer Space Opera value and easy-watchabilityness, Star Trek was good fun. Benedict Cumberbatch showed his ability for playing villains once more, but I hope that he doesn't fall into the same trap as Alan Rickman. Simple Sci-Fi fun. If you liked this, watch Firefly.

5. Pacific Rim

Surely you can't begrudge me this one? Pacific Rim was a good old fashioned robotic-man-v-giant-death-lizard, and for that, I say touche to Del Toro. It seems like the sort of thing that a childhood me would run around the garden for, and I liked that about it. But in the same way, departure from tradition also improved it; Too many SF films these days try to go for realism and plausibility--which is always good, but often fails--; that was thrown to the floor and instead we were just left to enjoy Pacific Rim for what it is. I like that.

Essentially, it's a movie about various beetle Godzillas.

4. Gravity 

Despite the fact it was basically a Sandra Bullock movie, Gravity impressed me. Essentially a play in one room, it managed to create a sense of wonder, claustrophobia, paranoia and agoraphobia--all at once. That's uncommonly cool. The physics were pretty much sound, and the characters 3D and compelling. If this isn't what makes a film-theoretically sound film good, then there's not much hope for any of us. Also, I bet she landed in North Korea. Now THAT'd be a better cliffhanger than a Primark on Beachy Head.

3. The World's End

I mean, come on--who can't love that?

The conclusion to the Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy was by no means the best of the three, but it was still one of the best movies of the year. A bit heavier, but hey. A sound and sturdy British SF movie, which is something I hope we'll be seeing a lot more of in the late 2010's and beyond. My only qualm was from the failure to add the "Yeah Boy/Roy" joke. It wasn't hard. But I can't stay mad at Simon Pegg, or Nick Frost.



2. The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

Despite its many flaws, The Hobbit in many ways acted in the same way as Pacific Rim on me--childish wonder has won me over, and I'm able to forgive its flaws. It was just magnificent. Bilbo wasn't really the protagonist? Well, at least the Dwarves were characterized. The sheer volume of the Dwarves' wealth was explored at Erebor, and Smaug was pretty amazing--despite his lack of two extra legs. Just go and see it. Although Scott disagrees with me, I hope it's not a marmite movie; you either love it or you hate it.

It's like a Rorschach test, eh? 

And Finally...

1. Cloud Atlas

Is that not an amazing do?

Cloud Atlas was amazing. It was an interesting concept, and it followed in the footsteps of Inception--it had an agenda and it developed. Despite its pretty massive runtime--at least in terms of easy watching--I found it rich and engaging all the way through. I always say about B movies that you can tell how interested you were by trying to remember the characters' names; not that Cloud Atlas is a B movies, not by a long shot--it's just that I have described someone's hairdo as "Frobisher-esque. There's little else to be said. Just watch it.

My Top 20 films of 2013 by Scott Gentry.

It's been a an exciting year for film, whether it be through action, or unsung classics; there's been something for everyone. Now it's time to count down my top 20 films of 2013, I hope you enjoy reading the list and I welcome any feedback that you all may have. Have a great Christmas and a happy new year!

- Scott Gentry

 

My Top 20 films of 2013

1) The Place Beyond The Pines  

2) Stoker

3) Mud

4) The Kings Of Summer

5) Gravity

6) Robot and Frank

7) Cloud Atlas

8) Django Unchained

9) Behind The Candelabra

10) A Field In England

11) Trance

12) Nebraska

13) Prisoners

14) Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

15) The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty

16) The Way Way Back

17) The Impossible

18) Man Of Steel

19) Zero Dark Thirty

20) The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Smaug IS Magnificent; The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug lives up to the hype, and more.

Well, The Desolation of Smaug was amazing. That's really all there is to it.

Specifics? Okay. I was really looking forward to Desolation, and I was not disappointed. It was just as stunning and impressive as the LOTR series, as well as Unexpected Journey. I must say, Peter Jackson hasn't slowed down whatsoever; it's phenomenal that he's been able to create upward of 12 hours of pure entertainment gold. Honestly, the franchise really has outdone itself, and I'm glad that, like so many other franchises, the quality of the films hasn't gone down--unlike many begotten stories, the Tolkien estate is rather a dragon's horde; guarded well and immensely valuable.

