There have been various themes running through the incredibly eclectic films of Michael Winterbottom. He’s shown a deep interest in music (24 Hour Party People), delved repeatedly into foreign countries and politics (A Mighty Heart, Welcome To Sarajevo), and experimented with different naturalistic, almost documentary styles (9 Songs, The Road To Guantanamo). There’s also been a bit of an obsession with the works of Thomas Hardy, as he’s made Jude, based on Jude The Obscure, The Claim, which took The Mayor Of Casterbridge to the 19th Century American frontier, and now Trishna, which is Tess Of The D’Urbervilles in modern-day India. With an almost improvised style, culture clash themes and mix of musical types, the film brings together a whole heap of Winterbottom’s interests.

Instead of Tess we have the titular Trishna (Freida Pinto), the daughter of an auto-rickshaw owner, whose livelihood is thrown into jeopardy after an accident writes off her father’s Jeep. Trishna goes to work for Jay (Riz Ahmed), a young Brit who’s reluctantly come to work in his father’s newly acquired hotel business in Rajasthan. He is captivated by Trishna, but not that interested in the hotel business.

Their fledgling relationship is marred by a clash of cultures, with Jay not realising the strong traditional ties Trishna still feels and which result in shame that drives her back to her family after she and Jay first make love. A few months later Trishna realises she’s pregnant, something disgraceful in the traditional rural society she comes from, and so her father arranges a secret abortion without Jay even knowing his girlfriend was pregnant.

She and Jay then reconcile, and he convinces her to run away with him to Mumbai, where no one will care that they aren’t married. She adapts to her new life and they both seem happy, but the spectre of the abortion hangs over them, as does Jay’s increasingly domineering behaviour, which could have tragic results for both of them.

There are few authors I hate more than Thomas Hardy. To me his books are tedious, melodramatic, overly wordy bilge, and I can’t understand why anyone would want to read one of his novels. Winterbottom is one of his few filmic devotees, as while Hardy’s works have popped up on TV a fair amount, they rarely get adapted for cinemas – indeed, half the cinematic films based on Hardy in the last three decades were directed by Michael Winterbottom, so he really is a bit of a lone voice when it comes to the Victorian author. Here he keeps the plot – and to give Hardy his due, he was always very good at storyline – but removes a lot of the histrionics, resulting in a film that’s a lot easier to watch than Hardy is to read.

It’s a quiet tale, told in a naturalistic style, with much of the dialogue appearing to be improvised. It works extremely well, allowing the film to get under the skin of the relationship between Trishna and Jay. Particularly in the early stages, it does a great job of allowing the characters to talk like real people, letting the attraction and uncertainty of early love to build. It’s beautifully portrayed. I’m still not convinced Freida Pinto is a good actress, but she works well here as the one thing she’s superb at is seeming innocent, and she exudes that here.

With Winterbottom’s globe-trotting movies, he always been interested in telling stories that suggest that no matter how different a culture and place seems, underneath surface differences people remain the same. He does a very good job of that here, and not just by taking a Victorian tale of British classes division to modern India, but in creating a romance that seems universal.

The film’s main problem arises towards the end. There’s a rather awkward tonal shift, with characters whose evolution has seemed very natural up to that point, starting to look a little like they’re only there to service where the plot needs to take them. After the duo’s relationship starts to sour, the film is once more quite skilfully told, but it lacks the power it should have due to a rather clumsy move from Jay seeming a pretty good catch to something more sinister.

It’s a shame as it really detracts from what is otherwise a small delight; a journey into the heart of India, the clashing of cultures and the simple universal truth of love – with all the happiness and pain that entails.

Overall Verdict: Taking Tess Of The d’Urbervilles to India works surprisingly well, with Winterbottom creating a nicely observed, naturalistic love story. It’s just a shame an awkward shift towards the end rather undermines things.

