pzazz_hij

Before I address the question on everyones mind regarding the Oscar that DiCaprio craves I have to talk about the on form director, Alejandro G. Iñárritu, and his latest masterpiece. Last year he swept up completely with 3 personal nominations and 3 wins for Birdman and rightfully so. This year he is up for another 2 and if he was to win them both he would be only the 2nd person to win back to back Best Picture awards (The first was David O. Selznick in 1939 & '40) and the 3rd to win Best Director back to back (John Ford 1940 & '41 and Joseph L. Mankiewicz 1949 & '50). He would however be the very first to do both... But could it happen!?

Well, firstly I have to say that any film that is able to put you in amongst the action as fluidly and emotionally as is exampled in the opening scene here is fully worthy of a best picture, the best film that I have seen do it was Children of Men in 2006; rather unsurprisingly a film by a friend of Iñárritu Mr Alfonso Cuaron and also the same man in charge of the cameras Emmanuel Lubezki (The second man to win best Cinematography back to back (He could win a 3rd) along side John Toll). Of course, doing it once in the film really isn't good enough but the fact that it is done more or less constantly throughout the film is exceptional in itself. The opening scene I mentioned is a surprise attack by the Indians on our protagonist and his party, which travels like its one take and has you jolting at every bullet and arrow that hits home. A fully deserved nomination for the above mentioned Cinematographer. But the stand out point for me in this scene was how brilliantly the sound accompanied the visuals and thats not the Score, its the sound effects that feel as though they are happening around you. Brilliant! The minimalistic score is used nicely to overpower the end of the scene and carry us into the next one. All of these elements are under the supervision of the director who I will now say has to make all of this seem seamless and he truly does so. With that in mind the Oscar could indeed be his (But i haven't seen all the other nominees yet).

As soon as this scene was over I knew that I was in for a mesmerising experience similar to what I had with Birdman. Not that they are similar. In fact these films are in many ways mirror opposites. Where Birdman was fast, expressive and imaginative, this is patient, quiet and real. The scene that this film will be remembered for is the Grizzly Bear attack and it really is a shocking and very realistic watch as it happens, seemingly, in 1 take and goes on for at least 5 minutes. The fact that you are sat there at this point almost able to feel the pain he is in is something that must be seen to be believed. The story that follows is just about the mother of all revenge stories, as a true western should be, but also a survival film unlike any seen before it.

Tom Hardy, once again playing the villain can proudly take his Oscar nomination to further springboard his already high flying career; Will he win? Maybe! He's had a fantastic year though, starring in 2 films in the best picture category playing the hero in one and the villain in the other shows his brilliance.

Now... Leonardo DiCaprio... Will he win the Oscar this time? I honestly feel, just my opinion, that the argument suggesting that he should have won one by now is unreasonable because he had been up against some very formidable opposition over the years all of which were worthy winners that he simply wasn't able to outshine. The only one I feel he should have won for was Blood Diamond but was beaten by Forest Whitaker in a career defining performance. The same with Jamie Foxx as Ray. His other performances, albeit very good, weren't ground breaking or really in any films that merit the kind of Oscar best picture winners with weighty subject matter. But also he is the grounded actor in the room which allows for actors around him to experiment and test the water because they know Leo is there as the anchor. The other thing is that if he had have won previously would he have changed the kind of films that he makes? its not an unreasonable thought.

However, this time he has a very physical performance that is given a silence and demands a visceral understanding but also he and all the actors are almost always right in the cameras face... I mean that very literally. There are a few times when Leo's heavy breathing causes condensation on the lens and it never spoils the effect. In fact it makes you realise that the camera was literally a few inches away from him whilst he's trying to perform and given that most of us find that terrifying, for him to achieve this level of performance with that kind of distraction deserves every kind of credit that can be bestowed. His main competition this year is Michael Fassbender for Steve Jobs, 2 very different performances and 2 contrasting acting styles but in my honest opinion DiCaprio will not walk away from the Oscars disappointed this year. Its his to win.

As for the film... Its a masterpiece. Excellent and unforgettable.

Did I really just watch a Dinosaur Western?!

Its probably not what would normally come to mind when I say that - Dinosaur with a gun on his hip looking for revenge and fighting off Indians; No, nothing like that. However, I kid you not that thematically it fits the bill.

Before I dive into a full analysis let me say that I really, really enjoyed this film, Loved it in fact, despite a few issues but the major thing to mention is that I don't believe that its suitable for children. It is very intense and isn't sugarcoated in its adult themes and yet I can't help at respect it that little bit more for it because I remember watching Disney films when I was young and found some of them to be incredibly scary (Hunchback of Notre Dame for example) but they were saved by a strong and educational ending of the good winning, helping this in need, doing the right thing and generally the right kind of life lesson. It being a Pixar film, however, would normally suggest its ability to soften the blow of its adult themes, as was so well done with "Up" and its heartbreaking introduction.

