TRUE GRIT (2010 - Cert 15)

January is always a bit of a busy time in film land. All the studios save their 'for your consideration' movies until that point to ensure they have the best chance possible to pick up the coveted golden statue. You had The King's Speech, Black Swan, 127 Hours, The Fighter and True Grit. I managed to see the first three but the others passed me by. The Fighter never really appealed to me, I sensed it was going to be the standard formulaic boxing pic, but True Grit, the Cohen Brothers' latest offering, that was one I really wanted to see and was gutted that it slipped out of the cinema without me getting to view it.

That is until the good old faithful Firmdale Film Club, this time the Charlotte Street Hotel, my first time there for both grub and films (both of which I heartily recommend).



This Wild West story of a 14 year old avenging her father's death with the help of a Texas Marshall and a drunk, one-eyed US Marshall was nominated for 10 Oscars earlier this year, including best film, best director, best actor (Jeff Bridges) and best supporting actress (Hailee Steinfeld), yet it didn't win any. One of the things I was most interested in was to see whether it was an inferior film and performances to the ultimate winners, or whether it was a case of the Cohen's hype diminishing after it's peak with No Country For Old Men.

Well the first thing to say is that it is 'very' Cohen Brothers. They were very quick to stress that this is not a remake of the old 1969 John Wayne film, it is more an adaptation, or a re imagining of the Charles Portis novel from which that film was adapted. I've not seen the old film or read the novel so I can't comment on where this film hails from, but what I can say is that it instantly feels like some of their other work, particularly No Country. However, it isn't just the dusty, desert settings that they both share. It's also the combination of humour, shock, realism and fear and the way that they hop between those particular feelings in the gradual pace of the film. The Coens create films where a scare is never far from a laugh, and you don't know whether to laugh or cringe at the violence taking place on screen. There are also some brilliantly executed visual elements that have that surrealism that is so often associated with the brothers, such as a man covered completely in bear skin, including head, riding slowly towards the camera, and icily, clinical and realistic violence such as the pause between a rifle being fired from distance and the bullet's impact on it's target. Make no mistake, this film feels real. People bleed and they are surrounded by death, trying to profit in any way they can in the death of others. It's a bleak and desolate Wild West, not an exciting Hollywood version.

The real mystery of the Oscars was why Steinfeld was nominated for best supporting actress when the the entire film hangs on her shoulders. Her Mattie Ross is incredible. The words that she speaks are strong, confrontational and determined, but these lines in the hands of a less talented actress would easily sound hollow and pointless. It's easy to write forceful words but to make them sound believable and powerful coming from the mouth of a 14 year old girl is a real achievement and one that Steinfeld will always have on her CV now. She is brilliant, negotiating with purpose, antagonising and shooting down men four times her age and twice her size. What makes it even more impressive is that as the film wears on, her character develops and the mask starts to slip, Steinfeld shows the vulnerability and the brittle will of this young girl, desperate for revenge, but also terrified of getting it.

She is very ably supported, yes supported, by Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon. Jeff Bridges won an Oscar for a performance that didn't have a patch on this. His role in Crazy Heart was dull and two-dimensional.  His Rooster Cogburn in this film is similar in delivery, growling drunkenly, hard to understand, but here is a turn as a character with real depth. At first glimpse he seems to be a bum, someone with barely any redeemable qualities, then the relationship with Mattie Ross grows and brings the best out of Cogburn. Ross does the same with Damon's Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf, another character that we shouldn't like, devious, cowardly and antagonistic. It's good to see Damon as something other than a good guy, he enjoys himself playing someone who has a nasty streak that we easily hate. Ross brings out a bravery in him that we hadn't seen before. Both Cogburn and LaBoeuf are real anti-heroes.

It's essentially a character film dressed up in the clothes of a chase movie. It's great to watch these people develop, especially in the hands of such fine actors. Going back to the chase element, any film like that needs a boogie man to hunt down, and in this instance it's Tom Chaney played by Josh Brolin. He doesn't get much screen time, but when he does it's a joy to watch his bad guy, a truly nasty piece of work. Stupid and violent is not a good combination, kind of an idiotic evil. He rounds off the superbly chosen cast nicely as the Coens prove their class once again.

