Words: Liam Hathaway
Director: Gareth Evans
Cast: Iko Uwais, Oka Antara, Tio Pakusadewo, Julie Estelle, Yayan Ruhian, Donny Alamsyah
Certificate: 18
Running time: 150 minutes
Image: Latino Review

Cast your mind back just over a year… you may remember the release of A Good Day To Die Hard – the fifth instalment of the Die Hard franchise. What an unwarranted monstrosity of an action picture that was! After almost entirely augmenting the action picture in 1988 with the original, to then see it dead in the water twenty-five years later – reduced to the usual dismal, soulless, 12A corpse of a movie that the majority of mainstream action pictures had unfortunately become this century – was shattering. But, in actual fact, this did not matter one jot for the people who had seen The Raid: Redemption just months prior, as they were still basking glowingly in the knowledge that someone out there DID still know how to make a decent action movie, and that someone was Welshman Gareth Evans.

The much anticipated sequel kicks off merely a few hours after the events of the first film – having taken down a tower block full of bad guys almost entirely with his bare hands, our protagonist – Rama (Iko Uwais) is immediately thrown back into brutal and treacherous circumstances. With the events of the first film unveiling a level of corruption in his police department, Rama is now coerced into going undercover in order to pervade a merciless crime organisation and lead him to the core of the corruption to protect his wife and child.

Suited and booted for some criminal ultra-violence.
Image: Latino Review

With the first Raid essentially being ‘Die Hard with martial-arts’, fans will perhaps be surprised by the scope of this sequel – boasting clear influences from crime-dramas such as Heat, A Bittersweet Life and perhaps even Donnie Brasco, not to mention a run-time which nears two-hours-thirty-minutes! It is a sequel that does not so much expand on the premise of its predecessor, but further eschews it in a different direction entirely. This does mean that the oppressive Assault On Precinct 13-inspired claustrophobia and tension which propelled the first film has been purposefully shed – for The Raid 2 is dead set on not repeating itself in terms of scale and plot – something which befalls so many current action sequels. What is familiar however (and unanimously expected) are the ferocious and protracted fight scenes which have thankfully remained as stunningly impressive as the first feature – resembling the choreography of a blood-soaked rendition of Singin’ In The Rain. With the action taking place outside of narrow corridors, it is now allowed to let loose in the form of a lengthy car chase – one of the film’s most impressive set-pieces.

Tellingly, reality has clearly been heightened up a notch from the first film; the diegesis this film exists in now hints at obvious comic-book elements by occupying elaborate characters that seem to have leapt from the pages of a Frank Miller graphic novel. A crime boss with a limp, a blind female hammer-wielding assassin and a thug who kills with a baseball bat and ball to name but a few. As colourful as these characters sound, they are generally not explored much more than they have been described, whereas in the first film, characters like ‘Mad Dog’ and ‘Tami’ were allowed to come to life with plentiful screen time. Here, such visually striking individuals serve as mere obstacles rather than fleshed-out characters – perhaps The Raid 2 is guilty of sometimes having a little too much ambition when its focus strays from the main narrative thread by spreading itself too thin.

Rama faces off against new and familiar faces.
Image: Latino Review

One aspect of the film that has already stirred critics and audiences alike is the ‘increased level of violence in the film’. Close-ups tend to detail the more reprehensive scenes of bodily devastation this time around, and the film warns you of this less than two minutes in as a character had his head blown off his shoulders in close proximity via a 12 gauge. Whether this would deter you as a potential viewer is purely subjective, but the film is classified 18+ for good reason. Later on, the film is wise to interject dots of subtle humour to counteract (what may be for some at this point) the marginally burdensome scenes of violence combined with a hefty run-time.

As a sequel, The Raid 2 is a success – its aim was not solely to top its predecessor, but to apply an actual progressive narrative on top of what already made it an outstanding film and it does so competently. In that sense it’s also exciting to see what Evans may be capable of outside of his usual action-orientated realm. Also, it is refreshing to see such a film keeping it primarily physical as so many (Machete, The Expendables) have resorted in using CGI for effects as simplistic as blood-splatter or bullet ricochets. What ever happened to squibs?! It may be a tad overlong and markedly over-ambitious – but you cannot deem this film as the geriatric, regressive garbage that has sadly become of most contemporary actioners. The Raid series is still flying the flag as the most proficient and exciting action films of the decade.

