Contagion

The 'real life' version of 28 days later, this film is enough to give a squatter OCD. With unnerving, neurotic close-ups on 'contaminated' objects from the first scene the obsessive tracing of the origin of the next, real global epidemic of bird flu (or 'bat' flu). If you've got the November cold that's doing the rounds I'd advise you not to go and see this films for the benefit of your sanity. I'm typing this in my University library- someone, somewhere is coughing and I'm finding it hard not to cover my mouth and nose with my scarf.
The idea of a film about a virus spreading across the globe without the benefit of Zombies and thrills seems like it might make a fairly dull film. However, the obscenely all-star cast and consistent twists and turns of the unlikely plot make this a very interesting film. It even dabbles in the controversial conversation about alternative medicines- however, the fact that pharmaceutical giants are given a massive, grinning thumbs up undermines this somewhat. But the seed is there, something unusual for a blockbuster of this size.
It's pretty good, pretty paranoia-inducing, but also not the most revolutionary idea in cinema. It's a start though- at least there were no Zombies.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Director: Thomas Alfredson
Starring: John Hurt, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Toby Jones, Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch...

The film posters for Alfredson's adaptation of John Le Carre's cult novel have taken London's bus shelters by force. The occupation has served to remind me for six months now how much I am looking forwards to this film, from the Let The Right One In director. Upon first glance of the posters thoughts of the spy films we know and love fill our minds; Bourne, Bond, bombs and boobs are a set montage that come with the genre. Tinker Tailor could not have set itself further apart from our culturally ingrained preconceptions of it.
It is beautiful, reflective and slowly astounding. The chronically all-star cast step out of their familiarity one by one and though we are incredibly well acquainted with their previous roles Alfredson allows them to become new and interesting; Oldman is, for two and a half hours only, an up-and-coming newcomer to hollywood. The same is difficult to say for Firth, who is sadly a good but monotonous actor, and if it were he carrying the weight of the film upon his shoulders it may have floundered. With Oldman, it glides.
Discussing the film with an acquaintance, he quoted a review he had read, or his own opinion, I cannot quite remember and called the film pseudo-intellectual, with 'too many conversational scenes and much less action that I'd hoped'. Ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing pseudo about the intellectual side of the film, nor is there any issue with the inching pace of the film. If you want action, perhaps you might go and see Tom Hardy's other new release, Warrior, but don't attempt to pin it on every film you go and see. This is a film that, although I know very little of it, adds more reality to the world of espionage and genuineness to the events of the film than Bond will ever be able to, precisely because it amputates the epileptic explosions of it's contemporaries. And if you don't like the subtlety, more fool you. For me it is this that is what sets it so far apart from being quality time spent in the cinema to being a masterpiece.
As soon as I can I will watch the 70s TV series, I've been repeatedly told of it's superiority. If it is superior, it's bound to blow all of our minds.

The Tree of Life

Director: Terrence Malick

Starring: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain

This film is brilliant, if it's your cup of tea. If not, I'm pretty sure you'd hate it. If it is, this self-indulgent slow mover is probably the perfect way to spend an evening. It has to be said, it was a little slow and a few people walked out of the cinema during the half-an-hour-long montage of artistic photography, and this was perhaps a little over the top for a film that was bound to be shown in all major cinemas due to Brad Pitt's surprising role in it; it would have felt more at home in a cellar-cinema with five seats.
The story itself, although central, was minimal and the majority of the conclusions were left to the audience to guess or to invent themselves. In fact even reading the copious reviews online there are some, to me, grave interpretations of the opening event and the core of the film- the death of a son, which is not shown in the film, is confused frequently with the death of a neighbourhood boy that opens the childrens' eyes to the reality of death and, for one (a young Sean Penn) deepens the dissatisfaction of the father/son struggle. Essentially the film is about nature, family turmoil, overcoming grief and most obviously- but not too forcefully- a belief in God which is questioned then solidified. It was, as I said, a little self-indulgent and at times it felt like it would be eternal, but if you're in for that kind of thing I suggest you watch it next time you have a hangover- it's something of a work of art.
It's massive- encapsulating meditatively everything that exists at the same time as focusing on the smallest details of one family's conflicting life. It only falls down where it attempts to literally depict metaphysical events, rather than alluding to and suggesting them- perhaps it would have been more effectively thought-provoking and poetic without the final five minutes.  In places it an Attenborough style observation of wildlife, it's walking with dinosaurs, it's the big bang, it's a father's first encounter with his son, it's the beauty of nature and the beauty of Jessica Chastain, it's birth and death- it's inexpressibly pretentious but profoundly moving and beautiful.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Director- Joe Johnston

Starring- Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Hayley Atwell

I don't really want to talk about this film- usually I avoid writing negative reviews, they terrify me. But it's time for me to face my fear. In fact, my friend and I pointedly did not discuss what we had just seen upon leaving the cinema, which is so abnormal it's almost frightening. It wasn't that the film was awful (although it wasn't good)- it was that there seemed to be nothing to discuss. The two and a half hours we spent in the cinema was dead time. Any hint of a story, or what could be called a thrilling film, was covered in a ten minute montage in the middle of the film, and the rest Hayley Atwell, who up until now I have admired, was cast, seemingly, for her looks- she fitted in perfectly with the wartime setting, but her looks never changed. She wouldn't have been out of place in Madame Tussauds. And frankly I'm shocked that Hugo Weaving considered the role. I don't even have anything to put in a review of the film. 24 hours after leaving the cinema I feel like I'm still waiting for it to start. 