Desolation carried on just where Unexpected Journey left off--for those of you who've read the book, this may make more sense than for those who haven't--the Dwarves and Bilbo have just descended the Carrock and are just about to enter Mirkwood. They're pursued by the Warg riders, as well as a gargantuan bear. But, you know what? I'll say no more, because it's a roller coaster from start to finish-I wouldn't want to ruin any of it for you.



The CGI was amazing. I really don't like 3D (It's a good idea, but Consumerism has ruined it), and I guarantee it will still be just as effective in 2D. The Mirkwood Spiders were cringe-worthily good, as was Smaug. One of my favorite features was the snowy, Hansa-esque Laketown and its, shall we say, charismatic? leaders. And its Pugs. Just simple things made it authentic, from the floating ice chunks to the  generally poor quality of the town. The barrel-ride was fun--I can see a theme park ride coming along--and the battle with [SPOILERS] was amazing. I still think that they should have made two films rather than one, but nevertheless, I can't wait for the next one.

Now, to the faults. Despite it's amazingness there were a few discrepancies. Now get ready for some SPOILERS. The love triangle between Tauriel, Kili and Legolas was pretty unnecessarry. I mean, It wasn't in the book, and while I can deal with a little light changes, what do we say to the God of Fairly Substantial Plot Changes? Not today. Nevertheless, The barrel sequence and the general mise en scene of the Woodland Realm was nice. I enjoyed the tree-like caves, which hints at the enclave soceity of the forest elves; they've carved and shaped their caves massievly because, when you're immortal and isolated from the rest of the world, there's not a lot else to do.

There was a lot more emphasis on the Gandalf sub-story this time, as well as the whole "Quest to save the world" vibe as the LOTR series, which was characteristically absent from the first Hobbit movie--that's not a problem, because unlike LOTR, The Hobbit is a kid's book--but it was pulled off quite effectively, as was Benedict Cumberbatch as the Necromancer. Another thing that was quite annoying was the fact that, for the large part of the film, Biblo was a secondary character, instead of the protragonist. Granted, the Lake-town chapters are lacking in the hobbit department, but still.

But you know what? I don't care. To quote Kurt Vonnegut, "Any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or She is like a person who has put on full battle armour and attacked a hot fudge sundae." Alright, it's a film, not a book, but the point still stands. If we're going to criticise the literary significance of an adaptation (as long as it's not truly awful), then we are stupid. What is the purpose of a film? To entertain! And if it does that by bending the rules slightly, then so what? Sure, the love triangle was unnecessary, but it does add to the characterisation of all three characters--something which was also absent in Unexpected Journey--as well as King Thranduil; the film made up for the lack of hobbit by making the hobbits and Bard interesting, and it's not like I didn't enjoy the Gandalf side-story. If anything I wanted more information about it in the book.

So I enjoyed Desolation, despite its faults. Peter Jackson's lucky to have good enough actors and a big enough budget to allow the audience to overlook these hiccups, and as long as the next movie isn't a three hour rendition of Gollum singing "Ich bin eine Gummi Bar" then it's going to be quite hard for them to go wrong.

5 Stars out of 5!!!

Jon Petre

The News Team is back, Whammy! Scott Gentry reviews Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

"Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" (15)
Director: Adam McKay.
Starring: Will Ferrell, Steve Carrell, David Koechner, Paul Rudd and Kristen Wiig. 
Rated: 15 for containing infrequent strong sex references, and hard drug use.
Running time: 119 minutes.
Released: 18th of December, 2013. 

"Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" now finds Ron (Will Ferrell) and the gang putting the seventies behind them and embracing the eighties, with the job of working on America's first 24 hour news channel, to hilarious effect.