I clearly love it, so why do I think it didn't pick up an Oscar? Well, I think it's a combination of the Academy wanting it to be someone else's 'turn' after No Country cleaned up the other year, and of a very strong field in the running in 2011. Films, directors, actors and actresses, this was really a bumper year. For True Grit to miss out is really no shameful thing as they all (the ones I've seen anyway) would have been worthy winners.

CRAZY HEART (2009)

Jeff Bridges' turn as Bad Blake, washed out, alcoholic country singer was the one that finally got him his Oscar. He'd been nominated before of course, once as leading man for Starman in 1984 and three other occasions for supporting roles, but this was the one that got him his little statuette. Critics and punters alike raved about him and the film when it was out, but I never got around to seeing it. As a Bridges fan, I should have ventured to a multiplex, and let's be honest if I really wanted to see it, I would have made the time, but for some reason it didn't scream out at me as a film I couldn't miss.

Months later, long after the hype had subsided and Bridge's victory speech was but a distant memory, the DVD came through the post from Lovefilm, and that night my girlfriend and I watched it, knowing that we were about to see an acclaimed and celebrated piece of cinema.



Whatever that nagging feeling was all those months ago, chipping away at me, suggesting that Crazy Heart might not be all it's cracked up to be, must be related to Mystic Meg, because come the end credits, I couldn't help but feel disappointed. And I wasn't the only one either, the girlfriend had the same empty, nonplussed feeling..

It may be down to the hype and constant praise and that it would never be able to live up to that level of hoopla, but I was oddly detached from the whole thing. The film itself felt very safe. The direction was not particularly adventurous, solid enough with the occasional beautiful scene of dusty American country, but to me, I could tell it's the work of a first time director (Scott Cooper) perhaps more concerned with not wanting to put a foot wrong than anything else. Also, for a film about an alcoholic, and one we're not meant to sympathise with for some of the story, it just isn't edgy enough. It smacked a little of a TV movie, alluding to grown up and disturbing themes rather than portraying them and predictable, never once straying from what I expected.

Another thing I wasn't particularly impressed with was Bridges' performance. He was good, but then he is good in everything he does, he just didn't WOW me. It was a very monotone performance, not in a dull way, it just felt like a constant tone. Blake's character doesn't call for a Pacino type shouting and arm-waving, but to me Bridges was at the same emotional level no matter what Blake's state. I'm not arguing with Bridges' idea on how the character should be pitched, I just believe that they way he chose to do it built a barrier between me and the film. Perhaps he was trying to build barriers with the other characters, I'm not sure, it just didn't work for me. I think back to other Bridges films and I can't help but feel he has been better elsewhere. If you ask me he was better in Arlington Road than in this. I saw this in the same week as I saw The King's Speech and 127 Hours and it's telling just how little Bridges' did for me in comparison to Franco, Firth and Rush.

Maggie Gyllenhaal was also nominated (best supporting actress) for her role as Jean Craddock, Blake's love interest. I was much more impressed with her, but it brings me to another problem with the film. The central relationship. I just didn't believe in it. I wasn't sure how she could fall for this past it country singer who can't stay sober. If i can't get past that, the whole thing is going to be an uphill struggle.

Colin Farrell turns up unexpectedly as Tommy Sweet, Blake's younger more successful rival. He is decent, but the role seems pointless. He pops in, it seems as though he might be integral to the plot, then disappears completely, before showing his face at the end but with no real purpose. Nice to see Robert Duvall too, all be it very underused.

The soundtrack is sublime though. Bridges and Farrell both singing their own songs, some of the music was utterly enchanting and, at times, heartbreakingly melancholic and has stayed with me long after watching it. That'll be a definite purchase.

So it's decent, but nothing more than that. It feels worse than it actually is though because it fell so far from the heady heights of all the hype that surrounded it.

