:00:00. > :00:00.Karen England win the Six Nations? Ireland and France are also in the
:00:00. > :00:21.running. All the options at 6:30pm. Now it's time for the Film Review.
:00:22. > :00:28.Welcome to the Film Review. To take us through this week's cinema
:00:29. > :00:32.releases is Mark Kermode. A very diverse week. We have Under The
:00:33. > :00:38.Skin, which stars Scarlett Johansson as a space alien at large in
:00:39. > :00:44.Glasgow. Need for Speed, based on the video game. It's like that but
:00:45. > :00:54.more so. And The Zero Theorm, the new film by Terry Gilliam. Aliens in
:00:55. > :01:00.Glasgow. I should explain to you, I am from Glasgow so go carefully!
:01:01. > :01:03.This is an adaptation of a very well-respected and complicated book.
:01:04. > :01:08.The story is an alien at large on earth has inhabited the form of
:01:09. > :01:13.Scarlett Johansson, wearing a black wig with red lipstick that makes a
:01:14. > :01:17.look oddly rather not unlike Mick Jagger in Performance. She is on a
:01:18. > :01:22.mission to lure and abduct men for deeply sinister purposes. What the
:01:23. > :01:25.film does is cuts between on the one hand very elegant, very well
:01:26. > :01:32.orchestrated special effects pieces that are strange, mysterious and
:01:33. > :01:35.weird, and candid camera footage of Scarlett Johansson prowling the
:01:36. > :01:39.streets of Glasgow with hidden cameras, so that you can't tell the
:01:40. > :01:42.difference between the actors in the film and some people who were
:01:43. > :01:44.literally just passers-by who got caught up in the whole thing. Here
:01:45. > :01:50.is a clip. No girlfriend, really? You're very
:01:51. > :02:14.charming. Sorted. A handsome face. Thanks a
:02:15. > :02:25.lot, cheers. Do you think I'm pretty? Definitely. Good. And I've
:02:26. > :02:41.got a nice smile. That is remarkably creepy. And there
:02:42. > :02:44.is a very strange score. It does an awful lot of the work of uniting
:02:45. > :02:49.these very disparate elements. When the film played at the international
:02:50. > :02:53.film festivals it provoked boos and cheers in equal measure. People who
:02:54. > :02:58.don't like it really don't like it. People who embrace it think it's an
:02:59. > :03:02.absolute masterpiece. It is neither failure nor masterpiece. It is a
:03:03. > :03:08.very, very ambitious attempt to tell an exotic, otherworldly story in
:03:09. > :03:11.very earthly circumstances. It doesn't always work. Some of the
:03:12. > :03:15.stuff out on the streets of Glasgow doesn't quite ring true for me. You
:03:16. > :03:19.end up spending some time wondering, is that an actor or just somebody
:03:20. > :03:24.they happen to have come across? That bothers me a bit. But for its
:03:25. > :03:29.singular vision, the fact that the director, who is the same man who
:03:30. > :03:33.made Sexy Beast, has made no compromises, he said in an ideal
:03:34. > :03:37.world he would make his film for a few friends and they'd watch them
:03:38. > :03:40.and burn them. What I really like about this is its really inventive.
:03:41. > :03:45.The soundtrack is astonishing. There are moments in it that are really
:03:46. > :03:50.bold and quite alarming. For that, the moment when it doesn't work,
:03:51. > :03:54.it's fine because I'd rather see somebody aiming high and perhaps
:03:55. > :03:58.falling to earth in the process, and there is a relationship between this
:03:59. > :04:04.and the film, The Man Who Fell to Earth, and somebody playing it safe.
:04:05. > :04:09.Video game, bunch people, old racing, let's make a film of it. The
:04:10. > :04:13.problem with this film, firstly, it is over two hours long and this is
:04:14. > :04:17.clearly a 79 minute film. Secondly, we are now in a world where we have
:04:18. > :04:22.the Fast and Furious franchise, where we've taken these muscle cars,
:04:23. > :04:28.cranked up sensibility as far as it can go. Where can you go? The last
:04:29. > :04:32.Fast and Furious had cars and do big aeroplane. In this one they've
:04:33. > :04:36.decided to throw in an Apache helicopter. The dialogue is
:04:37. > :04:40.genuinely terrible. It's one of those films that plays like a
:04:41. > :04:43.computer game inasmuch as all the way through it, innocent bystanders
:04:44. > :04:48.are merrily when of the road. Nobody cares, least of all the
:04:49. > :04:53.screenwriters. Because those aren't the people we are concerned about.
:04:54. > :04:59.There's a cameo role by Michael peat for stock that is kind of fun. But
:05:00. > :05:04.at two hours and ten minutes long, you need more than Michael Keaton.