Reviewer: Tim Isaac

John Carter comes to us as the latest mega-budget film from Disney and takes us on an epic adventure to Mars, around the year 1875. This film is directed by Andrew Staton, who was behind the wheel on some much loved Pixar films such as WALL-E and Finding Nemo, as well as executive producing the likes of Toy Story 1 & 2, Ratatouille and Up. However while that was all in the world of CG, John Carter is his first directing venture in the live-action arena (although still with plenty of computer-graphic back-up).

This film is based on the Barsoom series by the acclaimed novelist Edgar Rice Burroughs (creator of Tarzan). This film is a tricky one to navigate. On one hand it portrays a familiar story of a soldier falling in love in a foreign land, and coupled with sci-fi elements that have become fairly stereotypical in modern cinema, the film sometimes strays into very familiar territory, a la Star Wars, Avatar, Prince of Persia etc. On the other hand it represents a classic story that was one of the major influences on fantasy and sci-fi stories for the last 100 years. But can John Carter win over audiences who are unfamiliar with its classic roots?

The story is, of course, all about John Carter and his adventure to Mars. John is a decorated ex-soldier who fought in the American Civil War. However he is now a vagabond of sorts, completely on his own path after his wife and child were killed. Turning his back on any cause – apart from his own – he is set on simply treasure hunting. His plan takes an unexpected turn when strange events see him transported from Earth to Mars.

Now stuck on the Red Planet, John can’t help but get entangled in the local happenings (there are far more aliens on Mars than NASA suggests), partly due to the fact that the change in gravity has given him ‘super-human’ strength and ability, and the locals immediately take an interest in this! On Mars there are four groups that exist together (not necessarily in harmony); the Heliumites, a human race characterised as educated, sophisticated and peaceful. Acting as the foil to the Heliumites are the Zodangans; also looking human, but warlike and predatory in nature. There are also the 9ft tall, green, four armed and tusked Tharks, a tribal race of Barsoom, and lastly the mysterious Therns; an ethereal bunch whose motives and purpose only come to light as the film unfolds. John is caught in the battle between these groups and must let go of his desire to not get involved. Many epic battles ensue and how John chooses his path will determine the destiny of the people of Barsoom.

There’s no doubt that John Carter is a visually amazing film. The film is backed by Disney and has some big names working on it who, as mentioned earlier, are responsible for some of our most beloved films. It looks exquisite. The Earth circa 1875 is portrayed excellently, as is Mars. Both look real and believable. The special effects are equally commendable, with all the creatures moving and interacting with the real characters in a way that makes us believe that they’ve always existed. There are also all the elements of a classic story: the discovery of a new world, the love interest, the battle between the good race and the bad race, and our hero’s part in it all.

Even so, for me John Carter just misses the mark. As much as all the elements are in place, something just doesn’t quite click. This film is based on a novel and sometimes it feels like a lot of the story is missing. John’s family are killed, but why? How? And who did it? John then falls very quickly for the beautiful Helium Princess (although I don’t blame him, as she’s played by Lynn Collins), but their relationship doesn’t really seem like it’s worth all the trouble that he goes through. The story does have an interesting twist to it, and the way the narrative runs keeps things interesting. But essentially the basic story isn’t anything new.

Fans all over are punting the fact that this is the original tale that inspired all the sci-fi films we are familiar with, as the original novel, ‘A Princess of Mars’ was first published exactly a century ago in 1912. But for a young audience, new to the Barsoom world, John Carter may seem to just be the latest in a series of familiar, decent but unexceptional action sci-fi films.

Overall Verdict: John Carter is a great film and has been produced at the highest level. The actors do a good job and the film is generally a pleasure to watch. For this reason it totally deserves a 4 star rating. However, this film may struggle to stand out against a long list of other sci-fi action films. Hopefully John Carter will get a sequel, and in the next instalment of his adventure we will become more enthralled as we delve deeper into the world of Barsoom.

Reviewer: Kevin van der Ham

I have a theory. I call it my ‘Why The Cast of Friends Are Box Office Poison Theory’. It’s always difficult to move away from a long running TV series, so the odds are always stacked against the stars of any successful sitcom, but for Jennifer Aniston and her cohorts it was so much worse and it’s all down to anti-nostalgia.

