Breaking Bad - A Hughs Views tribute

** Please note that whilst the following post may be long and indulgent, it is specifically free of spoilers so any non fans can read it and understand why they should be watching the show without ruining the experience for themselves. If you are one of these people please read on. Or better yet, stop reading and just go and watch the show. Now! **

Tonight marks a bitter sweet moment for me. It will be a moment that I personally won't get to experience until tomorrow night, or possibly Tuesday, potentially beyond even that. It will have happened though. For better or worse, in triumph, in desolation, or most likely in triumphant desolation.

Breaking Bad will air its final episode and resign itself to history.

Breaking Bad is, in my opinion, the greatest television drama of all time. Certainly that I have seen. Note that I say drama as opposed to show because there is no way you can compare it with, for example, the creative pique of The Simpsons. They are different beasts entirely and to judge one against the merits of the other would be to do both a disservice. Although anyone who found joy in the image of Sideshow Bob walking in to a rake would find plenty to savour in Breaking Bad. When it comes to serialised drama though, I consider it to be unsurpassed. This is of course just my humble opinion, but for what its worth, I watch a lot of television.

I still remember where I was when I first decided I needed to start watching this show. At the home of a friend who had Sky TV (read: Cable TV for want of a basic American translation), we were watching The Legend of Zorro, simply because it happened to be on. During the advert break the channel airing it, FX, showed a brief trailer for a new American show they had picked up for UK distribution. There were two things that immediately grabbed from this trailer. Firstly it looked like a more action packed version of another show that I was a fan of, Weeds, in which a cash strapped 'single mom' in an upper class suburban community became a weed dealer in order to maintain her way of life. Secondly it starred the guy who played the dad in Malcolm in the Middle, for my money the funniest performer in one of the funniest shows I knew. These two factors made this show an immediate priority for my future viewing schedule. They also, in no way prepared me for what I would experience through the show over the ensuing 5 seasons and 6 years.

Given its current level of public adulation and seeming omnipresence in current pop culture discourse it would be easy to bask in smug satisfaction over being there first and liking it before it was big. Well, to be fair, I was and I did. It didn't come easy though and I would be lying if I claimed to have grasped then the genius for which it is so widely acknowledged today. Truth be told for the first three seasons I carried on a strange viewing ritual whereby I would watch half the episodes, get distracted for a week or so and then not get round to catching up until I started seeing online promotion for the next season and remember how far I was lagging behind.

It was never a question of doubting the quality, far from it, the writing, directing and of course, performances have never been less than compelling. The problem was, as you might imagine with a show chronicling the plight of a cancer stricken chemistry teacher who uses his scientific know how to cook crystal meth with a former student in order to provide for his family when he passes, it was kinda bleak. Where Weeds had been a light and frothy distraction with the humour at its forefront, Breaking Bad was a torrid trudge through the physical and moral degradation of a good man, blind to the destruction he wreaked upon all that he was trying to preserve. Sure there has always been a wonderfully measured seam of truly black humour underpinning the whole endeavour but you would be right in thinking it does not sound like a laugh a minute. If anyone ever doubted that the production and distribution of class A narcotics was a dirty business, this is the show that would help them see clearly.

The moment that then show truly took hold of me was the start of the fourth season. I was not alone in feeling this. Whilst the show had been award winning and critically acclaimed for some time, it was the start of the fourth season it started to take more of a focus in the public consciousness. This was helped in part by the spectacular and devastating conclusion to the third season. For a show that has always been notorious for the dark acts it pushes its protagonists towards, the closing moments of the third season really stepped up the potential of what our 'heroes' were capable of. This meant that the steady stream of viewers that had been trickling in to the show over its three season run had great cause to go out and tell all their friends what they were missing out on as well as giving the press perfect grounds to call out to anyone not yet in the know that this was the point to jump on board.

It also helped that the fourth season was phenomenal. Truly phenomenal.

Anyone that knows me and has heard me talk about television, especially about this show, will no doubt be sick of me saying the following statement, but I will say it again because I still hold it out to be true, even after years of consideration. The fourth season of Breaking Bad is the single greatest individual season of a televised drama ever produced. Bar none. After years of establishing the characters, giving their lives gravitas, sewing their circumstances with significance, cranking up an ever tense accumulation of extreme actions and dire consequences, the fourth season was the point in which the show truly brought everything together to demonstrate what it was made of.

In terms of where the writers were prepared to take the characters and what the performers were prepared to give them, this was the moment in which, from my perspective at least, it transcended from simply being another fantastic drama amongst the many in 'Televisions New Golden Age ™ ' to being a uniquely magnificent and compelling viewing experience. The sheer unpredictability of its machinations combined with the deep affection it had instilled in the audience towards the central players meant that it redefined the notion of finding it hard to look yet impossible to look away. It took an already tense situation and somehow found new screws to tighten.

It stepped up the scale of the action whilst also crystallising (no pun intended...well...maybe slightly) the minutiae of the characters motivations providing each episode with endlessly quotable significant dialogue and spectacle that still proves unforgettable. The most amazing thing about it was that it managed to orchestrate a dramatic crescendo across the episodes and still manage to provide a climax to events that in many viewers minds, mine included, proved even more satisfying than had been hoped for or indeed expected. The experience of watching the final three episodes of this season, right up to its last frame, is something that has stayed with me ever since and I can never see myself forgetting.