:05:05. > :05:13.Could we get away with it in five minutes in wacky races? That was a
:05:14. > :05:18.lot better written. Better characterisation and better
:05:19. > :05:22.performances. Let's move on. The Zero Theorm, one of the most
:05:23. > :05:29.interesting directors around, Terry Gilliam. The same before about Under
:05:30. > :05:33.The Skin, if somebody is going to fail, I want them to fail on their
:05:34. > :05:38.own terms. From the opening minute you know it's a Terry Gilliam film.
:05:39. > :05:41.Christoph Waltz hummer he feels completely alienate it from the
:05:42. > :05:46.world. His mission, which he has been given by his bosses, is to
:05:47. > :05:51.embark upon a project which will demonstrate that everything equals
:05:52. > :05:56.nothing. In the end, all life is meaningless, which will somehow give
:05:57. > :06:00.meaning to his existence. You only have to watch three films -- brains
:06:01. > :06:11.of this to know if a Terry Gilliam film. How is it happening? It isn't
:06:12. > :06:17.hanging at all well, I'm dying. I can't afford to lose you. I've got
:06:18. > :06:32.an appointment this afternoon. Not this afternoon. Cancel it. Did you
:06:33. > :06:37.do all that this morning? As was mentioned to you repeatedly, we did
:06:38. > :06:44.tests here. I can't begin why you insist on us coming here. That's a
:06:45. > :06:57.management issue. It's out of my hands. Nobody speaks to management,
:06:58. > :07:04.no way. Take my advice, knock off the bitching and moaning. It's not
:07:05. > :07:10.that bad in here. You are right, it is a Terry Gilliam. It has the look
:07:11. > :07:13.to some extent of Brazil. There's a similarity between that central
:07:14. > :07:17.character played by Christoph Waltz and the look of Bruce Willis in
:07:18. > :07:20.Twelve Monkeys. But the manner of Jonathan Pryce, the harassed
:07:21. > :07:24.intellectual, the guy who wants to be away from the system. It is not
:07:25. > :07:29.vintage Terry Gilliam, although would happily watch him tripping up,
:07:30. > :07:33.because I think even when he doesn't do his best work he is always
:07:34. > :07:38.interesting. He made a film called Tideland, a very hard watch. But
:07:39. > :07:42.what works is it is pure, unadulterated Terry Gilliam. This is
:07:43. > :07:46.him turned up. The interweaving plots attempting to find some kind
:07:47. > :07:50.of meaning to his life by disappearing off into the strange
:07:51. > :07:54.portals are a weird cybersex side. That doesn't quite work, but it is
:07:55. > :07:59.like rumbling through a car-boot sale with Terry Gilliam world
:08:00. > :08:03.artefacts all around. Even when it doesn't hang together coherently, it
:08:04. > :08:07.looks like the work of somebody who has the distinctive vision, who
:08:08. > :08:11.makes the films they want to make. It's not his best work but I can't
:08:12. > :08:15.remember the last time I didn't think any Terry Gilliam was worth
:08:16. > :08:19.seeing. You should see it, even though it is very flawed. It's not
:08:20. > :08:25.his best work but there aren't very many films that are better than
:08:26. > :08:32.Twelve Monkeys. He has set the bar very high. Grande Budapest hotel is
:08:33. > :08:39.your film of the week. This is Wes Anderson at his most Wes Anderson.
:08:40. > :08:44.This is essentially the story of Ralph Fiennes, as the concierge of a
:08:45. > :08:48.hotel, a charismatic figure who get involved in this zany adventure. If
:08:49. > :08:52.you like Wes Anderson's style, almost like watching a grandfather
:08:53. > :08:56.clock, everything is mechanical. If you like that, you will love this.
:08:57. > :09:01.However, if you don't like Wes Anderson, it will drive you mad.
:09:02. > :09:06.What I love about him is he clearly listens to the critics and then
:09:07. > :09:10.ignores them totally. You don't like that, I will do more of it! I liked
:09:11. > :09:19.it very much. Ralph Fiennes is really funny. Hunger Games catching
:09:20. > :09:24.fire is your DVD. I've seen the first one but not this one. Jennifer
:09:25. > :09:27.Lawrence is to reflect. It's surprisingly bleak. You get the
:09:28. > :09:30.feeling they will have a problem with the third and fourth films
:09:31. > :09:34.because the narrative, there's a certain amount of repetition in it.
:09:35. > :09:38.She's a really great heroine. It's a bold attempt to take a story which
:09:39. > :09:42.is pretty grim. It is basically rollerball for teenagers, and do it
:09:43. > :09:45.in a way which is accessible and interesting. The first two
:09:46. > :09:53.instalments have been very good. I worry about parts three and four,
:09:54. > :09:56.based on the third novel, which has got some issues, but this is really
:09:57. > :10:01.good. You will find more film news and reviews from Mark on his BBC
:10:02. > :10:15.blog. That's it for this week. Thank you for watching and goodbye.
:10:16. > :10:21.Hopefully, as well as going to the cinema, you have a chance to go
:10:22. > :10:24.outside through this weekend because it should be quite reasonable for
:10:25. > :10:25.many others. We've lost the