The Films Of Danny Boyle - Part 1

Partial Education Presents

The Films of Danny Boyle - Part 1

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Shallow Grave

Trainspotting

A Life Less Ordinary

The Beach

and 28 Days Later

I begin with an apology. Sort of. After the review of two weeks ago, involving Denzel Washington, his opponent Mills responded and was none too happy in my portrayal of her. So, in the interests of full disclosure, this was her response: 

'Right, Boothman, *SPOILERS* I realise I'm blowing my 'anonymity', but I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. Yes, I groaned - but not because I hate him or think he's a bad actor - on the contrary, I think he's become a bit lazy, stopped living up to his potential and just seems to be going through the motions. I have no problem with the man, just find his films bloody boring! However, will give Flight a go based on your 4/5 as I've not seen it yet, and concede defeat to Mr Washington graciously in this particular fictional battle.'

What about Unstoppable!? I gave that 4/5 too!

This is the part where I come up with some smart arsed reason why I wanted to watch all of Danny Boyle's films. Truthfully though, I just really wanted to watch Sunshine again.

Boyle once said that at every one of his films' premieres, his Dad came up to him and said "well it was good, but it wasn't as good as Shallow Grave". An opinion that I hold no grudge against, but it does perhaps set the bar a little too high when it comes to expectation. This is not Boyle's best film by any means and it's important not to expect that before you watch it. On the other hand, when you consider it's his debut film, it's still pretty bloody good. Flatmates Kerry Fox, Christopher Eccleston and some Scottish bloke called Ewan find themselves in a tricky situation when they discover their new flatmate dead in his bedroom. The natural reaction to call and report the death is put on hold when they also discover a suitcase filled with considerable amounts of money. Proving themselves to be entirely rational human beings, they decide to dispose of the body and keep the money. Naturally, this doesn't all go as smoothly as they expected. It harkens back to a style of film that Boyle hasn't done in a while now, an incredibly black, but mostly successful comedy. The laughs play in unison with an immorality tale in which we, as an audience, may judge these characters, but then have to question if we would handle the situation any differently ourselves. The three leads are all excellent performances, with this being the first part of the one-two punch that made McGregor a star (the second one's the next review). Importantly though, character actions and motivations do feel natural. Whether you agree with them is irrelevant because their actions do befit the characters. Unfortunately though, a slightly overwrought ending does leave things feeling a little too over the top. The morally questionable actions of earlier are replaced by actions that no one in their right mind would ever think to suggest pros for and so it loses some of that element that makes you question yourself. It is a problem that means I'm not giving this a perfect score, but it by no means ruins the film and definitely doesn't prevent this from being a debut that most filmmakers would kill for.

FOUR out of five

Trainspotting is a hugely influential and important part of British cinema. It gave us phenomenal performances, some breakout stars (not just McGregor) and some classic scenes. This most likely isn't news to you and I have no issues with people referring to it as a masterpiece. For me though, it isn't quite there. That said, if the first two thirds of the film were anything to go by, it would be. Taking a view of drug addiction in a way which manages to avoid both celebration or judgment, the film presents us with so many characters that we would naturally despise if we met in person, yet helps us to understand how they have become the way they are. At times, you may even be drawn to sympathise with them, but the film never quite steps over that unacceptable line into celebration. As Trainspotting progresses, it keeps getting better and that masterpiece status does seem entirely justified, all the way up to and including the exceptional "withdrawal" scene, which gives us both Boyle and McGregor at their absolute best. It is the perfect ending to a phenomenal film. Only it's not the ending. Discussing what follows isn't possible without spoiling it for the few who haven't seen this and I don't want to make this sound like the film ends badly. Far from it. It remains very good, but very good pales slightly in comparison to that fantastic scene that came before it. The intentions of the final act are solid and, in providing a complete narrative, it's entirely understandable why the film does continue. For me though, they don't hit that high benchmark that has been set for the rest of the film. Trainspotting is a film that every film fan should see, but I'd by lying if I credited it with perfection.

FOUR out of five

That was my original review of Trainspotting, but then I watched it again and I can safely say that I now fully get the final act. Still not going to discuss it in depth, but it is a vital part to the film's message. I may not enjoy it as much as the earlier scenes, but I have to acknowledge it's importance and, as such, I'm upgrading that score.

FIVE out of five

Coming into these reviews, there were two Danny Boyle films I hadn't seen before. One was Trance, the other was A Life Less Ordinary: a film so irritating that a Keith Lemon marathon would have felt like sweet respite. Bringing an unfortunate close to the Boyle/McGregor partnership (for now at least), this represented a transition for both of them as they made their way into the American market. On the basis of this, it's amazing they're still welcome there. The biggest problem with A Life Less Ordinary is that it manages to take two plots that could have worked, but brings them together in a way that jars rather than blends. The first is the story of McGregor and Cameron Diaz, as the latter is unintentionally kidnapped by the former, after her millionaire father (Ian Holm) fires McGregor. The other story has Holly Hunter and Delroy Lindo as two angels who are tasked with leading McGregor and Diaz into love, under threat of banishment from Heaven if they fail. The latter plot shows more potential, not just because it holds more imagination, but because it is sometimes quite funny. Unfortunately, those "sometimes" are offset (and then some) by the other times, where irksome quirkiness takes hold and both characters feel exceptionally annoying, notably so in the case of Hunter (it really pains me to say that). On the other hand, the McGregor and Diaz partnership is nothing short of terrible. The two demonstrate the same sort of chemistry that you get when you mix donner meat with colitis and, on the very rare occasion when they're on their own, their company remains just as unpleasant. A Life Less Ordinary is a comedy filled with repellent creatures, which wouldn't matter if we were expected to laugh at them, but it reaches a point where we need something to root for and the end credits serve that purpose just fine.

