Scott Thorson (Matt Damon) finds his life changed when he enters into an incredibly secret but loving relationship with showman Liberace (Michael Douglas). Based on the true story of Thorson and Liberace’s relationship, the film examines the life of one of the most secretive entertainers, and the impact this had on both Scott and Lee’s lives.

Behind the Candelabra screened in Cannes to rapturous reviews, and the good news is that the film is as good as you have heard. Originally made for HBO, the film will not receive a cinema release in the US, which immediately disqualifies it from the Oscars. Roll on the Golden Globes!

Michael Douglas is perhaps the best he has ever been as the enigmatic and charming Liberace. Known as Lee to his friends, Douglas allows the character to be effeminate but never camp, vulnerable and ferocious at the same time. Douglas’s performance makes it obvious that to Lee; Liberace was the performance of his life, used to cover up truths about himself that he felt would not have been accepted. Douglas is subtle and compelling throughout the film and his interactions with every member of the cast are delightful.

Matt Damon captures the starry eyed essence of a 17 year old asked to move in with a massive star. As time goes on though, Damon also allows Thorson to become as much a brute as Douglas’s Liberace, albeit one who the audience sympathises with. Again, Damon allows Thorson to be just effeminate enough to get the point across but, like Douglas, even when he is drenched in furs and rhinestones, he is never camp or over the top. In fact, Damon’s walk as Thorson is a joy to behold, as it is the only hint that he gives the outside world of the secrets he and Lee are hiding.

Star turns are also made in supporting roles; Debbie Reynolds is unrecognisable but wonderful as Liberace’s mother, but it is Rob Lowe, as a plastic surgeon with some questionable ethics, who steals the show. Lowe is comically monstrous throughout the film, his tightly pulled prosthetic face only adds to the illusion, as his presence and influence slowly pull the lovers apart.

Steven Soderbergh has been saying he is going to retire for so long now that it has become a running joke. I mentioned in my review of Side Effects that if that was the film he was going to bow out on, it was a good ‘un. Well, the same goes for Behind the Candelabra. Soderbergh allows tensions to ebb and flow and the tone throughout the film is spot on. Under his direction, Douglas and Damon play their relationship straight, the comedy is comedic, the tragedy is heartfelt and the demons build in the shadows until they have suffused Thorson and Lee’s entire world. The relationships are at once complex and simple and the narrative, while comparatively straightforward, is utterly engaging, although the pacing does falter towards the end of the second act.

Behind the Candelabra is a riveting look at a man who maintained secrets throughout his life, and the damage these secrets did to those who kept them. Damon and Douglas are wonderful together, but Rob Lowe steals every scene that he is in… Like he does in Californication.

Rating: 4.5/5

Although initially, she had been enchanted with the idea of marrying her best friend’s brother, Thérèse (Audrey Tautou) is a young woman who is deeply unhappy in her marriage. In order to free herself, Thérèse makes some questionable and selfish decisions.

Based on a book of the same name, Thérèse Desqueyroux is the story of martial strife and desperate measures. Although the book – like the film which starred Emmanuelle Riva in the title role – is told retrospectively, with Claude Miller’s film, the audience is with Thérèse as she outgrows her childhood crushes and moves into adulthood and all the responsibility that brings.

Audrey Tautou is a wonderful actress, but she does not have a lot to do here. Thérèse is a woman who keeps a lot to herself so, other than looking pensive and laying around a lot, Tautou is fairly stoic. That said, she does manage to make the audience care about her and seeing as the character’s actions are selfish to say the least – and a little inexplicable – this is no mean feat. Gilles Lellouche does fairly well as Thérèse’s husband but again, other than complain about his health and his fear for his livelihood, the only range that Lellouche is given is cruelty. Anaïs Demoustier as Anne is the actor who perhaps has the most to do, but as soon as her doomed love affair succumbs to its fate, she fades into the background of the piece.

Elements of the story are quickly picked up and dropped throughout the film, but even when the audience believes they know in which direction the story is going to go, the narrative manages to keep us guessing. This does not always work in the film’s favour, however, as storylines tend not to resurface, leaving the film feeling unfinished.

