THOR review

Brother Kenneth, ye doth make a fun load of old nonsense.

First of all, a gripe - I was more or less forced to watch Thor in 3D as the cinema I went to decided that one 2D showing in the afternoon on a Wednesday would suffice and therefore anyone who actually works in the day would have to put up with the numerous showings of the eye-scraping 3D version in the evening. I have tried not to rant about how much I dislike 3D but it is hard not to. It makes me more angry to see that even established art-house directors such as Werner Herzog are embracing this horrifically flawed medium. Someone needs to end it now. The 3D in Thor was truly awful and completely pointless. Large parts of the film went by without even being in 3D, as if the people responsible for the conversion just gave up halfway through. It was disappointing as Thor is clearly (or unclearly in this case) a visually stunning film. The 3D did not enhance the visuals; it cheapened them. I will gladly never pay to see a 3D film ever again and I'm hoping other people will join me.

Anyway, my thorts on Thor (sorry, I will try to avoid writing any more bad Thor puns that seem to have taken over the web of late). By rights, it really shouldn't be any good. A super-hero summer blockbuster, arriving at a time when many may have had enough of costumed vigilantes invading our multiplexes year after year, with a quite bizarre back story and mythology about immortal Gods in another universe banishing one of their loose cannons to Earth to try and redeem himself for starting a war with, er, Frost Giants. In Chris Nolan's Hollywood (which it is now), this is surely simply too stupid a story to spend $150 million dollars on?

The problem with Nolan's dark, superior Batman films and the game-changing Inception is that of the copycat complex. Apparently everything that Hollywood produces now needs to dark and serious. Enter another serious Brit: Kenneth Brannagh. Did Marvel hire this great proponent of the Bard as director in the hope that he would bring some gravitas to proceedings and really focus on Thor's tragic elements? Probably. Thankfully, Brannagh seems to have realised that Thor is one of Marvel's most obscure and ridiculous characters, resulting in him having a bit of fun with the whole thing. It makes for superior blockbuster entertainment when it could have fallen into self-satisfied boring nonsense (well it's definitely not self-satisfied or boring).

Thor himself is played pitch-perfectly by relatively unknown Australian actor, Chris Hemsworth. Hemsworth also recognises that Thor is a character that needs to be laughed at (in the nicest possible way). He manages the humorous side of the character as well as he does the macho and sensitive sides. He also looks good holding a massive hammer.

Just as he is just about to become king of Asgard, Thor decides to take on the Frost Giants from the planet Jotunheim (keep with me) after a couple of them turn up to steal back the source of all their power, which Thor's father, Odin (a relatively restrained Anthony Hopkins), took from them. Odin isn't best pleased with this and decides to banish Thor to Earth to learn a few lessons. You'd be forgiven for thinking, in the lengthy opening sequence on Asgard, that it's a bit Lord of the Rings-lite. But once it gets going it doesn't really matter. And once Thor falls to Earth with a massive thud the film swiftly moves from something big and loud to something genuinely funny and moving. The fact that the film keeps jumping between two different universes gives you an idea of how all-over-the-place this film is, not just in location but in tone - one minute we're watching Odin and Thor's brother Loki (the superb Tom Hiddleston) having a major father-son crisis, the next Thor is delivering the film's funniest line in a pet shop in New Mexico. Amazingly, Brannagh manages to keep everything (just about) under control. Saying that, this is definitely a Marvel film rather than a Brannagh one. He doesn't really put his own stamp on it but I am hoping this is the beginning of a revival of his film career and not just a one-off.

Thor has one of the great super-hero casts. Asides from Hopkins and Hiddleston, in amongst the chaos are Rene Russo and Jeremy Renner (both wasted), Natalie Portman (the love interest who doesn't have much to do), Idris Elba and Stellan Skarsgard (both excellent). Yet, importantly, Hemsworth is still the star, closely followed by Hiddleston (despite looking unnervingly like Jared Leto). Loki is the most interesting and conflicted character and Hiddleston is perfect. They all seem to be relishing in the preposterousness of it all, which is partly why the whole thing works.

Thor is by no means a classic and isn't up there with the likes of Nolan's Batman films or, for example, Spider-Man 2. But it has a lot going for it - superb action sequences, a wry sense of humour and great performances. It sets the bar fairly high for the many super-hero films to come this summer. A shame really that Brannagh isn't directing all of them. And regretful that most will be in 3D.

