Something about.. The King's Speech

Another hyped film to try out and ask the question: does this film deserve the hype? In the case of The King's Speech, I say yes, it does.

Films about royalty always seem popular in England (despite the actual Royal family losing much respect and credibility) and this one was no different.

Perhaps it's because of the current buzz surrounding the Royal wedding, or perhaps it is solely down to the warm storyline and the excellent cast.

Colin Firth displayed his slightly moodier side with the character of King George VI (Bertie), moving away from the nice guy roles he has become typecast in.

He gave a sublime performance as the struggling Prince, earning the viewers sympathy and pity. But he managed to create a man who could quickly turn that on its head, snapping and losing his temper.

Helena Bonham-Carter stepped outside her usual role - there were no wicked witches to be seen, no Marla Singer's, and she played a proud and regal Queen - with a normal sized head!

Despite stepping away from her typical character and film she was comfortable in this quintessential English film. She created a strong and powerful woman, but also opened up to show a kind and gentle side.

Geoffrey Rush really sparkled in The King's Speech. Playing Lionel Logue, the speech therapist he had a modern outlook on treatment for Bertie's stammer. As for the character, Rush created a fun, cheeky and warm character. He provided humour and entertainment throughout.

Don't be surprised if The King's Speech gets a full sweep at the awards shows this year - with Colin Firth truly deserving of a best actor nod.

But Bonham-Carter and Rush should certainly not be ignored, and in my opinion, they are each deserving of supporting cast acknowledgments.

Something about.. Conviction

I was initially drawn to this film after learning that it was based on the true story of a wrongfully convicted man who served 20 years before being released. But the dedication and tenacity of his sister, who fought to get him exonerated was what really intrigued me.

The main factor which propels this film from start to finish is the chemistry and connection between Swank and Rockwell. It is touching, charming and totally convincing.

Swank is a acclaimed and celebrated actress, but I have struggled to ever warm to any of her characters. But stepping into the role of Betty-Anne, Kenny's devoted sister gave Swank the opportunity to explore this side of her acting ability. And I found her charming and amiable.

As an audience member you share in her pain, and in her happiness throughout the highs and lows of the film.

But it is Sam Rockwell's performance as the troublesome and cheeky Kenny which really shone through. Kenny is a funny and loveable character, with a reckless streak he is well-known to the police for fighting and misbehaving as a child. But as an audience member you share Betty-Anne's opinion that he is not a murderer.

Rockwell is thoroughly convincing in the role, offering a poignant and memorable performance.

Although the film is at times on the slow side, it is tense and thrilling. As Betty-Anne frantically battles to gain an education and law degree before searching for evidence to clear her brothers name. The story is intertwined with scenes of Kenny and his sister as children, explaining why they are so close in adulthood. The child actors also deserve praise for their performances.

Having previously read the story, the only disappointment came at the end of the film when the epilogue failed to divulge the fate of the real-life Kenny Waters. I suppose it would spoilt the feel-good happy ending which is so important to many American films.

The story is an inspirational and memorable tale of the unconditional love between a brother and sister, and a film which focuses on the faith Betty-Anne had in her brother, and the hope that she relied on to set him free.

Something about.. 127 Hours

This film could have gone horribly wrong. Had it have fallen into the wrong hands. But thankfully, it didn't. And the end result was one Danny Boyle, James Franco and Aron Ralston ought to be very proud of.

Danny Boyle once again proved why he is one of the greatest directors of all time. His signature style shone throughout. His films are visually stunning, and his pace and unique filming technique coupled with the arty editing create for a one-of-a-kind cinema experience each and every time. This time was no different.

127 Hours was filmed and edited in an exhilarating and intense way, reflecting the story, surroundings and the main character.

The soundtrack - by Slumdog Millionaire success, A R Rahman - was impeccable, blending thrilling, fast beats with soft, quiet melodies for reflective moments and even the odd recognisable song.

Boyle once again produces a film with flare and originality, still in keeping with the trends that have made him famous. Surreal moments of obscurity to rival even the Trainspotting toilet scene and the use of sound and music to support the visual aspects.