Words: Stewart Thorpe
Director: Phyllida Lloyd
Cast: Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent, Richard E. Grant, Anthony Head, Alexandra Roach
Certificate: 12
Running time: 105 minutes
Image: 20th Century Fox

The film centres around two characters: Margaret Thatcher, the controversial yet inspirational leader of Great Britain, and Margaret Thatcher, an aged, senile and lonesome lady of past greatness. These characters are explored through a series of flashbacks which highlight the major moments of her career, from the Falklands War to the Miner’s Strikes and the IRA.

From the offset, shown shopping at her local convenience store, its clear present day ‘Maggie’ lingers in the shadow of her previous greatness: shocked at the outrageous price of a pint of milk, the youth’s lack of consideration for the elderly and the bombings broadcast on the front page of a newspaper. It’s almost as if she’s stepping out into society for the first time in a decade.

Upon arriving back at home, Margaret settles around the presence of her husband, Dennis, who curbs her frustration at the price of milk by teasingly suggesting they should sell the car. All seems well until housekeeper, June, enters the room and the audience realise Dennis is in fact dead. Dennis has been dead for years. That Margaret Thatcher suffers from dementia and that her defiant, unaided trip to the shop was perhaps indeed her first in a decade.

Thatcher (Meryl Streep) flanked by her police entourage.
Image: 20th Century Fox

Margaret Thatcher is portrayed by two actors, Alexandra Roach who depicts Thatcher during her principal political years and Meryl Streep who does so for the remainder. Roach’s role is largely minimal, allowing Streep to make her mark with her characterisation of Baroness Thatcher which has rightly been recognised across the board as something sensational. The two may have not looked alike but Streep’s performance is utterly convincing. During Thatcher’s prime years, Streep is a battle axe: confident, strong-willed, arrogant and abrasive, whilst during her later years she is patient and multi-layered, immersing into her character at every turning. Back in 2011, her performances won Meryl Streep an Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe for Best Actress, widespread recognition for an astounding performance.

At 105 minutes long, The Iron Lady does a good job of including a catalogue of events and issues affecting Thatcher’s life. None, except from the death of her husband Dennis, are allowed much screen time which becomes quite frustrating with some of the meatier issues, but allows the film to cover personal events such as her the influence of her father, the relationship between Margaret and her daughter Carol, Dennis’ wacky eccentricity alongside her professional issues revolving around the events of the day. The combination of these subjects gives the viewer a great insight into the life of Thatcher. Unfortunately the modern-day events prove quite ineffectual as the hallucinations become despondent, bleak and depressing and the series of events is eventually rather anticlimactic. All the same, The Iron Lady proves to be a brilliant peek into Thatcher’s life.

Everyone who lived during her reign as Prime Minster has an opinion on Margaret Thatcher and although the film attempts to provide a neutral perspective, it does shine a positive light on her overall, especially with the inclusion of her later, frail and vulnerable state which humanises a woman often depicted a monster. Although this elderly form is one of weakness, the film stresses Thatcher was a highly motivated lady, a great lady, a fierce lady, an iron lady.

Words: Jamie McBride
Director: Morgan Neville
Cast: Darlene Love, Judith Hill, Merry Clayton, Lisa Fischer
Certificate: 12A
Running time: 91 minutes
Image: collider.com

Done through interviews, archive footage and present day footage following the lives of the backup singers mainly focused on, ‘Twenty Feet From Stardom’ looks at the careers of a number of black female backup singers, all working in R&B and soul – think The Supremes, Motown etc. – and interestingly looks at the general life of being a backup singer. First off, Neville is obviously a very good filmmaker. He gets great, insightful interviews out of each of his interviewees, especially those whose careers are the main focus of the film, and creates a fantastically warm tone for the film that doesn’t just allow the audience in easily but welcomes them with open arms. The women that Neville follows are obviously joyful personalities and he captures that well – an example is Merry Clayton’s first few seconds on the screen, where she and Neville are already joking with each other, which is really nice to watch.