3½ / 5

SOURCE CODE review

Duncan Jones's (train) ticket to the big time.

Duncan Jones's superb debut Moon was easily one of the finest films of 2009 and earned him a well deserved BAFTA for Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer (it should have won more awards and Sam Rockwell should have at least been nominated for an Oscar). Moon was an unashamedly old school sci-fi flick that had heart as well as brains and is the kind of film that gets the attention of Hollywood producers looking for new directing talent. And so we have Source Code; Jones's follow-up - a movie with a bigger budget and based on someone else's discarded screenplay. Dangerous territory.

Source Code could have gone two ways - more money can often result in ill-disciplined work and disappointment, or Jones could have kept his feet on the ground and made a film which confirms him as a massive new talent and a true Hollywood contender. Thankfully, its the latter.

Colter Stevens, a soldier serving in Afghanistan (Jake Gyllenhaal in his best role for years), wakes up on a train. He doesn't know how he got there. A pretty girl, Christina (Michelle Monaghan), sitting opposite talks to him and refers to him as Sean. Colter, naturally, has a massive wtf moment and then 8 minutes later the train blows up. Colter then wakes up in some kind of weird hexagonal container and a military lady, Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) talks to him via a TV screen. Turns out that Colter is in something called the 'source code' (I have absolutely no idea why it is called this) and that he has to enter the mind of one of the victims of the train bombing in order to find out who the bomber is before more stuff is blown up. He only gets to re-live the last 8 minutes of this person's life though and he can do it as many times as is needed. Confusing? Yes. Ridiculous? Definitely yes.

The plot in Source Code and the science behind it are absolutely preposterous. How the 'source code' works is explained to us in about 30 seconds by an extremely hammy Jeffrey Wright, playing Dr. Rutledge, the creator of this bizarre machine. Why? Because it doesn't matter, it really doesn't. Source Code is the kind of high-concept sci-fi movie that flies by the seat of its pants - the kind of film that in order to get away with its silliness, needed to be made and performed with complete conviction and executed at break-neck speed so that you don't have too much time to wonder if it all adds up. Thankfully, Jones and the cast are up to the challenge. It is quite simply superb entertainment - brilliantly made and acted, exciting, intelligent, funny and emotionally involving. It appears as though Jones isn't even trying - an effortless sophomore outing.

If Hitchcock and Tony Scott got together to remake Groundhog Day, it probably wouldn't be too dissimilar to Source Code. The opening credits and train setting are pure North By Northwest, the action handled like a professional (and never over-done) and it has a good sense of humour. Like with Moon, this is good, honest science-fiction about the ideas of time-travel, mulitverses and identity swapping as well as asking big human questions about death, the afterlife, regret and reconciliation. As for Gyllenhaal, he has never been better. After the much derided Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, he needed a good comeback in the action arena, and this is it.

For Jones, the future looks very rosy indeed. Remember when Christopher Nolan released his brain bending classic Memento in 2000? Five years later he was given $150 million to make Batman Begins. The rest is history. I hear Zack Snyder might be chucked off the Superman reboot...

4 / 5

ANIMAL KINGDOM review

Neighbours it ain't.

This excellent Australian family crime saga won 10 awards at the Australian Film Institute awards and was nominated for 18, which got it some Hollywood attention and resulted in Jacki Weaver being nominated in the Best Supporting Actress category at this years Oscars. The critical acclaim is thoroughly deserved.

Animal Kingdom is a rarity for me in that I hardly knew anything about it before I went to see it (I have the tendency to read too much about films before going to watch them). I also don't watch a lot of Australian cinema. When I think about it all I can conjure up in my mind, asides from the brilliant Chopper, are dreadful Baz Luhrmann films . So it came as a nice surprise to find that Animal Kingdom is a confident, gripping and haunting character study of a ruthless family constantly on the brink of collapse that occasionally reaches levels of operatic intensity. To learn that it is director David Michôd's debut feature film makes it almost miraculous. It comes across as a film made by a veteran pro.

