Rating:

From celebrated director Jane Campion comes a biopic of nineteenth century Romantic poet John Keats, exploring his romance with Miss Fanny Brawne, beginning in 1818.

Director: Jane Campion
Starring: Abbie Cornish, Ben Whishaw, Kerry Fox, Paul Schneider
Running time: 119 mins approx.

Critically acclaimed for her early 90s period drama The Piano, New Zealand filmmaker Jane Campion has created a beautiful and heartbreaking film in her latest effort, Bright Star. Exploring the life of John Keats (Ben Whishaw) and his doomed love affair with Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish), the film is beautifully shot – Campion makes excellent use of colours, textures and lighting to a wonderfully romantic effect. One scene in particular in which Fanny reads one Keats’ love letters takes place in a wooded sea of violet-hued bluebells, the bright purples and swathes of green perfectly contrasting each other. Throughout the film Campion uses her pastoral setting very well, utilising the landscape, trees, woods and flowers to create a believable and stunning world for the characters to fall in love in.

And fall in love they surely do. After an initially frosty first meeting, the feisty Fanny Brawne enlists Keats to teach her about poetry and language. At first, Fanny is not much enamoured by the young poet but this feeling changes rapidly after she notices Keats’ anxiety and affection for his brother who lies seriously ill. The two then meet with quickening frequency and find themselves entangled in a passionate love affair that sets the wider community gossiping. However, with Keats’ own health in serious speedy decline, a dark shadow is cast over the lovers’ affair, one that even the strongest love cannot overcome.

The gentle and tragic story of Bright Star is very well directed with the exception of a few scenes which are too languorous – it appears that Campion was aiming to create moods of tension and repressed passion but instead these scenes simply run out of steam.

Consequently the second act is slow and needs more dynamism and drama to keep the film interesting. However, in terms of acting, Bright Star certainly excels. Abbie Cornish is very good as the headstrong Fanny Brawne, simultaneously eliciting sympathy whilst not being an instantly likeable lead heroine. However, as her love for Keats blossoms, so does our fondness for her, to the point that her sorrow in the film’s tragic conclusion is heartbreaking. Cornish’s performance in this particular scene is excellent – Cornish presents Fanny feeling the emotional pain physically and with an arresting intensity.

As Keats himself, Ben Whishaw is haunting, having a suitably poetic quality about him. He is at all times thoroughly convincing as the young poet, being attractive, quiet and possessing a certain beautiful melancholic air. The only problem with Whishaw’s portrayal of Keats is that the character could at times do with some angry passion to measure the tender embraces and pained looks that seem to dominate his relationship with Fanny.

Bright Star is a beautiful, gentle and tragic romance that combines wonderful production design with good storytelling to haunting effect.

Rating: MMMM

New slick comedy-drama from the award-winning director of Juno, Jason Reitman.

Director: Jason Reitman
Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick
Running time: 109 mins

In Jason Reitman’s new film Up In The Air, George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, self-confessed lover of the business and executive class lifestyle, spending more days ‘up in the air’ than days living life on the ground. His job is to fly to different cities across the USA to various company offices to fire employees because the people they work for haven’t the heart to do it themselves. The vacuous corporateness and emptiness that others find so repugnant is Ryan’s lifeblood. Until his life takes an unexpected and unwelcome turn in the form of bright new upstart Natalie (Anna Kendrick) whose ideas and plans would bring Ryan’s jet setting to a grinding halt.

In Up In The Air, Jason Reitman seems to have produced two very different films in one: the first two-thirds of the film explore the executive void of Ryan’s life and his contentedness with it, whilst it being under threat from a ’shift in company direction’ from Natalie’s cost-cutting and economising ideas. This is a slick corporate world, driven by money and a veneer of politeness with complimentary bath robes thrown in, a world which is well executed by Reitman. However, the problem comes when Ryan seemingly begins to question his values and moral behaviour and starts to view his life from a different perspective. From this point onwards the film changes tone entirely – almost like you left the cinema screen to get more popcorn and wandered into a different screen, except the characters are the same, just playing out a different story. And this is where the film inevitably falls down. Without giving too much away, the last third becomes more of a family centred tv movie than a glossy and hip George Clooney film. This tone change has a sadly negative impact on the film, as Reitman seems unable to follow through his initial ideas to the end with adequate conviction. On paper, the film works fine – on celluloid it fails somewhat.

