The Afrofilmviewer

Review: The Grey

2012-01-31T18:22:00.005Z

Year: 2012
Director: Joe Carnahan
Screenplay: Joe Carnahan, Ian Mackenzie Jeffers
Starring Liam Neeson

Synopsis is here

Joe Carnaham is a director I have time for but find myself at a loss with his recent movies. I missed his debut feature Blood, Guts, Bullets and Octane but found his second feature Narc immensely enjoyable. The A Team and Smoking Aces are high energy distraction pieces that do what they're meant to do and nothing more, but I always have the feeling that they could have been more memorable. Right now, I cannot for the life me tell you anything that happened in those films.

For me I get the feeling that with those films, that while the budget got bigger, the focus seemed to sway slightly. So much "stuff" had to be packed into Aces and A Team, that when it starts spewing out, you don't know what to put your attention. The A Team; with it's nostalgia monkey on it's back, reminded me why I enjoyed The Losers more. While Aces, was a mass ensemble piece that had a lot of names in the cast, but didn't spend any real time with them. A frustration as when Carnaham does allow his characters to breathe (Narc) he gets something out of them. The final aspects of Smoking Aces featuring Ryan Reynolds' character hint at something the film never really looked at wanting to achieve.

With that in mind we come to The Grey, a pared down nature action thriller; which, could have been leaner, but doesn't pull back with it's punches. Canaham's film (which at times borrow tropes from the horror genre) works because it cares about the plight at hand as opposed to filling the feature with trivial flash.

Such a stripping of gimmicky reminds us that Carnaham is an appealing director visually. He and cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi kept me on my toes with the stark beauty of the Alaskan backdrop. they capture the near hopelessness that these men will face. When bad things happen (and they do, often) Carnahams camera doesn't look away, instead it lingers on the pain unflinchingly. A scene featuring Neeson giving clam to a dying moments after the plane crash is grim and uncompromising. At times I found the film difficult to watch, in the way a good horror film should be.

However, other times the film is difficult to watch because of haphazard editing. Action sequences featuring The Greys main threat; the wolves, are choppy, awkward and hard to decipher. in fact those scenes (while featuring some effect jump scares) are really mangled close lumps of flesh and cgi. The film works better when the focal point is firmly placed on the men, and the clam before the storm. The mirrored balance of the gang of rouges and the animal hunters that trail them bring out some of the best moments of the film.

The characters involved aren't complex at all but it's the actors that are cast that give them the humanity that's needed. We are told that these men are men that are unfit for mankind. To drop them in such extreme conditions, we witness what spurs them on and what drives them. Small, tender things, many stemming from their relationships with women or family. That their alpha male machismo is not only threatened by such forces of nature but asks them to relate back to such softer moments, hint at the difficult contradictions of masculinity that Narc probed at times. Liam Neeson; a man whose been kicking ass and taking names since 1990 (Darkman) brings the grounded leadership and awareness that such a role needs, while Frank Grillo provides sufficient conflict in the human ranks.

I'm not the best when it comes to Man vs Nature features. In fact my copy of Southern Comfort is still in my cupboard unwrapped, I haven't seen Deliverance in years and The River Wild has never pipped my interests. But The Grey is the perfect type of feature to see out a chilly January. Canaham's retreat back to what made him a worthwhile prospect, that human aspect, makes us want to stand by these characters through the harshness of the terrain in front of them.

Review: The Descendants

2012-01-30T16:23:00.003Z

Year: 2011 (UK Wide Release: 2012)
Director: Alexander Payne
Screenplay: Nat Faxon, Jim Rash, Alexander Payne
Starring: George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller

Synopsis is here:

It is said on The Descendants IMDB trivia page, that George Clooney went for the role of the womanising Jack in Alexander Payne's last movie, Sideways. Payne decided ultimately that the role should go to someone lesser known (Thomas Haden Church). In my view, it worked. I wasn't distracted by any stardom at all and Church pulled off a fine performance that combines well with Paul Giamatti's sadsack Miles, and won an Oscar nomination to boot.

Seven years on, and Clooney finally gets his chance to work with Payne in The Descendants, a dysfunctional family feature, which judging by the material and Payne's previous work (Election, About Schmidt), should be a clear bread and butter deal for all involved.

However, The Descendants; a film full of great small moments, gorgeous photography and a superb supporting cast filled with bright young things (Shailene Woodley) and wiley veterans of the game (Robert Forster on brilliant form) is lacking somewhat. For me the reason appears to be Clooney.

I'm not against George Clooney in the slightest, I think that he is an movie star that; much like Tom Cruise, is treated with ignorance because they do not often fall upon gimmicky quirks and do not give the same types of performances that you expect from seasoned character actors. When they are given something in which their charm and charisma are give a chance to show prominence (Clooney - Out of Sight, Cruise - Magnolia), they really do excel in the role. Here Clooney tries his hardest to pull off something more workaday, more everyman and while he still manages to pull off a few nice moments, he feels like he's trying to squeeze into a role that is marginally too tight for him. It just didn't fit right with me.

It doesn't help when everyone else is wonderfully cast and clearly have their game faces on. Woodley and to a lesser extent Amara Miller play the two sisters of Clooney's Matt King with just the right balance and pitch. They're not brats, merely difficult children dropped into a complicated situation. They act out accordingly, and there's a subtle sense of growth with Woodley's performance that really stands out. Elsewhere, Robert Forster is knocks an emotional monologue right out the park. So much so, that it's still the strongest scene I remember, hours after watching the film. Perfectly capturing the complexities of the issue at hand.

But it's scenes like this that stand out the most in Payne's film. The opening narration reminds us that just because people live in "paradise" doesn't mean they experience it. It doesn't make the pain any less real. This awkward and convoluted situation only seems to be made worse as these characters are painted against the beautiful backdrop of Hawaii. The opening shot is of a close up woman beaming happily as she rides the waves in the motorboat which causes her unfortunate accident and the upcoming chain of events. This is the only time we actually see her concious, as the coma she is placed in not only renders her silent, but creates an enigma around her as we witness all the characters react with each other due to what they know and what they don't.

This is where the film works best, and why the moments with Forster and Woodley are so affecting in their own way. We see such an overview of this woman in the films 115 running time that when we see their responses to the grief we warm to them. But it's strangely why Clooney didn't hit the spots with me. As the film goes on, I don't sense the weight or burden on his shoulders. Such a role would be difficult to cast and even harder to put across on screen. Clooney, whose managed to lose himself in roles (Syriana, his work with the Coen's), is just slightly off key. He doesn't feel so much Matt King, more Clooney trying to schlub up.

But it's hard to be the everyman epicentre in a picture like this, with a screenplay that nails those private issues of family so well. Late on, we are given a line by Beau Bridges that reminds us that blood is only thicker than water when money isn't involved. The line rang so true, I scoffed louder than usual. But it is that what Payne does well. Next time, however he may wish to see what a lesser actor is up to.

Review: Haywire

2012-01-26T18:03:00.000Z

Year: 2012
Director: Steven Sodenbergh
Screenplay: Lem Dobbs
Starring: Gina Carano, Micheal Douglas, Ewan McGregor, Micheal Fassbender, Antonio Banderas

Synopsis is here:

Haywire is a film, which I found easier to like more than love. I can sense that many; expecting something a little more conventional, will find it extremely easy to hate. But let me say one thing, it's a Steven Sodenbergh film, one should expect something a little different. Take away those Ocean films and even his more mainstream features still can feel like a round peg in a square hole. Despite how that sounds, I do mean that is a good way.

Lean, mean and tightly crafted, Haywire is a volatile piece that doesn't outstay it's welcome. During it's stay however, we do get to jump and jetset around a variety of different locales to a retro 60's David Arnold soundtrack. All this while we follow Mallory, an ex-marine cum private sector special trying to find out (violently) who double crossed her, during her last job and why. To quote Bad Boys 2: "shit just got real".

Looking for anything too in-depth in a film like this; is much like eating a dry cracker to rehydrate yourself. My second paragraph has told you nearly everything that happens within the movie. This comes at a price however as the film does hit anything past the superficial. The film just doesn't give us enough to get a hold of. I found myself comparing the film to The Limey (also scripted by Lem Dobbs), a genre exercise which is equally as straight edged as this. However, despite Sodenbergh's 1999 feature being more experimental than this (non liner editing and the like), it still manages to have a solid emotional centre through Terrence Stamp's amusing yet strikingly sad performance.

The only strikes that land here are from the fists of the hard hitting Gina Carano whose one note performance is understandable considering the tightness of the script and lack of acting experience but struggles if the film even sniffed at trying to hit a station above ass kicking. The story is very typical spy affair, while it's difficult to find anything within the character of Mallory that stands out other than the obvious.

Is the first time casting of the MMA/Former American Gladiator a piece of stunt casting? Yes and No. In comparison to the likes of Brittany Spears (Crossroads), Christina Aguilera (Burlesque) or Mariah Carey (Glitter) Carano has not got the inbuilt fan-base to lie back on, nor does it feel like an expansion of a brand (although considering her maxim spread I may be wrong). Carano has a certain look and build that fits the character she plays. Having an known actress could have been distracting, particularly as the fight scenes are edited and shot in such a way to emphasise Carano's talents. However Gina is no Thespian and it shows, making it feel at times that Sodenbergh hired her because, why not? With this said, none of the acting really rises above a certain level.

Despite this the film is gorgeous to look at, happily hops from place to place in an amusing James Bond fashion and the fight sequences are expertly put together in long, unflinching, unbroken takes. There is a gimmicky feel to having Carano in the part but it is amazing to watch her in full flow. While the linked photoshoot may cause fapping within the teenage boy sector, Sodenbergh takes away the blatant sexuality. This gives us a character who can be looked at in the same way as any male figure if they were placed in the same position. It would be nice if the character, performance and story could catch up with the gender politics.

Note: Head to Movies.com for a an interesting article on Carano's role within the movie and in the action movie dynamic.

Review: Shame

2012-01-13T22:55:00.000Z

Year: 2011 (2012 Release)
Director: Steve McQueen
Screenplay: Steve McQueen & Abi Morgan
Starring: Micheal Fassbender, Carey Mulligan

Synopsis is here:

Note: Slight spoilers are abound in this review. I don't speak of the plot explicitly, but what I do say does touch on areas of story more than I usually do. Well to me anyway.

I haven't read any reviews as of yet* but Shame has been making quite a stir with many critics. I'm quite surprised; as to me, the film, a character piece about sex addiction has more than a touch of the conventional about it. McQueen's film does well to show that sex addiction is just as wretched much like any other type of excessive behaviour. With this said, by doing this, the film sometimes feels like we've seen this been done before with the usual suspects. It's not hard to feel that one or two moments within the films final act could easily be found in a typical drug piece. However, McQueen's use of space and setting; along with Fassbender's scintillating performance makes help make this feature a captivating one.

McQueen's view of New York we see in this film is a isolating and smothering one. We never really release how suffocating it is until a critical scene involving Fassbender's Brandon running on a late night jog. It is the most invigorating moment of a film that relies on the stillness of it's camera. We see Brandon not only trying to break free from the situation within his apartment; involving his equally emotionally broken sister (a devilishly child-like and selfish display by Mulligan), but also trying to break out of his own damaged spiral. As he runs down the gridded system, it's almost like an old cartoon where the character moves and yet runs past the same repeated background forever.

Brendon is an deeply affected addict; locked in routine he cannot break free from. He is constantly restless (spy the red bull can often in his hand), and his sisters disruptive involvement in his life has only caused more problems. He feels shame not only for his addiction, but for whatever tragedy which both stuck him and his sister in New Jersey. The scenes between the two of them are drenched in anxiety. They do not interact like brother and sister, they can't console each other when the reach breaking point. The simple fact that they cannot find an emotional connection with each other has infected all their other attempts of finding a meaning full relationships in other areas of their lives. Both of them try and utilise sex as a way of starting something meaningful and can't seem to understand why its so destructive.

Brandon is absorbed with sex; and his excess has reached such a peak, that it doesn't even seem to be about "getting off" or "conquests". We don't know what his job is, but does it matter? It's not as if he concentrates on it, distracted in meetings, often late with reasonable excuses, we're as adrift in the haze as much as him. We watch him on a train in a scene involving a young (married) girl which switches from playful to predatory in a moments glance. We sense the tone in uncomfortable close ups; not only in this scene but so many others. The camera lingers disturbingly when we would like it to cut away. The sex although clearly constructed at times is never romantic or erotic. It feels like a weight that needs to be shifted. The endorphins released after the act clearly do little to lift the cloud. Fassbender carries this metaphorical bulk effectively in nearly every scene. His body language subtly awkward, conflicting thoughts flutter in each glance. Mulligan's outward display neatly counterbalances this. This is the best I've seen from her. Her childish manner is attention seeking but with good reason. He rages at her because his covers blown. "you trap me in a corner" he exclaims. What he hate is the fact that he's exposed. She doesn't understand but often reacts just as sharply. The chemistry between the two is a foil that works remarkably well within the film

Where Shame slips it's in certain moments within it's final third. In what should be a pivotal scene is seemingly shoehorned into proceedings, almost to give the film somewhere to go. It shows the film at it's most conventional but also highlights a slight imbalance between the characters we've been watching. While the hints to something deeper lie in between the lines of Shame, there's an act given to us that feels that one more piece of the puzzle may not have hurt.

However, this is part of the "fun" of Shame. I need to watch again because I fear I've missed something. The final moments are a recall of the train scene. It's a tease. We witness the girl again in similar circumstances, but something's different. The positions have been altered slightly. Her posture has not only changed, but challenges us in so many ways. We look at her reactions compared to before. The final moments focus on Fassbender's Brandon's face which is equally as provocative. I hope the cartoon went to a different setting.

*Since writing this I have read Ashley Clarke's exceptional piece on Shame, which is here

End of 2011 Videocast - Part 2

2012-01-10T21:02:00.001Z

The second half of our Videocast Nonsense.

Enjoy!

End of 2011 Videocast - Part 1

2012-01-06T10:31:00.000Z

As some may know, I do a audio podcast named Cinematic Dramatic, which can be found on Geek Planet Online and Itunes. This year myself and co-host Iain Boulton have decided to bring out a Videocast of what we liked and disliked of the last year. This is Part One, which is of our individual picks from our respective top tens. Part two will feature the picks that appear on both of our lists. Forgive our faces, they are clearly much more acceptable on an audio podcast.

THE YEAR THAT WAS 2011

2011-12-31T11:34:00.000Z

At the end of last year I moaned aboutpeople’s attitudes to remakes and sequels and unfortunately due to theabundance of such films that flowed through this year, it seems that once againI’m bitching about such things oncemore. Sorry.

The ever excellent MAMO podcast made theamusing point this year that all these people whining about remakes of foreignfilms are talking about movies that have already been adapted for them. Gettingon your soapbox about the latest remake is one thing but the fact that theyhaven’t realised that said foreign film has been adapted to make sense for themin the way of subtitles anyway, helps make the argument moot.

Itseems that even the makers of the original features are now even above suchtalk. To find out that director Tomas Alfredson thought that his reactiontowards American remake Let me in was childish, speaks volumes to a tinterwebbrigade who are quick to yell BOYCOTT and ORIGINAL MOVIES when the nextupcoming remake is announced but a quick to step in line when the nextbook/comic/graphic novel to film adaptation launches. It hasn’t escaped me thatdespite all this “Hollywood is so unoriginal” talk, the highest ranking filmbased on an original idea (Bridesmaids) lies 12 in worldwide box office gross. Closer to home in the U.K. we see that yetagain despite some fine features making appearances and friends not only onthese shores but in the U.S, you’d be hard pressed to find the likes of Attack the Block making even a dent in the top U.K 30, let alone the top ten. Thismakes the homegrown antics of The Inbetweeners Movie quite an achievement, whetherbased on a T.V program or not.

The final entry of the Harry Potter seriesspeaks much of the cinematic landscape. Based on a book, brand awareness inheaps, bankrolled by Warner Bros yet filmed here with British talent. Yes,lavish praise was once again heaped on the wizard franchise by muggles. And whileI agree that such films like Potter and Bond are around and keep highly skilledcrew in jobs in our world famous studios. The amount of profit made by theseventures don’t appear to putting as money into our fledging British filmindustry as one would like. It does however help allow mediocre films likeClash of the Titans sequels to get funded.

This brings me to the problematic area ofdistribution in which our mainstream cinemas still don’t believe in a fairfight. When I first worked in a cinema; I remember discovering that two majorstudios owned it. Much may have changed since I’ve left but I’m sure that themajor studios still have the biggest stake in our cinemas and the ultimate decisionsin what get shown. I’m constantly frustrated that movies seem to only be slantedtowards an ignorant 15-24 male demographic whose only concerns are Robotshitting each other but this is something one must grin and bear until I movecloser to London again and allowed to wallow in the glorious glow of the CurzonCinema in Soho. As a lover of cinema, I will still try and seek out smallergems when I can. The problem is of course, it’s most likely to be a home withmicrowave popcorn. Away from cinema screens filled with noisy, iphoning,dingbats.

Such talk explains why things don’t appear tobe changing. If people are waiting to watch certain types of cinema at home,online or on blu-ray with massive screens then why would cinemas try and alterthe viewing choices? The major budget films are all about those first threedays (or more depending on those advanced screenings) in as many screens aspossible, and it seems to be working still (despite falling viewership) Smallerfilms (particularly overseas markets) seem to be happy with the long game withthe knowledge that it could find the audience it desires on the smaller screen.It’s all good asking for change, but even when the likes of Jonathan Rosenbaumhave decided to set up shop at home than the cinema then many must be asking“what’s all the fuss about?”

With all this said I still watch as manymovies as I can. It’s easy to bemoan many aspects of modern viewing (and I doat length), but the love of sitting in a dark room watching a movie stillbewitches me. My only ask is that film should be viewed more importantly, as anart form and as a way we shape our culture. With the ability to capture motionbeing so easy for us these days, we take for granted how powerful the mediumcan be. Yes, entertainment does and will always be a factor when I pick upsomething to watch but one of the things that makes warm is when a film as theability to teach, spark thought or debate, and of course move you. This yearhas been one in which such aspects have made that mark.

My favourite ten of the year (as always in noorder):

Animal Kingdom

Grubby crime cinema from Australia. More in line withGreek Tragedy than Goodfellas. Michôd's feature debut is may have a low keyfeel, but the tension is ratcheted to its highest. It’s opening scene hookedme. It’s final moments left me on the ropes.

Melancholia

Melancholia is at times just as visually arresting as Von Trier's Antichrist, but is a far more precise being. Von Trier is far more accurate here and one of the reasons seems to be that the subject matter is closer to his heart. The dark clouds of depression loom large over both Antichrist and Melancholia but the latter shows a director whose far more in the mood to tackle (and even embrace) his demons then letting them run amok. Self absorption and pomp are still abound from the "best director in the world" but this is far more focused, far more at peace.

Hanna

It slips from action to drama without difficulty, itshrugs off its unoriginality and sketchy plot with well drawn outthemes, strong lead characterand visual flair. The music is immediate and kept me in the momentand I adored the films quiet loud quiet rhythm. Hanna doesn't saymuch different, but it has the ability to be more articulate when it's shoutingit's message from the hills.

NEDS

Unrepentant to the end, provocative and just as relevant for now as itis for the era it’s set in. Like it’s lead character it’s tough to watch attimes but compelling throughout.

Tree of Life

Malick’s film is a celebration of life, a joy in contemplation of usmerely existing and how this fact alone can provide resonance in others. Thatour simply being here can provide happiness to those we touch. This simpleand yet deeply profound and affecting ideal is why I loved the film.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

I thought it would be the weakest blockbuster of the year. Turns out wasthe most exhilarating one and one of the only summer flicks that actuallywanted to tell a story. The film also featured one of the most fist pumping,barnstorming set pieces of the year, set on the San Francisco Bridge.

Drive

If Iwanted to act clever; when talking about Drive, I'd say something along thelines of: A brutal symphony, tinged with flecks of 80's nostalgiaand machismo. But I’m better off in stating that Drive is a highly entertaining, stylish piece of trash. A classically tragic anti-hero, a soundtrack that onceheard you can’t shake off and a beautifully shot L.A. I was in heaven watchingthis.

Tinker Tailor Solider Spy

Alfredson's film works so well because it take time over showing howdeeply isolated the spy game is. Close relationships are broken, belittledand bargained for, information is called gold dust for goodreason and moral compasses are as murky as the films cold, drab colour schemethat Alfredson utilises to enhance the tone of the film. The filmis literally as grey as the the shades these characters dwell in.

The GuardIn yet another year in which I found most of the Hollywood comedieswaning somewhat, it’s was wonderful to stumble upon this low-fi Irish indiegem. A film I hope find its audience on DVD like it’s kissing cousin In Burges.

We need to talk about Kevin

Ramsay’s direction as never been so precise, while Swinton simplydominates the screen in this psychological battle of wits. The films drainingcentral relationship (with Ezar Miller giving a particularlymalicious performance) manages to keep it’s ambiguity and tension to the end.

Honourable Mentions: Beats, Rhymes & Life:The Travels Of A Tribe Called Quest, Archipelago, Senna,Essential Killing, Red State, Warrior, Kill List

OtherFilm highlights: Meeting directors Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code) and Joe Cornish(Attack the Block). The biggest thing for me this year however was meeting one of my idols; Mark Kermode, in Oxford and talking to him about The Ninth Configuration,Thelma Schoonmaker and Shutter Island

Review: Crazy, Stupid, Love

2011-12-24T22:30:00.002Z

Year: 2011
Director: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Screenplay: Dan Fogelman
Starring: Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Julianne Moore

Synopsis is here

It's a film that has date movie stamped all over it and I'm sure most twenty something males wouldn't even bother catching this flick, even if they are die hard Carell fans. But whether I'm right or wrong with my gross generalisation I have to say that Crazy, Stupid Love is a very warm and fun loving feature that's enjoyable because it feels like the makers of the movie actually watch similar movies and tried to find out what works and what doesn't.

I'm not surprised that as a rom-com it works, as directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa have tried their hand at such endeavours before. Their début feature; I love you Phillip Morris was a film I wasn't completely in love with, but had a decent core relationship at it's core. Crazy, Stupid, Love is equally as smart with it's heart and does well to show these characters as flawed, yet relatable. Where I found Phillip Morris to be pretty bland in terms of how the story plays out, Crazy, Stupid, Love takes a well known track but does well to change the scenery. Where I predicted the end of Phillip Morris from a mile off, with this I still had a good time wondering where these people where going to take me.

It helps that the film spends a fair amount of time with most of it's characters and gives them a certain amount of grounding. As the film switches and swoops between characters with sub-plots at times interconnecting and colliding, we never feel too short changed about someone else, even when the films twists are at their most convoluted. It's unfortunate that twice in the movie however, we get two sequences involving Emma Stone and Julianne Moore that sat awkwardly to me for all the wrong reasons. I won't lie and say that part of this is possibly because I'm a slightly selfish twenty something male who doesn't believe that certain characters honesty at that point shouldn't have amounted to the reactions given. In fact both felt like a screenplay bait and switch in order to forcibly manipulate character affections to the audience. The scene with Stone is particularly cumbersome as the other character involved isn't written as well as he could have been.

However the characters (that matter) are not only well constructed, but also well cast. Carell whom I feel has had a patchy film career, carries the film well and his relationship with Julienne Moore is one you can get behind. You could say Moore is slumming it here considering some of the high class work she is usually known for (I always feel more people have to see Far from Heaven), but she is more than effective here. The film does well to try and make sure that you don't hate either character, although you may finding yourself being less than subjective (very dependant on what I mentioned in the above paragraph). Emma Stone once again shows how much of a likable and charming presence she is one screen while Gosling has a lot of fun as this Hitch-lite character who goes though a slighter more predictable arc than everyone else but still manages to hold his own against Carell at the best of times. The banter between the two (and a great Marisa Tomei in support) bring about the best comic moments.

It is also worth noting that Crazy, Stupid, Love is a film that looks as sharp as one of RyGos' suits. Something which you don't expect from many rom-coms is the filmmakers to really take note at what your taking in visually. The film's not has simple but effective visual motifs to illustrate the distance between characters but it also has a rich colour palette and uses soft focus in a wonderfully dreamy way. Strangely it's use of such a technique, particularly in relation to the sub-plot it appears with, reminds me of a John Hughes feature. I don't even think Hughes ever even used such elements, but the strange mix of the cinematography, the "normal" characters, and the good natured feel of it all for whatever reason invoked such memories.

Much like Extract; Crazy, Stupid, Love works well as a film about communication (or lack there of) and also reminds us that relationships are about not only utilising said communication with the other person, but also allowing ones self to be open to conversation. Simple scenes such as Gosling and Stone staying up all night talking, or the small heartfelt moment involving Carell and Moore outside their sons classroom during parents night are the type of scenes that can sink or swim romantic comedies (some don't even bother with such moments.) but when used well, they make the difference between a screenplay going though the motions, and something worthwhile. Crazy, Stupid, Love feels like a film that spent time revising what went well before to make sure it doesn't get pulled up for lack of interest. Because of this, I invested interest.

Review: Bad Teacher

2011-12-22T03:24:00.001Z

Year: 2011
Director: Jake Kasdan
Screenplay: Gene Stupnitsky, Lee Eisenberg
Starring: Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake, Jason Segal, Lucy Punch

Synopsis is here

I'm sure that there's a few people, who drop by this site, and read my negative reviews on comedies and probably think I have a humoroscopy. My last review on the quite lacklustre Horrible Bosses will probably have way more people disagreeing than agreeing with me but in the blogosphere it's expected. I won't be surprised that the same people who rated Horrible Bosses a high ranking 7.1 (as I write this) on the IMDB, took offence at the Cameron Diaz vehicle Bad Teacher and gave it the 5.7 it has to settle with.

After watching the two pretty much back to back, I've gotta say that at least Bad Teacher doesn't pull it's punches. The subject matter may not be as dark but the subversiveness is there. I laughed and tittered as Diaz revelled in a role she loved playing. I will not try and defend the fact the film is not one note, but there is enough in the performances (particularly Lucy Punch and Justin Timberlake) to keep me watching. The film has just enough brazen energy to keep things ticking.

Most of the energy comes from Diaz who comes across as an evil Dewey Finn. I liked her timing; as I have in the past, and there are small moments throughout the film involving her character I just enjoyed throughout. At one point we see that her also unsavoury flatmate would rather go out elsewhere than sit in and get "shitfaced" with her. The films car wash set piece is something one could see a mile off but still brings a silly giggle. It all seems to be down with how much you dig Diaz in the role. I've seen actresses that could perhaps do more, I know a ton that could do a lot less. However, Diaz did enough to make me want to see what will happen next in the next scene. I liked her interaction with the kids, as well as her drab banter with Jason Segal.

I guess Bad Teacher got me due to low expectations. Maybe I should watch films so late at night. Maybe I should have watched it separately from Horrible Bosses The arcs are predictable but they function well enough for say, people looking for a throwaway 90 minutes pizza movie. It's mean, but I saw a glint of the characters redemption early enough in the film to plough on ahead. It's a feminist nightmare but in all honesty, unlike some other movies, its clearly in jest and winking at the camera. I can't lie, I didn't think it was as bad as many others said. Maybe I did have a humoroscopy.

Review: Horrible Bosses

2011-12-21T01:15:00.001Z

Year: 2011
Director: Seth Gordon
Screenplay: Michael Markowitz, John Francis Daley, Jonathan M. Goldstein
Starring: Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Colin Farrell, Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Spacey

Synopsis is here

As someone who is usually easily amused at pretty much everything, it's a shame that I'm so dismayed at the mainstream American comedy. Sitting through Horrible Bosses only confirmed my fears. Negative grumbling's have stated that the film is racist and homophobic. I didn't think so; and as a dark comedy, I expect a film like this to go down paths that are a little risky. The troubling thing about Horrible Bosses is it's not outrageous enough, from it's pretty bland straight characters to it's lacklustre, quickly hashed out ending, the film just doesn't push the bar high enough. I'm not the biggest Hangover 2 fan, but despite the spitefulness that infiltrates that movie, it gets the point.

Take in case the man eating, boss character of Jennifer Aniston. The film does well to show off how well Aniston looks after herself. In fact at points I found her more attractive here then when she was younger in friends. But her sexiness distracts from her point in the movie. In the same way you're not fooled when Rachel Leigh Cook puts on her hipster glasses and claims nerd, you find it near hard to believe that Day's character is completely turned off by Aniston's advances. It would be more entertaining if we had some one you could consider less attractive. I may be wrong in saying that but I do feel more comedy could be pulled from Charlie Days revulsion if the antagonist wasn't a smoking hot babe. Think Matt Lucas' Bubbles in Little Britain.

In fact I found myself relating Horrible Bosses to some of the brilliant comedies that grace our screens now. Shows that are quicker with the jokes, push the bars of taste and decency further and are generally more amusing than their cinematic counterparts. A barrage of shows including Charlie Day's own It's always sunny in Philadelphia, hit their comedic marks harder than this 9 to 5 update. I pick Day's show not only because of the connection of line crossing comedy, but because Day's Pilot for It's always sunny cost $200 and was far more amusing with it's envelope pushing.