The drama centres around the despicable Cody family in Melbourne. The matriarch of the family is the emotionless, hatchet-faced, and frankly terrifying, 'Smurf' (Weaver). She has four sons who live with her - 'Baz', Craig, Darren and 'Pope'. These brothers are all wanted criminals (something which mama Smurf seems very proud of). Into their lives enters moody teenager 'J', whose mother has just died from a heroin overdose (in an extraordinary opening scene). He enters a storm from which he is unable to escape. There is a reason why his mother never really introduced him to her side of the family and that reason also explains the film's title.

We join this family at the end of their criminal heyday so we don't really see them commit that many crimes. It's too dangerous for them now. Instead we briefly hear about past bank robberies every now and then and the constant police surveillance is enough to show us how much wrong they have done. At this point in time, as J's voiceover points out, they are all scared. Fear and foreboding are definitely the underlying themes of the whole piece. One minor slip could send them all to jail. It doesn't help then that when Baz is murdered by the police, Pope takes the opportunity to get some revenge. This is when things start to spiral out of control.

Pope is completely psychotic. He's like a quieter version of Ben Kingsley's character in Sexy Beast but just as deadly. He is brilliantly played by Ben Mendelsohn, who won Best Actor at the AFI awards. He may not be a scary looking fella but whenever he's on screen you get the sense that anything, most likely something horrific, could happen. Whenever he's on screen with J's girlfriend Nicky, the tension is unbearable. Newcomer James Frecheville, playing J, is the film's heart and soul, and it is his heart and soul that all the other characters are after. His family obviously want him to be like them at the same time as investigating police officer Leckie, brilliantly played by the ever reliable Guy Pearce (looking remarkably like Gary Oldman in The Dark Knight), wants him to help put his family in jail. In this world though, everyone is corrupt - his family, the cops, the lawyers; they all want J's blood. Frecheville has a tough role playing a young, conflicted character. If there's one downfall in this film it's that sometimes he doesn't seem to be able to meet the demands of the character. On the other hand, his blank expressions result in you never knowing who he is going to side with until the very (satisfying) ending.

All of these male actors though are well and truly trumped by Weaver's performance as Smurf. From the moment she enters the picture she is frightening and untrustworthy. She likes to talk about how much she loves her sons and consistently kisses them on the lips in a disturbing manner. Yet you never get the feeling that she gives a damn about any of them, or anyone else in the world, apart from herself. Even when she cries over one of her son's deaths, it just isn't genuine. By the end of the film you will be convinced that she is the devil incarnate. It is a star-making performance.

Although Michôd takes his cues from Scorsese et al, Animal Kingdom never feels like a homage to Hollywood gangster films. And those expecting Goodfellas levels of action and gun violence may be disappointed (it reminded me more of The Godfather anyway). Most of the action takes place in an ordinary house with an extraordinary family. Staple gangster locations like banks, police stations, nightclubs; they don't really feature. The drama is in the home.

A sublime debut then that is well written and contains some magnetic performances. And it even features some shrimps on a barbie.

4 / 5

OSCAR RESULTS

Due to my complete lack of understanding how a TV guide works, I managed to completely miss the Oscars awards ceremony this year despite it being shown in the UK, naturally, the evening after it happened and on a channel that not only has a '+1' version but also a '+2' (!). So I am unable to comment on what was apparently the most boring Oscars ceremony of all time. It disappoints me that the media has come down on James Franco like a ton of bricks for his complete lack of charisma because on screen he is usually very charismatic. Maybe he should have taken Ricky Gervais's advice and maybe he should stop trying to do EVERYTHING AT ONCE. Mind you, I don't think I could have looked at Anne Hathaway for that amount of time. She is one of the oddest looking people ever. I think it's the mouth, no it's the eyes, no the ears, oh god it's her whole face!

I did manage to watch a few of the acceptance speeches though, most of which almost sent me to sleep. Colin Firth, who won Best Actor, has been one of the only reasons to watch awards ceremonies this year thanks to his witty anecdotes and warming presence. You would think that, seeing how obvious it was that he was going to win, he would have prepared something special, y'know, like a King's speech. He didn't. He looked bored and sleepy. Maybe Franco really was terrible. Another disappointment was Christian Bale's speech. The 'Guess which accent Bale will speak in' game ended in a disappointing win for gruff-English. I prefer his impression of an Australian cockney. The rest? Natalie Portman cried, Melissa Leo said 'fuck' and Tom Hooper looks like a pigeon. Trent Reznor is fucking cool though.

