23/05/2014 The Film Review

It's time for our weekly film review with Mark Kermode.

Welcome to the Film Review. Taking us through the latest releases is

Mark Kermode. We have a new X`Men film. We have

Heli, are extremely challenging film from Mexico.

And we have Feeding Gigolo in which Woody Allen acts and John Turturro

writes and directs. The X`Men, it's absolutely

everywhere. This is a way of putting together all the disparate elements

of the franchise. In this, we start in the near future. Terrible things

are happening, and in order to stop those things happening, Wolverine

has to be sent back into the retro past in order to do something that

will rearrange the present. There is a lovely bit of exposition at the

beginning in which they explain to Wolverine, " you don't age, so you

will look the same. " which is very useful. Were sent back to the 1970s

to meet the past and change it. I help you?

What happened to the school? Are you a parent?

I hope not. I guess you only glimmer.

There is no professor here. You're pretty strong for a scrawny

kid. Are you sure there is not a little beast in new? I said the

school is close. There is no professor here, I told you that.

Basically, they send his spirits from the future back into his body

in the past but obviously as body looks the same. Much of the fun of

characters are going to play out. It characters are going to play out. It

is an interesting film would too many characters to deal with

completely. Bryan Singer, the director, is a driving force behind

these movies. It dazzles you with enough gobbledygook that you do not

think, hang on, this does not quite make sense. It is utterly ``

terrific performance by the man who has invented these extraordinary

robots which will destroy the future of the past cannot be changed. There

are some good action sequences. It is colourful and bright. The cast

managed to do a good job of delivering dialogue whilst wearing

increasingly ridiculous costumes. It is a bold attempt to make the thing

tying together in a way that is rigorous and coherent. It does not

quite hang together. There was a cameo performance by Richard Nixon,

there is this blend of history, fact and fiction. It is not by any means

the best of the X:Men films, but you can't forgive it for the things that

are wrong with that. There is an underlying sense of it being a bit

of a road show, trying to get all of these disparate elements on screen

and allowing everybody to do the thing they do before moving onto the

next set piece. And moving back and forward in time terms, does that

work? You have to go with it. These things are happening in parallel,

both things are interconnected, the future in the past, but most of the

action takes place in the 70s. It is good fun and it is ambitious. It is

not a masterpiece by any means. Although some fans of the series

think that that is exactly what it is. To Mexico now, and Heli. This is

an incredibly grim portrait of life in modern Mexico. The central

character is a young man living in a House with his wife, his child, his

father and his young sister who's having a relationship with a

17`year`old cadet which will somehow 17`year`old cadet which will somehow

lead to terrible catastrophe in the family. The film earned notoriety at

Cannes because it has won notorious extended torture scene. Although

much of it is very difficult to watch, occasionally intolerable to

watch, it does have in its central character is a strange kind of

resilience. You can see the director has sympathy for the plight of the

characters. He is trying to take situations from modern headlines and

put them on the screen in a way that has sympathy for the people at the

sharp end of it. Some people will find it too tough and stop at some

points, watching it, I thought, this is almost intolerable. But

afterwards, thinking about it, it is a film with a heart, albeit a very

dark heart, and it is a very tough watch. And the view of modern`day

Mexico that is uncomfortable. Deeply uncomfortable. Certainly, there have

been some worries in Mexico that the film paints an unfettered portrait

of the country. Fading Gigolo is about a man who is an old gigolo.

This is exactly my point. I am not a beautiful man. You have a certain

kind of sex appeal. Is Mick Jagger and beautiful man? The man opens to

`` opens as mouth to sing, and it is a horror. Some guys just like better

when they are naked. I am figuring that you one of them. What does that

have to do with Mick Jagger? He's rich and famous. You are sick man. I

go for help twice a week. You need a guy like Tom Ford or George Clooney.

You are not that. You are man's man. You can see that Woody Allen is

doing what Woody Allen is famous for. You have to get over the ego

centres are to the central conceit, that Sharon Stone will pay Woody

Allen $1000 to provide her with macro to to take part in a menage a

trois. If you can get you can get yonder conceit, there are some

gentle last be had, especially in the conversations between Woody

Allen and Jon Turturro. There is a deeper plot in which he uses his

healing hands on a Hasidic window played by Vanessa Paradis, no,

really, and that aims more towards the metaphysical. There is something

poignant about it but you have to get over the most ridiculous of

obstacles in order to enjoy it. It is not to be taken seriously. It is

fun but very flawed. I liked description of Woody Allen's

performance as saying that he seems somehow liberated. It is not the

first time he has shown up on someone else's from, but he is

clearly enjoying himself and having fun. Woody Allen had a lot of input

into the script. He played his part. Yes. Let us talk about your

favourite of the films that is out at the moment. You're going to tell

us about this. It is a better film than the critics have given it

credit for. Gareth Edwards takes the Godzilla franchise somewhere new.

Also, being very respectful and intelligent with the original film,

which was very much to do with the Japanese response to nuclear testing

and to the legacy of the atomic bombs. That was a very smart thing.

This takes that idea and something interesting with it. His previous

film, Monsters, made no money, this cost 60 million, but it has the

fingerprints of Gareth Edwards on it and when you finally get to the

third Act of the film, it is very eager and impressive. I have seen it

twice, and the sound is everything. It is a smart monster movie. Good to

him for managing to put it together. And the best DVD pretty much I have

chosen this, I was not crazy about it when it came out in the cinema.

If you're interested in the Greenwich Village folk scene in the

60s, it is a slightly fictionalised version of that. It refers to real

events and real characters. It is made with a lot of love, care and

attention. I found it rather called on the first couple of viewings, but

on the third viewing, it warmed up. `` rather cold. Thank you very

much. A quick reminder that you can find more film, news and reviews on

market a mode's blog. `` Mark Kermode. That's over this week.

Thank you for watching and goodbye. `` that's all for this week.

It is almost time for the BBC News at ten with you Edwards.