ONE out of five

It seemed as though A Life Less Ordinary didn't really hurt Danny Boyle's standing in America and, though that was a good thing in the long run, this led to The Beach. I first watched The Beach years ago, probably around the time it was released on (wait for it) VHS. I despised it. So did my parents. My sister faced much ridicule for recommending it to us. All this means that the last thing I wanted to do was watch it again, not because I'm averse to giving films second chances (I refer back to the Trainspotting review, which was actually me giving the film a third chance), but because I really didn't want my mind to be changed and force me to admit that my sister was right. I have now re-watched The Beach and can say that my sister definitely wasn't right. In fairness, it wasn't quite as bad as I remembered it, with a strong idea and Boyle's directorial flair helping to make things more tolerable. It's also nowhere near as annoying as A Life Less Ordinary, so I'll give it a bonus point there. It is, however,  heavily marred by a number of things. The biggest is Leonardo DiCaprio, who delivers a solid performance of an egregiously unlikeable character. Riddled with youthful self-entitlement and petulant arrogance, the last thing you want is for DiCaprio's Richard to find the utopian beach that he seeks because frankly, it's the last thing he deserves. Unlike The Wolf Of Wall Street, this isn't an antagonist masquerading himself as a protagonist, this is supposed to be the film's hero (so to speak) and I hold warmer feelings for George Clooney's Batman. The whole plot is telegraphed from fairly early on (once Richard befriends some stoned surfers, it really does give everything away) and this predictability isn't compensated for enough in enjoyable scenes or through Boyle's directorial flair. In the end though, The Beach just doesn't feel that important and has thankfully become a small footnote in Boyle's career. In the long run, you can't say that anyone's career was hurt by this film and so it passes as little more than a minor inconvenience, but that doesn't really excuse it.

TWO out of five

There will be those who will point to Trainspotting. There will also be those who may point to Slumdog Millionaire. For me though, 28 Days Later is the most important film of Boyle's career by quite some distance. It doesn't just represent him coming back from a disappointing couple of films in style. It's also the regaining of reputation that he has managed to (and hopefully will continue to) maintain ever since. The real key to 28 Days Later is it's Britishness. That's a statement that could stray me into UKIP territory, so I'll clarify. The zombie genre wasn't quite as over-saturated in 2002 as it is today, but it was still far from fresh and having something that would separate you from the pack was vital. 28 Days Later has many of those things (it gave birth to fast zombies for one), but the fact that it's a British film is the biggest of those. It instantly provides it with a different tone and a minimalist feel that really does validate the phrase "less is more". You don't get excessive hordes of thousands of zombies here, with the groups being more like a small mob, bringing with them a much more focussed danger. They may even begin to border on scary, though I have never believed in the potential for zombies to truly scare. Naturally, me being British probably helps in the sense of an impact, as the images mean more to me (the empty motorways feel particularly eerie), though an empty London was always going to help with the global market, due to it's recognizability. Now, when a lot of these images go away in the second half, it does make things a little less impactful and wheels out the good old "who are the real monsters?" argument. This doesn't mean that the film starts to fail too much in quality, as it remains excellent, just in a not-quite-as-excellent way as the fantastically unsettling first half. 28 Days Later is an exceptionally good film. I'm only just scratching the surface of what works in it (essays could be written on the brilliant music and Anthony Dod Mantle's exceptional cinematography), but that's the nature of these shorter reviews. Also, I just need to make sure I've saved something for when I get to the Full Educations.

FIVE out of five

Next Time (13th November)

What usually follows a Part 1?

Fight Night: Washington VS Mills

Partial Education's 1st Ever Fight Night

Washington VS Mills

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Unstoppable

Safe House

Flight

2 Guns

and The Equalizer

Something really weird happened to me not so long ago, as the name Denzel Washington proved itself capable of producing a groan of disapproval from someone who, up until that point, I had considered a close friend. Naturally, it threw me that someone bore such a strong dislike of the man and his work, since he's generally accepted as a bit of a modern great. Then, something even weirder happened because when I was trying to fight his case, I found myself struggling. Let's be honest, the man has been starring in a lot of films which feel like he's coasting. So, here's the question. Are Denzel Washington films still worth checking out? I'm going to review his five most recent films, putting him up against my friend, who will go by the super-secretive-definitely-not-her-last-name code name: Mills. For every good film, Washington gets a point. For every bad one, Mills gets a point. Just to note, I legitimately do not know who is going to win at this point, as I have yet to see three of the five films listed here.