All in all, the awards went as expected (full list of winners here), apart from maybe Tom Hooper winning Best Director. It does make more sense for the Best Director award to go to the director of the Best Film rather than it not. But, as much as I like The King's Speech, I don't feel he deserved it. The film is indeed very well made but it is a very 'safe' film with a screenplay that shouldn't have given Tom Hooper too many headaches when trying to film it. On the other hand, The Social Network is based on a script so complex in terms of dialogue (which there is a hell of a lot of) and narrative structure that it must have been an absolute nightmare for David Fincher to film. The fact that he made a film about horrible people talking about computers into a thrilling masterpiece is a near miracle. Then there's Darren Aronofsky's braveau directing in Black Swan and the Coen Brothers' usual sterling work in True Grit. Not to take anything away from Tom Hooper, I just think there were stronger contenders. There was a nice surprise in Wally Pfister winning Best Cinematography for Inception (thoroughly deserved) and the fact that Inception in the end won the same amount of Oscars as The King's Speech (albeit in the technical categories).

Most importantly though is how good were my predictions? I guessed 7 out of 13 correctly it turns out. Not bad but I'm glad I didn't bet my life savings on them (all £15).

If you missed this year's Oscars or just think they are a load of crap (they are) then the Kermodes are well worth a watch instead.

Anne Hathaway - aka Weird Face

OSCAR PREDICTIONS

So it's a week and a half until another ludicrous and overblown Academy Awards ceremony (27th February), yet once again I find myself getting involved in all the nonsense and oddly excited by the whole thing. I'm not sure why this is. Generally I can't stand awards ceremonies - a bunch of pompous, over-paid, deluded individuals celebrating themselves at an event dictated by evil businessmen who give awards not based on talent but on what is 'right' for the industry at that time. No wonder Ricky Gervais felt the need to do this at the Golden Globes this year.

It doesn't help that there are the usual nonsensical omissions and bizarre decisions that the Academy love to make. This year the most notable ones are Christopher Nolan not being nominated for Best Director for Inception, which I can only imagine is because he has somehow offended the Academy voters, and Hailee Steinfield being nominated in the Best Supporting Actress category when she is clearly the lead character in the Coen Brothers True Grit.

Basically the Oscars is complete toss but I think it's because of its ridiculousness that I find them strangely fascinating. And like a typical film nerd, I also like to make my predictions as to who will win.

These predictions are below. I have put what I think should win and what I think will win:

(A list of all the contenders can be found here)

BEST FILM

127 Hours

Black Swan

The Fighter

Inception - should

The Kids Are Alright

The King's Speech - will

The Social Network

Toy Story 3

True Grit

Winter's Bone

BEST DIRECTOR

Darren Aronofsky - Black Swan

Joel Coen, Ethan Coen - True Grit

David Fincher - The Social Network - should and will

Tom Hooper - The King's Speech

David O. Russell - The Fighter

BEST ACTOR

Javier Bardem - Biutiful

Jeff Bridges - True Grit

Jesse Eisenberg - The Social Network

Colin Firth - The King's Speech - should and will

James Franco - 127 Hours

BEST ACTRESS

Annette Bening - The Kids Are Alright

Nicole Kidman - Rabbit Hole

Jennifer Lawrence - Winter's Bone

Natalie Portman - Black Swan - should and will

Michelle Williams - Blue Valentine

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Christian Bale - The Fighter - should

John Hawkes - Winter's Bone

Jeremy Renner - The Town

Mark Ruffalo - The Kids Are Alright

Geoffrey Rush - The King's Speech - will

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Amy Adams - The Fighter

Helena Bonham Carter - The King's Speech - will

Melissa Leo - The Fighter

Hailee Steinfield - True Grit - should

Jacki Weaver - Animal Kingdom

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Another Year - Mike Leigh

The Fighter - Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, Keith Dorrington

Inception - Christopher Nolan - should

The Kids Are Alright - Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg

The King's Speech - David Seidler - will

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

127 Hours - Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy

The Social Network - Aaron Sorkin - should and will

Toy Story 3 - Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich

True Grit - Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

Winter's Bone - Debra Granik, Anne Rossellini

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Black Swan - Matthew Libatique