This isn't to say the film has it's moments. Despite undermining the comedy somewhat, Aniston is clearly game for a laugh, as is Farrell who both make the best out of their somewhat marginalised plots. It's obvious however that it's Spacey who has the most fun however, as he eats up his ignorant, arrogant asshole character with an extra large spoon. The three antagonist are infinitely more entertaining than the straight men who are difficult to even picture as friends let alone anything else. It's not that Bateman, Sudeikis or Day are particularly bad, it's just that they are bland. Take away some admittedly amusing, awkward scenes involving a certain Oscar winning actor and you realise that there's not that much that the trio take to the party.

Horrible Bosses is underbaked and forgettable and unfortunately comes at a time in which Television is bringing stronger, more outlandish, dark humour which are better with the references and does nasty right. A night in with a good series weighs in far better than this weak entry.

Review: Melancholia

2011-12-20T15:30:00.000Z

Year: 2011
Director: Lars Von Trier
Screenplay: Lars Von Trier
Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland

Synopsis is here

From nowhere; this celestial boulder, Melancholia appears from behind the sun and hurtles towards earth. When it connects, all life will be extinguished. Kirsten Dunst's Justine doesn't care, in fact for the most part this seems to be an afterthought. Reason being, it's clearly obvious that she's been dealing with a crushing pressure all her life.

Lars Von Triers' Antichrist was; for me, an excruciating bore. A beautiful; yet hideously unfocused piece, which tried too hard with it's Grand Guignol bloodletting and academic pandering to be involving in anyway. I still stand by my claim that many horror directors get slightest by some of the same things Von Trier placed on the table, and yet because of all the talk about thesis and the gorgeous visuals of the piece, the Dane gets a pass. Many will disagree with me there, but I'm digressing.

Melancholia is at times just as visually arresting as Antichrist, but is a far more precise being. Von Trier is far more accurate here and one of the reasons seems to be that the subject matter is closer to his heart. The dark clouds of depression loom large over both Antichrist and Melancholia but the latter shows a director whose far more in the mood to tackle (and even embrace) his demons then letting them run amok. Self absorption and pomp are still abound from the "best director in the world" but this is far more focused, far more at peace.

If Malick's Tree of Life was about the joy of life and the power of memory, Melancholia is the opposite. Tree of Life had Sean Penn's Jack reflecting on the various ways love was bestowed on him as a child. Here we are given a character in a deep state of depression (a subtle display by Dunst) whose hollowness clearly stems from a strained family relationship. An emasculated father (John Hurt in what appears to be a cameo), a scathingly bitchy and domineering mother (Charlotte Rampling) and a distraught sister Claire (Gainsbourg) who tries to care about her sister but is far too wrapped up by her own life. It is Claire and her husband John (a grumpy Sutherland) that has paid for Justine's wedding. Why isn't she happy? Why does she need to make a scene?

Much like Archipelago, the pain is hidden amongst the undergrowth as the family try and pain through a wedding that slowly detonates due to Justine's lack of well being. Told in two parts (named after the sisters) This half of the film is at times darkly amusing and appears to hark back to Festen (1995) by Domge 95 companion Thomas Vinterberg. Although; while visually more appealing, save for one moment, it's not nearly as scathing.

The second chapter, in which Melancholia becomes a stronger presence and begins to trouble Claire, is the stronger half of the story. As Justine becomes more depressed and yet more complacent about the end of the world, Claire becomes more anxious and worried. Von Trier's (and cinematographer Manuel Alberto Claro) visual eye excel here. We watch as Justine lies naked bathed in the glow of the alien planet while Claire frets in the shadows. Another telling visual involves John; a man whose constant denial for nearly everything that's going on be it the idea of Melancholia crashing into earth or his sister in law's illness, wrapping his arm around Claire as they watch the planet come closer. Much like Defoe's character in Antichrist, is controlling and ignorant and fully wishes to dictate the women round him. The simple gesture of the embrace as Justine stand alone speaks volumes when observing his character as a whole.

It is films like this is why I can admire Von Trier at times, even if I do not appreciate everything he does. Here, his use of music (a beautiful prelude from Richard Wagner's Tristan und Isolde) and visual eye combine to make a lavish and dark insight to depression. While the sci-fi hook Melancholia may come across as gimmicky and trite to some, it does help accentuate the themes that Von Trier wishes to place across. I've never been as depressed as Justine within the film but there's an accuracy about it I find hard to deny. We emphasise with her emptiness at the wedding as everyone else only seems to care about the shiny glossy surface of everything. Even the end of the world means nothing to her. As the others realise this and lose their heads, her clam exterior states everything it needs to. She's stared into the abyss long before them and no one cared. Nothing is going to change now.

Review: Hugo

2011-12-10T09:36:00.001Z

Year: 2011
Director: Martin Scorsese
Screenplay: John Logan
Starring: Asa Butterfield, Chloe Mortez, Sacha Baron Cohen, Ben Kingsley, Christopher Lee

Synopsis is here

To many people I know; Martin Scorsese is the "gangster guy". When the name comes up, most think Casino over The Age of innocence or Mean Streets over Kundun. So when Hugo was announced, the film was considered to some a major departure. It's not. In watching Hugo, I realise that this family film has Marty DNA richly ingrained. Those who know Marty from Goodfellas may feel a note get struck when The Great Train Robbery is referenced in the film. The sense of history and that roaming camera betrays the films position. Add to that the themes of film restoration and referencing and anyone whose read at least one interview of the man can see that this is Scorsese in personal mode. There's a lot in here that we've seen from the man before but under different guises. However this is not an ode to "trashy" genre like say Shutter Island, or a glitzy throwback to the golden age ( The Aviator) but a love letter to the very beginnings of cinema.

That Scorsese uses James Cameron's game changer (3D) to help construct this actually quite fascinating. The tool considered to some as the future of cinema (lets not bring up that 3D has been tried before in the past) is being utilised to help try and enrich the past. As a film viewer who doesn't have much time for 3D I will admit that the 3D is a vaguely interesting element of Hugo. Like so many (if not all) these 3D features I'm still not convinced of it's story telling aspects. I don't find putting on those ill fitting plastic glasses to watch a film helps make it a more immersed experience. However the 3D does enhance the Paris landscape somewhat. The thing is, I'd still be invested in the film's visuals, anyway as the film is gorgeous to look from the start. From the beautiful glass house "castle" of George Melies to the visual reference of Harold Lloyds Safety Last, to the set design of the station where most of the action is based. This a film that is beautiful to look at and very reminiscent of the jaunts of Jeunet

It is that beauty that kept me involved as the films first act is uncommonly unfocused and quite not very involving. From the opening prologue the film feels slightly disjointed and it's difficult to get a hold on the material. The film becomes much more comfortable in the second act when the film's plot and talk of silent cinema come into the foreground. This is great from a film student, cinephile, point of view. From a family film perspective however, the wish to combine the history of silent cinema into a film in which children are the main demographic places it in a similar place as fellow movie brat Spielberg with Tintin. We get a film which seems to be intended for children or family but seems to be more in touch with the geek crowd. Critics have given the film high praise and why wouldn't they, the history aspect caters to them. But the films awkward marketing and the U.S release of the film; placing it up against The Muppets when the week after had no wide releases, appears to betray a certain apprehension. In comparison to the opening act of Pixer's Wall-E which manages to combine aspects of early silent cinema, new age tech gimmicky and story and still keeps focus on the intended audience, I wouldn't be surprised if Hugo gets the same mixed response from kids that I saw from Rango this year.

While the film doesn't have as much charm as I expected, there's a sincerity that flows through the film constantly. The film (read Scorsese) is clearly in love with cinema. For someone like me it's hard not feel a chill as Ben Kingsley's Melies explaining a film set as thus: "If you ever wonder where your dreams come from, look around: this is where they're made." Hugo is a film that believes that cinema still has a certain power behind it. A highlight of this is a flashback situated in the middle of the film showing Melies creating one of his features and the ideals behind it. Similar scenes include the reacting of the first viewing of "Train arriving at a station" or when Chloe Mortez's character first witnesses a film for the first time. These moments seem lost and miles away when we now consider that we take the moving image for granted so easily nowadays. Hugo plays out like how those adverts which talk about "cinema only being worth seeing at the big screen" should play out. Scenes in which peoples love of cinema not only gets them to emote but come together are some of the films better moments.

This is fine for someone like me to go on about. Hugo tries to hack into that reason in why I love the cinema the way I do and to be honest I admire Scorsese's approach. The films lavish look, the nostalgic asides to story telling and dream making, the historical aspects that coincide with the story. It all falls into my romantic view of films and filmmaking; that it is more than just a happy go lucky diversion. That's fine for the 27 year old that I am now, but would the 8 year old approve? That I am not sure of.

Review: The Devil's Double

2011-12-05T12:23:00.001Z

Year: 2011
Director: Lee Tamahori
Screenplay: Michael Thomas
Starring: Dominic Cooper, Ludivine Sagnier

Synopsis is here

The main hook of The Devils Double is almost too bizarre to be true but the more you put into consideration the type of tyrants that we follow in throughout the film, the more typical the idea seems. Members of Saddam's family having doubles for certain occasions? Why the hell not? You can't be everywhere at once. It's even more handy when you consider the the high risk of assassination.

Based on the true story of Latif Yahia, The Devil's Double is a mixture of psychotic prince and unfortunate pauper as Latif is forced against his will to become the double for Saddam's Son Uday. Both roles are played by Dominic Cooper (I have only seen him in this and as Tony Stark's Dad in Captain America) a la Parent Trap Trickery (possibly) and yet you will never gain a moments confusion. Latif is stoic, upstanding and decent (although weakly accented by Cooper), while Uday is the type of Satan's gremlin that resides in the campfire stories of lesser villains in the films more showy yet stronger role.

Images and ideas of duality are abound, but no one will be looking at this with the identity struggle that inflicted the likes of Bergman's Persona, as the film plays out more in of the style of "Scarface in Iraq". Uday's world is one of excess over decency. Tyranny roams the landscape and Latif unfortunately must live in it as his likeness has seemingly trapped him in a unique hurt locker. That is keeps his sanity so well is not only a slight weakness of the film. His common decency makes him sympathetic, but almost saintly in consideration. Latif only falls into temptation with the flat female fatale character Sarrab; played by Ludivine Sagnier, whose allure is clear from her sultry looks and curves in the right places. This element of the film is not only typical of the genre the film is rolling in but also the most transparent. Sagnier's Sarrab has little to do apart from get Latif hot under the collar and boy does she. When Sagnier is given more to do the audience will probably not be surprised by what happens. This could be said of most of the narrative which delves into scenes of gory violence, sexual depravity and excess that would make Tony Montana feel slightly enviousness.

However, the film never lets up in terms of entertainment. Much like the little seen The Lincoln Lawyer, The Devil's Double works because it's a straight up crime film. Lee Tamahori has stated that the film is not supposed to be a political statement into the Iraq war and the bunkum idea that the film should completely follow the tracks of the true story, makes sure that the film can concentrate in being an avalanche of excess and madness. Strangely in it's extremity the film help create a particular kind of insight.While everything may not happen as the film states, it highlights the decadence of the regime it follows. Nearly all of the craziness is compiled in Cooper's whiny, buck toothed, bug eyed performance of Uday, who is as vile as he is fascinating. The battle that Cooper manages to instigate with himself is itself the reason to watch this film. If not for journey man Tamahori's assured direction of both action and drama. Nasty images of the invisible car fade have been replaced for a particularly golden palette and neatly crafted set pieces.

The Devils Double has Dominic Cooper fighting himself in more ways than one but it's a shame that the film keeps the polar opposites exactly as they are and refuses to make them merge. It's the seductiveness of the dark side (no matter how chaotic) that is missing from what is an effective and stylish crime film.

Review: 50/50

2011-11-30T15:26:00.001Z

Year: 2011
Director: Jonathan Levine
Screenplay: Will Reiser
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen and Anna Kendrick

Synopsis is here

There's always a chance that the something like 50/50 could have played out terribly. While I rather enjoyed Funny People I could easily see so many people viewing it as another typical Adam Sandler flick and avoid it like the plague. Sandler, Seth Rogan and Cancer? Not a what many are looking for in terms of films me thinks. While I did have a good time with that particular movie; the films humour being the most appealing to me, the characters were not as lucky. The film flip flopped in tone and there was an issue with length that should have been addressed.

50/50 has been labelled in certain areas as the "cancer comedy" in a similar, almost derogatory way that The Social Network was labelled "the facebook film". Such laziness explain the film in the most base manner and seem to actually do more to turn people off than get them to watch. It'll be a shame if people avoid 50/50 due to such simplistic descriptions (or a second appearance of Seth Rogan in a similar film) because the film's view of cancer is a sensitive one. It appears that a character (Rogan's) has a particularly vulgar attitude towards the whole thing and yet that ignoring his character arc due to taking everything he says at face value. A small but telling moment involving Rogan's Kyle says all you need to know abut his behaviour. While the role is slightly typecast, it is played out without some of the odd tonal shifts and expectations that some of the characters in Funny People. 50/50 works better as a comedy drama because it gets the balance right. When the film is funny (maybe save the trippy first chemo sequence) it's very funny. It notices the awkwardness of how we act in certain situations and grounds the humour well. It doesn't "go dark" for the sake of it, instead finding laughs in the people we see.

The smaller moments stand out in 50/50 a lot more than some of the more grand ones. A sequence involving a revel in a relationship is played out for awkward laughs and it does work (as do the various pop culture references within the film) but doesn't hit the same heights as the more intimate moment involving a fellow cancer sufferer (Matt "Max Headroom" Frewer no doubt) and his wife sharing a small kiss. It's not much, but there's a sincerity within those moments that seems to stem from a true place. Writer Will Reiser (the true story the film is inspired by) has a screenplay which features such slight observations that if one wasn't paying attention you could miss how they build the story. The film shows illness as what can be, a state of humdrum and limbo. A short montage of people asking those typical, basic questions and tending to the topic on eggshells is captured in perfect awkwardness. An unfortunate side plot involving Bryce Dallas Howard's Rachael (who seems to be getting some bitchy roles as of late) and Levitt's Adam character works not because Rachael is pompous and self centred (although there's more than a hint that she could be) but because when it comes to those tough moments where her role has to make more of a stand than is usually asked for, her age, emotions and reluctance appear to stem more from the difficulty of the situation above all else.

That the film suffers from the character of Adam being a tad too "fine" with everything, is an unfortunate aspect. When Levitt has to show true anguish, he does so well but the character at times feels quite laid back and the film itself feels slightly disjointed. While of course learning that one has cancer could perhaps give such a feeling, the film sometimes has the effect of small vignette's than a whole. I must also state that the feel nearly wastes the brilliance of the likes of Phillip Baker Hall and Anjelica Huston who light the screen with their small but perfectly formed performances.

Hollywood is an industry that loves to concentrate on youth. It's no surprise that we get films that seem to connect with the main target audience are ones such as Twilight (topping the charts as we speak). 50/50 asks us to stop and look at the briefness of our own mortality even at such a young age. That the film manages to do this well and provide some solids laughs without being truly offensive is a plus.

Review: Fast Five

2011-11-22T01:17:00.001Z

Year: 2011
Director: Justin Lin
Screenplay: Chris Morgan
Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Joanna Brewster, Dwayne Johnston

Synopsis is here

Regular readers can probably sense that the fast and the furious films aren't really my thing despite being pretty much the exact demographic for them. I mean if I were a fan, I would have clearly reviewed the film in April when the film actually came out. Such is life. As it happens the film came out to more fanfare than I expected, making a scary amount of money and slapping smack bang in the middle of the list of highest worldwide grosses. Making over $600million, I was shocked that there were that many boy racers.

Interestingly enough, it's the lack of the street racing element that makes fast five somewhat worthwhile. The constant shoehorning of these guys in the same typical street racing situations was getting more than a little dry. Also screenwriter Chris Morgan (writer of the dubious 4th film) seems a lot more comfortable with the series somehow.The film still drops scriptwriting brain farts. An example being a female character falls several stories through a shanty town roof before brushing herself and claiming she's pregnant. Another is the easily swayed loyalties of characters at the drop of a dime for the service of pushing it's somewhat generic heist plot. However with this said; the story is entertaining enough, the humour is also a touch better and this time round despite the superhero prowess of it's leads (seriously, only Batman could take Diesel's Dominic character) there is an emotional crux within the film.

Don't be expecting too much from this muscle bound, dumb Oceans 11 with cars though. I say there's emotion in the film but don't look for complexity (like anyone watching is looking for that). The film does enough to make some of these characters worth watching for it's 130 run time (far too long for a film so basic) but don't expect secondary characters to be worth a damn. Plus, if you've had an issue with the treatment of women in this franchise previously, then don't expect any turnaround changes. Although like the naff pop rap that comes with the movie, the extremities are toned down slightly.

Fast Five is once again WYSWYG although it seems that there's steadier footing. The performances are what they are (I don't think I'll ever get on with Paul Walker) and while the stunts defy logic they are do creating a certain amount of awe to proceedings. One must also note that the inclusion of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnston injects some much needed energy. It's a shame that his Tommy Lee Jones character is sidelined for the films duller, generic main villain. With this said, the fact that there's a Fast Six in production not only gives us hope of a larger role for him, but says everything it needs to about the franchise. Bloggers like me be damned, the boy racers will have their day once more.

Sorry

2011-11-21T21:56:00.001Z

Created by Oatmeal

I haven't blogged for a while. Expect reviews soon!

Review: Beats Rhymes & Life: The Travels of A Tribe Called Quest

2011-11-08T20:11:00.000Z

Year: 2011
Director: Michael Rapaport
Starring: Q-Tip, Phife Dogg, Ali Shaheed Muhammad

I can almost pinpoint the main moments when I became a hip-hop fan. It was 1995-1996. It was when Batman forever came out and I brought the soundtrack CD which featured Method Man's The Riddler. That period of time I remember owning Gangsters Paradise by Coolio. Skip forward two years and I was introduced to the Radio 1 Rap Show and Channel 4's late night "Flava" program by my mate Darren. It was around that time I asked my father to bring me back some CD's as he went to see his sister in America. One of the albums he brought back was People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm. That's when I became A Tribe called Quest fan.

Maybe there was a sub-concious thing going on under the surface, but the purchase of that album clearly shaped my taste in the genre, perhaps more than I even know. Since then I've not only become a hip-hop fan, but a certain type of hip hop fan. East Coast rapper? New York in particular? Concious lyrics? Good chance I'll want to listen to you. I've got Dre, Snoop and Tupac albums and while I have time for rap that gets a little "thuggish". However that certain brand of hip-hop, often misguidedly considered alternative or emo* is what often appears when I shuffle my tracks on my Ipod. Tribe didn't just subscribe to that brand, they damn near invented many aspects of it.

So now we come to Beats, Rhymes & Life (aptly named after the Tribes more sobering forth album), a rarity in music documentary in that a hip-hop group go under the microscope. Considering the turbulent and eclectic life of hip-hop as a whole; from it's D.I.Y grass-roots foundations as a genre, to the multi-million dollar business rap has become. I'm always a little shocked at the lack of films (documentaries especially) with hip hop at it's core. Nick Bloomfield's revealing Biggie and Tupac and the fun loving Scratch by Doug Pray are great entries, and many will mention Style Wars as part of the stable. Yet, the handful of known and unknown films out there don't compare to other genres especially when it comes to artists.

This is where Rapaport's film kicks in. Its energetic first act half starts with a title sequence that not only highlights the band and the vibrancy they brought, but reminds one of the same bold, colourful entrance that Spike Lee gave Do the Right Thing. The film then follows a quite typical music documentary narrative, which ebbs and flows much like so many of it's ilk. This doesn't stop the film (especially the first segments) from being informative, engaging and funny.

What makes the Tribe the perfect hip-hop candidate for a documentary is their personalities as a group and as individuals. We discover that Q-Tip is the creative force and while no one would like to say he's the leader, it is him that conveys the drive of the artist. Despite having a nickname "the abstract" Tip at times comes across as calculating and focused. Phife on the flip side is the the more raw of the two rappers, a diabetic sports fan who's addicted to sugar. The more outspoken and impulsive of the two, many of the taking heads reference his punchlines and lyrics throughout the movie. The very different voices of the duo is pointed out at one moment (Tip - Calm and collected lyricism, Phife - High pitched, rougher flow) and what is interesting is that their lyrical style also mirror their off-stage personalities.

It's no surprise that as the film moves on, Phife becomes the heart of the film, while Q-Tip slowly evolves into what could be the antagonist of the piece. The films first half with it's wit, charm and sheer abashed love of the music and what it brought to people and each other is soon lost to a more dramatic focus as the film settles on Phife's illness and the varying factors that lead to the groups split. It's no surprise that Q-Tip is angry at the movie, as while the film doesn't paint him as evil, it does do a good job of angling Tip as the biggest factor in the tribe becoming archipelagos. Jerobi, who left the group early and Ali the DJ sit awkwardly on the sidelines as the film tries to make us take sides between the ill Phife and the more driven Tip. It's in these moments that film doesn't work as well as it could as it becomes as fragmented as the group themselves.

The film works best as a celebration of not only the music but of the artists that Tribe help bring to the surface. Talk of the creation of People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm and The Low End Theory are highlights. There are talking heads of Common, Pete Rock, Beastie Boys and Pharrell (one of the most revealing in terms of a new generation artist talking about the old school) share small insightful moments. The films credits feature brief snippets of Mos Def and Talib Kweli and quite simply...they don't get enough to say.

This doesn't sway from Beats Rhymes & Life from being a ineffective movie. The concert footage is full of energy. The short history of the group and their childhood is milder than one would expect and this along with the the nature of the tribe and the image they portray is handled well by Rapaport. An actor by trade (True Romance, Special, Bamboozled), his first feature film is clearly a documentation of something he loves. His off screen voice can hardly contain the excitement.

Beats Rhymes and Life left me grinning although I wish Rapaport took a little more from Doug Pray's book and less from Joe Berlingers. A Tribe called quest are not Metallica and while the film doesn't have that Spinal Tap feel that Some kind of Monster has, it fares better when it concentrates on the love over the arguments. Q-Tip states early on that after the Rock the Bells tour, the only time the group will be back together is is they qualify for the Rock and Roll hall of fame. Beats, Rhymes & Life is at it's best when it showcases joy and creation of the music that will hopefully make that possible.

*Emo rap is a bullshit term to give hip-hop that isn't isn't ghetto or gangster. Why? Because before the now more common, mainstream view of hip-hop or rap as aggressive thuggery and the materialistic bling era. Hip-hop was music which at times often had a real voice and message, be it social, political or otherwise. The idea that anything that doesn't talk about "bitches" and "money" and all that other nonsense must be labelled (often somewhat negatively) degrades and sidelines what hip-hop was and can be about.

Review: The Ward

2011-11-03T14:28:00.001Z

Year: 2010 (U.K release 2011)
Director: John Carpenter
Screenplay: Michael Rasmussen, Shawn Rasmussen
Starring: Amber Heard, Lyndsy Fonseca, Danielle Panabaker

Synopsis is here

Note: Titles I mention in the last paragraph really give the game away with this feature. You've been warned.

In my opinion The Ward is a bland film film. Straight up. It is a rote and derivative piece that comes from a director who should know better but perhaps doesn't give a damn. It has one main objective; to scare, and it doesn't manage this in the slightest. As a horror film this is cardinal sin. Not only have we've seen this being done millions of times before, we've seen this being done miles better film-makers that haven't even been around the block as much as Carpenter. A young girl trapped in a mental hospital isn't a tough sell to a genre junkie but the distinct lack of tension and tone make this one to avoid.

To focus on what's good for a second, Carpenter's film looks slick enough. It's by no means an ugly feature (which strangely could be part of the problem) and is at times visually interesting in particular the use of light and steadycam shots. Also considering that found footage is the biggest thing going right now, it's nice to see a film that tries to hit its marks with old school techniques. You get the feeling that The Ward has one eye in the past and wants to invoke the likes of Shock Corridor which isn't really a bad thing. Carpenter's film is distinctive as well because; despite casting some of the genre's most attractive stars, the film does not attempt to sexualise them in any way. The film wants us to look at the girls for who they are and not how they are represented in a Maxim cover.

The problem is that with John had done the bad thing and sexed up matters at least I'd have something to talk about. The cast play no-note characters and they play them pretty badly. We do not know why they are locked in the ward and the film doesn't do anything to try and make us care. As frustrating as it is to watch yet another hot girl get stabbed-athon, it's still something compared to here in which we see the right things done wrong. Amber Heard isn't the greatest actress in the world but she does have a certain amount of presence to her. The fact that the film plays down her sexuality and yet gives her nothing else to grasp onto irritates, as we could have really been on to something.

The film, despite it's setting is eerily lacking in tone. Something that Carpenter usually does pretty damn well. This is no music video hack using the horror film to grab that Hollywood ladder, Carpenter has always been great at layering the right atmosphere to films like this.However, the hospital locale is not used to it's full potential while the soundtrack could really do with the kind of minimalist score Carpenter is also famed for add this to the vapid characters and your in for a naff night of fright.

The whole thing is pretty generic. I only just watched it and already I'm forgetting what's happened in it. I say that, but the film reeks of other movies that do similar things better. Spoiler alerts abound when I say this but if you've seen Identity (2003) Shutter Island (2010) or Session 9 (2001) (amongst other titles) then The Ward only needs to be viewed if your a Carpenter completest.

Review: We Need to Talk about Kevin

2011-11-02T21:17:00.001Z

Year: 2011
Director: Lynne Ramsay
Screenplay: Lynne Ramsay, Rory Stewart Kinnear
Starring: Tilda Swinton, John C. Reilly, Ezra Miller

Synopsis is here

NOTE: My review is not explicit about major events in the film but there is enough written that might annoy. If you are sensitive about such matters, you may wish to watch the film first. In short, I dug this film.

The films most troubling moment comes at the end of the film. A gesture is made which asks the viewer "could you?" The gesture is so slight and unassuming and yet it displays details so much about the films central relationship. The same scene makes sure also carefully makes sure that one is left in the dark from other questions you might have answered, particularly the one we always ask when such tragedies occur.

Eschewing the episodic nature of the novel (Eva writes letters to her husband Franklin) We need to talk about Kevin comes across as part Elephant (Gus Van Sant, 2003) and Joshua (2007, George Ratliff) but doesn't lose any of the spirit of the book. While Ramsay's film seems to have softened Eva somewhat (this view may be very dependant on personal perspective) but the themes of nature versus nature and love unconditional still stand strong. Said themes lie upon the board acting shoulders of one Tilda Swinton, whose complex and problematic performance carries the weighty burdens of guilt and shame easily, along with the larger issues at hand.

Swinton, dominates the film with a towering performance that helps raise the questions both the book and the film ask.While film does take away some of the background of the book and gives us a more streamlined story (Eva's throwaway mentions of America's political landscape; for example, are stripped away) this doesn't make Swinton portrayal of Eva any less conflicting. Small scenes; such as the doctor asking Eva not to resist during childbirth, or one of the earliest moments of Eva living life to the full in a tomato throwing festival slowly build up the image of a woman who believes that motherhood was thrust upon her. Even Eva look (with no offense to the brilliant Swinton) is not one of a mother. Well, not one we usually prescribe to. The look that lingers on Swinton's face throughout is a mixture of doubt and fear. The book furthers the detail of the hesitations but Swinton's ability to carry a scene and Ramsay's simple yet sharply shot scenes help place the message in the forefront.

Swinton's features become even more haunting as you see her paired up with Ezar Miller who plays the titular Kevin. The similar look of the pair is spurred on by their personalities. Eva's inner reluctance is mirrored by the external acting out of Kevin. The relationship slowly becomes a battle of wills more than anything loving. As Kevin grows, he seemingly tests his mother. From his incessant screaming when in her arms (observe the silence when in his fathers), to the answering back, to the teenage aloofness he displays before the so called Thursday event. We question her issues, as only she that holds any fears or frets about Kevin and her selfishness is clearly evident. In the early stages everything done can be attributed to merely a child being a child. As the film continues one may ask is Kevin's behavior due to the coldness of his own mother? Is this attention seeking at it's most extreme?

Ramsay tackles the books obstacle of unreliable narrator with visual aplomb (Atonement's Seamus McGarvey as Cinematographer) and splintered narrative structure. Told in flashback; Eva is often introduced into scenes with obscured, out of focus shots that pulled into focus, highlighting the haze of memory. She is surrounded constantly by the bold uses of the cautionary colour of red. Blood? Danger? When we first meet Eva she's drenched in tomato clearly in love with the moment, later we see her washing and scraping red paint off her house. Interestingly enough both can be looked at the same way depending on how you feel on the situation.

A sparse score from Johnny Greenwood and a bout of sound design racks up the mood and tension with timebomb sounding sprinklers and teeth gritting scrubbing. The most telling use of sound is the awkward moment when Eva relieves the tension of a constantly screaming Kevin by standing next to construction work.