This is by no means to say that the action in the following season is inferior, far from it. The show maintains its ability to simultaneously shock and inspire with commendable gusto. It was more the experience of discovering what the show was truly capable of. It is a shame that to some people Breaking Bad has become a lazy by-term used to dismiss quality drama simply due to the level of attention and hype it receives. They perceive someone laying acclaim upon shows of this nature to be little more than a self serving statement of bandwagon jumping. If proselytising over the virtues of Breaking Bad is a crime, it is certainly one I have just proven myself to be more than guilty of. Thankfully the perspective of others simply does not matter. No opinion whether positive or negative will ever dampen the visceral pleasure I have received week in, week out anticipating, devouring and digesting each new episode.

As much as I have been looking forward to it's imminent conclusion, the thought of living in a world in which I will never again have a new episode to look forward to is a sad one. The misadventures of Walter White and Jesse Pinkman have genuinely enriched any moment of my life that they have been a part of. Whilst I may take this moment to thank the shows creators for this creative gift they have bestowed upon an international audience, it is also necessary to of course acknowledge the inevitable fact this very last hurrah could turn out to be a massive disappointment. How could it not after all this time? How could it ever truly satisfy every juicy plot point that has tantalised the fan base for all these hours? Well if there is one thing I have garnered over the years it is to not simply expect the unexpected but rather to not expect anything at all. Leave all expectations at the door because underestimating the shows creators, just like underestimating Walter White himself is something to be done at your peril. If you think you know what is coming next, you have learned nothing at all.

I can't wait.  

The Great Gatsby

Director: Baz Lurhmann

Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire, Joel Edgerton

Plot: Upon moving to New York to make his fortune on Wall Street, Nick Carraway finds himself increasingly drawn in to the mysterious world of his rich and enigmatic neighbour, Jay Gatsby

Hughs View:

Say what you will about The Great Gatsby, it is clearly a work of singular vision.

For this alone we can be grateful as it hopefully means there are no other film makers out there who will give us a film as ill-judged as this.

I do not know if I have previously witnessed a greater mismatch of style and content but if I have, I am glad to have forgotten it.

Like one of the garishly coloured cocktails being served at Gatsby’s parties, it is as sickly to behold as it to consume and they didn’t even have the decency to serve it in a small measure.

It puts spends so much energy in attempting to dazzle you with its audio-visual ostentation from the off-set that it doesn’t allow you to even remotely engage with the characters, meaning that by the time it calms down a bit and tries to actually tell the story, it is almost impossible to care. The result of this is a second and third act that drag unforgivably, despite most people probably having had enough at the end of the first.

The styling is like a more cartoonish version of Who Framed Roger Rabbit but with none of the wit which tempered that films mania. The performances are a mess of mannered histrionics which make you feel bad for the actors involved. There is no doubt the cast are playing the roles to the best of their abilities under the given direction, it is just unfortunate that said direction was so misguided in this instance.

Whilst similar endeavours may have worked for Romeo and Juliet, a story so timeless it can adapt to almost any style, and Moulin Rouge, a film where the style was the story, a work like The Great Gatsby is clearly its own beast and Baz Lurhmann’s attempt to make it his own has proven an artistic disservice on every level.

You can imagine that when it was conceived, he was aiming directly for the sublime, unfortunately in delivery he has landed squarely in the ridiculous.

Also Watch: To remind yourself that Baz Lurhmann is a talented film maker who can use style to a films advantage as opposed to its detriment, I recommend revisiting Romeo + Juliet. It remains a powerful telling of the story and was the first film to make me appreciate a Shakespearean text. Far superior soundtrack as well.

21 and Over

Director: Jon Lucas, Scott Moore

Stars: Miles Teller, Skylar Astin, Justin Chon

Plot: On the eve of his 21^st birthday, Jeff Chang is preparing for an early night before an interview for med school the following morning in order to make his father proud. Unfortunately for him, his old school friends show up and have other ideas...

Hughs View:

Redeeming features.

There are many things wrong with 21 and Over. Many, many things. What it really boils down to though is the idea of redeeming features, or in this case, the lack there of.

It is hard to review this film without sounding like a boring old man. I am at the very least a boring, 25 year old man. I also wan't to point out at this point that I am a fan of this style of film. It nails its colours to the mast from a very early stage. This film is going to be bawdy, it is going to be risque, it is going to be profane, it is going to be debauched. That is fine. You can look back to Animal House in the 70s or for a more generationally applicable references, American Pie, Road Trip and The Hangover (a film that was written by the writer/directors of this piece). Films about guys wanting to have fun and get wasted are not a new thing and, when done well, can be a lot of fun.

This film is not done well.

Now let me get this out of the way, I do not dislike Miles Teller and Skylar Astin. I have liked them both in previous films and genuinely believe they have big futures ahead of them. They can not save this film though.

You could criticise it for being crass without redemptive virtue. The vomiting, urination and abundant swearing in place of real dialogue all feel completely misused and really don't help matters. All the Jackass films had these elements in higher quantities though and were still far superior. You could criticise it for being casually racist. The use of and reference to racial stereotypes seem remarkably misjudged but the Harold and Kumar films proved that this could be used to humorous effect. You could also criticise it for not being funny but I guess humour is technically subjective. I know a lot of people laughed a lot at Pitch Perfect, a film which went right over my head, but I am still aware it was better than this.

What it really comes down to is that all the main characters are completely unlikeable. Completely. Sure American Pie proved with the character of Stiffler that a character can be unlikeable and still win over an audience but that is missing two crucial points. Firstly, Stiffler was only one out of a whole group of otherwise pleasant individuals. Secondly, he had redeeming features. None of these characters have anything close. They are unpleasant to each other and to those around them. They have nothing funny to say, they have nothing endearing to do, their actions, even whilst seemingly supporting each other, are clearly self serving and you can not help but want them to fail. Which is not the films aim.