Boyle has had fun with Ralston's premonitions and memory montages, allowing his imagination and innovation to run wild. And his detailed and creative use of sound and music to enhance the film works brilliantly in 127 Hours, particularly when Ralston is breaking and cutting off his arm.

James Franco did not disappoint. He effectively and convincingly carried the whole movie through, relying soley on brute acting to tell the story. Supported only by brief interludes of memories and premonitions, he managed to hold my attention throughout. He captured the free spirit and independent aspect of Ralston and gave a striking performance slipping into hysteria and madness.

Franco showed many elements of Ralston's character, demonstrating his energy and upbeat personality, but also showing him as a caring and loving son, brother and lover. The key in the character was to see his change and the realisation that he does need others around him.

The highlight for me was Franco's video diary entries, and particularly the talk show scene. As Ralston reaches dehydration and starvation, he presents his state of mind through a video conversation with himself. It is both humorous and touching, as he takes on three elements of his own personality. The confident, joking and upbeat talk show presenter; the guest, an independent, lone adventurer who has ran into misfortune; and the caller, who has realised what he has lost through a desire to be independent and do things alone. Franco quickly snaps from this comedy scene to a poignant and haunting goodbye to his parents.

I'm always sceptical when a film relies on flashbacks. But 127 Hours approached the memories and hallucinations very tentatively, using them subtly and sparingly. They were effective in adding another dimension to the plot - which could have become tedious without - and to affirm the idea of Ralston realising that being alone and independent isn't the best way.

My conclusion, Boyle has done it again. And look out for Franco's name on the Oscar shortlist.

In a word: unmissable.

Something about.. Inception

Also known as the most overhyped film of all time. Don't get me wrong, it was good. But it certainly wasn't the best film of the year, let alone of all time.

I have much respect and high regard for the IMDB top 250. The list is full of incredible not-to-be-missed films, with The Shawshank Redemption in at top spot, and films such as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Schindler's List in the top ten. But the placing of Inception at number 6 within barely weeks of it hitting British screens came close to discrediting the entire brand for me.

I don't deny it isn't a good film, it is. It's very good. Leonardo DiCaprio once again does himself justice and the idea of dream invasion is interesting.

But the execution is poor. And the film becomes tedious barely half way through the epic two-and-a-half hour running time.

On paper the film looks a sure success. Christopher Nolan penned the script and takes up the directors chair with a wealth of knowledge, experience and awards under his belt. He has a more than impressive resume, including huge cinema hits such as Dark Knight, as well as intelligent and thrilling cult films like Memento (which remains one of my all time favourites).

And the cast list is flawless. Leo in the lead role, supported by Marion Cotillard, Michael Caine, Cillian Murphy, Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It is certainly far from a recipe for disaster.

But it feels as if everything was going smoothly until it came to actually making the film, and then all of a sudden it all imploded.

I just remain baffled by how - and more importantly, why - so many people are blown away by this film.

My main criticisms concern the length, the complexity of the storyline and the special effects.

The film is drawn out, fussy and tedious. Had they have condensed the plot and the filming - perhaps removed one layer of 'inception' - making it a tidy two hours, or less, it would have been much more enjoyable and less exhausting. It was just too much effort.

There is a fine line between a challenging and intelligent film, and one which goes too far into obscurity. Films like Fight Club have managed to achieve the right balance. Although it is complicated and in-depth, it makes sense and focuses on one layer of complexity. But with Inception, there are far too many layers.

And as for the special effects, there's only one way to explain it: OTT.

As for the acting. Leo was his usual, dreamy self and gave another strong performance. Although I think it was inferior to his other 2010 starring role in Scorsese's Shutter Island.

Marion Cotillard gave that extra dimension to the storyline, and she gave a sound performance as a haunting and seductive lover.

And Ellen Page dazzled in an unusual role. The young comedy actress has given relatively tongue-in-cheek performances in off-the-wall films such as Juno. But she shone in Inception.

However, the less said about Michael Caine the better. He didn't stumble far from his reputation as a bumbling, corny actor.

On a positive note I still find the overall idea of dream invasion and inception it self very intriguing.