However, this is a film based mostly on performances. Swinton is in excellent form here. Eva is a selfish mother but one we still care for in a peculiar way. This is down to Swinton's ability to draw emotions from places that many wouldn't be able to. Her body language shows us a character battered by guilt. We grow frustrated by her impatience of her own child and yet as the film rolls to it's conclusion we still share empathy...to a point. Ramsey's film stands on a knifes edge when it comes to the blame game. Ezar Millar shines well here as Kevin and does well to hide the menace under a veneer of teen aloofness. The film isn't as ambiguous with his character as it could be (Millar often looks just a bit one note evil) but this doesn't exclude him from doing the part well enough. John C Riley settles into a role that reminds us how well he can do oblivious (see Magnolia), and what is it with him this year with films with missing hamsters?

We need to talk about Kevin is one of the highlights of the year for me. A tense psychological drama which drums up difficult questions we often find reluctant to answer. Is Kevin a monster? To many, he is. If we were to read the paper of a true event that takes place within the movie we would denounce Kevin very quickly. We would quickly shove pop psychology (see: this entire blog) into the situation and make ourselves feel better as we try and make the matter more digestible. We have to as the real reasons are far too horrible to even try and rationalise. This film toys with our simple notions and knocks the foundations enough to disturb.

Review: The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of of the Unicorn

2011-10-30T20:09:00.000Z

Year: 2011
Director: Steven Speilberg
Screenplay: Steven Moffat, Joe Cornish, Edgar Wright
Starring: Jamie Bell, Daniel Craig, Andy Serkis

Synopsis is here

I can't lie here. I've been putting this Tintin review off. This is mostly due to me not thinking of anything witty or engaging to say about the film. However the biggest problem is how I wasn't won over with the final product. The motion capture (I'm NOT saying mo cap as I'm over the age of 15) was amongst the best I've seen. We have a group of actors that are clearly game for the project and a director whose more than capable to producing something special. But by the end of the film I was considerably underwhelmed. I found myself asking those questions that those who enjoy the film (and there will be many) will ignore.

My first query came about as soon as we met our intrepid reporter. Tintin, a character that is known for purposely being a blank slate is portrayed quite accurately as one, but he's also a protagonist who manages to be quite smart. Almost too smart you could say as here we have a character who will question something and answer it straight away almost eliminating whatever mystery that could have been had.

You see, it comes so easy for the boy and while it's great to have such a sprightly and smart character, there never appears to be that element of risk. The stakes don't seem as high as they could be. While that appeared to be fine with me on the page (the comics) or small screen (Animated series) when I was a youth, here I struggled to get to grips with how safe everything felt.

I guess that's why some had/have a problem with the motion capture aspect of the film Much like how many critics talk about the soullessness of CGI, it's difficult for some to get on board with a film that is completely motion captured. I didn't have too much of an issue with the effects. It allows Spielberg to complete set pieces which would be nearly impossible with the usual human mixture. In that bizarre way how life weaves it's web, I watched Tintin a day after hearing the death of a stuntman on The Expendables 2. I'm fine with such aspects limiting such tragedies, I do hope however, that the stories are as formidable as the effects.

Visually, the film is stunning at points and Spielberg manages to add his trademark wit to many of the scenes. It's worth watching; not the main narrative of the story, but whatever may be going on at the side of the screen. Snowy is a dog that at times has his very own adventure going on in the background and one could miss a chucklesome moment because of it.

The performances are also worthwhile. Daniel Craig is clearly having a bit of fun as the bad guy, while Jamie Bell is a snug enough fit for the titular Tintin. It is however the work of Andy Serkis that tops the cast list. Serkis; the Lon Cheney of motion capture, reminds us that he really is one of Britain's best secret weapons. We love to fawn over the work of the likes of Gary Oldman, Judy Dench and the like but ask yourself this: When was the last time you saw him in a weak performance? Serkis provides the film with it's heart which helps illuminate the film much more than it's main character.

I think my main problem with the film is how formless it appears to me. I don't expect rigid three act structure to every film I see, but there's no build or peak to the film. Save for a monologue from Serkis' Captain Haddock and a delightfully full on set piece in the final third, I found myself difting in and out of the film.While I know Tintin is a blank slate in the comics, did he have to be here? Was there anything that could have been done to up the stakes? Why didn't I get the chills I get with other Spielberg projects? Once again I'm in the minority but I found Tintin passable and yet forgettable. However, I'm interested in what Peter Jackson will do with the sequel once he is done with middle earth.

Review: A Dangerous Method

2011-10-26T22:30:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: David Cronenberg
Screenplay: Christopher Hampton
Starring: Micheal Fassbender, Viggo Mortensen, Kiera Knightley

For my second (and unfortunately last) film at the LFF, I was quite taken back when; for the screening of A Dangerous Method, we were greeted by one David Cronenberg. So surprised was I, that in trying to take a picture of the great man I only got blurry images. I was a little bit gutted as if I had known that there was a chance of seeing the filmmaker I would have set up my camera properly as opposed to the nonsense I took. This is yet again, something else to log down on my list of shame.

Shame is something that rears it's head within the DNA of A Dangerous Method as the pivotal character of the film Sabina (Knightley) is wrought with it. Carried to hospital kicking, screaming and giggling manically; she is brought to the attention of Dr Carl Jung (Fassbender). It is he, who decides to use the method of "talking cure" from his friend and mentor Dr Sigmund Freud (Mortensen) to try and find the foundation of her sickness. This action correlates and intensifies as the young practice of psychoanalysis slowly grows from the relationships formed.

Martyn Conterio; founder of the wonderful film site Cinemart (can you spot the cheap plug), mentioned to me that he considers A Dangerous Method to be the quintessential Cronenberg. I'm not so sure. To me it's clearly one fascinating (and talky) part of a grander overture of his themes (repressed sexuality, the body at fault from the inside), especially in this section of his career, where it is the mind that is diseased (Spider = memory, Eastern Promises and A History of violence = personality and character) and yet there is a dryness in the film that is difficult to shake off. Cronenberg himself stated at the beginning that it is up to us to decide whether we consider the film good or bad. I indeed liked whats going on but considering previous efforts I was surprised how cold the film felt.

Many of the films scenes involves our three leads, hashing things out calmly with analysis and talk (sprinkled liberally with some light S&M), that nearly always end as a revelation or small discovery for each of the characters. Scenes are presented stylishly with many a face in extreme close up, conversing with someone else further back, mimicking Freuds "talking cure". It is obvious that these conversations shared are councilling sessions or as you could consider in Jungs case (much to Freuds disgust) confessionals with characters discussing their moods, methods and reasoning in such an analytical way that you are constantly held at a distance. Sometimes, it's a tad too much.

Cronenbergs film is very restrained, which is fair enough as we don't need exploding heads. However, considering the pedigree of the director at hand, the amount film holds back, diminishes much of the impact that could have had. In comparison to Spider; which did so well in making sure that the main character's surroundings, became his own personal circle of hell, you get the feeling that we could have got even more with this than we receive.

The film's main strengths are in it's casting. Mortensen strangely feels like how I would expect Freud to be despite never seeing a moving image. His cool wit, help defuse some of the film slightly when it wonders into it's pondering a little too deeply. Fassbender is fine here however with word coming from journalists about his second turn with Steven McQueen, and from what I've seen in other features (I love him in Fish Tank) I once again expected the world from him. Here, he is a little distilled. Knightley plays a character that I feel some will find frustrating at first, although she becomes stronger as the film continues on. It's her arc which is the strongest. Some of the films stronger scenes rely of Sabina's hold on the rigid form of Freud and the slightly more emotionally conflicted Jung. This isn't just the female as the prize and Knightley almost straddles both positions of damaged and healer, although her "mania" (all jutted out jaws and arching arms) feels slightly cartoonish at times. This is still a brave endeavour from a girl who is more believable here as a psychiatrist, than a pirate.

For me, A Dangerous Method; much like Crash holds you at such an arms length that it's not as engaging as one would hope for. A late emotional moment caught later on, involving Jung sits awkwardly with the rest of the films goings on. The film feels most at home with a charming little conversation with Fassbender and a quick cameo from Vincent Cassell. The conversation involves sexual liberation by breaking past the social constraints we've built up for ourselves. With Cassell playing the devil on shoulder, the idea that allowing total expression and response from sexual pleasure and bypassing the our human rules harks us back to a young Cronenberg playing with sex slugs in Shivers making similar points with cheaper special effects. Despite the response not being as strong, it's interesting to see how the mighty have evolved.

Note: I really loved how the title itself means more than it lets on and can be applied in a variety of ways. Ebert mentions the same aspect much more eloquently about A History of Violence. Also it was interesting how the title cards were presented to us a similar approach was used in Spider. Nothing major just some observations.

Review: Carnage

2011-10-20T18:53:00.001+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Roman Polanski
Screenplay: Roman Polanski, Yasmina Reza
Starring: Christoph Waltz, Kate Winslet, John C Reily, Jodie Foster

Synopsis is here:

The film is simple. Two couples meet to civilly discuss a violent incident involving their children. Both couples dislike each other as well as their own relationships but seem compelled by their hate to remain in the room they are in. There is nothing stopping these people to leave the house (one couple almost make it twice) and yet they remain to take chunks out of each other. Their conversation devolves into childish squabble at a swift pace, covering all sorts of uncomfortable areas and philosophies. Awkward glances transform into emotional sideswipes, forced politeness descend into racial slurs. Much like Bunel's "The Exterminating Angels" Polanski gives us a brisk 80 minutes to remind us that our so called civility that we love to utilise to lord above other people (or animals) is fragile veneer nearly always willing to crack when the right pressure is applied. The film is a claustrophobic black farce with four characters who make the bastards in Closer look like Care Bears. Polanski hasn't had this fun in ages.

This is the Polanski of old, back in the apartments (see Repulsion or The Tenant) while liberally sprinkling in that enclosing feeling that haunted the images of Knife in the Water. As Polanski turns the screws you can literally see the walls crumble around these characters, so relentlessly absorbed in their own little worlds that they come across as just as childish as the kids they came to talk about. The mud is slung thick and fast and the dialogue rolls off the fork tongues with devilish glee. Polanski remains uncomplicated visually as the actors do the heavy lifting.

Craftily casted, all four performances are finely tuned, with all managing to gain laugh out loud moments, be it the bash faux homeliness of John C Reily or the droll one liners of a carnivorous Christoph Waltz. Winslet as the cold, status fuelled wife of Waltz gets the best moment of physical comedy (I didn't expect such a moment from a Polanski film) while Jodie Foster lets loose as a passive aggressive bleeding heart liberal whose whiney protests for peace through culture brought some of the most amusement from myself.

My opinion of the film is simple. One of the two films I've seen this year at the London Film Festival (work commitments have slimmed my viewing) is a tightly wound, hystercal black comedy, from a director who even nearer 80 has not lost his sharpness when it comes to the middle class climbing up the walls of their closed in apartments. I'm not sure I've laughed harder at times this year.

Review: Warrior

2011-10-03T02:33:00.001+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Gavin O'Connor
Screenplay: Gavin O'Connor, Cliff Dorfman, Anthony Tambakis
Starring: Tom Hardy, Nick Nolte, Joel Edgerton

Synopsis is here

I had the wonderful pleasure of watching Warrior in a cinema all to my self today. While I understand that the U.K is going through an Indian summer of sorts with all this sun despite going into October, my love of cinema always beats out my wish for a decent tan. It was a joy to have a screen to myself for a film like Warrior; the problem however, is that I had the cinema all to myself. Much like two years ago with Whip it, I found myself watching a sports film that does almost everything right and yet, empty seats...Their loss I guess.

It's not just here in the U.K either though, as Warrior's takings in the U.S were very weak also with takings that would make a premiership footballer wet himself with laughter. I've not looked into any of the reasons offered to why Warrior failed but it's pretty unfortunate for a film which has all the traits of a modern update of Rocky. Much like Stallone's crowdpleaser, Warrior comes out as America is in a state of discombobulation. However while Rocky came out during the back end of Watergate and the Vietnam War and won over audiences who had been gorging on a diet of brilliant (yet ambiguous) American new wave. The fact that Warrior has struggled to set the box office alight against a backdrop of economic stress and middle eastern wars while millions was spent on horrid nostalgia fuelled multi-metal nightmares with dubious philosophies shows that not only William Goldman is still right and "nobody knows anything", but in terms of film viewing we have a vastly different audience when it comes to going to the cinema.

I really hope Warrior finds a fanbase on DVD as despite it's flaws, the film is an highly entertaining Drama in a similar vibe to The Fighter and The Wrestler. It has a more intriguing family dynamic, but is unfortunately held back by the typical cliche minefield that the sports film can bring. The film is very obvious in it's direction with it's clear as a bell indicators (family photos and the like) and we can guess what's going to happen a mile off. It doesn't help that the film makes sure that our "split loyalties" fall heavily over one of the fighters. Ambiguity is not an option. We can also add to the list that for a film that is 140 minutes long, the central conflict feels slightly abstract. I'm a bit surprised more wasn't made from it.

None of this however, detracts from the fact that Warrior has three solid performances that make sure that make the drama work. Tom Hardy's dark and brooding performance show that it's not only the frame that make him a prime choice for Bane. Joel Edgerton (last seen in the brilliant Animal Kingdom) is on winning form here as he has what I would consider a harder part to play. Nick Nolte is the glue that holds everything together and gives an Award baiting performance. Usually such displays can annoy but Nolte hits the nail on so many scenes that it's more than worthwhile.

Warrior is very much a film of it's time, with it's fighters not only dealing with their relationship problems (this is a family of men ripped apart by aggression), but also the socio-political issues we face at this very moment. Hardy's Tommy is a post 9/11 fighter whose past is troubled with what was seen in the wars of the middle east, while Edgertons Brenden paints a worrying picture of a man whose hit hard by the economical downturn. The idea that those who teach the next generations cannot sustain themselves is something is is quickly hitting home, with a pivotal scene in a bank proving that those below the breadline are merely statistics in the green tinted eyes of the banks. The film plays out such moments with more than enough confidence.

My review of Warrior comes across as more negative than it should be. The film is solid, glossy, life-affirming entertainment all the way through. The MMA fighting hasn't reached the visceral punch that certain boxing films have but for the first MMA feature, the fights have enough crunch to them. The drama is held up by great performances and the film has Kurt Angle as a silent Russian cage fighter (what's not to love about that?). The film does what a decent sports drama should do and that's having you punching the air at all the right moments. As I had the screen to myself I did so with gusto.

Review: Drive

2011-09-26T16:14:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Nicolas Winding Refn
Screenplay: Hossein Amini
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Ron Perlman, Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks, Albert Brooks.

Synopsis is here:

If I wanted to act clever; when talking about Drive, I'd say something along the lines of: A brutal symphony, tinged with flecks of 80's nostalgia and machismo. But people who read this blog often should know that smarts aren't my strong point. Hell, I'm not even sure what I just said makes a lick of sense, so it's probably best to say that I felt Drive was a damn fine piece of Trash.

It's a film that clearly knows it's style over substance (there's really not much too it in terms of subtext) but WHAT style. Old school car chases (you know ones where you can see what's going on), unsubtle overblown moments in slow motion and brutality that one could describe as hyper violence. Huff Post writer and prominent blogger Scott Mendelson hated the movie and likened it to a direct to DVD feature. However, I disagree entirely. Unlike many direct to DVD films, Drive doesn't mince words and puts its visuals, sense of place and tone to good use. Like Mendelson I don't see any underlying symbolism but I don't think the film is trying to hand any and it's all the better for it.

Drive appears like a throwback to Bullett. We have a strong silent "hero", whose intentions are good but morals are cloudy. It's easy to get frustrated at the films desire to eschew dialogue in place of lingering glances and thoughtful pauses, at first I found the film a tad clumsy with the films characters and their initial meetings with Gosling coming across a little awkward at first. However as the film goes on, the actors, their characters and the film begin to fit in their skin. We see moments involving Gosling's Driver and Carey Mulligan's Irene pretending to act like a normal family or relationship. We know this is not true throughout and I do believe it shows in the acting. From the tenuous smiles to the faux small talk we sense a connection but one that may be tragic. It great to see a relationship develop like this without the need to frivolous, throwaway trite dialogue.

It would be easy to dismiss Gosling's Driver as having a lack of backstory, however the film informs us of everything we need to know about the character in other ways. Listen to how his boss Shannon (a wonderfully on form Bryan Crannston) talks about how this drive literally dropped from the sky, look at the bare walls of the drivers apartment and how he lives (particularly at his simple rules as a getaway driver). Most importantly the films last moments involving the driver do sum up the characters life, relationships and how they interact when placed together with everything else placed together. No the film is not "deep" in the way I would describe something like Tree of Life is (or wishes to be if your a detractor) and lets not fool ourselves into thinking that this is ground breaking cinema but Drive, like Hanna, is taking generic genre tropes and taking them in different directions. It's 80's style soundtrack and slick visual style (one that does feel like a Euro director filming in America) mixed with an almost teenage angst and hardcore violence do make it stand out and the mixture of actors and direction do give it it's own voice. Compare this to something like Takers which truly wears it's generic elements on it's sleeve and I do feel you can see Drives clear strengths.

Gosling and Mulligan grow into their roles (still not fully getting the love), while Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman take pleasure in their antagonistic parts. The cast all work well, although I'm very disappointed at the fact that Christina Hendricks has even less to do than Mulligan. The star of the film however I feel, is the action. Like Hanna, we are given well executed, expertly handled set pieces (the beginning reminds me of the "slow car chase" of way of the gun at points) which grind and crunch as well as gearboxes that get worn down. Every violent act carries real weight, unlike the films pace which unlike the last Refn film I watched (Bronson) is far more breezy than I expected.

I, like so many others loved Drive, it's as brash and ballsy as the muscle cars it exhibits. It's polished design is light years away from the chaos cinema we've seen so much of in recent cinema. An old school action film with art house strands that keeps things simple and the entertainment high.

Review: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

2011-09-16T20:06:00.001+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Tomas Alfredson
Screenplay: Bridget O'Conner, Peter Straughan
Starring: Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, John Hurt, Toby Jones, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch

Synopsis is here:

At one point in the movie Kathy Burke's supporting character mentions that the second world war were happier times because at least then you were proud to be English. Burke's small almost throw away statement is one the solidarity she felt at the time of war, now lost due to an alleged mole at the head of the "circus" (MI6). This for me is the crux of Tinker Tailor Solder Spy; a film which, almost ironically comes out at a peak of general mistrust from all around Britain.

This film adaptation of John La Carre's novel is a complex and complicated thriller, and what drives it isn't so much who the much talked about actually mole is (although I'm happy I didn't guess it straight away), but more on how loyalty is brought and corrupted. The film's seemingly low key climax is one that displays how far trust has been stretched for the wish for control. The film's final montage of the stellar cast (a beautiful mixture of both big and small screen actors) shows how deep the scars have been inflicted on these people.

Alfredson's film works so well because it take time over showing how deeply isolated the spy game is. Close relationships are broken, belittled and bargained for, information is called gold dust for good reason and moral compasses are as murky as the films cold, drab colour scheme that Alfredson utilises to enhance the tone of the film. The film is literally as grey as the the shades these characters dwell in.

Let's be very clear about this, this is no Bond or Bourne movie. The lines are never drawn out and the information we receive is drip feed to us. Alfredson demands that we hold attention for this movie and those who do will be rewarded. Dialouge is often coded and it's important to see the slight changes within a characters face rather than the words they speak. The film never speaks down to you, and Alfredson is happy to tell the films story within the visuals and the body language of the characters. The pinnacle of this lies in the performance of Gary Oldman who at 53 plays George Smiley as if he's at least 12 years older. We discover everything we need to know from the eyes behind the thickly rimmed spectacles. One of the films highlights is superbly crafted monologue by Oldman in which his brief meeting with the mysterious Karla highlights all the emotion the crackles beneath the surface. In watching the brief recollection we see that it's how the story is told (pinpointing the exact moments of loss both professionally and emotionally) that really makes what is said hit home as hard as it does. The film is littered with such moments. Vast amounts of information communicated not by trite dialogue, but solemn glances and knowing looks.

I loved this movie not only because of its brilliant cast and delicately sombre tone, but its an eye for detail and a wish to let said details envelop around you. The film makes sure you know it's two hours long and makes sure that every character is accounted for. The depth we manage to gain from even one scene of some the supporting roles is at times astonishing. Those who rely on the summer sun blockbuster guns, girls and car chases will be sorely disappointed that Commissioner Gordon doesn't do any physical ass kicking here. But those looking for an adult feature will find much to gain from it. The paranoia lies within the characters as thickly as the dusty old rooms they inhabit. The relationships and trust these people have worked so hard to build is on a constant knife edge. Despite being a period piece (Early 70's) the understands that even now in the age of information it's all about holding the right cards. Everyone here has poker faces to die for.

Review: The Guard

2011-09-13T00:41:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: John Michael McDonagh
Screenplay: John Michael McDonagh
Starring: Brendan Gleeson, Don Cheadle, Mark Strong

Synopsis is here

As The Guard is an Irish film, it's no surprise to me that I have to scraper to an art house cinema chain in a small town in order to catch a screening. I didn't do too much reading into it due to a mixture of time and a general not-particularly-botheredness about it. However due to a Q & A screening for Red State being pulled and me managing to watch the film elsewhere, I took a plunge on the film as I had nothing else to do with my time. A couple of hours later and I come out of one of my favourite films of the year. A deceptively touching story, a character actor knocking his lead performance out of the park and a screenplay with dialogue as charming and witty as it is un P.C.

It's no surprise that the director John Michael McDonagh is the brother of In Burges director Martin McDonagh as The Guard features the same knockabout humour which made the 2008 hitman comedy a popular cult favourite. The buddy comedy aspect is also with both films however this film is much more interested in playing around with the particular sub-genre, turning aspects on it's head and casting a wry eye over the usual genre elements. Consider Gleeson here as an Irish Eddie Murphy to Don Cheadle's more straight edged Judge Reynold. The film merrily toys with the idea of a black Yale educated FBI agent full out of his element in gaelic, small town Ireland. It's important to see this compared to the Rush Hours, Cop Outs, 48 Hours or Last Boy Scouts within the genre. We see the "streetwise black guy" so often it's almost second nature. The simple act of turning this aspect on it's head makes way for some good humour (seriously worth watching for Don Cheadle's reactions alone).

We get racial jibes about swimming and growing up in the projects by Gleeson's character, but it's not at Cheadle's (or the audience's) expense in any shape or form as McDonagh has created a character who deftly balances the suggestion that his ignorance may all be a massive joke which helps him be a better officer...or not. Is he playing dumb as he knows more about the case than you think and all this FBI nonsense is getting in the way or is he just a naive, tackless old bugger who just not used to the situation he's thrown into?

Gleeson's Gerry Boyle is a wonderfully full-bodied character (gleefully embraced by Gleeson) who has relationships which germinate around him as the film goes on. Once again I like it when this happens and the film doesn't feel like a robotic reading of a script. The relationship between his dying mother (a wonderful Fionnula Flanagan) is gently humorous as well as heart-rendering, while the partnership with Cheadle's Wendell Everett knocks banter, misunderstandings and finally friendship like no bodies business.

The whole film is like this however; chocked full of silly character moments from a strong cast (short and sweet turn from Mark Strong) and a script which constantly plays with the idea of the buddy cop movie. We get lowest of the low criminals with extraordinary high taste in culture and philosophy, a kid so hooked on genre T.V he plays a conversation with Boyle as if he's that first edgy witness (you know the one that's ALWAYS in these things), while a characters first day on the job is the worst day of his life (consider those cops who don't to that last day of retirement due to a bullet related illness).

Ireland is gorgeously captured through the lens and the films gentle meandering pace and manner is held together with laugh out loud one liners and sharp asides. The film is also happy to shift tones in it's more quieter character moments giving the same emotional tap that In Burges was happy to provide.

Interestingly while In Burges comments on religion, guilt and sin, The Guard appears more focused on existentialism. It's low life constantly questions not the pointlessness of their job, but life itself while the films ambiguous climax could be lost on a first viewing, becoming clearer on a second glance. The clues lie within the relationships that Gerry Boyle has and loses. Boyle is asked if he's real fucking dumb or real fucking smart. We've seen the answer in his eyes throughout the movie and it's more than you think.

Review: Red State

2011-09-10T18:50:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011

Director: Kevin Smith

Screenplay: Kevin Smith

Starring: John Goodman, Michael Parks, Melissa Leo

Synopsis is here:

I'm not sure about other film fans but I've wanted to see this movie since it was first announced (mid 2007?). The idea of a Kevin Smith Horror film appealed to me, but the idea of a Kevin Smith horror film based on the religious right of America? How could I not be there?

However despite this a lot has happened in the world of Kevin Smith and unfortunately not a lot of it I would consider that positive. For you see for sometime now Mr Smith has really had it out for those who dislike his movies, namely the critics and bloggers who are invited to press screenings. Since Cop Out gaining some of the worse reviews of his career, Smith has gone all out with all sort of attacks on those who write about film. His Twitter now a base of operations with a large allegiance of fans who will blindly attack anyone who says otherwise about the man's actions.

Seeing how Smith has acted, reacted and lashed out to those who oppose him has been a strange experience. It's obvious that Smith's films; no matter which ones they may be, are extremely close to him and so they should as they are his works (although I've never got why Cop Out got him the most worked up) and I do find Smith's ideas with distribution intriguing ones. However, Smith's way of going about things seems to be based more on personal grudges and getting people out of joint than anything else. To his his movies is to have a personal slight on the man himself and I know for a lot of people the thought of that is just not true.

The issue is; now Smith has made things personal, bridges will burn and relationships will crumble. Smith's fan base will keep the man going until the day he dies, but what about his idea of releasing films made by other people under his methods of independent distribution? Smith wants to change the game but the game isn't ready to play ball yet and Smith's wish to personally call everyone out and insult those who have a differing opinion could affect the very people he's trying to bring up.

All these thoughts, twitter rants and otherwise cloud the fact that Kevin Smith has made an "It's a nasty-ass $4mil horror flick with few (if any) redeeming characters." All the posturing, throwing the toys out of the pram and general unpleasantness should detract that Red State; part religious right horror, part action siege, is in my opinion, the strongest work he's done in years.

Smith, never really considered as a "visual" director has re-invented himself here, giving himself aesthetic that pushes the authenticity of the universe he's written. The drab and sparse art direction of the church, the dropped frame rate and use of handheld digital, the obtuse angles and awkward close ups all work here. There is a beauty in the ugliness of it all, reminiscent of Texas Chainsaw Massacre (The roadkill, the chainsaw dance during sunset) or The Wicker Man (the climax), that Smith manages to capture and he's done it by taking risks within himself. It's simple things like seeing corpses in a cold stock room while Michael Parks' demented preacher's whiskey smooth, middle American drawl sings psalms over the soundtrack or the offbeat editing which aids the uncomfortable vibe the film gives off.

The discomfort is centralised by a titanic performance by one Michael Parks. Parks allows the Phelps-like Abin Cooper is both snake charmer and snake. The sweetness of his voice seems to never let you forget that there is sin behind those eyes. Parks' Charisma is what takes us through the film's middle act, a lengthy, character building monologue not only tells us all we need to know about the darker aspects of the church but also how easily Parks has charmed them. His words sound warm but the fear is there in harsh and Swift retribution which is quickly and silently dealt out without argument. While Parks is the charm, Melissa Leo is the hysteria. In a role which, while predicable and trite at times (See The Mist or The Omen for similar and better displays), never the less bounces off every well with Parks more "subtly" devious role. Rounding off a trio of solid performances is a straight edged display by one John Goodman, his face betrays the look of a man whose knowing, tired and still unsure about everything falling around him.

Unsure is the most important word for Red State as it is a film that is constantly questioning the idea of trust and blind faith. Many characters place so much trust in those above them in command only for them to fall to a fate most heinous. Ideals of faith are questioned at all sides and as clear as this is a work of fiction, Once the bullets start flying there's the niggling feeling that this is where things can go. The shadows of Waco hover over the film and the mixture of the such themes and the films aesthetics help give off an unconventional and yet tenable feel to proceedings.

Smith's decision to create a film that deals with horror that's more closer to home is far more commendable idea than the spite of remakes and generic genre fare that the U.S (mostly mainstream) have had to contend with. It plays out almost like an American version of Frontiers but of course it's nowhere near as extreme (read gory). It's a shame that there are flaws that hang out for all to see. While I have no problem with the film flipping between genres or even tone (who knew that Smith could create action sequence as visceral as he does) the narrative that hangs everything together should be better, especially from a writer like Smith. Scenes often clunk together and don't feel as organic as they could. It's great having John Goodman in the film but do we really need him on the phone basically spouting off exposition so late in the game? I don't need lovable characters but Smith wish for no one as likeable takes away so much tension. To rack up the fear we need someone to latch on to truly. The teens we start off with a left behind as soon as we hit the compound, Cooper is a personification of evil and Goodman enters far too ate in the game.