However, all the ingredients of the film are essentially very good. George Clooney, while simply doing his charming, golden matinee idol smile that he seems to have patented, is very good and likeable as ever. Vera Farmiga as Clooney’s female opposite is also good, providing a convincing twist in the final act that comes as a genuine surprise. Anna Kendrick however delievers a standout turn as the young and naive Natalie, building on her solid work in Twilight as Jessica Stanley.

The script is well written and delivers some laughs, and there are some nice visual gags – most notably, the pilot’s ridiculous moustache which provided me with one of the biggest bellylaughs since The Hangover. In contrast too there are some genuine moments of shock, pathos and poignancy, with Natalie’s ill fated relationship and the fateful effects of some of the employees being let go from their jobs. The film is well directed, well acted and well scripted, just not really thought through, needing the courage to avoid the now hackneyed ‘man on a journey’ plot and stick to its guns of vapid corporateness and the emptiness so loved by the George Clooney character.

Engaging, witty, entertaining and funny, just not as good as expected.

Rating: MMM

Rating: MM

Review of James Cameron’s uber-blockbuster and long anticipated space adventure epic, Avatar.

Director: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez
Running time: 162mins

So, finally, after 10 years in the making and endless industry hype and speculation about the ‘pioneering technology’ behind James Cameron’s movie juggernaut, Avatar is finally with us. And is it worth the wait? Well, its sadly hard to tell. From the off, the visuals of the film are stunning and literally breathtaking in places, with sweeping and swooping camera angles presenting spectacular vistas onto the brave new world of Pandora. The creature design (while being at times somewhat laughable – some animals are just too weird to be convincing) is well produced, particularly the Na’avi people themselves, their skin and hair looking completely real. Similarly, the action sequences with their smoke, fire and explosions are also deployed with astonishing detail. If for nothing else, Cameron (or in fact Weta Digital, the effects house behind the Lord of the Rings trilogy) must be praised for the production value of Avatar – he has created an utterly real new world with exciting vegetation, wildlife and landscapes that need at least 4 pairs of eyes to really appreciate them.

However, the same cannot be said for the film as a whole. The first problem lies with the basic premise and plot of the film – one we have seen before countless times: indigenous population of resource-rich land is threatened by another greedy civilisation, one hell bent on taking the precious <insert valuable natural commodity here> from the native people. One member of the invading settlers becomes integrated within the native people (often becoming romantically involved with the most attractive female of the tribe), goes on an emotional and spiritual journey, eventually switching sides to fight against his old comrades – we all know the story, from films such as Dances With Wolves to Pocahontas. And this is perhaps the main fault with Avatar – the narrative trajectory is so familiar and predictable that for the most part the film is spent in anticipation of the next part of a story that we KNOW is coming. We know that Jake and Neytiri will fall in love 30 minutes before they do, we know that soon enough Jake will turn against his fellow marines – and this predictability has an intensely negative effect on one’s viewing experience, making it crushingly dull. Whole 10-20 minute sections of the film are completely needless, apparently there to enhance the audience’s engagement with the world of Pandora – with the result being the opposite. It must be said that with a more disciplined director and editor, a good 40 minutes could have been left on the cutting room floor, the probable result being a more dynamic and engaging film – parts are numbingly tedious, with an anticlimactic conclusion that comes 20 minutes too late.

Despite Cameron having successfully created an amazing and believable new world, the characters that inhabit it elicit little or no sympathy, even in their desperate hour of need. The sight of the tortured and homeless Na’avi people do not tug at the heartstrings the way that the hoards of Rohan women and children do in the final act of The Two Towers, and this has nothing to do with the Na’avi being strange blue alien creatures. The problem is posed by Avatar essentially lacking emotional depth and heart. For all the strained looks and pained faces of Jake, Neytiri and their tribespeople, it is hard to feel for them in the way the film suggests we do.