Claude Miller has created a strong look and atmosphere for the film, and there is little doubt that when a character’s motivations are clear, the actor’s performance is strong, but motivations seem to come and go, leaving the film feeling a little lost and loose. That said, Thérèse Desqueyroux is an entertaining film, but the audience simply does not get the resolution that they need. This could be explained by the fact that the narrative structure of the book was changed for the film to flow in chronological order – and maybe this does explain the issues to a degree – but it also seems that the film suffers from some unsure direction.

Thérèse Desqueyroux contains strong performances and atmosphere, but a lack of character’s motivations and storylines flitting on and off screen, only to be forgotten means that the film feels slight and many questions are left unanswered.

Rating: 2/5

Fresh from making Mea Maxima Culpa, director Alex Gibney has delved behind the secrets of Wikileaks, and it’s founder Julian Assange. The trailer for We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks has just been released and promises a revelatory film that will reveal the secrets behind the website that steals secrets for a living.

We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks is released in selected Irish cinemas on July 12th

In 1959, a small town girl makes her way to the dizzying heights of secretary-hood for a powerful but lax French businessman. Although Rose (Deborah Francois) is a terrible secretary, she is a brilliant typist, and it is not long before her boss Louis (Romain Duris) enters her in a speed typing competition with dreams of her going all the way to the top.

Retro cinema is all the rage at the moment, in case you haven’t noticed, with films such as The Artist smashing expectations around the world and Mad Men still being one of the biggest shows on TV. The premise of Populaire is not unlike a season arc of Mad Men, and as Rose and Louis grow closer, their relationship ends up feeling similar to that of Don Draper and Peggy Olsen from the hit AMC show. Unlike Peggy, However, Rose does not have dreams of outdoing the men; she is happy to stay in the female role of secretary and end up marrying the boss – oh cliché! However, as the film progresses, Rose challenges the men around her, while somehow still fitting into gender stereotypes.

As Rose, Deborah Francois is sparkling and bright. She is feisty and demure but balances the two facets of the character well. It is just a shame that as a character, Rose is let down during the final act of the film and any groundbreaking that could have gone on is lost in a swell of love. Romain Duris is just mysterious and stoic enough to keep the audience’s interest piqued, and along with Francois, the two make a winning combination.

The film is comedic and light and, makes gentle commentary on the time period it was set in, but rarely goes further than that. The idea of setting Rose up as a speed typing champion may seem dull, but it is hard not to root for the plucky young woman. As well as this, the sets are sumptuous and the music is wonderfully fun.

Where Populaire falls down, however, is through some lacklustre decisions with regard to the characters – particularly in the final act – and the decision to play with the gender streotypes of the 50s, but not actually do much about them, and certainly not do anything the challenge them. The world of Populaire is one where men and women are kept in their roles and, while Berenice Bejo’s character goes some way to playing with what she has been given and Rose is determined to escape her small-town life, none of the other characters seem interested in doing anything to change their lot in life. As well as this, at 111 minutes, the film feels overlong and stretched, with the final act dragging its heels.

In all, Populaire is a light, funny and entertaining film. Francois and Durais make a wonderful team and the film is beautiful to look at. However, Populaire stumbles in its final act and in some poor decisions made about characters.

Rating: 3/5

Mother and daughter vampire team Clara (Gemma Arterton) and Eleanor (Saoirse Ronan) have always been together, and they have always had to be secretive. Things change, however, when Eleanor finds someone she can confide in and the past catches up with Clara.

It is interesting that Neil Jordan has returned to the vampire story after so much time away, but his return is a welcome one, but his cast is hit and miss. Saoirse Ronan is just otherworldly enough to capture the essence of a girl who has been 16 for 200 years and longs to be able to tell the truth to someone who would believe her. Ronan’s gaze is electric and, although the story may twist out of her grasp slightly, she is rightfully the focus of the film.

Gemma Arterton fares less well as Clara. Here is a woman who is 200 years old, but seems to have learned nothing, like drinking someone’s blood in broad daylight is a bad idea, as is setting up a brothel in a run down hotel. Arterton’s accent grates, and she never seems to fully inhabit Clara, but she looks great in a corset… So there’s that. Caleb Landry Jones carries on his streak of playing the weird character with his turn as Frank. Although Frank’s storyline may be obvious, Landry Jones is charming and graceful in the role, proving that Antiviral was no fluke.