Round One

The teaming of Washington and regular director Tony Scott would probably be thought of as a great one, if it weren't for the fact that some of their collaborations were a bit lacking (The Taking Of Pelham 123 trod that fine line between average and shit). Gratefully then, their final partnership (and Scott's final film outright) is one of the better ones. It's as simple a concept as they come: two "ordinary" blokes (inverted commas used because one's Washington and the other's Captain Kirk 2.0) find themselves as the only people who may be able to stop an unmanned speeding train before it wreaks high devastation on their hometown. What makes this film work is how unapologetic it is. Going for adrenaline porn of the highest order, Scott somehow keeps the tension and excitement running, regardless of the fact that the plot and ending are all just as linear as the tracks that carry the train. Washington and Kirk 2.0 work well as a team together, though this is mostly down to Washington's easy chemistry and cheeky grin (Mills, be under no illusion, you've lost this one). It's all about the endgame though and the film really kicks in once they're train chasing. Scott spends a lot of time setting up the train as the mother of all monsters, giving us a roid-raging Thomas the Tank Engine and sound design laced with more inappropriate roaring than Bruce the Shark (Jaws IV, not Nemo). Unstoppable sets itself out as no more than fun, meaning that if you're the sort of person who only watches films directed by men wearing trilbies, you will despise it with every fibre of your being. Good for me then, that I hate trilbies.

FOUR out of five

Washington 1-0 Mills

Round Two

Safe House was off to a losing battle from the moment the poster arrived. Why? Because I initially mistook Ryan Reynolds for Guy Pearce. I'm not sure why, because Ryan Reynolds looks bugger all like Guy Pearce, but it was a mistake I made and the realisation of the truth was a fairly crushing blow. If the teaming of Washington and Pearce felt like awaiting a Sunday roast, the teaming of Washington and Reynolds (I've only ever liked him in Buried) felt like awaiting a warm mug of arsenic. So I never bothered watching it until now. Washington actually shakes things up a little bit by going for the bad boy role (though Training Day it isn't). As Tobin Frost, an ex-CIA operative gone dodge, Washington ends up on the wrong end of a manhunt and finds himself in the not-so-safe house presided over by "housekeeper" Matt Weston (Reynolds). When the safe house is inevitably broken into, Reynolds is forced to flee with Frost in search of another safe house, whilst everyone appears to be trying to kill Frost and, as a result, Weston too. From there on, everything gets twisty and turny in an oh-so-predictable way. You can see the character arc for Frost from miles away and another big twist involving a supporting character is also pretty well telegraphed. This makes Safe House hard to enjoy at times, particularly when the film resorts to telling us everything that we've already worked out. On the flip side of this, there are some good to excellent action sequences. These are fast, frenetic and (in the true nature of alliteration) fun. They're also brutal, not because of any visual cheap shots, but mostly because of some of the best fight scene sound I can think of. Every shot sounds meaty and impactful, meaning that though you don't feel the hit, you certainly don't envy the recipient. These action scenes are, at times, so good that they do elevate what is mostly a fairly average film. Safe House is not, by any means, a film that deserves to be anywhere near the top of your priorities list, but as background entertainment (as in watch the action and have something else to do when they're talking), it's good enough.

THREE out of five

It's a real middle-of-the-road three though, so…

Washington 1-1 Mills

Round Three

It is notable that in the 12 years since his Oscar win for Training Day, Washington received no more nominations until Flight. That's not always an indication of lack of quality in someone's work, but Washington has always seemed like an actor that the Academy like to recognise and the more pedestrian roles he'd been taking never really gave them much reason to do that. With Flight, he re-establishes himself. As hero pilot Whip Whittaker, Washington shows us a confident persona combining with a descent into life as a mostly functioning alcoholic. After he manages to land a diving plane with far less casualties than there should have been, Whittaker is declared a hero, but also faces investigation after his blood tests positive for alcohol. The thing to be clear on is that Whittaker is not necessarily a nice man. He can be arrogant, rude, deluded and is even willing to attempt some pretty nasty manipulations at times. All this means is that there is no guarantee that you will come out of Flight with warm-hearted feelings towards him. The thing that makes all this acceptable is that it is Washington's most human performance in quite some time. OK, so he's not been straying into full-on superhero mode, but there's regularly been something larger than life about his characters and the only reason that some of Whittaker feels this way is because it is mostly a facade. It's a performance so good that it dominates the film and this makes it a good thing that he's rarely not in a scene. With the notable exception of the fantastic plane crash scene, things sometimes stutter elsewhere. Kelly Reilly plays a fellow drug addict that Whittaker comes to bond with, but still doesn't feel hugely important to the film. Her performance is fine, but with Washington dancing circles around her, she's not the most memorable thing (I've seen the film twice now and can only roughly remember what happens to her character). There's also an overabundance of underused characters, with the likes of Melissa Leo and James Badge Dale not getting as much screen time as they perhaps deserved. That's not the same for everyone, as Don Cheadle, John Goodman and Bruce Greenwood get their moments. However, this is a Washington vehicle through and through and that's fine because it is, by far, the best performance Washington has given in a long time. I'd even suggest it's better than the two he did win Oscars for.

