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