When its predecessor ("Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy") arrived in UK cinemas back in 2004, it almost failed to find an audience. Showing in a limited amount of screens, many people avoided the film and instead waited for the DVD release. Thanks to the release of the film on DVD, it achieved a cult following and it's fan base has since grown considerably in numbers. Some say that we've waited too long for a sequel, but I disagree.

The return of "Anchorman" was slightly feared by fans and many people argued whether the new instalment would be made terribly and ruin the reputation of its predecessor; but it honestly doesn't. In fact, the cast and crew have had nine long years to bring back some of our favourite comic creations, in classic style. Was it worth the wait? Definitely. 


Satirising America yet again, Adam McKay and his team provide their customary brand of zany and silly humour, which some people just can't grasp. It's unfortunate, because when "Anchorman" clicks, it works really well.

Much like part one, "A2:TLC"  provides plenty of hilarious one-liners and quickly descends into madness throughout the third act. There are plenty of memorable scenes, including a battle between all the news-teams (including a bucket load of cameos) and a scene involving a bottle fed shark. Confused? I certainly was! 

The cast are once again superb, with Will Ferrell leading an all star cast, including the likes of Steve Carrell and Kristen Wiig, who both provide a hilarious love interest/side story which works well, considering the already over-crowded plot-line. 

The film's only weakness is its length; teetering on the edge of two hours, the film unfortunately begins to lose momentum throughout the second act. However, it provides a brilliant comedy sequel that actually works where so many films have tried and failed. 

Verdict

A great sequel which could obviously never live up to the original, but entertains perfectly well, revealing new characters and plenty of genuine laughs; "A2:TLC" is definitely classy. 

7.5 Stars out of 10.

Written by Scott Gentry.

Film Rating Key

1-2 stars out of ten = Awful.

3-4 stars out of ten = Average.

5-6 stars out of ten = Good.

7-8 stars out of ten = Excellent.

9-10 stars out of ten = Amazing.

Breaking free from normality... Scott Gentry reviews "The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty", directed by and starring Ben Stiller.

"The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty"(PG)
Directed by: Ben Stiller.
Starring: Ben Stiller, Kristen Wiig, Adam Scott and Sean Penn.
Rated: PG for containing infrequent moderate violence, mild language and sex references.
Running time: 114 minutes. 
Released on the 26th of December, 2013.

Walter Mitty (Ben Stiller) is a daydreamer; constantly zoning out during conversations and visiting various scenarios, he's never fully engaged for longer than five minutes. Despite his heroic and adventurous dreams, Walter is not like this in real life. Shy and timid, Walter works at "Life" magazine producing photos for each front cover. Upon receiving a package from famed photographer Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn), Walter realises that the negative due to be used for the last ever cover of "Life" magazine, is missing. To complete his work, Walter embarks on a global journey to find the missing picture.

The film itself focuses on the final publication of "Life" magazine, and funnily enough in real life, the magazine ceased publication in the year 2000; and has long since been involved with newspaper supplements and an online version (all of them however no longer exist). Which is a shame, as the magazine itself had a great reputation for photographs of famous (some infamous) icons and events, including the photo named "A Nurse In Sailors Arms" by Alfred Eisenstaed; which featured a couple kissing whilst celebrating the end of World War Two.

After living in development hell for almost twenty years, "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" has worked with countless actors (including Owen Wilson, Scarlett Johansson and Sacha Baron Cohen), directors and distributors. 

Eventually finding its feet in 2010, Steven Conrad (writer of "The Pursuit of Happiness") was attached to write the film and soon after, Ben Stiller was cast as the film's main lead and director. But, this isn't the first film based upon James Thurber's 1939 classic story, it was adapted and directed by Norman Z. McLeod who produced a wonderful film, which  was ranked 479th on Empire Magazine's top 500 films of all time; back in 2008. What's also quite interesting, is that the producer's (of the 2013 version) father Samuel Goldwyn produced the original version, back in 1947. Talk about keeping it in the family!

 Having not directed a feature length film in five years, "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" marks Ben Stiller's long awaited return to the directing chair and deservedly so. "Tropic Thunder" was a big step for Stiller and proved how talented he really is. 