Friends summed up the glorious trouble free era that was the 90s in weekly half-hour doses. We thought nothing of the idea that a coffee waitress could afford half the rent of a huge New York loft-conversion, or that professionals in their late 20s could mooch around in a coffee shop all day discussing frivolous subjects and making pithy remarks. But it was never destined to last, and things have gotten so bad now that we can only look back on the era that was personified by Friends with a bitter resentment of how great things used to be, and poor Aniston and chums have had to suffer the repercussions of the cynicism that a decade of war, economic collapse and environmental destruction have engendered.

All of which is a roundabout way of trying to explain why a high calibre comedy like Wanderlust has bombed out of sight at the US box-office in an entirely undeserved fashion.

Linda and George (Anniston and Paul Rudd) are a married couple with problems. He’s just been let go from his 9-5 grind and she’s constantly distracted by various flights of fancy and can’t hold down a career. Unable to stay in New York they go to stay with George’s obnoxious brother Rick (the excellent Ken Marino, who also shares writing credit) but on the way stumble across Elysium, a hippie commune that broadens both their perspectives.

On the face of it, this is a fairly standard fish out of water comedy and as such is destined to live-or-die on the strengths of the jokes and set pieces. It is fortunate then that Wanderlust is immensely strong in both respects. For all the earlier talk of Jennifer Aniston, make no mistake, this is Paul Rudd’s movie. He delivers what can only be described as a masterclass in deadpan improv and arguably one the strongest performances of his career to date. Combined with sharp writing that really cuts to the heart of how awkward it can be for humans to communicate belief to one-another, Wanderlust packs a lot more comic punch than your average romantic comedy.

If a criticism is to be made of Wanderlust it is that, aside from a couple of gross-out moments, it doesn’t take many risks. Plenty of themes are touched on, the idea of sustainable community, a natural existence vs modern conveniences and the moral implications of free-love in a committed relationship, but writer/director David Wain perhaps tries to keep a few too many plates spinning and no issue is ever given enough screen-time to give the story that added little extra substance it needs. The film’s final quarter also falls a little flat, with character choices and epiphanies seemingly pulled out of thin-air. You’ll have seen worse ways to end a comedy, but the way the story moves from crisis to resolution in under 15 minutes feels like a cop-out of sorts.

Despite all this however, Wanderlust is a very pleasant surprise. A combination of well realised characters and genuine hilarity makes the occasional slip fairly forgivable and is enough to push Wanderlust comfortably clear of “average” and into the realm of “really quite good”.

Overall Verdict: What appears a first glance to be a bog-standard “lifestyle-clash” comedy elevates itself to something more. Amiable, charming and, in places, gut-achingly funny, Wanderlust is definitely worth taking a chance on.

Review: Alex Hall

We all went through that awkward pubescent time, when you really care about trying to fit in, where members of the opposite sex start to become very appealing and being perceived as ‘cool’ is very important. Some of us go through this period with grace and ease, while others find it more difficult. Project X is a film about a trio of youngsters who find themselves in the no man’s land of high school. They’re neither the cool kids nor the geeks – they are simply an anonymous presence. The whole film chronicles what they call ‘the game changer’: that one moment that changes everything.

Director Nima Nourizadeh makes his feature film debut with Project X. After capturing a similar vibe with the widely praised ‘House Party’ Adidas ads, Nima teams up with producers Todd Phillips (The Hangover I & II, Old School, Starsky & Hutch) and Joel Silver (The Matrix, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon) for this epic party film.

The plot is relatively straightforward; we meet the three young high schoolers, Thomas (Thomas Mann), Costa (Oliver Cooper) and J.B. (Jonathan Daniel Brown), the afternoon before they plan to throw a party. The idea is simple, Thomas’s parents are going away for the weekend, it’s his 17th birthday and he and his friends are going to throw a bit of a bash. However Thomas’s friend Costa has other plans. Tired of being part of the ‘nobodies’, Costa plans on making this one of the biggest parties ever – ‘The Game Changer’ – that will get them noticed, get them girls, and make them popular. Simple. The film then chronicles the night as it unfolds, from a good old house party to what is frankly the craziest, most chaotic, riotous event ever.