The cast and director receiving their Oscar for Best Documentary.
Image: nydailynews.com

But a special mention must be given to the look of the film – the camerawork is good, but what really stands out is the effects that are used intermittently, like the montage of the covers of failed solo records made by each of the backup singers interviewed.These visual aids only pop up a few times in the film but they’re so pleasing to watch that they need mentioning. As does the editing for the film, which is obviously expert. A fantastic moment that blends two separate interviews to give real insight into the song ‘Gimme Shelter’ (insight that I’d never even considered) is a real joy to watch, so I won’t ruin it by giving each detail, but it’s a really great point in the film that shows the ability and insight of those behind this film. But this great editing extends to the blending of interviews and archive footage as well, putting present day interviews next to old footage of the early performances of these now experienced backup singers, which is really interesting to compare.

Neville’s focus doesn’t just stick with the singers reminiscing about the great times they had though, in fact it touches upon some of the darker aspects of the industry, like the sexualisation of some of the women. That he touches upon these issues shows that the director isn’t just making a feel-good nostalgia film but really does look at each part of the music industry and in particular its treatment of the people working in it and has created an insightful piece of work. The film even looks at the historical and political context of the singers’ careers, giving a nicely rounded view of the world of backup singing. The one flaw that did strike me however was the fact that the film did tend to occasionally go from one point to the next quite quickly, not giving as much time to one as it would the other. Whilst this does make sense, I felt myself wanting to hear more about certain points that were covered in a few minutes, but this is a minor issue.

Words: Jamie McBride
Director: Jason Reitman
Cast: Kate Winslet, Josh Brolin, Gattlin Griffith, Tobey Maguire, Brighid Fleming
Certificate: 12A
Running time: 111 minutes
Image: Paramount Pictures

Set on the US holiday Labor Day weekend, Labor Day is a sentimental yet tense drama that follows the interactions of Adele (Winslet) and her son Henry (Griffith) with an escaped convict, Frank (Brolin), as he stays in their home for the weekend following his escape. Over the course of the film they learn more about him and it would seem there’s a deeper side to his character than what Adele and Henry expect. First off, the cast of the film do their best and are successful in their character portrayals – Winslet plays the meek, despondent divorcée very well and this contrasts well with Brolin’s consistently moody expression, although his character of the ‘misunderstood rogue’ is at times bordering on a bit clichéd. Griffith also does well, always having a blankly depressed look on his face and in his body language that really gets across the lack of happiness in Henry.

Sinister or sentimental? Brolin and Winslet prove their acting credentials.
Image: Paramount Pictures

The film has some really nice points, like it’s camerawork and general visual feel – it has a nice look to it all the time and a really fantastic focus on moments of delicacy that’s enjoyable to watch, and Reitman uses flashes of other cutscenes at random points to slowly build up a second story and to give the audience more information on the ever tough to place Frank. And the soundtrack works well, having at times a traditional American countryside feeling with the gentle guitar and at other times a more tense feeling with its use of slow, gradually building strings. But this brings me to the major flaw in the film – the fact that it can’t choose exactly what kind of film it exactly is. Even at the beginning the soundtrack is tense but the images onscreen are of traditional American suburbia which worked well at first, but as the film goes on it becomes slightly difficult to know whether to be feeling sentimental and touched or tense and unnerved, especially with Frank who makes a very quick switch from threatening stranger to ‘complex, possibly loveable rogue’.

Reitman creates an interesting story that explores the deeper issues of Frank’s guilt but it’s a film that also focuses on Henry’s coming-of-age and on the relationship between Adele and Frank, as well as other minor issues. All of these come together but they don’t really hold, as the film has brought up a lot of interesting points but doesn’t give time to actually explore any of them. There’s also a strange sexual undertone to the film (I’d assume linked to Henry’s coming-of-age) that’s interesting, but when a peach pie is used in one scene to symbolise tradition and in the next as a sex symbol the tone gets just a little confusing and creepy rather than thought-provoking. The film has real potential and at points I did find myself touched by some of the scenes, but once the plot and the directing are actually thought about they don’t really stand up. Likewise, it’s good that the characters’ manners don’t really change, given that the film is set over only five days (a fact that surprised me when I realised it, as the tone makes it seem so much longer) but, without spoiling anything, the thought of the film’s events happening over just five days is just a little bit preposterous and this lack of credibility is hard to ignore.

