David Fincher: The Career That Almost Wasn't - Part 2

Partial Education Presents

David Fincher: The Career That Almost Wasn't - Part 2

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Zodiac

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

The Social Network

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

and Gone Girl

Just a quick note. Following feedback, all of my reviews will now feature shorter versions, in 50 words or less, before the in depth review. That way, if you're one of those people who only like reading my bad reviews, you can easily find out which they are.

In 50 words or less: It suffers slightly from similarities to earlier films inspired by the real life case, but a focus on those trying to catch the killer, as averse to the man himself, provides differences. With great performances and Fincher's sure-footed direction, Zodiac is a very good, though not quite excellent, film.

In Detail: It's a slightly curious occurrence when a film features great acting, writing and directing, yet you can't quite put your finger on why you still thought it was good, but not great. It's infuriating though when you can put your finger on why, but know that your reasons shouldn't be something that you hold against the film. See, when I first watched Zodiac, I struggled to get over what felt like an overly familiar narrative and the fact that it just didn't excite me as much as certain other crime thrillers that may or may not have been made by the same director. Yes, alright, Seven. The fact that thrillers like that probably wouldn't exist (and certainly not in the same form) if it weren't for the real life Zodiac killings means that it's a bit like criticising the tutor for sounding too much like the student. So, I kept quiet and agreed with everyone else who was saying how great it was. Some 8 years later and I return to the film, ready to admit to my previous lies and accept the consequences like a man. Hooray for martyrdom. Turns out I don't need to because I just re-watched Zodiac and can pussy out with actual honesty this time. It's really good. If you don't know the basics of the Zodiac story, look it up, or just watch the film. Suffice to say, he wasn't a nice man. This film isn't overly concerned with who the Zodiac was though and is far more concerned with those investigating. Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr. are a couple of newspaper workers (Downey Jr. a reporter, Gyllenhaal a cartoonist), while Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards are the two lead cops in the case. All are focussed on tracking down the killer, but that obsession affects their outside lives to varying degrees. Gyllenhaal suffers the greatest obsession as Robert Graysmith and, given that Graysmith is the author of the film's source material, also gets the best deal when it comes to screen time. All four characters are well-served though and all four actors deliver great performances. Their conversations invariably focus on the Zodiac, but Fincher's focus always remains on them, putting just as much attention on their own destabilising private lives. Perhaps this is where a flaw lies though because surrounding characters don't get much of a look-in. Wives are mentioned, but when seen may as well be plucked from The Big Book Of Female Stock Roles, while the effects of these crimes on the victims' families isn't just begrudged the time of day, it's brushed past like a tramp on the street corner. This doesn't stem out of bad intentions on the filmmaker's part, but does prevent Zodiac from feeling like the complete package. The enormous period of time that the film covers (1962 through to 1983) means that huge narrative jumps are also present that often make this feel more in the style of a docudrama than a cinematic offering, but it just manages to pull itself out of that with the odd glimpse of each character's life outside of their work and some truly epic cinematography. Fincher came into his own with Zodiac in a directorial style, managing to bring everything into a tight vision and finally master some of the areas where I felt he'd struggled before (the use of music is Scorsese levels of good here). It's just a shame that the film, while still very good, isn't quite the masterpiece that the efforts perhaps deserved.

FOUR out of five

In 50 words or less: Once again, strong performances push this film along, but there's an inferiority to similar films (most notably Edward Scissorhands). Throw in some suspect directorial choices and some not entirely successful ageing effects and …Benjamin Button stands as good enough, but no more.

In Detail: A month or two ago, I reviewed Edward Scissorhands and (unbearably?) gushed about one of my favourite films of all time. My love of that film is one of the main reasons why, though I still like The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, "like" is about as far as I will go. The idea of the afflicted soul going through life just brings about too many similarities and …Benjamin Button is definitely the inferior product. In this case, our character's hindrance is a reversed ageing process. Born with the body and poor health of a 70 year-old man, Button (Brad Pitt) is given days to live at best, but miraculously begins to show signs of getting better. With cries of a miracle going on around him, Button is more focussed on not allowing his unique situation to prevent him from living a normal life. Cue entry of love interest, Daisy (Cate Blanchett), who naturally sees Button for the person inside and not the characteristic that defines him (*cough*WinonaRyderInScissorhands*cough*). This is a film that is always enjoyable, mainly because of the strength of it's performances. Pitt manages to use that detached vacancy that's often present in his performances to the film's advantage, mainly because detached is exactly what Button is for half of the time. His only true experiences of humanity's emotions come when he is with Daisy and he's good enough here, but Blanchett is stealing the floor from under his feet. For most of this film, she is it's greatest asset, as she often is to a lot of her films. I say "most", because she plays the character through all stages of her life, bar childhood, and her "old person voice" is fairly horrid and irksomely distracting when she takes over narration (thankfully, this isn't often). Taraji P. Henson also needs mentioning because this is the role that got her an Oscar nomination. She deserved it without question because her performance is very strong here, even if the character feels a little like the stereotype "black mother" figure. The only real question is why is that she has categorically failed to create a memorable performance anywhere else. I've checked and I've seen quite a few of them, but just don't ask me to tell you anything about them because I can't. In a similar way to Zodiac, this is a film where Fincher knows that the strength of his performances is the best bit and he keeps the attention on them, but there is the odd glimpse of some suspect decisions. Some narrative sections jar, feeling a little out of place. That one of these comes right at the end of the film means that the ending just doesn't work. All the loose ends have been tied up, but it feels abrupt and lacks the emotional heft that you feel they were going for. Some of the effects don't work for me either, notably in the ageing process for Button. Though they do use other actors than Pitt for some periods of his life, they seem determined to use him for a little too much of and the make-up and effects can't quite do enough to stop him from looking like a carnival sideshow performer. These flaws don't stop …Benjamin Button from remaining a good film, but they do prevent it from becoming something more.

THREE out of five

In 50 words or less: It's treatment of Mark Zuckerberg is grossly imbalanced and almost unforgivably sensationalist. Outside of that, it's a blisteringly compelling example of the biopic that somehow falls into all of the pratfalls that often destroy these films, but makes them work in it's favour.