What's really difficult, is trying to explain the film to someone. Is it a film relating to drama, adventure or comedy? It honestly is a film quite close to the "cult" status. That said, the film entertains regardless. 

"The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" is different and at this moment in the year, I think I was quite open to something that deviated from your typical American fantasy film. This film did just that, it was quirky, yet vivid and that is the film's strong point.

Regrettably, the film (despite its 114 minute running time) feels short on some substance. It's a minor blip, as "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" is actually very entertaining as a worthy family film. The script is pure gold, and centres not on the comedic aspects of Ben Stiller's acting style, but his other qualities as a dramatic actor. The cinematography is also quite beautiful, shot by Stuart Dryburgh ("The Piano"), the film looks real and most definitely believable.

The acting is good, and entertains particularly well, with Kristen Wiig and Ben Stiller each giving a performance which is fairly interesting and not easily forgettable; even Sean Penn (in his limited role) brings a certain greatness to the film. The soundtrack is brilliant, including music from Arcade Fire and David Bowie both fitting into the film's themes perfectly.

Verdict 

An excellent film for Christmas time, ambitious and entertaining, "The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty" is this year's "Life Of Pi".

8 stars out of 10

Written by Scott Gentry.

Film Rating Key

1-2 stars out of ten = Awful.

3-4 stars out of ten = Average.

5-6 stars out of ten = Good.

7-8 stars out of ten = Excellent.

9-10 stars out of ten = Amazing.

Scott Gentry reviews "Nebraska" a fantastic triumph from the director of "Sideways", Alexander Payne.

"Nebraska" (15)
Director: Alexander Payne.
Starring: Bruce Dern and Will Forte.
Rated: 15, for containing infrequent strong language and moderate sex references.
Running time: 115 minutes.
Out now in UK cinemas.

After winning a million dollars in a sweepstakes, alcoholic Woody Grant (Dern), decides to collect the winnings from the company's office in Nebraska. Upon hearing this, Woody's family confront him as they feel that he's making a huge mistake and refuse to take him. After much consideration, his estranged son (Forte) decides to accompany Woody on this perplexing road-trip, in a last-minute bid; to reconnect with his father. 

When it comes to writing complex comedies, Alexander Payne is definitely your man. Reaching Hollywood fame with his 2004 hit "Sideways", Payne has established himself as an ambitious director, who is always masterful in the art of film-making. 

Hollywood comedy/dramas have definitely been given a run for their money here and should quake in fear at this hilarious piece; as comedies just aren't made like this anymore. The film is crafted beautifully, from some excellent camera shots, right down to the script. Although it's surprisingly not written by Payne, Bob Nelson (a relatively new writer, except for a TV series) has adapted Payne's style and made it his own. 


Bruce Dern (an acting legend from the 70's) delivers a stellar performance (he won best actor at the Cannes Film Festival for this role), who acts in a way what can only be described as the best role of his career. Will Forte is well cast into his role and fits in successfully, with the 'lost son' stereotype. Stacy Keach plays his character Ed Pegram brilliantly and frequently performs the roles of villain's, so generally speaking, this role was a walk in the park. In addition, June Squibb and Bob Odenkirk act admirably in their supporting roles, leaving each scene with hilarious witticism.

The soundtrack fits in perfectly well with the film, to deliver some almost melancholic pieces, to accompany some heartfelt scenes. 


Verdict 

A clear contender for the 2014 Oscars and Academy Awards; "Nebraska" breathes fresh air into the comedy genre ever so well.

8 stars out of 10.

Written by Scott Gentry

Film Rating Key

1-2 stars out of ten = Awful.

3-4 stars out of ten = Average.

5-6 stars out of ten = Good.

7-8 stars out of ten = Excellent.

9-10 stars out of ten = Amazing.

Turkeys are coming off the menu... Scott Gentry reviews "Free Birds", a tacky animated film from the director of "Jonah Hex".