The cast gelled well in the film and - on the most part - performed well.

Inception is a prime examples of working in theory, but not in practice.

Something about.. The next year in movies

I'm not going to lie and say that 2011 is going to be THE year of great films, because that's just not true. But thankfully there are some releases over the next twelve months which I am very excited about.

One of these will be in a cinema near you imminently.

127 Hours is the latest Danny Boyle masterpiece. My opinion is biased I will admit. Mr Boyle is my favourite director, and the visionary behind some of my favourite films, including A Life Less Ordinary, Trainspotting - of course - and the smash hit, Slumdog Millionaire. But there's a reason he's my favourite, and that's because he brings incredible, inspirational, sensational stories to the screen in a clever, original and exhilarating style.

I'm sure 127 Hours will be the latest in a run of hugely successful and popular Boyle movies.

James Franco plays Aron Ralston, an outdoor adventure enthusiast who becomes stuck in a canyon, alone. The infamous true story of the adrenalin junkie who spent five days trapped in the chasm under a rock in 2003 before amputating his own arm to save his life. Not only is it a phenomenal story of sheer bravery and resilience, but with Boyle behind the camera, the audience is guaranteed a fast-paced, raw and exciting film filled with shock and humour.

The film is released this weekend, and I guarantee it'll soar to box office success. Don't be surprised if Boyle, the team behind 127 Hours or Franco receive a few award nods for the long-awaited film.

Another film to look out for is something which I never thought I'd find myself endorsing.

I usually despise Liam Neeson's wooden acting and lame roles. But the trailer for Unknown has certainly done its job of making me desperate to see this film and discover what the hell happens.

With echoes of the Bourne trilogy, Unknown looks set to be a high-budget, action-packed thriller with big stunts and all-guns-blazing fight scenes.

Neeson plays a man who awakes from a four-day coma following a car accident believing someone has taken his identity, with no one knowing who he is, including his wife - Diane Kruger.

The story line is typical of Neeson, similar to his recent film Taken, and his acting is nothing out of the ordinary - weak and poor. But the trailer has got me hooked and left me wanting to know what has happened. Who is the real Martin Harris?

From the legendary double-act who brought No Country For Old Men to cinemas, comes another dramatic and intense Western film.

Western films had somewhat died out, until a new wave over recent years has begun to bring them back - none more successfully than the Coen brothers, who masterminded No Country For Old Men.

True Grit is the latest from writer-director pair, Joel and Ethan, with a stella leading duo of Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon.

Bridges steps into the role of an unlikely protagonist, Rooster Cogburn, a tough but reckless and drunk US marshall who sets out on the hunt for the murderer of Mattie Ross' father. Damon plays another marshall, intent on finding controversial Cogburn and bringing him in for a reward.

The Coen's have created another deep and complex movie, with a strong focus on the unconventional and finely detailed characters.

True Grit comes to the UK screens in February.

One film not to be missed this year is the long-awaited and highly-anticipated War Horse.

With none other than Steven Spielberg at the helm this hugely famous book and stage play will be released on screen in September.

The story centres around one boy and the unconditional love he has for his horse, Joey. Joey is sent off to join the cavalry after the outbreak of World War One and following a tough and gruelling time spent in the trenches he finds himself alone in No Man's Land. But his loyal and caring friend, Albert sets out on a journey to find and save him.

New name Jeremy Irvine will step into the role of Albert, to be supported by an experienced cast of Emily Watson, Harry Potter's David Thewlis, Benedict Cumberpatch (from BBC's Sherlock) and Toby Kebbell (of Guy Ritchie's RocknRolla).

I am intrigued to see how Spielberg will deal with this hugely popular and much-loved story.

Something about.. The Harry Potter saga

After years of insistence that I do not like Harry Potter I felt it was finally time to face it head on and discover whether I had any evidence to prove my distaste for the JK Rowling creation. And a few days off work gave the perfect opportunity for this experiment.

(I must admit that a recent trip to the cinema to see the latest HP - which left me somewhat confused - did spur me on considerably.)