In Detail: In most conversations about Facebook, I will be the last to jump to it's defence, ranking it on my necessary evils list somewhere along the same level as fashion (t-shirt, jeans and trainers, nothing else is needed). Why is it then that I'm the only one who finds The Social Network a tad disingenuous? Mark Zuckerberg isn't a saint, but this film pretty much turns him into a comic book villain. People question whether Jesse Eisenberg can play Lex Luthor well, but here Zuckerberg is only a few steps shy of Luther in the pre-MPB days. This is a portrayal of a real-life man that gets the general story just about right, but plays to the public (and likely inaccurate) perception of how the real people act and behave. That is something that really sticks with me when it comes to the film and I know I'm in the minority there, but it's a shame because it puts a sour note on what is otherwise a fantastic film. Gratefully, we're spared all the childhood tales of Zuckerberg growing up and we arrive straight away at Harvard, where he takes a verbal caning from Rooney Mara in a brilliant, but sadly small, performance. This directly leads to him creating the Facemash app, presenting you with two girls (all fellow students) and a simple question: who is hotter? The hate flies, but so too does the admiration towards how much of a stir he caused and things take off from there. The story of Facebook's turbulent creation and growth has been fairly well documented and to tell it here would be to spoil almost the entire film. Suffice to say, the film doesn't hold a whole lot of revelation for people already well versed in the website's history. Once again though, this is a film in which Fincher is more concerned with his characters and he's come loaded with some brilliant performances from a handful of the best young actors out there. Though their careers have had varied levels of success, Eisenberg, Mara, Andrew Garfield, Armie Hammer, Max Minghella and Justin Timberlake have all proven their charisma and skill as performers. This film contains all of them at their absolute finest and that is what allows this film to breeze by, even if you know everything that is going to happen. To be fair to the film, it knows that's it's strong point too. There's never a feeling that what it's just sprung on you is supposed to leave you aghast at what has occurred. It's purpose is purely to dramatise these events in a compelling manner. In that respect, it definitely succeeds. Aaron Sorkin's script is also nothing to sniff at when it comes to it's contribution to that success. Again, I stress how much I dislike the sensationalist view of it's lead character, but Sorkin's way with words is rarely rivalled in the industry. The fact that he can create an entire scene dedicated to Zuckerberg nonsensically babbling about his genius programming methods and turn that into a complete non-issue, as the scene's intentions becomes readily apparent, really demonstrates why he's one of the masters. The Social Network is a truly excellent film, but those issues I discussed at the start really stick for me. That's why I'm not willing to give it the perfect score.

FOUR out of five

In 50 words or less: A story that should be exactly my sort of thing is, instead, just OK because of an annoyingly slow place and a competent, but nondescript, performance from Daniel Craig. As the titular girl, Rooney Mara lights up this film, but that alone isn't quite enough to take this beyond acceptable.

In Detail: 16 years after Fincher's career was rejuvenated with Seven, it all came full circle with his adaptation of the first novel in Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy. There are so many parallels between the two films, with a slow, understated opening giving way to the holistic sounds of Trent Reznor over imagery designed to unsettle and alarm. The downward spiral then continues as the unrelentingly bleak atmosphere grows and grows until every character within it will never be able to erase the mental scars of what has occurred around them. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is not here to make you laugh and will likely leave you utterly depressed, but that's exactly what it wants to do. It's a shame then that it couldn't have been a little more interesting. Daniel Craig plays reporter Mikael Blomkvist (apparently Swedish, despite Craig's zero effort to adopt the accent), who has just found himself on the losing end of a libel case. With his professional integrity considerably damaged, he is hired by Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to help him investigate the disappearance (and likely murder) of his grandniece that occurred many years ago. The exchange for this service being the proof needed to restore his career. The titular girl (Rooney Mara) with said tattoo is the girl who was responsible for the background checks on Blomkvist and to say more would probably give too much away, but Mara's presence is one that invigorates this film with life. Her character is the archetypal outcast, fleshed out and provided with much needed personality. Mara's oft understated performance contains a darkness that displays itself only when she needs it to. Some of her actions may be brutal (the film's physical and sexual violence makes Fight Club look tame), but, in context, it's hard not to justify them. Craig, on the other hand, isn't all that exciting and quite often seems to be straining to not ask someone for a martini. The character is fine and his performance isn't terrible, but it's merely existent: the necessary lead who will take us between far more interesting characters than he. The film's near two and a half hour running time is in serious need of a trimming, with far too much time spent without feeling like it's actually taking us anywhere. A slow pace suits this sort of film, but this is nearer static at times. Perhaps with that trimmed running time, this would have made for a really good film, but it's taken me multiple viewings before I can feel like I actually remember this film. Maybe it's just not the story for me, as I feel the same about the Swedish version, but it feels like it should be a story that I want to see and though I know I will watch the other films in this series at some point (currently only Swedish versions exist, but that should never be an issue), I'm just not overly enthused about the idea.

THREE out of five

In 50 words or less: For me, the best film David Fincher has ever made. Considering some of the other film's he's made, that alone should be enough of a recommendation.

In Detail: Unlike The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Gone Girl was a film that didn't intrigue me beyond the desire to see anything made by Fincher. I'd never read the novel (still haven't) and the trailer rang all the alarm bells for me: a deep risk of pretension, pacing that looked like it would make …Dragon Tattoo look like a Fast And Furious film by comparison and the underwhelming prospect of Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike in lead roles. Shut me the hell up though. I was wrong. This next statement is one that a lot won't agree with when it incorporates a number of the films I've reviewed over the last two posts and that's fair enough, but, for me, Gone Girl is the best film Fincher has made to date. On Nick And Amy Dunne's (Affleck and Pike) fifth wedding anniversary, Nick returns home to find that Amy has gone missing. That is everything to be said about this plot because this film's narrative is told in a way where it holds back things that you would ordinarily know from the beginning, starting at the disappearance itself and then flitting between the aftermath and the preceding events. What could have been an overly complicated disorientation of the film's timeline is it's greatest asset though, as the events unravel fluidly, dangling a tiny bit more information in front of you with each scene. It's confident enough that it wants you to guess, but doesn't think you'll suss out what is going on. For me (and anyone else I know who'd seen it without reading the book), it was right, packing one of those twists that makes you kick yourself for not getting it, but also providing the film with that necessary push into great storytelling. Are Affleck and Pike good leads though? Yes, but doubly so for Pike. Affleck is really good in the lead role, utilising the casual style that some hate him for, but making it suit the character. For a huge portion of this film, you don't know whether you're meant to like him or not and his performance leaves you open to decide for yourself. As for Pike, it's not just the strongest performance of her career, it's one of the strongest female performances I've seen from anyone in a very long time. I can't quite sum up how much it shocked me with how good she is in this, as I had previously considered her to be one of the most pedestrian supporting players working today. The part has so many layers to it and she brings every single one of them out, utilising what has to also be one of the best written female roles in a long time. With that in mind, credit must go to Gillian Flynn for her fantastic script. That said, so too must it go to anyone involved in cinematography, sound, lighting, music, direction and any other department that you care to name. I'm struggling to name a flaw in Gone Girl. Perhaps if I looked hard enough, I could find one, but I really don't want to.