FOUR out of five

Washington 2-1 Mills

Round Four

So, that conversation which elicited the groan was actually because I said I wanted to see 2 Guns. I really wanted to see it, not because it ever looked good to begin with, but as an act of faith. The previous teaming of Baltasar Kormákur and Mark Wahlberg led to Contraband. This was another film that looked awful, but surprised me with just how much I enjoyed it. 2 Guns had that similar feeling about it and that made it even more disappointing when it turned out to be pretty average. Wahlberg and Washington both play undercover cops, trying to infiltrate a drug gang without either knowing their partner's true allegiance. When the big "YOU'RE A COP!?" revelation happens, it also unearths an endless supply of bad guys, all of whom are now baying for their blood. That's the first problem. There are far too many villains here, particularly when you consider that Bill Paxton is one of the few entertaining things in the film. Whenever you're with a bad guy who isn't Paxton, you're wishing you were with him, not necessarily because the performances are awful, but because the characters are so deflatingly bland. As the cop duo, Wahlberg and Washington are just about fine. They even get some laughs from time to time, but the ever-growing list of cop duos doesn't have them anywhere close to the top of it. This all means that nothing is there to compensate for the deficiencies as the action is also fairly bog standard, recycling the same old scenarios you've seen done a whole lot better before. The worst thing about 2 Guns is that it's just… there. There's nothing truly awful about it, in the exact same way that there's nothing hugely memorable about it (again, Paxton comes close, but he's underused). It's all a bit like paint by numbers. You know where it's going. You don't know why you're bothering to stick around and, by the end of, you can't help but feel like you've wasted a good 2 hours of your life.

TWO out of five

Washington 2-2 Mills

Round Five

The Equalizer is truly one of the most immersive experiences I have ever had in film. As I watched the film reveal it's pre-occupation with death and the numerous nasty ways in which this can be bestowed upon people, I engaged with it, failing to realise that death was exactly what was befalling my brain cells. Washington plays an everyman in the same way that he usually plays an everyman, by slowly revealing that he happens to be a badass. By day, he works in a DIY (sorry, hardware) store, by night he engages in his own brand of karmic realignment, taking out horrible people in horrible ways. Before you even get the slightest chance to suggest that this will all lead to the good old "is vigilantism right?" argument, the prevailing levels of dumb mean that there is no way that one's going to fly. Yet, despite better judgment and any preconceived notions of quality, The Equalizer can, at times, be a lot of fun. The main story involves Washington's Bob McCall finding himself against the Russian mob, when he steps up to defend a young prostitute (Chloe Grace Moretz in a mercifully short role, Jodie Foster can rest easy) and takes out several mobsters in the process. This leads to a cold, merciless enforcer named Teddy (Marton Csokas and no, that name is not a joke) being sent in to oversee the revenge process. Things start poorly, as the whole things takes forever to get going, but when Csokas arrives, it all gets a lot more twisted and weirdly fun, with the ridiculous name being ignorable on the basis of just how fantastic Csokas is in the role; it's a caricature, but he makes it his own. The ultimate complement that could be paid to him is that he manages to overshadow Washington and, while I'm sure the filmmaker's didn't intend for that to happen, he frequently does, helping to compensate for the film's inescapably predictable denouement. Sadly, when that arrives it's less fun, with a final battle that, much like the film, is hugely overlong. It also squanders an opportunity, as both McCall and Teddy have been set up as lethal weapons, but don't actually spend all that long in a one-on-one situation. Then, just when you think the film's going to end, it all goes a bit Return Of The King and adds on some unnecessary and slightly tawdry scenes that leave the whole thing feeling a bit damp. The Equalizer is flawed (and then some), but I'd be lying if I didn't say I had some fun. The score isn't debatable for me…

THREE out of five

…What is debatable is who wins out of Washington and Mills, given the down the middle three. There's three options for me here.

1. Wuss out and call it a tie.

2. Acknowledge that a lack of a FIVE out of five is notable and give the win to Mills.

3. Purposefully give the win to Denzel, with the main reason being that it will wind up a friend.

…

WASHINGTON WINS!!!!!!!!!

Next Time (30th October)

Oh Danny BOOOOYLE!

(Yeah, I went there!)

Partial Education at Grimmfest 2014

Partial Education at Grimmfest 2014

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Life After Beth

The Woman

WolfCop

and The Canal

So I attended my first ever film festival at the weekend, namely Manchester's horror film showcase, Grimmfest. Now, I'd love to sit here and brag about how I got in on a critic's pass, following the organisers of the festival begging me to stand as a beacon of filmic expertise and deliver my valued opinion on their output, but that would be a lie because I paid to go and no one had the faintest idea of who I was (not that I asked). First off, there needs to be a couple of explanations. Anyone who looks at the line-up will realise that I attended on the Sunday and that two films are missing from this review. I missed Dead Snow 2 due to having to having to travel from Milton Keynes and not being able to get there in time. Let's be honest. It's a Nazi zombie film. You know what you're going to be getting. Also, the screening of The Samurai had to be delayed till a later time due to technical issues and I was regrettably unable to stick around for this later screening. Nonetheless, I did manage to catch four films there and here are my opinions.