You can not even give the film makers credit for trying. I mentioned earlier the pantheon of films in the sub-genre that 21 and Over aspires to, well you can pick pretty much any one of them and find in this something that has been ripped off from it. The opening showing our two protagonists in a state of disrepair from the previous nights misadventures before flashing back to the day before is obviously in the vein of The Hangover but that is allowable due to it sharing the same writers. The rest of it lazy, brazen and verging on plagiaristic. There are too many examples to name here, suffice to say if you do ever suffer the misfortune of sitting through it, try counting the better films it makes you think of because doing that is better than actually trying to engage in the film itself.

Overall you can accuse this film of many crimes and the odds are those accusations would be well founded. Ultimately the greatest crime it commits is that of bad film making. Obviously it is not easy to make a good film in any genre, otherwise everyone would be doing it. The fact is though you can see from the work they have done before, from the fact that their stars are indeed stars in the making and from the films they are aspiring to imitate, the people making this film knew what they were doing. They just did a lazy job and now want you to pay for it, which in my view is unforgivable.

Also Watch: Superbad. You can pick any number of films of this type and have a better time than in 21 and Over but for my choice if you want to see the story of three flawed but crucially loveable characters try to make the best of a crazy night when things go mad around them, Superbad is one of the best. It is also gut-bustingly hilarious which helps.  

The Look of Love

Director: Michael Winterbottom

Stars: Steve Coogan, Imogen Poots, Tamsin Egerton, Chris Addison

Plot: The true story of the late Paul Raymond, a property and pornography mogul who was at one time the richest man in Britain.

Hugh's View:

The Look of Love marks the fourth big screen collaboration between director Michael Winterbottom and actor Steve Coogan. With films such as 24 Hour Party People and A Cock And Bull Story, they achieved critical acclaim, unfortunately similar praise is unlikely to follow them with this piece.

From the off it feels like there is a sense of discord between the subject and the style. As the piece introduces the character of Paul Raymond, we find him at a relatively late stage of his life and he clearly is not happy. The sorrow seems to be drawn from the subject of his daughter, the reasons for which are not made clear. We are then taken back to the start of his story and watch it unfold.

Given the clear indication of the story arc that is set to take place, the style in which it takes place seems curiously misjudged. The tragic overtones seem entirely at odds with the light, comic delivery of the action. When I refer to the 'style' of the film, I am not complaining about the visual style of the piece. On the contrary, of the things that the film does well, evoking the feel of the decades in which the film takes place is certainly done effectively. Similarly the Soho setting and the various bars, restaurants, theatres and nightclubs that house much of the action feel very believable. The problem is the same cannot be said for the performances.

This is not to criticise Steve Coogan as an actor or indeed his performance in general, it simply does not feel right for this film. I do not know how much, if any, of the script was improvised but it certainly feels that way and this is a problem. Coogan and Imogen Poots as his daughter Debbie, are meant to be the heart of this film as it is their relationship that drives a lot of the narrative yet their performances feel oddly disaffected which just makes it far harder to invest in what their characters are going through.

This style was effective in the previous collaborations between Coogan and Winterbottom as they were far more irreverent stories overall. In the case of this film though it is clear that there is an interesting and affecting story to be told the film isn't able to take you in to. You watch as the man's empire grows whilst his relationships wither around him, and occasionally you get a sense of pathos as the emotional damage he has wrought in his personal life shows through. Ultimately though this just feels jarring as the bulk of so many events in his life are otherwise breezed through, glossed over or simply left out.

Overall, whilst they have made an evocative film, they have not made an involving one and with this story, that is a problem. The world that Paul Raymond lived in, and to an extent created, was clearly not a particularly pleasant one, but that is not in itself an issue. The problem comes from the fact that as an audience you are not given a compelling reason to be in this world. Whilst it may look exciting from the outside, you will want to leave again pretty quickly.

Also Watch: Blow. This is a very different beast from The Look of Love in terms of the style but it is ultimately the kind of film I wished I was watching. The true life story of a man who built an illicit empire at the cost of the personal relationships around him, it is gripping, involving and worth of your emotional investment.  

Iron Man 3

Director: Shane Black

Stars: Robert Downey Junior, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Kinglsey, Guy Pearce, Don Cheadle

Hugh's View:

So as another year trundles along, Marvel seek once more to expand their cinematic universe. For the unitiated, this is the film enterprise they have been building since the release of the first Iron Man film in 2008, whereby all subsequent releases from Marvel films have taken place in the same fictional universe, featuring characters and references which come from one film and lead in to another. Phase one culminated in the box office behemoth that was last years Avengers Assemble. Now begins phase two and the ball is firmly back in the court of the metal man that first got it rolling.

Despite that lengthy preamble, one of the most admirable things about the new film is the manor in which it seems to be its own entity. One of the (admittedly many) criticisms that were levelled at both the previous Iron Man film and the Captain America film is that they were burdened with a sense that the creative focus had gone in to setting up the Avengers film as opposed to creating something exhilarating and engaging unto themselves. Iron Man 3 suffers from no such problems. Here the focus is on showing the audience a good time and sparing no amount of energy to do it. With this mindset in place the results were always going to err on the side of positive.