Cameron’s other major sin to be atoned for is his apalling script. The lines are clunky and stupid but their hackneyed sentiments are repeated, with most ‘one-liners’ being spoken twice or three times, effectively becoming very irritating mantras – “Get the hell outta there!!!” As with the predictable plot, the dialogue walks straight into pitfalls of cliche. Having said this, the actors do very well with the drivel they are given. Sigourney Weaver is as good as ever, as is Zoe Saldana as the beautiful Neytiri. Newcomer Sam Worthington is likeable enough in the leading man role of Jake Sully, but sadly lacks the charm and charisma needed to be convincing.

In conclusion, with all its promise, visual flair and attempts at being a ‘new film experience’ Avatar is disappointingly mediocre, demonstrating that looks alone do not make a good film. Despite its stunning surface, there is little underneath.

Rating: MM

Rating: MMMM

Review of Richard Linklater’s 1930s set period piece about the great Orson Welles’ theatrical triumph – his version of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.

Director: Richard Linklater
Starring: Zac Efron, Claire Danes, Christian McKay
Running time: 114 mins

Richard Linklater’s latest film sees Orson Welles (having already taken the airwaves by storm on radio) perched on the brink of conquering the stage, starting with his production of Shakespeare’s classic history play Julius Caesar, set to be performed at the Mercury Theatre on Broadway. The ‘me’ of the title is teenager Richard (Zac Efron), the audience’s window onto the theatrical world of Welles and his company.

The casting of Efron in this particular role (a serious part and one lacking the squeaky, shiny happiness of the High School Musical franchise from which Efron made his name) may surprise a few, but Efron delivers a solid and utterly convincing performance as Richard, the young man who falls under Welles’ beguiling charms and finds himself part of the cast, playing Lucius, Brutus’ (played by Welles himself) servant boy and resident ukulele player. Efron, as previously mentioned, demonstrates that he is clearly a young actor blessed with multiple talents, being able to perform like an old Hollywood star with skill in singing, dancing and acting – the former and latter of which are on display here. Efron’s credible performance will with any luck silence harsher critics often out for his blood.

Claire Danes is as good as ever, in a role that pleasingly sees her in a bitchier role than usual with a character more reminiscent of Sookie in Igby Goes Down than the pure Juliet (William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet). However, as good as Efron and Danes’ performances are, the film belongs to relative newcomer Christian McKay in a role he was seemingly born to play. It is no wonder by playing someone as egocentric, selfish and charismatic as Welles that he steals the show – he has a bewitching way of drawing the audience to him – but his performance is of such tremendous excellence, vivacity and believability that any scene without him is left wanting and rendered almost flat, lacking the energy his performance brings to the piece – something which becomes almost detrimental to the film as a whole. However, come awards season, McKay presents himself as a dead cert for acting nominations.

The story is an interesting one, avoiding the now saturated genre of biopics and concentrating on the character of Orson Welles in one specific time period. Linklater’s 1930s setting is convincing and well produced, with exquisite art direction that passes the Isle of Man for New York city. Linklater has produced an entertaining and enjoyable film in Me & Orson Welles, however a problem is posed by a rather languorous third act, an almost plodding final section which could perhaps have been avoided by better editing. The last few minutes really do slow down proceedings, a great shame in a film that is otherwise funny, intelligent, entertaining and engaging.

Rating: MMMM

Rating: MMM+

Delayed review of director Chris Weitz’s The Twilight Saga: New Moon, the second instalment in the 4-part series of  the teen vampire romance, based on the novels by Stephenie Meyer.