We also have lots of secondary characters but why are they so silent? Why do many of the family members add nothing to the narrative in terms of character? With all the chaos that Smith gives us why is everything tied up so neatly? The script also features humour that doesn't have to be added? Do we really need the films last (off screen) line for instance? Maybe Smith wished to diffuse the situation slightly with a bit of lightness but I like the questions he asked and I would have liked the film even more if he didn't feel the need to answer everything.

Never the less, there's an edge to the movie that I really liked, something that keeps the attention and it's not Smith's wit this time round. It's the subject matter and the approach to proceedings. It's the coldness that hides behind that warm exterior of Cooper, it's the idea that the more "touched" members of society are stockpiling for a war they believe is coming and one mistake could set everything off. After watching Red State, I was considering re watching the film again. To squeeze even out of the juicy bits of the film. Smith's is retiring after Hit Somebody. Watching Red State makes me hope it's a sabbatical.

Review: Super

2011-09-04T20:32:00.001+01:00

Year: 2011 (U.K release 2011)
Director: James Gunn
Screenplay: James Gunn
Starring: Rainn Wilson, Ellen Page, Liv Tyler, Kevin Bacon

Synopsis is here

So James Gunn's Super rears it's head upon whining that it's just the same as Kick-Ass by people who didn't read the memo on Defendor and Special which both slipped under the radar. Hell even at a stretch you could bemoan that Mystery Men is almost kinda like Kick-Ass but only at a stretch. That's aside, it's no surprise to see that with similar material Matthew Vaughan brings a slick piece of gloss to the big screen, while Gunn's Super is a little darker, murkier and reminiscent of his twisted Troma roots. Super appears to us with a much more visceral look to the beatings on screen and a more troubled insight to the psyche of some of the tortured minds of these wannabe superheroes. Needless to say, Kick-ass doesn't have a squid like creature opening up a characters skull in order for the finger of god to poke the brain inside.

If that last sentence piqued your interest then you will be more than fine with Super, I know I was. I reacted to the film in the same way I reacted to Observe and Report in that you shouldn't laugh at what's gong down but the timing and absurdness of it all makes it hard not to. It revels in it's irrelevance but it also works as it has a Rainn Wilson performance that towers over his great comedic work in The American Office. There's a softness in his quieter moments that helps elevate the performance as Wilson balance his troubled character with equal amounts of pity and pathos. The humour is there too as his zealous yelling of "SHUT UP CRIME" were always able to make me crack a smile.

Wilson is joined by a game cast with Liv Tyler and Micheal Rooker being underused but solid enough while Kevin Bacon takes a sleazy bite of scenery once more, as he did in recent comic-book feature X-men: First Class. Ellen Page lets loose in a bizarre little role as a geeky side-kick to Wilson's Frank. However despite the film clearly being an offbeat character piece, the moments with her character seemed underwritten. I get the feeling that Gunn could have done even more with such a character, unfortunately Page's Libby is left a little to the wayside, as it a plot strand with Gregg Henry's Detective role who quickly loses important once his main scene is done.

This doesn't distract from the main fact that Super; with it's over the top violence and dark comedy, is still an entertaining distraction. While Kick-Ass lightened some elements of the original material to make it a bit more palatable to those who didn't read the comic, Super keeps things as black as it can giving the film a weird super hero, king of comedy vibe. A guy like me who knows of Gunn's z-list beginnings, found it easy to get on board with the offering we get here. For others I give you the litmus test: Ellen Page talking about her "gushy" genitals while donned in a super hero costume. Not liking that? Best avoid the movie.

Review: The Inbetweeners Movie

2011-08-30T18:00:00.001+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Ben Palmer
Screenplay: Iain Morris, Damon Beesley
Starring: Simon Bird, James Buckley, Blake Harrison, Joe Thomas

Synopsis is here:

Any readership outside of the U.K will probably shrug their shoulders at this review as I can't see it making waves at their shores. However for us Brits, The inbetweeners is sitting pretty at the top of the U.K box office at time of writing. It's not hard to see why, as the show has been a bit of a revelation for some of the generation here. From an overzealous yell of "BUS WANKERS!" from some twonk in a Nova, to the double thumbs up "friend" comment you get from mates after you suggest your going to see someone else. There's sayings and moments from the shows three seasons that have just got absorbed into our conscious and are likely to stay there as E4 will repeat the show as much as they do Friends, as is the method of channels these days.

The fact that a film of these four failures didn't really surprise me as much as the speed of the turnaround. I swear I only just heard about the film being made about 9 months ago. But then when dealing with a show that's at it's peak of popularity and a cast that can only pretend to be 18 for so long (lead Simon Bird is only a year younger than myself at 26) it's probably the best time to strike.

The Inbetweeners movie is perfect for people who are fans of the show. While it doesn't alienate newcomers with nothing but in jokes, it does display the friendship and closeness built by the main cast members. This and the films writing by the shows creators are what the film what it is; coming off like a English version of porky's but with a familiarly that made the show a hit in the first place. We like these saps because we all knew versions of them at school. They're harmless and the mean well, but they're so struck dumb by their social awkwardness that it hurts. Yes, they are crude but their lack of knowing any better does get them through. The spiritedness and knowing naivety of of the characters overwhelm the more base elements and while it's clear that the leads are still a little T.V green, the chemistry is there throughout. It's what makes the inbetweeners what they are; the lack of mean spiritedness that resides in many American counterparts.

It's good that the dialogue and set pieces are also on par with the show as they still have the ability to hit the funny bone, especially if you're a fan. Not only it's needed in a comedy, but it takes away from the fact that the film could have easily been a made for T.V movie and be just as successful. The film is very televisual in design, and save for a couple of moments, it doesn't not feel very cinematic. Moments of sentimentality are often cumbersome, plot strands stand out awkwardly and there were more than one moment in which neither laughter nor sympathy could be displayed as the story struggles to win us over with it's thinly spread narrative.

I will say however that I've laughed harder in this than many of the comedies that have come out recently. This was everything that Hangover 2 was not in my opinion, lacking the spitefulness that features in that film (and Due Date for that matter) but playing up the hype and disappointment of those "lads" holidays, embarrassing parents and the genuine awkwardness of place that came with the show. It'll find it's place on the shelves of fans and to be honest, that's what it was looking for.

Review: Cowboys and Aliens

2011-08-29T20:54:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Jon Favreau
Screenplay: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby
Starring: Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde, Sam Rockwell

Synopsis is here

When I first posted the trailer for Cowboys and Aliens on my facebook wall, my favourite reaction was from a good friend of mine who was perplexed by the sheer fact that the film had even been greenlighted. I must admit that I chucked at his outcry. As a film fan it's no real surprise to me that things like Cowboys & Aliens get made. One only needs such to search the the imdb for such cinematic delights such as I Know who Killed Me, Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever or Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li. They may considered badly executed ideas by many and there's a good chance that people considered them a bad idea beforehand too. The thing is if producers and/or executives think there's an audience out there for the idea, then they'll push for it. Often the wackiest ideas may work with a good mesh of crew, cast and vision. Often however we get crap like American Pyshco 2: All American Girl. The thing is, you cannot be sure until it's made.

Which brings us to Cowboys and Aliens, a film based on a comic book of the same name. Such a comic book sounds quite niche to a guy like me, however as so other film coming out appears to be connected to a comic book somehow, you can see where the exec suits were going with things. Add to the fact that you've got the western genre; a classic american genre and aliens (who seem to be cropping up everywhere at the moment) and I'm sure that the studio heads felt they had something special up their sleeves. The film hasn't set the box office alight as much as I feel the film makers would have liked, but it hasn't been a total failure. With this said however, after reading Mark Kermode's embittered article about modern movies I have started to ask myself when was the last time you felt a film really, truly flop?

So I guess I have to start talking about the film itself then don't I? And I'll start by stating the obvious, in that the film doesn't skimp on it's promise of Cowboys and Aliens. They all present and accounted for, hell there's even some Native Indians thrown in for good measure, the trouble is all these guys are piled together in a narrative that doesn't have the legs to make things work and are given set pieces that while pretty enough, seem to lack that punch and crunch that would make them stand out. The film is relatively fun at points but so unremarkable that I had to bore you with those over-long paragraphs above this one while I try and remember what happened in the film.

A lot of my issues with the film lie with the plot itself, in that I had no problem with the western aspect and would love more of it (seriously the idea of Ford and Craig in a straight western would have me drooling) but the sci-fi element feels clunky and shoehorned. Characters and information drop in and out at convenient moments and none of it feels organic. At one point a reveal is given that feels so frustratingly wedged in it's beyond annoying, particularly as a character has waited for such a ridiculous amount of time before mentioning the matter. Silly things happen in movies like this all the time (Think Independence Day = Apple Mac Virus) however if the momentums carries you and the action hits the sweet spots then we often don't realise. I know for a fact I don't. Despite what my reviews read, I don't consciously go looking for flaws. But if they're willing jump at you then clearly the film isn't doing it's job. The problem is that Cowboys and Aliens is only sometimes effective. Jon Favreau is not doing his best work here and it shows. It says a lot when I'm watching the competent yet vanilla set pieces of the film and thinking to myself how much more fun Rango* was than this.

The idea that the humans within the movie are severely underwhelmed in terms of fire-power (save one element), never really comes into play. In fact it never feels like these characters are in any particular danger or worry. They have a goal and it all feels quite achievable. But then again considering the amount of cliché lines the film manages to turf out, I shouldn't be surprised at the lack of...well surprise.

So we thank the stars for the stars, in that Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford are damn good at what they do, delivering presence. Both have the right amount of gravel in their faces to be believable cinematic cowboys. Ford's tetchy, guff and 12a rated racist Dolarhyde hits the mark consistently. Craig's stoic man with no name character mixes the characters volatile past with the quiet and intense and brooding nature that works. The less said about Olivia Wilde however, the better. An attractive actress, Wilde hasn't made a mark on me acting wise in any real way. In earlier films, this can be argued that they were just smaller roles. Now in films like Tron: Legacy and this she seems to be picking characters that are just boring in general and do nothing to stretch the talents she may hold. I really don't blame her, as some of the material in the larger films will get you noticed but unfortunately for some (especially for a few unfortunate Hollywood females) they may not doing anything for their craft.

But then again speaking of material, we're dealing with a film that has been handled by five different screenwriters. When the ratio gets that high, many often get weary. You can see why, with so many cooks looking to add elements to the broth, it's probably best just to play things safe.

*I watched Rango earlier this year but didn't blog it as I don't really review "kids" films. The thing is, Rango actually has more going on than a few of the blockbusters this year. I should have reviewed it.

Review: Hobo with a shotgun

2011-08-25T17:06:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Jason Eisener
Screenplay: John Davies, Jason Eisener
Starring: Rutger Hauer

Synopsis is here (as if the film needs it)

Hobo with a shotgun delivers what it says it delivers. To knock the film technically is almost silly and there will be many out there who have not seen any kind of exploitation feature asking themselves; "what kind of screw loose would even try to enjoy a film like this". To them I will say "hey at least it's short."

I liked Hobo for what it was; extremely OTT nonsense, it's shot with knowledge of those gritty shlock features and yet still has a certain amount of flair in the cinematography that defies some of the films it's paying homage to. It isn't a deconstruction like Deathproof, nor is it following the genre as close to the bone as Planet terror, but there's something about it's cartoony madness that works well enough to be although you may want to wash the nihilism of you.

I think one of the main reasons that I like the film is that it almost plays out like an antithesis to films like Harry Brown, a film which celebrates the idea of vigilantism as completely fine and worthy idea. Hobo, like a florescent Taxi Driver depicts the whole situation as the horrid and vile mess it actually is. Nobody gets away clean no matter what your intentions are. I won't lie however by saying my viewing of this reminded me of the films of one Michael Haneke. And yet despite my love for his essays on the west glorifying violence (something many could say this film does at times) the films lead character, his dreams and the outcome still managed to sway me not only as entertaining (the violence is SO out there one can't take seriously) but strangely affecting due to what happens. I won't lie, I knew where the film was going and yet when it reached it's destination I wasn't as disappointed as i would be with many other more mainstream affair. Mostly because it's outcome comes off more as a trope than lazy writing.

That aside I liked the nuttiness of it all; the silly dialogue, the over the top sleaze used to portray the despicable of it all, the wonderfully garish colour scheme that felt right at home with the material and of course, Rutgar Huaers ability to hold a viewers attention with his presence.

I wlll say however, for a film that healthy acknowledges that it's an exploitation flick and is made now in the 21 century, why is it that Hobo with a shotgun couldn't have made it's female lead a stronger one? I'm not looking for role models but Molly Dunsworth's Abby starts off as a streetwise prostitute before decending very quickly into a screaming damsel in distress who can't seem to function with her Hobo hero. Considering that some of the most well known exploitations have very strong female characters (Day of the woman/I spit on your grave, nearly anything Pam Grier was in in the 70's, slasher movies in general) you get the feeling the film missed a trick.

But then again, has it? It's called Hobo with a shotgun, and has a Hobo with a shotgun. He puts it to great use. This isn't the sort of film that gives you a title with a metaphor or has any alterer motive. It does what it says it does. If your arguing about it, you really should have paid closer attention to the title.

Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

2011-08-20T17:47:00.001+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Rupert Wyatt
Screenplay: Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver
Starring: James Franco, Frida Pinto, John Lithgow, Brian Cox, Tom Felton, David Oyelowo

Synopsis is here

Once again this oddball glut of summer films has surprised me. I had no expectations for Rise of the Planet of the apes at all, neither high or low. Coming out nearer the back end of the summer after all the bigger films have had their way, ROTPOTA looked lucky to just be hanging out with the so called big boys. The trailer didn't look like anything special, while a small part of my brain kept reminding me that it's a reboot of a franchise, whose last entry nearly killed it's chances of survival (and may have cause the whole reboot mania to some ) due to it's frustrating ending and mixed critical praise (it was successful at the box office however). I was merely hoping that ROTPOTA didn't go the way of Burton's dry and tasteless re-imaging.

It turns out that Rupert Wyatt and his screenwriters have really looked into what they could do to make sure that there film didn't feel like a cynical cash grab. In fact by the time we reach the films strikingly kinetic Golden gate Bridge climax, I had released that my mouth had dropped more than once. This is a film that brings it's preposterous spectacle to the foreground (some brilliant CGI effects from Weta) but doesn't do so at the sacrifice of story or emotion. Throughout the film I found myself constantly wanted to know what happens next to Caesar (Andy Serkis once again bringing his ape knowledge and skills to much aplomb) and where this story was going to take me. It's very clear from the overlong title alone that the film is looking for sequels, however Wyatt's film tell the tale of nature going awry with a visual sharpness and zeal that i found missing from other summer hits that concentrated on stunts alone.

I loved how Caesar's tale is crafted and how his relationships between humans and other apes slowly shifts and shapes itself. The politics within the film are pretty basic but what the film lacks in hard talk is made up with expression. This film could have easily had Caesar as a flat character with only anger as his only characteristic. The performance from Serkis and the writing avoid this. We not only feel for Caesar and his persecution from his aggressors but we also condone his actions against his ignorant "owner". Despite being underwritten Franco makes sure that his role of Will has enough nativity within it to make the choices made by Caesar believable ones. It is a shame however that despite this, the human characters are so awkwardly shoehorned into the film. Freida Pinto is pushed into a sensible eye candy role spouting typical voice of reason quotes while Brian Cox (the best Hannibal Lecktor) has played better antagonists in his sleep the less said about Tom Felton the better.

The film is all about the apes and to be fair, this isn't too much of a bad thing. As the film slowly places the foundation for a bigger picture in the background (involving space shuttles and viruses no doubt) we get to see the sociological aspects build within the society of the apes and it's already interesting to see the friendships created and where the cracks will show. Not only that, but the film's visuals of the apes may show how heavily the film relies upon CGI, but the wide open spaces and forest surroundings that allow the apes to run rampant is exhilarating. The set pieces are vigorous with their pace and the film may be light on more complex politics, its heavy on delivering an exciting blockbuster about nature going awry. When things kick off, I was never disinterested. This combined with the films decent storytelling has made for me ROTPOTA one of the more compelling blockbusters this year.

Review: Essential Killing

2011-08-15T23:50:00.001+01:00

Year: 2010 (UK Release 2011)
Director: Jerzy Skolimowski
Screenplay: Ewa Piaskowska, Jerzy Skolimowski
Starring: Vincent Gallo

The synopsis is here

Writer, Director, Painter, Musican and resident nutjob Vincent Gallo reminds me of Roman Polanski; in that despite some of his more bizarre actions (also includes hexing Roger Ebert and now no longer showing his films to a public audience), his talent is something I cannot ignore. As a writer/director his indie feature Buffalo 66 (1998) is one of the most alluring American independents of recent times. To me Gallo is that worst type of person in which his ego is only matched by his talent....and his ego is pretty huge.

Essential Killing has an extreme person like Gallo running through the wilds of an unnamed European country, trying desperately to escape his captors and survive the harsh terrain ahead of him. It's quite obvious with a little knowledge of the man and the way this film starts; with Gallo's character blowing three U.S soldiers sky high with a rocket launcher mounted on his shoulder, the man is clearly in his element.

Essential Killing is all about Gallos favourite subject, himself. This isn't a bad thing however because his prize winning performance is one of knife edge intensity. Gallo's sharp features and could-be-from-anywhere face only bolster his compelling (yet muted) display. I love watching acting like this as to me it truly becomes about the performance. The setting, the situation, the desperation and the unbridled need to continue on, is played out within the face and not with trite dialogue. It's great to cleanse the palate with a film like Essential Killing; as while the character is not complex in the slightest (the streamlined plot restricts this), the expressions speak volumes. It reminds me how often I'm trying to keep up with "lets do this to do that" strands of dialogue.

Jerzy Skolimowski complements Gallo's performance with crisp cinematography which highlights the unforgiving landscape as the bright blue skies of an unknown area of the middle east gave way to a vast blanketed winterland scenery of white. the only food appears to be bark and berries and almost any interaction with other people alludes to the films title, although the film isn't as gruesome as you would expect. Skolimowski's wisest decision is to keep the film as apolitical as he could. We merely observe an Arab insurgent trying to survive in alien surrounding and the lack of a agenda illustrates the fight or flee nature we are all hardwired into and yet take for granted.

The film does spill over into abstract weirdness at times, and we are given prolonged moose shots, hallucinations of dogs (appearing almost like nightmarish echoes of Guantanamo) and at one point the lead character having to suckle a woman's breast at gunpoint for the milk that she was feeding her child. Despite this, the tale of extreme survival of this foreign "alien" in a no man's land (no real geography places us in the same disorientated state as the lead character) kept me at attention. The films foreshadowing brings forth a feel of doom (maybe) but at no point do we feel this man's tale is truly on tracks.

The films abrupt climax will madden some and attract others but in order to get the most out of it, and the film as a whole, one must remember the old cliché that it may not be about the destination but the journey. While I may revel in such commonplace writings, Essential Killing and Gallo's intense performance remind us that cliché is definitely not what the man's about.

Review: Super 8

2011-08-10T20:36:00.001+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: JJ Abrams
Screenplay: JJ Abrams
Starring: Amanda Michalka, Elle Fanning, Gabriel Basso, Joel Courtney, Kyle Chandler, Noah Emmerich, Riley Griffiths, Ron Eldard, Ryan Lee, Zach Mills

Synopsis is here:

Note: A part of my review doesn't reveal any plot points but it does give a slight description of the films creature. Might spoil. Been Warned

Maybe it's the amount of expectation that Super 8 (one of them there original screenplays) brought with it, once people knew of it's conception. Perhaps it's the fact that I'm the kind of Spielberg fan that has no problem with Tom Hanks and his dodgy accent (The Terminal), or the general oddball awkwardness of a grown up Pan (Hook). However something with Super 8 doesn't sit right. The films mixture of JJ Abrams and Spielberg sensibilities don't quite gel completely for me.

I didn't not dislike the film as there's a lot of fun to be had with the films dialogue, the chemistry of the young cast and a bit of the mystery, but Abrams stylistic ticks (think lens flare), a meandering second act (12 minutes shorter than Captain America but strangely feels longer) and the films wish to be a Spielberg movie so much that it almost feels slightly too conscious of the fact, somewhat damage the affair slightly. I am reminded of Paul whose pop culture references to the movie brat are plenty but are utilised in a far more playful matter. Super 8's DNA is almost inherently Spielberg from the Single minded, stubborn, and/or separated father figures to the gang of kids and their Goonie like manner.

And yet something is missing slightly. The family relationships are the same in structure but don't feel as developed in their scenes. The kids (one or two feeling a tad more one-note than even their 80's counterparts) look the part but seem to be missing that little touch that Spielberg films have. I am definitely in the minority here but these guys over Thud Butt, Rufio and rest of the lost boys? Not so sure.

It's definitely not all bad as the cast that's put in place are certainly fun to be with. Abrams introduces us to these guys well enough and they may not be the most remarkable pre-teens in a Spielberg universe but they have the right amount of energy. It also helps that any time love interest Elle Fanning (also brilliant in Somewhere) is on screen, she shines. The cast help set up the films exciting first act a treat, with Abrams giving us a chaotic train crash that doesn't better the destruction of Hogwarts but does well to show the intent.

It's unfortunate that nothing matches this opening gambit. It's a big way to open the film and the material struggles to to maintain the momentum. The second act is patchy in it's pacing and features the kind of cliffhangers that persuaded me to stop wondering about the those Oceanic guys who crashed on that crazy island. Abrams tries hard to keep us on tenderhooks with some decent enough 12a scares and some neat moments but as we make our way towards the finishing point the end of the mystery and the emotional payoff is weak. When I think of the aliens that have appeared in Spielberg movies, I'm always reminded of how memorable that are, through sound (Close encounters) or look (ET, War of the worlds). The revelation we see here feels much like a left over design of a certain other Abrams involved feature.

But this is the hand we are dealt. The Amblin sign crops up cheerfully at the beginning of the movie but nothing comes up as strong. Everything is competent and faithful and that seems to be enough here. Super 8's ending belies my main problem with the film that although everything seems to be in the right place, the heart isn't given the emotional twack that you'd get if the executive producer was the director.

Despite my issues with the film there is an innocence within the film that a miserable blogger like I really cannot knock. When asked what he's doing; the wide eyed lead proclaims as clear as day "I'm trying my best to save your life". When Super 8 falls on those little moments you can feel the 'berg watching over

Review: Captain America: The First Avenger

2011-08-07T21:43:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Joe Johnston
Screenplay: Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely
Starring: Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Stanley Tucci

Synopsis is here:

Captain America brought a warming sensation to me after I watched it. Here is a movie that is just as earnest as Tree of Life, but this is no art-house feature. No, this is a comic book movie in which you'd think some audiences are probably getting slightly tired of seeing. There's the origin story here, the fresh faced hero there and everything else that comes pre packaged with these marvel flicks. The interesting prospect here is that this not only a film that feels more well rounded than some of it's brothers and sisters (although it clearly has an eye on the upcoming avengers movie next year), but the films innocence in it's portrayal of it's character and the telling of his plight is so fresh at a time where we're now seeing all our heroes being "dark" "gritty" and more importantly cynical. I won't be surprised if the biggest defenders of the Transformers movies sneer at the old fashioned aw shucks nature of the Capts exploits, but there's something joyfully upstanding seeing this heroes pluck over the wise ass antics of Sam Witwicky or even The Dark Knights angst.

The reason the film work for me is that the storytelling, set pieces and cast were as straight forward as the Captain himself. It's a shame that the spectacle aren't as big or memorable as one would have hoped, but that's not really the point. Here we're given a righteous and mature hero who is willing to pull us through his adventure. His guts are what makes the character raise above so many of the reluctant protagonists that have plodded through their tales, generally being told what to do and how to do it. The fact that Captain America places his life in his own hands as much as he does is invigorating. It helps that Chris Evans' honest and hopeful portrayal of the character is one that Henry Cavill and the DC camp may do well with pinching. Evans sells truth, justice and the american way well. He also sells some decent chemistry with the spunky Hayley Atwell whose role of love interest is part of her but doesn't define her (compare her character to poor Blake Lively's in Green Lantern) . Although she and the some of the supporting cast (a criminally wasted Neal McDonough) don't get enough time to truly show themselves off.

It is a shame that despite all the good that the Capt does, with the wonderful sepia toned 1940's setting and Joe Johnston's pulpy execution of it all, that the Captain's villain isn't as villainous as he is virtuous. Due to the Captain's commitments to The Avengers movie we get an evil doer whose more of a figurehead than a fully formed character.The Red Skull has the right look and actor (A delectably scene chewing Weaving) behind him but hardly any anything else. We sense Captain Americas heart and by the films last words I was right behind him However will it comes to the evil he has to face I was severely underwhelmed. I understand that this is the beginnings of a regime that should be more evil than the Nazis, but why don't we see it? They have the power but there's very little demonstration. But then I say this about a film that has two montages of Captain America in action to substitute more intricate set pieces. Why? Because Capt's big film will be The Avengers. With such a cloud looming over the film we see a Captain America film that shoots from the hip but is also streamlined due to other commitments. It seems that much of what Matt Singer (IFC) says is right. Marvel seem far to bothered about what's next to truly invest on the singular efforts. This is not to say that Captain America isn't good. It's bold, brash, old serial way of film making is refreshing and fun and I can't say I didn't leave with a smile on my face (I even didn't mind it in 3D and that says a lot) The problem is Marvels constant Brand pushing short changes a film which is entertaining on its own right. Unfortunately the movie is held back from truly being the best it can be. Captain America really would expect more.

Review: Tree of Life

2011-07-26T18:16:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Terrence Malick
Screenplay: Terrence Malick
Starring: Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn

Synopsis is here

Tree of life is not a movie.Not in the conventional sense anyway. A friend of mine went to see it and absolutely hated it* and I can fully appreciate and understand why. I did wonder why she went to see it in the first place. She has a distinct dislike for most art house films and has found herself burned on many occasions due to having one of those fancy pants view as much as you want cards. My argument to that is if your allergic to shellfish, then it's best to avoid the prawns even if it is all you can eat.

I digress and so does Tree of Life which is an epic, sprawling mosaic of a film, fuelled by an ambition that many would like to see again in more modern movies. It wants to ask the big questions and does so with a boldness that has reminded many of Kubrick's 2001. Nature versus nurture, loss, grief, disappointment in father figures, disappointment in living up to father figures, the search of god, the search for meaning, all of this is placed on the backdrop of the very creation of life itself. This is deployed with a fractured, non-liner narrative fuelled with expressionistic close-ups and rhythmic jump cuts.

The outcome of this is a film likened more to an art installation more than anything else. It's also a big ask of the audience to follow Malick down the rabbit hole, as the film is executed in such a way it demands you to make your own assumptions about what you see. The first impression is likely to be one of pretension. With everything the film wishes to say, its whispered word narration which questions the whereabouts of God (the film also starts with a biblical quote from Job) and it's classical music soundtrack. While grandstanding I didn't feel that the ideas put forth were above it's station so to speak. The film has an earnestness that is so hard to come by. The childhood scenes invoke those memories of identity and that trying to figure everything out that every child goes through. The moment we discover that Jack's brother has died** instead of drawn out overwrought scenes of pain that we see in many movies (see say Mystic River) we see the disjointed response that is remembered and considered through memory. What makes these scene work for me is how they call upon my own memories of family and loss. There's something in the film's combination of visuals and music that managed to tap into something within my own psyche and burrowed itself under my skin. Mr O' Brian (a subdued yet commanding performance by Pitt) has elements that mirror my own father to such a point it's frightening while Jessica Chastain's angelic Mrs O'Brien is filmed in a way which reminds me of how I view my grandmother. There's a personal and emotional resonance that comes with the film that effected me deeply. I strongest suspect that not everyone will feel this and I also don't believe everyone will want it either, but all in all it is that aspect that drove the film home for me.

Reviews for Tree of Life have been using the words hymn, operatic and symphony to describe it and that alone should help a doubting viewer decided on if it is the film for them. This isn't a film that entertains and that will put off many who may have paid money to see the new Brad Pitt movie. The fragmented collection of images are more like a piece of music than any typical movie we usually see. I fully understand why some will hate it, more than any other film but for me generates an unbelievably personal response and I also believe it won't be the same for everyone. The film is at times unbelievably grandstanding, and at times a much of a muchness. It meanders and anyone who mostly watches more Hollywood based affair will probably be driven mad with it's construction.

I however found the film deeply involving and visually sublime (I can't think of another film that looks this good), the film performances are brilliant (although one may ask Sean Penn...why exactly?) the big questions are asked with earnestness and honestly and those who are willing to give it time and space and allow the film to wash over you (pompous I know) may find themselves being effected by it in some way. An art film in the purest form I found The Tree of Life an absorbing artistic statement

*She only saw one third of the film due to a tech error so her opinion is void
**We find this out early and is the main drive for the film's "plot"

Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

2011-07-20T16:43:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011

Director: David Yates

Screenplay: Steve Kloves

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupet Grint, Bonnie Wright, Ralph Fiennes

Synopsis is here

Note: As always I don't try to add spoilers to my reviews, however, I do mentioned certain aspects of the film that some could consider may say too much to those who have lived under a rock and haven't seen the films/read the books. You've been warned.