Starred Up is the new prison film on the block. Nominated for eight British Independent Film Awards last year, director David Mackenzie successfully delivers a fresh take on the well-trodden ground of prison dramas.

Leading the cast is Jack O’ Connell who plays violent delinquent Eric Love. Best known for his role as ‘Cook’ from E4’s Skins (2009-13), O’Connell gives a nail biting performance of a young offender who is bumped up to an adult institution two years early as he is deemed such high risk.

Jack O’ Connell has recently been cast
by Angelina Jolie to appear in the Coen Brothers
scripted Unbroken.
Image: Film4

The first five minutes of the film follow his transfer, where he is strip searched and chaperoned through the eerily quiet prison. The audience is held in suspense as we watch him, solitary in his cell, pour baby oil all over himself. Little do we know, Love is pre-empting a violent run in with the wardens and is oiling himself up to prevent restraint.

Despite his aggressive and threatening demeanour, Love is the ‘new kid on the block’ and is ignored by fellow inmates. In the prison yard he is approached by a man whose presence separates the crowd of gathered convicts. His name is Neville Love, he is Eric’s father.

Eric Love (Jack O’Connell) and his father Neville (Ben Mendelsohn)
Image: indiewire.com

Ordered by prison king-pins, Neville, played by the versatile Ben Mendelsohn (Place Beyond the Pines) is assigned with keeping his son under control and out of trouble. But this proves to be easier said than done, as buried feelings of resentment and abandonment boil over in the claustrophobic prison environment.

Following bursts of wincing violence where Eric melts a razor blade to a toothbrush and slices an inmate’s face and a shocking scene where he bites a guard by the testicles, Eric is referred to the softly spoken anger management volunteer, Oliver Baumer (Rupert Friend).

Oliver tries to relate to Eric’s feelings of rejection, by comparing his upbringing at boarding school to Love’s upbringing in care. He is rebuffed: “I sloshed a paedo with boiling water and sugar once. How many sugars do you take you f***ing nonce.”

The film reaches a climax when corrupt guards try to oust the mighty force of the Love duo. Eric is taken to solitary cells and strung up by the neck in a staged suicide. Neville bursts into the cell and Eric is saved by his father. He sobs uncontrollably to his father’s chest and the exposed vulnerability really brings an authenticity to the film.

The film ends abruptly with the pair, both handcuffed, making a powerful exchange at the prison gates. Head to head, nose to nose, we see the true vulnerability of Eric Love, a boy who desperately needs his father.

Words: Liam Ball
Director: Jonathan Glazer
Cast: Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan, Lynsey Taylor Mackay
Certificate: 15
Running time: 108 minutes
Image: StudioCanal

Under the Skin sees the long-absent British director Jonathan Glazer breaking through in terms of style and substance, taking many more risks than with his previous works Sexy Beast (2000) and Birth (2004). Both of these movies were full of great ideas, yet they pandered too much to existing cinematic conventions to become truly distinctive pieces of work. Where Skin succeeds is in Glazer’s complete disregard for audience expectations, resulting in a highly original and visually arresting experience.

Skin takes many liberties with the story of the Michael Faber novel on which it’s based, including the removal of its lead character’s name. As that would tend to suggest, the movie is shrouded in enigma as it follows the alien seductress (Scarlett Johansson) on her travels around Glasgow, carrying out an unexplained (and probably unexplainable) tasks set by higher powers, supervised by equally mysterious and malevolent recurring figures.

All we can really make out about what she does is that it includes picking up male hitchhikers and luring them back “home” with the promise of a good time. At this point, the film shifts from its social realist aesthetic into placeless settings that have the clean, perfectionist construct of a Kubrick movie. The switch in environments is unnervingly surreal, and is aided in no small part by Mica Levi’s stomach-churning soundtrack.

Johansson as the nameless protagonist.
Image: StudioCanal

There is also a shift that occurs around the midpoint of the movie after the alien picks up a man with a facial disfigurement. Initially concerned with what lies ‘under the skin’, this particular encounter makes her more aware of her own body, leaving her depressed by her physical limitations. One of Skin’s main focuses is on the human form, its trappings and our perceptions towards it; the alien appears fully naked at different points in the film, initially oblivious towards the body she’s in and then intrigued by it after the shift occurs, standing in front of a full-length mirror, observing, scrutinising.