So then, we open with the context in place which is that the meteor that wiped out the Dinosaurs on earth never happened. Millions of years later they still occupy the earth and are intelligent and "resourceful" whilst humans are still evolving. Visually the film is unlike anything I've ever seen, the animation looks so real, in fact I honestly believe that some of it wasn't but I would likely be proved wrong. The scenic shots felt alive and water flowed so realistically, it is groundbreaking animation.

The story, rather appropriately, is as old as the hills and is in no way original but there aren't many westerns out there that are. But even so the simple truth is that a story doesn't have to be original as long as your character is right and you handle your themes with passion and conviction then your story will seem as fresh as anything else and I honestly feel that this was handled with that right kind of passion.

Speaking of character, our protagonist is a young Apatosaurus named Arlo who is fearful of the world around him and accidentally gets swept away down the river whilst trying to frighten off a hungry human critter. Forming an unlikely friendship with said human Arlo takes a dangerous trek to follow the river back home. It is, if nothing else, a coming of age story that teaches our young Dino about friendship and not overcoming fear but simply accepting it. Young Arlo not only hits, but gets physically smacked, by every bump along the way and he is given the cuts and scars to prove it. Even though there are other, villainous, Dinosaurs to contend with on his journey the main antagonist is that of nature itself, which is shown to be as deadly as it is beautiful. Looks can indeed be deceiving, as this film examples many times, but it also fits the territory of the western.

The score as with most Pixar films is simple yet beautiful, half the time I didn't even notice it which means that they got it right and accompanies the film incredibly. I would also defend the argument that there isn't enough variety of Dinosaurs in it because, as was the wild west, the world is so vast and we explore only a small part of it. There is a drug reference in there which is completely misfired and doesn't need to be included, even though it was for comic effect.

Here's what I'm going to get some stick for... This latest effort from Pixar is better than "Inside Out"! Where Inside Out is strong and deals very well with the emotional complexities of childhood, it also lacks excitement and tries to be over creative with its explanation. This is a strong mix of fun, danger and important lessons that is brave enough to not hold back any punches.

A very fine film that will proudly be added to my Blu-Ray collection as soon a possible.

I feel it unnecessary to comment on the plot of this one because i think that EVERYONE by now knows the Spider-Man story. This "version", however, asks the simple question, 'Do you know Peter Parker?!'

Without comparing too much to the Sam Raimi films (which, for the record, I absolutely love) they had no interest in the true origin of Peter Parker, it was all about who and what Spider- Man is to the people and himself. That proved not to be a bad thing and certainly Sam Raimi's efforts to create Spidey for the big screen went down as a major success all round.

In order to reboot something so well loved and so soon after it was a hit you cannot do the same thing again, there simply isn't any point! This film needed to be different, it needed a fresh side of the story and a reworked main character... They absolutely did that!!

The difference here is that Spider-Man is only one layer of something much bigger. Peter Parker IS Spider-Man and its about him and his reason to do what he does and the responsibility in doing so. Certainly one downside is that this theme was explored quite extensively before, but this is managed to work as a fresh and not overused theme.

As for the new Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield, there really isn't many criticisms that you can make towards him. He really does do a great job in exploring the more scientific mind of both the nerd behind the mask and the web head himself. Even better than that he captures the emotion of a troubled teenager. He has a gift that he wants to use for revenge but instead decided to use it for good, this is perfectly played out in the scene in the car park, the way he speaks to the cops to defend himself is perfectly believable and again captures his teenage ignorance to the world he has thrown himself into. This is very nicely shown through a well written scene in which spidey saves a young boy... I think you will agree when you see it.

Now, I can't go without mentioning the villain. The Lizard is quite fantastically realised by Rhys Ifans, or rather Dr Connors is excellently played by him. Many will argue that Lizard is too heavily CGI, they may be right, but it never feels overdone and his overall detail is very true to its origins. The best thing about Connors is that he toys quite brilliantly with the ideal of a mad scientist without actually surrendering to the label. His brilliant mind becomes corrupt by what he accidentally turns into and ultimately this sets up a very nice showdown.

Clear to say that I really enjoyed this new take on the Spider-Man story and i do believe that it is set perfectly for another that would likely be even better and could surpass even that of Spider-Man 2. The Amazing Spider-Man is different. Thats not a bad thing. Give it a chance to show you why!!

P.S Stay for the end credits ;)