I was originally going to do these reviews in the order they were screened, but that caused a problem. My day at Grimmfest was brilliant and I wanted to make sure this was reflected by not ending the review on a sour note. Unfortunately, the last film of the festival was that sour note. The Canal is a British ghost story, in which married couple David and Alice (played by Rupert Evans and Hannah Hoekstra) move into a house, only to discover that a murder had previously taken place there many years ago. Stop me if you've heard that one before. When Alice goes missing, amidst her husband's doubts of her fidelity, suspicion falls on David and his claims that ghostly forces are at work aren't helping his case. To put it plain and bluntly, The Canal's biggest problem is that it's monumentally boring and there really is zero intrigue going on here. It's attempting to create that intrigue, but the twist is so blindingly obvious that, for a moment, I was convinced it wasn't a twist and the film had already told us what was going on. The film adopts a similar mentality to the likes of The Conjuring and Insidious when it comes to the scares, going for the jumps that do elicit the desired reaction, but then serve to highlight how uninteresting and lacking in scares everything else around it is. The closest the film gets to a lasting impact is a really nasty image at the end that sort of works, but does feel a little gratuitous and betrays the general tone in a slightly desperate effort to leave at least one image implanted into your mind. The thing that really needs mentioning though is the sound, because The Canal gets it's theatrical release on November 14th and I can only hope that they intend to fix it in the time they have left. In fairness, there's some pretty good sound design during the supernatural elements of the film, but this is lost amongst one of the worst mixes I think I've ever heard in a film. Dialogue levels range from acceptable to eardrum piercing, skipping all over the place even within the same scene. Also, when the closing of a car door sounds like a bullet, it means that the thuds that accompany jump scares compensate for this by going to uncomfortably high levels of volume. As I'm sure you can tell, The Canal was a disappointing end to the night for me, but it wasn't that it seemed bad in comparison to some of the good to great work that had preceded it. It seemed bad in comparison to anything.

ONE out of five

After WolfCop had finished, I could overhear someone near the back of the screening commenting on flaws in the editing of the last scene. Something tells me they missed the point. This is a film about a cop that becomes a werewolf and that's all you need to know. They ain't going for the Palme d'Or here. It's intentionally awful and that's mostly a good thing because it has the wit and knowing to carry this through. The worst thing films like this can do is mistakenly hope that an abundance of gore will mask the filmmaker's painful lack of wit. To find a way of making a bad film enjoyable is an art form within itself and if you can elicit the laughs from the audience, then that can only be a good thing. It must be said that WolfCop initially looks as though it's going to fail in that respect. The first half hour or so is painfully unfunny, with the filmmaker's delaying the revelation of WolfCop in favour a massively unwanted period of getting to know the characters. I feel safe in saying that as a general consensus because the lack of real laughter from the sizeable audience (there were maybe a couple of chuckles, but nothing much) really was noticeable. Once the hairy guy arrives though, things take a huge upturn, with the jokes feeling focussed, tight and brilliantly dumb. The aforementioned gore is there, but it's used well, building on the ridiculous nature of the rest of the film to play it for some genuine laughs (the guy without a face is a particular highlight). By the end, steam is lost and comedy falls aside in favour of some not as good action, but it doesn't outstay it's welcome too much. At the end of the day, WolfCop is a bit like when someone brings their friend from out of town to a house party. It begins quiet and awkward and you'll do anything to avoid being that person that gets stuck with them when the mate that bought them pisses off to talk to someone else. As the night rolls on though, things get a little looser, everyone's had a few drinks and you realise that there's much worse ways to spend your time.

THREE out of five

I remember my Dad used to have this worry that people who make these really nasty films must have some issues. He may still feel that way. I haven't asked him recently, but The Woman is the first time where I've started to think he might be right. It's nasty, grimy and thoroughly depressing, with an incredibly sadistic streak to it. It's also pretty damn good. Sean Bridgers plays Chris Cleek, a family man who discovers a woman (Pollyanna McIntosh) living feral in the nearby woods. Cleek kidnaps the woman, locks her in his outbuilding and unveils the mother of all superiority complexes, promising to "civilise her" and integrate her into society. Convinced of his plan's grand purpose, he also brings along his entire family, declaring this to be their new family project. What follows is a mixture of endurance test "how much brutality can you take?" tactics and a far more unsettling scenario in which Cleek tries to turn his family into his own microcosmic cult of personality. The script is mostly solid (though occasionally clumsy) and there's some decent to great acting here, with Bridgers in particular being terrifyingly believable. Lauren Ashley Carter, as the eldest daughter, also seems a promising talent. Most of the other performances are fine too, though Carlee Baker is an exception as Carter's teacher (not helped by a role that isn't fully justified) and McIntosh also gets little to do other than snarl and hiss. Director Lucky McKee demonstrates skill, particular when it comes to the treatment of the titular woman. Many of the scenes present us with Cleek's perspective as we peer into his own view of this woman, but the desired reaction is clearly and correctly nothing more than repulsion towards him. Most of the time, this is done without feeling too exploitative, with only a couple of very dodgy music choices veering us into leery territory. Also, if you think things couldn't get any more bats**t crazy, the ending will see to that. Honestly, it's not a fully justified ending, slightly betraying itself in the way that it has made us feel about a number of these characters. It's fine to subvert expectations, but it's not fully justified here. Most of all though, The Woman is solid to great filmmaking and stands as the biggest surprise of the festival, not just because it wasn't meant to be shown (it replaced The Samurai), but also in terms of quality.