It all ends, not with a whimper but a beautiful bang as this franchise despite my reservations and issues with it in the past has come good. More than good I feel as this film (in collaboration with part 1) is the most accomplished entry into the Potter series. To me the other films were stuffed with the priggish middle class boarding school elements, seemingly Scooby Doo like shaggy dog stories about prisoners of the order of the stone of secrets (or something), a lead character whose passiveness and general lack of spark have caused frustration and of course the problematic imbalance cause by having to stay close to the material and yet still having to pull in those who haven't read every book. These final films have succeeded in my view.

For me there's so much to take in within the Deathly Hallows part 2. Not only the most visually striking film (check out the first bombardment of Voldemolt's army on Hogwarts) but it's the one that brings the most spectacle. Nearly every set piece is executed with a conviction and style that was missing before (although some of those effects are still a bit patchy). Part two is also the film that truly brings all the emotions and themes to life. At one point when Harry walks through the ruins of his once grand school Yates films and spies the grieving of his colleagues and their loved ones, Yates manages to compile the imagery in such a way that one could feel wrong or intruding on such a private and sombre moment. In this; still considered a mainstream family film, we have a character looking at death and fate with a maturity which reminds us that a popcorn film need not have to be dumb to be enjoyable.

Lofty themes are approached broadly but effectively as Yates' film touches of not only fatalism and the inevitability of one's own death but also how events of previous generations can bring forth strong reverberations. Within the film we finally see the tragic reasoning behind Snipe (Rickman's best performance of the series) and the true complexity of his relationship to Harry. During this scene we are then given a substantial amount of information (all the films have always had issue with exposition and this is no different) to which even Potter himself exclaims that he himself is willing accept his fate; that is, he's ready to die. Such an exclamation displays how high the stakes are and raises the poignancy of everything tenfold. There was nothing put forth so intriguingly in previous entries.

The film doesn't stop there, also giving us the well known but very effective dualism of both the hero and villain. That the two are so strongly intertwined that they shouldn't really exist without each other, is at it's strongest here. The most appealing thing about this factor being that the only thing that separates the yin and the yang is quietly shown in a transition, one in which one character is told that help can be found only for the next shot to be one of the other character stating that they don't need help at all. Integrity counts above all the magic we see.

Loftly thematic ramblings aside, the film is consistently entertains. The first 15 minutes aren't the strongest and the humour isn't the best placed this time round (the overall tone is too serious for it) but once we enter the halls of Hogwarts for the last time, I found myself transported to it's world. The film is wonderfully paced throughout; the action is tightly packed and has a distinct sense of place which means unlike your Battle L.A's and Transformers movies, you can follow what's going on.

The cast still has the same blessings and curses that where bestowed upon the franchise 10 years ago. The older circle outclasses the younger group every time. Only an actress like Maggie Smith could give "it's good to see you" the grounding it has. Rickman is as I mentioned before brilliant, while it's taken far too long to see Fiennes' perform in full glory. His gleefully sadistic Voldemort has been the perfect foil for the later films. Most of the older cast say very little but this is clearly as their stronger moments were in earlier films. This kids have moved from cardboard ten years ago to vaguely passable now. Radcliffe in particular is seemingly swallowed up by the films scope. It's not all his fault as Harry has never been the strongest character, despite the films being all about him. However there's no true horrible displays by the three "kids" and praise should go to Matthew Lewis as Neville.

So we come to the end of the Potter franchise with a genuinely satisfying final film, one that doesn't have too many, rung out multiple endings and a emotional tug (despite my ongoing frustrations with passable Potter himself) that doesn't have that manipulative feel about it, although the kisses between couples do feel a bit cheesy and forced. To the this journey without the books was also interesting as with no other real connection to the material other then the movie, it was engaging to interact the series without the nagging non-objective view that many fans who haunt the blogs and message boards of "muggles" who just couldn't get behind the series.

But I must say to those who may have given up the gryffindor ghost that Deathly Hallows made me glad that I stuck with it. I won't say I fully get everything and it's doubtful I'll be revisiting these films for generations to come like many others certainly will (looking at the reaction of the fans, this may the closest thing to Star Wars will see in a long time) but for me after the sweetly touching final codec that transpires back at Kings Cross station, I can safely say that the journey wasn't perfect but the destination was worthwhile.

Review: NEDS

2011-07-12T14:44:00.000+01:00

Year: 2010 (U.K Release 2011)
Director: Peter Mullen
Screenplay: Peter Mullen
Starring: Conor McCarron, Peter Mullen

Synopsis is here

If Richard Ayoade's Submarine is getting plaudits for being a coming of age flick with an arthouse/indie twist that the Brits usually avoid/not bother with. NEDS should be applauded for being the type of coming of age film that the Brits know and love; gritty, personal, visceral and provocative. Praise should also go to Mullen for delivering a film which is also punctuated with darkly humorous asides (fight sequences played out to glam rock classics) and evocative symbolism; with the films last shots alone being compelling, troubling and truthful while maintaining it's bizarre tone.

NEDS ponders the question that was asked so directly in The Wild One (1953) "what are you rebelling against? The film's lead John McGill (Conor McCarron) has an answer, it slowly becomes clear that he wants to claim identity on his own terms. Unfortunately, he is locked down by a society that seems that its has already decided upon how it wants to see him. An intelligent boy with one eye on the future, John is lamentably trapped within an area where physical violence and threats from other kids are the normal, other parents who look at his working class background with scorn, a brother with a gang reputation that proceeds him and an alcoholic father who lack of presence as a dad an aggression towards his wife is as negative as a father who is absent. There's so much pushing against the young man that it's no surprise; like a shook up bottle of coke, he is pressurised to go off when opened.

Mullen layers a quiet intensity throughout the movie, which is best seen in the sequences involving John and his Father (an always great Mullen). We do not see much of this character through the run time, but the presence and gravitas Mullen gives him creates a perfect storm-like atmosphere. We don't only get a full establishment of the family life quickly, but we also sense the how long the turmoil has lasted.

Mullen's performance is the type of display one would expect of a man of his talents, however it's brilliant to see him going up against a young contender like McCarron. In a debut role, McCarron almost effortlessly balances swagger, intelligence, fear and ferocity as if he was a veteran. Much like Thomas Turgoose in This is England (2006), this is a performance that doesn't hold any of the pretension an well verse child actor could have and is loose enough to allow the character of John to breathe as a fully formed, flawed lost soul.

NEDS isn't a film with visual bombastics and Mullen's look of the film is an efficient one, the captures the grim grey look of a 70's Scotland. It would be interesting to watch this next to Ratcatcher (1999) and compare the more romantic visuals of Lynne Ramsey to Mullen's more matter of fact affair. It's also interesting that both films show such a troubled Scotland and are careful not to search for easy answers within their stories. I must admit at one point I was worried that NEDS could boil over to either false hope or over exaggerated nihilism. However, like it's lead character the film carefully balances over a knife edge to it's powerful and yet still ambiguous climax.

British features have been hoping into genre flights of fancy recently and for that I've been grateful. However, it's always worth while to see British film get down and dirty in that underbelly that we do so well.

Review: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

2011-07-06T19:24:00.001+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Michael Bay
Screenplay: Ehren Kruger
Starring: Shia LeBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, John Turturro, Patrick Dempsey

Synopsis is here:

God, I really wish I could go loose on this one. He's like Napoleon and he wants to create this insane, infamous mad-man reputation. He wants to be like Hitler on his sets, and he is. So he's a nightmare to work for but when you get him away from set, and he's not in director mode, I kind of really enjoy his personality because he's so awkward, so hopelessly awkward. He has no social skills at all. And it's endearing to watch him. He's vulnerable and fragile in real life and then on set he's a tyrant. Shia and I almost die when we make a Transformers movie. He has you do some really insane things that insurance would never let you do. - The Imfamous Megan Fox Quote for GQ.

It's incredible how much insight that quote can give on not only Fox (I believe she was out of line) but Michael Bay and the Transformers franchise (most important word). It's been murmured before that action takes place over everything on a Michael Bay set and that includes of course acting and story. It's also interesting that Bay himself claimed that his 2009 juggernaut Transformers: Revenge of the fallen had missed the mark. I find that particularly revealing because two years ago it was the marketing of that film that Bay had issues with. Now, on the event of the third instalment of the very VERY marketable series (good ol nostalgia and kids); it was of course the writers strike that caused such a weak film.

Excuses aside as Bay has roared back with the third and final (maybe) feature of this vapid and overlong saga of films. What's changed and what can we expect? The short answer is very little. If you've had a problem with these films before then there is NO change here. We have robots and they fight each other while human actors mug and feign the ability to portray real emotion for the material. The 3D cameras may have stopped some of the schizophrenic editing that Bay likes to employ but besides that what you see is once again what you get; empty, over-long spectacle. For the third time we have a transformers film which runs far too long on the dumb plot it is given. Those who think other wise will take to comments pages and bemoan that bloggers and writers are taking it too seriously and it's just about the carnage that develops. I call shenanigans.

Why? Because if such was the case you would throw out the plot wouldn't you? Not have anything there except the robots fighting right? What you'd get is a 50 minute film of just special effects banging against each other. If the only reason to watch is the films last stretch (a 40+ minute Robo smackdown) then why pay (in both earthly currency and soul dollars) for all that alleged plot, supposed acting and poor attempts of emotional engagement?

To be fair, the film starts out interestingly enough. Following suit from X-men: First Class, TF:DOTM starts off by mixing fiction with reality. Melding the space race (and an awful Buzz Aldrin cameo) with the Transformers mythos. The film series has struggled with this idea for three films, but the use of effects and the points of history used (1972 when the space race ended and Chernobyl) actually help try and give a certain amount of grounding to proceedings. As plot points within the whole film it's not much, but it almost gives us a foundation to stand on.

This rug however, is yanked away pretty quick as Bay wants to re-introduce us to what made many of the critics (and myself) dislike these flicks so much. We once again get dubious homophobia (See TF2 and Bad Boys 2, annoying stereotypes (didn't like the black/red-neck robots? check out our ridiculous British ones who are considered "assholes" in the movie), unbearably juvenile "comic" relief (also those parents are back) and a story that doesn't really add up even on basic aspects. If Transformers and everything about them run on energon, I get annoyed when at one point army men can check energon levels without hesitation, only to have that moment ignored later on. Such aspects can be small and nitpicky...but can also take you out of a movie.

As can annoying lead characters such as our dear friend Sam Witwicky who is one of the most grating lead characters of the year. In a film like this when it's all about the explosions LaBeouf's Sam has little to do. However when the spotlight is on this character we have two modes; in the beginning we get obnoxious arrogant ass mode in which Sam does his best to make sure that we as an audience dislike him intently. The second half of the film we get shouty Sam in which LaBeouf (who usually has a nice screen presence) yelps, mugs and generally pulls faces like Kermit the frog. Although at least Shia is an actor, because as much his performance isn't great here, he is Olivier in comparison to Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. Whiteley, picked for her bum and boobs, not only provides zero chemistry with her co-star but also has problem spouting much of the dialogue convincingly. This may have been less of an issue for someone who is an actress, but consider the fact that this is her first film, with a director notorious for focus on the pyrotechnics. That is no way for a model to be introduced to a major Hollywood film.

This aside at least the payday is good for a list of actors that looks like the Coen brothers phone book. Frances McDormand, John Malkovich and John Turturro turn up to pad the thinning material out. Patrick Dempsey must owe Kruger a bunch of favours for being in both this and Scream 3 while Alan Tudyk and Ken Jeong to be on the butt of the unfunny gay jokes. Jeong who plays Wang (hur hur geddit?) also gets a departure that is so insensitive for the sake of a few jokes I was slightly aghast.

This leaves us to the 40+ minute reason why many have shelled out cash for this two and a half hour movie. Bay excels here with set pieces the remind us that when it comes to action, he always delivers something worth watching (once). His visuals still suffer from his hyperactive camera movement, but they have however been colour graded up from garish to bright. The Robots gleam, shine and rust and fight in the way you'd expect an effect worth millions should to. I will admit that the moment when Shockwave began to crash through a skyscaper I was impressed to a point.

But this comes at an expense of once far too many, almost non-descript robot characters with no real personalties. Too many human characters who aren't very interesting/likeable who chat about nothing for a long time, needless crotch shots, lingering arse shots alongside unintentionally amusing lines and sequences due to a bad script. We are constantly told to switch our brains off to films like this, but I keep asking myself at what point did it become the norm that we must be brain dead in order to enjoy a film? Why is it that the hallmarks of such a genre; may have been b-movies in disguise, but still maintained structure, characterisation as well as decent action? This film is 157 minutes long and yet we constantly get told to ignore two thirds of this because some things blow up for just over one third.

Transformers: Dark of the moon almost shows that Megan Fox may have been fired but she may also be right about Bay, a director with many films that seem to only exist in one note stereotypes, bland humour and chaos. We see close-ups of character's faces but they seem devoid of any emotional connection. Conversations feel clumsy and nobody resembles a human. Some ignore this based on a bizarre ideal that you should pay full price for nearly half a movie, especially if it's in 3D IMAX. I know many who are happy with the trade off. I say more power to them. This way of thinking has Dark of the Moon most probably becoming the 7th film to break the billion mark in worldwide grosses. Who needs friends when you've got fans.

Review: Bridesmaids

2011-07-01T12:37:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Paul Feig
Screenplay: Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo
Starring: Kristen Wiig, Chris O Dowd, Rose Byrne, Maya Rudolph, Melissa McCarthy

Synopsis is here

Bridesmaids is like most Apatow graced features; there's a lot of swearing, some low brow humour and a lot of heart. The only difference appears to be that instead of the typical man-child leads usually given, we instead follow an oddjob group of girls (led by Kristen Wiig) as they stumble over obstacles and clash their particular personalties before a friends wedding.

The gender switch had many column ichers hyping and writing as there is a strong belief to some that not only the mainstream American comedy is struggling, but that the female gender, may or may not be particularly funny in the first place.

The latter half of the argument, I find similar to the race argument that pops it's head up from time to time. The media world is dominated by in real life by a certain cultural group and mindset, so of course the art and entertainment reflects said group the most. It has it's disadvantages and outrages as you expect, but for the most part it's understandable. The problem is for me (and I believe many others) is when the dominance becomes a full on stranglehold on whatever minority. So when something like Bridesmaids slips out, makes money and is generally liked there is a certain amount of shock.

I was a little shocked myself as while Bridesmaids has some laugh out loud funny moments (two brilliantly put together set pieces on a plane and wedding dress store) as well as some smaller titter worthy scenes, I was adequately amused no more, no less. My issues have nothing to do with the gender of the cast (although a refreshing change), I just felt that as a film, it could have been a little tighter, some of the characters could have been a little more prominent and not all the jokes worked on me as much as I had hoped.

With this said, in my opinion Bridesmaids is far superior to the Hangover 2; particularly in cast, with breakout star Melissa McCarthy being a much better trade off compared to Zack Galifiankis as her character actually has something to do (it seems lot of of Galifiankis' appeal is that he has a beard and slightly off-kilter appearance). Rose Byrne shows she has more than enough chops to hang out with a comic clan, and while largely ignored, the pairing of Ellie Kemper and Wendi McLendon-Covey share some nice banter with each other. The film is a grand display for one Kristen Wiig. Now finally given a stage to show more prominence, Wiig shows off a great balance of slapstick, timing and pathos. Wiig manages to give the role of Annie the neurotic tendencies you'd expect from a Bridget Jones style character, but none of the irritation.

There is enough within Bridesmaids to show that American comedy is doing fine in the right films. Gender arguments aside, there's also a great amount of sweetness to be found in the characters that helps elevate humour, which is what some comedies have been missing. It didn't stop the feeling I got that Bridemaids loses some laughs in the latter half and that the film could have been raunchier and less meandering at points. But as a whole Bridesmaids was certainly worth the ticket price.

Review: Green Lantern

2011-06-18T19:57:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Martin Campbell
Screenplay: Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Marc Guggenheim, Michael Goldenberg
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Geoffrey Rush, Mark Strong, Peter Sarsgaard , Blake Lively

Synopsis is here

A common phase for a film like The Green Lantern would be Cookie Cutter. While I agree with the metaphor to a certain degree, there is a slight problem with it. Cookie Cutter may represent samey, but it also displays that there's a certain degree of taste to proceedings. I like cookies. They are dependable snack food. When a film is described as cookie cutter, it may not be fresh or original but it should provide some sort of sweetness. Green Lantern is more like play-doh cutters in which the end product may be non-toxic but still inedible.

I personally think the film is as earnest as Ryan Reynolds dimples. It wants to be a decent and fun popcorn flick and some of the more harsh reviews have made the film out to be some sort of super cancer. I think Martin Campbell (Casino Royale, Goldeneye) tries to do a decent job with the action set pieces and I think the much of the cast is trying hard to give a silly story (seriously the opening narrative is laugh out loud) a certain amount of gravitas. The effects have been blasted as bad but I didn't mind them too much as I've seen much worse. All in all there's is enough within the film to make it a watchable feature.

Unfortunately for me, Green Lantern's fatal flaw is it's hash of a screenplay; which does nothing to explore the themes it brings up properly, nor does it construct the relationships within the movie with any grounding. Every aspect of the story is half-baked, pedestrian and predictable. Far too many character turn up spout wearisome dialogue and disappear never to be heard from again. Around half way through the plot suddenly realises that the characters within the film are actually connected to each in some way but unfortunately this appears way too late.

In fact, it's this aspect is so badly put together that one may question the who's and why's long after the film's finished., though more out of frustration more than anything. It is a script that turns Blake Lively from a character with any creditability into a woman in distress avatar. It is a screenplay that states there is a back story between three characters but decides to tell us this almost near the end of the film. It's a screenplay that states that Hal Jordan has a fractured family life of sorts, but cannot be bothered to do anything with such characters so gives them a typical lazy one note scene. Such soulless construction ruins a film which clearly just wants to have a good time.

The worst thing about Green Lantern is that you can see that fun film trying to come out. Those who aren't pompous film viewers like myself will happily ignore the problems and garner something from the film. But I almost got there. I like the goofiness that an actor like Reynolds can bring, I like that Geoffrey Rush, Mark Strong and Peter Sarsgaard bring the right amount of energy to the role. I also like Blake Lively's....erm...figure (seriously they give her nothing to work with). There's also the over used but still interesting theme of fear being an all consuming force, while will power can overcome such an aspect. The action lacks physicality (thanks overuse of effects) but still has a popcorn munching appeal. It's just a damn shame that the four writers on board of this movie couldn't find the tone or coherence for the piece.

Review: Senna

2011-06-13T23:52:00.001+01:00

Year: 2010 (U.K release 2011)
Director: Asif Kapadia
Written By: Manish Pandey

Synopsis: A documentary that deals with the life and tragic early death of Ayrton Senna

I've never had any real interest in Formula 1 racing. In the same way people moan about football being overpaid men on a field kicking leather around, F1 to me is rich people in very fast cars driving around a track. I guess my disinterest in the sport stems from a disinterest in cars. I have my drivers licence, even owned a car at one point, but the way people react and interact when in these massive hunks of metal has always been a turn off. Also as a man who reads the back pages first, I've always seen how the politics have affected the sport, but then again name me a popular sport these days that hasn't been infected by money men and the like.

Senna is the perfect film for people who don't have an interest in the sport. Why? Because the subject himself; Ayrton Senna, appears so wonderfully grounded. It also helps that director Asif Kapadia and editors Chris King and Gregers Sall compile a film, not as a typical assembly of talking heads but as a full bodied drama, playing out in front of you with all the tension of many high class Hollywood features. Senna creates a such a riveting portrayal of a man and the sport he loves, that I became more intrigued not only in the man but the sport itself. This is what a good documentary should do.

Taking the most prominent aspect of Senna's life; his privileged yet determined upbringing, his battles against Allan Prost and the FIA, to his tragic final moments. It's put together with laser sighted precision (out of 15,000 hours of footage) and provides poignant insight into a man whose fearlessness (observe his driving on wet surfaces) made him a champion, but his love for his country and faith seem to take him further. Kapadia assemblage of the footage gives Senna a humility that is sorely lacking in my chosen sport Football, although a quick glance at Messi and Kaka shows such personalities haven't completely died out.

There's no doubt that the way the film is put together makes Senna appear like he can do no wrong (it eschews an Eddie Irvine confrontation and a relationship with a 15 year old, which I found out after watching), such one sidedness stops us from seeing a Senna as a truly complete and flawed person. The Film makes Prost out to be a villain of sorts, but some his ominous comments about Senna help revel that the man's drive to compete could be as dangerous as it is inspiring. The film only touches on some of the political drama of the sport which provide some of the most revealing aspects of not only Senna as someone who wished for the safety of those who partake in the sport, but also the bullish and dogmatic talk that show up for the FIA. Being the person I am I would love to see what else was said within the offices and meeting rooms as opposed to some of the more fawning interviews.

This doesn't stop Senna from being the absorbing feature it is. Senna comes across as a man with strong morals and a caring personality. A wonderful moment during the credits involves a selfless Senna jumping out of his car to help another driver whose just crashed, while his talk about pure racing will touch anyone who remembers why they took up a sport when young. As a film Kapadia's wonderful usage of footage captures not only the tension of the boardrooms, but the high paced excitement of actually being in those races, while the home video and interviews show us a man with a warmth that I feel many wished the Hamltons, Messas and the like had. I for one; would particularly be chuffed if the England Football team took even half a page out of Senna's book. We still probably wouldn't win the world cup but they would definitely win more hearts within the nation.

X-Men: First Class

2011-06-03T21:36:00.001+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Screenplay: Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughn
Starring: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon, Jennifer Lawrence

Synopsis is here

Here's a turn out for the books. The summer blockbuster I had some of the most doubts about, turns out to be mega high on the entertainment factor. I had already been burnt from the last two features from this franchise (the very bland X-3 and the dubious Wolverine) so my interest in the mutant adventures had cooled. It didn't help matters that after two lacklustre endeavours as of late (Pirates and The Hangover 2), that were meant to ignite the summer season, that my interest in this (nee the series) had cooled somewhat.

X-Men: First Class impressed me however, by being a simple, by the book, adventure film. We root for these characters because of their actions on the screen, not because we know who they are. The action is relatively bloodless (12-A) but it's clear, concise and to the point. What's more; the pace is brisk (didn't feel like two hours) and while Vaughn doesn't fully get the balance quite right of all those characters in my opinion (I think X-2 does it better) he does make sure that the conflict is high and investment in these people worthwhile. Despite the film being a prequel, Vaughan's direction (along with a decent screenplay by the four writers) helps build a strong background for people that we already know and a new found interest in them.

The ideas of placing the X-men in the middle of the Cuban missile crisis works well on two fronts as it means that every human is under the threat of war, while radiation would only advance mutations in those in already already have them. It's a neat plot thread that the film runs with well, using Kevin Bacon to do his smarmy, slimy worst (great cast pick). It's odd that despite being set in the middle of the civil rights movement, the film does draw that much from it. One of the things that made X-2 what it was that the parallels between Malcom X (Magneto) and Martin Luther King (Professor X) appeared to be much stronger, however you could say that this is a film where such facets are just about to be defined.

While that particular outlook is sidelined, Vaughan still sets about creating a solid structure of core beliefs an intimate relationships between the two main characters of the piece; Eric (Fassbender) and Charles (McAvoy) and their outer circles. Seeing how these relationships come together is a pleasure as these mutants are thrown into an era of change while slowly discovering their own personalities. Vaughan doesn't appear to be as developed in the theme of finding identity as the openly gay Byran Singer and it shows when looking at singular scenes. But what Vaughan do manage to capture is a similar spirit that was gouged out by the recent entries before it. I like the idea of Mystique echoing Rouge somewhat. I also like the fact that the friendship between Erik and Charles is a fast one that isn't just out and out friendly or combative but balanced on the edge of something. A subtle knowing that something big could come from both of them.

A lot of this is not only stems from Vaughn and the screenwriters but from a bright young cast who are up to the challenge. Much could be said about the films stylish retro 60's era setting (and man from uncle/bond plot) but it's the cast that give the film it's true freshness. both McAvoy and Fessbender are charming in their own special way. McAvoy has a smart, Hugh Grant thing going on, while Fassbender as a James Dean like, devil may care feel that draws attention to him in every scene he's in. Both Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult hit the akward teen stage on the head, while the aforementioned Bacon doesn't have as much screen time as I would like but is just the right side of nasty. January Jones and Rose Byrne are pretty thankless in their roles but both show enough skin to make the teen audience not notice anyhow. Vaughan also decides upon himself to load the film with some great character actor cameos (Ray Wise, Michael Ironside, Oliver Platt) just to keep things ticking over as if his efficient use of pacing in the movie wasn't enough.

But what the main reason on why people will watch this is the action. I can witter on about all the over stuff till the cows come home. It means nothing to those who go "just to watch the movie" and in all honestly Vaughn does another good job here. He doesn't beat his strobe light Hit Girl set piece in Kick-ass, but he does give us clean, neat action set pieces which may not reach the dizzying heights of what many will expect this summer (Transformers 3 does bring a certain amount of promise whether I like it or not) but are certainly thrilling enough to keep one watching. The climatic sequence involving Magneto and a barrage of missiles is good enough to sit next to the likes of most the major moments within the franchise.

X-men: First Class is a taut prequel that had me entertained enough for me to go back and give The Last Stand another try. It provides an added depth to well known characters and wraps it up in a fast paced, tightly put together spy adventure package. It could be well worth the wait if Vaughn is allowed to take everything off the reigns.

Review: The Hangover: Part 2

2011-05-31T16:05:00.002+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Todd Phillips
Screenplay: Todd Phillips, Craig Mazin, Scot Armstrong
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis

Synopsis is here.

So many lament the predictably of Hollywood (including myself) that we in turn become products of the same pre-determined nature. I really didn't raise too much of an eyebrow when I heard that there was to be a sequel to The Hangover but that may be because the signs were all very clear. I mean how many people were shocked, really?

I don't really condone everything that the big studios do, but there's a certain amount of importance (if your into film) into why. The original film's box office when adjusted for inflation, ranks at #177, it's ranked higher (#49) if not. It made numbers that some movies can only dream of. It had a cast of relative unknowns who became names due to it's success and it was praised critically (79% based on 214 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes) as well as commercially. With Hollywood leaning ever more towards the aspect of films as brand over anything else it's a no brainer that despite it's premise being a solid (but underwhelming IMO) that Warner Brothers were going to count it's gains and go for a sequel. Hell, now that the film has opened doors to it's cast , I'm guessing that WB were hedging bets that they could possibly bring in friends of the friends who went to see it the first time.

I really haven't a problem with this. Even if this blog site appears to allude that I do. My only wish is that the film can entertain, amuse and/or inform. The problem is that often with this money talks culture, what is given to the paying audience is lazy retreads. With films being known more for being a franchise or brand there's a good chance that films are now being made on name alone. For myself a recent case of this was Pirates of the Caribbean 4; a film so unbelievably bland, I questioned my feelings on the original film. It's very clear that board entertainment is a big want for modern audiences but after looking at the comments that lie in an article about the films lack of originality I found myself asking "really?" The idea of a films sequel aping the original almost bit by bit feels not only a redundant but quite simply odd. No change at all? The comments going on about class and taste and how critics "don't know what the public want" (despite what was said about the first film I wrote above), but as a member of the public myself, I do think that there should be SOMETHING that gives a film it's own identity, not just a new title.

Thing is Hangover Part 2 is pretty much the same thing with the new setting (and casual racism) being the only thing that's different. The fact that Phillips' Due Date tread around familiar ground gives this venture a certain tiredness. At least the characters in the hangover films aren't as mean spirited as that film.

But due to the same structure and familiar events it does mean that affection for these guys and their situation is strained. The reason I don't watch soaps is there's only so often you can watch an Ian Beale character have the same mishaps. After a certain amount of time, you just want to punch the guy. There's no one in The Hangover part 2 I want to punch; save for Bradley Cooper's Phil whose ignorance to a different culture is aggressive and unwelcoming. However, due to these characters going through the same paces and pay-off; I had to wonder, why the hell didn't you check there in the first place? The lack of any basic change makes this a sequel of diminishing returns.

This isn't to say I didn't laugh. That's the point of the film and for the price of my ticket, I almost got enough giggles to justify the film's existence. I can't say the same for the almost deathly quiet audience I saw this with (seriously the teenage boys hardly laughed), but there's some throwaway lines and reaction shots that had me grinning. As did a ridiculous meditation sequence that showed how Alan (Galifianakis) viewed himself and his friends. Nothing of the film stood out as truly memorable moments but I still laughed at some of the crudeness and had a bit of fun with some of the absurdity.