Director: Chris Weitz
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Michael Sheen
Running time:130 mins

In the last Twilight film, star cross’d lover Bella Swan made a request of her vampire boyfriend, teen dream Edward Cullen, to change her from her state of “fragile little human” to one of vampiric immortal. Edward declines, reluctant to end Bella’s life for her and transform her into a “monster”. It is this desire and denial between the two (coupled with Edward’s uncertainty about how wise it is to carry on the relationship, based on earnest concerns for Bella’s safety) that creates palpable tension at the beginning of New Moon, eventually reaching crisis point after a tiny papercut at her birthday party puts Bella’s life in danger. Edward consequently breaks up with her, leaves the town of Forks, apparently out of Bella’s life forever.

As one might be able to predict, given the level of eye-gazing and soul searching our lovers engaged in during the first film and the level of besotted infatuation between them, Bella does not take the break-up well. In fact, to say that is an understatement – she enters a downward spiral of what can only be described as depression and near mental breakdown. Socially alienated and tortured by horriffic nightmares, Bella is a lost soul. That is until she is reawoken by friend Jacob Black. By spending time with Jacob, Bella’s emotional healing begins – until a dark secret Jacob is harbouring threatens their friendship.

In New Moon, Chris Weitz has crafted a faithful adaptation of Stephenie Meyer’s novel of the same name but a film which sadly maintains the book’s langorous quality and lack of pace, slowing down and picking up in an awkward fashion, exemplified in the film’s anti-climactic third act in Italy (however, this is arguably the fault of the poorly structured source material). However, the film opens well, picking up soon after the events of  Twilight and makes good use of flashback footage of the first film, using Bella’s silvery scar and other reference points to link thematically and narratively with Catherine Hardwicke’s initial outing. However, a detail in which Weitz has done the film a disservice is his decision to change the film’s colour palette; Twilight is shot in a cool, glassy blue, capturing the striking beauty and coldness of both the Cullen family and the film’s location of Washington state (played in reality by Portland, Oregon).

Weitz’s New Moon departs from the frosty colours of Twilight to warm, golden hues which give the pale vampire make-up and contact lenses a garish theatricality and falseness – see above picture of Robert Pattinson’s chalky complexion. New Moon also uses a different composer for its score, which again changes the tone of things – gone is the lilting and decorative piano theme of ‘Bella’s Lullaby’ and in place is a fairly nondescript score, a real shame as there could have been room for linking themes, creating a sense of a whole ’saga’ (as the film is so reticently marketed). We must acknowledge that Lord of the Rings this isn’t, and we will get no such musical continuity here. The featured songs in the film however are excellent, with great tunes from Death Cab For Cutie (who provide the film’s promo single ‘Meet Me on the Equinox’), Bon Iver, Thom Yorke and Muse.

Another area where the film succeeds is in its casting and main players. Kristen Stewart as Bella is very good, anchoring the story convincingly and sensitively. As Edward, Robert Pattinson doesn’t make much of an appearance in the film, but when onscreen is credibly haunting and of course, achingly gorgeous. But Pattinson is not to be outdone in the looks department by Taylor Lautner who is really the film’s show stealer. At all times believable, endearing and generating many scenes of palpable sexual and emotional tension between Bella and the newly ‘buff’ Jacob – for his role, Lautner bulked up considerably, a fact that it is impossible not to notice, spending so much time bare-chested, cinemagoers will undoubtedly leave with his rippling abs burned into their retinas. The first de-shirting is one of many that will cause more than a few giggles, and is something many critics will knock, but as Mark Kermode argues, the film clearly knows its target market (the teenage female) and really there is nothing wrong with the boys getting a little bit naked in face of the plethora of degrading female nudity seen accross the global media.

With more action, more melodrama, more staring and more angst, New Moon would seem on the face of it to be more of the same, but really this second episode has lost some of the quality and fun of the original, sadly making it less enjoyable as a result. Nevertheless, a solid effort that will please fans and Twi-hards alike and guaranteed to be box-office gold.

Rating: MMM+

As soon as I did so, my vegetative state took on a new guise as one rapt, transfixed by what I saw: glossy visuals, beautiful shots and clever mise-en-scene, stellar acting and a script on a level with Aaron Sorkin’s best work.