This vitality is thanks in no small part to the introduction of director Shane Black to the franchise. As a man who made his name directing and perhaps more importantly writing fast moving and fast talking action classics such as Lethal Weapon and The Last Boy Scout, he was the perfect choice for taking it in to a new gear. The character of Tony Stark is always meant to be the man with the best lines in any room and with someone like Shane Black writing them and an actor like Robert Downey Junior delivering them, it was always going to be a match made in heaven.

If Blacks contribution is the seasoning that gives this action casserole its flavour, there is no denying that Robert Downey Junior's performance is the meat at the heart of it, and what a choice cut he provides. That last analogy may or may not be connected to the fact I have just eaten dinner. That is beside the point.

The point is more that Tony Stark/Iron Man is the character that really kick started the career resurgence that RDJ has experienced over the past few years and this film really shows him earning it. With the suit and the hero it represents having been firmly established over his previous 3 film appearances, the focus shifts far more heavily on to the character of Stark himself. The soul of this film lies in the vulnerability of the human being behind the hero. With his previous ironclad heroics producing feats that challenge the comprehension of even his genius level I.Q, this third solo outing finds him struggling to cope with the physical, psychological and emotional needs of the man who performed them.

It sounds like weighty stuff and RDJ's performance never lets you lose sight of this, but at the same time his natural charisma and wit give the whole proceedings an almost feather-light feel which you are never less than happy to carried along by. It is easy to be dismissive of performances in blockbuster films as simply mindless acts of money making but this is a performance that you feel the actor truly invests in and as a result, you as the audience are completely behind it as well.

The films main villain in the form of Ben Kingsley's The Mandarin is likely to be a more divisive issue. It is hard to reveal too much without giving away massive spoilers but the point in which the full extent of his character is revealed will likely be a point when many viewers will decide whether they are going to go with the film or not. Needless to say it is not the same character know by the comic purists but from my perspective, this is a good thing. I found him to be a surprisingly apt representation of modern terrorism and Ben Kingsley's performance to be knowingly humorous and effective.

The film is not without its flaws. For me it felt slightly unfocussed in its second act. Whilst it is entirely acceptable that the film needed to separate Tony Stark from the Iron Man suit in order for the character arc to come to fruition, it felt at times like it was almost a segment from another film that had simply had Iron Man transplanted in to it. This section was also littered with coincidences and plot holes larger than the dimensional rift he flew through at the end of The Avengers. You would also have to think that Rebecca Hall will be having words with her agent as her role is the definition of thankless.

By the time the final showdown comes around though, you will have forgiven and forgotten all of these minor imperfections as the sense of spectacle and enjoyment is too overwhelming to allow for secondary assessments. Whilst this summer is set to be rife with action spectaculars, the climactic battle in this film sets the bar admirably high. It also features a sight gag that can stand proudly alongside those that audiences adored so much in The Avengers.

Ultimately the film is a significant success and lives up to the considerable expectations heaped upon its chrome shoulders. Shane Black gives the film an energy and humour that surges right through the screen and out in to the audience whilst Robert Downey Junior earns every last cent of his no doubt substantial pay cheque. It gives the rest of Marvels upcoming phase two slate a lot to live up to but if the rest of the journey is as entertaining as this, you can expect it to be just as profitable and well received as its forbearers.

Also Watch: 

The obvious choices would be Lethal Weapon, the film in which Shane Black made his name or Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, his previous collaboration with Robert Downey Junior. Whilst these are both excellent films and well worth checking out, the real forgotten gem in Shane Black's back catalogue, or should I say, Black catalogue...hmm maybe I shouldn't say that, is The Last Boy Scout. Spectacular action, truly hilarious and featuring a close to career best performance from its star Bruce Willis, it really is a must see.  

Hugh's Pre-Views: Olympus Has Fallen versus White House Down

O.k This is genuinely going to be a quick one, this is a discussion to be done in you're head.

Here I present you with two trailers, one for Olympus Has Fallen, one for White House Down.

Both these films tell almost exactly the same story. Essentially Die Hard in the White House.

Observe

Olympus Has Fallen:

White House Down:

Now ask yourself, which one of these would you rather see?

I imagine a number of you would answer 'neither one, they both look equally shit'. If this is you're response, you are welcome to it, but move on. This discussion is not for you.

For me though, it is easily White House Down.

I should point out that although it has already been released, I have not seen Olympus Has Fallen so this is an unbiased response.

It really boils down to the tone. I would say the action looks better but more than this, it just looks like a hell of a lot more fun. You can tell straight away that OHF comes from a place of angst and takes this whole rescuing the president thing way too seriously. WHD on the other hand clearly wants to have a laugh with it.

If you think back to the original Die Hard, in my opinion the pinnacle of the genre, it is really the humour and Bruce Willis' delivery of it that elevates it above other pretenders. Whilst I am in no way saying WHD will be as good as that, the chemistry between Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx is already clearly evident and it gives me high hopes.

You shouldn't have to analyse it though. It is ultimately about head versus gut. You can take the elements of the OHF trailer and say a + b x c should theoretically equal a good time but in my eyes, WHF does this without trying. My response to it comes through reaction, not qualification and that for me is the work of a good trailer.

What say you?

Bernie

Director: Richard Linklater

Stars: Jack Black, Shirley MacLaine, Matthew McConaughey

Plot: The remarkable true life tale of the friendship between Bernie Tiede, the most beloved resident of a small Texan town, and Marjorie Nugent, the most despised, which ultimately resulted in him shooting her in the back and hiding the body in a freezer.