FIVE out of five

Next Time (9th April)

David Fincher: The Career That Almost Wasn't - Part 1

Partial Education Presents

David Fincher: The Career That Almost Wasn't - Part 1

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Alien 3

Seven

The Game
Fight Club

and Panic Room

At the end of the my last post, I said that I'd be reviewing Gone Girl this week. I lied. That will actually be in Part 2 of this look at the films of David Fincher. Much like I did with Danny Boyle, I decided to have a Fincher marathon and then go ahead and review all of his films over a couple of posts. Why? Because I really like David Fincher.

This is a review of the Theatrical Cut. I have never seen the Assembly Cut, which Fincher had absolutely nothing to do with anyway.

Fincher's debut feature film is one that could have also been his last. So disillusioned was he with the frequent studio interference that he has point blank refused to have anything to do with the franchise since making this film. And those conflicts don't half show. Alien 3 is a confused mess that can't decide whether it wants to be more like the first or second instalment in the franchise. It's understandable, as both of those films are outstanding masterpieces, but they're so wildly different in tone that attempting to combine the claustrophobic corridors of the original with the explosive action of the sequel means that both lose their impact considerably. Following the events of Aliens, Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) awakens on a prison ship, populated entirely by males with a history of violent or sexual crimes (frequently both). Unfortunately, she's also bought a visitor with her and it ain't Newt. Now, if you've heard the stories of how awful a film Alien 3 is, then you've probably got a bit of an advantage, because it isn't anywhere near as bad a film as it's made out to be. There are still enjoyable elements, some solid performances and an interesting angle on where the alien has chosen to plant it's eggs. Unfortunately though, most of the best stuff doesn't remotely involve the alien, who, despite it's place as the title creature, is heavily sidelined until quite far into the film. Instead, we get the relationship between Ripley and the prisoners, which has it's moments (Charles Dance and Charles S. Dutton are both decent), but isn't really why we're watching the film. The alien scenes themselves also lack the energy that they previously had, with a key reason being the use of music. In this department, it's pretty amateurish, peppering the tense scenes with an overly epic score which destroys any sense of fear. It might have been the studio interference, but I'm open to the idea that it could also be Fincher, as it's an issue that's also present in his next two films (though less so in Seven). The script is also fairly uneven, going long stretches without a whole lot happening, only to then rush some of the big events, including a scene with a "returning" character that feels about as tacked on as it gets. Much like Prometheus, Alien 3 is a film that it's hard to sound positive about, because while it may stand as a decent film on it's own, it simply isn't good enough for this franchise. If you go in expecting something terrible, you may be pleasantly surprised, because Alien VS Predator this is not. On the other hand, if you feel like blitzing through the whole franchise in one sitting, you'll be watching Aliens directly before this. That won't end well for you.

THREE out of five

However, a David Fincher marathon results in following Alien 3 with this and that will end well for you. I'm willing to wager that you could take a handful of people who have seen Seven and a high proportion of those will people will cite it as one of the best crime thrillers ever made. That's an accolade that you won't ever hear me arguing against. Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman are two homicide detectives, whose individual cases cross paths when they discover they were committed by the same person, punishing people for their commitment of the seven deadly sins. From the opening credits, this film sets itself up as one imbued with creepiness and misery. Unsettling imagery flashes before our eyes, while a remixed version of Nine Inch Nails' Closer takes an already dark song and makes it sound even grimmer. This all leads us into a room with the bloated corpse of a man who has literally been forced to eat until he bursts internally. This already isn't a film that wants you to leave with feelings of warmth and happiness and it only gets worse as it goes along. The brilliance though, is in how it handles this. First off, it shows you nothing of these horrific acts being committed and leaves your imagination to do the work as you only see the aftermath. Those images are graphic enough and removing the actual scenes of the murders occurring prevent this from becoming too exploitative. Also, the film is willing to give you a bit of a break and let you get to know the two detectives. Though both are staunchly dedicated to tracking down the killer, they have personalities outside of their objective and we are shown just enough of these to add the vital third dimension to both characters. Seven, however, is a film that's mostly remembered for the performance of the film's killer. I assume you know who it is, but I'm still not going to spoil it because it always annoys me that I knew who played it before I watched it. Suffice to say, it's one of the most chilling performances you will ever see. I've seen the argument that the film borders on celebratory, with the way in which it treats the killer's actions and motives, but I don't see it that way. This is a person who is convinced of a higher purpose that fuels his horrible actions and the only celebration is the one he's bestowing upon himself. If you feel some relation to his motive, that's acceptable and the film allows you to do that, but not once does this film justify how he is carrying out his mission and if anyone feels any sense of justification, I'm questioning their own grasp on sanity. Everything in this film leads to one of the most bleak, gut-punch endings I have ever seen and it's one that can perhaps feel a bit abrupt at first, but it's genius becomes apparent with later thought. Seven is a film that I'm not quite sure has entered fully fledged classic territory yet, but I don't have a problem if people want to call it that.