Due to my major preference of DVD over book, I made myself comfortable on the sofa with a pile of films by my side and preceded to watch the entire series up until the fifth instalment. And I, surprisingly, thoroughly enjoyed them.

The stories are obviously well crafted and written (they must be to have generated so much money worldwide) and the characters are realistic and relatable. I am a particular fan of the impending love story between Hermione and Ron, which grows as they do throughout the series.

The best of British A-list cast has not been used simply for the names, but each actor gives convincing performances as the characters, including Maggie Smith, Julie Walters, Robbie Coltrane and John Cleese. But my personal favourite has to be Alan Rickman's mysterious and sly performance as Severus Snape, never quite sure whether he is bad gone good, or good gone bad.

I think there's a character for everyone in these films. Harry Potter is a tragic, lost character who is greatly courageous and brave. Ron Weasley is kind and loyal, but shy when it comes to his feelings for Hermione. Hermione is smart and intelligent, and a strong female character but shows her vulnerability through her heritage and her blood. Dumbledore is wise and powerful, and a symbol of all that is good. Snape is dark and mysterious, but shows glimmers of good and being misunderstood. The Weasley family are fun and endearing - they're just like a normal family trying to make their way in the world, with a successful eldest son, and troublesome twin boys, and a sweet and innocent daughter.

Helena Bonham-Carter, the Malfoy's and of course, Voldermort create a strong key group of 'baddies'. And the Hogwarts children represent hope and faith.

Each individual film stands alone well, with a beginning, a middle and an end. And the series flow well, and very effectively portray the three main wizards growing up and maturing. It's refreshing to see a film in which - I feel - they successfully document three children growing into adults, something which is not totally overlooked by all the wizadry, magic and drama. The actors perform their roles and enable their characters to develop wonderfully. I'm relieved that the creators - and JK Rowling - remember to depict the children facing normal everyday problems and dramas as well as battling dark lords, learning spells and trying to save the magical world, it creates much more relatable and realistic characters.

It's slightly disappointing when watching the films to see how may similarities there are with Lord of the Rings. Dobby and the giant spider are just two of many. But overall it is a good story in its own right.

One key concern when putting stories from book to film is whether they stay true to the original plot and transfer the story effectively from one to the other. Having not read the books I'm afraid I cannot critique the Harry Potter series in this light, but as individual films, separate from the books, I can safely say I found them entertaining.

I particularly enjoyed the construction and exploration of the key characters, and found myself genuinely engaged with them - something which I did not expect. I think the budding love story between Ron and Hermione is hugely intriguing and I shall remain hopeful that it blossoms into something special in the final instalment.

A refreshing and surprising outcome from watching these films has left me assured that I will be visiting the cinema to see the final film. However, I will not be queuing for days before or dressing up for the occasion.

Something about.. Buried

I was very intrigued by Buried. An entire film based solely in a coffin buried underground. It was as simple as the title implied.

Sitting down to watch the film we decided surely it must include flashbacks or scenes outside the coffin - we gradually realised that we were wrong. The entire film resides inside the dark, cramped coffin in poor lighting, with only Ryan Reynolds holding the viewers attention. Luckily for the film, he does this very well. Not only is Reynolds very nice to look at for two hours, but he also steps outside his usual lead man and love interest role and performs well as a frightened and confused solo character.

The director does well to create tension and build suspense, and uses small problems and issues to develop the storyline. The use of light and music are very strong - good considering there isn't much else going on. And Reynolds should be applauded for his performance.

The simple use of voices on the other end of the phone enables the creators to bring in a few other characters, and despite my initial assumptions I am glad they didn't rely on flashbacks or other scenes to build the plot.

Buried isn't anything to be shouted about. The storyline is minimal, and there isn't huge amounts to keep the audience's attention. It's not everybody's cup of tea, but it was at least a little different. And certainly ambitious.

The creators have taken a risk with Buried, and although it won't pay off with award nominations or record-breaking box office ratings, it did expose many cinema goers to something a little out of the ordinary. Something which proves it's not all about million dollar budgets, hours of special effects, or a 20-strong cast of A-list actors.