Based in a stage play, Byzantium forms it’s own rules with regard to vampire mythology – no fangs and the vamps are able to go for a stroll in sunlight – some of the atmosphere we have come to expect from Jordan films is definitely lacking. This may be because Jordan is clearly poking fun at himself or it could be because the story and script are ever so slightly garbled. What should be a simple story that hinges on the characters rambles through time periods and there are elements of the vampire mythology that are never fully explained. That said, the visuals are lovely in parts and, when it does find it’s footing, the film finds beauty and atmosphere in the strangest of places. Jordan handles the scenes in the past incredibly well, but stumbles in the present, as was the case with Interview. Could it be, like Clara, Jordan has learned nothing over the years? Or is he making a statement that vampires are creatures of legend and should probably remain in a more superstitious age?

It would be difficult to talk about the film without talking about Jordan’s previous work, and in a way Byzantium forms an odd companion piece to Interview with the Vampire. There are moments when the film feels similar to Interview in tone and style, but there is so much different to allow it to stand apart. Setting two women at the heart of the story, two women who are incredibly similar to Louis and Lestat, cannot be coincidence, but the mythology that surrounds the pair and their actions in the present, are completely different. Thankfully, even though there is a love story at the centre of Byzantium, Twilight this ain’t.

In all, Byzantium tries to stand up to the might of Interview with the Vampire, and fails. Feeling like Interview’s little sister is not a crime, but strong performances from Landry Jones and Ronan are not enough to make up for a messy and slight film.

Rating: 3/5

When her mother dies Mary Katherine (Amanda Seyfried) goes to live with her father; a man obsessed with the idea that there are minuscule people living in, and protecting the forest. MK has little time for her father’s research but finds herself drawn into a battle between good and evil when she stumbles across the Queen of the forest (Beyoncé).

Based on a book by William Joyce – the author behind The Rise of the Guardians – the idea behind Epic is rather sweet, and there is always room for a film that reminds us of the importance of a balance in nature and the big cities. That said, Epic is not the huge film the title may lead you to expect.

Voice talent comes in the form of Colin Farrell, Beyoncé, Chris O’Dowd, Aziz Ansari and Christoph Waltz. Some actors fare better than others, with Chrisoph Waltz’s villain the highlight of the film, although that is probably not surprising. Beyonce has a good voice, but struggles with some of the emotion, Farrell has been given a dry and surprisingly sombre character – and it is hard to tell that whether the use of Farrell’s native Irish accent was a cute reference to how twee we all are here, or that we are still connected with the earth. Possibly neither – and Ansari and O’Dowd start off as some great comic relief but quickly grate.

The visuals are beautiful, as we have come to expect from animated films. The forest is lush and verdant, and the contrast between this and the decaying lair of the villain is wonderful. The look of the characters is also great – although things like hair and feathers do not move like they should – with Waltz’s villain again, being a stand out. Sadly, the beauty of the film is only skin deep and, as well as some ineffective 3D, the film suffers from an uninspiring story.

The idea behind the film is a great one, but it does not translate from page to screen. Once the audience gets beyond the novelties of the film – birds used as steeds, the rings of a tree telling the past and future, and the look of the villains and heroes – there is not anything new or original about Epic. While Rise of the Guardians took our expectations and turned them on their heads, Epic follows a predictable and familiar story and it is easy to make comparisons with Fern Gully and, weirdly, Avatar.

In all, Epic looks beautiful but patchy acting, redundant 3D and an uninspiring story mean that this epic ends up feeling rather small.

Rating: 3/5

The Wolfpack reunite to save Alan (Zach Galiafinakis) from himself; after the death of his father, he goes completely off the rails so an intervention is called to bring him to a rehab facility. While on the way to Arizona, the gang are run off the road by Marshall (John Goodman), a gangster who kidnaps Doug (Justin Bartha) and gives the gang three days to bring Mr Chow (Ken Jeong) to him.

After the abysmal failure that was The Hangover Part II, the final instalment in the trilogy can only be an improvement, right? Well, yes. Although the magic of the first film is still lacking, turning away from the formulaic plot and bringing the action back across the Pacific was a wise choice.

This time out, the characters have actually developed slightly; OK, Alan has turned into even more of a monster, but at least this is growth. Bradley Cooper as Phil is still foul mouthed and brash, but at least he admits that he cares for his friends and Stu… Stu is the same as always, except he doesn’t manage to lose a tooth or get a face tattoo this time, that’s progress! Ken Jeong reprises his famous role as Mr Chow and is just as cocaine addled and insane as always, and newcomer John Goodman is nicely intimidating in his role as the villain, Marshall.