Hugh's View:

I am aware that my last attempt to keep a piece brief was hardly successful but none the less I will attempt brevity once more with this review. Mostly because the majority of you will not end up seeing it, which is a shame but inevitable. The fact is this is a small film about a small town telling a relatively small story. It is about a big character though and does feature a big, if uncharacteristically subtle and restrained, performance by Jack Black.

This film marks a reunion between Black and School of Rock director Richard Linklater but where that served to be a mainstream breakout for the pair of them, this film is another beast altogether. This will likely be of no surprise to either as the film they have created is frankly odd yet this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The closest description would be a documentary re-enactment but that is really unfair to the unique character of the film that has been created. On the one hand it is a straightforward movie but at the same time is almost narrated in a documentary/talking heads manor by the actual residents of the town, many of whom actually play themselves in the scenes as well as actors who are playing other characters in the film.

Whilst it does feel unusual to watch at times, it does seem fitting. The town of Carthage where the events took place is a character unto itself. It becomes clear over the course of the film that it is as much about place that the events occurred as much as it is about the events that occurred there. What makes the story stand out is the fact that despite the fact that a man confessed to shooting an old woman in the back, practically the entire town rallied behind him to get away with it. What Richard Linklater, a Texan himself, captures really well is the meeting point between locality and mentality that caused such a mindset to exist.

It is of massive credit to Jack Black that the film manages to work so well. Shirley MacLaine gives us text book cantankerous as the rich old widow so despised by the town and Matthew McConaughey is winningly slimy as the district attorney hell bent on getting Bernie put away for his crimes but make no mistake, this is Jack Blacks film. Whilst the characters comedic campness and penchant for singing allow Black to demonstrate some of his more well known performance traits, it is what lies beneath the surface that impresses the most. He clearly demonstrates why the townsfolk would have fallen in love with him to such a degree but always retains a hint of something darker.

This being the story of a murderer and all, the presence of darkness in the character should not be a surprise, yet the chorus of actual residents who seem to have sanctified this man presents the conundrum which fuels the heart of this film. It is in making this dichotomy of beloved community pillar and confessed murderer not only believable but almost understandable that Black truly triumphs. The fact that it was only the Golden Globes that gave it any kind of recognition is sad but understandable, it does however act as a great reminder of what a great acting talent he is. Hopefully now that his past ubiquity has subsided slightly, he will start moving back in to making good, fun, interesting films.

Overall it takes a bewildering tale which I imagine, for better and worse, could only have happened in Texas. It won't be to everyone’s tastes but for my money it makes for an intriguing watch. As with any good film in this vein, it allows you to make up your own mind on the character, his actions and the response of those around him but this should hardly be taken as a given. On what would seem on the surface to be such an open and shut case, the fact that there is any room for consideration makes it a great achievement on the parts of Jack Black and Richard Linklater, reminding us how refreshing it is to have both of them making films again.

Also Watch:

Dazed and Confused – One of my favourite films of all time, this film also finds Richard Linklater exploring small town Texas life but instead of focussing on local curiosity, he explores the more universal themes of being young, growing up and having a great time in between. It is also notable for being a launching pad for the young careers of Ben Affleck and Bernie co-star Matthew McConaughey.

Yes I am aware that was not brief. I guess it's good to have something to strive towards...

Hugh's Pre-Views: Thor 2: The Dark World

O.k So I will keep this brief, mainly because I do not have long to write and also because brevity has not proved to be my forte so far. Generally though if you have a problem with that, go back to the manifesto and then piss off and read the the daily mail website. I hear they use short sentences without too many syllables. They may even throw in a few racy images to quicken your pulse. What are you waiting for?

So I am rambling already. Anyways, going forward my posts about trailers will be called 'Hugh's Pre-Views'. I will give you a minute to recover from your mind being blown.

You ready?

Right, I now present to you (on behalf of Marvel films) Thor: The Dark World

Now what did you make of that?

I will open myself up to accusations of bias because I am a boy and somewhat of a geek and I don't appreciate the subtle wonder of The Hunger Games trailer and blah blah blah. I can not tell you if Thor 2 will be better than the Hunger Games 2, but the trailer certainly gives me hope.

This is just as much of a teaser. It shows you how it will kick in to gear. A catastrophic blight on London? We are having a rough year. Big sci-fi/fantasy sequels have it in for us. Just look at G.I Joe 2 and Star Trek 2. Ouch.

Further to that and the subsequent arrival and departure of the eponymous hero (with Natalie Portman in tow on her first trip to Asgard. Meeting the parent? Must be getting serious!), it tells us almost nothing about the machinations of the plot, which is fine because it shows so much despite revealing so little.

You have grand action on a vast and intimate level. Huge battles and one on one combat. Malevolent villains in brief reveals. Scowling warrior princess types with bad intentions. Real world intrigue with human children demonstrating unusual powers. Fantastical landscapes with limitless possibilities. Perilous fates teased for characters with presently unformed destinies. It hints not only at the potential for where the action could go, but at the film makers clear desire to go there.

And as for the sting at the end? Well having given arguably the stand out performance in the highest grossing film of last year, close to all time, Tom Hiddlestone's Loki has earned his pride of place and will doubtless have fun holding it. They know what their audience wants and they look like they will give it to them.

The cinematic entity that is the marvel movie universe is a discussion unto itself for another time, and will be coming up very soon with the imminent release of Iron Man 3 and thus the start of 'phase 2'. Suffice to say the gargantuan success of The Avengers and the key role that Thor's protagonist and antagonist played in that could mean big things for Thor: The Dark World.