Sometimes all you need is a good-looking capable actor buried in a box six-feet under with a lighter and a mobile phone.

Something about.. Love and other drugs

To truly enjoy this film you need to be in love or on other drugs.

Okay, maybe that's a little harsh, the romantic-comedy did offer light comic entertainment for a dull Thursday evening. But it was nothing special, and it certainly wasn't anything new.

Jake Gyllenhaal fulfilled his quota as hunky attractive lead man well, and almost pulled off the cocky ladies man thing. Gyllenhaal has come a long way since Donnie Darko, and I'd say it's all been downhill.

And although Anne Hathaway was at time rather entertaining and humorous, she failed to convince as a free-spirited, independent woman as a consequence of her tortured suffering at the hands of Parkinsons disease. I just found the whole Parkinsons aspect of the film very unbelievable. Nearly as flawed (and ultimately concerning) as the idea that doctors can be bribed and bought with gifts and sex by pharmaceutical salesman.

Reunited after smash hit Brokeback Mountain, the two actors starred in a film which was as empty, cold and uninspiring as the award-winning cowboy movie was moving, warm and beautiful.

Despite a relatively strong and believable chemistry between the two leads, I did feel that the excessive amount of sex scenes and nudity was unnecessary. I mean how many times does the average chick flick viewer want to see Anne Hathaway's tits? I can't say there were all that many men enjoying the view in the cinema I was in.

Although it seems I was very unimpressed the film was a success in the way it needed to be. It's a rom com, a chick flick, a purposeless love story. It's never going to win awards, it's never going to impress the critics but it entertained me for two hours, made me giggle and left me in a good mood.

I suppose it had the same effect on the audience that those in love on on drugs would feel.

Therefore, I'd say a successfully rubbish film.

Something about.. Wall-E

I have always been a big fan of animated films. But Pixar have created something extra special in Wall-E.

Any film which can make an audience laugh, gasp and cry at a pair of computer animated robots who use only two words to communicate deserves a standing ovation.

The film successfully creates characters with which the audience instantly fall for and care for.

Wall-E is an old, tatty, rubbish-collecting robot - not exactly the stereotypical protagonist of a modern day Hollywood proaction. But he is easily the best animation with the biggest personality which Pixar has ever created. And the love story between him and EVE is touching and moving.

A cockroach certainly isn't a predictable right-hand-man character, but provides constant comedy simply through his species immortality.

It's quite astounding that I found myself entirely transfixed by the film, although there was no human dialogue until 39 minutes in. Wall-E defied the logic of film - dialogue wasn't need to tell the story, or draw in the viewer. Creators had created such a strong character and such a spectacular world that the usual use of dialogue to tell a story and keep the audience interested, was unnecessary.

The story is relatively simple, it's the story of love. And Wall-E refuses to give up on his love.

But it also touches on deeper meanings. Perhaps a warning to people around the world about what we could do to our environment and our world. Or an insight into how obese and unhealthy the population could become. Maybe even an exploration into our reliance on technology.

As any typical animated film, Wall-E offers something for the whole family. Children will enjoy the simple voyeuristic humour and loveable characters, and adults will pick up on the underlying messages.

But one thing is for sure, Wall-E also offers a lot more than the average animated movie.

It is well worth a watch.

Something about.. Burlesque

It's no Chicago or even Moulin Rouge - but Burlesque was fun, sexy and satisfying.

Everyone knows Cher can act as well as she can sing. But for Christina Aguilera that is one mean feat. With a hugely powerful and successful voice, her debut movie was set to showcase whether she could act as well as she sings. And I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised.

Aguilera gave a convincing and down-to-earth performance. She didn't over act, she didn't under act, and she didn't rely on her singing or her breasts to get her through.

As for Cher, she was her usual 'I'm a powerful woman, don't fuck with me' character, and did so very well.

Twilight and OC heart throb, Cam Gigandet was the perfect lead gentleman and offered a particularly entertaining moment involving double doors, nudity and a box of cookies.

And Stanley Tucci provided a camp and loveable voice of reason throughout the film as a mentor, best friend, wardrobe stylist and all around caring guy.