Summed up best by a mate of mine - 'The Wrestler with country music'.

TRON: LEGACY (2010)

To people of a certain age, namely around mine, this film needs little introduction. In 1982, children brought up on arcade machines and Atari consoles were given a film that was for them. An adventure set inside a computer, 'The Grid', it looked like a video game and therefore watching it felt like being in a game. Visual effects that were, at that time, state of the art transported us into a virtual reality world and, even for some of it's faults, film makers are still trying to recreate that sensation with countless video game adaptations. And failing. Now almost 30 years on, we are treated to a sequel - a new generation, but more importantly the old guard (my lot), are given access to The Grid again.



There has been a lot of anticipation for this release, people desperate to see what today's technology can do to the world of Tron, in Imax and 3D. The task of bringing it into the 21st Century was entrusted in an unknown director, Joseph Kosinski and a team of writers without a notable credit, other than TV between them (although Lisberger and MacBird are back from the original and credited as being responsible for 'characters), a bit of a risk I'm sure you'll agree.  The big coup that they manage though is the retention of Jeff Bridges. He plays Kevin Flynn again, but also stars, in digital form, as Clu, Flynn's creation to create the perfect system in The Grid that turns rogue. The digital Bridges looks just as he did 28 years ago and is a remarkable creation by the effects team. However, when Clu is moving around, or more importantly speaking, you can tell that he is CGI and it becomes slightly distracting. He is not as seamless as Gollum or Dobby, but knocks the living daylights out of Jar Jar Binks.

The plot is as you would expect, a bit daft and nonsensical but it gets us into the action and provides a conflict to kick the film along. Flynn's son Sam (played as unintentionally wooden as possible by Garrett Hedlund) stumbles across the Tron machine in the arcade and is thrown into a Grid-wide battle between Flynn and Clu. There is a genocide story in there which is now a standard device for action-adventures that need to be child friendly, it's essentially good vs evil. We know who we are siding with, simple.

What we are then treated to is a mixture of spectacular visual scenes involving bikes, planes, fist fights inter-spliced with contemplative scenes where Jeff Bridges sounds a lot like 'The Dude', good but a) seen it before and b) oddly out of place. It's worth saying that the action does look great, when characters die, they dissolve into small pieces (similar to the coins in Scott Pilgrim, but much more effective and better looking), and the cityscapes and panoramas look fantastic. However, when 'stuff' isn't happening it really is dull. It reminded me of the disappointing philosophy of Matrix 2 and 3, blah, blah, blah......It's not as though I'm a simpleton who needs something to blow up to keep me interested, it's just this particular brand of waffle was just too bland to bear. Kosinski thought it would be acceptable to have these long scenes but have something pretty in the background that might distract us for long enough for them to get away with it. Nope, I need a bit more than a modern looking apartment with stars outside to make me blissfully unaware of what people are saying.

Having said that, it does a good job at being faithful to the tone and pace of the original and it finishes with a real fizz and a bang, so much so that I left the cinema thinking I had been more entertained for a sustained period than I actually had. Sneaky....Plus it has a great cameo performance from Michael Sheen, very Bowie-esque, and a cracking soundtrack from Daft Punk.

If you liked the original Tron there will be enough goodwill in the bank and there is enough here to mean that you will enjoy yourself, but there will be a little part of your brain that can't help but feel disappointed. If you didn't like the original, I wouldn't bother, there's not enough here to convert you to a 'User'.....

Quick note on two things, firstly 3D - this is another example where I didn't think 3D added anything whatsoever. After watching Toy Story 3 in 3D, and forgetting it was in 3D (if this happens what is the point?), here I was once again, getting irritated with the glasses and struggling to see what all the fuss was about. The effects would still have been impressive in 2D. Avatar and Piranha 3D are still the only two to have made it worthwhile. Secondly, I saw it at the HMV Curzon in Wimbledon, lovely little cinema, very reasonably priced and another great alternative to the horrible multiplexes....vote with your feet people.