:00:29. > :00:34.Will come to be Film Review. What have we got apart from another
:00:34. > :00:38.hangover film? As you cannot fail to know, we have the Hanover three
:00:38. > :00:47.in which the wolf pack are reunited for reasons which can only be
:00:47. > :00:57.We have something in the air, which is a heady look at post 68 Paris.
:00:57. > :00:57.
:00:57. > :01:03.And we have 'Epic', an animated fantasy.
:01:03. > :01:07.Let's start with the Hanover part three. At the beginning of the film,
:01:07. > :01:13.all the characters from the previous films are brought together
:01:13. > :01:16.under the spurious auspices to take one of their number to a Sunday in
:01:16. > :01:21.which she can rehabilitate. It is basically just a very complicated
:01:21. > :01:26.plot to get them all back together. They head off towards the self-
:01:26. > :01:31.centred but on route John Goodman runs the Mostar road, kidnaps the
:01:31. > :01:41.boring one, leaving the famous one, there only once and the dentist to
:01:41. > :01:47.
:01:47. > :01:51.Did you hear that guy? He will kill dub, period. He is a cancer. He has
:01:52. > :01:57.been a cancer since the first day we met him. Will hand him over to
:01:57. > :02:03.this guy and then it is done. I need you. I cannot do this alone.
:02:03. > :02:13.just going to say over the strange in out the other day. I wasn't sure
:02:13. > :02:18.
:02:18. > :02:28.what I meant that now I think it This says that help. Headed you not
:02:28. > :02:30.
:02:30. > :02:34.know it was from thin. I thought it You need to ride him back. You
:02:34. > :02:39.would tell him that you are happy he is out and would love to see him.
:02:39. > :02:43.You even know what is going on. I do. Phil is doing all the work,
:02:43. > :02:47.and his assistant and you're sitting there like an idiot.
:02:47. > :02:53.Due in the club you laughed. You laugh war during the club denied it
:02:53. > :02:56.during the entire film. None of us watching the trailer, the bit with
:02:56. > :02:59.the draft, the bit with the guy jumping of the building, the bit
:02:59. > :03:04.with the guy hanging over the balcony, all of it is in the
:03:04. > :03:08.trailer. Many see it like that, some of it is passingly funny. The
:03:08. > :03:13.most depressing thing about the film is the second one was in many
:03:13. > :03:16.ways a deeply offensive film. It was racist and obnoxious and stupid
:03:16. > :03:22.and allowed. They had turned everything up to 11 and made it
:03:22. > :03:27.more grotesque. In the case of this, it is like everyone involved has
:03:27. > :03:33.lost the will to do it. They knew they have to, but they don't seem
:03:33. > :03:38.to have any enthusiasm for it. Most have thought, I made this film
:03:38. > :03:44.twice, I'm going to make an action movie. I am going to do a bunch of
:03:44. > :03:50.stuff with stunts and car chases. You sit there watching it and
:03:50. > :03:58.you think you're making Ocean's Eleven had forgotten what you are
:03:58. > :04:02.making is this film. There were no the obnoxious jokes that make the
:04:02. > :04:12.second when interesting enough to be annoying. I sat there in the
:04:12. > :04:12.
:04:13. > :04:16.screening room with other people not enjoying it. It was silent. We
:04:16. > :04:24.had been told at the beginning to stay at the end because there is a
:04:24. > :04:28.bit at the end credits which the director had talked about. We all
:04:28. > :04:34.sat there, not laughing through the film and then the credits came on
:04:34. > :04:38.and there was a degassed. The sound of silence was utterly deafening.
:04:38. > :04:41.You thought, I don't want to be here, apparently no-one on screen
:04:41. > :04:47.all the home camera wanted to be here. Wouldn't be easier if I just
:04:47. > :04:51.give them the money to do something else? I may just watch the first
:04:51. > :05:01.run on DVD instead. Something in the air, that sounds
:05:01. > :05:06.interesting. He is an interesting field. It is post 68. The French
:05:06. > :05:15.title is after May, which kind of makes more sense. It follows the
:05:15. > :05:19.stories of a bunch of young radicals. A policeman is injured
:05:19. > :05:24.and as a result of this, several members of the group have to leave
:05:24. > :05:29.the country. We follow our anti- hero and suck in London. The film
:05:29. > :05:33.is very episodic. The director has said what he was inspired by is the
:05:33. > :05:38.idealism of that period and the weight which all these strange
:05:38. > :05:41.ideas can turn sour but at least people mended. I think what he
:05:41. > :05:46.wants is for people to see this and think, maybe nowadays we have lost
:05:46. > :05:50.some of that. I think the problem with
:05:50. > :05:55.with these people to be interested in what they're doing. The problem
:05:55. > :05:59.is he has a great sense of time and he clearly has an awful lot of
:05:59. > :06:07.personal Mimi in this, but I think what he has forgotten to do is to
:06:07. > :06:10.why these people are doing it. The people are fairly narcissistic and
:06:10. > :06:14.seemed to have an easy access to money. They spoke endlessly and
:06:14. > :06:18.spend a lot of time worrying about their art and reading pamphlets.