After this trailer, I, for one, am excited.

(That wasn't really brief was it? I will get there. In time)

The Place Beyond the Pines

Director: Derek Cianfrance

Stars: Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, Eva Mendes, Rose Byrne

Plot: A travelling motorcycle stuntman discovers he has a son with an old flame whilst passing through her town. He decides to stick around to try and be a father to said child however times being what they are, he resorts to robbing banks in order to provide support. Drama ensues.

Hugh's View:

If there is a director you can count to show you bad times in a good way, it is clearly Derek Cianfrance. After depicting the decline of the relationship between a husband and wife in graphic detail with Blue Valentine (2010), he returns to attempt a similar feat between fathers and sons in The Place Beyond the Pines. The difference this time being the scale of the drama. Whilst Blue Valentine found the devil in the detail, showing how the minutiae of everyday married life could overwhelm the foundations of love, The Place Beyond the Pines goes epic with a sense of inevitable fatalism driving the characters towards their downbeat destinies.

Ryan Gosling plays Luke, the boyishly handsome yet ruggedly manly (anti)hero of the piece as it kicks off. If you haven't seen the posters it wont be too hard to picture. He's the kinda guy who, were you to take him home to meet your mama, she's gonna tell say that boys no good, he's trouble, you stay away from him. But you won't because you will get lost in the eyes that tell you there is a heart of gold somewhere beneath the stormy depths of his soul, all the while ignoring the fact that he clearly has 'heartbreak' written across his forehead. It is the kind of character he is becoming synonymous with, and for good reason. He plays it well.

The problem is, this film is not about a leading man and the story to be told is not his alone. What you ostensibly have is a trifecta of connected stories, detailing the relationships of various fathers and their various sons. Luke may be the butterfly that makes a big deal out of flapping his wings in china but this film is just as interested in the resulting tornado that traverses time and reaps destruction along the way. The problem is, whilst the concept may be interesting, all stories are not created equally.

This film simply does not wear its running time well. The structure being what it is means you come out knowing full well you have been watching it for all of the two hours and twenty minutes it has to offer. This is a result of the pacing which starts out all guns blazing and then switches to water pistols a third of the way through when Bradley Coopers character, clean cut police officer Avery, takes the limelight. It is not so much that he doesn't have an interesting story to tell, it is more that his story is far more pedestrian. Quite literally. Luke zooms around on a motorcycle, Avery spends most of his time walking with a limp. Luke's is a story of actions, Avery's is a story of consequences.

Like a roller-coaster that starts off kicks off at a drastic speed throwing you through loops and turns, it uses the second story to drag you up a slope, attempting to ratchet up the tension on the way before using all its gathered momentum to ride you through the final descent of the third story, staying in the pit of your stomach the whole way. It is not really possible to say anything about the final act without spoiling the fun of the build up, suffice to say once you can see where it is going, it won't be too hard to plot the final course.

Your opinion on this last segment will likely decide your overall reaction to the film. It arrives with a sense of blood brothers-esque pre-destination which you can view as fitting with the established themes of inevitability and fate, or view as a contrivance that doesn't sit well alongside gritty, human led drama that has gone before it. I personally respect the films ambition with the story it tries to tell, however my gut response ultimately leans towards the latter. Despite any pacing issues, you do invest in all the characters leading up to this point and you truly care about their relationships. Whilst this is still the case towards the end, the contrivance can't help but dilute the sensation. You also have to question whether the films ending truly has the strength of its convictions. Obviously I am not going to discuss that here though. That would mean ruining the ending. What do you take me for?

Overall Derek Cianfrance has delivered an intimate epic formed from the misery sewn by fathers and the sorrow harvested by their sons. Whilst it succeeds at having you dab the tears from your eyes with one hand, it will likely have you checking your watch with the other.

See also:
Blue Valentine. If The Place Beyond the Pines is emotional shotgun blast, this is a dagger and it knows just where to get you. Hard to recommend as an 'enjoyable experience, but no less compelling for it. 

Hugh's Pre-Views: Hunger Games: Catching Fire Trailer

Have you seen it? Have you heard?

If not you are about to. Now. And later. And for a long time after.

The Hunger Games are/is back, you can watch the first trailer for Catching Fire below:




Now all cards on the table, I am a fan of the books and a fan of the first film. Neither would likely crack my top ten in either medium but I gained enjoyment out of reading and watching The Hunger Games.

So does this trailer fill me with joy and anticipation? No.

This does not mean I think the film will be awful. O.k so I think it is the weakest of three books, that is not a widely held opinion, but I do hold it. Also, unless you are one of the few significant fans of Constantine, I Am Legend or Water For Elephants, you won't be jumping for joy at the choice of director in Francis Lawrence. He adapted all three films from highly regarded source material and were you to canvas opinion on all them, the summary would likely come out as 'underwhelming at best'.

This is merely speculation though. You can not possibly judge the finished project until it is released. I still want it to be good. I do.

This trailer though? It leaves me wanting more and yet doesn't at the same time.

Obviously the point of a trailer is to get you wanting more. To stoke your intrigue, to tease the possibilities of what is to come, to tantalise your eyebuds with the promise of a rich visual feast you can hardly wait to devour. Hmmm. Maybe I should go eat something.

The point is, this trailer fails to make this happen for me. Naturally there is only so much you can show in what is clearly a teaser trailer and it is not as if they don't already have a devoted fan base locked in for opening night, but when you are kicking off a marketing campaign for something this big which will garner such a high level of coverage, well you want to start with a gasp, not a yawn.