FOUR out of five

I came for Life After Beth. I left loving LIfe After Beth. Aubrey Plaza stars as the recently deceased Beth, who inexplicably comes back from the dead to the delight of her parents and trepidation of her boyfriend, Zach (Dane DeHaan); the looming question standing as: is she, or isn't she, a zombie? With the rom-zom-com having now become it's own (slightly overused) sub-genre, the quirkiness and novelty has worn thin, so you've really got to make sure everything is working in your favour. Plaza and DeHaan are both exceptional, bringing their absolute best in careers that have already had their ups and downs, despite their tender years. John C. Reilly and Molly Shannon are also great as the parents, wisely playing it straight, instead of their oft annoying caricature styles. The rest of the supporting cast are fairly surplus to requirements (with the exception of the brilliant Matthew Gray Gubler as Zach's brothers), but this isn't a problem when it's so much fun being with the four main characters. Laughs are frequent and plenty, with the script regularly pulling out some grade-A material. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it's a real rarity to see a full audience laughing quite as much as they did at this screening. Though things maybe dry out a little to the end (and the very last scene is spectacularly misjudged), Life After Beth is one of the best comedies of the past few years for me and it's a shame that it appears to be getting a relatively small release. It's not hard to find a screening near you, but they are few and far between. If you get a chance, I strongly recommend catching this one and if you don't, rent it.

FOUR out of five

Next Time (16th October)

Washington VS Mills

Post Avengers Syndrome

Post Avengers Syndrome

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

The Avengers

Iron Man 3

Thor: The Dark World

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

and Guardians Of The Galaxy

Before we get on with the reviews, I wanted to highlight a decision that I'm in the process of making, namely which film will be my first Full Education. I'm not going to reveal what it is because it's still not fully decided and I'd like it to be a surprise. However, you may start to notice similarities in the reviews, be that the same directors, actors, writers or genre of film making regular appearances. This is all in the name of focus and though it may risk alienating some people if the types of films that they like aren't being covered, I feel it's essential if I ever want to get to a Full Education. On with the reviews…

Since 2012, there's been a problem for me when it comes to Marvel films, namely that most of them feel like the unimportant siblings of The Avengers. Though a lot of them have focussed on members of that group, it all feels slightly less epic when they're not together. The question is: could any of them move beyond this? Naturally, we need to start at the beginning.

This may be coming from a fan of just about anything Joss Whedon decides to do (The Cabin In The Woods notwithstanding), but whoever decided upon Whedon as the choice to helm The Avengers really does deserve some sort of medal, commemorative plate or general acknowledgment. The biggest hurdle was bringing together all of these characters and not pushing any into the shadows. Naturally, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and Hulk would be taking on the bulk of the duties, but if the likes of Black Widow and Hawkeye were to appear credible hanging with these guys, then they not only needed similar screen time, they actually needed more development. Whedon is a master at this, having previously dealt with huge casts and always giving each character space to grow. Therefore, The Avengers is familiar territory for the director, but he still shows some development as a writer. It's been a previous criticism that you can tell a Joss Whedon character from a mile off, because they all sound the same and he dispels that. Each character had it's own identity establish going into the film and instead of turning them into something resembling his vision, he simply adapts his style to suit what's already there. Robert Downey Jr. excels as he always does when playing Iron Man, while Chris Hemsworth as Thor and Chris Evans as Captain America gain ground and become more interesting as a result of a better script. His biggest success though is with The Hulk, as some much needed humour makes it's way into the character. Bruce Banner has now now accepted his fate, resulting in some accrued sardonicism that removes him from the overly serious nature of previous performance. These all combine with some fantastically choreographed action scenes and near-perfect pacing that masters that balance between action and conversation. The film isn't perfect though, notably letting itself down a bit when it comes to antagonism. Though Tom Hiddleston remains excellent as Loki and steals the scenes he is in, there is the necessity for more villains as a 6-on-1 fight between Loki and The Avengers wouldn't really work. Though Whedon wisely doesn't try and develop any more villains than he can handle, he does up the ante in the final act, unfortunately presenting us with some fairly soulless and characterless "Evils". They may look the part (one in particular is a real beast), but they never feel like a real threat and serve to overshadow Loki a bit too much. This isn't anywhere near enough to completely destroy the enjoyment, but it is redolent of Marvel's trademark explosive finale that feels lacking on the heart front. Still, as an event movie, The Avengers was a massive success beyond it's dominating box office.