FIVE out of five

I started this post under the impression that I had already seen every David Fincher film, but, so rarely talked about is The Game, that I had completely forgotten about it's existence. It didn't take long for me to work out why it is that no one talks about it. Michael Douglas plays Nicholas Van Orton, a successful banker, whose great riches have come as a result of his entirely non-existent life outside of his job. When his estranged brother (Sean Penn) comes to visit him on his birthday, he presents him with an unusual gift: the number for a company who will provide him with a life-changing game. All he has to do is call them. With curiosity flaying the cat before our very eyes, Douglas' intrigue gets the better of him and the mysterious game begins. This is a film that thinks it's far more intelligent than it actually is. It's numerous twists and turns are all there in attempts to dupe the audience, but these are utterly transparent. The only doubt you will have in your mind is whether or not it's actually going to bring this together coherently and your lack of faith in that possibility will be entirely justified by the lousy ending. A bad ending is never a good thing, but if the ride there is any good, you'll have some leniency towards it and that isn't the case here. First off, the character of Van Orton is the miserly business man personified. Quite honestly, you could have called him Ebenezer Van Orton and I'd have at least respected the fact that you weren't trying to hide the lack of originality. His path is supposed to be incredibly similar to that of Scrooge, but the handling of this is clumsy at best. All of a sudden, his character changes, or the perception towards him changes, but there's nothing there to give you the remotest idea why. That's not just down to the sloppy script, it's also down to Douglas' performance, as the development jerks from each stage to the next, as though he's decided his mood for each scene, but forgotten to show the path there. This makes him deeply unlikeable, which doesn't matter at the start. By the end though, the film wants you to at least understand him and it's failed there. The scenes within the game aren't particularly clever either, except for a promising start as the game begins in what is the film's sole scene that's memorable for the right reasons. From here though, it just descends into multiple chase scenes (all of which you've seen before), frequent talks of a conspiracy and the introduction of Deborah Kara Unger in the obligatory female part. Then, just when the film should be going for the big reveal, they completely lose their mind and send the film off to places where there can never be any coming back from. Even with the few films that were merely good, I always thought I could say that Fincher had never made a truly bad film. Watching this made me realise that it really is true: no director gets off with a clean sheet.

ONE out of five

What a comeback, though! I didn't really feel as though I would need to explain what a great film Fight Club is, or why it is that it's practically the definition of a cult classic. Then, someone I work with had never even heard of it. Once I'd dropped the "YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF FIGHT CLUB!" face, I attempted to explain to them why they needed to watch this film. They decided it wasn't for them. Their loss. Fight Club is a film that you may have preconceptions about. You may think you know what it is and what it's all about, but I guarantee (unless, of course, you've read the book) you don't have a clue what this film is. That's not my way of guaranteeing that you will love it as much as I do, because there are people out there that don't, but if you have the remotest interest in film, you owe it to yourself to give it a try. Edward Norton plays an insomniac office worker, who spends his time attending support groups for diseases that he doesn't have, in search of a release from his own condition. His path crosses with Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), the personification of the rebel that Norton wishes he could be. Through their own hatred of the consumerist that nation that surrounds them, fight club forms as their own two fingers to the society they despise. To say anymore would be to provide you with more information than I had the first time I watched this film and as the rule states: you don't talk about Fight Club. There is, however, one thing that you have to be ready for and that, simply, is controversial subject matter. In the wake of Fincher's more recent awards season pleasing efforts, it can be easy to forget the rebellious side within him, but he and writer Chuck Palahniuk did attract a bit of ire when this one came out. The actions of a lot of our supposed protagonists here make The Wolf Of Wall Street's Jordan Belfort look like a saint in comparison and if you're quick to fly the amoral flag, then stay away and get off your high horse. I draw you back to my comments about the way Seven deals with it's killer. It is entirely OK to feel a relation towards the character's cause, without condoning the actions they take. This film isn't here to hold your hand and tell you how you should be feeling. It's here to make you question yourself and your place in this world. Grand aspirations, maybe, but it achieves them fairly well. Fight Club is the best of both worlds. You can analyse it to death, or you can just go along for the ride. Either way, it's a film that you should discover without me telling you everything about it.

FIVE out of five

There's been a number of recent thrillers or horror films which place their character(s) into a claustrophobic situation and stay within that setting for the entirety. The absolute apex for me is Buried, which is one of the most draining films I've ever seen, but is also quite brilliant. There's been a natural progression though, as filmmakers see just how small or desolate a space they dare to limit themselves to. Panic Room comes nearer the start of this, as Fincher puts the focus of the action on that one particular room, but also gives himself a full (and considerably large) house to fall back on. Jodie Foster is recently divorced Meg, who buys said large house, in which she lives with her young daughter (Kristen Stewart, before everyone took against her). When three men break into the house, she heads straight for the panic room, only to find that what the men want is actually inside the room. With the action taking place entirely within the home, a lot hinges on the performances and they're mostly fine. Foster and Stewart are both brilliant and carve a brilliant mother-daughter relationship that's helps in creating that necessary empathy towards them. The three thieves are more of a mixed bag. Forest Whitaker is always good, but this feels like a role he's played a lot of times before. Though he plays the character's internal conflict pretty well, the script doesn't develop it enough to make it anything new. Then there's Jared Leto, who's also fairly solid, but just doesn't have that spark to take the performance anywhere beyond that. Finally, Dwight Yoakam is less good. Outside of his music, Yoakam has made his career playing psychopaths, but anything I've seen him is crying out for a bit of restraint. It's no different here. His non compos mentis performance is OK when it's tempered by the presence of Whitaker at the opposite end of the spectrum, but eventually even he can't stop Yoakam from overcoming things and it all gets too cartoonish for it's own good. Panic Room works best when it keeps itself focussed on that room, but loses it's way a bit as it drifts out of there. The film is shot brilliantly and Fincher's direction is tense, yet pacey, but this is squandered in an ending that just doesn't show that same level of control.

THREE out of five

Part 2 - 25th March

The Minimally Talented Spoiled Brat?

Partial Education Presents

The Minimally Talented Spoiled Brat?

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Girl, Interrupted

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

A Mighty Heart

Wanted

Changeling

and Maleficent

A brief lesson in recent history for those who don't get the title. During the recent Sony Pictures hacking scandal, e-mails were leaked from producer Scott Rudin in which he referred to Angelina Jolie as, well, the title of this post. It's evident there's a growing divide in perception towards Jolie, with her actions off screen seemingly taking on more notoriety than her performances. Either she's an annoying do-gooder, or the embodiment of the strong female. Frankly, it's not a debate I want to discuss because the two words that really made me scoff at Rudin's remarks were "minimally talented". I've always considered Jolie to be an actress with a hefty dose of talent. I'm not saying she's one of the greatest, but I'm usually interested in seeing her projects. With the exception of Changeling though (reviewed later), I struggle to actually name a truly great performance from her. So, using a handful of her films, I'm looking simply to find out whether Jolie actually can act.