What does it show? The bad guys who were plotting before? Still plotting. The people who were oppressed, dirty and hungry before? Still oppressed, still dirty, definitely still hungry. That unkempt and surly mentor? Still unkempt, still surly. And how about that girl who was a national figure of controversy and a symbol of a slightly muted revolution despite being just a teenage girl torn between the affections of two young men? Well you get my point.

The hunger part is all accounted for, where are the games? You don't have to give away plot, you don't have to reveal character details, just the hint of some kind of inventive action would be enough. Make me believe in seeing this film I will see something I have never seen before. Something I can only get from a Hunger Games film.

Take the action crescendo. The dramatic peak of the trailer. Katniss standing in front of a law enforcer with a gun.

Wow. There should be a laceration warning that comes with this trailer because viewers will be wanting to cut that tension with a knife.

Please don't insult my intelligence and tell me that is a moment I should looking forward to watching. That I should be excited for. My 2 year old nephew could tell you how that will turn out. And I don't even have a 2 year old nephew. I don't have a nephew at all.

Watch this clip. It is from October last year, before any trailers, posters or even plot descriptions were known for the new Star Trek film. With a salivating fan base in waiting, director J.J Abrams went on Conan in the U.S and played a 3 frame clip. 3 frames. It lasted like a milisecond. Nothing. Yet it was more exciting than any moments from The Hunger Games trailer.



Now clearly Abrams set that up as a joke but the lone image he shared promises so much through so little. I know Catching Fire can offer something similarly exciting, if it is even half as faithful an adaptation as the previous instalment then their is wonderment practically guaranteed.

I know plenty of you are just excited to see the characters on screen once more, to hear them talk, to really believe that the film is on its way. I just wish it didn't feel so creatively damp when I just want something to make my imagination, well, catch fire.

That terrible pun was intentional.

Obviously.

Oblivion

Director: Joseph Kosinski

Stars: Tom Cruise, Morgan Freeman, Andrea Riseborough

Plot: A future Earth has narrowly survived a nuclear war. With aliens. Given the poor state of earth, most people are living on a giant space station whilst they siphon off the last of Earths resources. Two humans remain on Earth to help facilitate this.

Hugh's View:

Before you read this, watch this clip (its not from the film and not a spoiler, just watch it trust me)

Right, watched it? Are you sure? The following won't make as much sense if you don't.

Ok? Right so that clip is an exact representation of what went right and wrong in Oblivion. Just the other way round. Because in the clip they say awww when they should respond with awe. But in this film its awe instead of awww. You with me?

The thing is, this film is epic. Like massive epic. Well massive in the sense of America is massive. And it has massive monuments. And football stadiums are massive. Especially if you are just a small man standing next to one or inside one. Like Tom Cruise is. It only just struck me now, I wonder if his stature is part of why they cast him....

Regardless, this film shows America (and we are to assume by extension, the rest of the world) as a desolate, apocalyptic wasteland. Apparently it's correct to say apocalyptic as opposed to post apocalyptic because the apocalypse is the end so nothing comes after it. I digress. Tom Cruise is one of the two humans left alone on this planet and alongside the love and to an extent leadership of Andrea Riseborough, doing mankind a favour by performing a spot of diy, reflecting on memories of an earth he never knew and generally being the good guy.

You see mankind has fled the planet as they tend to do, after narrowly winning a nuclear tiff with some aliens that kinda look like Predator by the way of a Mad Max film. What you see of them that is. They are a scuttling type. Inevitably upon his time of parading along the planet he discovers something is amiss and all is not as it seems, they may not be as alone as they think they are blah blah blah, plot, all that was in the trailer anyways. You can't say much more then that without going in to spoiler territory, but you don't really need to. The first act alone symbolises the heart of the problem, or lack there of it. You see the thing is, I just didn't care.

Now don't get me wrong, watching Tom Cruise fly around the earth in his spaceship come helicopter and then riding around on his stormtrooper chic motorbike, whilst so many great monuments rise out of a dusty, baron desert landscape is a spectacle and a winning one at that. I watched this on IMAX screen (blag blag, whatever, get your own IMAX) and that was the way to see it. A film that relies this heavily on its vast vistas needs to be watched on the biggest screen possible. Normally I am quick to deride a movie that sells itself on having the producer of another hit film behind it, as if that will somehow make it a comparably artistic achievement. That said if this is the kind of staggering yet artistic desolation we can expect from a future earth in the hands of the producers from Rise of the Planet of the Apes, we hopefully have a lot to look forward to future entries from that franchise. Because they are the same people who produced this film. I hope I made that clear.

The thing is, it has a beautiful futuristic aesthetic with a very clean and clinical feel, its just a shame that this extends to the characters too. I don't blame Tom Cruise. I am not a hater. You are? Stop reading a film review and go read a gossip rag. Go on. Scram. It doesn't matter if, in the outside world, someone is a wise man who builds his house upon stone, a foolish man who builds his house upon sand or a famous man that builds his house upon a fruit cake, they are an actor, watch them act in a film, let them convince you and judge them on that.

He is the central figure though, no matter how you look at it, this film is about his face and his person. The fact that you recognise him so easily from everyday life doesn't help you become immersed in his character and this is a problem. The problem extends beyond this though. The core of this story is a human one and without one you can really get behind, the whole things feels hollow and hardly engaging. They go through a lot of the beats that might normally connect you emotionally to a character. He dreams of a wife he never knew, he reflects on football games he never saw, he lovingly embraces his sole companion as she lovingly waits for him to get home after his earthly excursions. He even saves a dog for Christ’s sake. He even saves a dog.