Inception - Wally Pfister

The King's Speech - Danny Cohen

The Social Network - Jeff Cronenweth

True Grit - Roger Deakins - should and will

BEST EDITING

127 Hours - Jon Harris

Black Swan - Andrew Weisblum - should

The Fighter - Pamela Martin

The King's Speech - Tariq Anwar

The Social Network - Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall - will

BEST ORIGINAL SOUNDTRACK

127 Hours - A.R. Rahman

How To Train Your Dragon - John Powell

Inception - Hans Zimmer - should

The King's Speech - Alexandre Desplat - will

The Social Network - Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross

BEST ANIMATED FILM

How To Train Your Dragon

The Illusionist

Toy Story 3 - should and will

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Biutiful (Mexico)

Dogtooth (Greece)

Civilization (Denmark)

Incendies (Canada)

Outside The Law (Algeria)

...um... I've only seen Dogtooth but Biutiful probably will.

Chris Nolan - "The Academy sucks big asses."

TRUE GRIT review

The Coens go straight.

Have the Coen Brothers ever made a perfect film? Fargo and No Country For Old Men come pretty close. Either way, there is no doubting their brilliance. They are unique and prolific and even there minor works (like 2009's A Serious Man) better most mainstream Hollywood films thanks to their assembly line of quirky characters, sharp scripts and surreal sense of humour.

True Grit feels like an attempt for perfection and for the first half at least, it reaches those heights. It is a film that shows the Coens at their most confident and restrained. It is, for the most part, a straightforward modern Western. Their films have often experimented with Western genre conventions (strange loners roaming wide open landscapes) and No Country For Old Men is a Western of sorts, albeit one set in the 1980s. So it makes sense that they have made a out-and-out Western featuring Cowboys, Indians... and a man in a bear suit.

I should say first-off that I haven't read the novel by Charles Portis or seen the original True Grit (1969) (for which John Wayne won his only Oscar). So seeing this not-really-a-remake-but-more-of-a-reinterpretation-of-the-original-source is the first time I have experienced the story. In the Coens hands, the story is simple but effective and relies on three terrific performances to carry it forward. Jeff Bridges is superb as the grouchy, gravelly voiced, whisky guzzling U.S. Marshall, Rooster Cogburn, and Matt Damon continues to impress in his role as the Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf - an arrogant cowboy complete with spurs and other cowboy accessories. Both of these established actors are given a run for their money though by newcomer Hailee Steinfield in an eye-opening debut lead role as Mattie Ross - a determined and wise-beyond-her-years 14 year-old who can out-talk anyone three times her age (one of the best and funniest scenes involves her bartering with an old businessman and winning convincingly).

Mattie is out for revenge. Her father was murdered by an outlaw, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), and she has recruited Cogburn to help her find him and bring him to justice. LaBoeuf is also after Chaney but for different reasons. The three reluctantly team up and begin the long search for a man who could be anywhere in the remote forests and deserts. A revenge story though it is, True Grit ultimately is about bigger things - friendship, loyalty, survival and death. The way that Bridges, Damon and Steinfield play off each other is a joy to watch. There are moments of tension, humour and tenderness between them. They all go through their own journey and discover something about themselves, leading to a poignant, emotional ending.

True Grit never looks anything less that beautiful thanks to Roger Deakins cinematography. This isn't the old West bathed in sun, heat and sand, but one that is cold, snowy and foreboding. Deakins partnership with the Coens has lead to some of the best looking films of recent memory. Someone give him the Oscar now please. Speaking of Oscars, why Steinfield has been nominated in the Best Supporting Actress category and not the lead actress one is beyond me. She practically carries the film and if anything is the lead character. Mattie is the one with true grit and Cogburn and LeBoeuf are humbled by her intelligence and maturity. Unlike a lot of the Coen Brothers work, it is a film with real heart, and that heart comes from the Mattie character.