Thankfully, the story is not the same as the previous two films; instead of trying to piece together the events of the night before, the gang know where Doug has gone, who has him and how to get him back. Most of the comedy comes from Zach Galiafinakis’ deluded notion of himself – and his new relationship with Cassie (Melissa McCarthy) – and Ed Helms’ ability to make wonderfully realistic gagging noises on cue.

The story is riddled with plot holes, but it involves gold bars, a prison break and a return to Las Vegas. Ah yes, Las Vegas. Of course this is where the story would end up, but instead of having the city against them, this time Las Vegas appears to be on The Wolfpack’s side. That does not mean that they do not have to abseil down the front of Ceasar’s Palace or chase a parachuting madman across the city, but at least some of the shine is put back on Las Vegas.

Todd Phillips – and writer Craig Mazin – seem to have realised that the best comedy comes from having Chow as a source of tension, rather than an ally, and this leads to some rather silly but entertaining moments. As well as this, Alan coming off his medication leads to a wonderfully madcap opening sequence and Stu finally makes a bad decision in the closing credits. However, changing the formula means that The Hangover Part III is more of an action comedy thriller than a straight up comedy, and the murderous and dark tones of the film do sap some of the laughs… And the laughs are mostly giggles, not belly achers.

In all, The Hangover Part III is a step up from it’s immediate predecessor, but a step down from the original. Stepping away from the formula made this film stronger – as did returning to Las Vegas – but this is a wholly unnecessary sequel; it does not tell us anything new, and simply unties strings tangled in the second instalment. Bradley Cooper still looks great though.

Rating: 3/5

The Wolfpack heads to Bangkok for Stu’s (Ed Helms) wedding. An innocent night having a beer on the beach ends with the gang waking up in a crummy hotel room with one of their number missing… Again. The question is, how do they find a missing person when they can’t remember what they did the night before… Again.

The Hangover was such a runaway success that it is hardly surprising a franchise was built around it. It is also not surprising that lightning doesn’t strike twice. The plot of the first film has been lovingly (!) recreated in Bangkok for the second film, which leaves it feeling unoriginal, but the jokes somehow missed the trip, which means this is a less funny, less glamorous version of a hit movie.

The characters have not really grown or developed since the first film, other than to have a healthy fear of going out on the rip on a stag night again, but they invited Alan (Zach Galifianakis) so things were always going to get out of hand. Doug (Justin Bartha) stays out of the action again this time, but he is not the one that the gang must find. Bradley Cooper’s Phil is just as foul mouthed as usual and Ken Jeong’s Mr Chow is just as borderline insane as usual. You get the picture; this is The Hangover in Bangkok.

Copying the formula from the first film is where this one went wrong; audiences have seen the missing friend story already; they needed something new. As well as this, Bangkok is a darn sight more scary than Las Vegas, so the film is darker, weirder and generally more offensive than the first. Original writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore jumped ship and newcomers Craig Mazin, Scot Armstrong and director Todd Phillips failed to recapture the magic of the first film meaning The Hangover Part II is more akin to ‘the fear’ than an actual hangover.

Director Todd Phillips has not allowed the characters to grow or the situations to change; instead he relies on cameos and recreating events from the first film and a monkey who smokes cigarettes for comedy. The setting of The Hangover – Las Vegas – worked so well because the film showed the underbelly of the glittering town. Bangkok is a monster of a city and the film focuses on the seedier elements, so the film is all underbelly and no sparkle.

In all, The Hangover Part II is a sad follow up to a brilliant first film. Recreating the plot of the original means the film is entirely predictable, the jokes are not funny and the characters are not endearing in the least. The magic of The Hangover has been killed in a Bangkok back alley.

Rating: 1/5

In the 1920s, stockbroker Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) moves into a small house next door to the mysterious and enigmatic Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). It is not long before Carraway is invited to one of Gatsby’s expansive and opulent parties, and learns a shocking secret about his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) and Mr Gatsby himself.