Here's the one that I absolutely had to include, as this film contains the role that won Jolie the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. Curious then, that this film is very much focussed on it's lead actress, Winona Ryder. She plays Susanna Kaysen (author of the film's source material), who at the age of 18 was coerced into committing herself to a mental institution after taking an overdose of painkillers. This film is enshrouded in the ever-present shadow of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, but it does have tricks up it's sleeve to help avoid too many similarities. The fact that it's dealing with female inmates is the most obvious one, but this goes further than the simple difference in sexual organs, with issues that are dealt with as a result of the cast's femininity helping to differ the two. Also, these characters are barely two steps into adulthood, thus giving it a much more youthful feeling. There are flaws though, which serve to make this the inferior film. Most notably, a number of characters feel defined by what it is that makes them "mental", as averse to the person that lies behind and this can run at odds with how the film wants you to perceive those characters. Amongst this though, there are some great performances. In my Tim Burton reviews, I said that I wasn't the biggest fan of Ryder, but some of the films I've seen her in recently may have made me re-evaluate my stance and this is one of them. It's a small performance in a film that's full of large ones and this actually helps to make it stand out. Ryder's own distancing from grand displays of emotion mean that when the time comes for her to go for it, the moments feel more affecting. A smaller supporting role for Brittany Murphy is also well-played and has some real depth to it, despite her minimal screen time. Her storyline also provides the film's most affecting moment, though one that I am remiss to spoil. What, though, of Jolie? This will sound like an insult, but it isn't. Her performance is one that is most notable when she's not around. As the hospital's resident live wire, her off-the-rails (though blatantly compensatory) rebel is presented in bursts and then we get a bit of a break from her: a wise move as her character would become grossly annoying if around for much longer. When she isn't around you can feel how her appearances have affected everyone around her and she becomes the film's touchstone for how things will continue. It's a performance that's at times great, but at other times overdone. In an ending that is riddled with histrionics, she stands most guilty of all. Girl, Interrupted is a film that is built on these performances, but doesn't quite feel like a cohesive whole and holds a slightly unsubtle grasp on it's message. However, those performances are still enough to give this film a recommendation.

THREE out of five

Perhaps the inclusion of Tomb Raider is a little mean. Video game adaptations often serve as the place in which usually great actors (and Milla Jovovich) go to get rid of all the brain rot that's built up inside. Jolie's performance in Tomb Raider is no exception to this, so why do I feel the need to include it? Two reasons. First, she was stupid enough to sign up for a sequel (unless it was contractual obligation, but I'm ignoring that possibility). Also though, I've read a lot of reviews that actually try to claim she's the film's good point. In case you too have gone insane, let's get this straight. Lara Croft: Tomb Raider is a film that doesn't have good points. Instead, it has a hell of a lot of average ones. This amounts to a film that will only surprise you when it shows that it isn't laughably bad, but instead boringly pedestrian. For those who need a plot, there's a girl called Lara. She raids tombs. Despite the film's numerous attempts to throw in twists and turns and introduce us to all sorts of shady characters and fellow treasure hunters, that is all the film ever amounts to. It's a staple trademark of director Simon West's work, as he seems drawn to these sorts of films that set up the concept and then attempt to dazzle and excite, rather than intrigue. That may have worked for his debut film Con Air, but some 18 years later, that's still the film you need to go back to when making a case for the guy. Perhaps it's the gratuitous size of Jolie's lips that make it seem like her performance is little more than a pout with an uber-posh British accent, but even by her lofty stands, said lips protrude to an impressive level. Without that, there really isn't anything to remember the performance for. She's just a generic action hero, with her femininity only really defined by the ways in which her many curves are shot. There's also an early Daniel Craig performance, as a rival tomb raider and though Craig demonstrates some of the charm that would earn him the Bond role, he also demonstrates his still present lack of range when it comes to accents. Iain Glen is the only reason that would make you want to check this one out, though the reasons are less than complementary. As chief villain, Manfred Powell, he is every bit as terrible as his moniker. His range of facial emotions range from sneer to mild smirk and he adopts the "talk slowly and slyly" rule when it comes to proving your villainy. All this results in is criminal levels of hamminess. This film is all action and it's all so very forgettable. I just about remember some statues that kill and a spinning thing of some importance at the end, but honestly have no care to remind myself why it was there so that I can elaborate. Tomb Raider doesn't deserve to rank with the Uwe Boll adaptations and it's not as irritating as Prince Of Persia. It's just so royally meh.

TWO out of five

A Mighty Heart is a curious film. It feels like one tailor-made to arrive at the start of the New Year, fitting in with all the other awards season hopefuls. It's a performance-led piece, based on current events and deals with some real-life tragedy. Let's face it, the only thing lacking to make it a shoo-in for Best Picture would be making the lead a cripple. It wasn't released then though. It was released in June, right in the middle of blockbuster season. The inevitable result was it tanked and the sadder result is that it's now been largely forgotten. Not sad because it's an amazing film, but instead because it contains a Jolie performance that would shut a lot of the haters up if anyone had seen it in the first place. Dealing with the 2002 kidnapping of American journalist Daniel Pearl (Dan Futterman) by Pakistani militants, the film shows the various attempts to locate and rescue Pearl through the eyes of his pregnant wife Mariane (Jolie). Jolie's performance is one that has a real focus on ticking the "strong woman" boxes (gratefully without tomb raiding this time), but this works because the film wants us to see every facet of Mariane, not just the face of determination. She is a fighter in the truest sense of the word, determined not to allow her husband's kidnappers to see her break. In private though, we see the toll that the ordeal is taking on her and, for the most part, she's brilliant. I say, for the most part, because there are some moments later on in the film that some might find a little much in the expression of emotion, but they worked well enough for me. The film itself, however, is less sure of itself. Michael Winterbottom's direction feels a little confused here, particularly in a sense of tone. For much of the film, he shoots it docudrama style with handheld cameras and creates a feeling that the people on screen are aware of the camera in the room, but have no time to oblige it with attention. That's fine and suits a film that is far less about what happened (you have to assume most people know how it ends) and instead a look at how everything happened. There's moments though where he tries to go cinematic and these jar with the rest of the film, particularly in cases where Mariane is on her own and we get the slow, sad (and slightly manipulative) music creeping in. These simply aren't needed and their objective in making you sympathise with Mariane will be achieved elsewhere unless you're a completely heartless bastard. My comments about A Mighty Heart being designed for Oscar season aren't my way of saying it deserved a load of them, but Jolie's performance perhaps did deserve a bit of the attention that would have come from it, so next time you want to slag her off, watch this first.