Moreover, the film establishes the idea of humanity being watched during its opening, where seemingly random shapes fall into focus and we realise it’s an eye staring directly at us; the alien later spends a lot of time monitoring human life in the streets and shopping centres of Glasgow. As such, the longest sequences of Johansson’s nudity are not particularly erotic, but strangely detached; Under the Skin is an exploration of what it means to be human as seen through the eyes of an extra-terrestrial witnessing western culture for the first time.

Resultantly, the Kubrick comparisons lean not towards 2001 or The Shining as you might expect (though there are definitely shades of both), but rather Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. Glazer doesn’t have a whole lot of cynicism regarding the society that Skin’s alien finds herself in, but he simply uses the idea of a displaced being observing a completely new environment, emphasising the mundane in a way not at all dissimilar to Jim Jarmusch. In an increasingly busy culture such as ours where everything moves at light-speed, Under the Skin is refreshing in that it slows down and focuses on our most routine actions, turning them into something weird and perplexing.

More of Johansson’s commanding presence.
Image: StudioCanal

Adding to this is the fact that a lot of the hitchhikers the alien picks up are played by non-actors; the conversations and come-ons were largely captured by hidden cameras, and the consent for usage in the film was sought afterwards. Interestingly, not once do any of them notice that it’s Scarlett Johansson who’s flirting with them, given her disguise of black hair and the English accent but also due to her misplacement from the cinema screen, where we are familiar with her, to everyday surroundings, where we’re not.

While the footage assembled provides an admittedly narrow representation of Glasgow, the use of documentary tactics is part of what is so jarring about the shift to the immaculate and bizarre place the alien brings her men to, and is also the reason these otherworldly sequences leave such a resounding, eerie tone on the film after it reverts to ‘normality’.

Ten years after the release of Birth (nine of which were spent making Under the Skin), Glazer finally hits mostly strong notes with his latest outing. Abandoning the dialogue-centric cool of Sexy Beast and the challenging whimsy of Birth, he instead goes for free-form visual poetry, deep silences and striking sequences in a movie that is as related to Breaking the Waves as to The Man Who Fell to Earth. Given that Under the Skin is seen entirely through the alien’s subjectivity, there are few answers provided, only observations to make of what you will – and especially in the stranger sequences of the film, the ellipses are the main source of its power.

Words: James Cornall
Director: Wes Anderson
Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Tony Revolori, F. Murray Abraham, Saoirse Ronan, Jude Law, Tilda Swinton
Certificate: 15
Running time: 99 minutes
Image: Fox Searchlight Pictures

Quirky-yet-ever-imaginative director Wes Anderson has cordially invited you to sample his latest offering, The Grand Budapest Hotel. Have you packed enough for an overnight stay? Are you ready to check in? Are you that desperate for a slice of something grand? Of course you are, and Anderson, fresh from the release of his adolescent adventure Moonrise Kingdom, tries his darnedest to accommodate those with grandiose tastes.

The film stars Ralpha Fiennes as the roguish M. Gustave H., primary concierge of the titular hotel, who also thinks himself a dapper gentleman with a penchant for pleasing his older clientele. This latter taste for women of a finer year causes chaos when one of Gustave’s romantic avenues, Madame D. (Tilda Swinton), meets a suspicious demise and is presumed murdered. She wills a prized painting, Boy With Apple, to the hapless hotelier. Spited by this posthumous slight, Swinton’s living relatives headed by Adrien Brody’s Dmitri Desgoffe-und-Taxis (with an intimidating Willem Dafoe in his employ), work to retrieve the painting and see Gustave behind bars.