What makes this film great is the execution and how the story is told. There are a number of elements that come together that make this film stand out from other party movies. It’s filmed primarily from a first person POV. A fourth (normally unseen) friend, Dax (Dax Flame), captures the event on film as a sort of birthday present, but more, I think, for the kids to have proof of what actually went down. This gives the film a great first-hand, honest and real feel. The camerawork isn’t overly shaky and nor does is have too much of a cheesy, home camcorder feel, although there’s still a deliberate amateurishness that gives the film’s effort at pseudo-realism a genuine chance.

This was all intentionally done by the director and director of photography, as was using eight different camera systems. They then shot the film in a haphazard way to add to the chaos of the night’s events. This concept is certainly tangible in the film and its homemade feel is one of its best aspects.

The film’s cast isn’t made up of any famous faces – the kids look like the guys next door. This adds further to the film’s real feel. The soundtrack is awesome and sets the tone of the party very well. You really do want to get up off your seat and get involved! The cast do a great job and play off the subtleties of the characters very well. A lot of the story is implied as there is very little context, however throughout the film the story of these boys comes together quite well. However, in a way, their back story isn’t that important. The characters are looking to forget the past, as it’s all about making this night count. Although the movie is filmed as if shot by an amateur, there are still some great cinematic moments, such as when the boys are looking out from the roof top at the wonder and horror of what has happened!

Overall verdict: Project X comes in a little under the radar but surely will not stay there for long. An Epic film and an absolute delight to watch, it will make you recall all the best times you had as a youngster as well as making you feel an overwhelming need to do something very crazy! The cast do a great job, but ultimately I think the stars are the director, producer and writers for bringing to life a unique and thrilling take on the party story. Highly recommended.

Reviewer: Kevin van der Ham

I know the exact moment when I gave up on the idea that This Means War was going to be a good movie. Fairly early on Lauren (Reese Witherspoon) is shopping with her friend, Trish (Chelsea Handler), a character who only exists to give Lauren an excuse to say exactly what she’s thinking at any point in time.

However it wasn’t the lazy exposition (something the film loves to engage in) that made me realise that behind the fireworks there wasn’t much going on in This Means War, it was because the scene was set up so that the two women were doing their entire supermarket shop based on what was on the end of the aisles. They picked out detergent, looked at special offers and neither of them seemed to need anything that wasn’t right there in front of them.

I know it’s only a small point, but it’s emblematic of why This Means War is fun but feels utterly empty and is often quite annoying, which is that it constantly seems to be hoping the audience is dumb enough to overlook the many shortcomings even it seems aware that it has. If you can’t even make people going shopping seem believable, you’ve got a problem.

The plot is pretty simple, Chris Pine and Tom Hardy are top CIA operatives FDR and Tuck (yes, that is their names), who are put on desk duty after an undercover operation ends with more bodies plunging off skyscrapers than originally envisioned. Through a vaguely convoluted series of events, they both meet the same woman, Lauren, and quickly start to fall for her. Realising they’re both after the same gal, the guys set up some gentlemanly rules to ensure their attempted wooing of Lauren (who has no idea the guys she’s seeing are best friends) doesn’t come between them, but that soon descends into all-out war when they both decide they’ve found the woman of their dreams.

The big potential problem with the film is right there in the synopsis, which is that it wants to have its cake and eat it. For example the film needs to have two male leads that you’re supposed to like equally and who you both want to end up with Lauren. However only one of them’s going to get the girls, so if she doesn’t end up with the one you’d prefer (and I’d imagine a huge amount of people will feel the movie ends up with the wrong couple), it rather undermines what’s gone before. The film also asks you to go along with the guys lying to the woman they’re dating and diverting government funds so they can illegally stalk her, and then to just laugh along with the film rather than questioning what is actually a rather unpleasant situation.