THREE out of five

From the simple and affecting, to the overblown and insane. I probably should have gone for Salt here, as it's Jolie in a lead action role, as averse to Wanted where she plays second fiddle to James McAvoy. Salt is a bit of a mess though, saddling numerous great actors with zero chance to break through because of how indecisive the plot is. Wanted is a Timur Bekmambetov film, which means that while it's every bit as stupid as you'd expect from the man who gave us Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, he also has that desire to bring out some characters in his work. McAvoy is Wesley Gibson, a pen-pushing office worker who suffers from anxiety attacks and a chronic case of spinelessness. This all changes when he is approached by Fox (Jolie), an assassin who happened to work with Gibson's previously thought dead father. Gibson is brought into The Fraternity (led by Morgan Freeman, as Morgan Freeman), a group of secret (as averse to the usually public) assassins, who are assigned their targets by (and this is the good bit) The Loom Of Fate. That being a loom which names the target through a secret code defined by the errors in it's weaves. Thinking about this film will give you a headache and also mostly defies the point of it. Though the film does have some attempt at societal comment in Gibson's own perceived lack of use in the world, once it gets going, it's all about the action. Bullets curve, heads explode and bodies fall to the ground as the devastating lack of subtlety to The Fraternity's methods begs the persistent question: how the hell do they remain so secret? Both McAvoy and Jolie make for good to great action leads, with McAvoy not looking quite as out of place as you'd initially expect in the action sequences. He may be every bit as whiny as he is snarky, but he represents the everyman. Jolie, on the other hand, represents the ideal, as the cool and determined aspirational figure. Though she may be a cold-blooded killer, her reasons are fully justified and she's the film's strongest presence. There is one thing though that really sticks in this and it's one of my real bugbears in action films. When your supposed heroes show just as little concern for the well-being of the general public as your apparent villains do, it all blurs the lines and gets a little bit uncomfortable. The film's big action sequence on a train may be thrilling, but becomes unsettling in how uncaring the film seems to be towards the truly horrific nature of what is occurring. It may not be on the level of the old favourite of destroying London and then continuing on as if nothing happened afterwards, but it is still something that I absolutely hate in these sorts of films. Move on from that and Wanted is the sort of film that will serve all of your action needs. However, if you must insist on the presence of brains, assume this to be the case…

FOUR out of five

My subtle hint in the introduction may have given this away, but praise Clint Eastwood for I love this film. It even baffles me how the year that Slumdog Millionaire dominated the awards season gave almost no love to Changeling. Based on the infuriatingly sickening, but brilliantly told true story of events that occurred in Wineville, California during the 1920s (I'm spoiling nothing), Jolie is Christine Collins, a single mother whose son Walter goes missing. After several weeks, LAPD Captain J.J. Jones (the outstanding Jeffrey Donovan) delivers the good news that they have found her son alive and well. The reunion, however, isn't as happy as one would expect, as the boy presented to Collins isn't her son, but the LAPD refuse to believe her. What follows is a delve into a story that is powerful, but deeply disturbing as Collins and the Reverend Gustav Brieglev (John Malkovich) seek to expose the lies of the LAPD that will hopefully lead to finding her real son. While the supporting performances are great (Michael Kelly and Colm Feore are just as good as Donovan and Malkovich), this really is a Jolie vehicle, as she gives her what I think is the greatest performance of her career. There are a lot of similarities between this and her portrayal of Mariane Pearl, but as good as she was at Pearl, she is much better here, getting the balance between determination and despair bang on. Eastwood's direction is fairly standard for Eastwood, as he's always been a fairly blunt director who's very much focussed on story. While it must be said that complaining about a lack of subtlety in his films is a bit like complaining about a bad smell in an abattoir, there is one odd moment that lets the side down a little. The story eventually bring us to a mental asylum and these scene are distractingly stereotypical. It's curious because the more I watch those scenes, the more I dislike them, but there's so much good elsewhere that I could never bring myself to mark the film down for it. The film's final scenes are truly brilliant and completely negate any of these flaws that have previously occurred. I have now seen Changeling three times and I could watch it again right away. The reason this review is shorter is not because I can't think of what to say, it's because I already feel as though I've given too much of this magnificent film away and I refuse to give more.

FIVE out of five

Changeling is magnificent. Magnificent rhymes with Maleficent. Maleficent is rubbish.

ONE out of five

Alright, alright. I'll do it properly. I mentioned to a friend how average I thought Maleficent was, but after thinking about it I found myself hating this film more and more. Effectively the story of Sleeping Beauty told from the perspective of Jolie as chief villain Maleficent, the film seeks to put a new spin on things, giving us some perspective for why she does what she does. Jolie is the film's sole light, but I'm scraping there. She's got some pizazz about her and some wicked wit that occasionally helps the film rise out of the doldrums, but everything else is there to throw it back in there. The writers appear to think that we want to see the good side of Maleficent, with very little of the bad side and that is far from the case. As she watches the young Aurora grow up, blissfully unaware of the curse placed upon her, Maleficent softens to her and takes on the role of the good guy, rather than develop into the villain that made her a classic character. Her growing admiration toward Aurora then become the true focus of the film, consuming a good three quarters of the (blissfully only 90 minute) running time. The ending is where the film packs most of the surprises, but they're not good ones. It's rare that I actually yell at the TV screen, but this films ending caused me to spout out two words in it's direction (the second one was "off"). I don't recall ever having done that before. It's not like the film is all that exemplary on a visual side either. It's pretty enough, which should be expected from a fairy tale story, but the effects themselves don't blend with the real action. You can practically see a cut-out line around all of the non-CGI characters as they stand there, but never feel like they've blended into the surroundings. On the acting side, despite Jolie's solid turn, all of the supporting performances are poor and I mean that without exception. The usually decent Elle Fanning does little other than this eardrum-chewing laugh that makes you want Maleficent to heighten the curse and also holds a grossly painful stab at the British accent. The three pixies (played here by Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple and Lesley Manville) lack that motherly feel and go for the slapstick, which also dies on it's arse. Meanwhile, Sharlto Copley and Sam Riley are just a bit dull in their roles: which is a real blight for Copley as he's fairly pivotal. I guess the best thing that could be said about Maleficent is that it isn't as bad when you're watching it, as it is when you think about it afterwards. So I guess you'll just have to try and not do the second bit. I did though.

ONE out of five

Let's close by answering the question though. Can Angelina Jolie act?

