:00:18. > :00:30.Welcome to the Film Review. Taking us through the latest releases is
:00:31. > :00:36.Mark Kermode. We have a new X`Men film. As it cannot possibly have
:00:37. > :00:42.missed, We have Heli, are extremely challenging film from Mexico. And we
:00:43. > :00:51.have Feeding Gigolo in which Woody Allen acts and John Turturro writes
:00:52. > :00:56.and directs. The X`Men, it's absolutely everywhere. This is a way
:00:57. > :01:04.of putting together all the disparate elements of the franchise.
:01:05. > :01:07.In this, we start in the near future. Terrible things are
:01:08. > :01:10.happening, and in order to stop those things happening, Wolverine
:01:11. > :01:16.has to be sent back into the retro past in order to do something that
:01:17. > :01:20.will rearrange the present. There is a lovely bit of exposition at the
:01:21. > :01:25.beginning in which they explain to Wolverine, " you don't age, so you
:01:26. > :01:32.will look the same. " which is very useful. We're sent back to the 1970s
:01:33. > :01:48.to meet the past and change it. Can I help you? What happened to the
:01:49. > :02:01.school? Are you a parent? I hope not. I guess you only glimmer. There
:02:02. > :02:12.is no professor here. You're pretty strong for a scrawny little beast in
:02:13. > :02:25.new? I said the school is close. There is no professor here, I told
:02:26. > :02:28.you that. You and I are going to be good friends. You just do not know
:02:29. > :02:31.it yet. Basically, they send his spirits from the future back into
:02:32. > :02:36.his body in the past but obviously as body looks the same. Much of the
:02:37. > :02:39.fun of the movie is in knowing how various characters are going to play
:02:40. > :02:43.out. It is an interesting film would too many characters to deal with
:02:44. > :02:51.completely. Bryan Singer, the director, is a driving force behind
:02:52. > :02:54.these movies. It dazzles you with enough gobbledygook that you do not
:02:55. > :03:00.think, hang on, this does not quite make sense. It is utterly terrific
:03:01. > :03:03.performance by the man who has invented these extraordinary robots
:03:04. > :03:13.which will destroy the future of the past cannot be changed. There are
:03:14. > :03:16.some good action sequences. It is colourful and bright. The cast
:03:17. > :03:22.managed to do a good job of delivering dialogue while wearing
:03:23. > :03:25.increasingly ridiculous costumes. It is a bold attempt to make the thing
:03:26. > :03:32.tying together in a way that is rigorous and coherent. It does not
:03:33. > :03:35.quite hang together. There was a cameo performance by Richard Nixon,
:03:36. > :03:42.there is this blend of history, fact and fiction. It is not by any means
:03:43. > :03:52.the best of the X:Men films, but you can't forgive it for the things that
:03:53. > :03:56.are wrong with that. There is an underlying sense of it being a bit
:03:57. > :03:59.of a road show, trying to get all of these disparate elements on screen
:04:00. > :04:06.and allowing everybody to do the thing they do before moving onto the
:04:07. > :04:12.next set piece. And moving back and forward in time terms, does that
:04:13. > :04:15.work? You have to go with it. These things are happening in parallel,
:04:16. > :04:23.both things are interconnected, the future in the past, but most of the
:04:24. > :04:33.action takes place in the 70s. It is good fun and it is ambitious. It is
:04:34. > :04:36.not a masterpiece by any means. Although some fans of the series
:04:37. > :04:40.think that that is exactly what it is. To Mexico now, and Heli. This is
:04:41. > :04:50.an incredibly grim portrait of life in modern Mexico. The central
:04:51. > :04:53.character is a young man living in a House with his wife, his child, his
:04:54. > :04:55.father and his young sister who's having a relationship with a
:04:56. > :05:09.17`year`old cadet which will somehow lead to terrible catastrophe
:05:10. > :05:15.family. The film earned notoriety at Cannes because it has won notorious
:05:16. > :05:18.extended torture scene. Although much of it is very difficult to
:05:19. > :05:21.watch, occasionally intolerable to watch, it does have in its central
:05:22. > :05:30.character is a strange kind of resilience. You can see the director
:05:31. > :05:34.has sympathy for the plight of the characters. He is trying to take
:05:35. > :05:38.situations from modern headlines and put them on the screen in a way that
:05:39. > :05:42.has sympathy for the people at the sharp end of it. Some people will
:05:43. > :05:47.find it too tough and stop at some points, watching it, I thought, this
:05:48. > :05:50.is almost intolerable. But afterwards, thinking about it, it is
:05:51. > :05:57.a film with a heart, albeit a very dark heart, and it is a very tough
:05:58. > :06:03.watch. And the view of modern`day Mexico that is uncomfortable. Deeply
:06:04. > :06:06.uncomfortable. Certainly, there have been some worries in Mexico that the
:06:07. > :06:31.film paints an unfettered portrait of the country. Fading Gigolo is
:06:32. > :06:33.about a man who is an old gigolo. He takes on life as an escort. Here is
:06:34. > :06:46.a clip. This is exactly my point. I am not a
:06:47. > :06:55.beautiful man. You have a certain kind of sex appeal. Is Mick Jagger
:06:56. > :07:04.and beautiful man? The man ` opens as mouth to sing, and it is a
:07:05. > :07:08.horror. Some guys just like better when they are naked. I am figuring
:07:09. > :07:16.that you one of them. What does that have to do with Mick Jagger? He's
:07:17. > :07:22.rich and famous. You are sick man. I go for help twice a week. You need a
:07:23. > :07:29.guy like Tom Ford or George Clooney. You are not that. You are man's man.