FOUR out of five

Trevor Slattery. It's a name I can say that will mean nothing to anyone who hasn't seen Iron Man 3. It's also a name that I can't go into further detail about without resorting to spoilers. Suffice to say, once you've seen Iron Man 3, there's a strong chance that you won't forget the name and an even stronger chance that you'll wish you could. With the events of The Avengers having taken their toll on Tony Stark, he finds himself suffering from anxiety attacks, whilst a new villain emerges in the form of terrorist leader The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley straying even further into caricature). When things get personal (when doesn't it?), Stark puts himself firmly into the Mandarin's sights and, though there are no bodily fluids hitting fans, there are plenty of missiles making their way through windows. Iron Man 3 had to overcome the dreaded change of director that has befallen previous third instalments (Brett Ratner taking over the X-Men franchise is a notable example), but Shane Black is a much more reliable hand. Black's scripts for the good films in the Lethal Weapon franchise showed that he had a grasp on blending action and comedy and he also had history with Downey Jr. after directing him in the excellent Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. As a result, he proves himself a solid fit for the franchise and is neither better nor worse than previous helmsman Jon Favreau. The script is also fairly solid, with Stark's brilliant wit getting plenty of chances to show itself, but there are some really severe third act problems, with Slattery being chief amongst them. The final showdown is also a bit flat. It's all well and good for spectacle, but lacks that personal edge that made the likes of the first Iron Man's fight between Stark and Obadiah Stane so much easier to get invested in. Iron Man 3 is mostly good, at times great, with the missing Avengers being offset by the fact that Tony Stark really is the lifeblood of it all. However, as someone who liked Iron Man 2 more than a lot of others did, I have to hold this one up as the weakest of the three films.

THREE out of five

Thor: The Dark World doesn't have Shane Black on writing duties. Instead, Thor: The Dark World has Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (along with relative newcomer Christopher Yost), a pairing who previously demonstrated their deficiencies in the comedic department with the misjudged Pain & Gain. Here, it feels like they're trying to emulate Joss Whedon's style of writing and, though an effort to continue with the style of The Avengers is admirable, attempting to write like Whedon rarely works out unless you're the man himself. They occasionally hit a solid note of humour, but often this is down to the likes of Chris Hemsworth and, in particular, Tom Hiddleston's ability to sell the joke well. Their style also jars a bit with director Alan Taylor, who seems to be going for a darker edge, or rather is blatantly going for a darker edge through the persistent use of the word in both the title and the villains being called Dark Elves. An incredibly generic plot dogs this sequel from the beginning, revolving around chief villain Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) and his plot to destroy the universe, apparently forgetting to realise the state of homelessness this would leave him in. This all becomes a vehicle for as much interaction between Hemsworth and Hiddleston as possible, as they're forced to set aside their differences and join forces. It's a welcome pairing up in the sense of it distracting from the painful lack of chemistry between Hemsworth and Natalie Portman, but offers little more than an overused "can I trust my former enemy?" dynamic. The question here is whether these heroes can work outside of The Avengers and Thor doesn't really feel as though he can to me. His ignorance to the way in which people exist and behave on Earth has lost it's comedic bite and his grandiose speeches feel more than a little clichéd. All these issues could possibly be salvaged if it built towards a satisfying ending, but the explosiveness returns and Thor and Malekith's showdown gives Man Of Steel a run for it's money when it comes to men throwing each other through walls, albeit portals instead of walls. Thor: The Dark World isn't terrible and has it's defenders out there, but it lacks anything that's going to help it stick in the mind.

TWO out of five

It's curious to note that despite The Winter Soldier remaining far more entrenched within the world of The Avengers than either Iron Man 3 or Thor: The Dark World, it still manages to feel the least consequential of any of them. The harshest, but most appropriate, criticism of it is that it's been castrated of any balls, guts or other asset that can be used as a metaphor for stating this film's notable aversion to risk. The film harkens back to the old style of shady government films, as it becomes apparent that not all is rosy within S.H.I.E.L.D. Their dealings and possible connections to a dangerous assassin know as (name check) the Winter Soldier suggest that their good guy status may not be quite so etched in stone. There's twists and turns aplenty in a way that suits the genre that it harkens back to, but most of these are either too neatly sewn up into a little package or get retconned as time progresses. By the end, things have changed, yet nothing feels particularly impactful or important to the grander narrative. There is one really notable positive here though and he goes by the name of Mr Robert Redford. As one of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s senior officials, Alexander Pierce, Redford is brilliant. With the whole plot being based around the potential corruption of S.H.I.E.L.D., much of the intrigue falls upon Pierce and his loyalties and he has you believing every word he says, despite the fact that there's no guarantee of any of it's truth. When you do find his loyalties, it only gets better. Unfortunately, brilliant cannot be said of the Winter Soldier. A lot of it hinges on the twist of the character's identity being revealed and this is hurt by the fact that Westlife lyrics are less predictable. The problems don't stop there, as when the identity does get revealed, he feels far more of an afterthought than he should. His story is one that is designed to create intrigue for future instalments, but in being the least interesting part of it, it fails. Some solid fight scenes, Chris Evans' great performance and Markus and McFeely producing a much better script than The Dark World can't quite stop this from feeling a little bland and (here we go again) the explosive finale returns, but in a much bigger and much less involving way than any of the other films here. My score's going to seem harsh to a lot of people here, but this film bored me more than the first Captain America film and I wasn't the biggest fan of that to begin with.