There has been much talk about Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of The Great Gatsby, not least because – rather fittingly – the film opened the 66th Cannes Film Festival earlier this week (The book was written in the region, dontcha know!) Luhrmann is known for his slightly manic, visually stunning films about doomed love, and Gatsby is no different, although at times, the film feels like a Luhrmann copycat, rather than a film by the director who brought us Moulin Rouge and Romeo + Juliet. We won’t talk about Australia…

Leonardo DiCaprio has rarely been better as the tormented but hopeful Gatsby. DiCaprio swings between wild bouts of hope and crushing despair and everything in between, while making the audience utterly believe in him. Tobey Maguire’s wide-eyed innocence is perfect for Nick Carraway, a man whose beliefs are challenged even as they are expanded. Carey Mulligan rounds out the main trio and, while she certainly looks fantastic in the film, she comes off as a little vapid and uninteresting, making it hard for the audience to believe that this is a woman who has driven a man to great heights and lows. The chemistry between the leading couple is sadly lacking also, meaning the love scenes lose some of their fizz.

The story is one that would naturally draw a filmmaker like Luhrmann to it; doomed and tragic love played out in an opulent and chaotic time. However, the problems begin to rear their head in the length of the film. F. Scott Fitzgerald knew that in order to make his book as impactive as possible, it had to be short and sharp. The same cannot be said for Luhrmann’s film. At 120 minutes, the film is about 30 minutes too long and, while we are happy to bathe in the beauty of the film, sometimes it is easy to forget what we are watching.

Ah yes, the visuals. Although many of us were expecting Moulin Rouge in the ‘20s with The Great Gatsby, the party scenes do not compare with those of Luhrmann’s earlier film. That said, however, our first introduction to the titular character is wonderfully timed with music and visual clues, and is enough to send shivers down the spine. The words Carraway writes flow on and off screen in a delightful manner, but all of Luhrmann’s earlier visual cues are sadly absent, leaving the sparkling parties feeling a little flat.

As to why the film is in 3D, it is hard to tell. The opening and closing credits are things of beauty, but the rest of the film does not benefit from the technology. In fact, as has been complained of before and often, the 3D seems to create a barrier between the story and the audience, leaving us feeling disconnected from the story, rather than swept along with us. This leaves us rather like Gatsby himself; gazing down on the wonder below but never really part of it. Perhaps this was a conscious choice by Luhrmann.

In all, The Great Gatsby benefits from stunning visuals, a stellar soundtrack and an outstanding performance from DiCaprio, but is let down by distracting 3D, a vapid performance from Mulligan and an overlong running time. This Gatsby could have been great, but instead is only slightly more than average.

Rating: 3.5/5

In order to catch a criminal, Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) need the minds (and cars) of criminals. Obviously, Dom, Brian and their friends are the first place he turns. Not least because he has information on the supposedly deceased Letty.

Let’s be honest here, no-one really goes to see Fast and Furious movies for the cerebral filmmaking and belief-challenging storylines. No, we all go to see these movies because we want to see some cool cars and some great chases. Once we admit this to ourselves, we will all be a lot happier… And we will suspend our disbelief suitably high.

The storyline of Fast and Furious 6 doesn’t really matter, other than Letty is alive and working for the bad guys. The dialogue, on the other hand, does matter, but it is as stilted and questionable as we have come to expect from this franchise. There are some comedic moments, but most of the laughter comes from terrible dialogue, soap opera-esque twists and preposterous situations.

The whole crew is back to reprise their roles, and each have a little more at stake this time out. Brian has a kid and Dom is chasing the love of his life, we all know how that goes. Before you go thinking that I have nothing positive to say about the film, know this; I am not a fan of the franchise and the first I saw was Fast 5. That said, there is a ton of fun to be had with this film. The cars are simply beautiful, there are plenty of pretty humans to look at as well, and the set pieces are bonkers and brilliant.

Oh yes, the set pieces. Rarely have their been set pieces been so over the top and played for the sake of action. There is a car chase that ends in a chat at Battersea Power Station, another that ends with some spectacular jumping for the sake of rescue and yet another that involves a plane and a runway that is improbably long.

The acting is patchy; some appear to be having a great time – Dwayne Johnson, I’m looking at you – others that are confused by the idea of acting and still others that are painfully underused – Kim Kold is a lot more than the ‘muscle’, you know. Watch Teddy Bear.

In all, Fast & Furious 6 is big and dumb and a lot of fun. Suspend your disbeliefs, ignore the dialogue as much as possible and you are going to have a great time. Just don’t expect it to make a whole lot of sense.

Rating: 3.5/5