:06:18. > :06:24.They discuss revolutionary politics but even as somebody who has a soft
:06:24. > :06:31.spot for that kind of thing, after about an hour of it, it could a bit
:06:31. > :06:36.boring. This film, and I know it is very old-fashioned of a linear
:06:36. > :06:43.narrative, a series -- as a series of episodes that are so distracted
:06:43. > :06:50.that you forget about. When a poor you had forgotten the reason they
:06:50. > :06:59.have left the country. The detail is very precise. The storytelling
:07:00. > :07:03.needed to be much stronger. What about 'Epic'? The story is,
:07:03. > :07:07.there is a young Golec who has lost her mother and goes to live with
:07:07. > :07:11.her father, who seems to be crazy. He believes that the forest is run
:07:11. > :07:21.by little people. Turns out he is right in she is prickly turned into
:07:21. > :07:28.
:07:28. > :07:33.one of the little people. Where are we? Oh, it's where this
:07:33. > :07:38.guy lives. Most stompers just come and go but the sky is relentless.
:07:38. > :07:44.Stompers? Like us, but beak and dumb and slow. Always bobbing on
:07:44. > :07:54.things. He is my father.What happened? You got shunt? A Yes.
:07:54. > :07:58.
:07:59. > :08:08.Seriously? It's been a weird day for everybody. Dad, I'm here. Just
:08:09. > :08:20.
:08:20. > :08:29.I love the dog. Visually, it is very good. The interesting thing
:08:29. > :08:34.about the film it is -- is that it is a treat to look at. It comes
:08:34. > :08:40.from a book by William Joyce, whose books also lead to other films.
:08:40. > :08:44.There's a star studded cast, Beyonce and Colin Farrell. The
:08:44. > :08:50.problem is what it has, it is interesting and entertaining come
:08:50. > :08:55.at the minute he is gone from the screen it is gone. In the same week
:08:55. > :09:00.they are reissuing films which remind you just tell extraordinary
:09:00. > :09:05.animation can be, just been diverting isn't quite enough.
:09:05. > :09:09.not bad for a bank holiday. It is exactly that. For a wet bank
:09:09. > :09:14.holiday it will keep people entertained. Is fairly innocuous
:09:14. > :09:22.and there are some strong heroines. What it doesn't have is any staying
:09:22. > :09:28.power. It will not become anyone's favourite film, partly because the
:09:28. > :09:34.title is so forgettable. It is not the title they should have gone
:09:34. > :09:39.with. 'The Great Gatsby' is a great title. Isn't it?That is your best
:09:39. > :09:44.film of the week. You should go and see it. It has really divided
:09:44. > :09:49.people. I love the novel. Baz Luhrmann has taken interesting
:09:49. > :09:54.twist with it. It is a take on Gatsby. It is very overcooked, but
:09:54. > :09:57.I think it is a very honest take. People have said it is loud and
:09:57. > :10:00.noisy and somehow fatuous and doesn't have the soul of the novel.
:10:00. > :10:06.It doesn't have the soul of the novel, but it takes the story
:10:06. > :10:11.seriously enough to see how it goes in this way. My feeling is that it
:10:11. > :10:16.will introduce a whole new generation to the novel. Part of
:10:16. > :10:20.the novel is about the despicable access. Baz Luhrmann is greater
:10:20. > :10:25.that. He has absolutely said that the reason it has relevance now is
:10:25. > :10:28.it because it is about massive spending as a run-up to society
:10:28. > :10:35.fallen apart. The difference between the rich and the poor is so
:10:35. > :10:40.great. Your DVD pick his one of the best movies of that week, 'Django
:10:40. > :10:46.Unchained'. There is great stuff in it. There is no doubt that Quentin
:10:46. > :10:50.Tarantino knows how to direct set pieces. He gets great performers at
:10:50. > :10:54.of people. I don't think it is a serious film about slavery, but it
:10:54. > :10:57.doesn't need to be. As you mentioned before, and as with all
:10:57. > :11:01.Quentin Tarantino films, what he needs is a producer standing over