Unfortunately that's really it. In the same way I hold the first film as amusing once but oddly quite throwaway, I say the same for this. I laughed a lot less, still only found one sequence to be a bit of a stand out moment and while he was much improved over the original and Due Date, I'm still wondering when Zack Galifiankis is going to be the comic wunderkind many have talked him up to be. Ed Helms is unfortunately diminished and I honestly don't believe that Paul Giamatti really needs the money that bad. There is a two second cameo by one Mike Tyson but I'm still wondering why there was so much bother over a considered racist and wife beater (Gibson) being in the movie while a convicted rapist like Tyson is considered warm and cuddly. Particulary when The Hangover Part 2 shows just enough contempt at minorities, gays and women to have another argument that the film itself is no angel. That strangely seems to be the biggest surprise of the whole affair.

Review: Pirates Of The Carribean: On Stranger Tides

2011-05-25T19:19:00.006+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Rob Marshall
Screenplay: Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio
Starring: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Penelope Cruz, Sam Claflin, Astrid Berges-Frisbey

Synopsis is here

I haven't fought the urge to walk out of a cinema as badly as I did today during POTC 4. Was it really that bad? In a way no. I've seen films way worse than this. This isn't bad from a technical standpoint like the films of Ed Wood or Troll 2, nor is it as shockingly appalling as something like Lesbian Vampire Killers. No, the reason behind such an urge to leave was the searing apathy this feature brings with it. It is a lazy laborious bore. To hate it would be to have something to feel towards it. Pirates 4 doesn't try to bring anything to the table. I felt no joy, no pain, no hate, no nothing. The film has a vapid emptiness so substantial that I actually asked myself "what's the point?"

Pirates 4 reminds me very much of how I felt about The Omen remake, in the grand scheme of things it isn't the worst film ever made, as that's a stupid claim. However, this film is so transparent in its purpose (to make money) it doesn't even try and mask its reason of being with anything approaching solid entertainment. I 've always considered the pirates franchise to be one of diminishing returns. However I despite my disappointment of the installments as the series went on there was always something to be had from them. Gore Verbinski doesn't come anywhere near my fave directors list but you could never say that his approach to the material lack energy. Even through the overcomplicated plots overdone double crosses, at least there was a set piece to take something from or a moment of humor or two.

Pirates 4 offers nothing to hang a hat on. It is a lackadaisical Pirates-lite retread full of sub-plot-points which go nowhere (Blackbeard's magic, the mermaids physiology) , eye rolling attempts at humour (cracker joke bad) and "fresh" characters who are nowhere near as appealing as those who have left us. It also contains the fear that bothered me the most, Jack Sparrow as the lead and not the comic foil. This is Depp playing a caricature with nothing to do and no one to bounce off of. You would think that "bouncer" would be Penelope Cruz but unfortunately the screenwriters decided to leave her character at home. Here Sparrow claims love to this new character but does little in terms of action to prove it. There is one moment that tries to salvage some sort of chemistry, unfortunately it's too little too late. But then this is what you get when you have a film that has a first half of merely introducing characters with no character. Yes Worlds end and Dead Man's Chest were overstuffed with plot, but leaving us with hardly anything doesn't restore the faith.

Other reviews have lamented at the loss of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan and I have to agree as while Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightly weren't a romance that would set hearts a flame, but at least it was there. You could sense an attraction even if you didn't think it was the best. Their flat performances can always be attributed to being the "straight men" and in a round about way it worked. On Stranger Tides shoehorns in a weak substitute in a Priest (Claflin) and a Mermaid (Berges-Frisbey) but their need within the movie is superfluous and poorly executed.

Even the action within the movie suffers; with nothing coming close to the final fight in Worlds End, the endless wheel sword sequence of Dead Man's Chest or you know the whole first movie. None of the events carry any weight or risk, but nor do they bring any inventiveness either. Action happens, but you can almost forget it in a blink of an eye. Verbinski gave a cartoonish verve to proceedings before. What does Marshall bring? But then again when Rob Marshall brought to us two very uninspiring modern musicals before this what did I expect?

Acting wise, what we get is beyond flat. Depp trots out Sparrow again but this is forth time and the well is clearly running dry. But then how could Depp still be as entertaining whenhe goes up against a villain as flavourless as this installments Blackbeard? Ian McShane plays the legendary pirate as a grumpy Lovejoy with little wish to inject any animation within the portrayal. You could say that all the scenery chewing is left to Geffory Rush's Barbossa, however Rush is so sidelined he makes Owen Hargraves look like he played for more than ten minutes last season. Penelope Cruz sleepwalks through scenes with one eye on her baby and one eye on the next time she can hook up with a director like Woody Allen again.

So what do we get? We get a bland retread, but it's worse than that as it's step down. It does nothing to suggest that money was the only reason this forth film even existed. Now lets not get things mixed up here. I enjoy the fruits of capitalism (check my DVD collection) and I'm well aware that it's called show business for a reason. But when you are given a film that simply doesn't try in any aspects of creating a sense of fun, that's when things become frustrating. I do not write this to get a rise out of fans of the franchise. Why should I? I'm sure there's films I love, that they probably despise. However,this is cinema as commerce at its worse, trading in on the fact that it has that Hans Zimmer score and Johnny Depp merely being on screen to give the belief of real enjoyment. 2003 is almost 10 years ago. Marshall's film help remind us that the fresh air of that year would clearly be stale now.

Cinematic Dramatic 3x08 - Attack The Block

2011-05-21T10:13:00.001+01:00

Cinematic Dramatic 3x08 - Attack The Block

Released: 20/05/11
Hosts: Iain Boulton & Byron Pitt

Click here to listen to the Cinematic Dramatic podcast. This episode we talk about Thor, Hanna and Attack the block.

Thanks and other articles

2011-05-20T09:17:00.000+01:00

This entry is merely a brief thanks to everyone of you who visit this small space on the web. I started this blog almost three years ago as a past time of sorts, and didn't expect too much. However since it's beginnings to now; this past time has allowed me to write for other people, have various interesting chats with film lovers from all over and it may be one of the reasons why I work in T.V Media right now (it was mentioned in the interview).

This is a thank you to all whose stopped by. I truly appreciate very one of you guys, even if you disagree with my views.

With this said I feel now is a good chance to whore myself even more! If you have been following the site and enjoying my ramblings, you can also find me spewing word vomit at these places.

Geek Planet Online - Catch me at The Film Pitt or listen to me on The Cinematic Dramatic Podcast

Filmshaft - My most recent article has been about Pirate Myths

Last and not least a big thanks to Matt Dillion, Gillian Coyle, Dave Probert, Craig Sharp, Martyn Conterio and long suffering podcast partner Iain Boulton. It's the passion inside us that keeps us doing what we do and I'm glad to share such a ride with people like yourselves.

Byron Pitt will return in his next review: Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides.

Review: Attack the Block

2011-05-11T19:14:00.001+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Joe Cornish
Screenplay: Joe Cornish
Starring: John Boyega, Jodie Whittaker, Nick Frost

Synopsis is here

Film Critics eh? Who'd be one? Constantly told that one cares about your opinion and yet the moment you say something out of joe six bloggs regular opinion, you're jumped on. Case in point: Robbie Collins one star review on Joe Cornish's Attack the block. The review considers the film as utter rubbish and that it's other hyped by PR, American bloggers and reviewers that should know better. Suddenly out of the woodwork come people who probably haven't seen the movie yet considering Collins as "the worst critic ever" etc. It's not Collin's best critique (in fact his facebook elaboration is far more interesting) however the abhorrent attack from twitter wankers complaining, most probably due to their blinded love for the Adam and Joe show is irritating*.

Such blinkered views have neatly avoided the fact that Collin has posed some points that should be looked at. The most probing for me is the idea that the film lacks likeable characters. Characters within Attack the Block would not look out of place in say Harry Brown, a film with notoriously 2-D gangland chav villians for middle England to revel in their bloodlust at when Michael Caine goes medieval on their asses. If ATB merely transported those same flat characters into a sci-fi flick and yelled "care for them now" then I could easily agree with Mr Collins.

However, Attack the Block is not that film and I disagree with Robbie quite a bit (yep, he's replied to a tweet once so clearly first name terms). Attack the Block is a down and dirty genre picture that I found consistently appealing and entertaining throughout. I loved the vibrancy and urgency, really got into the characters and the stakes and admired the style that Cornish placed into. The film comes off as a robust mixture of Goonies, Predator and Kidaulthood and despite the opening gambit appearing quite harsh (rooting for 5 hoods who mug an innocent nurse) the film displays more than enough footing to allow us to invest in these characters.

There are flaws within the film that did make me question the high prise that many have given it slightly. The dialogue honestly sounds scripted, some of the performances are a little raw, I chuckled a bit but not as much as I had hoped and some of the secondary characters really could have been bulked up. However Cornish manages to over ride these niggles with the difficult main relationship between Moses (John Boyega) and Sam (Jodie Whittaker) which hints at troubled upbringings and urban fears and more importantly keeps such aspects complicated. Interestingly the gangs dramatic change (mainly Moses) come from an attack on their own mortality that they clearly never had before. It's also more subtle than a more usual Holywood-equse "sudden realisation" that one would obtain from something like Avatar.

Serious talk about characters aside, the films enthusiasm shines through so much of the future. There's a neatly put together extended chase sequence, more than enough tension throughout (with some good jump scares) and a wonderfully large scope for a film set within one council estate block. The makers of Skyline for all it's CGI effects could learn a lot from Cornish's use of space. The film also has more than enough chucklesome moments to keep the energy high when we're not running from the aliens.

Performance wise Whittaker does really well with a character that isn't naturally sympathetic; robbery an all. John Boyega carries the film well despite it being clearly obvious that it is his first film, while I was quite fond of the character of Pest played by Alex Esmail. A low-key turn by Nick Frost is also welcoming as he seems to have stolen all the best lines.

Attack the Block is the kind of Brit B movie I hope to see more of. Full of moxie and more than enough style to go with it. It could have been funnier and it is a little rough around the edges, but that's not enough to distract from the fact that the film will be a Friday night fun flick for many cult nights in to come.

*Yeah, that's a generalisation, but no more so than the "worst critic ever" tags labelled on people because they like/dislike something that they did/didn't

Review: Hanna

2011-05-07T22:39:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Joe Wright
Screenplay: Seth Lochhead, David Farr
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett, Tom Hollander

Where do I start? Where do I begin?* With my opinions on films like Knight and Day, Battle L.A, Sucker Punch, The Expendables...I wouldn't be surprised if people felt I'm adverse to most action films as a whole. I'm sure some of my regular visitors to my web site garble (yes, I'm surprised too) expect a certain amount of negativity from the guy who really enjoyed Archipelago....

However, after emerging from the darkness of my now new regular cinema (which I may add is very old) I do think it will be safe to say that for me that Joe Wright's Hanna may very well be one of the films I'll still be yammering on about at the end of the year.

I describe Hanna as a teenage female Bourne flick with a fairytale structure. I do not use the Bourne similarity lightly, as the films main story and Euro/Africa destination jumping give that same feel to the proceedings as the spy trilogy. The fairytale aspect is also a large part of the film, borrowing heavily from Snow White (hell even the first landscape is in white snow.). So much so that the characters that we see aren't so much symbols of the grim fairy tale...they are those people. Implanting fairy tale elements into modern day "real" (I use that term very loosely) features isn't anything new. However, for me it's the innocence that is infused into it's lead character that separates this from some of the other modern fairy tale imaginings. Yes she is carefully taught to be a killer, but when Hanna is removed from her closed off world and shoved into our one, she becomes a blank slate.

The way she is taken and once again remoulded is a profoundly liberating. The film's focus never wavers from this fact and constructs it's appeal from this. Yes, the film is fuelled with grandiose sequences (an amazing ship cargo bay scene I found particularly arresting) but the connection to Hanna, her coming of age, and her having to try and understand and navigate this alien world is the allure. The down time with Hanna meeting a family with a girl her own age is a telling one, highlighting that teenage disconnect that many feel while also adding to that the confusing nature of what she has been told by her father. The strikingly choreographed action almost happens to be an added bonus. Wright however doesn't skimp however with the all the action not only having a sense of place but coming off off the films more quiet moments. The set pieces pop off like springs and is extremely satisfying.

Wright's ace in the hole however, is the dazzlingly mature performance from Saoirse Ronan. It's true that I wasn't armoured with Ronan in The Lovely Bones but her display in this reminds me that that may have greatly due to the character and material rather than Ronan. She is magnificent here, balancing the strength and force of her character with the emotional fragility it deserves. Reviews have stated the similarities being Hanna and Kick-Ass' hit girl and it is true. However the affecting aspect of Ronan's performance tips the bar carrying a movie that is actually quite scant on plot details (it tells you enough to keep you enticed) and based more on her characters feelings. Wright has stated that he was inspired by David Lynch on the movie and constructing the movie this way really shows it, as does the brilliant sound design.

Which begins me to the thumping score given to us by the Chemical Brothers. Wright, The Brothers and the various sound designers build a stylish sonic landscape that ebbs and flows beautifully with the image (Alwin H. Kuchler's cinematography is so wonderfully crisp). This is a score that manages to do what Daft Punks Tron score: get me involved. The music of the film (often accompanied by in film sounds by items and character merging with with the music) does't distract, it excites, becoming an integral part of the films DNA.

This is why I enjoyed Hanna so much, because while the film isn't fresh or original from a story or thematic standpoint, the combination of Wrights clean, swift direction of the piece, the thumping techno sound scape and absorbing lead performance come off almost effortless. I haven't even got around to the efficiently creepy turns from Cate Blanchett and Tom Hollander who are both wonderfully sinister (loved how the well the two work in sometimes ghoulish visages in combination with Wright's well placed camera. There's also a neat stoic role for Eric Bana.**

Hanna was almost perfect for a movie goer like myself. It slips from action to drama without difficulty, it shrugs off it's unoriginality and sketchy plot with well drawn out themes, strong character and visual flair. The music is immediate and kept me in the moment and I adored the films quiet loud quiet rhythm. Hanna doesn't say much different, but it has the ability to be more articulate when it's shouting it's message from the hills.

*Yes it's a reference.
**Much as been said about the odd accents but considering the film is based within a fairytale world and structure...I really wouldn't worry about it.

Review: Thor

2011-05-02T14:58:00.001+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Screenplay: Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Don Payne
Starring: Chris Hemworth, Tom Hiddleston, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Kat Dennings, Stellan Skarsgård, Idris Elba

Thor is another Marvel comic book movie that lands us right back into the realm of The Avengers. How Thor, Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and the rest of them are all going to fit into a coherent feature is still beyond me (worried about time constraints, a workable villain etc) however, as long as the Marvel output can still bring about singular features that are as mildly entertaining as this, then the future remains bright.

As someone who knows little about Thor comics I found myself more than a little weary about how this movie would come off. It’s quite clear that something like Thor may need an origin story to make sure that those who know nothing can enter in and be kept in the loop. It’s clear however in picking up a director like Kenneth Brannah that we are provided with an entry point that strikes enough balance for those in the know and those who know nothing. In fact, the opening of Thor displays the epic intentions that The Avengers film will need to strive for. The introduction of Asgard is a grandiose one that we would expect from the God of Thunder. This first act however spoils us as it doesn’t reach such a height again.

It’s an awkward compromise as Thor has a good sense of humour which grounds everything, a study cast who all give enough to be entertaining (if not thin on character) and a father son relationship that provides more than enough backbone to rest a (stronger) plot. The problem is that when we explore Thor’s time on earth, everything feels scaled down a tad too much. All the time spent with Natalie Portman and friends is sweet but after a while glazes the eyes, while the rest of the film’s second act seems to do all it can to muddle the villainous intentions and keep the conflict and stakes almost to a bare minimum. Despite the first act’s action sequences suffering from the horrible hacky slash editing that reminds us that this is a PG-13 movie there was still a build of momentum that came with it. Even all the plot nonsense of different realms and races with powers that put Sub Zero’s to shame was watchable as it felt it was building to something. Unfortunately the weakest aspect of Thor is that from an action point of view it seems to decrease in risk and scope as opposed to the opposite.

Don’t attack me for being too negative yet, as Thor’s charm is what pulls it through the quagmire of a muddied screenplay. Chris Hemsworth is solid as the leading man here, giving Thor the charm, arrogance and swagger needed for such a role. Kat Dennings has little to do (seriously there seems to be no point to her character) but provides the most humour. Anthony Hopkins’ Odin has Gravitas in spades, while Tom Hiddleson’s simmering villainy would have been even better if provided with a clearer arc in the script. Idriss Alba and Skarsgard need more to do but are still formidable enough. The oddest aspect within the casting (apart from Thor’s four friends) is Natalie Portman, whose bright smile and spunk are nice to watch, but suffers slightly be being the cutest scientist in the world ever. Her youth and sex appeal feel slightly at odds with her character.

The most attractive element of the film (save Dennings and Portman) however is how all of Thor looks visually. The vision and cinematography put forth by Brannah and his DP Haris Zambarloukos; is not only epic in scale (mostly when we’re not on Earth) but are full of colour and canted angles that seem to have been missing from the mainstream movie scene for some time. I take my early masters of the universe jibe I shot at film back. The amount of times we’ve had to endure that orange/blue colour grading has been unfair and this boarder approach to the visuals make watching Thor so refreshing.

Thor is visually appealing, humorous and neatly grounded considering its subject matter. The Marvel cameos and nods are all present but shouldn’t suffocate like they did with some people in Iron Man 2. And despite its murky plot (minus the father/son subtext) and decrease in energy, Thor keeps the most important factor in its sights: Fun.

Review: Scream 4

2011-04-24T01:28:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Wes Craven
Screenplay: Kevin Williamson
Starring: David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere

Synopsis is here

The problem with Scream 4 was always going to be relevance. Scream's popularity brought forth a slew of similar, self-aware, teeny-bopper slashers all with their own little "thing" to make them feel a little different. Do you remember Cherry Falls? I know what you did last summer? Urban Legends? I doubt those films or other would have seen the light of day if it weren't for Craven and Williamson. By the time the third instalment came around, the series felt more than a little stale. Scream 3 (2000) limped out in the same year as Scary Movie, which in itself was a spoof of a set of films that were of course, send ups themselves. Still it goes further. Scream defined horror films in such a way that even now nearly every mainstream horror film has a post-modern slant; be it retro chic or a remake, there is nearly always a wink or a nod to something else. In essence Scream not only borrowed from the genre, it became assimilated into the DNA itself, even Saw's "game playing" and torture sequences seem to be extended aspects of the deaths of Casey and her boyfriend Steve from that first (brilliant) opening moment.

With the horror film once again feeling like it may have to fall into a transition stage (when doesn't it) what can this forth film bring to the table? Unfortunately not as much as one would hope in this bloggers opinion. Scream 4 opens strongly with an opening ten minutes that once again placed me in the mood for slash happy fun and nearly finishes on a interestingly nihilistic note that reminds one of Craven's Last House days. However what we have in-between is a talkie middle that has none of the zing that made Scream what it was in the first place. Characters mention rules and hint about the state of horror films but the film doesn't bother to incorporate such aspects as well as it could. In an age of reboots and remakes, found footage and so called torture porn, Craven and Williamson refuse to let loose. In fact Scream 4 has such a by the book feel at times that I began to wonder if that was the largest irony.

Much of this is to do with the characters, the actors who played them and the story itself. The likes of Skeet Ulrich, Matthew Illard and Jamie Kennedy aren't the best thespians in the world, but their approach to the material was enough to keep you ticking over; as was Williamson's screenplay, which was crafty in its creation, wrapping a sad melodrama around a knowing wit and a tightly structured horror whodunit. Scream 4's hack, slash, next approach and overload of characters doesn't leave time to make these characters worth watching this time round. this leaves us stuck with a bunch of pretty uninteresting mix of red herrings and victims that really do feel like they're waiting for Ghostface than anything else.

An attempt to cover such cracks are covered with some genuinely brutal set pieces which do hit home as does some of the more meta moments. Meanwhile the films climax isn't perfect in it's execution, but the motive behind the murders is quite revealing in its cynicism and provide the most interesting commentary within the film.

The acting is a mixed bag with David Arquette and Hayden Panettiere being the most noteworthy. Arquette in particular feels more in sync with proceedings with a more understated performance than his earlier, goofier entries. Neve Campbell and Courney Cox have a pretty thankless task (the script also doesn't know what to do fully with the Gail Weathers character) while everyone else are pretty brutal to be honest (although the younger actors at least look high school age).

Craven's direction comes across as uneven and the material in that we get interesting plays on duality, unexpected daytime scares and a warmer look visually to proceedings. However, the lack of full on anger and energy within the films conversational middle is very noticeable. There's a world weary bagginess that is felt around certain aspects and Craven; a man who tries his best to only go back to the well when he has something to say, is let down by a script which feels pieced together from two different films.

Scream 4 does enough work for the hardcore fans to love it unbiasly, however it may come across as too pedestrian to those who think that Saw is the way forward and new fans may wonder what the fuss would be about. Scream 4 has more than enough kills for gore hounds, however, one may find self aware solace in dusting off the original feature.

Review: Your Highness

2011-04-23T12:28:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: David Gordon Green
Screenplay: Danny McBride, Ben Best
Starring: Danny McBride, James Franco, Natalie Portman, Zooey Deschanel

Synopsis is here:

Your Highness is a frustrating piece of work as under different circumstances, it might have worked. I mean a spoof of 80's style fantasy features? Why the hell not? In a cinematic world where most spoofs nowadays usually end in the word "movie" and are terrible, it would be nice to sink ones teeth into a comedy that's a tad more substantial than cheap shots at pop culture. Unfortunately, as opposed to crappy celebrity references, the filmmakers have decided that shoehorning unneeded swearwords into the dialogue is the only way to go. So often are the fucks, shits and pisses; that the overall effect is ruined. There's nothing wrong with juvenile humour (see The Farrleys best work) but there's a distinct lack of imagination that ruins proceedings.

This isn't to say I didn't laugh at any point. Other reviewers have commented on the wasted talents of a very strong cast (Charles Dance, Toby Jones, Damien Lewis all show up), however, I had no problem with this as they are all cast well enough considering, and everyone involved is game for a laugh, the issue is of course the script misses constant opportunities. Think of all the possibilities that one could send up of the genre. There's so many absurdities that could have been touched upon that are frequently ignored. Shades of amusement rear their head in the shape of Franco's naive hero character being attractive to not only the princess' of the land, while some of the throw away lines bring the odd grin. However in observing the film's strong effects you suddenly become aware of how unaware the material is. It resorts to easy dick jokes but misses the chance to lampoon the dated effects of old? Shame that.

There's isn't too much to state about Your Highness other than it's a limited comedy that runs in similar circles to the likes of all the Seth Rogan/Will Farrell features that have reared their head. However, Your Highness lacks the wacky abstractness that made films like Anchorman so appealing. Part of this falls on the head of former indie arthouse darling David Gordon Green whose direction is very focused on McBride doling out F-bombs but not in bringing out decent sight gags or any real comedic energy. This lacklustre approach of proceedings makes Your Highness sporadically amusing but mostly anaemic.

Review: Sucker Punch

2011-04-03T23:51:00.001+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Zack Synder
Screenplay: Zack Snyder, Steve Shibuya
Starring: Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens, Jamie Chung, Carla Gugino, Oscar Isaac, Jon Hamm, Scott Glenn

Synopsis is here

Sucker Punch wishes to be a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma; full of dream within dream logic and ambiguous moments. To all critics bitching about sexism and female empowerment well Zack has flipped the script on you people! Babydoll maybe dressed in a school girl uniform but it's no way exploitative. This film is clearly is a full indictment of such easy to go to thoughts so say the Synder himself. One of the most insightful commentaries on the movie I read was by Scott Mendelson who asked in his second article on the film: "Is is possible to make a female-driven action fantasy without falling prey to certain misogynistic messaging?" This is one of the most observant questions asked about the movie I've seen. The short answer is yes. The long answer is yes but Sucker Punch is not a good example of one.

I like the point that is trying to be put across by certain supporters of the film. We should be able take in women in action films in many other ways than what we usually expect. The problem is that the characters within Sucker Punch are completely formless. They are simply mannequins dressed up in fishnets and school uniforms. What have these women have to say other than the fact that they're attractive and shoot guns? That's my problem. I don't feel bad for these girls being abused; it's not that I'm aroused by these girls and their outfits, but because for the most point I was bored. Clear and simple. It's great to have all these arguments about female empowerment and what the films all about, my issue is Snyder doesn't give me the characters or the story to make the talk that important.

Here is a film that isn't as clever as it wishes to be. The first problem is I knew exactly where this film was going the moment we enter the asylum. We have a plot that's not only on rails but with the only "surprise" being that we have a gang of girls kicking ass other anything else. It's all very well stating that it's us the audience who have dressed the girls up in these cliched fetish gear, however, if you have five girls that have no character then of course people are going to pick on the fantasy costumes. Especially if everyone in the movie are all talking about the feminine aspect.

What Synder places all his effort in his is action sequences that may feel derivative if your a video gamer but they have a sense of place that has been missing from action films for so long it's unreal. If one thing Synder doesn't get credit for is that, while he overuses slow motion and speedramping, at least I know what I'm watching. The set pieces are impressive on their own, they are unfortunately draped around generic "lets get to here to go here" screenplay, full of stilted dialogue and performed very flatly by it's young cast.

There's also the problem of consistency. While speaking to a colleague on facebook, he stated that he felt that Snyder is only as good as his source material. Sucker Punch helps give such a statement an element of truth. Watchmen and 300 were films that had Snyder bound by the source. The wonderful (now defunct) Creative Screenwriting had a great episode with writer David Hayter detailing Snyder's fight to keep almost everything in Watchman to the spec of the comic. Here in Sucker Punch Snyder has carte blanche and it shows. We have fire breathing dragons, Steampunk Nazi zombies, Ninjas armed with machine guns and fights involving a bomb heading towards a futuristic city. All this is placed with a 1950's setting with rock songs of various eras, all averagely covered and shoehorned into the background. The whole thing is overkill with the action sequences feel at odds with this girl that we know nothing about. So everything this girl dreams about doesn't stem from anything based within the character herself or what she sees (take away the items she needs to obtain), but because "fuck it. that's why".

If I have to say something the film's deeper meaning (if there is one, some fans have just liked it as a film where chicks kick ass..) then it appears that Snyder's film wants to have his cake and eat it. The women dress up in sexy garments but if you dare think it's titillating then your in the wrong. Your a fanboy that can't "deal" with the heavy subtexts that the film is bringing. "There’s no close-ups of cleavage, or stuff like that" states Synder. But the crotch shot of Babydoll as she slowly picks up the phallic Katana doesn't count (among other shots). Every man is lecherous within the film, as the film wishes to portray women within it as abused upon, but the film is put together in a way that makes it's point debatable. Sure Synder cuts out all the sexy dancing that leaves us dudes mesmerized, but by the end of the film the final choice made by a certain character troubles us in a way that feels cheap. I've read about the interference by the MPAA but still, there's still a feeling that what could be placed back in could still leave us at odds, mostly because all the "cool stuff" is pushed to the forefront.

It's great to have a interesting subtext. In a world of commerce, it's great to have something that one can mull over as well as enjoy. Snyder's film however is overloaded, misguided, flatly acted and when things aren't exploding (at times even when they are) the film isn't actually that interesting. Films like Fish Tank and Winter's Bone have said much more insightful things about women and their places/relationships within their respective worlds. Mainstream films such as Kill Bill and Whip It are also stronger with their portrayals of strong female protagonists. Snyder's film is slight, pop feminism pushed though video game lens. The intent is good the executon is beyond weak. Think of it when the Spice Girls were yelling girl power.

Review: Source Code

2011-04-03T16:52:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Duncan Jones
Screenplay: Ben Ripley
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffery Wright

Synopsis is here

Roger Ebert's review on Source Code states that the science within the film is preposterous. I don't disagree in the slightest. I dare all the budding Brian Cox's to try and get their head around it. Like Indiana Jones taking more liberties than time team would like to acknowledge, Source Code plays fast and loose with quantum physics with the clear knowledge that most of the audience will not be experts. This provides issues with the film particularly near the end which could leave people scratching their head and not in that musing, good way. However, the key to the film is conviction. There's something about Chris Bacon's lively and Hitchcockain score, Jeffery Wright's amusingly crotchety but forceful scientist and the whole explanation of the situation at hand that makes the unbelievable viable.

Checked the synopsis? Well yes the film does give illusion to Groundhog Day, however it's obvious from the films science and sly voice cameo that Jones is more interested in Quantum Leap than Bill Murray. The film also touches on themes that were nicely established in Jones' first feature Moon. The cyclical nature of the hero's journey and the wish to break from it, that the sacrifice of one benefits the many and the difficult relationship between employers and employees when one has found a way to take advantage of the other. Jones complies these themes well and tells it in a story that feels remarkably fresh. There's enough in the film to entertain throughout.

But we shouldn't give Jones all the credit. The direction of the pace of the material as well as the flow of information is well handled. However, much has to be said about Ben Ripley's screenplay which is constantly involving from many angles. We're not only interested in the idea of Source Code, but also the plight of the solider. How the hell did he get into such a position? Now that he's there; will he ever escape it? There's a love story forming within the film, with the knowledge that we now, how can it survive? The combination of Ripley's questions and Jones' energy put the stakes right into the forefront. Once we get more information on the situation (the twists drop in at just the right moments) there is the question on if it feeling slightly futile. However, the drive of the character and their right to be allowed to do what they wish (sorry if this sounds vague, trying to not lay the plot bare) is what keeps the risk alive and the film entertaining as a whole.