I really enjoyed True Grit, even loved parts of it, but there are a couple of reasons why I think it falls short of perfection. The first is the same problem I had with No Country For Old Men in that quite often the dialogue was incomprehensible. It might just be my rubbish ears but sometimes what Jeff Bridges says, as brilliant though he is, just comes out as a mumbling noise. It's a shame as the script is brilliant and very funny. I also felt that Brolin was underused, and therefore his character underdeveloped, in a third act which simply doesn't live up to the rest of the film. That said, the ending is marvellous - the sight of Cogburn and Mattie riding under the stars will stay with you.

The Coen's make film-making seem effortless and True Grit is a welcome addition to their hard-to-beat back catalogue. It is possibly their most focussed and disciplined work but I don't believe it to be their best. That may yet be to come.

4 / 5

THE FIGHTER review

"Anything that we want to go from just a beginner to a pro, you need a montage..."

The trailers for The Fighter are of the kind which wrap the film up in Hollywood cheese and convention and ultimately undersell the film. That is to say that it isn't just another sports movie about a guy overcoming his struggles to eventually win 'the big fight'. Well, it is that, but it is also more.

Mention 'sports movie', or more specifically 'boxing movie', to most people and they will expect an uplifting and triumphant underdog story that ends with underdog turning into a winning hero. The Fighter, based on a true story, unashamedly delivers on this count and is never anything less than hugely enjoyable. Hell, it even has time for that old chestnut; the sports montage. Thankfully though, director David O. Russell (responsible for the brilliant Three Kings and a few other less successful projects) tries to do as much as he can within the confines of this sub-genre to help it rise above cliché. For the first hour or so, there is very little fighting in the boxing sense. Moreover, it turns out, this is a film about family.

And what a family this is. Mark Wahlberg is underachieving boxer "Irish" Mickey Ward, his brother is former-boxer-now-crack head Dickie (a live-wire Christian Bale), their mother is the chain-smoking, delusional Alice (Melissa Leo) and their 7 (!) sisters are owners of the most shocking haircuts in movie history. Mickey's real battle is not in the ring but in the home with his difficult and over-powering family. He clearly has talent but with his mum as his manager and his brother as his trainer, he might not be fully realising his potential. Things change when Mickey starts seeing feisty barmaid Charlene (Amy Adams playing against type) who helps him to stand up for himself. The majority of the film is about family loyalty versus loyalty to yourself and your potential. Can he resolve this problem in time for 'the big fight'? What do you think?

The Fighter is predictable but well made. The director doesn't settle for Ron Howard style blandness (see Cinderella Man) and instead seems eager to create interesting shots from familiar situations (the fight scenes are filmed to look like television footage and, as such, are refreshing and effective). He also has a good sense of place - you can almost feel the Boston heat in the cinema.

The film's success though is largely down to the performances, which are universally excellent. Bale is on fire as crack head Dickie and, with his gaunt frame and crazy eyes, is a mesmerising presence. The film suffers slightly whenever he is not on screen. I always believe in Bale as the characters he plays in his films - as Patrick Bateman in American Psycho, Trevor Reznik in The Machinist, Brucy Wayne in the Batman films. He is an old-fashioned method actor and, whatever you make think of him in real life, is never anything less that fascinating when on screen. The Oscar for Best Supporting Actor is surely in the bag for this role. Leo and Adams are also excellent, especially the former, whose work I am unfamiliar with (she is apparently excellent in Frozen River, which I have yet to see). I wouldn't be surprised if an Oscar goes her way as well.

In the midst of all this is beefed-up Mark Wahlberg; an actor who I have never really rated but who of late I am warming to (he was the best thing in last year's slightly disappointing The Other Guys). I'm not sure his choice of films have been wise over the years (The Happening, Max Payne - terrible) but he is perfect for his role in The Fighter (one which he has apparently been preparing for for years). He is the complete opposite of Bale; calm, introspective, full of simmering emotion. The picture would probably fall apart if he was less controlled. He is an actor who, like Mickey in the ring, doesn't appear to do much, but at the end; Bang! He's got you.

The Fighter, as good as it is, ultimately is not destined to be a classic like Raging Bull and doesn't pack the emotional punch (ahem) of, say, The Wrestler. But it is way better than I thought it would be and better than the rubbish trailers make it out to be. I will surprised if it comes away with any Oscars outside of the acting categories (it's nominated for 7 overall) but that shouldn't put anyone off seeing it. Worth it just for Bale anyway.

3½ / 5