Set in early 60’s America amongst an elite community of advertising executives, the show explores politics, socioeconomic issues, sexism and ethnicity with apparent aplomb and proves what a hellish world the office workplace could be for women at the time, unprotected by the sexual harassment laws of today.

Admittedly this is all based on the first episode alone, but this is the first intelligent, high-quality series since ‘The Wire’ that I’ve got really excited about.

Review of the latest fantasy feast for the eyes from ‘maverick’ director Terry Gilliam.

Director: Terry Gilliam
Starring: Heath Ledger, Christopher Plummer, Lily Cole, Verne Troyer, Tom Waits, Andrew Garfield
Running time: 122 mins

Terry Gilliam is not known in the film industry for having the best luck with his projects; as documentary Lost in La Mancha proves, he has been unfortunate enough to have film sets and equipment float away following mass flooding on location. But Gilliam and show business as a whole was struck the heaviest of blows with the tragic death of Heath Ledger, the star of Gilliam’s latest film. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a strange merging of worlds which sees a topsy-turvy olde worlde sideshow (the ‘imaginarium’) incongruously placed in contemporary London. Dr Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) is an aging monk, who with his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole) and other oddball characters, tries to scratch out a living by travelling around and ‘performing’ for the public. They are joined by Ledger’s Tony, who attempts to glamorise the show and generate more revenue for the group. From this point onwards, things spiral out of control (and comprehension), sending the characters into vivid and spectacular dimensions, requiring twice as many eyes to fully appreciate them.

It is sad to say that despite the legacy of wonderful performances that the late Heath Ledger leaves behind (Brokeback Mountain, The Dark Knight and even early work such as teen hit 10 Things I Hate About You), his final work on celluloid in Terry Gilliam’s latest film is not Ledger’s best. As Tony, the mysterious stranger who joins the oddball ‘family’ of a travelling sideshow, Ledger gives a bland and mediocre performance, a turn which lacks the spark he so clearly displayed in other roles. But Ledger can hardly be blamed for this, given that his character is so confusedly written, creating a role which (even in different circumstances) would be difficult for any actor to make sense of, even one with Ledger’s talent. Following his death, a trio of actors (and friends) Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell stepped in to play different aspects of Tony’s personality, a feature which works well and certainly adds to the character. This is surprising seeing as this element of the film is potentially problematic to say the least, but is instead one of the most successful parts of the film.

As for the rest of the cast, Christopher Plummer as the titular Parnassus is solid, as is newcomer Andrew Garfield as Anton. Music fans may be able to recognise Tom Waits in a bizarre turn as Mr Nick, the demonic foil to Parnassus. Verne Troyer of Austin Powers fame is similarly awkward, cracking wise with clichéd one-liners. However, plaudits must go to model-turned-actress Lily Cole who gives a surprisingly subtle and convincing performance as Parnassus’ daughter, the flame-haired Valentina, proving that she is much more than a doll-like face. But fundamentally, Gilliam’s fantasy opus is deeply flawed. Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson once said that the key to great storytelling (and good filmmaking) is to strategically ask and answer a series of questions in the audience’s mind, and Gilliam, for all his wonderful ideas and creative talent fails to do this, leaving the audience asking more questions (arguably the location of any kind of plot structure) than the film is capable of answering. Instead of being taken on an adventure through breathtaking fantasy worlds, the audience is left floundering. The messy structure and lack of narrative rhythm make The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus a thoroughly strange experience – a visual masterpiece with a story that is virtually impossible to understand.

Gilliam’s moments of true genius (and these are many) are overshadowed by a sense of bewildering confusion. There is a certain amount of cruel irony in Tony’s speech to Parnassus, how he must meet the public half way between what they want and what he wishes to show them – if only Gilliam could live by his own character’s words. Once Gilliam marries his vision and creativity with well structured plot and narrative, we will surely have a masterpiece on our hands. Until that day comes however, we are left with a film that is as confusing as it is visually arresting.

Rating: MM

Review of Julie & Julia, the meeting of two true stories about love, cooking and the love of cooking.