:07:30. > :07:33.You can see that Woody Allen is doing what Woody Allen is famous
:07:34. > :07:36.for. You have to get over the ego centres are to the central conceit,
:07:37. > :07:40.that Sharon Stone will pay Woody Allen $1000 to provide her with
:07:41. > :07:52.macro to to take part in a menage a trois.
:07:53. > :08:06.This is clearly an absurdist male fantasies. It is quite hard to get
:08:07. > :08:12.beyond that. If you can get beyond that, there are some gentle laughs
:08:13. > :08:14.to be had. Especially when they are doing that nice conversational
:08:15. > :08:17.stuff. There is a deeper plot in which he uses his healing hands on a
:08:18. > :08:25.Hasidic window played by Vanessa Paradis, no, really, and that aims
:08:26. > :08:29.more towards the metaphysical. There is something poignant about it but
:08:30. > :08:32.you have to get over the most ridiculous of obstacles in order to
:08:33. > :08:35.enjoy it. It is not to be taken seriously. It is fun but very
:08:36. > :08:39.flawed. I liked description of Woody Allen's performance as saying that
:08:40. > :08:43.he seems somehow liberated. It is not the first time he has shown up
:08:44. > :08:50.on someone else's from, but he is clearly enjoying himself and having
:08:51. > :08:59.fun. Woody Allen had a lot of input into the script. He played his part.
:09:00. > :09:02.Yes. Let us talk about your favourite of the films that is out
:09:03. > :09:08.at the moment. You're going to tell us about this. It is a better film
:09:09. > :09:15.than the critics have given it credit for. Gareth Edwards takes the
:09:16. > :09:17.Godzilla franchise somewhere new. Also, being very respectful and
:09:18. > :09:21.intelligent with the original film, which was very much to do with the
:09:22. > :09:31.Japanese response to nuclear testing and to the legacy of the atomic
:09:32. > :09:35.bombs. That was a very smart thing. This takes that idea and something
:09:36. > :09:39.interesting with it. His previous film, Monsters, made no money, this
:09:40. > :09:42.cost 60 million, but it has the fingerprints of Gareth Edwards on it
:09:43. > :09:47.and when you finally get to the third Act of the film, it is very
:09:48. > :09:53.eager and impressive. `` $160 million.
:09:54. > :10:01.I have seen it twice, and the sound is everything. It is a smart monster
:10:02. > :10:06.movie. Good to him for managing to put it together. And the best DVD
:10:07. > :10:10.pretty much I have chosen this, I was not crazy about it when it came
:10:11. > :10:13.out in the cinema. If you're interested in the Greenwich Village
:10:14. > :10:21.folk scene in the 60s, it is a slightly fictionalised version of
:10:22. > :10:35.that. It refers to real events and real characters. It is made with a
:10:36. > :10:39.lot of love, care and attention. I found it rather cold on the first
:10:40. > :10:49.couple of viewings, but on the third viewing, it warmed up. Thank you
:10:50. > :10:55.very much. A quick reminder that you can find more film, news and reviews
:10:56. > :10:58.on Mark Kermode's blog. That's over this week. Thank you for watching
:10:59. > :11:22.and goodbye. It was a light bank holiday weekend
:11:23. > :11:27.with showers and thunderstorms for many parts of the United Kingdom. We
:11:28. > :11:32.are going to keep it that way for most of the weekend. When the sun
:11:33. > :11:33.comes out it will be pleasantly