"Free Birds" (U)
Director: Jimmy Hayward.
Starring (voices only):  Woody Harrelson, Owen Wilson, Dan Fogler, and George Takei.
Rated: U for containing mild threat, slapstick and infrequent very mild language.
Running time: 91 minutes.
Out now in UK cinemas.

Thanksgiving. It's the time of year that Turkeys fear the most. For Reggie (Owen Wilson) however, he doesn't seem to fear it as much as all the other turkeys. When accidentally separated from his flock, Reggie is forced into teaming up with Jake (Woody Harrelson) and accidentally travels back in time, to change the thanksgiving menu forever. 

What begins as a fairly entertaining family comedy, "Free Birds" quickly becomes a one-way ticket into boredom. The plot is over-complicated and confusing at times, which just made me frustrated. 

The film's animation isn't the problem here, but the script is. Making hardly any sense at all (its fine taking turkeys off the Thanksgiving menu, what about the Christmas menu?) the film's best jokes are wasted in the opening scene, leaving hardly anything entertaining for the last two-thirds. 


Jimmy Hayward's previous films are quite a mixed bunch; however "Horton Hear's A Who" was surprisingly good and proved that Hayward is able to direct; but "Jonah Hex" was a set-back and opened to terrible reviews from critics.


Verdict

"Free Birds" is a particularly soulless animation which may entertain the less 'aware' of children, but could just send parents over the edge. To liken this to "Chicken Run" would be criminal.

2 stars out of 10.

Written by Scott Gentry.

Film Rating Key

1-2 stars out of ten = Awful.

3-4 stars out of ten = Average.

5-6 stars out of ten = Good.

7-8 stars out of ten = Excellent.

9-10 stars out of ten = Amazing.

Danny, not so dire... Scott Gentry reviews "Vendetta", starring Danny Dyer.

"Vendetta" (18)
Director: Stephen Reynolds.
Starring: Danny Dyer, Roxanne McKee, Vincent Regan and Alistair Petrie. 
Rated: 18, for containing strong sadistic violence and gore.
Running time: 106 minutes.
Out now in UK cinemas.


After returning home from a tour in Afghanistan, Jimmy Vickers (Danny Dyer) arrives in London to discover that his parents have been brutally murdered. After hearing this, he decides to unleash his revenge upon the (unsuspecting) criminals responsible; with graphic results.

For a low budget British film, "Vendetta" tries extremely hard to become a British answer to "Death Wish"; but fails in the long run. However, it is an admirable achievement. 

Despite having a budget of £100,000, the film looks and feels extremely professional; with cinematographer Haider Zafar adding quite a polished look to the film. 

The film is obviously (partly) tongue-in cheek, delivering funny one-liners from time to time. It's simply a film that you cannot take seriously.

He's not my favourite actor by far, but Danny Dyer acts considerably well; delivering numerous scenes of gripping on-screen presence. The supporting cast are also quite enjoyable to watch, with Alistair Petrie ("Cloud Atlas") providing an often-comedic approach to his character, Spencer Holland.

Verdict

Partly serious and to some degree quite witty, "Vendetta" has been made noticeably well. It's no "Death Wish" and I wouldn't particularly want to watch it again, but for what it's worth; it's an entertaining piece.

5 stars out of 10

Written by Scott Gentry.

Film Rating Key

1-2 stars out of ten = Awful.

3-4 stars out of ten = Average.

5-6 stars out of ten = Good.

7-8 stars out of ten = Excellent.

9-10 stars out of ten = Amazing.

The Mafia are less intimidating than I remember... Scott Gentry reviews "The Family" starring Robert De Niro.

"The Family" (15)
Director: Luc Besson.
Starring: Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Dianna Agron, John D'Leo and Tommy Lee Jones.
Rated: 15 for containing, strong violence, strong language and sex. 
Running time: 111 minutes.
Out now in UK cinemas.

After betraying their friends in the Mafia, the Manzoni family (De Niro, Pfeiffer, Agron and D'Leo) are forced to re-locate to France, under a witness protection program; led by CIA agent Stansfield (Tommy Lee Jones). However, it's not long before the family revert to their old habits and threaten their cover.