The acting here is solid. Nothing groundbreaking by any accounts but all good turns from likable actors. Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Monaghan have a cute chemistry and bounce well off each other. Vera Farmiga's performance is a little bland. However, considering the part is merely a holding one, she does what is expected.

Source Code is a film which is full of fridge logic, however, like Limitless and the Adjustment Bureau before it, there's more than enough humanity and conviction in it's execution to enjoy what's on screen. I liked these people, was genuinely surprised with how they dealt with their situation at times and felt thoroughly satisfied (although a tad perplexed) with the outcome. Like a few recent films, the films final codec feels a little tacked on try and keep everyone sweet. However, when it's all said and done; Source Code is a enjoyable, sometimes thoughtful companion piece to Jones' first feature.

Review: Limitless

2011-03-28T21:47:00.000+01:00

Year: 2011
Director: Neil Burger
Screenplay: Leslie Dixon
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Abby Cornish, Robert Di Niro

Synopsis is here:

Limitless s about forward momentum and has enough drive to it that I didn't worry about those silly questions that could have tripped a different film up. It it also coming from a focal point of a narrator who spends most of his story on drugs, so when you ask yourself "how did that pill get there?" the film calmly states "you shouldn't be worrying too much about that lets see what happens next". Energy is key to the movie (hell even one of the characters deals in it) and Limitless has more than enough for the ride it's taking you on.

Limitless is a pulpy film which zips along due to two reasons; one you have a charismatic front man in Bradley Cooper who is showing off his range well and two, director Neil Burger and his crew bring a certain amount of visual flair to the film while keeping enough track on the story. Some elements aren't the best (Coopers constant narration of the story is at times unneeded) but the films hustle gets it through. Washed out city streets wrap into to bright colourful places with a swallow of a pill. Visual tics which could easily remind one of Darren Anofsky's Requiem for a Dream are used here, not to overwhelm the film but to enhance the pill popping nature of whole situation.

This is combined with Bradley Cooper, who is on top form here. The slick back hair and the slightly smug smile is heightened by the fact that Cooper walks the walk very well. It's no surprise the film delves into stocks and shares because Cooper's performance is one of a coked up broker. While he may not have that Gecko aggression (we still have to side with him), Coopers performance is best when the pill up's his confidence. It's a swagger that we've seen parts of in The Hangover and The A-Team but it's in full force here and great fun to watch.

An interesting factor for me is that as much of this film is just a mainstream thriller (and one that enjoys the execution of it's conventions) but there appears to be an interesting side note on America and it's taking of drugs as a whole. Not lest the fact that the pills effects make it a natural side-kick for wall street and that the drug and some of it's side-effects had me thinking to myself "Extreme Ritalin?" And yes, drug itself is a fictional beast and also illegal in it's universe, but there's a cynical nature to the films last moments that does enough to tickle the brain somewhat. The film main climax almost betrays this with a climax that's a bit neat. But the film manages to pull itself back somewhat with a nice amount of ambiguity.

Limitless is enjoyable, fast paced ride with a charismatic leading actor and a solid supporting cast to go with him. It may not have the comeback performance that many are expecting from Bobby Di Niro (to be honest he's fine here), but its visuals, solid storytelling and breeziness of it all make it a fun watch.

Review: Submarine

2011-03-27T21:28:00.000+01:00

Year: 2010 (U.K release 2011)
Director: Richard Ayoade
Screenplay: Richard Ayoade
Starring: Craig Roberts, Sally Hawkins, Paddy Considine, Noah Taylor

Synopsis is here:

The best way to describe Richard Ayoade's (Moss of I.T crowd) feature directional debut is with one word: Awkward. This a both a good and bad thing to the film as a whole because while much of the film is meant to bring a certain amount of discomfort in tone (much of the amusement comes from its thorniness), certain aspects stick out like a sore thumb. Other moments are just plain hard to like. I wasn't surprised that the film had two walkouts in the cinema I watched it in. I stuck with the film because A: I don't do walkouts, B: My girlfriend was with me, but mostly importantly C: in that there is something amusing about the films quirks and a certain amount of emotion which gets wrought out of the situation put in place. However, I really had to work at it to get invested.

I found my slight detachment odd being a fan of Rushmore; the film that Submarine is being routinely compared to. Like Andersons feature and more recently Scott Pilgrim vs The World, the film is a coming of age feature dealing with lead characters that are not easy to warm to. The issue I have is while these protagonists are all very similar (misguided, self-absorbed to the point of delusion) Submarine has darker themes roaming it's corridors. This is by no way a bad thing, but it does mean that the stakes are higher, so while Scott Pilgrim and Max Fischer have a dopey charm about them that helped me connect, Submarine's Oliver doesn't have such an easy entry point. To some this may be the film's saving grace as the film eschews a lot of the surface gloss that litters some other films of it's ilk. However when the film gets to the final third I found it hard to truly engage with the lead. Perhaps I felt that Oliver is maybe too selfish with all things considered.

All this aside; Ayoade has a strong vision in mind and while the illusions of Wes Anderson and French New Wave influences are clearly present, the film is all Ayoade's. The film's mixture of setting and retro mise en scene (sorry for using the dreaded word) give the film a timeless feel, while it's muted colours and combination of ugly industrial estates and gorgeous beach landscapes match our protagonists perfectly. Ayoade also has a certain flair for set pieces with a highlight being a well crafted two weeks of romance scene that's full of youthful nostalgia and a sweetness that is lacking within recent Brit flick affair.

The film is also well casted. Craig Roberts downcast expression and quick spoken ramblings capture the gawky inelegance that comes from being the uncool school drifter.Yasmine Paige is well matched foil for this as the unsentimental and bad tempered love interest, Jordana. Without some of the more common indicators, their romance has very natural feel to it. Sally Hawkins (Jill) and Noah Taylor (Lloyd) are almost unrecognizable as Oliver's parents, while Paddy Considine once again reminds us that he has comic chops to match his more dramatic intensity, channeling Jemaine Clements Chevalier with a very amusing star gazing ex-lover of Jills.

Leaving the cinema afterward almost left me at a loss. Submarine is witty, stylish and on the right side of nostalgia. However, this isn't meant to be as observational as something like Archipelago and there are moments that kept me at an arms length. Sometimes it's down to the character, other times it's just elements that just don't feel right such as the chapter titles, its odd pacing, and an end that feels too neat. But despite this the film has left me aching to rewatch it as I have a feeling the slight imperfections may be the reason the film is so appealing.

Note: I was not prepared for Alex Turners score, which I really enjoyed.

Review: Archipelago

2011-03-22T01:52:00.000Z

Year: 2010 (U.K release 2011)
Director: Joanna Hogg
Screenplay: Joanna Hogg
Starring: Christopher Baker, Kate Fahy, Tom Hiddleston

Synopsis is here

I can honestly say this without a doubt...I don't know anyone I could recommend this movie to. I find this a bit of a shame because I would love to pick their brain. In fact saying that I enjoyed Archipelago almost has a shade of sadomasochist to it. The film itself is about a middle class family who have clearly spent years doing their best to pick each other apart. This is perhaps nothing new to some who were fans of films like American Beauty, The Ice Storm, Festen et all. However, such films have a certain element of warmth or connectivity to them. Archipelago has a chilliness as glacial as it's pace. For me its cold shoulder and British stiff upper lip is what makes the film so interesting.

Comparisons to Hanke and Bergman have been made and are very apt but gone is the dehumanization and existential crisis and is replaced with a repressed insecurity that only the British middle class could bring to proceedings. Hoggs film works best when it highlights those slight, recognizable intricacies that some families would love to hide.

Told in static, unwavering shots (combined with some beautiful blocking/framing of characters) Joanne Hogg sets and maintains the films focus and tone with remarkable precision. We learn much about these characters through their placement and coupling alone. Such aspects are important as despite it's naturalistic and often economic dialogue, most of the films kick comes from their restraint and body language. An example of this is Edward (Huddlestone) whose gawky stance and positioning constantly betray his feelings towards his other family members. It's also worth noting that one of the films domineering characters is an unseen, absent father who is given an eerie omnipresence by the family's one sided phone calls with him. The reason I bring this up is due to Edwards presence (or lack there of) when the calls are made. When the revelation that the family are on holiday for one last get together with Edward before he goes to Africa for 11 months, the lack of communication speak volumes.

Conversation with the film are often polite pleasantries, masking a bitterness and anxiety that's clearly been felt for years. Hogg manages to seize upon this aspect time and time again throughout. The films main highlight involving Edwards sister Cynthia (a wonderfully scrabulous Lydia Leonard), a restaurant and some cooked guinea fowl is not only a well observed moment of humor, but also a deftly timed release of restrained emotion that truly feels like it's been back up since the helicopter landed on the island. You get the feeling that the missing father micromanages every relationship within the family.

Archipelago is carefully handled affair with Joanna Hogg who makes use her own directional discipline to take hold of a family who has lost their own. It is a film without a "regular" narrative structure but this is a film that doesn't need one. Keeping us at an arms distance at all times, we can merely watch in cringe-worthy detail a brief moment in this family's life. We will never know what's made them this way, only speculate. You don't get the relief of a usual cliched ending you can only hope that things can get better. The film by no way perfect; it's pace is beyond slow, there characters are be no means likable and it suffers from a very irritating artist character whose pretensions are almost as insufferable as my own. But Hogg's ability to open a door to these people, stir such fascination about them before shutting us off with nothing but our own thoughts to ponder, allows Archipelago to be one of the most stimulating films I've taken in this years first quarter. I don't know anyone I can recommend this to, but those who have the patience may absorb much from viewing it.

Review: The Lincoln Lawyer

2011-03-21T22:15:00.000Z

Year: 2011
Director: Brad Furman
Screenplay: John Romano
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Marisa Tomei, Ryan Phillippe, William H. Macy, Josh Lucas, John Leguizamo, Michael Peña, Bryan Cranston, Bob Gunton

Synopsis is here:

The Lincoln Lawyer is an unfortunate soul, but not for the reasons one may think. Coming out in the middle of March with not much to contest it speaks volumes. The combination of Mr McConaughey's recent work (I've mostly seen him shilling smellys more than anything), first quarter dumping ground release and an oddly weak advertising campaign (the strongest marketing appears to be tweets over TV spots or anything else for that matter) seem to suggest that The Lincoln Lawyer isn't worth anyone's time. Someone could alert Lionsgate however to up their game slightly for the DVD release as The Lincoln Lawyer is quite the smooth operator.

The Lincoln Lawyer's premise has a certain appeal to it. I really enjoyed the idea of this "back seat" lawyer landing this highly unlikely case and seeing how well he can use his smarts to navigate the situation. It doesn't sound like much but the film sells this by giving us a formidable display from Matthew McConaughey. It's the charm he gives to this character that really drives the film throughout. We see him defending reprehensible scum but not without an admirable sense of justice. In a world where even in real life we enjoy trying to shoe horn everything into simple black and white, McConaughey manages to direct this character into the awkward crawl space that is the moral gray area, while keeping us on his side throughout. We are willing to follow Mick Haller as he is not only charismatic with where he takes us, but he is also smart. We want to see where this going because Haller moves forward logically and with a knowledge other lawyers may not have. You couldn't imagine the prosecution behaving in the way he does. The screenplay and McConaughey make this feel organic and unscripted. It's what you want from a character like this.

This does cause a few issues within the movie as the narrative wishes to tie everything up far too neatly and goes against what we've just seen. It's very frustrating watching how this man operates only for the plot to fall down, as it's not willing to follow through on it's own convictions. However considering the board scope of the proceedings it's understandable, as the film does suffer from tell-us-again syndrome. An example is one scene in which McConaughey and William H Macy twice mentioning information we could have easily worked out visually.

The films broadness doesn't mean boredom however, and the films execution (despite some oddly placed shutter speed moments) is always appealing. Brad Furman gives the look of the film enough flourish and keeps the moral issue in the forefront. Despite some of the narrative short comings; it is a courtroom thriller that mixes it's elements well enough to keep an eye on things until the end. McConaughey's turn plays well against the Beverly Hills bravado of Ryan Phillippe, an actor who doesn't get enough dues. To add to this, the large array of character actors on show here all do well with what they have to do despite one major role clearly being streamlined (Tomei) to "fit in".

The Lincoln Lawyer should hopefully find a good home on the DVD market where those who have avoided cinemas for various reasons will pick this up for a good Friday night without prejudice. With an overcrowded blockbuster season approaching quicker than one may expect, this maybe the one of the more interesting mainstream adult films that some may see in sometime.

Review: Inside Job

2011-03-15T20:40:00.000Z

Year: 2010 (U.K Release 2011)
Director: Charles Ferguson
Narration: Matt Damon

Many have considered Inside Job as scary. I however do not. This is not because I find the film to be a bad one, but because it once again reminded me that money talks, absolute power corrupts absolutely and for those not in the top 1% in terms of wealth we are royally screwed nearly always in some roundabout. I guess the knowledge in the fact that these people can't take their wealth with them after they die help subside any anger that could have come from watching the movie.

Inside Job tells the story of the economic crisis in a very typical way for a documentary. There is nothing out of the ordinary in it's set up. It wishes to use it's stats and facts to drive the movie home and for that unfortunately it's a little dry. In fact the set up of the crisis (despite some interesting insight) is the most difficult to get through. This is the worst and best thing about Inside Job in someway as it's not the most joyous thing to watch but it also speaks in volumes on how easily the trouble was allowed to start. To have us as the "bewildered herd" is best for these people as then only the "saviors" could help us by sorting it out. This is even though our best interests are about the size of a penny in the ocean in comparison to the money they wish to make.

The film illustrates the greedy ideals of these people efficiently enough with it's overheard shots of the Hamptons and as one commentator quotes "pissing contests" that these investors and bankers have. One of the most intriguing aspects I found in the film is the simple fact that for many decades after the great depression America appeared to be financially sound. So why is it that the powers that be decide to restructure and deregulate the banking sector? Don't answer that question. The film knows why and answers it well. Ferguson builds the unjust and greedy world these character inhibit well. He also does this with a damning attack on the U.S governments that have allowed this. Liberal or Conservative is crucially not the point here as it shows (particularly in the last third) that Ferguson wishes only for a fairer and just America over anything else.

What I enjoyed about the movie isn't so much how well it deals with the financial crisis, but the backtracking and bullshit that comes with these people. Greed isn't a sin that stirs me as much as pride and the talk of chemical reactions in the brain of the wall street types when risks are taken provide the most revealing. The lust for power and wealth is one thing, but the delusional thoughts of grander, self belief that they are above the law and the sheer amorality that bolsters this drive provide the most striking moments. The films final third in which the academics and consultants of top colleges stumble and fume over their words when questioned on conflict of interests are very entertaining. It's amusing to think that Jeff Gerstmann was fired for his integrity over a measly video game, while the bigwigs of Harvard and Columbia happily take huge pay offs to give positive financial advice on the very people who just paid them.

For me once you get past the babble and talk of it all (I hated economics at college and dropped it for film and media) Inside Jobs main argument is a sound one. It is a worrying thought that the financial bulk of greedy bankers and their lobbyists appear to have more control in the state of country than it's politicians, particularly when they only give a damn about profit by any means necessary. Throughout the films opening sequences, many shots are of skyscrapers pointing upwards to the sky, which help paint an interesting visual picture (consider the fact they are always trying to build higher ones). I'm surprised that Ferguson doesn't feature any shots of the Wall Street Bull at all. As obvious as the metaphor is it's still an immensely apt one.

Review: Battle: Los Angeles

2011-03-14T17:20:00.000Z

Year: 2011
Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Screenplay: Christopher Bertolini
Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez

Synopsis is here:

One of the complaints I heard about Battle L.A over on the twitter was that the film is much like watching a video game. This is because the film appears to be structured exactly like one. Unlike other films I've mentioned with reference to video games (The Losers, Green Zone) this film seems to have completely lifted not only very typical cliche that comes with this type of affair, but also the plot from generic Playstation 1 game. I say Playstation 2 because owning both a PS3 and Xbox 360, I can almost safely state that even generic games on the current platforms are getting better with telling a basic story. I spent the last third of the film waiting for the film to hurry up and finish so I could go home and play Gears of War/Resistance/Killzone for the simple reason that would be far more entertaining.

Battle L.A believes that its cliche ridden narrative, infodump dialogue and stock characters are more than enough for the audience. Reason being that it's "visceral" camera work and action will distract everyone from the very fact that the script doesn't try hard. The problem is that director Jonathan Liebesman's action set pieces have no sense of place. Add this to the characters distinct lack of...well character; and you find yourself watching people you don't care about fighting/dying in a situation that you can't follow.

One of the more increasingly troubling elements with the modern action film isn't that they are nothing but explosion sequences (although this can be annoying), but that the actual footage within these scenes look as if it's been picked at random. It doesn't matter that you as a viewer have no idea whats going on because all you care about is explosions and gunfire. The reasoning behind this chaos is obviously to replicate the confusion and disorder of war. But even the video games that this film has nabbed from (check out all the down the sight shots for example) keep your character in view in order for you to remain in control. I am willing to sacrifice a certain amount of realism (in a film about alien invasion for Christ sakes) as long as the film realizes that I am watching the people on screen.

Such disorganized action only makes the the opening introduction of identikit soldiers feel even more ridiculous. It's bad enough that the film wishes to labor these guys with flat one note characterizations (none of the so-called back stories mean anything in the long run anyway), it only makes things worse that after the initial first wave of alien attacks you don't know whose dead or alive anyway. None of the actors infuse these grunts with any personality (considering that one of them is played by Ne-yo what was I expecting?) and the closest thing to an actual character is Aaron Eckhart's Micheal Nantz. This is a wasted performance from a talent actor giving his all to something that doesn't deserve it.

In watching Battle L.A. I am reminded on why Aliens stands out heads and shoulders above other features in the genre. Despite being 25 years old, it's understanding of story, stakes, character and action should not be dismissed. Not only does Battle L.A. not understand such simple mechanics, it simply doesn't care.

Review: Unknown

2011-03-07T23:03:00.001Z

Year: 2011
Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Screenplay: Oliver Butcher, Stephen Cornwell
Starring: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, January Jones

Synopsis is here:

If films could fight, I'm guessing Unknown would be the blood stained aftermath of Total Recall and Frantic smacking each other for almost two hours. The problem is as much as that as much as I wouldn't mind this idea in my own twisted mind; Unknown is too sanitized for it's own good. Oh the violence is there but while Frantic had a certain sense of despair throughout; and Total Recall's OTT story was matched by it's ambiguity. Unknown slips through those gaps leaving us with quite a mediocre affair. The marketing/casting suggests a follow on to Taken, however, Unknown is no way near as kinetic, nor as fun. It is twice as ludicrous though so there's that.

I had two problems with Taken. The first is the pacing, which is not quick enough to wrap someone up into the film's character, his situation or any of the red herrings put in place. Unknown runs (quite slowly) on rails and it doesn't help that it borrows way too much off Frantic (which I had unfortunately seen quite recently) to not only make its thrills its own but to actually distract you. If you do thrillers well then you know exactly where this film is going...before the characters. Far too often people were introduced into the mix and I had their conclusions planned out way before they said their first line.

The second issue is I kept asking why. Too many times things just didn't add up and the script and the direction do nothing to not only wrap the right elements up (there is a BIG change of heart that really doesn't ring true) but do nothing to make you forget these lapses in logic. Nor does the film patch over them. If your thinking there's enough action to help you brush past such things, your wrong. So when everything builds to it's climax I found myself laughing my backside off.

What I didn't find funny however is the wastefulness of the cast on screen. Everyone on screen aren't bad, but they bring nothing to the material. It's almost as if they are just as dissatisfied with the script as I was. The biggest upset for me was January Jones; an actress that's starting to make waves due to Mad Men, who've I've not seen in any substantial role as of yet. Unknown makes sure that I still have not.

As mentioned before, Unknown reminded me more of Frantic than Taken. However, Frantic was a film placed in the hands of a man who made two men, one woman, a boat and a knife thrilling. Unknown doesn't really care about turning the screw and it really shows.

Link: 10 Best Movie Dream Sequences

2011-03-07T11:26:00.000Z

I received a lovely email from Miss Jessica Lynch (not that one) who works with Top Online Colleges.com asking me if I could share a link for them as it movies. The link (10 Best Movie Dream Sequences) is a nice mixture of dream scenes old and new (with a great shout to Wild Strawberries) and defiantly worth a look and a comment. HOWEVER...

Where is Un Chien Andalou?

You know I'm right on this!

Review: The Adjustment Bureau

2011-03-07T02:36:00.001Z

Year: 2011
Director: George Nolfi
Screenplay: George Nolfi
Starring: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie

Synopsis is here

Is awards season over for another year? Because here's a late entry for "most misguided film comparison". The Adjustment Bureau (based in Phillip K Dick's The Adjustment Team) has had a quote plastered on the posters (attributed to Total Film) labeling the film "Inception meets Bourne". Regardless of whether or not it was a hasty quote slapped on by the mag because of what they knew at the time (I do not have the issue and I ain't looking for it) or it was a a touch of lazy writing picked up by lazy marketing people, it's clear to most people that the quote is WRONG.

Such dodgy wordsmithery (copyright LBP) can cause frustration because it paints the wrong picture of the film. However, in terms of much of the film's marketing, we can clearly see that painting a true portrayal doesn't appear to be a high on the list. Sure enough, checking out some of my friends facebook status over the weekend roused alarm bells.

The only ties to Bourne is that the film has Matt Damon claiming an aspect of his life (Nolfi also wrote Ultimatum). There is little to no relationship with Nolan's extravagant feature; however, one of the most fascinating aspects of The Adjustment Bureau is that it has grander themes than Inception. Dreamworlds are one thing, but fatalism? The film may have the upper hand.

Despite this, The Adjustment Bureau is mostly confined to the frames of romance. In watching the film, it appeared to be more of a melding of A Life less ordinary, Serendipity and Minority Report than anything else. Those who have looked that mesh of films in disgust/confusion shouldn't click close on your windows just yet as despite being softer than one may expect from it's trailers and tv spots, The Adjustment Bureau is an enjoyably lighthearted piece of fluff. One that has funnier than it should be and has a romance more palatable than a thousand Katherine Heigl/Jennifer Aniston/Matthew McConaughey (delete where appropriate) features. Inception is way more effective with it's beefed up sci-fi action and mind breaking visuals/effects. What TAB has however is warmth.

The center of the feature has a relationship that not only feels tangible (the chemistry between Damon and Blunt is smooth and natural.), but due to the sci-fi element put in place (with it's explanations rightly placed in the shade) we are able to get over certain tropes that can often derail cinematic romances. The film does have that "movie love" touch to it, however, the way it's is placed as part of the films universe works.

In fact much of the movie works. Despite the fact that the last third comes off as quite trite, the film rolls by at a pace brisker than the running time suggests and holds a core relationship that's worth bothering about on a Friday night out. Nolfis climatic scenes have a great energy to them that unfortunately goes limp with it's last moments but it's not enough to truly deter the film as a whole.

Those looking for something more substantial with the ideas of fate and free will, may be very put off by the light touch placed on such deep themes. However The Adjustment Bureau is a fun distraction which once again reminds me that Anthony Mackie needs to be given something substantial in the future.

Review: I Am Number Four

2011-03-03T01:57:00.000Z

Year: 2011
Director: D.J. Caruso
Screenplay: Alfred Gough, Miles Millar, Marti Noxon
Starring: Alex Pettyfer, Timothy Olyphant, Dianna Agron, Teresa Palmer

Synopsis is here

I took a quick scan of the I Am Number Four novel wiki after watching the movie and although one should not take Wikipedia as the gospel, this entry had me stumped. Why is it that the wiki of the novel appears to be more appealing? I'm not joking those who are really that interested should take a look for themselves. Almost any aspect that looks like it give off the slightest bit of attraction has been sanded down smooth. There's nothing edgy here; and while I don't expect cutting edge wit and inception like plot turns, when your film is being toted as "Twilight with Aliens" you should be bringing something to the party.

Unlike the misery-fest bestows that vampire saga, I Am Number Four does try to have something that resembles a human relationship...I say human when I may mean interplanetary. Our John Smith is an Alien and so has to behave as such. This can explain some of Alex Pettyfer's board n bland responses in certain scenes. However, the chemistry between John and his love interest Sarah (Dianna Agron) has a small amount of spark. It's enough to make the vanilla experience of the film less painful to bear. In fact if the film had the balls to bolster the narrative, rise the character stakes or at least give us interesting secondary characters I may have had more time for it.

Alas D.J Caruso's film is plain Jane of a film which builds to a crescendo of cliche and pre-predicted moments. The second we see the gray hairs in Timothy Olyphant's sideburns, we know where his future lies. It doesn't help that the screenplay believes that the best way to divulge information is by dry exposition as opposed to visually or even with any type of wit in the words. D.J Caruso takes it up a notch in the action stakes later on in the film but with the foundation being so shaky it's hard to take any real notice.

Let's not lie to ourselves. This film was almost destined for my indifference; described as "Twilight with Aliens" and produced by one Micheal Bay, the film was hardly going to appear on my favorites of the year. However, to be honest why would it? While not a grand masterpiece, it's also not a film for myself in terms of target audience. But the problem still remains that while Twilight has many faults, it has a certain sense of scope. I Am Number Four has a central relationship that is more likable than Bella and Edward as it's not based on games, manipulation an a naff explanation. However this alone does not excuse it from it's generic origin story execution.

Review: The Rite

2011-03-02T22:55:00.002Z

Year: 2011
Director: Mikael Håfström
Screenplay: Michael Petroni
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Colin O'Donoghue

Synopsis is here

It's safe to say that I couldn't stand The Rite. For me it failed in all areas. Supernatural Thriller? I wasn't thrilled. Horror film? I wasn't scared. Drama? Those elements left me cold. Of course for many, Anthony Hopkins would be a draw unfortunately this will not be one of his crowning achievements. In fact The Rite reminds me why I sometimes dislike Hopkins as an actor. Here, Sir Hopkins is a teeth gnashing, scene chomping irritant; thundering in with a performance so hammy during the final third that the only thing missing from it is a honey glaze. Such a performance this is that it makes the "based on a true story" credits at the beginning even more snort worthy.

This is not to say that whatever the author of the book that The Rite is based on is an outright lie. Far from it. The true life account of a want-away priest gaining a new perceptive after witnessing real exorcisms appeals to a person like myself. I'm not a man of faith per say but the lives of those who have faith I find quite compelling. The problem however, is that these events are shoved into a very by-the-numbers execution. Don't look for ambiguity within The Rite, as it wishes to follow down all same routes that we've seen in features such as The Exorcism of Emily Rose et all.

Of course shades of The Exorcist appear within the films DNA, but it is clear to the viewer that the film wishes to take a less hysterical approach. A throw away line sets us straight when Hopkins' Father Lucas states after the first event we see "what did you expect? Spinning heads?". For the most part wants us to question what we see as the devil or mental illness. However, The Rite's approach to this is so lackluster that one doesn't need to question it (the film plays an obvious hand very quickly) nor does one indeed care. The young priest (O'Donoghue) whose eyes we are meant to see this story through not only lacks faith but any kind of charisma to keep us interested. O'Donoghue doesn't appear to be a bad actor, however, this a role with no characteristics to make it stand out. But with this said, The Rite is a film which believes that the old cat at the window jump scare is creative enough for it's audience.

This uninspired approach takes us all the way through the film. O'Donoghue gives us the seriously concerned face throughout, while director Mikael Håfström trudges us through very familiar territory at a snails pace. Hopkins only frustrates by giving us an impression of a Hannibal Lector impersonator. Once again reminding me that I'd rather watch Manhunter over Red Dragon.

Some ok visuals aside (the red eyed horse and the possessed 16 year old provide evocative imagery) there is nothing truly of note within The Rite. The Exorcist still provides the richness needed for the themes in place (it is also based on alleged elements of truth). To add to this, there are other films in recent times that may not have succeeded with completely but have at least been daring enough to play with certain features. At least with those films they sought out to seek a reaction.

Review: Drive Angry

2011-03-01T20:52:00.000Z

Year: 2011
Director: Patrick Lussier
Screenplay: Patrick Lussier, Todd Farmer
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Amber Heard, William Fichtner

Synopsis is here

Drive Angry is a trashy little exploitation flick that for the most part does exactly what it says on the tin. Sex? Check. Blood and Gore? Check. Nic Cage walking away from an explosion in slow motion? Double check. It's silly, ridiculous and for the most part it's kinda fun in a schlocky sort of way. Don't go looking for "serious" write up of a film like this because it doesn't take itself seriously. Unfortunately despite it's b-movie intentions I'm quite surprised it doesn't go for broke.