Zero Mustafa (Tony Revolori) flanked by his hotel staff.
Image: Fox Searchlight Pictures

Now, before we delve into the meat of the film it is worth noting, from the outset, the narrative layering Anderon chooses for this film. On one level, the girl sees a young girl visiting the grave of a renowned writer (Tom Wilkinson). On the next level, we see the writer reminiscing a visit in the 1960s he made to the Grand Budapest Hotel in his youth (then played by Jude Law). Another layer is added, this time seeing the youthful writer asking the then owner, Zero Mustafa (F. Murray Abraham) to explain how he came to own the hotel. This dominated most of the film, with Tony Revolori taking on the character of young Zero Mustafa. Thankfully the Russian doll effect ends there. However, to further complicate matters, you might consider that you are reading a reviewer reviewing a filmmaker’s film about a man remembering an hotelier musing on the history of his hotel. Inception, eat your heart out.

Wes Anderson should be proud of every stage of the film’s design and production. The wonderful, comic acting on display from such a variety of diverse actors (ranging from Wes Anderson stalwarts to fresh-faced inductees) has brought the film a lot of box-office success- in comparison to the director’s previous films. Praise should also be dished out to the film’s designs, to the authentic set, model and costume designs in particular. At times it’s easy to forget that the film is set in a fictional European country, named Zubrowka, loosely based on countries such as Switzerland or Autstria. Further parallels can be drawn between the fictional Zig-Zag faschists, drawing comparisons with the Nazis. Once their striking iconography enters the film, a more serious seeps into the film and makes The Grand Budapest Hotel one of Anderson’s darkest, yet also one of his funniest, films to date.

The film does, however, feel like a step backwards in many regards. The writing is much less packed with the emotional content that previous entries such as The Royal Tenenbaums and Moonrise Kingdom so touching. There are moments that tug the heartstrings, but these can be attributed to the calibre of acting the film has to offer, and not the writing’s ability to tap into our thoughts and set our minds racing with empathy. As for the music, it’s consistent- nothing more, nothing less. Overall, the film itself bears many similarities with its 1960s portrayal of the ailing hotel. The Grand Budapest Hotel declares a lot more than it has to offer, but the beds are cosy and the staff are amiable.

Words: Rhys Holland
Director: Terry Gilliam
Cast: Christoph Waltz, Mélanie Thierry, Matt Damon, David Thewlis, Tilda Swinton, Ben Whishaw
Certificate: 15
Running time: 106 minutes
Image: Sony Pictures

Terry Gilliam’s new bold statement set in a relatively bleak and boring future is revealed by the fantastic construction of a world filled with complete chaos and impossibility, with a big coat of humour splattered over.

The Zero Theorem is set in a monotonous future of Britain and revolves around Qohen Leth (Christoph Waltz) in his struggle to find his meaning in life. A profound subject no doubt, however it is approached through a character that surpasses the want to get up and find it, and instead waits for a phone call that may never come.

Christoph Waltz gives an eccentric, funny and down right weird performance playing a character who chooses not to take opportunities that could change his outcome in life, instead waiting for someone to tell him his path in life; a character that sadly, to some extent we are all guilty of containing within us. But with a character constructed to be as flawed as any human it allows us to appreciate the joys in this film.

Wide-angle lens abound! Director Terry Gilliam on the set of his latest film.
Image: Sony Pictures

For those who dare to be taken into this world there are its upsides. The romance between Qohen and Bainsley gives a bright, exciting dash of hope to the narrative and gives us something to believe in. Mélanie Thierry’s irresistible, flirtatious personality gives us plenty to watch from her revealing chat rooms to the amazing Virtual world created, which ultimately acts as a comfort more real than reality. Matt Damon’s emotionless and interesting choice of wardrobe adds depth to creating a Big Brother style antagonist with a mysterious presence throughout- although don’t expect him to steal the show.

Of course we cannot deny the humour involved in every aspect. Gilliam’s wacky, weird and quite cynical style is definitely evident throughout, from the ridiculous adverts annoyingly following you on the streets to the virtual reality sex suits.

From watching Monty Python’s wacky style I can sit back and smile knowing the same person who sailed a building like a ship, sang a song on a cross, or was a lumberjack (but that’s ok, apparently), has had such an input into every part of this film.

Once you get past the completely weird visual style of Gilliam’s mind, the hilariously insane but reserved character Qohen and the bright, beautiful and blaringly distrustful Bainsley. We have a fantastic story of finding meaning in a not-to-far future, teaching us all to take our meaning into our own hands by accepting who we are and our human capabilities.