I honestly wanted to enjoy "The Family" to a certain degree, but it was impossible. Labelled as a black-comedy, "The Family" runs exceedingly thin on jokes and action. The whole cast (albeit a popular one) play their roles frustratingly, delivering terrible performances throughout the entire film. De Niro's acting is atrocious and instead of trying to re-brand himself, he continues to play the same character from the "Meet The Parents" series.

Is there a highlight? If I'm going to be generous, then it would be the scene in which Robert De Niro actually watches "Goodfellas" when attending a local film club.

If you think that's bad, well it only gets worse.

Verdict

As action/comedies go, it's abominable. There is no silver lining to this particular film, which so desperately wants to be something it isn't. My advice? Watch "Goodfellas". 

1 star out of 10.

Written by Scott Gentry.

A lot more Dystopia, a lot less Teen Fiction: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

(Sorry about the disproportionate amount of colons in the title)

Written by Jon Petre

Well well well, here we are again. Visiting the 2010's favorite Dystopian Science Fiction Movie series. It's been an interesting ride, Katniss.

When I first saw The Hunger Games, I was entertained. I liked the movie, and my friend told me that the books were good as well. However when I looked back at it I thought that, in actuality, the movie was quite bland; the Dystopian Autocracy Oppressive Technocracy seemed superfluous and secondary to the love triangle of Katniss and co.  

Now I see how wrong I was.

Without a doubt, Catching Fire was much better than Hunger Games. There was a lot more emphasis on the giant death government, and a greater sense of meaning to the whole film. In fact, the actual 75th Hunger Games doesn't even start until about halfway through the film (it's actually the 3rd Quarter Quell, but never mind *flicks hair affectionately*); before that it's all Dystopia and Revolutions.

I love Dystopia and Revolutions.

I actually felt affection for some of the characters! Which is interesting--often in movies, do you find that you really don't care about the characters?--well this time, I guarantee you'll go "pwahhh" (this is the sound of someone sucking air in through their teeth) at a painful scene. 

But now, I have to follow my tradition of giving you the setup.

One year on from their "victory" at the 74th Hunger Games, life is marginally better for Katniss and her family. They live in the Victor Village of District 12, but Peeta and Katniss have become estranged. Things are getting serious though; remember at the end of the first movie when Katniss raised her hand up and sort of ate the berries? Well, people are seriously misconstruing this--a revolution is brewing.

The Captiol's getting a tight collar, and with the Quarter Quell coming up (every 25 years, they hold a special massive Hunger Games that reaps its tributes from former victors; everyone in the Games has won before) things are about to go down.

I can't say a lot more without spoiling things; just go and see it. I promise you'll most likely enjoy it. My only problem came from the extreme length (like, three hours or so?) and the fact that Jennifer Lawrence was fairly placid as Katniss--slightly reminiscent of Kristen Stewart; I sincerely hope I'm wrong--but oh well. It worked quite well. 

All in all, I'd say four stars out of five. ( 4/5)

 

Who knew such a small horror film, could create such a long lasting effect? Scott Gentry reviews "In Fear", a new British horror, from first-time director Jeremy Lovering.

"In Fear" (15)
Director: Jeremy Lovering.
Starring: Alice Englert, Iain De Caestecker and Allen Leech.
Rated: 15, for containing strong violence, threat and language.
Running time: 85 minutes.
Out now in UK cinemas.

Two weeks after their first meeting, a couple, Tom and Lucy, decide to attend a music festival; all the way in Ireland. Whilst on their way to spend a night in a hotel, the couple soon find themselves lost in a maze of country roads. Before long, panic sets in and the possibilities of them being followed by someone or something, become ever more realised. 

British horror films have certainly grown in popularity over the past ten years. With fantastic examples like "Kill List" (2011) and "Eden Lake" (2008), Britain has proved it's capabilities for making decent horror films; has not been lost. 