Yeah, she can

Next Time (11th March)

The Death Of Depp

The Death of Depp

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

The Tourist

The Rum Diary

Dark Shadows

The Lone Ranger

Transcendence

and Mortdecai

Yeah, it's a day earlier than I said, but that's just because I love you all so much and not at all to do with the fact that I'm at a gig tomorrow night and won't be able to post this up.

It would appear that Johnny Depp's career has come full circle, with his mid-90's status as box office poison giving way to his 2000s success as a bit of juggernaut. Now though, he's back to box office poison territory. However, financial success has never necessarily been an indicator of quality (proof: last year's highest grossing film was Transformers 4), so is it a case of these films suffering an undeserved fate, or is Depp just getting everything he deserves?

There's a few directors who move from Oscar nominated (or even winning) foreign films to English speaking films of a much lesser quality. Florian Henckel Von Donnersmarck is one of those names, as his film The Lives Of Others not only won the Oscar, but beat Pan's Labyrinth in doing so. Whether or not that was justified is a debate for another time, as a more questionable decision arose in that of Donnersmarck following that film with The Tourist. It's a film that now lives in infamy, as not only did it manage to garner three Golden Globe nominations, in spite of the palpable sense of disapproval directed towards it, but it also marks the part where Depp's career starts it's downward slide. For reference's sake, The Tourist is nowhere near the financial failure of the five films that will follow. In fact, it actually turned a profit. However, the film has got to be considered the turning point (along with the fourth Pirates film, which I'm saving for another time) in regards to a growing antipathy towards Depp. He plays American Maths (or Math, if you must) teacher, Frank, who is unknowingly selected by Angelina Jolie's Elise as a decoy for her con man boss. With his Venice holiday now consisting entirely of Frank running away from mobsters and police, he is left to deal with the consequences and (wait for it) hilarity ensues. The first thing I want to make clear is this: I don't hate The Tourist quite as much as everyone else seems to. It has some funny moments and both Depp and Jolie's performances are enjoyable enough. They may be overblown, but that's in keeping with the film's tone, so it's not really a flaw on their part. The really big problem lies in the actual plot of the film, as it all hinges on who Jolie's boss really is. The fact that he has recently had plastic surgery is supposed to help add to the mystery, but in reality, you'll have guessed who it is by the time the train pulls into Venice (that's about 10 minutes into the film). The script comes from Donnersmarck, the usually reliable Christopher McQuarrie and Julian Fellowes, who are all so cocksure of their film's intelligence, that they fail to notice how it derails itself more and more with every passing minute and nonsensical twist. Then, in director mode, Donnersmarck appears far too concerned with how beautiful everything looks, from the Venetian scenery to his two lead actors. In this respect, he succeeds on both fronts, but the vacuity to beauty ratio is on par with your average Miss World contest. The Tourist works to a point, then panics and screams for help, only to find that everyone would prefer to just move on and forget about the whole unfortunate episode.

TWO out of five

In case you didn't know, Depp was really good mates with Hunter S. Thompson. I only throw it out there in case you haven't heard the umpteen times that Depp has spoken about it. That's not a problem. I'm glad they were friends and it's equally touching that Depp wanted to adapt Thompson's novel as one final hurrah following his death. It's less great that he cocked it up. In a way, there's a lot of similarities between The Rum Diary and The Tourist. Both films start out good enough, but instead of building up to a great finale, they squander it and climax in an orgasm of self importance. Journalist Paul Kemp (Depp) begins work for a Puerto Rican newspaper and catches the eye of a local property dealer (Aaron Eckhart). Whilst this brings up work for Kemp, it also pulls him into some less than legal dealings (an evil property dealer in the movies? Never). This part of the story is the interesting part, as the corruption story may not be fresh, but it at least feels focussed. Eckhart is almost always good, despite the fact that the man clearly needs a new agent based on some the crap he's been forced into. Depp is also pretty good during these parts of the film because (and this is the crucial part) the character is sober during these scenes. Even when Kemp is hungover, Depp holds himself back, playing things fairly well down the straight and narrow (with the exception of the opening scene). It doesn't make for the most interesting character, but it does prevent him from overshadowing the scenes and the events around them. Sadly, Kemp is drunk, high or both for almost the entirety of the film's second half and this is where it becomes completely intolerable. The last half of this film is an incoherent mess, in which all sorts of weird drugs related stuff happens and it all leads us nowhere interesting. Eckhart's character is also kind of sidelined, as we're forced to deal with Depp going through a mopey crisis of conscience. We also get the films only look at some of the Puerto Rican locals, as they chase Depp and his partner (Michael Rispoli) away with guns… because that's what they all do. That really is everything The Rum Diary has to offer you. Maybe it's me just not getting it. I know bugger all about anything to do with Hunter S. Thompson (I haven't even watched Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas), so perhaps knowing where this would be headed might have helped, but the promising start notwithstanding, this didn't half irritate me.

TWO out of five

…speaking of annoying. In my previous post, I took a look at one of my favourite directors of all time in Tim Burton; saying that while the man has had his blips, I still hold a general affection towards his films. Dark Shadows is one of those blips and the biggest complement I can throw it's way is that I didn't hate it quite as much the second time around. This is Burton's revival of the old TV series of the same name: a series which seemingly holds zero nostalgia for residents of the UK, so I can only assume it meant something to the American audience. When Barnabas Collins (Depp) jilts the wrong lover (Eva Green in what must a career worst performance), he finds himself being turned into a vampire and locked in a coffin for nigh on two centuries. Waking up in the 1970s, he finds that the Collins name and business is a shadow of it's former self, now led by matriarch Michelle Pfeiffer (who's never seemed so bored). His job, it would seem, is to bring back that glory, but the rival family just so happens to be run by the (apparently immortal) lover that he jilted all those years ago. To it's credit, Dark Shadows knows that it's ridiculous and isn't out to prove otherwise. It is through and through a comedy, but it just isn't that funny beyond the odd solid one-liner. Along with Pfeiffer and Green, the performances are pretty poor too. Depp throws out the most stereotypical Depp-Burton performance you've seen, Chloe Grace Moretz is painful as the petulant teenager and all of the other characters aren't fleshed out enough to justify their appearance other than as background. The exception is Jonny Lee Miller, who's brilliant as the odious womaniser of the family, but there simply isn't enough of him in it. The film's biggest problem though is that everyone's convinced that they're still the outsiders here, particularly Burton, even though he graduated to A-List director when Alice In Wonderland broke a billion. A lot of the film's attempts to be different just feel like things Burton has done before and you can practically hear the back-slapping going on off camera. This isn't just one of Burton's weakest moments, it's taking the crown by a hefty distance.

