:00:00. > :00:00.Snooker in Sheffield and Formula 1, that is all in Sports day at 6:30pm.
:00:00. > :00:20.Now, it is time for The Film Review. Hello and welcome to
:00:21. > :00:24.The Film Review on BBC News. To take us through this week's
:00:25. > :00:36.cinema releases is Mark Kermode. Well, we have Captain America: Civil
:00:37. > :00:48.War, which is the latest superhero blockbuster. We have Demolition,
:00:49. > :00:52.then you film by director Jean-Marc Vallee, and Son of Saul, a powerful
:00:53. > :00:56.and harrowing Oscar winner. -- the new film. Let's begin with the
:00:57. > :00:59.superhero blockbuster? The weight thing about Captain America: Civil
:01:00. > :01:03.War is that it shares the basic setup with Batman versus Superman, I
:01:04. > :01:09.know that you are a huge fan of that. It proved divisive, but
:01:10. > :01:13.audience turned out in huge numbers. The film also features a conflict
:01:14. > :01:17.between two heroic types who should basically be on the same side. The
:01:18. > :01:21.conflict is set in motion by the fallout from collateral damage the
:01:22. > :01:28.previous instalments. In the wake of one catastrophe to many, the
:01:29. > :01:31.enhanced people, the Adventures, they are told they have to be
:01:32. > :01:33.brought under the control of an authority. Iron Man thinks it is a
:01:34. > :01:39.good idea, Captain America doesn't. Let's have a look.
:01:40. > :01:48.Someone dies on your watch, are you giving up? This document shift the
:01:49. > :01:53.blame. Sorry, that is dangerously arrogant. This is the United Nations
:01:54. > :01:58.we are talking about. But the word security council, not Shield, or
:01:59. > :02:06.hydro... It is run by people with agendas, and they change. Shut it
:02:07. > :02:10.down, stop it. You chose to do that. If we sign it, we surrender the
:02:11. > :02:13.right to choose. What if the panel sends us somewhere we don't think
:02:14. > :02:18.that we should go. What if we need to go somewhere and they don't let
:02:19. > :02:22.us? We may not be perfect, but the safest hands are ours. If we don't
:02:23. > :02:27.do it now, it will be done to us later. You get the feeling from that
:02:28. > :02:32.that what it may be is something deeply political, and weighing it up
:02:33. > :02:37.carefully there? That was a brief moment of responsibility. But what
:02:38. > :02:42.it is is a lot of fun. After Batman versus Superman, it is colourful, it
:02:43. > :02:47.is a film that asks you to enjoy rather than endure it. There are
:02:48. > :02:52.moments when we had so many heroes on the set at one time, it begins to
:02:53. > :02:56.resemble a fancy dress cost play marathon. With people in various
:02:57. > :03:04.capes and leotards running this way and that way. The thing that saves
:03:05. > :03:09.it, I think it shares with Batman versus Superman that it is too long
:03:10. > :03:12.for its own good. It is a movie where longevity is not its strength.
:03:13. > :03:19.The entire way to really get the strength it is made with affection,
:03:20. > :03:23.enjoyment, and made to engage the audience in a way that is positive.
:03:24. > :03:28.It is interesting, having seen it after Snyder's film, it was so tied
:03:29. > :03:34.up in its own edginess, and downbeat quality. What it forgot,
:03:35. > :03:41.unfortunately, that what the film ought to do is make you enjoy them.
:03:42. > :03:46.There is definitely the sense that 2.5 hours, it is 30 minutes too
:03:47. > :03:51.long, but it has enough that is upbeat and lively and fun. And
:03:52. > :03:55.intelligent, to actually see it through. It is celebrating its own
:03:56. > :04:01.Jon Ryan? It is, and doing so rather well. What of Demolition? It is the
:04:02. > :04:06.latest from Jean-Marc Vallee, I am a fan of this director and Dallas
:04:07. > :04:11.buyers club. Jake Gyllenhaal is an investment banker, he is widowed. He
:04:12. > :04:14.begins to write letters to a vending company complaining about a bad
:04:15. > :04:18.bending experience, they quickly turn into confessional letters,
:04:19. > :04:22.where he tells them about all of his inner problems. They are read by
:04:23. > :04:27.Naomi Watts in customer services. She goes to his house and meet him,
:04:28. > :04:31.she develops a relationship with him and his offbeat son. They discover
:04:32. > :04:38.everything is a metaphor, in this scene they are smashing up his
:04:39. > :04:41.house, a metaphor for him attempting to deal with other problems of his
:04:42. > :04:44.life. My problem with the film is that it has strong performances, and
:04:45. > :04:50.I like Jean-Marc Vallee as a director. He is generous and gives
:04:51. > :04:54.actors space to do their best work. But, the script is trite and
:04:55. > :04:59.contrived. It drifts into an area which I always have a problem with,
:05:00. > :05:03.it is self-consciously quirky. It is the whole idea that I am writing
:05:04. > :05:08.letters to a vending comedy because of my bad experience but I'm telling
:05:09. > :05:12.you the inner depth of my tragedy... It never comes together. I went in
:05:13. > :05:16.with a lot of goodwill because I like the cast and director, it isn't
:05:17. > :05:23.terrible but not as good as it ought to be or, more problematic, as good
:05:24. > :05:27.as it thinks it is. The next one, you mentioned at the start, it has
:05:28. > :05:33.won awards. It is clearly very harrowing. It is an extraordinary
:05:34. > :05:37.film, Son of Saul, it won the award for foreign language film.