Words: Josh Powlesland
Director: Brian Percival
Cast: Sophie Nelisse, Geoffrey Rush, Emily Watson, Ben Schnetzer, Nico Liersch, Roger Allam
Certificate: 12A
Running time: 130 minutes
Image: 20th Century Fox

Based on the award winning novel of the same name by Marcus Zusak, The Book Thief follows the life of a young German girl named Liesel Meminger through World War Two, specifically between the years of 1938 and 1945. As was common at the time, many children were sent away from their parents in order to live in safer areas of the country, and the story starts with Liesel meeting her adoptive parents Hans and Rosa Hubermann (portrayed by Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson, respectively).

Liesel (Sophie Nélisse), the eponymous book thief.
Image: 20th Century Fox

Thirteen year old newcomer Sophie Nelisse stars as Liesel, and holds her own surprisingly well against veteran actor Geoffrey Rush, with whom she shares most scenes. The physical acting from most of the cast was generally very good, but unfortunately at some point the decision was made to use German accents throughout. This could have been a good decision, but they frequently sounded unconvincing and definitely detracted from the immersion of the story. I can’t help but feel they should have either gone all the way and spoke German with an English subtitle track or not used the accents all together.

Famous for his work on Shakespeare adaptations and more recently ITV’s Downton Abbey, Percival’s direction was questioned as to whether he was the best choice for something as inherently dark as a story set in wartime Germany, and the final film supports this view. The whole film felt very restrained, and considering the subject matter there was very little in the way of tense or emotional scenes. Arguably the fact that it is being shown from a young child’s point of view could have something to do with this tactful showing of the war, but there’s no doubt that Percival took it too far, making what could have been a very powerful story feel almost meaningless.
One of the most interesting aspects of Zusak’s novel is that it’s narrated entirely by Death, which shows the Second World War from an unusually detached standpoint for the genre. The film opens with said narration by Roger Allam, but seems to forget about it until the end, completely missing what feels like a great opportunity to stand out from other World War Two films.

Words: Katy Roberts
Director: Jim Jarmusch
Cast: Tilda Swinton, Tom Hiddleston, Mia Wasikowska, John Hurt, Anton Yelchin
Certificate: 15
Running time: 122 minutes
Image: Sony Classics

First premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 2013, and nominated for the prestigious Palme d’Or, Jim Jarmusch’s slick vampire love story finally hits British screens. The film tells the story of two vampire lovers – Adam (played by British actor of the moment, Tom Hiddleston) and Eve (Tilda Swinton), whose idyllic reunion after almost a century is blown apart thanks to the arrival of Eve’s wild and uncontrollable younger ‘sister’, Ava (Mia Wasikowska).

Eve (Tilda Swinton) and Adam (Tom Hiddleston) in Jim Jarmusch’s vampiric foray.
Image: Sony Classics

Jarmusch’s film is a masterclass in a ‘slow-burner’ of a film, simmering along at a steady pace that somehow, works enchantingly well. Some may see Only Lovers Left Alive as a film that focuses more on style over substance – and it is true, there is not a great deal that happens during the course of the film’s two-hour running time – but my God, what style.

Only Lovers Left Alive is a beautiful film, drenched in beautiful, moody lighting, creating the perfect contrast between the dark, sinister emptiness of Adam’s home of Detroit, and the mesmerising warmth of Eve’s home in Tangier. As the two undead lovers, Swinton and Hiddleston are absolutely exquisite. Hiddleston is the brooding, reclusive rock star, all darkness and suicidal melancholy; Swinton is his paramour, the beautiful Eve, the light to Adam’s dark, and who journeys to visit her lover to draw him out from his suicidal hopelessness. The chemistry between the two leads is beautifully hypnotic and completely believable – the age difference between the two actors utterly irrelevant. Wasikowska puts in a fantastic performance as Ava, all whiny teenager and feigned innocence – but, it turns out, she is the most dangerous of them all. This catapults Adam and Eve onto a new path, which forces them to re-evaluate their existence alongside humans (or ‘the zombies’, as Adam calls them) and takes a distinctly sinister turn.

If you are looking for a fast-paced vampire horror flick, you will not find it here. What Only Lovers Left Alive is instead, is a beautiful, slow-moving exploration of the love between two supernatural beings and their instincts to ultimately survive.