ONE out of five

This is the point where Depp fatigue really starts to show itself. Dark Shadows didn't set the world alight, but still just about turned a profit. The Rum Diary didn't, but it was always a fairly niche market. Plus, the blame really lies at the feet of whoever thought that film needed a 45 million dollar budget. The Lone Ranger, however, is where Depp's star lost all of it's power. Speaking only in financial terms, this film was a complete disaster; Disney's second in as many years (the other was John Carter). But, does The Lone Ranger deserve it's place as the 4th biggest box office bomb of all time? Hell no. It's a film that is good enough and certainly nowhere near as bad as some of Depp's more successful films, despite the numerous issues. Narratively, the film is a total mess. It just about gets the origin story clear enough, as lawyer John Reid (Armie Hammer) awakens after his own murder, to find that he cannot be killed in battle (thus removing most of the film's tension when it comes to scenes where they want you to believe that he might die). Guided by Comanche guide Tonto, Hammer seeks to become a new face of justice and avenge the deaths of those who fell with him, including his brother. Beyond this, it all just gets a bit too expositionary and the plot isn't all that engaging. If you didn't know, Tonto, the Native American, is played by Depp. Apparently, he wanted to "right the wrongs of the past" when it came to treatment of Native American characters. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd have thought the best way to do that would be by casting an actual Native American (not someone who thinks his Gran might have been one). This is a racial performance that would make Bernard Manning blush and though I'm sure no offence was intended, misguided is being polite. So, why am I saying the film doesn't deserve it's place in infamy? Because despite the numerous blips, it is still often quite a fun film. It's got it's amusing moments and Hammer plays the lead role very well. The villains aren't too bad as they played by decent actors in an old-school one-step-short-of-moustache-twiddling kind of way. There's three of them though and it's apparent how much one of them isn't needed. In the end, The Lone Ranger is a victim of the other films that convinced audiences that Depp wasn't someone to care about anymore. In that respect, it's not a wholly surprising fate and I'd be lying if I said that Depp will change those people's minds in this film. There is plenty else here though where, if you don't really think about what you're watching (and seriously don't try and make sense of the plot, it will give you a headache), there's worse things you could try. Though there are also shorter films you could try, so maybe go for them.

THREE out of five

Though it's most likely a by-product of the director's previous work with Christopher Nolan, I'm struggling to think of a directorial debut that's as confident in it's own greatness as Wally Pfister's Transcendence. Scrap that, I'm struggling of one that's as misguidedly confident. Transcendence is a boring film about artificial intelligence that made me wish I was watching something like The Terminator instead. This time around, Johnny is scientist Will Caster, shot and poisoned by a member of a radical group in protest against his plans to create a sentient computer. With little time left to continue with his work, he and his wife set about using his consciousness to create this computer. This is a success, but Will's ambition takes hold and before you can scream Skynet, his power grows greater and greater. On an aesthetic level, Transcendence succeeds every bit as much as it fails at most other things. Perhaps that was to be expected with Pfister's own previous career in cinematography, but the undeniably pretty visuals do little to compensate for the general failings elsewhere. The plot is predictable (particularly considering that the start pretty much gives away the ending) and this is made worse by the fact that no one seems aware of this. What it often thinks are twists feel like natural progressions of the story instead. I suppose that's better than an out of nowhere M. Night Shyamalan style twist that destroys all involvement with the story, but their predictability completely deadens any effect they may have had. The performances are moderately OK, but a lot just feel like standard performances from the respective actors. Paul Bettany, Morgan Freeman and Cillian Murphy's roles all feel like performances that they've done many times before. Rebecca Hall fares better as Caster's wife, Evelyn, but gets little to do other than cry, despair and sound scientific. Depp's performance is a peculiar one. He's realised that one of his offbeat roles isn't going to work here (as though it did elsewhere), but gets so laid back that he's almost catatonic. This would have been fine if it was just like that when he was in A.I. mode, but he's fairly similar when human, providing us with little to distinguish from how he was before he died. He was boring then, he's boring now. Why are you all getting so suspicious? Much like The Lone Ranger, Transcendence is not the shocker that it has been made out to be, but unlike …Ranger, it's not a film that's remotely concerned with being fun. Without that to fall back on, it's a bit of a slog.

TWO out of five

Mortdecai, on the other hand, is exactly as bad as it has been made out to be. It was probably off to a losing battle with me, even more so than others, because I read the (supposedly excellent) book and thought that was terrible too. The film is still a lot worse though. Charlie Mortdecai is a shady art dealer, who's thus far managed to avoid much reprisal, by also acting as an informant to his former college associate, Inspector Martland (Ewan McGregor). After a Goya theft results in murder, Martland utilises the assistance of Mortdecai to help retrieve the painting and catch the killer. Suffice to say, the plot twists and turns. I'm struggling though to say whether or not the plot actually makes sense. I'm fairly sure it doesn't, but my care in keeping up was so minimal that it might have just been my lack of care. This is a deeply irritating film and most of it is Depp's fault. Take his performances in all of the other films reviewed here and combine their annoyance level. You're still not even close to how bad he is in Mortdecai. With an overcooked Lesley Phillips on acid accent, a grin that makes you want to remove the teeth from it and an absolutely hateful view on anything he could form an opinion on, Mortdecai is a flat out unbearable character. So much so, that you'll be hard pushed not to side with his long suffering wife Johanna… and she's played by Gwyneth Paltrow! As for the comedy, I'm still not convinced of it's success. I'm a very easy person to make laugh, because if a film is really bad, I'll cling on to jokes that wouldn't normally stir a reaction, but go with the laugh like some sort of comedic Patty Hearst. I'm pretty sure that was what happened here because not only could I not remember any of the jokes, I looked some of them up after and felt ashamed for laughing at them in the first place. This is a film that has no flare, style or wit, but appears desperate to assure us that it has. When I reviewed Birdman last month, I said that it would be a truly great year for film if that ended up not being one of my Top 10 films. If Mortdecai isn't in my Bottom 10, it will equally have been a shit one.

ONE out of five 

Next Time (26th February)