The film is about a man named John Milton (geddit?) escaping hell to seek bloody revenge on those who have killed his daughter. So why is it that we have Nic Cage in the lead role not chewing the scenery like a child chomping on taffy? In fact why are we seeing not only Cage but the script itself so restrained? This is a film that need not copy Planet Terror but defiantly needs to get hold of the same energy. Unfortunately this lack of verve (right word to use for a grindhouse pic?) display the films main weakness. This is a film that suffers from too much downtime and not enough lunacy. We can forgive Drive Angry for a patchy narrative if it promises not to be dull. But tell that to the films middle act, which goes nowhere. It's fairly obvious that in the hands of Roger Corman; 15 minutes would have been yanked out of it's 104 minute run time.

We must also add that despite a story which features god guns, breaking out of hell, lunatic priests and the like, why are are the set pieces so uninspiring? Is it because there's TOO much money for something like this? We used to see films like this at your local video store; costing less but having way more nuttiness throughout. Hell, compare this even Hostel and you could be surprised at how little this film does to turn heads. But at least Lussier understands that 3D is best used as a gimmick.

The reason to see this if any it seems is the two performances from Amber Heard and William Fichtner, as they seem to understand that Drive Angry is supposed to be a laugh and get the tone right. Least not Heard who has a character that not only wants to be a strong ass kicking female but also wishes to titillate like an Zoo magazine model. Let's not lie here as most men in the screen will be watching to see how far those hot pants ride up Miss Heard's pert posterior. Heard however manages to be more interesting to watch than Cage just by being up for the role. Fichtner in the meanwhile steals most scenes he's in by not only getting all the best lines, but also having fun with the films most intriguing character.

Driver Angry may gain more fans on DVD and fair play to it. However those who enjoy their grindhouse without a certain amount of gloss may look elsewhere. Just think about that for a minute...grindhouse with gloss...see where the problems lie?

Review: Paul

2011-02-16T15:41:00.000Z

Year: 2011
Director: Greg Mottola
Screenplay: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost
Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Kirsten Wiig, Seth Rogan, Jason Bateman

Synopsis is here

Early buzz for Paul from what I've seen is decidedly mixed. Peter Bradshaw, Christopher Tookie and Robbie Collins* didn't gain much from the viewing experience. There's also a feeling that some of the religious talk that crops up (allegedly toned down from what was originally placed) may feel like cheap pop shots and will little to sway likability from some of the more feverish u.s. supporters of Jesus Christ. I find this kind of a shame because underneth the dick and fart jokes is a warm film that is really in love with it's subject matter.

Much of this is to do with the writing from Pegg and Frost who are now; to many, two of our premium comedians, know how to write for each other and react with one another. Safe to say that if you weren't a fan of their previous endeavors, it's unlikely this will do any favors. And with this said, there's something that isn't quite right about all the proceedings. I watched Paul with friends on Valentines day and one response afterward was "the beginning is a little weak". I can't say that truly bothered me (big fan of silly references see) but I must admit there was a distinct lack of presence at first glance. As much as it's been said that Paul wishes to be a sci-fi Little Miss Sunshine of sorts (Pegg on Radio 5 with Kermode) it's quite revealing how much this duo miss their third musketeer. The lack of Edgar Wright (swanned off to pursue Pilgrim) is visible as it is his visual style and timing that often helps enhance and give punch to Peggs writing and Frost/Pegg's chemistry. This isn't to say I did not laugh. Not at all, I loved the Spielberg references, dug the fact there's a Mac and Me reference in one scene, cried at the Friedmans gag and I hope the introduction of Paul has Chris Carter smiling.

The thing is Wright patches up any drop off moments. Any scenes that may feel flabby or unkempt here, may not have under Edgar. This isn't a middle finger to Greg Mottola (Superbad, Adventureland) as it's very clear why he was placed on board to steer the ship. Mottola has what I was describe as a sweeter sensibility and much of the movie reflects this. Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead are lovable parodies of their respective genres and they work for many as they spoof many typical elements that we often see in those films. Paul is truly more of a homage, not looking to subvert aspects but celebrate them in a way that only the filmmakers can. It is however, a pity that it often has to resort to swearing and scat jokes to it.

Some have said that Paul is a film that's finally gives Kristen Wiig time to shine. I disagree with not because I dislike Wiig (in fact slight crush) but because this additional time seems to be filled with Wiig "learning to swear well" which woud be fine in a small doses but fortunately becomes the main (one note) joke for a talented comedienne. Wiig clearly has fun in the role (as those everyone involved) but it's this resort to the basic that often throws the film off balance. Another sign of this imbalance would be having one character too many. There's no reason for the father character in this movie other than for the last scene which could have been done by almost anyone.

However, most of the other characters work and they are fun to be around. Paul himself being a great mixture of well picked voice work (Rogan is brilliant) and well utilized effects (Paul really feels like a tangible character). Pegg (Graeme) and Frost (Clive) also have an interesting role reversal of type (Frost appears to be more of the straight man than Pegg for once) which isn't perfect, but mildly refreshing. Jason Bateman meanwhile (with an amusingly obscure film reference) is does what he does best.

The above reviews state that Paul appears to be lacking in jokes. Maybe. There's not much in the way of real gags a such. With this said, the references, the one liners and chemistry didn't just make me smile but are leaps and bounds over recent releases Due Date, Cop out, Dinner for Schmucks, Vampires Suck and the like. Paul is very nerdy and will have moments only geeks will give a hoot about, but had more than enough laugh to sustain it's running time and more than enough heart to make it lovable.

Review: Animal Kingdom

2011-02-16T01:43:00.002Z

Year: 2010 (U.K release 2011)
Director: David Michôd
Screenplay: David Michôd
Starring: James Frecheville, Jackie Weaver, Ben Mendelshon, Guy Pearce

Synopsis is here:

We start Animal Kingdom with the lead character J idly watching television with what looks to be his sleeping mother. It is only when the paramedics rush in and tend to his mother (overdosing on heroin) that the distress seeps in. J continues to watch the television as if what's happening is almost a common occurrence. His blank gaze appears to give off the feeling, not that he doesn't care, but that he's completely desensitized. It's a look that doesn't seem to change throughout the movie. However, by the time the last moments play out and I saw that look once more I released how effective David Michôd piece is. J is a sponge, soaking up all he sees. The re-appearance of his psychotic Uncle Pope to the constant questioning by the police, J sucks it all in. The tension lies in his tetchy family, because now it's all soaked in, they are now fretting for when it gets squeezed out.

Animal Kingdom is a low-key, high tension film from Australia which comes along on the back end of quite a few crime features. Not just crime however, but working class crime. Features such as French heist film Black take us to the back alleys of Senegal. Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call: New Orleans revels in depravity within a post-Katrina sub-culture while The Town is another welcoming addition in Ben Affleck's gritty Boston overture. Animal Kingdom follows the line in a similar fashion to Affleck's film, dumping us in a claustrophobic small town where the sun may shine all day but these character will still have trouble finding the light.

Animal Kingdom plays out almost like a Greek tragedy, examining a fallen family of crime who are now all looking to seek where they fit in a world where their way of life is under threat. Their eco system has changed and the biggest alteration is of course is the presence of J, who is a square peg in this family circle. The attachment of the family is well observed with hints of incest littered every so often. When J is introduced to them, they appear welcoming, but their looks are constantly deceiving. This proves the basis for the story that plays out for us. Violence comes about in short sharp bursts, but AK is more interested in character behaviour than anything. Playing us down the route of survival, the film shows us a group of people at their most primal. They will claw and scratch to keep afloat and moral is just a word in the dictionary.

This is a film of great turns with three performances which come on strong at at different angles. Pope; played by Ben Mendelshon, is a chilling and repugnant creation that brings a chill whenever he appears on screen. Jackie Weaver is equally as vile but from a quieter and more troubling angle. The most kudos goes to the 17 year old James Frecheville who in his second feature has the most complicated character to pull off. J appears to be as wooden as a plank but a quick observation shows how well connected Frecheville is to the characters age and educational status. But most importantly the display also shows; just like Malik in Un Prophete, how this character consumes the activity around him. Combine Frechveville's dead eyed stare with director Michôd's seeping effect of this family's corrupt ways and we obtain a a perfectly executed Kuleshov effect put in place. We truly believe that the same state we saw at the beginning of the story means something completely different by the end. This is a difficult, unsympathetic person to get behind but by the time Air Supply's "I'm all out of love" I found myself deeply engrossed in the outcome of this character. Credit not only to the actor but the storytelling.

What excites me about Michôd's début full length feature, is the just how confident it all is. The visual touches are never overused (some great moments of slow motion are utilised), the films powerful score made winning me over all the more easier and we are given a narrative which isn't fuelled by many twists and turns but is executed so well that I honest hadn't a clue where the film was going. This is tightly wounded, gripping genre cinema drenched in atmosphere and pounding with tension. I cannot wait to see this movie again.

Review: True Grit

2011-02-15T17:46:00.000Z

Year: 2010 (U.K release 2011)

Director: The Coens

Screenplay: The Coens

Starring: Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Hailee Steinfeld, Josh Brolin, Barry Pepper

Synopsis is here

You never know what your going to get with the Coens, two of the most idiosyncratic directors of Americana. After my friends left True Grit (Based on the original novel and not the John Wayne movie), their response was strangely muted. With all the praise and props that the film's been getting they expected why more than they received. I can understand why. This appears to be the Coen brothers at their most conventional. One of my friends labelled it as "safe" which I don't agree with, but understand where he's coming from. What I admire about True Grit; is it's lack of irony or self -awareness. Something that The Coens do well. However; considering this film comes off the back end of A Serious Man, maybe the lack of irony is in itself an ironic gesture. Asking the brothers however will of course get you nowhere.

I admired True Grit and it's charms. It's a very simple and direct western with does what it says on the tin. Yes I'm a tad surprised at the amount of award plaudits it's received but such things shouldn't distract from what it is an entertaining movie coming from two directors just coming of a peak of creativity. Some may have been expecting another No country for old men, others may have been expecting something very overtly stylised (The Hudsucker Proxy perhaps). The Coens have merely created a formidable product. There's no creaky moments or real weaknesses (you could say it's a little slow at first) but there's not too much that stands out as "Coen", save the verbose dialogue (they have a knack for this detail) and one or two oddball characters that crop up within the story.

For the most part The Coen's stick to the point keep it's message clear and it's eye not only on the prize but it's characters. I'm quite surprised that despite the films rich pallette Roger Deakins' cinematography appears more focused on the grizzled and/or ugly faces that inhabit the vistas than the surroundings themselves. With this said however this may have been because I was more carried away with the performances and how the prose was delivered than anything else. I have yet to see the original movie (brought but time has really got away from me) but much has been said about the performances by the 21 year Kim Darby and John Wayne who won his only Oscar for Rooster Cogburn. I'm very interested to watch and compare these performances to their modern counter-parts as I found very turn to be an effective one.

Bridges gives us a humorous, rambling, curmudgeon whose head is turned by the straight-forward and blunt talking Mattie Ross. Damon has finally cemented his place my hall of favourite working actors with yet another efficient performance but it's the compelling display by Hailee Steinfeld that is the revelation to me. It's a study and adult performance from such a young face and it deserves praise. It's easy to enjoy Bridges aimless talk and Damon's bravado but Steinfeld not only provides the counterbalance to the male posturing but as the viewpoint for the whole movie, she is brilliant. I was with her headstrong ways from the start and willing to follow her throughout the story. The relationship that grows between the three characters is a strong and natural one and while their motivations often slip or drift my appreciation for their admiration grew stronger.

True Grit is an entertaining piece which is more low-key than I expected. Never the less that doesn't deter the well of emotion I felt in the films last moments. The Coen's have provided a "normal" piece by their standards but one with some sly dry wit, a wonderful look, nice turns and a storyline that doesn't betray it's emotional duties later on.

Review: Biutiful

2011-02-14T03:50:00.000Z

Year: 2010 (U.K Release 2011)
Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Screenplay: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Starring: Javier Bardem

Synopsis is here:

Films like Biutiful remind me why many dislike foreign language films. It is not necessarily down to the subtitles, although the amount of remakes say otherwise. It's stumbling upon a film that decided that it wants to "move" you with it's profound sadness and despair. I'm fine with films that wish to be downbeat and I'm completely ok with all out depressing; but Biutiful is so somber, so tragic and so absurd it almost comes off a little silly.

Biutiful with it's misspelled ironic title lays everything on too thickly. We are told from the start that our protagonist Uxbal (Bardam) has a few months to live and the film decides to go down from here. There doesn't seem to be any wish for us to really feel for this characters plight, only know that shit happens, when it rains it pours and Job had it bloody easy. Everything is drenched in a melodramatic gloom from the seems to be no escape, redemption or joy. Once again I don't need joy in a film to gain something from it but halfway through I was almost begging Uxbal just to top himself and relive everyone of the misery. We're given mistrusting brothers, bipolar, estranged spouses who work as prostitutes, depressed, troubled children and I haven't even got to the exploited workers...safe to say their story isn't a bundle of fun.

To add this we are given an over proud, criminal Christ figure who believes that his own pain must be hidden because everyone hurts. PLUS HE CAN SEE THE DEAD BECAUSE HE HIMSELF IS DYING. In real life we cannot give to every charity as we must (and do) have a sense of the internal. This is not as selfish as it is true. There's only so much that we can do as people. Iñárritu wishes to not only to drown Uxbal in his many sorrows, plying slabs of depression like slabs of butter on toast but also pivots all this mechanical manipulation on the fact that Uxbal just thinks to highly of everything to seek true solace or help. It's a frustrating principal made even more annoying by the simple factor that Iñárritu labours over this for almost three hours. It's just too much and in the end, the whole film feels like all 26 years of Eastenders Christmas specials slapping you in the face with some of the sixth sense/hereafter/the haunting in Connecticut thrown in.

With all the self-important misery going on, it's very crucial to be invested in Javier Bardem and it's not hard to see why the man has gained the plaudits. Bardem is a wonderfully human actor and his presence makes all the wallowing semi-bearable. But here it's just not enough because there's just so much suffering and way too much naval gazing. I felt like a was slammed through the wringer before the dreaded cancer strengthen his grip. The worst thing about the whole thing the pointless feeling I gained with the films last moments. Everything feels as it was almost all in vain and you've just viewed this man's last months just to watch him die. Biutiful is a film that has none of the absurd wit placed with A Serious Man, nor does it have the gentle poignancy and retrospect which was infused within A Single Man. Reminding myself of Iñárritu's back catalog I found myself more disappointed. 21 Grams, Amores Perros are not only superbly crafted films (this is also well put together technically) but also more focused and parred down pieces which I both found genuine heart to. Biutiful is not interested in heart unless it features some sort of stabbing.

In a cinematic world where a horror film would be looked down upon having masochistic wish to display psychical pain. Get rid of the blood and the make same amount of grief emotional and you've got yourself an award piece it seems. Quite simply Biutiful, isn't.

Review: Brighton Rock

2011-02-08T00:31:00.000Z

Year: 2010 (U.K Release 2011)
Director: Rowan Joffe
Screenplay: Rowan Joffe
Starring: Sam Riley, Helen Mirren, John Hurt

The Synopsis is here:

I haven't read the book (drat) nor seen the original 1947 film (double drat) but considering the critical hubbab that is surrounding Brighton Rock (the tweets I read from some Brit critics weren't great), I found myself enjoying most of it. It's a gangster movie that remains dark to it's core and for the most part has no qualms with muddying it's feet in the murky waters it wades in. It's clearly obvious that book lovers would start shoveling pages of the novel down my throat at the mere hint that I enjoyed this remake/adaptation. However like I always state if it can get my interested in the source then it can't be all bad.

For the most part it's not. The atmosphere is plastered on thick and quickly in this adaptation with opening shots of dark crashing waves and a blaring horns (seriously. Inception, Shutter Island and this? what's with the horns?). The tone is set up quickly as it's opening scenes do as much as they can to unsettle. It's clearly important to Joffe that it's shadows and drained colours do much to seduce us as we need them to help us believe that Sam Riley's babyface hides the mind of a cold blooded sociopath.This is difficult because in order to show his dark nature, Riley resorts to nodding his head down slightly and looking up evilly. At first this is slightly distracting and the bastard inside me just wanted to scream "DUN DUN DUN!" at the screen for my own amusement (and the frustration of everyone else) but I repressed my urges and found that when Riley's Pinkie works best when he shows fear. When Pinkie is truly threatened and becomes the sniveling toerag he truly is the film picks up a lot more. It doesn't happen often, which is a shame, but with this said Riley is watchable enough in many of the scenes. It helps that the bright eyed, Andrea Riseborough is the right balance of vulnerability and nativity. Riley's tough guy act bounces off well against her fragile performance. I also had alot of time for John Hurt and Helen Mirren, but this mostly because it's John Hurt and Helen Mirren.

Coming off writing the moody screenplay for The American, Joffe brings about some interesting moments, including a rabble rousing sequence involving riled up mods and rockers and vespers that had me raise an eyebrow. In fact it's tricky for me to see why so many people had an issue with the era update (moved from post WWII to the last year of capital punishment in the sixties) without seeing the original feature/reading the book. Pinkie is a model of rebellious youth who doesn't want to hang for his actions but will do all that he can to avoid punishment. The combination of this with the rising moral panics involving teens at the time, help illustrate the conflicting issue that we have here at our point now in society. A situation where we feel teens are so fearless that even the harshest punishment won't stop them. Brighton Rock felt a lot more effective with this aspect than the Daily Mail baiting claptrap that was Harry Brown, a film which reveled in stereotypical nonsense. However, I must agree that the religious are less effective. It's hard to believe Pinkie is as catholic as he is against this background.

Also despite the films well depicted setting of Brighton as a dingy, and foreboding place, for some reason the film overall has a very televisual feel. Moments feel a tad too flat and don't bring about the cinematic scope a film like this could have. Brighton Rock is effectively gritty however, the characters and their motives are sometimes darker than pitch, and their complexities still flow through the material enough to make the film (particularly the latter moments) an engaging enough watch. An adult film with an interesting viewpoint, Brighton Rock probably won't overshadow the original film, nor the book. However, until the time comes for me to watch/read those earlier works this will do fine.

Review: Hereafter

2011-01-31T22:47:00.000Z

Year: 2010 (2011 U.K Release)
Director: Clint Eastwood
Screenplay: Peter Morgan
Starring: Matt Damon, Cecile De France, Byrce Dallas Howard, George & Frankie McLaren,

Synopsis is here

A friend of mine (who lambasted me for liking the polarizing Somewhere despite me telling her that she would hate it) had a facebook status praising Clint Eastwood's latest feature Hereafter. The fact that she actually cried intrigued me as she's not a girly girl. Far from it. In fact one of the reason why we're friends is our deep love for a certain Arsenal F.C (shut it). And while there's many girls who enjoy the professional pigs bladder, my pal isn't what I call a "stereotypical" girl (trying not to Grey and Keys this). She's not one for waterworks and if she is she's not one for telling me.

So imagine my shock that my good friend, whom I've drank many a cider with has fallen for this overlong, overwrought piece of manipulation. It's not that I don't believe in the afterlife. In fact, go ahead! Such subjects are difficult to portray on screen, so I'm always interested in what someones will to try out. However in a film such as this one deals with such subjects what I don't need are cheap shock tactics such as two infamous disasters glossed over, without any tact (that's one more than Remember Me by the way). I also dislike a film which tries to place a hell of a lot of emotional weight on a character so poorly realized by it's child actor that it's slightly embarrassing to watch him emote. What's also frustrating is a film which has moments of interest and yet drowns in one note scenes (the parts in Paris aren't particularly involving) and board moments that are hard pin down as some of the characters just aren't interesting enough to keep one engaged. Eastwood is an old school director who creates simple solid works, here however, I needed more and surprised with how little I got considering it plodding pace and run time.

Yes, I found Hereafter a weak film but as always I do try to look for some good with everything I see. What I liked about Hereafter is the interesting angle that death and/or the afterlife often has believe that pretend to think they know the connection but to those who think they've truly experienced, it feels intensely false to them. Scenes touch on the nasty aspect of selling the afterlife and utilizing false hope. Those moments ring true enough with me not because it's happened to me, but because we see it often then we believe (think Jon Edward and other cold readers). There's also a delicate moment in which Matt Damon's character George; a person who truly sees connections with the afterlife state to another character that he doesn't truly know what's lies beyond. George also doesn't he try to fully grasp what he sees. How can he? This is truly bigger than him. Damon's scene's are the best not only because of this understanding but because Damon is an actor who can disappear into a role better than people like to believe (thanks Parker, Stone and Affleck). Watching how he holds his body throughout the film is the most impressive as it sucks the confidence and pluck that we've seen from him in other features.

I can also forgive the film narrative at points, as it tries deal with coincidence, not logic. Like I said before the film wants to show us that things happen for a reason. Of course as humans we always try to seek out what makes sense. Unfortunately in order to go with these characters you must believe in them and there's just not enough for me. Damon's scenes have the most foundation about them but the other characters are flimsy at best. They don't match up with what Damon brings to the table and I found myself annoyed, frustrated and bored. Cecile De France's performance is flat, while the performances from Frankie and George Mclaren are painful to watch for the wrong reasons. This combined is with the films awkward slump towards the finish line (low key I get but no momentum?) with an brief awkward flash-forward moment which belies some of the more ponderous moments I actually didn't mind.

Eastwood's film follows on from the annoyingly safe Invictus (nice sports movie, naff race movie) as another movie of his I'll not invest any time in another watch. But at least I had something good to say about some of it. My girlfriend hated every minute of it. she's a bit of a girly girl. Different Strokes.

Review: The Fighter

2011-01-29T01:47:00.000Z

Year: 2010 (2011 U.K release)
Director: David O Russell
Screenplay: Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Mellisa Leo, Amy Adams

Synopsis is here

I'll be starting with some race stuff first. So if this sounds too Chuck D for your tastes, you may wish to avoid the first part of this or so.

After the screening, I found myself wondering: In a sport dominated by (notable) Black champions; I found myself watching another Caucasian boxing movie. This isn't a really a gripe about The Fighter a such, merely an observation. Tyson had that T.V movie and an interesting (and quite conflicting) documentary, Cassius Clay has had a shedload of coverage (for obvious reasons) and I'm sure there may be few other lesser considered features. However, considering the drama that could be brought from many of these athletes (many more known than Micky Ward), I'm fascinated that we haven't seen more black boxing movies. Especially ones that could easily follow a similar rise and fall arc that The Fighter.

I was entertained (but not surprised) that I got home after the film to read Joe Queenan's interesting follow-up article to his Rocky Balboa piece mirrored and articulated my own musings. I was even more entertained by another article from The Montreal Gazette which noticed in depth that this years Oscars is pretty much an all white affair. It also highlighted the lack of agents and executives working top level within the media. Forgive me for the incoming cliche but considering "how far we've come", it's still quite telling that despite this alleged politically correctness gone mad nonsense , it's still easier for Micky Ward and Dickie Eklund to get a movie while Sugar Ray Leonard obtains a cameo. I'm surprised that someone like Sugar Ray Robinson considered the greatest by the greatest himself; Muhammad Ali, is presented as only a physical manifestation of the inner demons of Jake La Motta in Martin Scorsese masterful Raging Bull. But like I mentioned to my father, Will Smith can't play them all.

Inner demons play a large part of David O Russell's solid feature The Fighter. Micky Ward's half brother Dickie (Bale) wears his fight with the aforementioned Sugar Ray Leonard so close to him that it seems to blight more than anything. So much of a heavy weight (pun not intended) is this fight, amongst other things seem to almost help push the pride of Lowell into the mind numbing highs of crack. This internal conflict with Dickie becomes an outer conflict with his brother Micky (Walhberg) whose boxing career is at a critical point. Seen as a stepping stone for better fighters, how can he progress when his trainer is not only an addict but his brother. Things become more complicated when we realize that Micky's mother (Melissa Leo) is also his manager. Pushing him into bum fights and isolating outside influence. Blood is of course thicker than water, however it's clearly obvious that here, it's beginning to clot and family ties are now pulled to breaking point.

O Russell's film works best in these scenes, they are tense, surprisingly funny and tug well emotionally. Many who come from a big family may know of that awkward position that certain members love to play. The idea that family is everything means nothing when it's obvious that control means more. The personal punches hit as hard as the body blows and O Russell captures paints the picture more vivid then I'd expected. The two reasons I think this works are one: the enveloping gaggle of sisters that crowd around that patriarchal and dominant mother (an impressive Leo). They who watch constantly and chime in like Greek choir of sass. The second is of course the googly eyed, mesmerizing performance by Christian Bale a man whose outside life and method tactics often obscure the fact that he is a damn fine actor. It's a showy display that feature knowing Oscar baiting moments but alot of that is due to the material more than anything else. Bale nails his scenes and I wouldn't be surprised if the bald gold man goes to him.

Bale and Leo are extremely effective in the role, but maybe a little too effective. You see for a film called The Fighter it's a little shocking that the actual fighter himself is so passive. Wahlberg has also been a topsy turvy actors for me and there's no change here. As opposed of imprinting himself on the scene, Wahlberg like in other films I've seen with himself, fades to the background. Like Boogie Nights, when sharper actors enter the screen Wahlberg seems to shadow them more than anything. Amy Adams however, shows that she can do the tough cookie role well enough to keep a viewer at attention.

As a whole the The Fighter is a uniformly directed piece with some nice visuals and neat touches. The decision to give the fights that TV style look as opposed to regular film is an effective touch, while the fight set pieces themselves are punchy (pun again not intended), with blows that hit hard. They are defiantly not Rocky 4 beat downs. But with all this said, the cogs are consistently turning in The Fighter. you can always nearly always tell what it's thinking. Where it's going and how you should feel. Wahlberg's Micky is a tad to bland to really get into as all the charisma is with his brother and I'm not surprised at the fact that the screenwriters also had a hand in films such as 8 Mile (Rocky but rap) and Air Bud (safe family pleasing affair). From the music ques to the moment we see Dickie going cold turkey there's a touch of the "oh ok"Aronofsky as executive producer, this does become an entertaining companion piece to The Wrestler. No fireworks but no pulled punches either.

Review: The Green Hornet

2011-01-16T22:27:00.001Z

Year: 2011
Director: Michel Gondry
Screenplay: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg
Starring: Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Christoph Waltz, Cameron Diaz, Tom Wilkinson

Synopsis is here

Can't you just feel it? January dumping ground, a production plagued with issues and Seth Rogen who to some may have peeked a while back. Here Rogen has not only starring credit, but also writing and production ones. That may mean nothing to some, frustration to others. To me it provides a certain amount of investment. Rogen is an actor I have sometime for and in most of this film I dug him. As a writer, I feel he relies too much on winging it as the improv really shows. As a executive producer? Well this may be in place because Rogen probably helped get this thing finally off the ground.

Despite this, for the most part I enjoyed the green hornet even though better reviewers and critics may try and make me feel like I shouldn't. The plot is a patchy mish mash of most superhero origins going and I will not lie to say that I was completely in love with the Rogen's script (dialogue wise to say it ain't Shakespeare is an insult to things that ain't Shakespeare). However Michel Gondry (Director behind the beautiful Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind) somehow manages to piece together a workable tone. The result is a film with enough knockabout fun to keep me interested and the right amount of nifty visuals (although this is toned down from what we usually see from him) to keep my eyes open.

One thing the film's screenplay manages to get right is playing with the idea of ego between hero, sidekick/partner and villian. Throughout the slapstick, farce and cgi action; the film throws an interesting power struggle and a underused but amusingly silly identity crisis into the superhero mix. Here we have an older gangster whose worried about not being scary enough, while we have a hero who gains the kudos but can't get the girl. Who does? Ask the nameless sidekick. This is not a film that wants to push any of these things truly into the forefront, but they build a rickety yet intriguing foundation for all the flash and gloss.

Gondry seems to know that this isn't really "his" film, and that a shame because when the man is unleashed he is something to behold. Here however, Gondry is happy to place together action set pieces that you can keep track of, silly slow motion moments and a general nuttiness to keep things ticking over. This added to when the actors improvisation actually hits home may not be as effectively subversive as Kick-Ass, but it does manage to remind one that superheroes films needn't have to be gritty.

Acting-wise this is a mixed bag indeed. Cameron Diaz and Tom Wilkinson are restricted to cameo performances, while Jay Chou shows that while it's tough having to act in a second language, it's even worse having to do it when your real job is a pop singer who has to improvise very other line. He is however a good sport and it shows as he comes across well enough. Christoph Waltz once again show that he is an actor of great presence, it's a pity that he could have done with a character that could match it. Then we come to Seth Rogen; who will not win over anyone new here, but will keep his core fans happy. He is playing himself but I enjoy him enough to to completely chastise him.

The Green Hornet would have been eaten alive if left on the summer release dates that it was originally given. You could say its January ghost town release is a saving grace, critics have begged to differ (despite being on target box office wise) as many have been savaging the flick. Me? Well I can't lie. By the time Britt Reid and Kato start wailing on each other in an OTT smackdown fight. I was giggling.

Additional note (16/1/11 - 23:40): Just after writing this. I discovered this link from the L.A times stating that it really may not have been Gondry's film.