Director: Nora Ephron
Starring: Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Stanley Tucci, Chris Messina
Running time: 123 mins

Nora Ephron’s Julie & Julia tells the two true stories of American celebrity chef Julia Child coming to write her bestselling cookbook Mastering the Art of French Cooking in the mid to late 1950s and Julie Powell, a woman who in 2002 sets herself the challenge to cook the entire range of recipes from Child’s book in the space of one calendar year.

Julie Powell (Amy Adams) works for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation in the turbulent aftermath of the September 11^th attacks. A self proclaimed ‘failed writer’, stressed in her job and disillusioned with her power-dressing career-driven friends, Julie seeks solace and comfort in doing something she really enjoys: cooking. Suffering from failed-potential syndrome, Julie’s self confidence takes a knock when she discovers that one vapid, gaudy member of her group of Manhattan girlfriends writes an online blog about her garish personal exploits, tales of scandal that are read by hundreds of fans. Knowing that she herself could write anything much better, Julie sets about writing about cooking and her love of all things gastronomic, turning to 1960s American cooking icon Julia Child for inspiration.

Soon Julie is living her life by the book that ‘taught America to cook’, garnering herself support, fans and personal problems in equal measure. As with many unwavering routines (Julie sticks to the recipe count religiously), committing one’s life to the cause eventually begins to be a burden – not only on Julie herself but those around her too.
Meanwhile in the second of the dual-strand narrative, Julia Child (Meryl Streep) and her devoted husband Paul move in to a house in 1950s Paris, falling in love with the city, its people and its food.

However, although Julia enjoys her life in Paris, she feels she wants ‘something to do’ and decides to pursue her penchant for food, enrolling in the Cordon Bleu school of culinary arts and defying the social rules of the time, being a female student in a male dominated environment. The end result is Julia’s ascendancy to famed television cook, one whose kitchen is made a replica of and displayed at the renowned Smithsonian Museum.

A lesser director than Ephron might be unable to marry the two strands together, yet what we have is a flowing, wonderful joy of a film with sympathetic and beautifully crafted characters whose lives complement each other across the years. Julie & Julia is the second time that Amy Adams and Meryl Streep have appeared alongside each other (see review of Doubt), but it is a real shame that the two never share any screen time as both actresses’ performances are excellent. Amy Adams confirms her reputation as a leading lady with presence as Julie Powell, portraying the real-life blogger with convincing and subtle quirks. Meanwhile Meryl Streep once again proves that she is without doubt one of the greatest actresses to appear on celluloid. Her Julia Child is a heart-warming, loveable and charming woman, a spirited bon-viveur drinking in all the world has to offer. Supporting her all the way is Stanley Tucci as Paul Child in a similarly winning performance.

With its mix of endearing and interesting plot, likeable characters and incredible spirit, Julie & Julia is a delicious treat for all.

Rating: MMMM

Rating: MMM+

Review of Spanish auteur Pedro Almodóvar’s latest film, Broken Embraces (Los Abrazos Rotos), starring his current screen muse Penélope Cruz.

Director: Pedro Almodóvar
Starring: Penélope Cruz, Lluis Homar, Blanca Portillo, Tamar Noves, José Luis Gómez
Running time: 127 mins

Broken Embraces marks the fourth collaboration between director Pedro Almodóvar and actress Penélope Cruz and is one with similar themes to their previous outings together All About My Mother and Volver – family, parenthood, sex and love affairs that lead ultimately to danger and heartache. Set in 2008, Broken Embraces centres on blind director/screenwriter Harry Caine (Lluis Homar) who, before losing his sight was a famous film director. However, events in 2008 in the lives of Harry, his personal assistant Judit (Blanca Portillo) and her son Diego (Tamar Noves) bring back past memories and the ghost of a shared trauma that as yet has been left unresolved. Going back 14 years, we see Harry (then known by his real name, Mateo Blanco) embarking on a doomed love affair with his charismatic lead actress Lena (Penélope Cruz), whose infidelity towards her partner (José Luis Gómez) has disastrous consequences.