TWO out of five

It's now 10 years since Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 was in cinemas and if you don't really remember it, the hype was huge. In 2014 though, the hype felt dead and Marc Webb's second attempt at what was once Marvel's biggest filmic commodity managed to become the lowest grossing Spider-Man film ever. That doesn't mean it tanked, as the film still turned a healthy enough profit, but it still wasn't enough to avoid being seen as a disappointment. The reasons are not hard to find because there's loads of them. The biggest one though is that it just felt unimportant in contrast to the other films. The fact that it's distributed by Sony, instead of Disney, meant that the chances of it integrating into The Avengers were slim to bugger all and the notion of Green Goblin as the villain didn't feel that special because we'd already seen it. This isn't enough to make the film bad and, in all fairness, it isn't bad. There's some nice moments: the relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey remains as well-handled as it was in the first film and it has far more gutsiness when it comes to taking risks. It's all dogged down though by a notable failure to learn from past mistakes. The problems with Spider-Man 3 were many, but the biggest was an overabundance of characters, particularly villains, which led to Venom getting treated like an absolute afterthought. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 also suffers from this in a way that's pretty unforgivable. The first half introduces Jamie Foxx as Max Dillon well and his transformation into Electro brings about a motive that actually feels kind of fresh. Pathos is something we're used to from the villains of Spider-Man, but Electro's is a different one, fuelled by no sort of professional ambition, but instead just the desire to be noticed. Foxx's usual place in confident characters is stripped away in a manner that some might find a little cartoonish, but is certainly leaps and bounds above Rhys Ifans turn as villain in the previous film. Halfway through though, they remove any real sense of threat to the character and rather than building him back up over time, he appears sporadically and takes second place to Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborne. DeHaan is a mixed bag. As Osborne, he's pretty good, but his take on the Green Goblin is more than a little hammy. In fact, I appear to disagree with almost everyone on this, as I was unimpressed with DeHaan, but actually quite liked Jamie Foxx. By the time we get to the final fight, there is too much focus on a now unimportant feeling Electro and Goblin no longer feels an appealing prospect. These focus shifts dog the film throughout and leave a sour note on what is otherwise a fairly enjoyable entry. It is very easy to see why The Amazing Spider-Man 2 didn't do as well as hoped, but it ranks for me at the same level as The Amazing Spider-Man. Given that loads seemed to hate that too, it must just be me being anomalous.

THREE out of five

On the flip side of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 going lower than expectations, it's fairly safe to say that Guardians Of The Galaxy might have just exceeded them… slightly. It's also made me look foolish since I was fairly adamant it was going to be rubbish. How's this for a complete 180: I genuinely believe that Guardians Of The Galaxy is better than The Avengers. In much the same way as The Avengers, it's highest priority is a focus on the heroes. The none-more rebellious grouping of Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax, Rocket and the now legendary Groot represent a breath of fresh air in their rebellion which isn't necessarily tempered by a good soul. These guys are in it for the money, their own personal gain or both, caring little for the bigger picture or the others around them and that's what makes them so damn cool. Chris Pratt proves himself (and then some) as a leading man, as his past in comedy combines with a believable frame to make him a hero, while Zoe Saldana plays it fairly straight, but pulls off some skilful deadpanning. In the voice roles, Bradley Cooper is hilarious as Rocket and you can make all the jokes you like about Vin Diesel voicing a monosyllabic chunk of wood, but the man manages to elicit far more emotion and complexity from the three simple words 'I Am Groot' than should be humanly possible. What I can't believe I'm about to say though is that the real star is Dave Bautista. This isn't some snobbish belief that wrestlers can't act (I'm an unashamed wrestling fan), but if you told me that Big Dave would prove himself with quite as much comic brilliance as he does here, I would have laughed in your face. I'm fairly certain that the Kickboxer remake will knock him down a peg or two, but if it means more Drax, I'm all for it. As director/co-writer, James Gunn also proves himself to be a much bigger asset that I thought he would be (of his previous films, I've only seen Slither and I hated it). Establishing his own sense of humour which permeates as a sort of intelligent daftness helps give the Guardians a unique edge and while there's still some similarities that help define this as a Marvel film (precede finale with the word explosive), most of the time this is it's own beast. There are, however, some flaws. The villains are one. Lee Pace's chief antagonist, Ronan The Accuser is every bit as bland as he is a legitimate badass and Karen Gillan's Nebula is a solid take that gets a little too short-changed. It also seems rather pointless to bring in acting legends such as Glenn Close, only to give them next to nothing to do, but these are gripes that are pretty much offset by just how much fun it is being with the heroes of the piece. Here's something you don't hear me say often: when I said Guardians Of The Galaxy was going to be crap, I was wrong.

FOUR out of five

Next Time (9th October)

It's Grimm up North