The film also serves as a cautionary tale for all producers who invest too much in the not-so-impressive 3D and not enough in the plot itself. As this, and Transformers' most recent installment prove, the results are not worth the money for a ticket.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two

It's hard to talk about Harry Potter films in a critical way, as for me and most of my generation the Harry Potter Corporation is much, much more than a series of films and books. The final film of the eight-long, multi-billion-pound series is a heartbreaking film, and not just because of the storyline. July the 15th marked the end of a series, the end of an era, and what seems to be the end of our childhood. Since the first book was published in 1997, when I was just six years old, Harry Potter grew in fame and age at an alarming rate. By the dawn of my sixteenth birthday, coincidentally the publication date of the final book in the saga, still awake after a party with my equally sycophantic friends, the hyperactive excitement we felt was akin to that before... well, it was incomparable. In all honesty, as an English Literature Student, I find it difficult to praise the books themselves, although I adore them. Fair enough, her writing improves as the books go on, but that's beside the point. We don't read the books for the lyrical prose, it wouldn't have mattered if they were written monosyllabically - we want to know what our friends have been up to. We would have been in their year at Hogwarts (and how we prayed on the eve of our eleventh birthdays), we may even have been friends. We know them, we like and dislike them as we do our own peers, and we desperately need to read the next instalment of their lives. And so the final book was a full stop to a part of our lives we had taken for granted, and so we clung to the films to fill that gap. And now, as the advertisements all too poignantly point out to us, 'It All Ends Here'.

The second part of the Deathly Hallows has to be one of the most frantically anticipated films of the decade, and so it was never going to live up to the unfathomable expectations of die-hard fans. At midnight, on the very edge of the day, the lights in the cinema dimmed and the film began to disappoint. It is, to all extents, an excellent film. There are lavish battle scenes, tearful death scenes, heart-stoppingly tense confrontations. But it's not enough, it never had a chance of being enough. To be so anticipated also means to be brutally scrutinised from the Warner Bro's logo to the end credits. And they didn't even try their best- by making adjustments to the book, they open their arms to the blows from avid readers, but as the films have gone on it has become clear that they area a separate monster, and in many ways they have as much of a right to change the story as if they were writing it afresh. To some extent. To change the climactic, spectacular battle scene between Harry and Voldemort was the biggest mistake they could possibly have made, and they made it. The film also allows itself to fall flat unless it is propped up by it's prequel- in essence the films can only be appreciated as a single, very long film. Warner Brother's money making efforts were evident and foolish- all character building is left to part one, resulting in part two being a slideshow of shallow characters who often have no screen-time devoted to them at all, until it's too late. 

However, that is all I have to say about the film in a negative way. Criticisms aside, the film is good, it is exciting and it is, most importantly, the end. Whatever any review says, you will go and see it because it has become a societal imperative, claims of disinterest are met with horror and often with incredulity. The films, viewed as an octet building the talent of actors, the lives of the characters and the rise and fall of evil within society are perhaps unmatched.

I loved the film, but it wouldn't have mattered if I had despised it. I would have gone to see it, twice (once in 2D, once in 3D) and so would the rest of my Pottermanic generation. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part two is an amazing, terrible thing, and all we can feel at the end is genuine grief. 

What do we do now?

Submarine

Director: Richard Ayoade
Starring: Craig Roberts, Yasmin Paige, Sally Hawkins


Definitely go and see it. For a debut film, this is very good. The shooting is nice and artistic, aided by it's beautiful Welsh scenery and sweeping sunset beach scenes (although pushing it a bit with the sheer volume of such scenes). The actors are great, and their comic execution is excellent. Alex Turner's soundtrack was also not that bad, it fitted with the ambiance of the film quite perfectly. It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience.
On the surface, I was not too keen on the twee story; an adolescent with parental issues and a first love, you can imagine a fifteen year old submitting it as ground-breaking and original creative writing coursework, only to discover its horrible banality. However, don't let that put you off, Ayoade (and, presumably, the novel it was based on) has managed to turned it around to be quite a refreshing subversion of angst into witticism. On the whole, not what you would expect when you picture Moss behind the scenes.

Sorry

I've had LOADS of Uni work on at the moment.
I will resume when I have time!
I have seen a few films but I feel like reviews will be out of date now.