However, "In Fear" is nothing quite like anything we've seen before. Filmed on a considerably lower budget (compared to "The Descent"), "In Fear" still creates fear, shock and the ability to entertain, without spending large amounts of money. 

Saying that, the film only offers a few new elements to the already crowded genre. This is simply unfortunate, but what the film lacks in large set pieces and a huge cast, is made up for in the tension and frighteningly shot close-ups. 

The main cast (who are on-screen nearly all of the time) develop their characters remarkably well, delivering a style which constantly keeps the audience hooked onto their every move. The stand out performance is from Englert, who has not starred in many films, but adapts her character; to suit the scene fantastically well. 

The soundtrack keeps the edginess as tight as a drum and helps to evolve the quieter scenes, into some particularly tension-filled moments, between the main leads. 

Verdict

The first two acts entertain perfectly well, but it's unfortunate that the last third of the film, partly loses it's momentum. Despite this, "In Fear" delivers everything it promised, dark and spooky shocks; for a small price. 

6.9 stars out of 10

Written by Scott Gentry.

Film Rating Key

1-2 stars out of ten = Awful.

3-4 stars out of ten = Average.

5-6 stars out of ten = Good.

7-8 stars out of ten = Excellent.

9-10 stars out of ten = Amazing.

Sci-Fi at it's best. Scott Gentry reviews the near perfect, "Gravity".

"Gravity" (12A)
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Starring: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney and the voice of Ed Harris.
Rated: 12A, for containing sustained moderate threat, disturbing images and strong language.
Running Time: 91 minutes.
Out now, in UK cinemas.

After an accident in space, two members of the space shuttle named "Explorer" must fight for survival after they are left adrift, without any means of communication.

Space, is this really the final frontier? After viewing "Gravity", I'm sure that you will be able to agree, that it isn't. 

After waiting more than five years for "Gravity" to finally become a reality, it is safe to say that it is probably the most ambitious Sci-Fi film ever made. From the way it is shot, right down to the effects, "Gravity" is just a technical masterpiece. 

However, it's one small problem is it's dialogue. The script (written by Alfonso Cuarón and his son Jonás) is slightly less intelligent than it should be. Despite that, the main leads of Sandra Bullock and George Clooney perform brilliantly in roles which keep the viewer captivated on what is happening on the screen.

 It seems that Cuarón has pushed his acting leads to new heights, delivering a performance from Bullock (which reminds me of the character Ellen Ripley from the "Alien" franchise) who performs tremendously well, in what is possibly the most well-acted role of her career. From here on out, the less said about her "Miss Congeniality" days, the better. 
George Clooney is also on admirable form, bringing some much needed comic-effect to the film's dark tones in his classic style. 

The soundtrack is also something to be appreciated, as it sets the right tones for the film in many different ways. It also sounds different compared to music written for similar blockbusters, as it uses singular instruments for each sound to be electronically processed and mixed, which creates an effect which lingers. 

Personally, I surmise that the film is meant to be cliché. From the offset, there are constant nods to the disaster film; one being (a line which Clooney says) "Houston, I have a bad feeling about this". Despite being partly cliché, it honestly doesn't matter, as "Gravity" delivers a fantastic blockbuster on an epic scale. 

Despite enjoying the film to a large degree, it seems that other people inside the screening (which I attended), did not feel the same way as myself and decided that it bored them. Whilst leaving the film I heard one response which declared that "the film was boring and there wasn't much action to keep me entertained". It seems as though we were watching a completely different film. People forget that "Gravity" isn't about the performances, the CGI or script; it's about the triumph over adversity. 

Verdict

To continue writing about "Gravity" might spoil the film, or bore you (preferably spoil). Nevertheless, I will say that "Gravity" is an extraordinary achievement in filmmaking and I guarantee you will enjoy it. If you don't? Well, I dislike you very, very much.

9 stars out of 10. 

Written by Scott Gentry.

Film Rating Key

1-2 stars out of ten = Awful.

3-4 stars out of ten = Average.

5-6 stars out of ten = Good.

7-8 stars out of ten = Excellent.

9-10 stars out of ten = Amazing.