As much as Broken Embraces’ first half hour is relatively engaging, it lacks the essential clarity of narrative so crucial to the establishing of premise and plot – it seems the easiest way for the audience to really connect with the characters and the action is to let it wash over them instead of attempting to understand it. Although the film is certainly not 21 Grams style anti-chronological, it certainly isn’t the most linear, and sadly this is where its problems lie. The first act sees Cruz and Gómez in 1992 and then in 1994, a series of scenes which seem to be primarily for character development but which do not further the main action, even if they do throw up some vaguely interesting sub-plots. However, the central part of the film is solid and well crafted, with some excellent location photography (look out for the stunning aerial shots of Lanzarote), art direction and classic Almodóvar mise-en-scene with vibrant reds, blues and yellows, and with solitary figures preparing food in kitchens.

It must be said that Pedro Almodóvar really knows how to direct his actors and is a master of casting; Penélope Cruz as ever is mesmerising in terms of both her beauty and performance as the not-always likeable Lena. Fellow Volver actress Blanca Portillo is nuanced and convincing as Judit, as is her Lluis Homar as Harry/Mateo. Although few of the characters generate as much sympathy as other figures in Almodóvar’s films, there is enough charisma and charm between them to keep the audience entertained. However, the narrative problems make Broken Embraces just that little bit harder to engage with – the film loses its way slightly in the deployment of a third act that seems tacked-on and a plot point that those familiar with Almodóvar’s work will see coming and arguably feel cheated by.

A challenging, intelligent, moving and well-crafted drama not without its charm, but not without its problems either.

Rating: MMM+ (add another M if you’re an Almodóvar fan)

Rating: MMMM

Review of Adventureland, which  follows young James Brennan one summer in the mid 1980s as he takes up a crappy summer job at the local down-and-out theme park.

Director: Greg Mottola
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, Bill Hader, Ryan Reynolds
Running time: 107 mins

There really is something about a shitty job that has the power to unite people. Knowing that your co-workers also hate working in the place you do provides a certain camaraderie and team spirit. This, and the charms of fellow ‘Adventureland’ worker Em (Kristen Stewart) is what gets James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) through a long summer working for an out of date, kitsch theme  park. During his time working there, he encounters tricky customers, big-ass pandas and new relationships, not all of which are comfortable learning experiences.

Director Greg Mottola deftly handles and maintains a subtle tension between  the film’s comedic elements and summery high spirits with James’s melancholy and disappointment  (being let down by his parents forces him to take up the job at Adventureland) and his alienation from others around him. This alienation and disillusionment comes as a result of James looking forward to a summer trip to Europe, followed by enrolment at Columbia University and being with like minded people – dreams which are trodden on and painfully replaced by returning to live with his parents – a disappointment familiar to this critic in particular. However, Mottola contrasts James’s bitterness with physical comedy, and witty dialogue between likeable characters, hitting a perfect tone that suits the film’s indie-cool style.

The success of Adventureland really does rest on the chemistry and interplay between Eisenberg and Stewart. Both are excellent as James and Em respectively, creating sympathetic, likeable characters that are utterly compelling. Eisenberg at times is reminiscent of Michael Cera (Juno, Superbad), with a nervous energy that completely suits the role. Kristen Stewart, away from the blinding spotlight of her role in the Twilight saga, is a complete natural, and should be awarded for such a believable and compelling performance. The rest of the cast lend their support well, particularly Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig and Martin Starr. Also worthy of note is the art direction, lighting and soundtrack, all of which are excellent and perfectly portray the mid-80’s period setting – seen particularly in the Razzamataz club scenes.

However, in light of the promotional material for the film, one feels that Adventureland has been marketed wrong – advertising it as another slacker gross-out comedy sells the film short of its integrity and quality. Greg Mottola (as both director and screenwriter) has crafted a warm, funny and wise tale of work, play, friendship and love that is both as intelligent as it is engaging.

Rating: MMMM