It might just about be possible to overlook these plot flaws it weren’t for a feeling there’s an underlying misogyny to what’s going on. The film barely questions the guys’ actions, as it take the idea that all’s fair in love and war very serious – as long as you’re a man – but seems inordinately worried people will think Lauren is some sort of uber-slut because she’s dating two guys at once. It constantly has her justifying actions that seemed reasonable to start with, while the guy’s utterly reprehensible behaviour goes unchecked.

There is undoubtedly some fun to be had with This Means War, as there are a few good action sequences and there’s certainly a spark between Hardy and Pine. The latter is slightly saddled with an asshole of a character, but he just about manages to use his winning smile to make FDR seem more misguided cad with a heart than out and out tosser. Hardy meanwhile is great, managing to be both sweet and self-effacing, as well as utterly convincing as a total badass spy – if Daniel Craig steps aside as 007, I know who I’m voting for as the next James Bond.

However no amount of surface shine and witty banter between the male leads can hide the fact that behind the veneer the whole thing is based on a rather dodgy premise and is put together in a way that assumes the audience will either not see or will be willing to ignore how dumb so much of it is. Pine and Hardy make a good on-screen duo, but if they ever team up again, they need a better vehicle than this. As mentioned though, the surface is nice and sparkly, so if that’s all you ask for from a film, it’ll do.

Overall Verdict: Good chemistry between the leads and a polished veneer can’t hide the fact This Means War is hoping the audience will ignore laziness, stupidity and a whiff of sexism.

Reviewer: Tim Isaac

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel doesn’t have the catchiest title I have ever heard. However, based on the novel by Deborah Moggach, the film stars the ‘crème de la crème’ of our favourite geriatric British film and TV actors, and is directed by John Madden (Shakespeare In love, Mrs Brown and Captain Corelli’s Mandolin).

After the phenomenal success of Slumdog Millionaire, it was inevitable that at some point mainstream British cinema would be return to India. The premise of the film is that seven elderly people decide to up-sticks from the UK and go to India, moving into a hotel for the ‘elderly and beautiful’. However it doesn’t quite live up to the image of the photoshopped promos!

The reason for the sudden and dramatic change in these peoples’ lives vary from loneliness to illness to the feeling that they are no longer useful in British Society, even though they still feel active and have a passion for life. Each character goes through their own personal journey, from being frustrated or lonely in the UK to realising their true potential and having a second chance at life. Think Slumdog Millionaire meets An Idiot Abroad meets Cocoon.

The film features a stellar British cast including Dame Judi Dench and Dame Maggie Smith (reunited again after Ladies In Lavender), Bill Nighy, Penelope Wilton, Celia Imrie, Tom Wilkinson and Ronald Pickup. Tom Wilkinson’s character wishes to be reunited with his first love, an Indian man whose family he shamed with the affair, whilst Dame Judi’s character is learning to live life on her own without her recently deceased, controlling husband. The outstanding character, as expected, is the downtrodden Maggie Smith as an embittered, untrusting, lonely, wheelchair bound woman with a mistrust of anyone who isn’t white skinned. Her journey is one of the farthest, and she steals each scene with a single look or wonderful line such as ‘ I don’t’ plan anything ahead, I don’t even buy green bananas’ and ‘If I cant pronounce it, I won’t eat it’

This character driven film set in exotic India has people we quickly care about going on a journey into the unknown. Sometimes we can relate to it, sometimes we can’t, but at times we are inspired. The solid acting is the true driving force behind the film, which is only to be expected from the outstanding cast. Penelope Wilton also excels as a bitter character who refuses to partake in the new experience, and whose negativity affects all around her, but even her character learns from her experience. Look out for the wonderful quip by Celia Imrie on the train!

With the pedigree behind the film it has a Film Four feel to it (feeling similar to Tea With Mussolini and Mrs Henderson Presents) and has a target cinema audience for the middle aged and gay cinemagoers who love a dame!

Overall Verdict: This is by no means an adventurous or groundbreaking film, but it delivers what British film has been churning out in the last 20 years – good safe family entertainment with Britain’s leading actors. The film Tuk Tuks (like the preferred mode of transport) along like a pleasant, predictable journey into the exotic and is enjoyable nonetheless.

Reviewer: Stephen Sclater