These are emotional beats though, nothing more and you can tell. It's like someone typed 'relatable and endearing human traits' in to Google and then displayed the image results. There is a difference between seeing them and feeling them. The irony of course being that the film this resembles most is the Disney-Pixar classic Wall-E about a robot left behind on an abandoned earth to clean up the mess left by humans. It shares a similar vast and isolated scope but the main protagonist in that film is a Robot. An almost mute Robot. He can barely talk. But he emotes more than double what Tom Cruises' character gets across. And he doesn't have a mouth! No mouth. Come on.

Need I say more:

Wall-E doesn't have a mouth just to be clear. Not Tom Cruise. He has a mouth. Of course he does. How can he do his winning smile without it? He doesn't do much of that in this film though. He is mostly dour. That could have been included in his initial character description in the screenplay. Tom Cruise drives, flies and mopes around looking mostly dour. They of course throw twists and turns in to the mix of course. More reasons to care, more reasons to worry, more reasons to question, more reasons to gasp. None of them add up to anything. Some feel like they are from a completely different film. Bits involving Morgan Freeman. Even he can't elevate it. (He is in the trailer and on the poster, that is not a spoiler). The plot keeps you second guessing as much as it can, you might almost say more then it needs to because the big picture when it finally comes together feels significantly less than the sum of its parts, and that's a shame.

It really tries, it does. Even the soundtrack is saying 'go one, give it a go, dive in, love these people, care for their aquatic love dancing'. Not literally. The musical equivalent. Sweeping strings and electronic beats. They really turn it up to 11. But overall it would work much better as a music video. The track on the end credits is great, I would love to watch a video for that featuring epic shots taken from this film. I just want more if I am watching it for around two hours. It's not asking much. Awe can only make you appreciate, you need some 'awww' before you care.

This is the ending track by the way. Give it a listen, it may even be enough to convince you to go. Rendering the rest of the review kinda pointless...

You won't be sad you spent your money to see this on the big screen but you also won't be sad to leave it behind.

Also watch:
Wall-E. What do you mean you haven't seen Wall-E? It is a true achievement. Whilst it shares a similar theme it has less than half the dialogue of Oblivion, more then double the warmth. Its a classic. Trust me.

Thus, Once More, It Begins

There is no hiding it. In fact if you are reading this you already know it full and well to be true. I have started a film blog. Again. If you were reading this without knowing it to be true, now you certainly do. If you are still confused now may be the time to jump ship. It is only downhill from here on in.

As introductions go it is hard to know which questions to be answering in the sense that I don't know which questions you are asking in the first place. If any.

You tell me. Why ARE you reading this?

Is it because you like films? Is it because you like me? Is it because you love the witty play on words that make up the title? Thanks, I am quite proud of it. You see it rhymes with my name but it also say its my view like my opinion but also like my view like its what I viewed. Multi-layered. Like an onion. A cultural onion. That still makes you cry.

Well regardless to the reason why you are reading this, it doesn't matter because I am not writing this for you. I am writing it for me. If I was to write this for anyone else I would have to write it to their standards. And their whims. This is about me digesting my visual consumption and laying my response out for all to see.

I refuse to be a slave to a whim. In fact that is going to be the first rule of the Hugh's Views Manifesto. Because I just decided there is going to be a Hugh's Views Manifesto. I can do that. It is as follows.

• Never be a slave to a whim.

• Create things at a moments notice if you feel like it. Like, for instance, a manifesto.
• Never put much research in to what these things are before you create them. Like, for instance, a manifesto. Is this a manifesto? I think so.
• Write what you feel like writing, when you feel like writing it.
• Never promise reviews of certain things at certain times.
• Feel free to only go and watch things that you want see unless someone has a good reason to compel you to do otherwise.
• Feel free to offer views on anything other than films, just because you feel like it. See above.
• Just because someone doesn't agree with what you say, doesn't make you wrong. They just don't get it.
• Just because someone doesn't believe what you say doesn't make it false, belief has no bearing on objective truth.
• Feel free to veer in to largely unconsidered pseudo philosophical nonsense on a moments notice.
• Try not to do it too much though, it will just come across as pretentious.
• When you can't think of anything to say, feel free to write a bullet point list of the first things that come to your head. Like when your at school and doing an exam and you're all like you run out of time to finish the exam when really you just didn't revise enough and then you're like 'I’m just gonna answer in bullet points because its better to get something down' when really its not and you fail anyway.
• You are not failing if you weren't trying in the first place.
• If you were trying but ending up failing anyway, its perfectly o.k to act you were never really trying in the first place. And everyone that tries sucks. Cos trying is for suckers. And jive ass turkeys.
• Feel free to use you own notions of grammar, vocabulary and especially sentence structure.
• Ramble to your hearts content.
• Always follow the manifesto.
• Always feel free to contradict yourself.

So this is the basic outlay that I may or may not be sticking to on a regular or irregular basis. I genuinely will be just rambling off thoughts in a semi-constrained stream of consciousness at least for the initial period. Thankfully though I am putting up a review at the same time as this which, given the nature of blogs, you are likely to have already read before you get to this so no doubt you will have your mind already made up.

Just remember, you have nothing to lose if you choose Hugh's Views.

That is obviously not true but I like it as a sentiment. It means I am not completely wasting my time...