:05:38. > :05:41.Unbelievably harrowing, set in Auschwitz, 1944. It centres on Saul,
:05:42. > :05:47.a Hungarian Jewish prisoner, forced to work in the gas chambers, the
:05:48. > :05:51.environment is pure evil. The expression on which we focus for a
:05:52. > :05:55.lot of the film is one of mortified catatonia, until he decides to try
:05:56. > :05:58.to arrange a proper burial for one of the victims, a young boy who he
:05:59. > :07:18.took to be his own. This is a clip. The subject is overwhelming, and the
:07:19. > :07:21.film is, at times, almost unwatchable, I think it should be.
:07:22. > :07:25.It also confronts the problem of what you may or may not show when
:07:26. > :07:29.dealing with a subject like this. As you saw in the last image, the
:07:30. > :07:35.camera focuses on Saul's phase, for a great deal of the drama all you
:07:36. > :07:39.see is his face. -- face. His shoulders and head from behind. The
:07:40. > :07:45.film has a narrow frame in which basically you are seeing atrocities
:07:46. > :07:49.reflected in his face, the face of the actor. What it means is that
:07:50. > :07:54.essentially it is dealing with the problem of what you can and cannot
:07:55. > :08:00.betray, and somehow by narrowing the visual scope it broadens the impact
:08:01. > :08:04.of the film -- portray. The soundtrack adds to that overwhelming
:08:05. > :08:09.sense of horror. I cannot remember the last time a film affected me so
:08:10. > :08:14.profoundly. I think it is a film that is, as I said before, harrowing
:08:15. > :08:19.and, at times, almost unwatchable. I think it is a film of real moral
:08:20. > :08:23.purpose. It has been put together by somebody who is dealing with this
:08:24. > :08:28.very, very difficult subject with restraint and dignity, and trying to
:08:29. > :08:35.find anaesthetic language which fits the subject matter. I cannot stress
:08:36. > :08:40.how much it is, as I said, an overpowering film, but it is one of
:08:41. > :08:49.serious intent, and really quite overwhelming. We get a clear sense
:08:50. > :08:54.from you all about that. Let me move on to others that are already out
:08:55. > :08:59.that you rate maybe not as highly as that but highly nonetheless. What
:09:00. > :09:02.would you pick? You know that The Jungle Book is doing fantastically
:09:03. > :09:05.well and there is a reason for it. It works as a piece of family
:09:06. > :09:09.entertainment, people were nervous when it was coming out about whether
:09:10. > :09:14.or not you could revisit this much loved classic. I think that they
:09:15. > :09:17.have done. They've done so in a way that is visually arresting and
:09:18. > :09:21.manages to blend elements of the Disney film with elements of the
:09:22. > :09:25.Rudyard Kipling book. It is no surprise and it is doing so well and
:09:26. > :09:30.I am cheered it is. I went into it thinking, how can you revisit it?
:09:31. > :09:37.They do it really well. That is The Jungle Book. What are we selecting
:09:38. > :09:44.if we are going to sit at home and watch something? Ran, we are in the
:09:45. > :09:49.Shakespeare anniversary, it is a take on King Lear, transposing the
:09:50. > :09:53.story to Japan, the story of the broken arrows. It first came out, I
:09:54. > :09:58.think it was the most expensive film to have been made in Japan at the
:09:59. > :10:04.time. It had a brief theatrical reissue where they did a Falque
:10:05. > :10:13.restoration of it. Watching it again now, you talk about films having a
:10:14. > :10:16.visual language, it is pure cinema. It is a fine piece of work that has
:10:17. > :10:19.stood the test of time, it is breathtaking, with other things
:10:20. > :10:23.going on with Shakespeare adaptations at the moment, it is one
:10:24. > :10:28.that nails it for me. It is available on Blu-ray. The lovely
:10:29. > :10:33.thing about that is that you get pin sharp resolution. It has to be seen
:10:34. > :10:38.in the best possible circumstances. Ran, on Blu-ray, it is also on DVD,
:10:39. > :10:41.but for me, Blu-ray. Mark, thank you, as ever.
:10:42. > :10:44.A quick reminder before we go that you'll find more film news
:10:45. > :10:46.and reviews from across the BBC online.
:10:47. > :10:53.And you can catch up with our previous shows on iPlayer.