The songs failed to measure up to the soundtrack of previous musical films, but the majority of the songs were strong, memorable and enjoyable.

It won't win over the hearts of the critics, and probably won't attract many male viewers but it's certainly worth a watch, and maybe even a purchase from the £3 Asda bargain DVD section.

Something about.. The Tourist

This film came as a complete surprise to me for two reasons.

One, I hate Angelina Jolie. But shockingly found myself not wanting to punch her in the face during her performance in The Tourist. And actually faintly enjoyed watching her.

Two, I was slightly disappointed in Johnny Depp's performance (a statement I never thought I would hear myself saying).

In fact The Tourist was particularly topsy-turvy for me as a film fan. I liked the actress I usually despise. And was disappointed in the performance of an actor I always find committed, powerful and impressive.

As for the storyline, it was fairly weak. Jolie meets Depp on a train and chooses him as a decoy to protect her lover who is being hunted by police. And after a couple of big but predictable plot twists the ending is very much Hollywood, but doesn't leave you particularly satisfied.

Positives about the film: amusing one-liners from Depp (and a lovely set of pyjamas) a relatively mysterious and intriguing performance from Jolie, and some beautiful outfits. The problem with this film emerges quite quickly. I was more interested in the wardrobe and location (of Venice) than the actual storyline.

Something about.. the greatest film ever

Also known as Trainspotting.

For me to review my favourite movie would be slightly biased. So instead of doing that I'm going to give you all the reasons WHY it's my favourite.

Trainspotting is to British film what the Beatles were to British music. Integral.

The film has caused controversy and complaint, banned from cinemas across the country on its release for 'encouraging and glorifying' drug use. The film has created a cult following. The film has made history, triggering an era of gritty British movies, far removed from the glamourous and shiny Hollywood blockbusters.

It's a movie masterpiece created by film legend, Danny Boyle. It was career making not only for its director, but also its leading man and narrator, Ewan McGregor.

The characters, casting, storyline, cinematography and soundtrack are all faultless.

With one of the most famous tag lines and monologues in film history and the most infamous scenes ever, Trainspotting has found a place in DVD collections across the world for one reason or another.

I'd say that those who banned it back in the 1990s really missed the point of Trainspotting. It's not about glorifying or glamourising heroin addiction, it's all there in the strap line: Choose life.

Something about.. Mary Poppins

The greatest thing about the Christmas holidays (other than pigs in blankets) is all-day reruns of classic movies.

When suffering a New Year's hangover, there's no remedy quite like Mary Poppins.

Without sounding like a bitter middle-aged spinster, they don't make films like they used to. And Mary Poppins is a prime example of this.

With a fun and unique story, fun and loveable characters and of course the memorable songs which defy time, it's a film which no amount of special effects and million dollar budget can compete with.

Any film which follows the story of a magical nanny who flies with an umbrella and owns a bottomless handbag has got to be a fun, family flick. But Mary Poppins is so much more than that.

It's a childhood classic which everyone loves to love, from grandparents to grandchildren. It inspires imagination within even the oldest and straightest watcher.

Julie Andrews and Dick van Dyke remain some of the greatest actors to this day thanks to their performances in this film, despite van Dyke's faltering cockney accent. Andrews creates an enchanting, pure but stern character as Mary Poppins and van Dyke is a loveable, cheeky chap as Bert.

From jumping through chalk pictures, tea parties on the ceiling and flying a kite there's a song for every moment, songs which are still memorable a year later when the Christmas rerun comes once again.

Something about.. 2011

Whilst reflecting on the last year - one which has been full of significant change and drama - it didn't take long to come up with my list of New Year's resolutions.

One of which is getting back into 'Something about'.

For many years my real love has been escaping into the fantastical, magical and exciting world of film. From Hollywood blockbusters to art house cinema, from cult horror flicks to light-hearted rom coms.

And I decided it's about time I put my extensive DVD collection and excessive cinema visits to good use. So from now on my blog will focus entirely on film. From the new cinema releases, my favourite DVDs and to TV reruns and old classics.

So sit back, grab a coke and some popcorn, and enjoy.